# Conversation and Fun > Just Conversation >  How does same gender marriage hurt you?

## Spexvet

It's not for everyone, but neither is opera, and we don't try to outlaw that, do we? I know people are offended by homosexuality (male or female), but how does it negatively effect you, personnally?

----------


## shanbaum

I figure that lots of Americans believe that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, they'll be having homosexual kids, and before you know it, we'll be up to our elbows in homos.

----------


## chip anderson

As a rule homosexuals change partners frequently.  If they become included on health benefits, and insurance programs the effect on rates for straights could increase exponentially.  Often ex-spouses and prodiginy if any, must continue to be covered under insurance plans plus any new spouses and dependents if any.


In heritance and palamony laws can become a nightmare.

----------


## Spexvet

> I figure that lots of Americans believe that if homosexuals are allowed to marry, they'll be having homosexual kids, and before you know it, we'll be up to our elbows in homos.


:bbg: :bbg: :bbg: 
How do homosexuals have kids with each other? If you think about it, if homosexual couples adopt babies, it might reduce the number of abortions that are performed.:idea:

----------


## Spexvet

> As a rule homosexuals change partners frequently. If they become included on health benefits, and insurance programs the effect on rates for straights could increase exponentially. Often ex-spouses and prodiginy if any, must continue to be covered under insurance plans plus any new spouses and dependents if any.
> 
> 
> In heritance and palamony laws can become a nightmare.


Chip,
I think the promiscuity issue might be a stereotype that isn't factual. But, if it is, wouldn't being allowed to marry reduce this frequent partner changing, since they can now make an "official, lawful commitment"? I wonder what the divorce rate among homosexual couples would be. I can't see how it, and the insurance issues you bring up, could be any worse than heterosexual couples.

Spexvet

----------


## For-Life

Well I really believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman (translates to I do not like homosexuals and they scare me).  

But seriously, I have no problem with it, as it doesn't affect me.  They say that homosexuals have a lot of promiscuity, but that is based on the stereotype that men are more promisculous and two men would make it worse.  So that ignores the who lesbian situation, and ignores the fact that if a man is promisculous then if he is married to a man or a women he is still promisculous.  

You can put labels on all of the excuses, but it comes down to the majority feeling fear and disgust.  There are some people that do feel this or that, but I do not believe that a guy who has not been to church in 10 years can use religion as a bases in a country that seperates church and state.

----------


## coda

> As a rule homosexuals change partners frequently. If they become included on health benefits, and insurance programs the effect on rates for straights could increase exponentially. Often ex-spouses and prodiginy if any, must continue to be covered under insurance plans plus any new spouses and dependents if any.
> 
> 
> In heritance and palamony laws can become a nightmare.


Re: insurance, no state requires ex-spouses be covered under company sponsered healthcare, in face I don't believe any state requires spousal benefits at all.  I've certainly never worked anywhere that allowed ex-spouses to be covered under my company sponsored health plan (and that includes plans that allow for domestic partnership benefits).

Palamony laws already apply to same sex relationships in some states and I haven't heard of any particular issues with homosexuals and these laws.  In fact by your arguement of rapid relationship turnover then most homosexuals wouldn't qualify anyway (not meeting the minimum relationship lifetime).

----------


## karen

> :bbg: :bbg: :bbg: 
> How do homosexuals have kids with each other? If you think about it, if homosexual couples adopt babies, it might reduce the number of abortions that are performed.:idea:


Nice spin job baby, you are getting better and better all the time.  This is honestly a murky issue for me as I have some very good friends who are homosexual and in long term committed relationships.  But I think once we start messing with marriage it opens doors and sets legal precedents that are going to make it ugly.  I have trouble with any group that I would consider almost it's own "special interest group" trying to foist it's agenda on me.  Before you jump on me I know religious groups are doing their own foisting, I choose to stay out of most of that.  I have a baby crying for dinner so I will have to check in later...it doesn't "hurt" me but it makes me uncomfortable.

----------


## coda

> But I think once we start messing with marriage it opens doors and sets legal precedents that are going to make it ugly.


I've heard this arguement a fair amount and am unsure of what doors are being opened besides poly-marriage which I don't view as much of an issue either (though here there are certainly more repricussions with respect to issues like health insurance and inheritence).

----------


## Jacqui

It doesn't bother me a bit. My partner (Diane) and I have been together 11 years, and are going to Canada this spring to be married.

Ms. Jacqui Pearson
CEO and Janitor
C.D. Optical

----------


## Johns

Spexvet,

Are you saying that if women knew that there was a homosexual couple willing to adopt their baby they'd choose not to kill it ? And yet their are many heterosexual couples willing to adopt these children and women choose to kill them anyway?  :Confused:

----------


## Spexvet

> I have trouble with any group that I would consider almost it's own "special interest group" trying to foist it's agenda on me.


 I think they are only trying to "foist" themselves. If you are a heterosexual, you are really not involved.




> it doesn't "hurt" me but it makes me uncomfortable.


 A lot of things make me uncomfortable: war in Iraq and a no bid contract awarded to Haliburton, for instance. Talk about foisted!

 Spexvet

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet,
> 
>  Are you saying that if women knew that there was a homosexual couple willing to adopt their baby they'd choose not to kill it ? And yet their are many heterosexual couples willing to adopt these children and women choose to kill them anyway?


 Not really. Just trying to get some conservative heads to explode as they chase their tails thinking "what do I do? I want to reduce abortions, but I don't want gay marriage, but I want to reduce abortions, but I don't want gay marriage...." Unfortunately, Karen caught me. I was a good cop.:o

 Spexvet

----------


## Spexvet

> It doesn't bother me a bit. My partner (Diane) and I have been together 11 years, and are going to Canada this spring to be married.
> 
>  Ms. Jacqui Pearson
>  CEO and Janitor
>  C.D. Optical


 Congratulations! I hope American minds will open soon.

----------


## Steve Machol

> As a rule homosexuals change partners frequently.


Just out of curiousity, what 'rule book' have you been reading?  :Confused:   Do you have any close friends or family members that are gay?  

My son and his partner have been together for 10-1/2 years now.  Interestingly this is longer than either of my two best friends first marriages lasted.

----------


## mrba

> :bbg: :bbg: :bbg: 
> How do homosexuals have kids with each other? If you think about it, if homosexual couples adopt babies, it might reduce the number of abortions that are performed.:idea:


It would also prove that homosexuality is not genetic.

----------


## mrba

> Just out of curiousity, what 'rule book' have you been reading?  Do you have any close friends or family members that are gay?





> Not really. Just trying to get some conservative heads to explode as they chase their tails





> As a rule homosexuals change partners frequently.


Firstly, when I visit clients in The Castro, and eat in the establishments there, and go to the Castro theatre to watch that latest liberal garbage, I can easily say that if I didn't believe that gay men were permiscuous, I would be an idiot.

I don't need my gay friends and clients to tell me that honestly or model out, both things which they have done on numerous occations. Furthurmore having gay friends does not lend any more or any less creedence to what I can see with my own eyes.

As far as my head exploding, I must say as a hetero, ultra consservative, I am wondering about why so many people are concerned with what goes on in someone elses bedroom, or on their kitchen table. I for one could care less where you all stick it, what you snort, or what God you don't believe in.:cheers:

Chip brings up a very good point. The ramifications to the legal system, and healthcare system are enormous. And to flippantly advocat drastic changes to our society, while telling those who impacted negatively by those changes to shove it, is a luxury reserved for a rich lady like Teresa Heinz. There are no easy answers to the legal mess. And furthurmore, our healthcare system isn't exactly in good shape for such a shock right now.

----------


## mrba

double post

----------


## ziggy

At the risk of sounding like a right wing nut.............. for me its about drawing a line. I'm not comfortable with pushing the envelope that far. I think that MOST of the population feel the same, its not something you can put your finger on. It is a moral issue that most of the folk I come in contact with are not willing to bend. Over the last 30 years it has become easier for homosexual couples to live open, and will most likely take another 30 for them to get married, at least in conventional terms.

----------


## Spexvet

> At the risk of sounding like a right wing nut.............. for me its about drawing a line. I'm not comfortable with pushing the envelope that far. I think that MOST of the population feel the same, its not something you can put your finger on. It is a moral issue that most of the folk I come in contact with are not willing to bend. Over the last 30 years it has become easier for homosexual couples to live open, and will most likely take another 30 for them to get married, at least in conventional terms.


You are not putting forth a reason except that you are "not comfortable" and you haven't said how it hurts you. I encourage you to post again and let us know these things.

----------


## Spexvet

> ...The ramifications to the legal system, and healthcare system are enormous.


I'd like to see some documentation of this. Seems to me that the healthcare issue would be impacted only for the premium amount difference between two people having individual coverage and two people on the same policy. Will this amount, multiplied by the number of same gender marriages, represent enormous ramifications? The legal system would be impacted the same as it would be were the same number of multi-gendered couples to be married.



> And to flippantly


I don't think anyone is being "flippant". This is as serious to homosexuals as your right to worship God the way you choose is to you.



> advocat drastic changes to our society, while telling those who impacted negatively by those changes to shove it, is a luxury reserved for a rich lady like Teresa Heinz.


So who does it impact negatively, and why?



> There are no easy answers to the legal mess. And furthurmore, our healthcare system isn't exactly in good shape for such a shock right now.


The Clintons tried to fix our healthcare system more than a decade ago, and were nixed by the conservative Republicans. Any regrets?

----------


## Spexvet

> As far as my head exploding, I must say as a hetero, ultra consservative, I am wondering about why so many people are concerned with what goes on in someone elses bedroom, or on their kitchen table. I for one could care less where you all stick it, what you snort, or what God you don't believe in.:cheers:


You claim to be ultra conservative, then you present a very liberal perspective on personal freedom. Which is it?

----------


## For-Life

> At the risk of sounding like a right wing nut.............. for me its about drawing a line. I'm not comfortable with pushing the envelope that far. I think that MOST of the population feel the same, its not something you can put your finger on. It is a moral issue that most of the folk I come in contact with are not willing to bend. Over the last 30 years it has become easier for homosexual couples to live open, and will most likely take another 30 for them to get married, at least in conventional terms.


People were once not comfortable with interracial marriages.

----------


## rep

dead horse in a previous thread. 

Anyone who thinks that gay marriage can become the law of the land without eventually leading to polygamy and family members being allowed to marry as well is just kidding himself/herself.

I thought the election pretty well staked out that the homophobic, toothless, uneducated ( red state) majority of America dosen't want gay marriage. 

I think the trend just shifted back the other way. (funny how that happens when something points out that morality really does matter) The Itallians don't want gay marriage or adoption by gays and in Australia the government is now cutting back on the funding of abortions, especially late term abortons.

I think the election was a wake up call to a lot of conservatives world wide. 


Rep

----------


## ziggy

Spexvet, it does not physicaly hurt or affect me. But that is no reason to allow gay marriage. I dont want to live in a where it's ok. Nor do I think late term aboration should be legal. Like I said eariler some where there should be a line drawn, I just feel as though its right of center.

----------


## Spexvet

> Anyone who thinks that gay marriage can become the law of the land without eventually leading to polygamy and family members being allowed to marry as well is just kidding himself/herself.


I think that's a pretty wild assumption. In the Bible, there were many references to polygamy, and we no longer find that in the US. 

The question was "how does it hurt you?" I know that there are a lot of irrational reasons, but if you objectively consider how it negatively impacts _YOU_, what reasons do you come up with? Why do you want to force your "morals" on others.




> I thought the election pretty well staked out that the homophobic, toothless, uneducated ( red state) majority of America dosen't want gay marriage. 
> Rep


That's an odd way to describe yourself, but ok.

----------


## Jacqui

As a lesbian, I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea because of the way they were raised, both in the home and the church. With the recent election gay/lesbian rights issues have been set back a few years, so it may be a while before this becomes as common as it should be.

----------


## Spexvet

> It would also prove that homosexuality is not genetic.


How?

BTW, when did you decide to be heterosexual?

----------


## Steve Machol

I agree with rep - this is a 'dead horse' and no views are going to be changed.

I have to say though I find the thought that homosexual 'promiscuity' is a reason to not allows monogamous gays to marry rather weak.  I wonder is anyone would be willing to apply this same standard to promiscuous heterosexuals.  (BTW, you can find lots of evidence of the latter in singles bars across this country.)

Honestly I never gave this issue much of a thought until my son told me he was gay.  Up to that time I did not see a 'need' to allows gays to marry.  However I've been forced to do a lot of soul-searching on this and I honestly can not think of a single non-religious based reason to continue this ban.  

And if the main objection is religious-based, then frankly what business does Government have being involved in it?  

Perhaps one way to deal with this is to get Government out of the 'marriage' business entirely and leave it to individual religious institutions to decide who they want to consider 'married' and under what conditions.  Government can then issue 'life partnerships' or 'civil unions' or whatever you want to call them and stop having any role in religious ceremonies and practices.

----------


## chm2023

..being the voice of reason.;) 

It's funny, no matter how you dress it up, intolerance eventually reveals itself.  And it never goes away, there is always a need to isolate and repudiate the other.

I think the basis for this intolerance is our Puritan heritage.  Anything having to do with sex is seen as, well, dirty.  So anything outside vanilla heterosexual sex is _really dirty_.

How bizarre. (Personally I think such an intense interest in what other people do in their bedrooms indicates some lack of satisfaction with one's own sex life.  There are therapists for this sort of thing.....;)   Or get a hobby--I hear fly fishing is fun....)

----------


## rep

> I think that's a pretty wild assumption. In the Bible, there were many references to polygamy, and we no longer find that in the US. 
> 
> The question was "how does it hurt you?" I know that there are a lot of irrational reasons, but if you objectively consider how it negatively impacts _YOU_, what reasons do you come up with? Why do you want to force your "morals" on others.


Three Supreme Court Justices disagree with you . But I am sure, at least in your own mind, your much smarter than they are. 

It's quite obvious that any reason you don't personally agree with is an "irrational" reason in your totally objective little world. 

Let's take a peek into your model of political correctness and see if you really are advocating everything you seem to profess ad nauseam. 

Incest for example, takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Incest. 

Rape, has taken place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating rape?

Prostitution, takes place in privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating prostituion.?

Beastality, takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating beastality?

Bigamy, takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Bigamy?

Adultry takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Adultry?

Child porn takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Child Porn?

If the answer is yes to these, then your a pretty sick individual with no moral values and the states have said NO you don't have total privacy to do what ever you want in your bedroom or anywhere else. No matter how irrational you personally see it ,going down the road of same sex marriage in the name of privacy rights would lead to no limits on state laws regarding crimes against nature and deviate sexual activity. 

Once the highest court of the land says that "privacy" outweighs the compelling interest a society has in promoting family, and reliable standards of right and wrong, there is no place to draw a line. 

Just for the record, I also have a relative who has just "come out" to his family that he is gay. He was recently arrested for the third time and charged again with indecent exposure in a public park. He is fighting to keep his job, teaching in a third grade in elementary school. He will probably win in today's political climate. 

Suprise and shock but the parents of the third graders in his class room are not "comfortable" with his newly announced life style choice. I guess they are irrational too!

Rep

----------


## Spexvet

> Three Supreme Court Justices disagree with you . But I am sure, at least in your own mind, *your* much smarter than they are.


 The supreme court has ruled that abortion is protected by the constitution of the US. Since you are anti-choice, I am sure, at least in your own mind, you're much smarter than they are. Except that I spelled "*you're*" correctly.




> It's quite obvious that any reason you don't personally agree with is an "irrational" reason in your totally objective little world.


 No, I meant "irrational" as it is defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary "(1) *:* not endowed with reason or understanding ". You did not give a reason. What you said was:




> dead horse in a previous thread. 
> 
>  Anyone who thinks that gay marriage can become the law of the land without eventually leading to polygamy and family members being allowed to marry as well is just kidding himself/herself.
> 
>  I thought the election pretty well staked out that the homophobic, toothless, uneducated ( red state) majority of America dosen't want gay marriage. 
> 
>  I think the trend just shifted back the other way. (funny how that happens when something points out that morality really does matter) The Itallians don't want gay marriage or adoption by gays and in Australia the government is now cutting back on the funding of abortions, especially late term abortons.
> 
>     I think the election was a wake up call to a lot of conservatives world wide. 
>      Rep


  There is no _REASON_ in your support of your opinion. OK, so you feel that way. Why? Because the bible told you to think that way? Because W told you to think that way? Why? When I ask my child why she did something and she responds "because", that's an unacceptable response. It does not answer the question. If you have no basis in reason, then just say so. Apparantly, your reason is that some people agree with you, and that's no reason.




> Suprise and shock but the parents of the third graders in his class room are not "comfortable" with his newly announced life style choice. I guess they are irrational too!
> 
>  Rep


 When will you learn that pedophilia and homosexuality are different things. The heterosexual male teacher in the next class could be abusing the little girls, you know.

----------


## karen

> Perhaps one way to deal with this is to get Government out of the 'marriage' business entirely and leave it to individual religious institutions to decide who they want to consider 'married' and under what conditions.  Government can then issue 'life partnerships' or 'civil unions' or whatever you want to call them and stop having any role in religious ceremonies and practices.


Ok, I am admitting my ignorance up front-figure that will keep me out of too much trouble.  What role exactly does the government have in current marriage unions, other than issuing a license?  When the preacher says "by the power vested in me by the state of so and so"  what specifically are those powers?  My intial reaction was "religious ceremonies, what role does the gov't have in that?"  but then I started to think about that whole power vested thing and am confused because that seems like mixing church and state.  Not that it matters, I just like to obsess over stuff like that.

----------


## Steve Machol

Government bestows a temendous amount of legal benfits and responsibilities on married couples. My point is that if people wish to define marriage based on their religious views, then the Government really shouldn't have any role in what is obstensibly a religious pracitce. 

If you open the door to Governement participation in religious practices (forgetting for a moment separation of Church and Stae issues) then whose religious values take precedence? If Government chooses one religious view over another, then what are the consequences of such involvement?

By the way there are a growing number of devout Chirstians who disagree with the current predominant religious view of homosexuality. For a very thoughful and thought-provoking perspective on this issue, I recommend reading _'Living in Sin'_ by Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark (now retired.)

----------


## Joann Raytar

A couple of folks asked why marriage instead of civil union - here is some info on that topic:

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sect...ontentID=22127




> *Why arent civil unions enough?*
> 
> Comparing marriage to civil unions is a bit like comparing diamonds to rhinestones. One is, quite simply, the real deal; the other is not. Consider:
> Couples eligible to marry may have their marriage performed in any state and have it recognized in every other state in the nation and every country in the world.Couples who are joined in a civil union in Vermont (the only state that offers civil unions) have no guarantee that its protections will even travel with them to neighboring New York or New Hampshire  let alone California or any other state.Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and remain in Vermont receive only second-class protections in comparison to their married friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections of marriage.
> 
> In short, civil unions are not separate but equal  they are separate and unequal. And our society has tried separate before. It just doesnt work.
> 
> *Marriage:* *Civil Unions:* 
> State grants marriage licenses to couples.
> ...





> *Federal Benefits*
> 
> Although the federal government has taken the lead in protecting many minority groups from discrimination, it has not only failed to do so for lesbian and gay families, but actually penalizes same-sex couples for being unable to marry.
> 
> For example:
> Lesbian and gay families are denied the same benefits married heterosexual families receive under Social Security.
> Lesbian and gay families are taxed for health benefits provided to their domestic partners, while married heterosexual families are not. 
> After the loss of a job, lesbian and gay families are not guaranteed the opportunity to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner, although married heterosexual couples are.From taxes to health care to retirement, the federal government offers benefits and policies that help American families deal with everyday issues, or "kitchen table" issues  concerns that make up a huge part of everyone's daily lives and are often discussed around the kitchen table. Select an article from the list below to learn more about these "kitchen table" issues and how the Human Rights Campaign is working to end the unfair treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families under federal law.

----------


## coda

> Incest for example, takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Incest. 
> 
> Rape, has taken place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating rape?
> 
> Beastality, takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating beastality?
> 
> Child porn takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Child Porn?


I thought I'd let someone else take this on but since the cooler minds walked away.....

You did a great job of equating a victimless activity (homosexual activity between consenting adults) with a series of crimes with clear victims, children, animals and rape victims.  




> No matter how irrational you personally see it ,going down the road of same sex marriage in the name of privacy rights would lead to no limits on state laws regarding crimes against nature and deviate sexual activity.
> 
> Once the highest court of the land says that "privacy" outweighs the compelling interest a society has in promoting family, and reliable standards of right and wrong, there is no place to draw a line.


Regarding the 'domino effect' of legalizing homosexual marriage let's consider incest, particularly since you use it as an example.  First cousin marriages are legal in a number of states, that certainly hasn't led to the legallity of parent-child or brother-sister marriages, has it?  To continue that same point, I can own a hand gun (something legal for more than 200 years) but strangely I still can't own a tank.  I wonder when that will become legal?  Care to hazard a guess?




> Just for the record, I also have a relative who has just "come out" to his family that he is gay. He was recently arrested for the third time and charged again with indecent exposure in a public park. He is fighting to keep his job, teaching in a third grade in elementary school. He will probably win in today's political climate. 
> 
> Suprise and shock but the parents of the third graders in his class room are not "comfortable" with his newly announced life style choice. I guess they are irrational too!


I suspect that the parents are not comfortable with his choice of the 'flasher' lifestyle but since indecent exposure isn't a victimless crime maybe the distinction is too fine for you.

----------


## coda

> Ok, I am admitting my ignorance up front-figure that will keep me out of too much trouble. What role exactly does the government have in current marriage unions, other than issuing a license? When the preacher says "by the power vested in me by the state of so and so" what specifically are those powers? My intial reaction was "religious ceremonies, what role does the gov't have in that?" but then I started to think about that whole power vested thing and am confused because that seems like mixing church and state. Not that it matters, I just like to obsess over stuff like that.


A few examples of government 'involvement' in marriage would include: 

1) joint income tax return filing
2) untaxed spousal health care benefits (note that people recieving domestic partnership benefits are taxed on those benefits as additional income, not the case for married couples)
3) common property laws (depending on what state you live in)
4) bigamy laws
5) divorce settlements

That's a very quick list I'm sure there are many, many more.

In our society marriage has two fundamental aspects, one legal and one religious.  Both with ancient roots.  Perhaps it's finally time to eliminate the legal aspect, remove any and all state recognition of marriage.  Couples can have their union sanctioned by their particular religion and, if they so choose, enter into a legal covenant.

----------


## chip anderson

Steve:

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States referring to "The Separation of Church and State."

Chip

----------


## CB

American citizens living under the same roof- a parent,a child- contributing members of the same community,no longer share the same civil rights thanks to the last election.  That's wrong.

 Our schools stress a 'celebration of diversity' ...there are dozens of kids in the GSA (Gay Straight Alliance)  after-school group in our community.  Our schools acknowledge and celebrate all children...athletes, musicians, artists.  The adults in the community voted to punish some of them.  It's no wonder kids are confused and angry.

----------


## Steve Machol

> Steve:
> 
> There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States referring to "The Separation of Church and State."
> 
> Chip


I didn't say there was.




> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...


Besides you are avoiding answering my questions:

- If you open the door to Governement participation in religious practices (forgetting for a moment separation of Church and State issues) then whose religious values take precedence? 

- If Government chooses one religious view over another, then what are the consequences of such involvement?

----------


## rep

> The supreme court has ruled that abortion is protected by the constitution of the US. Since you are anti-choice, I am sure, at least in your own mind, you're much smarter than they are. Except that I spelled "*you're*" correctly.
> 
> No, I meant "irrational" as it is defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary "(1) *:* not endowed with reason or understanding ". You did not give a reason. What you said was:
> 
> There is no _REASON_ in your support of your opinion. OK, so you feel that way. Why? Because the bible told you to think that way? Because W told you to think that way? Why? When I ask my child why she did something and she responds "because", that's an unacceptable response. It does not answer the question. If you have no basis in reason, then just say so. Apparantly, your reason is that some people agree with you, and that's no reason.
> 
> When will you learn that pedophilia and homosexuality are different things. The heterosexual male teacher in the next class could be abusing the little girls, you know.


Reason as defined by definition: *:* a statement offered in explanation or justification. The problem is you don't like ANY explanation or justification that does not agree to your own morallly corrupt, evidently athiest, liberal left wing minority agenda. 

You seem to be looking for a monetary or physical reason as to why SSM would hurt anyone in an effort to justify the homosexual lifestyle as normal. I am not sure it does or does not exist. (and you can't prove it either because there are no studies on same sex marriage because it is still so far illegal.) 

I strongly suspect it would affect the insurance rates of companies forced by the federal government to cover the spouse of same sex marriages. In half of those instances those couples would be engaging in risky aids related sexual activity. In those cases the rates for those companies would be passed on to everyone. There were news reports today that companies that now were covering domestic partnerships were paying higher premiums because of the additional cost of treating aids related diseases. 

But my main reason weather you want to hear it or not, is that I do not approve or condone of the so called homosexual lifestyle. I like most Americans do not want persons who engage in homosexual acts as partners in their businesses, fellow employees, scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their childrens schools or boarders in their home. We view this as protecting ourselves and our families from a life style we believe is immoral and destructive. I really don't need any other reason than that and evidently neither do the majority who voted 11 zip against SSM.

When will you learn that there is a price for that lifestyle and that crusing the parks for homosexual partners will probably cost him his career and his destructive life style is to blame.

Coda

Tell the men and women crowding the hospital wards with aids related illnesses that it is a victimless activity (homosexual activity between consenting adults) Tell those who have destroyed their lives, careers, marriages, families and communities by buying into the liberal politically correct agenda of homosexuality. 

Take out rape, child abuse, and bestality. 

Are you really advocating incest between consenting adults, adultry and bigamy. Just because a few states approve of cousins marrying, it is certainly not a mandate. Is this the type of society you advocating for your children and grandchildren? Heck we know better than to date cousins, even in the south!

Rep

----------


## rep

> American citizens living under the same roof- a parent,a child- contributing members of the same community,no longer share the same civil rights thanks to the last election. That's wrong.
> 
> Our schools stress a 'celebration of diversity' ...there are dozens of kids in the GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) after-school group in our community. Our schools acknowledge and celebrate all children...athletes, musicians, artists. The adults in the community voted to punish some of them. It's no wonder kids are confused and angry.


Sorry I don't understand the first part of your post. 

But saying that kids are confused by a Gay Straight Alliance is a pretty darn good reason not to have a Gay Straight Alliance. How do they know what side to get on when they play dodge ball?

Diversity is another false left wing political feel good mantra. 

Didn't you celebrate all children before the "celebration of diversity".

Rep

----------


## 1968

> There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States referring to "The Separation of Church and State."Chip


No, it doesnt state that explicitly but it is the Supreme Courts job to interpret the Constitution and they have said, [T]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. *At the very least*, the Establishment Clause prevents the preferential treatment of one particular religious view over another.

----------


## 1968

> But my main reason weather you want to hear it or not, is that I do not approve or condone of the so called homosexual lifestyle. I like most Americans do not want persons who engage in homosexual acts as partners in their businesses, fellow employees, *scoutmasters for their children*, *as teachers in their childrens schools* or boarders in their home. We view this as protecting ourselves and our families from a life style we believe is immoral and destructive. I really don't need any other reason than that and evidently neither do the majority who voted 11 zip against SSM.


If "most Americans" think pedophilia is synonymous with the "lifestyle" of homosexuality, then we truly are a country of idiots.

----------


## Spexvet

> Ok, I am admitting my ignorance up front-figure that will keep me out of too much trouble. What role exactly does the government have in current marriage unions, other than issuing a license? When the preacher says "by the power vested in me by the state of so and so" what specifically are those powers? My intial reaction was "religious ceremonies, what role does the gov't have in that?" but then I started to think about that whole power vested thing and am confused because that seems like mixing church and state. Not that it matters, I just like to obsess over stuff like that.


For starters, the government has a law that prohibits same gender marriages.

----------


## karen

> A few examples of government 'involvement' in marriage would include: 
> 
> 1) joint income tax return filing
> 2) untaxed spousal health care benefits (note that people recieving domestic partnership benefits are taxed on those benefits as additional income, not the case for married couples)
> 3) common property laws (depending on what state you live in)
> 4) bigamy laws
> 5) divorce settlements
> 
> That's a very quick list I'm sure there are many, many more.


Ok, those are good. But this opens a more emotional side of this issue. Are gay/lesbian people upset that they can't file joint taxes? Is it the federal protections provided that they want or just the simple fact of being recognized as a legitimate couple. (that's kind of rhetorical but still an interesting question) I actually got a bigger tax break when I filed single head of household. 
As far as from a religious standpoint-for myself I disagree with the lifestyle choice but figure that Jesus came here and hung out with people that others considered evil or wrong (i.e. prosititutes, tax collectors, non-Jews etc) and loved them anyway and that is the example I should follow. I am not God, and don't to judge people. My past was not fabulous so I try not to throw stones as my house is glass also. I actually had a conversation with a friend of mine who is lesbian and we talked about how the extremists on both of our sides make the rest of us look bad.
I guess if I had to say what my main concern is it would be this. My fear is that eventually it will be deemed "hateful" of me to disapprove of that particular lifestyle and even if I can defend my point of view that because I am considered not "tolerant" I could be eventually fined or worse charged with a "hate crime" just because I don't agree. There is current legislation afoot ( or attempts at it) to make it illegal for my pastor to say from the pulpit that he thinks homosexuality is wrong. If gays don't have to agree with the Bible and due to the right of free speech can say so, why shouldn't my pastor in his own church be able to disagree with homosexuality? Those are the kinds of things that concern me more that anything else about this issue.

----------


## Spexvet

> Reason as defined by definition: *:* a statement offered in explanation or justification. The problem is you don't like ANY explanation or justification that does not agree to your own morallly corrupt, evidently athiest, liberal left wing minority agenda.


Not true. I'm looking for a real reason, not just "'cause I don't like it". Even if that is your reason, why prohibit others from doing what they want. Hopefully for you, "the majority" will never decide to prohibit conservatives.




> I strongly suspect it would affect the insurance rates of companies forced by the federal government to cover the spouse of same sex marriages. In half of those instances those couples would be engaging in risky aids related sexual activity. In those cases the rates for those companies would be passed on to everyone. There were news reports today that companies that now were covering domestic partnerships were paying higher premiums because of the additional cost of treating aids related diseases.


Please don't pity the insurance industry - they are very healthy, financially. I strongly suspect that most of those who would now be covered as spouse had their own insurance before, and so the difference would not be great. If the spouse did not have insurance prior to marriage, they would have been one of the dreaded "drains on society" without health insurance. If they have to pay higher premium, that's their problem, but as they are entering a monogamous relationship, the chance of getting AIDS is reduced. Is there an AIDS problem in the lesbian community?




> But my main reason weather you want to hear it or not, is that I do not approve or condone of the so called homosexual lifestyle. I like most Americans do not want persons who engage in homosexual acts as partners in their businesses, fellow employees, scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their childrens schools or boarders in their home. We view this as protecting ourselves and our families from a life style we believe is immoral and destructive. I really don't need any other reason than that and evidently neither do the majority who voted 11 zip against SSM.


"Since I don't like it, I'm gonna make sure you can't do it". OK, I got it. 




> When will you learn that there is a price for that lifestyle and that crusing the parks for homosexual partners will probably cost him his career and his destructive life style is to blame.


Just think, if he were married to a nice man, he wouldn't be out trolling for a guy. But it sounds like he has more problems than that. Might he have been sexually abused by a man when he was young?




> Coda
> 
> Take out rape, child abuse, and bestality. 
> 
> Are you really advocating incest between consenting adults, adultry and bigamy. Just because a few states approve of cousins marrying, it is certainly not a mandate. Is this the type of society you advocating for your children and grandchildren? *Heck we know better than to date cousins, even in the south!*
> 
> Rep


If anyone wants the torture of multiple spouses, go ahead! One is enough for me, but I'm not going to stop you. 

I thought you were informed. I highlighted the southern states for you:
First cousins may legally marry*AK*, *AL*, CA, CO, CT, *FL*, *GA*, HI, *MD*, MA, NJ, *NM*, NY, *NC*, RI, *SC*, *TN*, *TX*, VT, *VA* 
_and Washington DC_

http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a...of+law+unclear)+(Not+legal...&tit=Cousins+United+to+Defeat+Discriminating+  Laws+through+Education&bin=&cat=wp&purl=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.a  sk.com%2fi%2fb.html%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d0E8778A79FA4957  04%26sid%3d10C5DFBBC0D522914%26qid%3dDEF54FA12AB66D42ACD006A  1A76468C7%26io%3d%26sv%3dza5cb0db5%26o%3d0%26ask%3dwhat%2bst  ates%2blegal%2bmarry%2bfirst%2bcousins%26uip%3d408831e1%26en  %3dbm%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fm  yjeeves.ask.com%2faction%2fsnip&Complete=1

----------


## Jacqui

Someone asked:

Is there an AIDS problem in the lesbian community?

Answer:

A very small one, it seems to come from the bi-sexual community. Seems the bi-sexual women are getting it from thier husbands and boyfriends and passing it to the lesbians.

----------


## chm2023

> But my main reason weather you want to hear it or not, is that I do not approve or condone of the so called homosexual lifestyle. I like most Americans do not want persons who engage in homosexual acts as partners in their businesses, fellow employees, scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their childrens schools or boarders in their home. We view this as protecting ourselves and our families from a life style we believe is immoral and destructive. I really don't need any other reason than that and evidently neither do the majority who voted 11 zip against SSM.
> 
> When will you learn that there is a price for that lifestyle and that crusing the parks for homosexual partners will probably cost him his career and his destructive life style is to blame.


I don't approve of bigotry or ignorance, but I have learned to co-exist with it. Suggest you could do the same. Gay people BTW are both better educated and higher earners than the population in general--I know this contradicts the painstakingly researched stereotype of the cruising/pedophilic pervert, but those are the facts.

One more thing, quoting the Bible to underpin this, or any argument, is absurd. The Bible, as I thought everyone knew (perhaps not?) is full of conflicting statements, as well as ones we routinely reject as a society. Check out what Exodus says about slavery (pro) or Leviticus says about eating pork (con). The notion that one can pick and chose what one takes literally is ridiculous on its face. I would think any reasonably intelligent person would be abashed to make such an argument.

----------


## shanbaum

> Three Supreme Court Justices disagree with you . But I am sure, at least in your own mind, your much smarter than they are.


Well, one has to allow for the possibility that he's just agreeing with the other six, any or all of whom may actually _be_ smarter than Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas.  Even if they're not, they might be _right_, might they not?  After all, there are so _many_ of them...

----------


## chm2023

> Well, one has to allow for the possibility that he's just agreeing with the other six, any or all of whom may actually _be_ smarter than Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Even if they're not, they might be _right_, might they not? After all, there are so _many_ of them...


Is it just me or does anyone else find that Gilbert and Sullivan look Rhenquist affects a little gay?

----------


## coda

> Take out rape, child abuse, and bestality. 
> 
> Are you really advocating incest between consenting adults, adultry and bigamy. Just because a few states approve of cousins marrying, it is certainly not a mandate. Is this the type of society you advocating for your children and grandchildren? Heck we know better than to date cousins, even in the south!


Such bastions of south such as Texas, Alabama and Georgia have legallized 1st cousin marriages.  Guess you're right, why date when you can marry?  Incidentally more states allow some form of 1st cousin marriage than dissalow it, that would be a mandate.  I suppose for the record I should state that I'm not dating or married to my cousin, nor have I been nor do I have an interest in doing so.

There's a difference between advocating and allowing.  As far as I'm concerned any two (or more) consenting adults can do whatever they please so long as:

1) they don't force their beliefs or activities on anyone else
2) they don't harm life, limb or property
3) they don't cause the production of a new life with a statistically significant great chance of congenital defects than the population as a whole

----------


## Jana Lewis

> I strongly suspect it would affect the insurance rates of companies forced by the federal government to cover the spouse of same sex marriages. In half of those instances those couples would be engaging in risky aids related sexual activity. In those cases the rates for those companies would be passed on to everyone. There were news reports today that companies that now were covering domestic partnerships were paying higher premiums because of the additional cost of treating aids related diseases.


Rep-

You are obviously ill-informed about AIDS. AIDS affects alot more than just the gay community! Before you post inflammatory posts regarding aids or homosexuality, please...do your homework! 

Here's a good place to start: www.aids.org

I still cannot believe in this day that we have so many people STILL so ignorant about aids..... it's beyond me!

----------


## coda

> I guess if I had to say what my main concern is it would be this. My fear is that eventually it will be deemed "hateful" of me to disapprove of that particular lifestyle and even if I can defend my point of view that because I am considered not "tolerant" I could be eventually fined or worse charged with a "hate crime" just because I don't agree. There is current legislation afoot ( or attempts at it) to make it illegal for my pastor to say from the pulpit that he thinks homosexuality is wrong. If gays don't have to agree with the Bible and due to the right of free speech can say so, why shouldn't my pastor in his own church be able to disagree with homosexuality?


There's a difference between hate speech and hate crimes.  One can still speak against integration, interracial marriages, 'evil' religions, etc. in this country.  I'd be surprised if there really was any significant movement agitatingfor a law restricting any pastor's ability to speak out against gay marriage.  Even if one were adopted it would certainly be ruled unconstitutional.  I'd be curious where you've seen or heard reports of such potentially pending legislation.

Making gay marriage legal wouldn't disallow you or your pastor from speaking out against it anymore than it's illegal for me to speak out against those godless heathens the Catholics (joke!).

----------


## chip anderson

No court, including the Supreme (which is on the third highest court) should be writting laws, even if segements of the public feel these things should be law.\

Chip

----------


## 1968

> No court, including the Supreme (which is on the third highest court) should be writting laws, even if segements of the public feel these things should be law.


 That is correct. That is why it is the Supreme Court's job to *interpret* laws, not write them. And their interpretation of the Constitution is that the First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.

----------


## shanbaum

> I guess if I had to say what my main concern is it would be this. My fear is that eventually it will be deemed "hateful" of me to disapprove of that particular lifestyle and even if I can defend my point of view that because I am considered not "tolerant" I could be eventually fined or worse charged with a "hate crime" just because I don't agree. There is current legislation afoot ( or attempts at it) to make it illegal for my pastor to say from the pulpit that he thinks homosexuality is wrong. If gays don't have to agree with the Bible and due to the right of free speech can say so, why shouldn't my pastor in his own church be able to disagree with homosexuality? Those are the kinds of things that concern me more that anything else about this issue.


Karen, what "legal attempts" are you talking about? I'll help you oppose them - unless they're actually intended (and properly designed) to prevent preachers or anyone else, not from characterizing gays as sinners, or from criticising their lifestyle, but from creating conditions in which the dimmer bulbs among us might take such characterizations as a license to harm them. There's obviously a fine line there, but the gays aren't strapping straights to fenceposts and beating them to death because they're straight. Does a compassionate society do nothing about that - better yet, let's leave compassion out of it - should _we_ do nothing about it? And if not, is that a tacit "serves them right"? 

Though, it's possible that the whole issue is just so 20th century...

I don't think that it's "intolerant" to believe that homosexuality is a "sin". I'm pretty sure many, if not most, Americans do think that. But whether it's a sin is between individuals, or groups of individuals, and their respective Gods, is it not? And is it not reasonable, in a country which places such a high value on individual liberty (doesn't it?), to leave the issue of what's a "sin" up to the religions? And isn't it true that I'm only as free as the people who successfully push the limits on freedom?

I think that the question that was asked at the outset of this thread was a bit off the mark. Because the political issue has raised by the President's proposed Constitutional Amendment (as well as a number of activist groups seeking to "protect marriage"), the question to ask would be, how would "gay marriage" harm "marriage"? 

The only extent to which that question has been sort-of answered here is in rep's assertion that to allow gay marriage must lead to the legalization of rape, incest, beastiality, polygamy, adultery, bigamy, child pornography, and prostitution.

'Course, even were one to accept the assertion as all true, one might ask, "ok, but exactly how does all that affect _marriage_?" 

As I think has been noted here, rape, incest, and child pornography are simply not in the some class as the others - they are not acts of private, consensual behavior. If there's logic by which one can start at "allow gay marriage" and end at "allow rape", I'd like to hear it.

As one who believes that the government's intrusion into our lives should be minimized, I believe that adultery, polygamy, and prostitution should not be crimes. That's already effectively the case for adultery; while there appear to be some laws against adultery on the books out there (though none in Connecticut), I doubt that any such criminal statutes are enforced any longer, at least outside the military. Certainly, adultery remains a factor in divorce, as it should - most marriage "contracts" specify sexual exclusivity.

Polygamy is a curious topic, in that it inverts our historical march towards broader and deeper liberties. After all, it goes back a looooong way. The ancient Israelites practiced it up until the return from the Babylonian Exile, when Ezra decided that Yahweh had apparently changed his mind. Of course, it's still an accepted practice today - just not here. I don't think I've heard a really compelling argument against it (other than my wife's very simple, one word comment: "no"). Admittedly, the people you hear about who do practice it here (out in that particular western state that shall remain nameless) seem a little weird generally.

Were we to allow polygamy, I think bigamy would become largely moot.

Legal prostitution? Well, Holland hasn't gone to hell in a handbasket, at least, not yet. I was there last year. All the awful stuff that's legal there, and illegal here, didn't seem to really have an obvious impact, unless it was responsible for the demonstrably better architecture, or public transportation.

That leaves beastiality, which reminds me of one of my favorite jokes. There was this cowboy who went out west and was working on this ranch. He hadn't been there too long when he saw one of the other cowboys having sex with a sheep. This young cowboy had never heard of such a thing, and when he asked some of the older cowboys about it, they told him, "now son, ya' gotta understand. Out here, there ain't no women, and well, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do... you'll find out." 

Well, sure enough, after some time out on the plains, those sheep started looking pretty good to this young fella, and so, one day, he decides to give it a try. So, he goes and picks out a particularly fine looking sheep, and proceeds to have his way with her. The next thing he knows, he's surrounded by all these other cowboys, who had looks of absolute disbelief on their faces.

"What's the matter with you guys?" he asked, "you've all been doin' the same thing!"

After a moment, one of the other cowboys replied, "well, yeah, but - but _that's Big John's girl!_"

But I digress.

The fact is, the enumeration of evils which rep believes will result from gay marriage originates with Scalia's dissenting opinion in _Lawrence v. Texas_, a decision rendered in 2003, which struck down Texas' anti-sodomy laws. Scalia wrote, _"State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding."_ 

Now, Scalia's list is a bit different from rep's (it's better, in that at least these are all - with the exception of beastiality - consensual acts) but the main problem with it is that Scalia assumes that all of these items are equally deprave and on a par with homosexual acts. I'm particularly glad that he included masturbation, because its inclusion provides the most ludicrous examples: if you can't prohibit masturbation, you can't prohibit prostitution. If you can't prohibit masturbation, you can't prohibit beastiality. If you can't prohibit masturbation, you can't prohibit fornication. How many of you think that masturbation should be against the law? For that matter, how many of you think that fornication should be against the law?

In fact, it's of course possible to distinguish amongst these nasty bits. The reason that _Lawrence_ came to pass was that society has reached a point at which we're no longer willing to say that homosexual acts should be criminalized, any more than we think that ****ing without a license (fornication) or ****ing without a partner (masturbation) should be. We no longer think that the state - that is, _we_ - have a compelling interest in making it against the law. If we ever come to feel that way about beastiality, well, we'll slay that dragon (or just **** it to death) when it arises.

In any case, since _Lawrence_ was decided the way it was, Scalia's demons are already out of the box. I suppose if you want to argue that the gay marriage "movement" is an effect of that, that's one thing. But, if you believe Scalia, it's no longer reasonable to argue that it's the _cause_. 

Though really, I think Scalia made it clear that the whole problem stems from our failure to criminalize masturbation.

----------


## chip anderson

The Constitution says:  "Congress shall not establish a state religion."  Reguardless of what the "Supreme Court" says this means exactly what it says: The state may not establish a manditory religion.  This does not bar religions from entering into the business of the state or politics.  
It does in fact guarantee that the state may not say what can or cannot be said from the pulpit.  Only that cannot mandate anything to be said from the pulpit or any other religious service, or group.

If all the Christians or Buddist or Moslems want to band together in some sort of consortium to promote legislation, they are free to do so.  Whether they can do so in a tax exempt situation is at present questionable.

Chip

----------


## shanbaum

> The Constitution says: "Congress shall not establish a state religion." Reguardless of what the "Supreme Court" says this means exactly what it says: The state may not establish a manditory religion. This does not bar religions from entering into the business of the state or politics. 
> It does in fact guarantee that the state may not say what can or cannot be said from the pulpit. Only that cannot mandate anything to be said from the pulpit or any other religious service, or group.
> 
> If all the Christians or Buddist or Moslems want to band together in some sort of consortium to promote legislation, they are free to do so. Whether they can do so in a tax exempt situation is at present questionable.
> 
> Chip


You might as well know what the text of the First Amendment actually _is_, since you're so convinced of what it _says_:

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._ 

As for what this _means_ with regard to religion, I suggest you read this:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...t01/01.html#f5

Read closely, and you'll notice the author of the phrase "wall of separation".

----------


## mrba

> Rep-
> 
> You are obviously ill-informed about AIDS. AIDS affects alot more than just the gay community! Before you post inflammatory posts regarding aids or homosexuality, please...do your homework! 
> 
> Here's a good place to start: www.aids.org
> 
> I still cannot believe in this day that we have so many people STILL so ignorant about aids..... it's beyond me!


Specifically you said "AIDS affects alot more than just the gay community"

Actually it doesn't.  AIDS is primarily found among Gay men.  Period. 

Secondly, it is found in women who sleep with bisexual men (men who engage in homosexual contact).  And finally it is found among interveinous drug users.

This is in direct reference to % infected in the population.

I think your stement would be closer tot he truth if it said "Aids effects a few more than the Gay community"

As far as Rep's inflamatory ignorance, you obviously aren't interested in changing it, or getting educated if you are inflamed!  Face it Jana, you just like to get mad.

Why is it when libs disagree it is inflammatory, but wen cons disagree they just lauph?

----------


## shanbaum

> Actually it doesn't. AIDS is primarily found among Gay men. Period. 
> 
> Secondly, it is found in women who sleep with bisexual men (men who engage in homosexual contact). And finally it is found among interveinous drug users.


Perhaps you are thinking only of the United States. Or, maybe just Callleeforneea.

The vast majority of persons infected with HIV are Africans, where more than half are women, and the primary mode of transmission is heterosexual contact.

Read about it here:

http://www.unaids.org/wac/2000/wad00...mic_report.htm

----------


## karen

> Karen, what "legal attempts" are you talking about? I'll help you oppose them - unless they're actually intended (and properly designed) to prevent preachers or anyone else, not from characterizing gays as sinners, or from criticising their lifestyle, but from creating conditions in which the dimmer bulbs among us might take such characterizations as a license to harm them. There's obviously a fine line there, but the gays aren't strapping straights to fenceposts and beating them to death because they're straight. Does a compassionate society do nothing about that - better yet, let's leave compassion out of it - should _we_ do nothing about it? And if not, is that a tacit "serves them right"? 
> .


SB 1234.  Now, to be fair, I have not read it in it's entirety, just saved it so I could and then perhaps you and I can discuss it.  My 12 year old has his last football game which I am on my way to so I will read it later.  Look forward to your point of view!  Go Cougars!

----------


## mrba

> Perhaps you are thinking only of the United States. Or, maybe just Callleeforneea.
> 
> The vast majority of persons infected with HIV are Africans, where more than half are women, and the primary mode of transmission is heterosexual contact.
> 
> Read about it here:
> 
> http://www.unaids.org/wac/2000/wad00...mic_report.htm


1. Yes I am talking about the United States.
2. If you consider rape heterosexual contact, then you are correct with respect to Africa.

Rinsel Tinsel found me some more Ammo against the "Everybody gets AIDS myth"

Of the 298,248 men (13 years or older) who were living with AIDS, 

* 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM) 
* 23% were injection drug users (IDU) 
* 10% were exposed through heterosexual contact 
* 8% were both MSM and IDU. 


Of the 82,764 adult and adolescent women with AIDS, 

* 61% were exposed through heterosexual contact 
* 36% were exposed through injection drug use. 

http://www.avert.org/statsum.htm 

With respect to Rape in Africa spreading AIDS:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5437708/

----------


## Spexvet

> 1. Yes I am talking about the United States.
> 2. If you consider rape heterosexual contact, then you are correct with respect to Africa.
> 
> Rinsel Tinsel found me some more Ammo against the "Everybody gets AIDS myth"
> 
> Of the 298,248 men (13 years or older) who were living with AIDS, 
> 
> * 58% were men who had sex with men (MSM) 
> * 23% were injection drug users (IDU) 
> ...


Let's get back to the subject. Assume that you are right with these facts - unless _YOU_ have sex with a man, or use intravenous drugs, aids is not an issue in this discussion. Now, how does same gender marriage hurt you????

----------


## mrba

Well if it hasn't already been said, and then poo poo'ed on this thread I don't know what more you want.  

Same sex marraige increases the number of insured in a higher risk group, for expensive medical issues.  Hence everybody pays.

----------


## rep

> Rep-
> 
> You are obviously ill-informed about AIDS. AIDS affects alot more than just the gay community! Before you post inflammatory posts regarding aids or homosexuality, please...do your homework! 
> 
> Here's a good place to start: www.aids.org
> 
> I still cannot believe in this day that we have so many people STILL so ignorant about aids..... it's beyond me!


Educate me JANA

Point out EXACTLY what I have posted that is inaccurate about AIDS ! 

I AGREE with you!  - AIDS effects EVERYONE and SSM would give approval to a lifestyle that has the potential to cause great harm to many more than it does now. You have further strengthened MY position. Thank You 

Rep

----------


## rep

> Not true. I'm looking for a real reason, not just "'cause I don't like it". Even if that is your reason, why prohibit others from doing what they want. Hopefully for you, "the majority" will never decide to prohibit conservatives.
> 
> Please don't pity the insurance industry - they are very healthy, financially. I strongly suspect that most of those who would now be covered as spouse had their own insurance before, and so the difference would not be great. If the spouse did not have insurance prior to marriage, they would have been one of the dreaded "drains on society" without health insurance. If they have to pay higher premium, that's their problem, but as they are entering a monogamous relationship, the chance of getting AIDS is reduced. Is there an AIDS problem in the lesbian community?
> 
> "Since I don't like it, I'm gonna make sure you can't do it". OK, I got it. 
> 
> Just think, if he were married to a nice man, he wouldn't be out trolling for a guy. But it sounds like he has more problems than that. Might he have been sexually abused by a man when he was young?
> 
> If anyone wants the torture of multiple spouses, go ahead! One is enough for me, but I'm not going to stop you. 
> ...


As Jana's post states; AIDS effect everyone  and blanket approval of a lifestyle that promotes the spread of AIDS should be enough reason for ANYONE.

The majority has spoken pretty loud and it's liberal's and their wacky ideas that took the hit and will take the hits in the near future - not conservatives. 

 That is a  typical liberal response regarding insurance companies having to pay more for aids related diseases.  Wake up  - Increase the cost of a product or service and the companies have no choice to pass it on to you and I. They won't take the hit  -  WE WILL.

I am fully aware that marrying cousins is legal in the South. It has been a point of embarassment for quite some time as we are constantly reminded by our northern bretheren who have decided to retire here. 

Sorry about the strong response, but I think it was warranted.  I wanted to point out that there are prices to be paid for moving to eliminate all  laws regarding deviate sexual acts. The typical agenda of  those supporting SSM is that it affects no on else therefore it must be OK. In reality it affects everyone else either directly or indirectly. 

Rep

----------


## rep

While I cannot agree with you regarding prostitution in particular (degrading to women and all that) you are the only one who took the time to research and see that the liberal court has already overtuned laws regarding homosexual acts that had been on the books for years. (Anticipating the comments to come, I would remind all that R v W is a relatively new ruling).

I was responding to Spexvet's comments regarding the trends in the law. I simply pointed out that a least three SCJ's feel we are aready traveling down a slippery slope and in matters of the law I would accept their legal opinions a lot faster than Spexvet's 

I think SSM is a continuation down that slope into the gutter. 

Rep

----------


## rep

> I don't approve of bigotry or ignorance, but I have learned to co-exist with it. Suggest you could do the same. Gay people BTW are both better educated and higher earners than the population in general--I know this contradicts the painstakingly researched stereotype of the cruising/pedophilic pervert, but those are the facts.


Prove it - Show me one (objective) study here that supports your "theory" regarding Gay's are better educated and higher earners than the population in general. You have been seeing too many reruns of the movie "Bird Cage" and its warped your brain. 




> One more thing, quoting the Bible to underpin this, or any argument, is absurd. The Bible, as I thought everyone knew (perhaps not?) is full of conflicting statements, as well as ones we routinely reject as a society. Check out what Exodus says about slavery (pro) or Leviticus says about eating pork (con). The notion that one can pick and chose what one takes literally is ridiculous on its face. I would think any reasonably intelligent person would be abashed to make such an argument.


Can't you READ!!!!!! 

I have NO BIBLE QUOTES!!!!!!! ANYWHERE - Genius. 

Is this the best you can do in posting a response? Make false statements about what is clearly in black and white. 


Rep

----------


## rep

> If "most Americans" think pedophilia is synonymous with the "lifestyle" of homosexuality, then we truly are a country of idiots.


Evidently you haven't been keeping up with the papers recently. The Catholic church is having to deal with one heck of a problem with homosexual priest molesting tens of thousands of boys.

Consider these points regarding this: 

*Pedophiles are invariably males:* A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: "In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male." The book "Sexual Offending Against Children" reports that only 12 of 3,000 incarcerated pedophiles in England were women.

* *Significant numbers of victims are males:* A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."

* *Homosexuals comprise less than 3 percent of the population*, not "8 to 10 percent" as many articles report. A recent study in Demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4
percent.

* *Homosexuals are over-represented in child sex offenses:* Individuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children. A study in the Journal of Sex Research found that although heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals by a ratio of at least 20 to 1, homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses.

*The evidence shows a direct correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia.*

*Have a nice day! Better luck next post!*

*Rep*

----------


## Joann Raytar

> A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children


I believe the APSAC has ties to the Family Research Council. That's a little too far to the "right" even for me.

----------


## 1968

> The Constitution says: "Congress shall not establish a state religion." Reguardless of what the "Supreme Court" says this means exactly what it says: The state may not establish a manditory religion.


First of all, the Constitution does NOT say: Congress shall not establish a state religion. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

Secondly, it doesnt matter what you or I think it means. For all intents and purposes where the law is concerned, it is the Supreme Court that decides what it means. (And again, their interpretation of the Constitution is that the First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.) To imply that it doesnt matter what the Supreme Court has to say about the Constitution is akin to negating the importance of the Judicial Branch in our system of checks and balances.

----------


## Monkeysee

This is taken from an article in Discover magazine (1997), tracing the "Gay Gene":

In a preliminary study, Hamer found that some male homosexuality is passed through the maternal side. So he began his search on the X chromosome, which males get only from their mothers. From each subject he isolated and identified the same set of 22 markersshort, easily distinguished stretches of DNA that vary from person to person and that geneticists use to flag a particular spot on a chromosome. If two brothers shared a marker, chances were pretty good that they shared the genes in the neighborhood of that marker as well. Thirty-three of the 40 pairs of brothers, Hamer found, shared the same set of five markers in a region of the chromosome called Xq28, far too many to be a coincidence. Somewhere in that region, he concluded, was a gene or genes contributing to the homosexuality of these men. 

When he published his results in 1993, he landed in an often uncomfortable spotlight. Groups opposed to homosexual rights lambasted the finding, fearing that it might make society more accepting of homosexuality. The scientific community was cautious for another reason. Several times before, researchers thought they had traced a behaviorusually an aberrant one, such as schizophrenia, manic-depression, or alcoholismto one chromosome or another, but each time the findings were contradicted by later analyses. The gay gene has stood up well, however. Hamer has replicated his findings, and no studies have yet contradicted them. 

Still, the gene itself remains at large, its function unknown. It might, Hamer suggests, be involved in the development of the hypothalamus, a part of the brain that has been shown to differ between homosexual and heterosexual men. "Or it might do something totally unexpected," he says. "Who knows?" 

Hamer then began looking for a comparable X-linked marker for sexual orientation in lesbians. Here he had no luck. "Female homosexuality does run in families," he says, "but there's no clear indication that it is genetic." Studies of lesbian twins have been inconclusive, and when Hamer rounded up DNA from 36 pairs of lesbian sisters and their family members, he found no evidence of an X-linked genetic marker for female homosexuality. He suspects that women's sexual preferences may be less genetically programmed than men's. "Some of it is partly social and some is genuinely biological."

----------


## 1968

> Evidently you haven't been keeping up with the papers recently. The Catholic church is having to deal with one heck of a problem with homosexual priest molesting tens of thousands of boys.





> Consider these points regarding this: 
> 
> *Pedophiles are invariably males:* A report by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children states: "In both clinical and non-clinical samples, the vast majority of offenders are male." The book "Sexual Offending Against Children" reports that only 12 of 3,000 incarcerated pedophiles in England were women.
> 
> * *Significant numbers of victims are males:* A study of 457 male sex offenders against children in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy found that "approximately one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against males."
> 
> * *Homosexuals comprise less than 3 percent of the population*, not "8 to 10 percent" as many articles report. A recent study in Demography estimates the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4
> percent.
> 
> ...




And evidently you never picked up on the phrase in Statistics 101: Correlation does not equal causation. We can parse the stats as much as you like, but the fact remains that pedophilia is no more a gay disease than incest is a straight disease. According to a US Department of Health and Human Services report [ http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/statsinfo/nis3.cfm]: Girls were sexually abused three times more often than boys. and The prevalence of male perpetrators was strongest in the category of sexual abuse, where 89 percent of the children were abused by a male compared to only 12 percent by a female. 


Finally, *dont copy a page from some holier-than-thou Internet site* [ http://www.earstohear.net/pedophilia.html ] *and pass it off as your own writings.* 


Better luck coming up with an original reply in your next post.

----------


## chip anderson

When the judicial branch origionates legislation or adds to the meaning of The Contstiution as written.   The judicial branch becomes unimportant.  

Next comes the question, should one obey an unjust law because "It's the Law".

No.

Chip

----------


## rep

> We can parse the stats as much as you like, but the fact remains that pedophilia is no more a gay disease than incest is a straight disease.
> 
> *holier-than-thou Internet site*


 

No place have I infered that homosexuals as a group are predispositioned to pedophilia, only homosexual males. 

Use any web site you want and come up with a excuse for that. Half of the items posted on this and most boards are taken from some web site some where. 

Changing the category to make your statistics work isn't quit according to your statistical model either, is it. I was and am refering to boys and the Catholic church. That's a pretty strong arguement that your premise is wrong an that there is among homosexual males a predisposition towards pedophilia, like it or not.

Isn't it interesting that only those opposing religion, constantly use religion as a club.

Rep

----------


## Spexvet

> When the judicial branch origionates legislation or adds to the meaning of The Contstiution as written. The judicial branch becomes unimportant. 
> 
> Next comes the question, should one obey an unjust law because "It's the Law".
> 
> No.
> 
> Chip


That's right! So all you homosexuals out there, go get married. Don't "obey an unjust law because "it's the law"".

Thank you, Chip, for making an excellent point.

Spexvet

----------


## RT

Actually, it would seem that the demographic group with the highest incidence of pedophilia would be Catholic priests.  Although not forbidden from marriage by US law, they are forbidden from marriage by church law.  Perhaps if they were allowed to marry...

----------


## Spexvet

> [/left]I was and am refering to boys and the Catholic church. That's a pretty strong arguement that your premise is wrong an that there is among homosexual males a predisposition towards pedophilia, like it or not.
> 
> Rep


Actually, your point only shows that gay preists have tendancy for pedophilia.

----------


## rep

> Actually, your point only shows that gay preists have tendancy for pedophilia.


Correct but show me a larger model with the same elements. 

Rep

----------


## Spexvet

> Well if it hasn't already been said, and then poo poo'ed on this thread I don't know what more you want. 
> 
> Same sex marraige increases the number of insured in a higher risk group, for expensive medical issues. Hence everybody pays.


Typical conservative: put money before civil rights.

Do you think every same gender couple had only one individual insured before marriage?
If only one was covered, wouldn't moving the other's coverage from the public sector to the private sector be desirable?
Do you think same gender marriage will increase or decrease the number of new AIDS cases?

----------


## chm2023

> Prove it - Show me one (objective) study here that supports your "theory" regarding Gay's are better educated and higher earners than the population in general. You have been seeing too many reruns of the movie "Bird Cage" and its warped your brain. 
> 
> Can't you READ!!!!!! 
> 
> I have NO BIBLE QUOTES!!!!!!! ANYWHERE - Genius. 
> 
> Is this the best you can do in posting a response? Make false statements about what is clearly in black and white. 
> 
> 
> Rep


http://www.cathfam.org/Hitems/ProtectedClass.html

Catholic Family Organization objective enough for you?

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/P...ionalintro.htm

On the other end of the spectrum, the above. The data is pulled from the Census. (If you want to check it go to www.census.gov ) Basics: 37.3% of homosexuals have college degrees (including 12.6% graduate/professional) versus the overall population of 24.4% and 8.9% respectively.

I am sure you will be quick to admit your mistake, as are all people of grace and learning. :Eek:   :Eek:   :Eek:  

I was commenting on the general tendency of people to quote the Bible to support their argument against homosexuality. There have been a number of these discussions on the Board--I really don't keep close track of who said what, when; nor do I intend to.

----------


## Spexvet

Rep,

I have truly tried to be civil in this discussion. You really make it difficult, but I will continue to try to ignore your unpleasantness, although I know I havent been entirely successful.




> The majority has spoken pretty loud and it's liberal's and their wacky ideas that took the hit and will take the hits in the near future - not conservatives.


If you want me to give up because "the majority has spoken", then please give up your "wacky ideas" regarding restricting a womans choice to terminate a pregnancy. The majority thinks this action is acceptable. It would be hypocritical to use the majority argument to support your stance against SSM, yet dismiss it as it relates to the issue of choice, dont you think?




> That is a typical liberal response regarding insurance companies having to pay more for aids related diseases. Wake up - Increase the cost of a product or service and the companies have no choice to pass it on to you and I. They won't take the hit - WE WILL.


But how great will the impact be? The healthcare cost currently must be born by the taxpayers or the health insurance industry. After marriage, how will that change? 

A  some healthcare costs will be transferred from government programs to private healthcare companies. As a conservative, reducing government burden should be desirable to you.

B  some premiums will go from individual to family. How much more will it cost the healthcare industry? They may lose the revenue of individual premium amount less family premium amount, for those couples who get married out of 2% to 3% of the population, by your post statistics. Seems like a trivial amount, to me.




> I am fully aware that marrying cousins is legal in the South. It has been a point of embarassment for quite some time as we are constantly reminded by our northern bretheren who have decided to retire here. 
> 
> Rep


Then why did you post:






> Heck we know better than to date cousins, even in the south!
> 
> Rep

----------


## chm2023

> Though really, I think Scalia made it clear that the whole problem stems from our failure to criminalize masturbation.


Well you have to admit in a post 9/11 world, we can no longer afford to wait until the self pleasurers who hate our Christian society......uh, let me get back to you on this.

----------


## chm2023

> Actually, your point only shows that gay preists have tendancy for pedophilia.


Priests don't become pedophiles.  Pedophiles become priests.  Pedophilia is a manifestation of arrested sexual development, which of course means it starts in puberty.  My theory, though I haven't really looked at the numbers, but it appears the large bubble of cases date back to the days when altar servers and the kids choir were all boys.  Case of access I would think.  As a kid who went to parochial schools, I don't ever remember being alone with a priest, something not true of my brothers.

For what it's worth Spexman!!!:bbg:

----------


## shanbaum

> I simply pointed out that a least three SCJ's feel we are aready traveling down a slippery slope and in matters of the law I would accept their legal opinions a lot faster than Spexvet's 
> 
> I think SSM is a continuation down that slope into the gutter.


_Bowers_ - the case that was overturned by the ruling in _Lawrence_ - was not explicity a law against homosexual acts, it prohibited oral and anal sex, even between heterosexual couples.

None of the justices actually presented a "slippery-slope" argument. As I tried to say, Scalia's argument was that all of these immoral acts are equivalent, in a legal sense; if a state can't prohibit one, it can't prohibit any of them. He doesn't see that the change in the law really derives from a change in 
what society believes constitutes immoral sexual acts, not from a novel declaration that the law can't prohibit immoral sexual acts.

And Thomas' dissent was simply, Americans have no "privacy" right at all.

As far as the three justices you mention are concerned, if Georgia wants to put you and your wife in jail for engaging in oral sex, that's fine by them; you and your wife don't have the right to engage in oral sex.

In a way, the slippery slope argument is more persuasive, at least rhetorically - it seems reasonable to say, for example, "if we can't prohibit fornication, we can't prohibit masturbation", assuming that we think that neither is immoral. But it's certainly not a legal argument to assert in defense of suppressing a liberty right. 

Nor is affordability. How would you feel about, "we'd really like for you to be able to own a firearm, but society just can't afford it"?

----------


## Spexvet

> Priests don't become pedophiles. Pedophiles become priests. Pedophilia is a manifestation of arrested sexual development, which of course means it starts in puberty. My theory, though I haven't really looked at the numbers, but it appears the large bubble of cases date back to the days when altar servers and the kids choir were all boys. Case of access I would think. As a kid who went to parochial schools, I don't ever remember being alone with a priest, something not true of my brothers.
> 
> For what it's worth Spexman!!!:bbg:


My mistake - I put the egg before the chicken.

----------


## chm2023

> My mistake - I put the egg before the chicken.


Interesting article attached.  Later.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbo...lestation.html

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Specifically you said "AIDS affects alot more than just the gay community"
> 
> Actually it doesn't. AIDS is primarily found among Gay men. Period. 
> 
> Secondly, it is found in women who sleep with bisexual men (men who engage in homosexual contact). And finally it is found among interveinous drug users.
> 
> This is in direct reference to % infected in the population.
> 
> I think your stement would be closer tot he truth if it said "Aids effects a few more than the Gay community"
> ...


Errr.... I think your the one who likes to get mad....Your post is not worth responding to since it wasn't addressed to you.... looks like some things haven't changed since you decided to come back to the "horrible" Lib optiboard.

----------


## rep

> http://www.cathfam.org/Hitems/ProtectedClass.html
> 
> Catholic Family Organization objective enough for you?
> 
> http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/P...ionalintro.htm


*From your site* Homosexuals have an average household income of $63,100 versus a general population income of $36,500. Do you think maybe gee -wizz could that be because they have TWO working males or TWO working females and hetrosexual average household imcomes are lower because they are raising children? Nawww...... couldn't be!!!!

Saying the household income is higher equates to 


> Gay are both better educated and higher earners than the population in general"


it illogical and a false premises not worthy of your previous post. 

*Your website* of choice does have lot to say regarding: *Child Molestation & Homosexuality.* They went a lot further than I did. Since you think they are a totally legit site I intend to use them to reference your further post regarding homosexuality and abortion.

*Child Molestation & Homosexuality*

*Conclusion
Not only is the gay rights movement upfront in its desire to legitimize sex with children, but whether indexed by population reports of molestation, pedophile convictions, or teacher-pupil assaults, there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality. Ann Landers claim that homosexuals molest children at no higher a rate than heterosexuals do is untrue. The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false. 

*Thanks but I am, not going to accept the statistical information from a Gay based web site promoting the homosexual lifestyle. I will when I have time look it up. If I'm find I am wrong - I'll admit it. 

The census - give me a break - that's one of the least accurate informal surveys. They can't even verify how many people are living in one house! Your going to tell me a survey write in form is accurate - give me a break

Rep

----------


## chm2023

> Thanks but I am, not going to accept the statistical information from a Gay based web site promoting the homosexual lifestyle. I will when I have time look it up. If I'm find I am wrong - I'll admit it. 
> 
> The census - give me a break - that's one of the least accurate informal surveys. They can't even verify how many people are living in one house! Your going to tell me a survey write in form is accurate - give me a break
> 
> Rep


Clearly you are not going to accept anything that contradicts your own dug in views. And the census is "the least accurate informal survey"--informal in what sense? Least accurate based on what? Surveys by definition rely on responses, "write in" or otherwise. Given that sexual orientation is volunteered info in just about any set of data, there is a implicit caveat here. But if you look at the info set forth across the board, it is very consistent.

This will be our last exchange Rep. There are too many interesting and well mannered folks on the Board for me to get caught up in this nonsense. I have discovered a wonderful feature on the Board--Ignore List!!!!

----------


## rep

> Rep,
> 
> If you want me to give up because "the majority has spoken", then please give up your "wacky ideas" regarding restricting a womans choice to terminate a pregnancy. The majority thinks this action is acceptable. It would be hypocritical to use the majority argument to support your stance against SSM, yet dismiss it as it relates to the issue of choice, dont you think?


 
False the majority do not think abortion is acceptable .
Abortion has *never* been voted on by anyone other that the SC judges who changed the  long standing state laws making it legal. SSM was voted on by the public in 11 states and as you know went down 11 zip. You better hope and pray abortion never gets on a ballot nationally, you would really hear from "silent majority".




> But how great will the impact be? The healthcare cost currently must be born by the taxpayers or the health insurance industry. After marriage, how will that change? 
> 
> A  some healthcare costs will be transferred from government programs to private healthcare companies. As a conservative, reducing government burden should be desirable to you.
> 
> B  some premiums will go from individual to family. How much more will it cost the healthcare industry? They may lose the revenue of individual premium amount less family premium amount, for those couples who get married out of 2% to 3% of the population, by your post statistics. Seems like a trivial amount, to me.


Since Gay Activist seeking increased funding for Aids research say that the medical cost of aids is in the billions - I think the impact could be considerable.




> Then why did you post:


Poor attempt to add some levity

Rep

----------


## chm2023

> If you want me to give up because "the majority has spoken", then please give up your "wacky ideas" regarding restricting a womans choice to terminate a pregnancy. The majority thinks this action is acceptable.


Spexman:  attached is a compilation of polls re abortion and Roe v Wade.  What's interesting is how the answers vary with the nuance of the question.  People overwhelmingly support Roe v Wade, are more evenly divided on the issue of their personal beliefs.  Which is what it comes down to in my view:  my values and whether I have the right (or need to!!) inflict them on you.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Educate me JANA
> 
> Point out EXACTLY what I have posted that is inaccurate about AIDS ! 
> 
> I AGREE with you! - AIDS effects EVERYONE and SSM would give approval to a lifestyle that has the potential to cause great harm to many more than it does now. You have further strengthened MY position. Thank You 
> 
> Rep


What I am trying to get convey is that you are NOT informed if you think that aids only affects the gay community. There are ALOT of straight folks out there that practice "risky aids related" activites! The post that I quoted from never said anything about aids relating to other demographics. That's why I posted that. 

And on another note.... did anyone ever think that MAYBE, just MAYBE that the percentages are higher in regard to aids and homosexuals because homosexual's are smaller in number? 

I also think that the topic of aids is irrelevant when discussing same-sex marriage. What's the point?

----------


## 1968

> No place have I infered that homosexuals as a group are predispositioned to pedophilia, only homosexual males.


You certainly implied it in post #41 when you said: _But my main reason weather you want to hear it or not, is that I do not approve or condone of the so called homosexual lifestyle. I like most Americans do not want persons who engage in homosexual acts as partners in their businesses, fellow employees, scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their childrens schools or boarders in their home. We view this as protecting ourselves and our families from a life style we believe is immoral and destructive. I really don't need any other reason than that and evidently neither do the majority who voted 11 zip against SSM._




> Use any web site you want and come up with a excuse for that. Half of the items posted on this and most boards are taken from some web site some where.


Rationalize it all you want. The fact remains that most honest people reference their citations, rather than sign their name after copying and pasting someone elses material as you did in post #71.




> Changing the category to make your statistics work isn't quit according to your statistical model either, is it. I was and am refering to boys and the Catholic church. That's a pretty strong arguement that your premise is wrong an that there is among homosexual males a predisposition towards pedophilia, like it or not.


Actually, my premise was that pedophilia is not synonymous with a lifestyle of homosexuality just as incest is not synonymous with a lifestyle of heterosexuality. Sexual abuse of children is a much, much wider problem than what has happened in the Catholic Church, so it is you who are parsing the statistics to fit your premise.




> Isn't it interesting that only those opposing religion, constantly use religion as a club.


Dont fabricate passive-aggressive assertions that I oppose religion.

----------


## coda

> SB 1234. Now, to be fair, I have not read it in it's entirety, just saved it so I could and then perhaps you and I can discuss it. My 12 year old has his last football game which I am on my way to so I will read it later. Look forward to your point of view! Go Cougars!


Well, I've now read it in its entirety. Unless your pastor is in the habit of calling on his parish to harm the life, limb or property of homosexuals then I don't think he has anything to be worried about. Whoever told you otherwise is at best a senseless alarmist, at worst.....well I'll leave you to decide. The specific sections of the bill you should read are Section 1 subsections (j) and (k) which amend Section 52.1 of the current Civil Code of the State of California.

----------


## rep

> What I am trying to get convey is that you are NOT informed if you think that aids only affects the gay community. There are ALOT of straight folks out there that practice "risky aids related" activites! The post that I quoted from never said anything about aids relating to other demographics. That's why I posted that. 
> 
> And on another note.... did anyone ever think that MAYBE, just MAYBE that the percentages are higher in regard to aids and homosexuals because homosexual's are smaller in number? 
> 
> I also think that the topic of aids is irrelevant when discussing same-sex marriage. What's the point?


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts.htm

877,370 cases and counting. Only 15% are by hetrosexual contact. 54% are from male to male contact. When you consider the small number of homosexual males in comparason to the general population the numbers are truly horrific.

SSM would ,by its very nature, cause an increase in Aids. 

Rep

----------


## coda

> SSM would ,by its very nature, cause an increase in Aids. 
> 
> Rep


That doesn't follow.  This would only be the case if SSM induced otherwise heterosexual men to become homosexual.  I don't think anyone is making that arguement.

Conversely there is a distinct possibility that SSM would decrease the AIDS rate among the homosexual male population by introducing a greater degree of monogomy.  

Finally I posit that SSM would reduce the AIDS rate in heterosexual women by reducing the number of homosexual men in heterosexual marriages.  Legalization of SSM would provide a degree of societal approval to their sexuallity thereby decreasing the number of homosexual men who enter into and maintain heterosexual relationships because they feel societal pressure to do so.  These men are likely the ones engaging in high risk behavior then bringing it 'home' to their wives.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts.htm
> 
> 877,370 cases and counting. Only 15% are by hetrosexual contact. 54% are from male to male contact. When you consider the small number of homosexual males in comparason to the general population the numbers are truly horrific.
> 
> SSM would ,by its very nature, cause an increase in Aids. 
> 
> Rep


What about the lesbians? They are homosexual too! SSM by nature would increase aids? Are you serious? Being in a MONOGOMOUS relationship will increase aids? What?

----------


## chm2023

Two rednecks decide they are not getting ahead in life and decide they need to go to college.

So Bubba and Cooter go off to school. On the first day Bubba goes to see his counselor and is asking about the various courses offered. 

"What's this course 'Logic'?

The counselor says, " Well logic is the study of...well perhaps I should use an example. Do you own a weedwacker?"

"Yep", replies Bubba.

"Well, logically I assume you have a lawn."

Bubba nods.

"Well, using logic, having a lawn, I assume you own a house."

"Wow", says Bubba, duly impressed.

"And" continues the counselor, "Since you own a house, I assume you have a wife".

"Right again!"

"And knowing you have a wife, I logically conclude you're a heterosexual".


"Goooollllllyyyyyyyy!!!"

Bubba rushes back to tell Cooter of his new found knowledge. Cooter is not impressed, "Logic? I dunno..."

"Well" counters Bubba. "Let me give you an example--do you own a weedwacker?"

Cooter shakes his head, "No."

Bubba: "You're queer, aintcha???"

----------


## rep

> What about the lesbians? They are homosexual too! SSM by nature would increase aids? Are you serious? Being in a MONOGOMOUS relationship will increase aids? What?


The statistics are broken down by sexual preference.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

The stats for females are 159,000 total out of 877,370 cases. Of these less than 10% are lesbians (74,436). The rest are hetrosexual females. I am not making this stuff up. Check it yourself.




> SSM by nature would increase aids? Are you serious? Being in a MONOGOMOUS relationship will increase aids? What?


Lets put it this way. 

If pot were legalized next week you can imply that people would smoke less weed, but its not likely. They would probably smoke the same amount, or more. The problems associated with smoking pot would increase also. 

What makes you think legalizing gay marriage would *decrease* the rampant multi partner gay lifestyle that is the major reason for the spread of aids today? Because they are now married?

IF they are MONOGOMOUS,how do you rationalize the statistics? They would be skewed to the hetrosexual side or the blood transfusion group. 

Rep

----------


## rep

Your saying that legalizing SSM would DECREASE the one particular sexual practice that is primarily responsible for aids in homosexual men? If these men are MONOGOMOUS as everybody claims they are, how do you explain the statistics. 




> That doesn't follow. This would only be the case if SSM induced otherwise heterosexual men to become homosexual. I don't think anyone is making that arguement.
> 
> Conversely there is a distinct possibility that SSM would decrease the AIDS rate among the homosexual male population by introducing a greater degree of monogomy.


See my post to Jana regarding legalising pot. 




> Finally I posit that SSM would reduce the AIDS rate in heterosexual women by reducing the number of homosexual men in heterosexual marriages. Legalization of SSM would provide a degree of societal approval to their sexuallity thereby decreasing the number of homosexual men who enter into and maintain heterosexual relationships because they feel societal pressure to do so. These men are likely the ones engaging in high risk behavior then bringing it 'home' to their wives.


Male to female transmission is only 10% of the total cases. A small percentage but a disaster for those women who are unaware of their husband's infidelity.

If you believe that most homosexual males are monogomous with their partners, then only a handfull of gay males are responsible for almost 900,000 cases of aids. The must be a busy busy group. 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm

Thank you for discussing this in a rational manner.

Rdp

----------


## rep

Interesting and well manered?




> There are too many interesting and well mannered folks on the Board for me to get caught up in this nonsense.


Interesting....

by the way only 1 out of six households in the US were asked about sexual preference. 5 out of six were not even asked.  


Rep

----------


## karen

> Well, I've now read it in its entirety. Unless your pastor is in the habit of calling on his parish to harm the life, limb or property of homosexuals then I don't think he has anything to be worried about. Whoever told you otherwise is at best a senseless alarmist, at worst.....well I'll leave you to decide. The specific sections of the bill you should read are Section 1 subsections (j) and (k) which amend Section 52.1 of the current Civil Code of the State of California.


Ok, printed it out and have read the parts you referenced and skimmed through the rest (man, who writes these things?  my eyes glaze over halfway through the 2nd page)  I agree that it seems alarmist to be concerned but I think things like this set precendents that allow further action to be taken later.  In Chapter 2 under section 422.6 section a it is worded in a way that allows an awful lot of leeway.  If any group (and I don't mean just homosexuals although that is what we are talking about here) feels "intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened"  it looks like action could be taken.  Who decides what is intimidating, interfering, oppressive or threatening?  Those things are subject to interpretation.  Some people are more sensitive than others and may take something the wrong way (which happens here all the time, have done it myself  :o )  To illustrate my point I liken it to my side of the aisle trying to outlaw late term abortions.  The people who are pro choice feel that would be the start of something that would pave the way for all abortions to be affected.  At first glance it seems not as bad as completely outlawing abortions but would likely set a precedent that the other side would take advantage of in trying to further their cause.  I know it is a bit of an extreme example but couldn't really think of another one.  I do agree that criminal actions should be punished and rightfully so.  I just worry that what is considered criminal may change in the face of political correctness and tolerance.

This thread has over 900 views and is obviously an issue we all feel strongly about but I feel the need to say something.  I have been visiting this board for quite a while now and really enjoy matching wits with people with different opinions.  There are people here from all over with very diverse beliefs and opinions.  Over the last few months things have gotten less and less friendly when we disagree and I wish that weren't so.  I know some of us are more outspoken than others and I certainly think we should all be able to talk about issues but somewhere along the line the friendliness and respect for others opinions seems to have faded away.  Don't know if anyone else agrees, you don't have to just thought it was worth pointing out

----------


## chm2023

> Ok, printed it out and have read the parts you referenced and skimmed through the rest (man, who writes these things? my eyes glaze over halfway through the 2nd page) I agree that it seems alarmist to be concerned but I think things like this set precendents that allow further action to be taken later. In Chapter 2 under section 422.6 section a it is worded in a way that allows an awful lot of leeway. If any group (and I don't mean just homosexuals although that is what we are talking about here) feels "intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened" it looks like action could be taken. Who decides what is intimidating, interfering, oppressive or threatening? Those things are subject to interpretation. Some people are more sensitive than others and may take something the wrong way (which happens here all the time, have done it myself :o ) To illustrate my point I liken it to my side of the aisle trying to outlaw late term abortions. The people who are pro choice feel that would be the start of something that would pave the way for all abortions to be affected. At first glance it seems not as bad as completely outlawing abortions but would likely set a precedent that the other side would take advantage of in trying to further their cause. I know it is a bit of an extreme example but couldn't really think of another one. I do agree that criminal actions should be punished and rightfully so. I just worry that what is considered criminal may change in the face of political correctness and tolerance.
> 
> This thread has over 900 views and is obviously an issue we all feel strongly about but I feel the need to say something. I have been visiting this board for quite a while now and really enjoy matching wits with people with different opinions. There are people here from all over with very diverse beliefs and opinions. Over the last few months things have gotten less and less friendly when we disagree and I wish that weren't so. I know some of us are more outspoken than others and I certainly think we should all be able to talk about issues but somewhere along the line the friendliness and respect for others opinions seems to have faded away. Don't know if anyone else agrees, you don't have to just thought it was worth pointing out


Amen sister!!  I have made a decision not to engage where the tone is unpleasant or aggressive.  Life is too short!:cheers:

----------


## chm2023

> Interesting and well manered?
> 
> Interesting....
> 
> by the way only 1 out of six households in the US were asked about sexual preference. 5 out of six were not even asked. 
> 
> 
> Rep


So of the 100 million HHs (or so) the data is based on _only_ about 15 million HHs. Gee, someone better tell the Census Bureau a thing or two about sample size and statistics!!!!:hammer:

And no I don't consider my joke either, titling it "tasteless" should have been a big hint.

----------


## EyeManFla

I repeat what I have said before, gays and lesbians should have the same right to get married and be miserable just like the rest of us poor slobs!:hammer:

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Your saying that legalizing SSM would DECREASE the one particular sexual practice that is primarily responsible for aids in homosexual men? If these men are MONOGOMOUS as everybody claims they are, how do you explain the statistics. 
> 
> See my post to Jana regarding legalising pot. 
> 
> Male to female transmission is only 10% of the total cases. A small percentage but a disaster for those women who are unaware of their husband's infidelity.
> 
> If you believe that most homosexual males are monogomous with their partners, then only a handfull of gay males are responsible for almost 900,000 cases of aids. The must be a busy busy group. 
> 
> http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm
> ...


So... you are saying that SSM will actually INCREASE aids transmission? Also, did you happen to see several posts up about the demographics of percentages? 

Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that your defiance with SSM dosen't really have anything to with Aids, if it did, then why have social services for aids lost funding? ( I am guessing that you oppose spending more for these programs) Please correct me if I am wrong.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Ok, printed it out and have read the parts you referenced and skimmed through the rest (man, who writes these things? my eyes glaze over halfway through the 2nd page) I agree that it seems alarmist to be concerned but I think things like this set precendents that allow further action to be taken later. In Chapter 2 under section 422.6 section a it is worded in a way that allows an awful lot of leeway. If any group (and I don't mean just homosexuals although that is what we are talking about here) feels "intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened" it looks like action could be taken. Who decides what is intimidating, interfering, oppressive or threatening? Those things are subject to interpretation. Some people are more sensitive than others and may take something the wrong way (which happens here all the time, have done it myself :o ) To illustrate my point I liken it to my side of the aisle trying to outlaw late term abortions. The people who are pro choice feel that would be the start of something that would pave the way for all abortions to be affected. At first glance it seems not as bad as completely outlawing abortions but would likely set a precedent that the other side would take advantage of in trying to further their cause. I know it is a bit of an extreme example but couldn't really think of another one. I do agree that criminal actions should be punished and rightfully so. I just worry that what is considered criminal may change in the face of political correctness and tolerance.
> 
> This thread has over 900 views and is obviously an issue we all feel strongly about but I feel the need to say something. I have been visiting this board for quite a while now and really enjoy matching wits with people with different opinions. There are people here from all over with very diverse beliefs and opinions. Over the last few months things have gotten less and less friendly when we disagree and I wish that weren't so. I know some of us are more outspoken than others and I certainly think we should all be able to talk about issues but somewhere along the line the friendliness and respect for others opinions seems to have faded away. Don't know if anyone else agrees, you don't have to just thought it was worth pointing out


karen-

I agree.... I guess it just goes to show you just how divided we have all become. No one will move an inch either way. This is what America is now. I hope we can come together at some point, but I don't think we ever will.

----------


## coda

> Ok, printed it out and have read the parts you referenced and skimmed through the rest (man, who writes these things? my eyes glaze over halfway through the 2nd page) I agree that it seems alarmist to be concerned but I think things like this set precendents that allow further action to be taken later. In Chapter 2 under section 422.6 section a it is worded in a way that allows an awful lot of leeway. If any group (and I don't mean just homosexuals although that is what we are talking about here) feels "intimidated, interfered with, oppressed, or threatened" it looks like action could be taken. Who decides what is intimidating, interfering, oppressive or threatening? Those things are subject to interpretation. Some people are more sensitive than others and may take something the wrong way (which happens here all the time, have done it myself :o )


Further down in the same section of the code it is stated: "However, no person may be convicted of violating subdivision (a) based upon speech alone, except upon a showing that the speech itself threatened violence against a specific person or group of persons and that the defendant had the apparent ability to carry out the threat."

There really isn't any leeway in any of these statements.  Beyond the face value of the new penal code there are also reems of case law stating that non-inciting speech can not be restricted.  So, as I said before, unless your pastor is in the habit of inciting violence against homosexuals he doesn't have anything to worry about**:o .

----------


## Spexvet

> This thread has over 900 views and is obviously an issue we all feel strongly about but I feel the need to say something. I have been visiting this board for quite a while now and really enjoy matching wits with people with different opinions. There are people here from all over with very diverse beliefs and opinions. Over the last few months things have gotten less and less friendly when we disagree and I wish that weren't so. I know some of us are more outspoken than others and I certainly think we should all be able to talk about issues but somewhere along the line the friendliness and respect for others opinions seems to have faded away. Don't know if anyone else agrees, you don't have to just thought it was worth pointing out


 I was so tempted to screw with you and just post "shut up".:p Some of us can disagree in a polite manner, but others just can't seem to stick to the issues, and feel that they must attack the speaker. I am embarrassed that I tend to respond in kind.

----------


## Monkeysee

I think a new forum should be started called "The All In The Family forum" where the Bigots (Archies), and the Meatheads (Mikes) can go at it all they want, and we Dingbats (Ediths) can just pop in an reply "oh my" once in awhile while the Little Girls (Glorias) whine:p 

I agree with EyeManFla on this issue, same sex partners have every right to be as miserable as other married folk;) !

----------


## coda

> I agree with EyeManFla on this issue, same sex partners have every right to be as miserable as other married folk;) !


Now, speaking as an unmarried heterosexual male, you certainly aren't putting a rosy hue on marriage.  If my girlfriend was more the marrying type I'm sure she'd be peeved with you for poisoning the pool, so to speak.  Good thing she's the shacking up type.

----------


## mrba

> And evidently you never picked up on the phrase in Statistics 101: Correlation does not equal causation.


Pedrhaps correlation means "good chance"?

----------


## 1968

> When the judicial branch origionates legislation or adds to the meaning of The Contstiution as written. The judicial branch becomes unimportant.


Agreed. But the Judicial Branch does not originate legislation or add to the meaning of The Constituion.




> Next comes the question, should one obey an unjust law because "It's the Law".
> 
> No.


That depends on a large context of information... what is the law, what is the punishment for getting caught if I disobey it, am I objectively certain that the law is unjust (or do I just want it to be unjust), is it possible to change the law by convincing those who think it is just that it really is unjust, etc, etc.

----------


## 1968

> Pedrhaps correlation means "good chance"?


It doesn't.

Here is one example that demonstrates the fallacy of "correlation equals causation": The number of churches in a community is correlated with the amount of crime in a community. The more churches there are, the more crime there is. Hence, churches cause crime. (Alternatively, there is a "good chance" that churches cause crime.)

----------


## rep

> So... you are saying that SSM will actually INCREASE aids transmission? Also, did you happen to see several posts up about the demographics of percentages? 
> 
> Actually, I have a sneaking suspicion that your defiance with SSM dosen't really have anything to with Aids, if it did, then why have social services for aids lost funding? ( I am guessing that you oppose spending more for these programs) Please correct me if I am wrong.


SSM will increase aids transmission, simply by it's very nature. 
Yes I did see those percentages and I trust the CDC's data on cases, rather than demographics of percentages.

On the contrary I do support the increase in funding for aids both gobally and here in the US. I don't know where you get the idea that social services for aids have lost funding. The administrations current program has not cut funding and the 2005 proposals call for increases in funding in all categories. 


Rep

----------


## rep

> Some of us can disagree in a polite manner, but others just can't seem to *stick to the issues*, and feel that they must *attack the speaker*. I am embarrassed that I tend to respond in kind.


*You are absolutely the ultimate pot calling the kettle black.*

In post number 4 you introduce the abortion issue.

In post number 12 you introduce the war in Iraq and Haliburton.

In post number 13 you admit your trying to enrage conservatives.

In post number 14 you accuse all Americans of having closed minds. 

In post number 20 you disparage another member implying his being uncomfortable does not hurt him. 

In post number 21 you bring up the clinton health care proposal. 

In post number 26 you call my statement a wild assumption and bring in the bible. You continue by saying my reasons are irrational and state that I want to force my morals on others.

In post number 32 you knock my spelling, say there is no reason to support my opinion, imply that the bible or W instructs me to oppose SSM and state that I don't know the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.

It continues on and on....................

You were the instigator in this thread from the beginning. You should be embarrased. You achieved your goal. 

Rep

----------


## karen

> I was so tempted to screw with you and just post "shut up".:p Some of us can disagree in a polite manner, but others just can't seem to stick to the issues, and feel that they must attack the speaker. I am embarrassed that I tend to respond in kind.


Actually, I thought you might be tempted but I think we know each other well enough now that I would have been able to see that you were giving me a hard time.  
 :cheers:

----------


## chip anderson

In 11 or so states that voted on this issure SSM failed by a margin of 10-1.  I am sure that if the other states vote on this the margin will be the same (except in Mass and California, and Vermont).  So why waste keystrokes, it ain't gonna happen in this country in our lifetimes.

----------


## chm2023

> In 11 or so states that voted on this issure SSM failed by a margin of 10-1. I am sure that if the other states vote on this the margin will be the same (except in Mass and California, and Vermont). So why waste keystrokes, it ain't gonna happen in this country in our lifetimes.


Actually in Mississippi the measure was approved by 86%, much lower approval in other states with Oregon being about 54 to 46 as I recall.  These measures banned SS marriage, not civil unions.  Civil unions, as you would imagine, are much more broadly supported.  Such a fuss. :Confused:

----------


## Spexvet

> In post number 4 you introduce the abortion issue.


Reference to abortion was not off-topic, it was in support of my point.




> In post number 12 you introduce the war in Iraq and Haliburton.


Reference to Haliburton used to illustrate that discomfort is no reason to deprive someone of their civil liberties




> In post number 13 you admit your trying to enrage conservatives.


Do you have a sense of humor at all??




> In post number 14 you accuse all Americans of having closed minds.


Are you saying Americans have an open mind, when it comes to SSM??




> In post number 20 you disparage another member implying his being uncomfortable does not hurt him.


It doesnt. It causes him no pain, no loss of privelage, assets, civil rights, property, self-esteem, etc. It does not hurt him!




> In post number 21 you bring up the clinton health care proposal.


When mrba makes the assertion that SSM will hurt the health care system, of course I must point out that part of the problem with the health care system could have been resolved by the Clintons.




> In post number 26 you call my statement a wild assumption and bring in the bible. You continue by saying my reasons are irrational and state that I want to force my morals on others.


Again, the reference to the bible was to illustrate that your point didnt make sense. I thought I did it in a civil way. Your reasons stated in post #24 were not based on facts. Read your post, Im sure youll agree. And by prohibiting SSM, you DO want to force your morals on others. Imagine if I forced you to marry someone of your own gender  would that be forcing my morals on you? Thats the other side of the same coin.




> In post number 32 you knock my spelling, say there is no reason to support my opinion, imply that the bible or W instructs me to oppose SSM and state that I don't know the difference between pedophilia and homosexuality.


I apologize for knocking your spelling. I admitted that I respond "in kind". You tried to belittle me with your comments. I did not use my manners when I responded to your post :

"But I am sure, at least in your own mind, your much smarter than they are. 

It's quite obvious that any reason you don't personally agree with is an "irrational" reason in your totally objective little world. 

Let's take a peek into your model of political correctness and see if you really are advocating everything you seem to profess ad nauseam." 

Do you see how your tone in these statements might bring a nasty response?

Now, can we get back on topic?
Other than your AIDS concern, do have other reasons to justify discrimination against homosexuals?

----------


## coda

> SSM will increase aids transmission, simply by it's very nature.


You've said this repeatedly but have yet to justify it with a cogent arguement. Maybe that would be a good place for you to start.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> SSM will increase aids transmission, simply by it's very nature. 
> Yes I did see those percentages and I trust the CDC's data on cases, rather than demographics of percentages.
> 
> On the contrary I do support the increase in funding for aids both gobally and here in the US. I don't know where you get the idea that social services for aids have lost funding. The administrations current program has not cut funding and the 2005 proposals call for increases in funding in all categories. 
> 
> 
> Rep


Rep-

Read it and weep! 

www.nbc4.com/news/3685986/deta... | Save

The USA is not doing enough to help the spread of aids. 

Essentially, your thoughts in a nutshell: ( from what I gather ) 

Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because:  

a:It's  against Christianity

b: It will increase the spread of aids

c: You are uncomfortable with it. 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

----------


## Jana Lewis

Rep-


Here's another link just incase you don't care for the first one. 

There are several more if you would like me to provide you. 

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi... | Save

----------


## mrba

> It doesn't.
> 
> Here is one example that demonstrates the fallacy of "correlation equals causation": The number of churches in a community is correlated with the amount of crime in a community. The more churches there are, the more crime there is. Hence, churches cause crime. (Alternatively, there is a "good chance" that churches cause crime.)


There are those that would say that churches are a causality of crime.  They are often broken into, burned, of graffittied.  On occation their clergy are involved in some some sort of sexual misgivings...

However I didn't say I disagreed with the misnomer that "correlation equals causation".  

I stand by "correlation means there is a chance."  Especially when is comes to homosexuality and pedophilia, or pederasty.

----------


## mrba

I must commend you. In this thread you have been accused of being nasty, having a negative tone, attacking others, and posting things that are incorrrect. All of which are false accusations. I must admit I just don't have the stamina to take on those of that persuation anymore.

Keep it up.

----------


## Spexvet

> I must commend you. In this thread you have been accused of being nasty, having a negative tone, attacking others, and posting things that are incorrrect. All of which are false accusations. I must admit I just don't have the stamina to take on those of that persuation anymore.
> 
> Keep it up.


You are entitled to your opinion.

----------


## mrba

As long as an offensive post is an opinion, I rest my case.

----------


## 1968

> I stand by "correlation means there is a chance."


Stand by it then.  I'm not about to argue with you about basic statistical concepts.

----------


## mrba

How does one argue about correlation?  I suppose since it doesn't mean anything, people who look for one are looking in the wrong place?  The whole concept should be thrrown out then.


Correlation means there is a chance.

----------


## Joann Raytar

> * correlation 
> 
> 1 : the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone <the obviously high positive correlation between scholastic aptitude and college entrance -- J. B. Conant>
> *




On the subject of correlation, regarding any subject matter, mrba could be correct unless non-correlation is tested.

Also pertaining to correlation fallacies, perhaps _Post hoc ergo propter hoc,_ would be more appropriate to our discussion in this thread. ( Of course, I could be wrong; it's been a long time since I've actually had to think about official terms for logic.)

----------


## 1968

> On the subject of correlation, regarding any subject matter, mrba could be correct unless non-correlation is tested.


It sounds like you are saying there is a correlation between two variables unless you test to determine that there is not a correlation between two variables. Please rephrase because that doesn't make any sense to me. What is true is that correlation is necessary for causation, but correlation does not equal causation. [See aforemention example regarding the correlation between the number of churches in a community and the amount of crime in a community. Alternatively, insert "ice cream sales" for "churches".]




> Also pertaining to correlation fallacies, perhaps _Post hoc ergo propter hoc,_ would be more appropriate to our discussion in this thread. ( Of course, I could be wrong; it's been a long time since I've actually had to think about official terms for logic.)


No, you are right. "Correlation does not equal causation" is precisely why "after the fact therefore because of the fact" is a fallacy. Both phrases are relevant to the discussion.

----------


## Joann Raytar

> It sounds like you are saying there is a correlation between two variables unless you test to determine that there is not a correlation between two variables. Please rephrase because that doesn't make any sense to me. What is true is that correlation is necessary for causation, but correlation does not equal causation. [See aforemention example regarding the correlation between the number of churches in a community and the amount of crime in a community. Alternatively, insert "ice cream sales" for "churches".]


Correlation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to make causal inferences with reasonable confidence. Also necessary is an appropriate method of data collection. To make such causal inferences one must gather the data by experimental means, controlling extraneous variables which might confound the results. Having gathered the data in this fashion, if one can establish that the experimentally manipulated variable is correlated with the dependent variable (and that correlation does not need to be linear), then one should be (somewhat) comfortable in making a causal inference. That is, when the data have been gathered by experimental means and confounds have been eliminated, correlation does imply causation ...

... "imply." Today this word is used most often to mean "to hint" or "to suggest" rather than "to have as a necessary part." Accordingly, I argue that correlation does imply (hint at) causation, even when the correlation is observed in data not collected by experimental means. Of course, with nonexperimental models, the potential causal explanations of the observed correlation between X and Y must include models that involve additional variables and which differ with respect to which events are causes and which effects.

I guess I mean you must test both observational and experimental hypothesis. Again, I might be way off here.  Reading through this thread and looking at the numbers we've posted, we have been making observations so mrba may be correct.  Does anyone have references to actual cause & effect statistics?

Question,would the AIDS epidemic have happened no matter which group was affected first?

----------


## mrba

> Question,would the AIDS epidemic have happened no matter which group was affected first?


Well in the end I suppose we all do each other.

Why does one bring up the chicken or the egg Jo Jo?

----------


## Jacqui

> [color=black]Question,would the AIDS epidemic have happened no matter which group was affected first?


Probably.

----------


## Joann Raytar

> Why does one bring up the chicken or the egg Jo Jo?


You are starting to know me too well - I take it you already know where I wanted to go with this.

----------


## 1968

> Correlation is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to make causal inferences with reasonable confidence. Also necessary is an appropriate method of data collection. To make such causal inferences one must gather the data by experimental means, controlling extraneous variables which might confound the results. Having gathered the data in this fashion, if one can establish that the experimentally manipulated variable is correlated with the dependent variable (and that correlation does not need to be linear), then one should be (somewhat) comfortable in making a causal inference. That is, when the data have been gathered by experimental means and confounds have been eliminated, correlation does imply causation ...





> ... "imply." Today this word is used most often to mean "to hint" or "to suggest" rather than "to have as a necessary part." Accordingly, I argue that correlation does imply (hint at) causation, even when the correlation is observed in data not collected by experimental means. Of course, with nonexperimental models, the potential causal explanations of the observed correlation between X and Y must include models that involve additional variables and which differ with respect to which events are causes and which effects.




Those are not your words, Jo. Please cite your references when copying and pasting information because referencing the source [ http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/StatHelp/Correlation-Causation.htm ] will allow others to see those comments in full context.




> I guess I mean you must test both observational and experimental hypothesis. Again, I might be way off here. Reading through this thread and looking at the numbers we've posted, we have been making observations so mrba may be correct.




mrba said correlation means there is a chance. That article does not support that definition of correlation.

----------


## rep

> Reference to abortion was not off-topic, it was in support of my point.
> 
> Reference to Haliburton used to illustrate that discomfort is no reason to deprive someone of their civil liberties
> 
> Do you have a sense of humor at all??
> 
> Are you saying Americans have an open mind, when it comes to SSM??
> 
> It doesnt. It causes him no pain, no loss of privelage, assets, civil rights, property, self-esteem, etc. It does not hurt him!
> ...


You posted negative comment seven times in post 1 thru 30 attacking any opinion other than your own including mine. Only after post after post did I respond negatively to you in the statements above in post #31. 

By the way if all of your personal sidetracks are on topics exactly what post were your refering to when you stated to Karen that "others just can't stick to the issues"? ( I personally can't relate abortion to SSM since it's pretty difficult for that group to get pregnant.)

Finally back on topic - Nope - Trends of the liberal court, health care insurance cost and an increase in aids. 

Rep

----------


## rep

> Rep-





> Read it and weep! 
> 
> www.nbc4.com/news/3685986/deta... | Save
> 
> The USA is not doing enough to help the spread of aids. 
> 
> Essentially, your thoughts in a nutshell: ( from what I gather ) 
> 
> Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry because: 
> ...




Your reference is not truthful, nor an accurate picture of what transpired. 


The reference from NBC4 states that Aids funding for prevention programs have been cut in Washington, DC by $1,000,000. 



The second reference you quote is from the San Francisco Chronicle. It is much more enlightening and gives hints of the real story. It states that:

The cuts in question were Ryan White care grants. 
He said they expected a cut of 5%.
It also stated that there was a 17.5% increase in New York City.
It also states that Sacramento's new grant nears $3 million, an increase of almost 12 percent.Conclusion  while these are cuts in these specific citys programs they are *not* overall cuts in Aids funding. As stated in the article these allocations of aids funds are determined by how a particular citys needs stack up against other citys needs. There is an application process and the allocation is based on need. There was a 5 million dollar decrease in the Ryan White care grants that now total 595 million dollars. My further research shows that the 5 million dollars was reallocated from programs that prevent aids, to programs that identify those who have aids, but are unaware that they have aids. They feel this is a better method of preventing transmission than just preventive programs alone.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/07/26/MN260306.DTL

http://www.hivdent.org/publicp/ppFTHF042004.htm

I also happen to believe this was election year politics in two democratic cities and with grandstanding by Nancy P and Barbara Boxer to boot. Naturally the managers of those programs in those cities are upset they just lost part of their federal funding. . It is also typical liberal thinking; if you reallocate funds from one program to another your cutting funding , especially if youre a democrat and there is a republican in the white house. 

You are *incorrect* on how I personally feel on this subject.
I feel that SSM would continue the trend already set for by the liberal courts that overturned long standing state laws on deviate sexual activity in the name of privacy. SSM is a continuation of that trend and will support the radical elements of the gay rights movement who want to allow further relaxation of standards including sex with minors, adult incest, polygamy and others in the name of privacy rightsI believe based on current domestic partner insurance rates that SSM would increase the cost of health care for everyone, to catastrophic levels.I believe that SSM would increase the transmission rate of aids in both the homosexual and heterosexual population by legalizing a previously illegal sexual practice that has the highest transmission rate of all and has contributed to almost 500.000 cases of aids in the US.As I stated previously, the only individuals bringing religion into this discussion are those who are opposed to religion. Nowhere have I referenced religion as a reason to oppose SSM. 

Rep

----------


## Joann Raytar

> Please cite your references when copying and pasting information


Oops, sorry - I normally do. The same info and definitions are listed so many places I guess I figured folks would know they weren't my words.





> mrba said correlation means there is a chance. That article does not support that definition of correlation.


Then I have indeed gotten lost in the terminology. Let me rewind and then you will have to let me know if you don't get what I am saying.

Rep posted data regarding the subject of pedophilia being linked to homosexuality. You posted the article stating gender specificiations regarding abuse and mentioned Correlation does not equal causation." Mrba then wrote perhaps correlation means "good chance". I read the dialogue between the three of you folks and thought that the same arguments could be applied to a number of topics in this thread.

Folks are posting that a number of medical and social diseases are directly related to the homosexual community and that equal rights would create the downfall of society. We've gone as far as posting that pedophilia might be some type of premeditated diabolical plot on the part of a good portion of the population.

Setting opinion aside, I am trying to find or get someone here to post actual scientific, controlled studies. I say mrba may be correct based on what we have discussed here. There is a chance unless someone has information that proves other connections or disproves what we perceive to be connections between cause and effect relationships. In other words, emotionally, I can say something sounds ridiculous but how do I prove it with data.

----------


## Joann Raytar

I was going to stay out of this one as far as stating an opinion goes - too hard to remain unbiased and unemotional once you put your own thoughts on the table but...


> How does same gender marriage hurt you?
> 
> It's not for everyone, but neither is opera, and we don't try to outlaw that, do we? I know people are offended by homosexuality (male or female), but how does it negatively effect you, personnally?


Personnally, same gender marriage doesn't hurt me. I'm straight but I understand why marriage is important for so many.

I view marriage and many other issues affecting the gay community as a modern civil rights movement so I understand why emotion runs so deep for both sides of the argument. I undertstand the longing for equal treatment and I understand the fear regarding what those equal rights means for others.

I found this to be a rather interesting article that I believe puts a very human face on most of the issues we are discussing:


> *On the Outside Looking In* 
> Becky Harding 
> 17 August 2003First UU Church of Austin, Texashttp://www.austinuu.org 
> *SERMON* 
> "Atticus stood up and walked to the end of the porch. When he completed his examination of the wisteria vine, he strolled back to me. 
> First of all, he said, if you can learn a simple trick, Scout, you'll get along a lot better with all kinds of folks. You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view - until you climb into his skin and walk around in it." 
> It's 1:28 a.m. on Wednesday, April 23rd and I am sitting in chamber room 105 at the state capitol building and I am thinking about this passage from Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. I am waiting to testify against a house bill that, if passed, would remove all foster children from the homes of any person deemed homosexual. Earlier in the evening, state representative Robert Talton introduced this legislation and actually said that the children of gays and lesbians would be better off in orphanages than in their homes. I am sincerely trying to understand things from his point of view but failing miserably. 
> Weeks later, I am reading Reason for Hope, by Jane Goodall and I stumble on a possible explanation for Mr. Talton's attitudes. Goodall suggests that "cultural speciation in humans meansthat the members of one group, the in-group, see themselves as different from members of another group, the out-group. In its extreme form, cultural speciation leads to the dehumanizing of out-group members, so that they may come to be regarded almost as members of a different species. This frees group members from the inhibitions and social sanctions that operate within the group and enables them to direct acts toward those others which would not be tolerated within the group. Slavery and torture at one end of the scale, ridicule and ostracism at the other." 
> This certainly helps me understand why Mr. Talton, as chimpanzees for thousands of years before him, feels the need to figuratively twist my arms. His legislation failed, by the way. When asked what do gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people have in common, transgender professor Jenny Finney responded, "We all can get beat up by the same people." Dehumanizing indeed. 
> ...

----------


## 1968

> You posted the article stating gender specificiations regarding abuse and mentioned Correlation does not equal causation." Mrba then wrote perhaps correlation means "good chance".


Yes, nothing against mrba personally but I disagree with that particular comment. In post #132 you posted what correlation specifically means, and it does not mean good chance.




> Setting opinion aside, I am trying to find or get someone here to post actual scientific, controlled studies. I say mrba may be correct based on what we have discussed here.


I understand that you are trying to move on to a study that shows A causes B, but discussing causality prior to understanding the definition of correlation is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. You can say that mrbas definition of correlation in post #114 is correct (i.e. that it means good chance), just note that it contradicts the definition that you supplied in post #132 (i.e. that it means a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone).




> There is a chance unless someone has information that proves other connections or disproves what we perceive to be connections between cause and effect relationships.


There is a chance of what unless someone has information that proves other connections or disproves what we perceive to be connections between cause and effect relationships?

----------


## Jana Lewis

I am "stealing" this from a political blog I go too. This pretty much sums it up for me... in the end, we are all simply HUMAN. 


I look forward to the day......

...when we will be free to walk down the streets without being called "faggot" or "queer" or "dyke". When we can hold hands in public without fearing for our safety.

I look forward to the day when we can go to work and do our jobs without being called names. When we are not told we are flaunting our sexuality by putting up a picture of our husbands and wives or telling the truth about what we did on the weekend.

I look forward to the day when we will be free to attend school without teachers blaming us for AIDS, students taunting us for being "effeminate" and having to listen to principals excuse students for using "Gay" to mean "stupid".

I look forward to the day when we will be able to bring our husbands and wives into this country without having to tell the Immigration officials that they are just "friends". When we will be able to move from state to state without losing our rights. When we do not have to move to another country to find acceptance.

I look forward to the day when talking about family values includes our families. When Gay sons and Lesbian daughters are not thrown out of the house for who they love. When Transgendered men and women are allowed to live proudly without being mocked or abused on freakish talk shows.

I look forward to the day when politicians stop using our lives as a tool to incite hatred. When even the "supportive" politicians are no longer willing to abandon us for the sake of political expediency. 

Finally, I look forward to the day when all Americans understand that we are their sons and daughters and aunts and uncles and cousins and mothers and fathers, and teachers and doctors and ministers and farmers, and immigrants and we deserve equality.

----------


## Judy Canty

Wonderfully said, Jana.  Thank you.

----------


## ziggy

To quote the sermon that Jo posted "acceptance came in small doses over time" This line jumped out at me. In days of old, people would ingest small amounts of poison to build up an immunity, most of the time it would work, but there was those times that too much was taken. I hope for the sake of our G&L friends they can find peace. I just cant help but feel that we our posioning ourselves.:( 

Spexvet, good topic!

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet, good topic!


Thank you. Always my pleasure to entertain.:cheers: 

Spexvet

----------


## Jacqui

Beautiful Jana, as a transsexual/lesbian/grandmother I would like to see my grandchildren grow up in a society like the one described.

----------


## Spexvet

After reading Jo's and Jana's posts, how can you not get it - these people are just that: people. And they should have the same rights and privelages that heterosexual people get. To do anything else would be discriminatory.

Spexvet

----------


## Spexvet

> Anyone who thinks that gay marriage can become the law of the land without eventually leading to polygamy and family members being allowed to marry as well is just kidding himself/herself.
> Rep


By this rationale, do you think that the freedom to worship religion in any way you want will eventually lead to the legalization of human sacrifice?

----------


## chip anderson

Spexvet:

It has, it's called abortion.

Chip

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet:
> 
>  It has, it's called abortion.
> 
>  Chip


 That's a religious rite? Well, I'll be....

----------


## Shutterbug

It is choice behavior, not genetics.  I say that because of the huge increase in recent years of this practice.  If it had been as prevalent in times past, it could not be concealed, as it can't now.  If it is choice, why does the rest of the world have to "accept" it?  Do we accept the person who enjoys sex with children?  Even if there is "mutual love"?  Or the person who likes to do it with corpses?  There are many kinky desires that come into the heart.  Sorry folks, but this "ultra conservative" thinks it belongs in the closet.  Keep it to yourself and don't flaunt it at me.  It's hard to watch society deteriorate in so many many ways.  I long for "the good old days"  but know they are lost forever.

----------


## Spexvet

> It is choice behavior, not genetics. I say that because of the huge increase in recent years of this practice. .


When did you "decide" to be heterosexual?:hammer: 




> If it had been as prevalent in times past, it could not be concealed, as it can't now. .


Ever wonder why it's called "Greek"? Because it was prevalent in ancient Greece.




> If it is choice, why does the rest of the world have to "accept" it?


You don't have to "accept" it. You should "tolerate" it and give our homosexual citzen the same rights and privelages that our heterosexual citizens get. 




> Do we accept the person who enjoys sex with children? Even if there is "mutual love"? .


There is a line drawn for everything. We allow nicotine and alcohol, but not marijuana, cocaine or herion. I think we can successfully draw the line for this issue, too. 




> Or the person who likes to do it with corpses? .


I don't hear anybody complaining, so to speak.;) 




> There are many kinky desires that come into the heart. .


You devil, you! :Rolleyes:  




> Sorry folks, but this "ultra conservative" thinks it belongs in the closet. Keep it to yourself and don't flaunt it at me. .


Then you shouldn't flaunt your heterosexuality at homosexuals.:p 




> It's hard to watch society deteriorate in so many many ways. I long for "the good old days" but know they are lost forever.


"The good old days" when we lived and let live? :idea:

----------


## Jacqui

> Ever wonder why it's called "Greek"? Because it was prevalent in ancient Greece.


Also very common in Rome, Egypt and several other popular spots

----------


## chm2023

> It is choice behavior, not genetics. I say that because of the huge increase in recent years of this practice. If it had been as prevalent in times past, it could not be concealed, as it can't now. If it is choice, why does the rest of the world have to "accept" it? Do we accept the person who enjoys sex with children? Even if there is "mutual love"? Or the person who likes to do it with corpses? There are many kinky desires that come into the heart. Sorry folks, but this "ultra conservative" thinks it belongs in the closet. Keep it to yourself and don't flaunt it at me. It's hard to watch society deteriorate in so many many ways. I long for "the good old days" but know they are lost forever.


It is not choice (who would choose this????  Read this thread and see what sort of attitudes prevail re homosexuals.  You think people want this????).  The "huge increase" is due to people being more open.  Of course it was concealed in the past.  Read about Oscar Wilde--his openness was a huge scandal and cost him his career and health, not to mention time in jail.  All to say there was a great incentive to stay in the closet.

----------


## Shutterbug

Well, my previous post certainly got response  :0)

The original question asked for opinion, and I gave mine honestly.  Morality is ours to decide only if there is no higher law.  I just happen to think that there is, and nature in itself seems to show what the parts are for, and how they should be used by their owners.  Anything apart from that is a deviation away from natural law.  I guess I do choose to obey that law.  And you have the choice too.

:idea:

----------


## jediron1

chm 2023 said:It is not choice (who would choose this???? Read this thread and see what sort of attitudes prevail re homosexuals. You think people want this????). The "huge increase" is due to people being more open. Of course it was concealed in the past. Read about Oscar Wilde--his openness was a huge scandal and cost him his career and health, not to mention time in jail. All to say there was a great incentive to stay in the closet.

I don't care about Oscar Wilde, maybe as you said he should have stayed in the closet.

Shutterbug said:Well, my previous post certainly got response :0)

The original question asked for opinion, and I gave mine honestly. Morality is ours to decide only if there is no higher law. I just happen to think that there is, and nature in itself seems to show what the parts are for, and how they should be used by their owners. Anything apart from that is a deviation away from natural law. I guess I do choose to obey that law. And you have the choice too.

Parts are there for a purpose. There is an entrance and an exit for very good reasons. And I agree, deviation away from the God given law is not right because there is no higher law than GODS!

----------


## For-Life

> Parts are there for a purpose. There is an entrance and an exit for very good reasons. And I agree, deviation away from the God given law is not right because there is no higher law than GODS!


But you are not God.  Let God pass his/her judgment and take care of it himself.  Additionally, the last time I checked the United States of America had a seperation of church and State.  

Sometimes when I come to this place I feel like I am watching an episode of All in the Family.

----------


## chip anderson

U.S. does not have separation of church and state.  The constitution says the government cannot establish a state religion.  Does not prohibit church and church people from interfering with the government.   There have been some courts who have attempted to write laws (not within thier legal limits) that furthered the concept, but they were outside thier bounds attempting to do so.

Chip

Remember the Supreme Court is not located in Washington.

----------


## coda

> Anything apart from that is a deviation away from natural law.


This is an interesting point, mostly because there are a number of common examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom.  The most striking is in bonobos, a sub species of chimp with the DNA that most closely matches that of humans.  There are many others including species of lizard, fish, rodents as well as man's best friend the canine.

My understanding of current generally accepted Christian theology is that only humans have free will (in the theological sense).  Therefor, at least among bonobos and a variety of other species, homosexuallity is in line with 'natural law'.  I wonder how this is reconciled.

----------


## Jacqui

> Sometimes when I come to this place I feel like I am watching an episode of All in the Family.


I  agree.  :)

----------


## jediron1

For-Life said:Sometimes when I come to this place I feel like I am watching an episode of All in the Family.

The only reason you feel like your watching an episode of "All in The Family" is because your writing is more like the character of Archie Bunker, and that is more than you want to admit. :Cool:

----------


## jediron1

Coda said:This is an interesting point, mostly because there are a number of common examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. The most striking is in bonobos, a sub species of chimp with the DNA that most closely matches that of humans. There are many others including species of lizard, fish, rodents as well as man's best friend the canine.

This is the same inane argument that people have been trying to make since Darwin. Come on I thought you guys had more brains then to think a monkey fell out of a tree, broke his tail off from the fall, stood upright and started walking on his evolutionary tail. Oh I forgot, then once there tail was broken off they figured out how to talk and write. Come on even the village idiot would not believe that tale. Even with the best computer knowledge today taking a monkey and teaching him at most 300 words which he translates back by computer usage and flash cards, that is only accomplished with the best training in monkeyology and not the evolutionary hog wash that most people want to believe !:hammer:

----------


## For-Life

> For-Life said:Sometimes when I come to this place I feel like I am watching an episode of All in the Family.
> 
> The only reason you feel like your watching an episode of "All in The Family" is because your writing is more like the character of Archie Bunker, and that is more than you want to admit.


Yep, because you know me and everything.

----------


## 1968

> U.S. does not have separation of church and state. The constitution says the government cannot establish a state religion. Does not prohibit church and church people from interfering with the government.


Haven't we been over this earlier in the thread? Again, the Constitution does NOT say: Government cannot establish a state religion. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Everyone has their own opinion on what that means but for all intents and purposes the only opinion that really counts in the United States is the one defined in Article III of the Constitution... that of the Supreme Court. And what the Supreme Court has said is this: [T]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.




> There have been some courts who have attempted to write laws (not within thier legal limits) that furthered the concept, but they were outside thier bounds attempting to do so.


People typically say the Supreme Court is overstepping their bounds or attempting to write law in situations in which they disagree with the Court's decisions. Well, tough. Those people should take it up with the framers of the Constitution if they dont like it because the framers are the ones that gave the power to interpret and make rulings on laws (i.e. judicial power) to the Supreme Court (see Article III of the Constitution).




> Remember the Supreme Court is not located in Washington.


The Supreme Court Building is not located in the State of Washington, but it is certainly located in Washington DC... about one or two blocks east of the Capitol Building last I checked. More important than the physical location of the Court, the powers granted by the Constitution to the Judicial Branch are as vital to our system of government as are those granted to the Executive and Legislative Branches.

----------


## jediron1

1968 said:People typically say the Supreme Court is overstepping their bounds or attempting to write law in situations in which they disagree with the Court's decisions. Well, tough. Those people should take it up with the framers of the Constitution if they dont like it because the framers are the ones that gave the power to interpret and make rulings on laws (i.e. judicial power) to the Supreme Court (see Article III of the Constitution).


"Well Tough" The problem with YOUR little scenario is that you think everybody agrees with you. Come on get a grip. The problem the Supreme Court and other branches have is they are trying to interpert what the framers said through there minds instead of gathering documents from people like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Ben Franklin ect.ect. and comparing those papers and see exactly what the framers intent were, not someone's interpertation of what the framers thought or were thinking.  :Cool:

----------


## chip anderson

1968:

You missed the point, the Supreme Court of the United States is not Supreme.  There are two higher courts with one of them being supreme.
The court of public opinion is higher if it makes its wishes heard loud enough.
The next court is the judgement of the Almighty and it is Supreme and it is not in Washington, D.C.

----------


## Shutterbug

> This is an interesting point, mostly because there are a number of common examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. The most striking is in bonobos, a sub species of chimp with the DNA that most closely matches that of humans. There are many others including species of lizard, fish, rodents as well as man's best friend the canine.
> 
> My understanding of current generally accepted Christian theology is that only humans have free will (in the theological sense). Therefor, at least among bonobos and a variety of other species, homosexuallity is in line with 'natural law'. I wonder how this is reconciled.


Yes, there is evidence of this bahavior in animals (although in fewer numbers than humans);)  But as you said, we have free will and intellect.  While animals are driven by in inherent instinct which drives their need to reproduce, we humans have the ability to contemplate, decide and control our behaviors.  Surely we don't want to use the "animals do it, so it must be OK" argument.  

The traditional family arrangement is under attack, and we are doing little to preserve it.  Yes, this is a moral issue.  Animals are amoral.  Humans can be immoral or can choose to be moral.  Some of you younger ones have not witnessed the moral decline, and what you see around you seems normal to you because you have no comparisons.  But what I've seen tells me the human family is morally bankrupt and digressing to lower and lower standards of conduct all the time.  It's dangerous and depressing at the same time.

What we are seeing in this thread underscores how easily we condone what is dangerous to us in the name of tolerance.

----------


## 1968

> 1968:





> You missed the point, the Supreme Court of the United States is not Supreme. There are two higher courts with one of them being supreme.
> The court of public opinion is higher if it makes its wishes heard loud enough.
> The next court is the judgement of the Almighty and it is Supreme and it is not in Washington, D.C.


Sorry, Chip. I did indeed miss the point you were making. I plead guilty to missing the equivocation and relying on the correct usage of proper nouns (i.e. Supreme Court vs. supreme court). *wink*

Regarding "the court of public opinion": As part of the "government of the people, by the people, and for the people", I would agree that the Judicial Branch is ultimately a tool of the people.

Regarding "the court of the Almighty": Fortunately we don't live in a theocracy, nor were the framers of the Constitution referring to the Almighty when they wrote: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court."

----------


## shanbaum

> What we are seeing in this thread underscores how easily we condone what is dangerous to us in the name of tolerance.


You bet Ill condone what is dangerous to us in the name of tolerance. Consider the alternative... although, I rather doubt you can. Your comments reveal a willingness to promote the legal suppression of the activities of persons, of whose choices you do not approve. I understand that you would say your disapproval is mandated by the disapproval of Almighty God, for whom you presume to speak.


Unfortunately, youre wrong. God speaks only to me, and the people who agree with me. He has told us that we must smite you - you, and your fellow evil-doers.


Sorry, its nothing personal.

----------


## Spexvet

> Well, my previous post certainly got response :0)
> 
> The original question asked for opinion, and I gave mine honestly. Morality is ours to decide only if there is no higher law. I just happen to think that there is, and nature in itself seems to show what the parts are for, and how they should be used by their owners. Anything apart from that is a deviation away from natural law. I guess I do choose to obey that law. And you have the choice too.
> 
> :idea:


So you only have sex in order to procreate? Never just for enjoyment or to show love to your partner?;) 

BTW, has a dog ever mistaken your leg for a sex partner? Is that consistent with natural law, or against it???? :Rolleyes:

----------


## coda

> Coda said:This is an interesting point, mostly because there are a number of common examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. The most striking is in bonobos, a sub species of chimp with the DNA that most closely matches that of humans. There are many others including species of lizard, fish, rodents as well as man's best friend the canine.
> 
> This is the same inane argument that people have been trying to make since Darwin. Come on I thought you guys had more brains then to think a monkey fell out of a tree, broke his tail off from the fall, stood upright and started walking on his evolutionary tail. Oh I forgot, then once there tail was broken off they figured out how to talk and write. Come on even the village idiot would not believe that tale. Even with the best computer knowledge today taking a monkey and teaching him at most 300 words which he translates back by computer usage and flash cards, that is only accomplished with the best training in monkeyology and not the evolutionary hog wash that most people want to believe !:hammer:


Hmm, you seem to have missed my point and gotten caught up in your own misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.  Of course for someone who believes the planet is only about 10,000 years old, evolution would have to happen on the time scale you posit (a little word of the day just for you).  You're right that only the 'village idiot' would believe your 'tale' but of course the majority (as you admit in your own post) of Americans do, in fact, believe in evolutionary theory.  I wonder if that makes you the only smart one?  No, based on your ability to make a cogent argument supporting your opinion probably not.

----------


## Spexvet

> Coda said:This is an interesting point, mostly because there are a number of common examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. The most striking is in bonobos, a sub species of chimp with the DNA that most closely matches that of humans. There are many others including species of lizard, fish, rodents as well as man's best friend the canine.
> 
> This is the same inane argument that people have been trying to make since Darwin. Come on I thought you guys had more brains then to think a monkey fell out of a tree, broke his tail off from the fall, stood upright and started walking on his evolutionary tail. Oh I forgot, then once there tail was broken off they figured out how to talk and write. Come on even the village idiot would not believe that tale. Even with the best computer knowledge today taking a monkey and teaching him at most 300 words which he translates back by computer usage and flash cards, that is only accomplished with the best training in monkeyology and not the evolutionary hog wash that most people want to believe !:hammer:


Is it less any inane, or more reasonable or logical, to say that an omnipotent being created everything we know in the blink of and eye, out of nothing? How do you explain that there are fossils of living things older than humans, when God created Adam first, then later in the week created his animal companions?

It's really a matter of belief and faith - and don't impose your beliefs and faith on others - you wouldn't want others' beleifs imposed on you, I'll bet.

----------


## Spexvet

> You bet Ill condone what is dangerous to us in the name of tolerance. Consider the alternative... although, I rather doubt you can. Your comments reveal a willingness to promote the legal suppression of the activities of persons, of whose choices you do not approve. I understand that you would say your disapproval is mandated by the disapproval of Almighty God, for whom you presume to speak.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, youre wrong. God speaks only to me, and the people who agree with me. He has told us that we must smite you - you, and your fellow evil-doers.
> 
> 
> Sorry, its nothing personal.


I'm still laughing!:D :bbg: :)

----------


## coda

> Yes, there is evidence of this bahavior in animals (although in fewer numbers than humans);) But as you said, we have free will and intellect. While animals are driven by in inherent instinct which drives their need to reproduce, we humans have the ability to contemplate, decide and control our behaviors. Surely we don't want to use the "animals do it, so it must be OK" argument.


I'm not sure where you come up with the "fewer numbers than humans" statement. Certainly among the bonobos the incidence approaches 100%, though admittedly I believe few or none of the population is exclusively homosexual. In the case of bonobos performing digital manipulation of members of their own sex (I certainly hope I'm not offending anyone with that rather graphic description) and female dogs 'humping' (again I apologize if I've given offense) other female dogs there doesn't seem to be an linkage between behavior and "instinct which drives their need to reproduce".



Finally, no, I'm not using the "animals do it, so it must be "OK"" argument. I was only responding to the "natural law" aspect of the anti-homosexual position. A response which I've believe I've supported fairly well.

----------


## Spexvet

> But you are not God. Let God pass his/her judgment and take care of it himself.


No matter how you feel about what is right for you, please heed the wisdom of For-Life.

----------


## jediron1

Again as usuall coda missed the point! Wow could that be coda missed a point?

Ya! We keep going over and over these same points. It's like some people pouring coffee and not watch where they are pouring, they just keep on pouring until it hits the floor. It's the same with your arguments, you figure that if you say and quote them enough that sooner or later people will say " Wow that must be right because coda keeps giving us this diatribe and he would not keep doing it unless he thought he was right" :hammer:

----------


## jediron1

Spexvet: PLezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!:drop:

----------


## coda

> Again as usuall coda missed the point! Wow could that be coda missed a point?
> 
> Ya! We keep going over and over these same points. It's like some people pouring coffee and not watch where they are pouring, they just keep on pouring until it hits the floor. It's the same with your arguments, you figure that if you say and quote them enough that sooner or later people will say " Wow that must be right because coda keeps giving us this diatribe and he would not keep doing it unless he thought he was right" :hammer:


Hmm, Jed, I've missed your point?  Since you neglect to tell us what it is I tend to doubt it.  You've simply parroted what I said and sent it back, smacks of sour grapes.



Come on Jed you claim to have a point, that I seem to have missed, maybe you'd want to share it with us.  Maybe you'd even want to support it this time, you know, with arguments and stuff.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

This has certainly been an interesting thread...
Your comments reveal a willingness to promote the legal suppression of the activities of persons, of whose choices you do not approve.
We legally suppress the activities of people all the time via laws and statutes- I can choose to drive as fast as I want on the highway, until I'm "suppressed" by the state trooper. Its illegal for me to simply pull my children out of public school with no explanation or accountability to the state. Its also illegal for me to hold a religious service in a federally owned building (re: the Supreme Court's aforementioned interpretation of the Constitution). These are all activities which the society of our country has decided to suppress out of interest for the common good.

We also regulate a lot of activities simply because of the value judgements... For example, in some communities its illegal for me to construct a fence above a certain height or paint my walls neon green. Most public beaches suppress the right of people to sunbathe in the nude. A 15 year old cannot attend an R rated movie by him/herself, and so on...

In other words, as usual, you're 100% correct Robert! The rationale is pretty much exactly in keeping with your statement- people are willing to legally suppress the activities of other people because they do not approve of them or find them distasteful. Its been made relatively clear each time the issue is brought to a popular vote that most people in the country do not favor expanding the definition of marriage to include those between homosexuals. 

If you live in a community that restricts your ability to paint your house the color you desire, you can either lobby to change the mind of your fellow citizens (which is what I see going on in this and other forums), or you can move to somewhere where the rules are different. Simply calling everyone that doesn't want a neon green house next to them old-fashioned and close-minded strikes me as poor methodology for accomplishing the former alternative, however.

Point being, making something illegal doesn't require that the activity harms someone else. Sometimes its nothing more than the fact that people disapprove of the activity. You can call them names and disdain them all you wish, but its everyone's perogative to like what they like and dislike what they dislike (sort of the same argument that's made for making homosexual marriages legal). 

Personally, if some guy wants to marry another guy that's just fine with me. I choose to be heterosexual (and regarding when this _choice_ was made, I think it corresponded pretty closely to seeing Lynda Carter in her Wonder Woman costume for the first time as a kid ;^). I dunno, maybe other guys are genetically different and had the same feelings when they saw David Hasselhoff in Knight Rider for the first time- I just can't relate to that experience! This brings me to an interesting question. Does a homosexual man recoil at the thought of having sex with a woman to the same degree that I would recoil at the thoughts of having sex with a man? Anyway, while I recoil at the thought of _myself_ engaging in that activity, I'm pretty ambivalent about others doing so (just hopefully not in front of me ;^).

I agree that homosexuality has probably existed to relatively the same degree throughout history- I think its a good sign that people feel more at ease with taking the still traumatic leap of "outing" themselves. Heaven knows the Greeks participated in homosexuality (look at Socrates writings and you'll see lots of references to both relations others have and of mythical homosexual beings). The Romans were pretty enamored with boys as well...

From a theological standpoint, I think anyone wishing to espouse Christianity would have a hard time getting around Romans chapter one. However, if you don't happen to hold to Christianity (or do so but believe the Bible is not divinely inspired), I suppose its not impossible or even improbable that God fully endorses homosexuality.

----------


## shanbaum

Well, no, Pete, we generally dont legally suppress activities of which we _merely_ dont approve, especially when those activities may aptly be described as involving rights. At least, not without a compelling reason  the most common of which arises when one partys rights conflict with another partys rights.


That is why the right-wing talking point on gay marriage includes the attack on traditional marriage language, when of course, theres no such thing. Doing so makes it _sound_ as though someone elses rights would be impaired.


If were simply going to have a vote on issues of rights, then lets be honest about it and forgo the charade of enshrining fundamental rights in a Constitution altogether. 


But, if we do that, Id recommend that everyone under 25 or so take Spanish lessons.


Now, leave me alone, I have work to do.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Point being, making something illegal doesn't require that the activity harms someone else. Sometimes its nothing more than the fact that people disapprove of the activity.
Wow, you can call my "Sybil," because I'm responding to my own post.  The logical argument against the above would be _"but if the disliking involves discriminating against the race, creed, etc. of a person..."_

Gotta admit, that's partly compelling.  However, I suppose it then comes to this- is homosexuality at a par with race, religion, gender, etc. in defining someone?   I suppose that's why the "its a choice/ its genetic" argument comes into play so strongly.  To that, I'd note that many consider alcoholism to be genetic as well- but we don't pass laws specifically protecting the rights of alcoholics (I'm not trying to equate homosexuality to alcoholism).  Now, if you want to call homosexuality a genetic disability, I think it would be covered.  Otherwise, its just another genetic condition (I don't think there's anything specifically protecting redheads from discrimination- and that's genetic).

----------


## Pete Hanlin

That is why the right-wing talking point on gay marriage includes the attack on traditional marriage language, when of course, theres no such thing. Doing so makes it _sound_ as though someone elses rights would be impaired.
It amazes me how people who decry "labeling" feel so at ease griping about "right wing attacks." Really, maybe right-wingers are _genetically_ right-wing! In that case, I think it is awfully insensitive of you to be making fun of and scorning their genetic decision, Robert. After all, I was born a Republican- its who I am...  I await your apology and wish you would refer to me and my ilk as "pro-conformist" in the future.  Since you obviously believe my genetic condition makes me incapable of intelligent thinking, I think I should be afforded special working conditions to enable me to function with my disability (perhaps having a "CNN-free" zone in the airport would be a nice place to start).


Sarcasm aside, I don't recall ever invoking the words _"attack," "rights,"_ or _"traditional marriage,"_ so let's stick to holding me accountable for my own arguments, alright? Those being, I don't think you've established the fact that being homosexual is a right protected under the Constitution. Perhaps that is your interpretation- and I suppose we will eventually see if the Supreme Court agrees with you- but the status quo is that homosexuality is not a right (in fact, I think there are several states with laws against that activity). 

This brings us to the heart of it all- is homosexuality an inherent (some silly people would say God-given) right? Considering the fact that Bush is going to eventually be making an appointment to the Supreme Court (and noting that Congress has shifted further Republican as of the last election), I would suggest it unlikely the Court will be interpreting in a specific right anytime soon (okay, I'll admit "interpreting in" was spurious and blatant spin language on my part).

If were simply going to have a vote on issues of rights, then lets be honest about it and forgo the charade of enshrining fundamental rights in a Constitution altogether.
I'm just asking for the same thing you are, Robert. People in favor of homosexual marriage should drop the charade and simply state that they really enjoy sexual and emotional relations with people of the same sex and would enjoy the opportunity to have legal recognition of their relationships. This involves changing the ideology of the public to view homosexuality as something positive (or at least something not to be disdained), and will be accomplished much quicker with honey than with vinegar.

My impression is, many don't feel as if this change of ideology is going to be possible (anytime soon, anyway), and so they are lobbying for an interpretation of the constitution that provides them with new rights. We'll see...

----------


## shanbaum

> Sarcasm aside, I don't recall ever invoking the words "attack," "rights," or "traditional marriage," so let's stick to holding me accountable for my own arguments, alright?




You didn't; nor did I say you did. Shutterbug did, above. And it's certainly part of standard right-wing doctrine, along with the widespread persecution of Christians in America.




> Those being, I don't think you've established the fact that being homosexual is a right protected under the Constitution.




See _Lawrence v. Texas._ Ship sailed.

With regard to "new rights", refer to Civil Rights movement, circa 1955-1965. Same argument made then; same argument will be made whenever a group that has been deprived of rights seeks to claim them.

----------


## coda

> Gotta admit, that's partly compelling. However, I suppose it then comes to this- is homosexuality at a par with race, religion, gender, etc. in defining someone? I suppose that's why the "its a choice/ its genetic" argument comes into play so strongly.  Now, if you want to call homosexuality a genetic disability, I think it would be covered. Otherwise, its just another genetic condition (I don't think there's anything specifically protecting redheads from discrimination- and that's genetic).


I'm not sure that the test would be disability.  Certainly we protect against discrimination against Italians, Africans, Hispanics, etc; I don't believe that those would be considered genetic disabilities.  

While I think the genetic arguement is fairly compelling I don't think it's the end all either.  We protect against discrimination toward Mormons, Taoists and Protestants; this is clearly a protection for groups associated by _choice_.  The arguement from this side becomes one of deciding what choices are acceptable and therefore protectable.

----------


## Jana Lewis

> Yes, there is evidence of this bahavior in animals (although in fewer numbers than humans);) But as you said, we have free will and intellect. While animals are driven by in inherent instinct which drives their need to reproduce, we humans have the ability to contemplate, decide and control our behaviors. Surely we don't want to use the "animals do it, so it must be OK" argument.


Homosexuals are not driven by choice, they do what comes naturally, just like the animals that you speak of.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

And it's certainly part of standard right-wing doctrine, along with the widespread persecution of Christians in America.
Hmm, last I checked I was right of center _and_ a Christian living in America- yet somehow I've managed to resist the urge to persecute homosexuals. Furthermore, such an urge never occurred to me- perhaps I'm a defective example of a Republican. I think you would find a lot of defective Republicans out there ("defective" meaning not so easy to fit within your negative stereotyping of conservativism). I guess I must currently attend a defective church as well, because in the three years I've been attending there I can't recall a single sermon rallying us to persecute homosexuals- I'll have to bring this to the attention of my minister. I mean, all he does is preach about how God's love extends to all people, and other such obviously defective nonsense.

The above point being, I think we both agree homosexuals shouldn't be stereotyped or villified- I'd appreciate the same consideration be given to conservatives. You may argue that some conservatives do not give this same consideration to homosexuals- but I'd counter that, when you commit the same behavior, you become what you so criticize.

See _Lawrence v. Texas._ Ship sailed. With regard to "new rights", refer to Civil Rights movement, circa 1955-1965. Same argument made then; same argument will be made whenever a group that has been deprived of rights seeks to claim them.
Just as a summary for those less astute in their knowledge of Supreme Court decisions than you obviously appear to be (myself included), this case arose when a neighbor reported a "weapons disturbance" at the home of John G. Lawrence. When the police arrived, they found two men having sex (but no weapons). Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, were held overnight in jail and later fined $200 each for violating the states Homosexual Conduct law. The neighbor was later convicted of filing a false police report.

Based on the fact that the neighbor had no substantied reason for calling in a weapons violation (thus the conviction for the false report), the court found that Mr. Lawrence's privacy had been violated.

Now, being an admitted layman in matters legal, isn't the same argument used whenever the police find contraband or illegal activity after infiltrating a private residence without just cause (or for a just cause that is completely unrelated to the illegal activity)? In other words, if a domestic disturbance is reported at my home by my neighbor and the police bust in to find my wife and I peacefully smoking weed together on the couch, they can't run us in for a drug violation if it can be proven there was no real indication that we were indeed creating a domestic disturbance. 

After typing the above paragraph, I ventured on the internet to make sure I wasn't making a complete idiot out of myself. I cannot tell you how gratifying it was to note that Justice Scalia says basically the same thing (albeit much more eloquently) in his- IMHO rather well rationed- dissenting opinion (in which the Chief Justice and Justice Thomas concurred): I do not know what "acting in private" means. Surely consensual sodomy, like heterosexual intercourse, is rarely performed on stage. If all the Court means by "acting in private" is "on private premises, with the doors closed and windows covered," it is entirely unsurprising that evidence of enforcement would be hard to come by. (Imagine the circumstances that would enable a search warrant to be obtained for a residence on the ground that there was probable cause to believe that consensual sodomy was then and there occurring.) Surely that lack of evidence would not sustain the proposition that consensual sodomy on private premises with the doors closed and windows covered was regarded as a "fundamental right," even though all other consensual sodomy was criminalized. There are 203 prosecutions for consensual, adult homo-sexual sodomy reported in the West Reporting system and official state reporters from the years 18801995. See W. Eskridge, Gaylaw: Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet 375 (1999) (hereinafter Gaylaw). There are also records of 20 sodomy prosecutions and 4 executions during the colonial period. J. Katz, Gay/Lesbian Almanac 29, 58, 663 (1983). _Bowers_ conclusion that homosexual sodomy is not a fundamental right "deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition" is utterly unassailable. 

I further agree with the Justice's comments when he goes on to state:
Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior. Much less do they spring into existence, as the Court seems to believe, because _foreign nations_decriminalize conduct. The _Bowers_ majority opinion _never_ relied on "values we share with a wider civilization," _ante_, at 16, but rather rejected the claimed right to sodomy on the ground that such a right was not "deeply rooted in _this Nations_ history and tradition," 

Conversely, while reading the majority opinion, I read the following and find it to be what so many of us "right-wingers" argue to be a problem with the courts. Namely, they blatantly and almost eagerly take it upon themselves to redefine the Constitution by claiming a _special knowledge_ apparently unknown to either its original authors or the majority of Americans today.
Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom. 

Therefore, I would argue that the Supreme Court didn't necessarily find in favor of homosexuality as a right- but rather for the right of people to have privacy when in the confines of their own homes. Of course, the majority opinion also suggested that the sodomy law in the state of Texas did not further a _"legitmate state interest."_ Again, I quote Justice Scalia's assessment of the decision (and again, I agree with him):
The Texas statute, it [the majority opinion] says, furthers _no legitimate state interest_ which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual, _ante_, at 18 (emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead JUSTICE STEVENS declaration in his _Bowers_ dissent, that the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice, _ante_, at 17_._ This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a _legitimate_ state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.

So to sum (and I hate lengthy posts with lots of quotations, so I apologize), I don't believe the court has defined homosexuals as a group with special protections just yet. Again, its not that I'm against homosexuals- but I am for the concept that Justice Scalia invokes- that is, the promotion of the majoritarian morality. I would also note that Justice O'Connor, while agreeing with the fact that the right to privacy was unlawfully invaded (argument noted above), she did not concur with the finding that the anti-sodomy laws of Texas did not further a "legitimate state interest." It was also interesting to note that- in their opinion- the majority used an application of reasoning completely opposite of that used to uphold _Roe v. Wade_ (namely the reliance on recent precendance). In fact, it was interesting to see how many times _Roe v. Wade_ arose in the opinions. I would offer that this is because we are talking about a similar concept- namely, the court's invention and insertion of rights into the interpretation of the Constitution.

----------


## Spexvet

Pete,(or sybil, or Eve- Whoever you are today),

 You deny descriminating against Homosexuals, yet isn't prohibiting them from marrying each other discrimination, by definition? Maybe your minister would serve you better by saying "God loves all his children, so let them marry each other".

 Your argument that laws that are made just because "people are willing to legally suppress the activities of other people because they do not approve of them or find them distasteful" are legitimate, and you support their validity. Were laws allowing slavery OK with you?  Were German laws restricting the rights of jews, and forcing them to live in ghettos OK with you? 

 People in favor of homosexual marriage should drop the charade and simply state that they really enjoy sexual and emotional relations with people of the same sex and would enjoy the opportunity to have legal recognition of their relationships.

 Pete, I'm no African-American, yet I understand that they should not be  treated differently due to the color of their skin. I'm not Catholic, yet I understand that they shouldn't be treated differently due to the way they choose to worship God. I'm also not homosexual, yet I understand that they should not be treated differently due to the gender of the person they want to marry.

 I wouldn't try to exploit that right-wing disability yet.;)

----------


## Spexvet

BTW, the thread is "how does same gender marriage hurt you?" Whether it discusts you, is against your morals, whatever - what harm is there in letting these people marry?

----------


## Shutterbug

> I'm not sure where you come up with the "fewer numbers than humans" statement. Certainly among the bonobos the incidence approaches 100%, though admittedly I believe few or none of the population is exclusively homosexual.


After some research on the bonobos, I found that their [homo]sexual activities are generally a social communication used to avoid fighting and to promote harmony among members vying for power.  They are also quite short (18 seconds or less).  This makes it akin to a kiss (in some countries men kiss lip to lip as a greeting) or a hand shake.  I don't think this is the same as human homosexuality even if it appears the same.  And if we are going to "copy" the "natural law" of animals we could possibly kill and eat our weak as well.



The issue is "how are we hurt by homosexual marriage"?  The very structure of the family is at stake, and with it the structure of society in general.  The strength of any nation can be measured by the strength of the basic family unit within it.  Are we weakened when our children do not have both a mother and a father living together?  The evidence says yes.  They are, so we all are. 

Is homosexuality the only deterrent to normal family life?  No, our whole moral trend is toward lower standards of conduct.  This contributes to STD proliferation, broken families, cohabitation without marriage many other equally troubling trends that we are witnessing all around us.



In a previous reply, it was correctly mentioned that God is the highest court.  We are not a Theocracy (as was countered) but this is not to our advantage as was implied.  If we tend to digress in our thinking and conduct, isn't it clear that we need direction from a higher source?  Whether you believe in the creator or not, you should be able to identify the basics of the internal law we all have inside us within the pages of the Bible.  What is right and wrong is stated there and becomes a code for conduct among those who accept its dictates.  Easy?  No, but nothing worthwhile ever is.



I know this will elicit all kinds of quotes and examples of wrongful conduct on God's part.  But remember that he is judge and executioner and holds his law in the highest esteem.  He offers no excuses for upholding his law with the most severe penalty, death.  This in turn becomes a deterrent, which we sorely lack in our society.  No, I'm NOT saying we should execute homosexuals:).  But there should be a deterrent (the law) and a penalty for transgressing it.  God does not change, WE do.  That truth should cause us to have some serious second thoughts about how he views us individually.



Does homosexual marriage hurt us?  I think it does.  It is a real danger to the basic unit of human society, the family.  This takes precedence over the wants of the individual because we NEED strong traditional families to survive.

----------


## chip anderson

Spexvet:

The word is disgust.     Is it any wonder that your icon has a bag over his (her, ?) head?

----------


## For-Life

> After some research on the bonobos, I found that their [homo]sexual activities are generally a social communication used to avoid fighting and to promote harmony among members vying for power. They are also quite short (18 seconds or less). This makes it akin to a kiss (in some countries men kiss lip to lip as a greeting) or a hand shake. I don't think this is the same as human homosexuality even if it appears the same. And if we are going to "copy" the "natural law" of animals we could possibly kill and eat our weak as well.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is "how are we hurt by homosexual marriage"? The very structure of the family is at stake, and with it the structure of society in general. The strength of any nation can be measured by the strength of the basic family unit within it. Are we weakened when our children do not have both a mother and a father living together? The evidence says yes. They are, so we all are. 
> 
> Is homosexuality the only deterrent to normal family life? No, our whole moral trend is toward lower standards of conduct. This contributes to STD proliferation, broken families, cohabitation without marriage many other equally troubling trends that we are witnessing all around us.
> 
> 
> ...


Allowing gay marriages will weaken the family unit? 

I find it funny, because a lot of these arguments were used years ago during discussions of interracial marriages. Lets face it, the United States and Canada have high divorce rates, so are we going to crackdown on people who are getting married, because we feel that they are damaging the family unit? No, so why do we assume that gays will do more damage to it. Additionally, gays who adopt have one positive attribute and that is that they want the child. Compare that to the amount of teenagers or deadbeats who do not even want the child when they accidentally become pregnant or get their girlfriend or wife pregnant. 

Also, I love this whole Christianity thing. I will point out anyone here, because I do not personally know any of you, but I do find it funny that in the World that so many Christians know absolutely nothing about Christianity. I have been a Christian all of my life and have followed the ways of Jesus. Christianity is about loving they neighbour and doing onto others as you would expect others to do onto you. Christianity can be summed up in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I know in the Old Testament that the Lord was a vengeful Lord, and I know that Moses brought in a lot of new laws, some which incorporated anti-homosexual laws; however, I ask you to look at Jesus, as he offers a different perspective. If homosexuality was such an evil sin then why didn't Jesus speak up against it? Christianity is not about being the right religion, fighting those who oppose it, killing sinners, or being better than everyone else. Christianity is about being riotous, loving everyone no matter what they do, forgiveness, and being a down right good person. 

To conclude, I have two verses from the Bible I want you to look at:

Matthew, Chapter 7.1 - Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.

Jon, Chapter 8.7 - Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to cast the stone.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet:
> 
>  The word is disgust.     Is it any wonder that your icon has a bag over his (her, ?) head?


 OK, Chip, you're disgusted. That's OK. Does that hurt you? Some people, undoubtedly, are disgusted by something that you do. Do they have the right to stop you from doing it?

----------


## Spexvet

> ...The very structure of the family is at stake,...
>  ...
> God does not change, WE do.  That truth should cause us to have some serious second thoughts about how he views us individually.
>  ...
> It is a real danger to the basic unit of human society, the family.  This takes precedence over the wants of the individual because we NEED strong traditional families to survive.


 What should the structure of the family be? You propose the bible shows the way? Then bigamy should be legal. Jacob had two wives: Leah and Rachel. David's wives were Michal, Abigail, Ahinoam, and Aglah, and he had children with Maacah, Haggaith, and Abital. And God anointed these men, they were his chosen. How is it that these bigamists were God's chosen, yet now he forbids bigamy? Did He change, or did WE?

 So what is a family structure? Multiple spouses, monogamy, same sex marriage? Interesting, eh?

----------


## chip anderson

Spexvet:  I didn't say I was disgusted, I was correcting your spelling.

Shutterbug:   I hate to correct what is appearently a supporter.  But death is no the ultimate penalty.  Hell is.   I am like the old song, "I don't know if there is a Heaven, but I pray there ain't no Hell."

----------


## 1968

> In a previous reply, it was correctly mentioned that God is the highest court. We are not a Theocracy (as was countered) but this is not to our advantage as was implied. If we tend to digress in our thinking and conduct, isn't it clear that we need direction from a higher source? Whether you believe in the creator or not, you should be able to identify the basics of the internal law we all have inside us within the pages of the Bible. What is right and wrong is stated there and becomes a code for conduct among those who accept its dictates. Easy? No, but nothing worthwhile ever is.


Shutterbug: By and large, the Founding Fathers of this country did not agree that a theocracy was to our advantage. Given that not everyone shares your belief that what is right and wrong stems from the Bible, or that God is the highest court, the system of checks and balances they set up allows believers of all faiths (and non-believers, too) to live and coexist much more effectively. In my opinion, that is what is ultimately the proper function of government. On the other hand, "saving sinners from hell" (and however that may translate into the language of any other religion) is not a proper function of government.

[With that in mind: Even though I don't agree with you, I did like how you addressed *both* points in your full statement (i.e. how this particular issue may affect society and how it may affect one in the eyes of his or her god).]

----------


## shanbaum

> Now, being an admitted layman in matters legal, isn't the same argument used whenever the police find contraband or illegal activity after infiltrating a private residence without just cause (or for a just cause that is completely unrelated to the illegal activity)?


Pete, Im really glad that you actually bothered to read _Lawrence_, but you missed its upshot, as it were; the holding wasnt that Lawrences privacy rights were abrogated by the police being called into his home improperly. The holding was that Texas statute against sodomy (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.06(a)) was unconstitutional in that it violated a right guaranteed under the Constitution. This required that the court overrule a prior holding, in a 1986 case styled _Bowers v. Hardwick_, which they did. _Bowers_ had upheld a Georgia statute that prohibited oral and anal sex, and not just among persons of the same sex (which is why OConnor dissented in part  she thought this was an equal protection issue as opposed to the due process basis on which the majority ruled).



The court decided, and _quite_ correctly so, I think, that the governments intrusion into the private behavior of adults abrogates a liberty right. That privacy right is not that people have a right to privacy  its that the right to _do with your body as you please_ is a fundamental, natural right, protected as are all such unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment (although, as I said, it was the due process right on which they ruled  the application of the 9th is simply the way I think it should have been decided. I really _like_ the 9th).



There are always at least two ways to look at things, and another way to talk about this is to couch it in terms of what powers the government should rightly have over peoples actions. For some reason, conservatives seem to be more comfortable talking about the limitation of government power than the extension of human rights  when of course, theyre two sides of the same coin.



The _Lawrence_ decision is in fact itself part of a legal tradition, though Scalia wouldnt recognize it. He supports tradition when it suits him, and doesnt when it doesnt. Theres a thread connecting _Griswold v. Connecticut_ (1965), _Roe v. Wade_ (1972), and _Lawrence_  a thread in which the Court realized first that the governments have no power to prohibit people from using contraceptives, then that the governments power over what a pregnant woman does with her body is limited, and then, that the government should have no power over the precise ways in which people engage in sex.



Scalia, like you, would say that we really only have those rights, and the governments power is only limited to the extent, as these were envisioned by the guys who wrote the Constitution.



Because they knew everything.



Its a shame that conservatives tend to be so afflicted, as they seem to think of themselves as the champions of individual liberty, which is certainly where my interest lies. Why is it so easy to support freedom on the march and so hard to support freedom?



As you note, Scalias comments were in a dissent  that is, theres a sense in which they are precisely _not_ the law, at least not now. Certainly, dissents from time to time end up ascendant  which, fortunately for you and Scalia, is part of the way the system actually does work, that is: it evolves over time.


By the way, Im not sure from where your opening paragraph came  I didnt say that Christians were persecuting homosexuals. I was making a (arguably snide) comment about right-wing doctrine including the belief that _Christians_ are persecuted in America, which, along with my prior comment about the attack on traditional marriage gambit, I think is an accurate description of right-wing doctrine. Can we agree that this is true, if not amongst all conservatives, at least amongst the right-wing talking heads?


Or, would you dispute that there is such a thing as right-wing doctrine?

----------


## chip anderson

Shanebaum:

Why am I not supprised that you like the 9th which is appearently all communist except for two members.

Chip

And yes, I ment communist not liberal.

----------


## shanbaum

> Shanebaum:
> 
> Why am I not supprised that you like the 9th which is appearently all communist except for two members.
> 
> Chip
> 
> And yes, I ment communist not liberal.


Read it again, Chip. I was referring to the 9th _Amendment_. That's the one that protects your right to be a right-wing nut case, and my right to be a liberal wiener.

----------


## chip anderson

Sorry Shanebaum:

I felt sure you ment the ninth circuit court of appeals.  The one that belongs to the *A*nti-*C*hrist *L*egal *U*nderwriters.

----------


## chm2023

> Well, my previous post certainly got response :0)
> 
> The original question asked for opinion, and I gave mine honestly. Morality is ours to decide only if there is no higher law. I just happen to think that there is, and nature in itself seems to show what the parts are for, and how they should be used by their owners. Anything apart from that is a deviation away from natural law. I guess I do choose to obey that law. And you have the choice too.
> 
> :idea:


Really?  I don't remember choosing to be heterosexual.  It was simply there.  I don't know anyone (hetero or homo) who felt they had the option of choosing.  And homosexual behavior is common in other species.

----------


## chm2023

> Parts are there for a purpose. There is an entrance and an exit for very good reasons. And I agree, deviation away from the God given law is not right because there is no higher law than GODS!


And you of course have the corner on what God (or if you prefer GOD, capitals make a difference?) wants, right?  How fortunate for you.

----------


## chm2023

> Coda said:This is an interesting point, mostly because there are a number of common examples of homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom. The most striking is in bonobos, a sub species of chimp with the DNA that most closely matches that of humans. There are many others including species of lizard, fish, rodents as well as man's best friend the canine.
> 
> This is the same inane argument that people have been trying to make since Darwin. Come on I thought you guys had more brains then to think a monkey fell out of a tree, broke his tail off from the fall, stood upright and started walking on his evolutionary tail. Oh I forgot, then once there tail was broken off they figured out how to talk and write. Come on even the village idiot would not believe that tale. Even with the best computer knowledge today taking a monkey and teaching him at most 300 words which he translates back by computer usage and flash cards, that is only accomplished with the best training in monkeyology and not the evolutionary hog wash that most people want to believe !:hammer:


Actually my religion (Roman Catholic) accepts evolution, including the Pope.  Which is why it is taught in Catholic schools.  I have heard the Pope called a lot of things, but "village idiot" is a new one.  Funny he always struck me as an extraordinarily intelligent fellow.  Perhaps he lacks your expertise in "monkeyology".

----------


## shanbaum

> Sorry Shanebaum:
> 
> I felt sure you ment the ninth circuit court of appeals. The one that belongs to the *A*nti-*C*hrist *L*egal *U*nderwriters.


No, but thanks for helping me demonstrate to Pete what I was referring to, about the belief in the persecution of Christians in America being part of right-wing doctrine.

----------


## Pete Hanlin

Your argument that laws that are made just because "people are willing to legally suppress the activities of other people because they do not approve of them or find them distasteful" are legitimate, and you support their validity. Were laws allowing slavery OK with you? Were German laws restricting the rights of jews, and forcing them to live in ghettos OK with you?
It amazes me how ready you are to equate the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to marry with slavery and/or the build up to the Holocaust. Rather than dignifying your comments with an answer, I'll leave it up to whatever you feel to believe regarding whether I'm in favor of slavery or killing millions of innocent people.

As for Shanbaum, I'm sure even you believe in the correctness of some laws which are based on the common perception of morality (I mean, unless you are for public nudity, pornography on our nationwide networks, etc.). In effect then, your apparent contempt for anyone who is against the concept of making a homosexual relationship a legally recognized family unit is equivalent to saying that you should be the sole determiner of just what morality is. That is, the moral laws of which you approve are just- but ones which you disapprove of are unjust. Wow, what a heavy burden to bear.

Ironically enough, I find myself playing devil's advocate (quite literally, actually) on an issue I actually don't feel that strongly on. Frankly, for all the animosity this issue brings, I wish homosexual marriage would just be legalized so we can all get over ourselves. The reason I felt compelled to comment is due to the fact that most of the other conservatives on this forum seem driven to cram their feet deeper and deeper in their mouths (which irks me more than you frequently funny- but even more frequently patronizing and annoying- bits of sarcasm).

Anyway, if you will do us all the kindness of laying out exactly what everyone's morality should be, perhaps we can all save a lot of time for everyone and get into a right frame of thinking. For Christ's sake- some people feel homosexuality is wrong (in fact, most people). Calling them stupid- even when they act accordingly- isn't a form of argument. Its just another form of ignorance.

There, I think I've about dissed everyone equally now...  :Rolleyes:

----------


## Spexvet

> Your argument that laws that are made just because "people are willing to legally suppress the activities of other people because they do not approve of them or find them distasteful" are legitimate, and you support their validity. Were laws allowing slavery OK with you? Were German laws restricting the rights of jews, and forcing them to live in ghettos OK with you?
>  It amazes me how ready you are to equate the fact that homosexuals are not allowed to marry with slavery and/or the build up to the Holocaust. Rather than dignifying your comments with an answer, I'll leave it up to whatever you feel to believe regarding whether I'm in favor of slavery or killing millions of innocent people.


 The sentiment is the same: If enough people agree, even if the reason is mere distastefulness, then a law is valid in your eyes. I take the point to a ludicrous degree only to illustrate how _wrong_ that concept is.




> In effect then, your apparent contempt for anyone who is against the concept of making a homosexual relationship a legally recognized family unit is equivalent to saying that you should be the sole determiner of just what morality is. That is, the moral laws of which you approve are just- but ones which you disapprove of are unjust. Wow, what a heavy burden to bear.


  I think that's what the right wing is doing. I don't want to speak for Shanbaum, but it seems that he is *not* making a moral judgement on same gender marriage, he is speaking out against those who support discriminating against a segment of our population. Correct me, if I'm wrong, Robert.




> Ironically enough, I find myself playing devil's advocate (quite literally, actually) on an issue I actually don't feel that strongly on. Frankly, for all the animosity this issue brings, *I wish homosexual marriage would just be legalized so we can all get over ourselves*. The reason I felt compelled to comment is due to the fact that most of the other conservatives on this forum seem driven to cram their feet deeper and deeper in their mouths (which irks me more than you frequently funny- but even more frequently patronizing and annoying- bits of sarcasm).


  I may have said this before, Pete: That's very liberal of you. And it's the whole point. Just let them do it, already! 




> Anyway, if you will do us all the kindness of laying out exactly what everyone's morality should be, perhaps we can all save a lot of time for everyone and get into a right frame of thinking.


 I think Bush and his buddies feel that it's their job to tell us what our morality should be, from the way they try to legislate.




> For Christ's sake- some people feel homosexuality is wrong (in fact, most people). Calling them stupid- even when they act accordingly- isn't a form of argument. Its just another form of ignorance.
> 
>   There, I think I've about dissed everyone equally now...


 I think killing is wrong, and I don't want Americans to be killed, yet our country is at war and our soldiers are being killed every day. Maybe I should lobby for a constitutional amendment banning war.:hammer:

----------


## jediron1

Pete said:

The reason I felt compelled to comment is due to the fact that most of the other conservatives on this forum seem driven to cram their feet deeper and deeper in their mouths (which irks me more than you frequently funny- but even more frequently patronizing and annoying- bits of sarcasm).

So we cram our feet deeper and deeper in our mouths. Unbelievable especially from Pete.:hammer:

----------


## 1968

> I think killing is wrong, and I don't want Americans to be killed, yet our country is at war and our soldiers are being killed every day. Maybe I should lobby for a constitutional amendment banning war.


Spexvet, with that in mind, you said this to Chip in post #97 of the Kennedy thread:


> There ARE times when violence/war is unavoidable, but to resolve conflict without voilence/war is always preferable to me. The diiference we may have is that you and I may not agree on when violence/war is unavoidable.


If you think that there are times when war is unavoidable, then we can infer that you do NOT think killing is always wrong... therefore, you shouldn't lobby for a constitutional amendment banning war. [Anyway, I realize you were just using an analogy to make a point.]

----------


## Shutterbug

> Also, I love this whole Christianity thing. I will point out anyone here, because I do not personally know any of you, but I do find it funny that in the World that so many Christians know absolutely nothing about Christianity. I have been a Christian all of my life and have followed the ways of Jesus. Christianity is about loving they neighbour and doing onto others as you would expect others to do onto you. Christianity can be summed up in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I know in the Old Testament that the Lord was a vengeful Lord, and I know that Moses brought in a lot of new laws, some which incorporated anti-homosexual laws; however, I ask you to look at Jesus, as he offers a different perspective. If homosexuality was such an evil sin then why didn't Jesus speak up against it? Christianity is not about being the right religion, fighting those who oppose it, killing sinners, or being better than everyone else. Christianity is about being riotous, loving everyone no matter what they do, forgiveness, and being a down right good person.


Well, there are Christians who are Christian in name only, and there are Christians who actually follow Jesus' teachings.  Your claim that Jesus loved every one regardless of their conduct is true, but Jesus would NEVER approve of wrong conduct, even on the part of religious leaders and the government of his day.  He grew violent in the temple when the money changers were bilking the poor.  He strongly rebuked Peter when he tried to dissuade him from following his appointed destiny to trade his life for ours, and he would not accept Judas' greed and theft from the money slated for the poor.  He also admonished the apostles on many occasions about their hunger for status and glory, and their bickering amongst themselves.  He would not associate with wrongdoers who refused to change, and was staunchly opposed to his fathers' enemy Satan and would not tolerate his hostile attempts to catch him off guard and ruin his chances of success in his most important endeavor.  He openly called him and his followers liars, and added that Satan was the father of the lie.  
Clearly, love and tolerance are different things.
Oh, one more point.  Your reference to the scripture in Jon 8.7 is a common one, but that scripture does not appear in the oldest surviving texts.  There is strong evidence that it was added later by an over-zealous scribe or possibly added to help prove a line of thinking that was popular at the time.  Regardless of the reason, it was added and so not included in proper scripture cannon.  The better translations now leave it out altogether, or change the color or prints size with footnotes about it's doubtful place in inspired scripture.  Just FYI    :) 

You might also consider these teachings, recorded by Jesus' closest students and later trusted to act as Jesus' spokesmen:

Rom. 1:24-27: God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.

1 Tim. 1:9-11: Law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, . . . fornicators, men who lie with males, . . . and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God. (Compare Leviticus 20:13.)

Jude 7: Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . [had] gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire. (The name Sodom has become the basis for the word sodomy, which usually designates a homosexual practice. Compare Genesis 19:4, 5, 24, 25.)

Your claim that Jesus did not hate the sinners is valid.  However, he DID hate the sinful conduct and was concerned with the attitudes that lead people into slaving for sin and eventually losing their chances of living in his Kingdom.
He pitied their ignorance and tried during the entire 3 1/2 years of his ministry on earth to teach them the differences between sinful and righteous conduct and how important it is to live in accord with accurate knowledge.

The point is clear.  We can easily be deceived and NEED help to "walk in integrity".  I'm sure that Jesus is greatly saddened to see what we've become.

----------


## shanbaum

> In effect then, your apparent contempt for anyone who is against the concept of making a homosexual relationship a legally recognized family unit is equivalent to saying that you should be the sole determiner of just what morality is. That is, the moral laws of which you approve are just- but ones which you disapprove of are unjust. Wow, what a heavy burden to bear.


Contempt? Show me where I've shown contempt for "anyone who is against the concept of making a homosexual relationship a legally recognized family unit". Nor have I called anyone stupid, especially not you.

I agree that this issue can be couched in terms of liberty rights versus morality. As the question was phrased in _Bowers_ (roughly) - does the Constitution protect the right of people to engage in sodomy?

I think the answer to that question - loaded as it was - should be "yes", because as was held in _Lawrence_, the state doesn't have a compelling interest to - as I would put it - _abrogate that right_. I believe that we should start with liberty as a fundamental postulate, and work from there - which is what makes me a liberal, in the classic meaning of the term.

And I would also agree that moral relativism _is_ a heavy burden to bear - it requires people to search for answers to moral questions, rather than accept doctrine prepared by others - doctrine which, I would argue, arose from the same kinds of searches, just done by other people, usually in the distant past. That is, I reject the notion that a series of men who lived long ago actually had more of a connection to the divine than do you or I. That's not to say they have nothing to contribute. It just means that their contributions are the contributions of men, not gods.

By the way, I was glad to see you mention public nudity as something presumptively immoral. I'm reminded of Scalia's dissent, where he says (in not so many words), "if we can't prohibit homosexual behavior, we can't prohibit masturbation." If you ever get to visit the Mediterranean coast of France and Spain, you'll find that there is in fact disagreement about the immorality of public nudity. As for masturbation - what do you think, Pete? Should the state have the power to prohibit masturbation, or not?

I'm well aware that there are _lots_ of people who think homosexuality is wrong, and I don't think that they are stupid or contemptible for believing that. I do think (and I acknowledge that I could be wrong) that _most_ people who believe that, believe it for religious reasons. They are certainly entitled to do that, just as they're entitled to engage in activities in opposition to its practice. When, however, there is an attempt to use the power of the state to enforce religious belief in suppression of a liberty right, I will, at the very least, bristle in opposition - until convinced of the necessity and reasonableness of that suppression - and by that, I mean to establish a high bar.

----------


## For-Life

> Oh, one more point. Your reference to the scripture in Jon 8.7 is a common one, but that scripture does not appear in the oldest surviving texts. There is strong evidence that it was added later by an over-zealous scribe or possibly added to help prove a line of thinking that was popular at the time. Regardless of the reason, it was added and so not included in proper scripture cannon. The better translations now leave it out altogether, or change the color or prints size with footnotes about it's doubtful place in inspired scripture. Just FYI :)


It could be.  See we have to understand that the New Testament is almost 2000 years old, and the Old Testament, or Torah, is even older.  Throughout that time the words in the bible have been passed down through absolute powers who have most likely manipulated parts of the bible to help support their cause.  The Bible is a wonderful resource, but has to be read with an open mind and spirt.  Do we know exactly what has happened, the truths, and the real stories?  No.  What we have to do is look at the bible as a bases of values and togetherness.  The problem is that many people pick something small out of the bible and use it as the end all to everything without considering the bible as a whole.  Many things said in the Old Testament were later put to rest by Jesus.

Therefore, I have always questioned, and so have many religious powers, if homosexuality is really considered a sin or not.  While I look at the values of the bible as a whole to me it would not be because what Jesus has said and what the true ten commandments say do not reflect the same bases.

----------


## Shutterbug

> It could be. See we have to understand that the New Testament is almost 2000 years old, and the Old Testament, or Torah, is even older. Throughout that time the words in the bible have been passed down through absolute powers who have most likely manipulated parts of the bible to help support their cause. The Bible is a wonderful resource, but has to be read with an open mind and spirt. Do we know exactly what has happened, the truths, and the real stories? No. What we have to do is look at the bible as a bases of values and togetherness. The problem is that many people pick something small out of the bible and use it as the end all to everything without considering the bible as a whole. Many things said in the Old Testament were later put to rest by Jesus.


While that is an interesting speculation and an easy way to salve a conscience the truth is that the oldest copies we have of the new testament were completed around the first century (a hundred year window - very close to original).  Comparisons of what we have now with what is contained in the oldest writings are VERY close, with only minor pronuciation marks, and things like that marring their "purity".  One would have to assume that God has the ability to preserve his writings intact and govern their translation and would use that power if life and death are really involved for us individually.

Another interesting scriptural observation is made at 1 Cor. 6:9-11: Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men . . . will inherit Gods kingdom. And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God. (Regardless of such a background, if persons now abandon their former unclean practices, apply  righteous standards, and exercise faith in his provision for forgiveness of sins through Christ, they can enjoy a clean standing before God.)

True Christians know that even deeply rooted wrong desires, including those that may have a genetic basis or that involve physical causes or environmental factors, are not insurmountable for persons who truly want to please God. Some people are by nature highly emotional. Perhaps in the past they gave free rein to fits of anger; but knowledge of Gods will, the desire to please him, and the help of his spirit enable them to develop self-control. A person may be an alcoholic, but, with proper motivation, he can refrain from drinking and thus avoid becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a person may feel strongly attracted to others of the same sex, but by heeding the counsel of Gods Word he can remain clean from homosexual practices.

----------


## For-Life

Except drunkeness affects others, violence affects others, but homosexuality doesn't.

----------


## Shutterbug

> Except drunkeness affects others, violence affects others, but homosexuality doesn't.


Think about the spread of disease.  For AIDS, it might be 10 years before the carrier even knows he has it.  During that time he (or she) may infect countless other unsuspecting persons.  There are certainly victims of homosexuality, even as there are of alcoholism, violence and fornication.  We can't pass this off as a victimless activity.  There are also emotional scars and even physical maladies associated with the practice.  Often even "consenting" adults don't think about what they may be consenting to!  This is dangerous activity than should be avoided.

----------


## chip anderson

Before we state that Jesus loves and forgives everyone and everything.  He did not forgive or pardon Judas or the "other" thief on the cross.  And do not forget what Jesus is to do on his return.  I believe it is written, He shall come not as a Lamb but as a Lion and he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.  

Note: No where is it written he shall come to forgive the quick and the dead.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

> Think about the spread of disease. For AIDS, it might be 10 years before the carrier even knows he has it. During that time he (or she) may infect countless other unsuspecting persons. There are certainly victims of homosexuality, even as there are of alcoholism, violence and fornication. We can't pass this off as a victimless activity. There are also emotional scars and even physical maladies associated with the practice. Often even "consenting" adults don't think about what they may be consenting to! This is dangerous activity than should be avoided.


With that same theory we can condem hetrosexuality for passing off other STD's.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet, with that in mind, you said this to Chip in post #97 of the Kennedy thread:If you think that there are times when war is unavoidable, then we can infer that you do NOT think killing is always wrong... therefore, you shouldn't lobby for a constitutional amendment banning war. [Anyway, I realize you were just using an analogy to make a point.]


 I thought :hammer:would indicate that I was not serious. Could you imagine a constitutional ban on war? Not likely, and not smart.

----------


## Spexvet

> You might also consider these teachings, recorded by Jesus' closest students and later trusted to act as Jesus' spokesmen:
> 
>  Rom. 1:24-27: God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them . . . God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.
> 
>  1 Tim. 1:9-11: Law is promulgated, not for a righteous man, but for persons lawless and unruly, ungodly and sinners, . . . fornicators, men who lie with males, . . . and whatever other thing is in opposition to the healthful teaching according to the glorious good news of the happy God. (Compare Leviticus 20:13.)
> 
>  Jude 7: Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they . . . [had] gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before us as a warning example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire. (The name Sodom has become the basis for the word sodomy, which usually designates a homosexual practice. Compare Genesis 19:4, 5, 24, 25.)
> 
>  Your claim that Jesus did not hate the sinners is valid. However, he DID hate the sinful conduct and was concerned with the attitudes that lead people into slaving for sin and eventually losing their chances of living in his Kingdom.
> ...


 Did Jesus force people to act the way He wanted them to? He _showed_ them the way. He _taught_ them. He _informed_ them of the _consequences_ of not heeding His teaching. I can't remember Him making laws, or enforcing laws, or "excommunicating" those who did not follow. IMHO, He would be against a constitutional ban of same gender marriage.

----------


## chip anderson

A point I keep trying to remind our preachers when they are looking for "volunteers".  Jesus never asked anyone to do anything.  He told them what to do.

----------


## 1968

> I thought :hammer:would indicate that I was not serious. Could you imagine a constitutional ban on war? Not likely, and not smart.


Indeed. I knew you weren't serious about the constitutional ban on war, but I wasn't completely sure about the "I think killing is wrong (regardless of context)" part. If you want to rile people up, use the issue of flag burning in your next analogy.

----------


## Spexvet

> Indeed. I knew you weren't serious about the constitutional ban on war, but I wasn't completely sure about the "I think killing is wrong (regardless of context)" part. If you want to rile people up, use the issue of flag burning in your next analogy.


:bbg: :D :bbg: :D

----------


## Shutterbug

> Did Jesus force people to act the way He wanted them to? He _showed_ them the way. He _taught_ them. He _informed_ them of the _consequences_ of not heeding His teaching. I can't remember Him making laws, or enforcing laws, or "excommunicating" those who did not follow. IMHO, He would be against a constitutional ban of same gender marriage.


 Doesn't informing them of the consequences inply law?  And in view of what his closest students said above, of COURSE he would ban same gender marriage.  The law would come from HIS Kingdom, not another government - but the law is valid.  :o

----------


## chip anderson

I can't speak for Him, but I feel sure that Jesus would not only support a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, I feel sure that he would condem those who engage in such practices to Hell.

----------


## Spexvet

> Doesn't informing them of the consequences inply law? And in view of what his closest students said above, of COURSE he would ban same gender marriage. The law would come from HIS Kingdom, not another government - but the law is valid. :o


Analogy: A student is having a behavior problem in school. His parent tells the student "You need to behave in school. Watch how I behave, and behave the way I behave when you are in school. That's the way I behaved when I was in school. If you don't behave, you'll be expelled." The parent does not make the law, and doesn't enforce the law.

What His closest students said is what His closest students said, not what's in the Gospel. IMHO, it's risky to assume that what they said is what He thought or wanted. It could be that they were wrong in their interpretation of Him, or had their own feelings on the matter.

----------


## Joann Raytar

> Before we state that Jesus loves and forgives everyone and everything. He did not forgive or pardon Judas or the "other" thief on the cross. And do not forget what Jesus is to do on his return. I believe it is written, He shall come not as a Lamb but as a Lion and he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. 
> 
> Note: No where is it written he shall come to forgive the quick and the dead.
> 
> Chip


Our take:



> http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-jesus.htm
> Presbyterians believe Jesus was...
> _Fully human, fully God._
> _Jesus proclaimed the reign of God:_
> _preaching good news to the poor and release to the captives,_
> _teaching by word and deed_
> _and blessing the children,_ 
> _healing the sick_
> _and binding up the brokenhearted,_ 
> ...


On the subject of homosexuality:



> http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-homosexual.htm
> 
> 
> Persons who manifest homosexual behavior must be treated with the profound respect and pastoral tenderness due all people of God. There can be no place within the Christian faith for the response to homosexual persons of mingled contempt, hatred, and fear that is called homophobia. 
> 
> Homosexual persons are encompassed by the searching love of Christ. The church must turn from its fear and hatred to move toward the homosexual community in love and to welcome homosexual inquirers to its congregations. It should free them to be candid about their identity and convictions, and it should also share honestly and humbly with them in seeking the vision of God's intention for the sexual dimensions of their lives. . . .
> 
> In 1978, a Presbyterian General Assembly declared that: 
> 
> ...


The Presbyterian church does try to hold to its historical stand regarding sexuality:




> Homosexuality presents a particular problem for the church. It seems to be contrary to the teaching of scripture. It seems to repudiate the heterosexual process which gave us life. Further, many believe that such an orientation can be changed simply by personal decision or by the creation of healthy environments for the young. The church though should be aware of the partial nature of our knowledge of homosexuality. For instance, whether or not sexual orientation is something unchosen and unchangeable for most people is a matter of crucial significance which continues to be unsettled among scientists or ethicists. The church should be sensitive to the difficulty of rejecting a persons's sexual orientation without rejecting the person. It should be open to more light on what goes into shaping one's sexual preferences and reexamine its life and teaching in relation to people who are seeking affirmation and needing acceptance and who are apparently not free to change their orientations."

----------


## Spexvet

> I can't speak for Him, but I feel sure that Jesus would not only support a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, I feel sure that he would condem those who engage in such practices to Hell.


Chip,
There's a difference between your two assertions. Would He inform people of their peril, and allow them to choose, with the confidence He had that they would go to hell? Or would He try to stop them from doing it in the first place? That's what the whole debate is about, isn't it? Isn't that truly the difference between Liberals and Conservatives?

----------


## Shutterbug

> With that same theory we can condem hetrosexuality for passing off other STD's.





> What His closest students said is what His closest students said, not what's in the Gospel. IMHO, it's risky to assume that what they said is what He thought or wanted. It could be that they were wrong in their interpretation of Him, or had their own feelings on the matter.


Well Spexvet, at least you are thinking about this   :) 

I believe I addressed your first point.  Only Monogamy is safe.  Fornication, adultery and homosexuality are condemned for this very reason (they are dangerous to us and not in our best interest).

Your second point is going pretty far out on the limb.  If Jesus' closest companions, the ones he instructed the most, chose as leaders of his people and poured out holy spirit upon at Pentecost of 33 did not get it, could it be possible for ANYONE to attain to salvation?  I think not.

We MUST assume they had it right.  Otherwise we have no guide and are at the mercy of our own conscience to determine right from wrong.  Remember this very issue is what lead Adam and Eve on the path of destruction.



Note to Chip Anderson:  I'm enjoying your postings.  Succinct, but keeping us on the right track  :D


shutterbug

----------


## Shutterbug

At this point in this thread, it seem logical to ask:  Is Satan a real person?  If he is (and I believe he is) is it not logical to assume he would use religion to "blind the eyes" of the people?  Fighting fire with fire, so to speak?

I think we see evidence of this very thing.  World wide, there are over 2000 different forms of religion.  Are they all acceptable to God?  Indeed, CAN they be?  How many can?

Notice the response of some religions to their leaders engaging in unscriptural and unscrpulous activities.  Do they expell them?  No, just move them to some other area where they are not known.  Is that responsible behavior, or is it a conforming to Satan's plan?

Just thought I'd throw that out to see what you all think.

 :)

----------


## Spexvet

> Well Spexvet, at least you are thinking about this :) 
> 
> I believe I addressed your first point. Only Monogamy is safe. Fornication, adultery and homosexuality are condemned for this very reason (they are dangerous to us and not in our best interest).


 Correction: The first point was For-Life's, but I agree with it. "Only monogamy is safe?" Why do you feel that monogamy and homosexuality are mutually exclusive?




> Your second point is going pretty far out on the limb. If Jesus' closest companions, the ones he instructed the most, chose as leaders of his people and poured out holy spirit upon at Pentecost of 33 did not get it, could it be possible for ANYONE to attain to salvation? I think not.
> 
> We MUST assume they had it right. Otherwise we have no guide and are at the mercy of our own conscience to determine right from wrong. Remember this very issue is what lead Adam and Eve on the path of destruction.


 In the history of Christianity, there have been numerous occasions where individuals or groups of people have made policy or done things for reasons other than the benefit of our spiritual being. As you, yourself, posted, the wording of the Bible has been altered:




> Oh, one more point. Your reference to the scripture in Jon 8.7 is a common one, but that scripture does not appear in the oldest surviving texts. There is strong evidence that it was added later by an over-zealous scribe or possibly added to help prove a line of thinking that was popular at the time. Regardless of the reason, it was added and so not included in proper scripture cannon. The better translations now leave it out altogether, or change the color or prints size with footnotes about it's doubtful place in inspired scripture. Just FYI :)


 So do we truly know?

Thoughtfully,
Spexvet

----------


## Shutterbug

> In the history of Christianity, there have been numerous occasions where individuals or groups of people have made policy or done things for reasons other than the benefit of our spiritual being. As you, yourself, posted, the wording of the Bible has been altered:


 Actually I gave evidence that very LITTLE had been changed, and mostly just punctuation.  I think the Bible is reliable.  If not, none of us has a chance.

----------


## chm2023

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143140,00.html

Now here's a pretty story.  Imagine the self righteousness that drives people to this.  Nasty bunch.

----------


## Shutterbug

> Now here's a pretty story. Imagine the self righteousness that drives people to this. Nasty bunch.


 I'll go along with your assesment of this one.  Why punish the kids for the mistakes of the parents? 

shutterbug

----------


## 1968

Given the recent discussions regarding the Supreme Court's decision on capital punishment and comments regarding the Ten Commandments, I thought it might be appropriate to resurrect this thread.

From CNN.com: *California gay-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional*
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/ga....ap/index.html

*SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.*

In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional. [see link for full report]

----------


## chm2023

> Given the recent discussions regarding the Supreme Court's decision on capital punishment and comments regarding the Ten Commandments, I thought it might be appropriate to resurrect this thread.
> 
> From CNN.com: *California gay-marriage ban ruled unconstitutional*
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/14/ga....ap/index.html
> 
> *SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.*
> 
> In the eagerly awaited opinion likely to be appealed to the state's highest court, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer said that withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians is unconstitutional. [see link for full report]


This was widely predicted, which is why there is a push for a federal Constitutional amendment. This seems to have lost steam as Bush realizes he needs moderate R and democrat votes for real issues.

----------


## Spexvet

Heaven forbid! The next thing you know, they'll allow Catholics and Protestants to marry!;)

----------


## For-Life

I do not like gay marriages because I am still in denial that there are homosexuals.  It is obvious that the communist are bring this into our society so that when we are not looking the USSR can be revived and will take over the world and paint us pink.

----------


## Rim Ranger

Same sex marriages should not be allowed because the act of sex between two people of the same gender is physically and morally wrong.  However, people should not be ashamed of feeling gay or being physically attracted to someone of the same gender.  These feelings are not a choice and therefore should not be condemned.  Only the act of engaging in homosexual activity is wrong.

----------


## Spexvet

> Same sex marriages should not be allowed because the act of sex between two people of the same gender is physically and morally wrong. However, people should not be ashamed of feeling gay or being physically attracted to someone of the same gender. These feelings are not a choice and therefore should not be condemned. Only the act of engaging in homosexual activity is wrong.


While every opinion is valid, and surely you admit that morals vary from person to person - the question is how does someone else's (by your assertion) "immorality" hurt you? Using your argument, I think eating chocolate is physically and morally wrong. Does that mean you should be prohibitted from eating chocolate?

----------


## Rim Ranger

Two men or two women getting married does not hurt me directly.  Why is that relevant to the issue of whether it is right or wrong?

----------


## Spexvet

> Two men or two women getting married does not hurt me directly. Why is that relevant to the issue of whether it is right or wrong?


Primarily because that's the title of the thread. Beyond that, if it doesn't hurt you, why do you feel compelled to forbid others getting married? If homosexuals felt that it's immoral for heterosexuals to marry each other, should they be prohibitted?

----------


## spartus

My wife and I very nearly went to San Francisco to get married during all the gay marriage hoo-hah last year, for a number of reasons. Mostly, we wanted to show solidarity with the people getting married, but we'd been putting off actually getting married for too many years, and, as a bonus, a trip to SF is always nice.

As far as gay marriage, I really don't get the opposition to it. What business is it of mine--or anyone's--what two consenting adults do in their private lives, as long as they're not hurting anyone? I mean, twenty years ago, gay people were just _too promiscuous_ and it was SICK and WRONG. Now, they want to codify their monogamous relationships in the eyes of the state, and _that's_ now WRONG and SICK. If the idea of what they do is personally repugnant to you, you should start crusading against morbidly obese or ugly people getting married too, in case that grosses you out.

Sheesh. If the word "marriage" is what gives everyone hives, give it a new name, and grant the couples precisely the same legal status as hetero married couples. I'm talking about hospital visitation rights, retirement/pensions, tax status, and the prohibition on being compelled to testify against your spouse. Calling it "marriage", I think, is pretty far down the list of priorities.

----------


## chm2023

> Same sex marriages should not be allowed because the act of sex between two people of the same gender is physically and morally wrong. However, people should not be ashamed of feeling gay or being physically attracted to someone of the same gender. These feelings are not a choice and therefore should not be condemned. Only the act of engaging in homosexual activity is wrong.


I see. So being homosexual means being condemned to a sexless existence, in order to meet your standards.  Sounds reasonable to me.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> if it doesn't hurt you, why do you feel compelled to forbid others getting married? If homosexuals felt that it's immoral for heterosexuals to marry each other, should they be prohibitted?


Why does something have to hurt you in order for you to care about it?  And your other question suggests that you think nothing is immoral in a vacuum. ...that morality is just one persons opinion.  Isn't it possible that some things are absolutely right and some things absolutely wrong?  Another word for "moral" is "good" or "right".  Some things are just right.  A male body and a female body together in marriage is right physically and morally.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> I see. So being homosexual means being condemned to a sexless existence, in order to meet your standards. Sounds reasonable to me.


I don't see how it's a sexless existence.  I hear a lot of people talk about equal rights.  We all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.  That IS an equal right.  Let's not confuse that with FAIR.  Some people are born rich and some people are born poor.  Do they enjoy the same quality of life?  Not at all.  Should we create a law that says the government should give all poor people a new Mercedes and buy them a house?

----------


## shanbaum

> Why does something have to hurt you in order for you to care about it? 
> ...


1. "Caring about something" and "prohibiting behavior you believe to be immoral" are two completely distinct classes of object.

2. It may be the case that there is an absolute truth; however, it may also be the case that there isn't. If there _is_ an absolute truth, it is indisputable that reasonable people differ over what it is (for instance, I disagree with your assertion that homosexual sex is immoral). Generally, people's beliefs about morality are coupled to their religious beliefs. While that is not invariably true, we have in this country historically made a point of decoupling the power of the state from the enforcement of religious doctrine. I believe that this is a) the law; and b) to our benefit.

3. The assertion that everyone has a right "to marry someone of the opposite sex" is as compelling as the now-abandoned constraint on personal liberty that used to afford everyone the right "to marry someone of the opposite sex and same race". 

4. You attempt to compare a non-existent "right of equality of economic status" with the disputed right of same-sex couples to marry. This is meaningful only for those who believe in neither.

----------


## Spexvet

> Why does something have to hurt you in order for you to care about it?


Why not live and let live? Why can't you accept that one man's trash is another man's treasure?



> And your other question suggests that you think nothing is immoral in a vacuum.


No, I have my own set of unique morals. But I believe that morals are as varied and individual as people. And I will not impose my morals on you. (You're welcome.) And I would expect that you would not impose your morals on me, in return.



> ...that morality is just one persons opinion.


It is. Without question. Absolutely.



> Isn't it possible that some things are absolutely right and some things absolutely wrong?


No. Facts are absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect, everything else is opinion. And that's a fact. :p Just by the way there is disagreement over "morals" should tell you that there is no absolute. 
Can you cite an example of something that is absolutely right or absolutely wrong?



> Another word for "moral" is "good" or "right".


Interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morally
Because morals change from person to person, their definition of "good" or "right" changes as well. 



> Some things are just right.


To whom?



> A male body and a female body together in marriage is right physically and morally.


That's your opinion. But is your personal preference enough to preclude others from marrying someone of the same gender?

----------


## Jacqui

I have stayed out of this conversation until now, for personal reasons. 

There are some people, like Rim Ranger, who know they are absolutely right about this all the time. There are others of us, like myself, that have been there and know better.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> 1. "Caring about something" and "prohibiting behavior you believe to be immoral" are two completely distinct classes of object.


If I don't care about you, and your homosexual activity doesn't hurt me, then why should I get involved in the issue?  I wouldn't get involved.

But I do care and so I set myself up for ridicule by saying that homosexuality is bad for you.  Because I believe it is and I want the best for all people.  These days its easier to be a vocal homo than to be a vocal hetero.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> Why not live and let live?


 That's the easy way but it's too selfish. If you see your brother or friend hurting himself, should you not speak up?



> Facts are absolutely correct or absolutely incorrect, everything else is opinion. Can you give an example...


Is there a God? Regardless of your opinion or mine, there is a correct answer and an incorrect answer to that question.  One of us is RIGHT and one of us is WRONG.

----------


## shanbaum

> If I don't care about you, and your homosexual activity doesn't hurt me, then why should I get involved in the issue? I wouldn't get involved.
> 
> But I do care and so I set myself up for ridicule by saying that homosexuality is bad for you. Because I believe it is and I want the best for all people. These days its easier to be a vocal homo than to be a vocal hetero.


Well, this is an interesting position... you want to prohibit people from engaging in behavior you believe to be harmful out of compassion for them. So, you propose a kind of "nanny state".

Does that modality recognize any limit - and if so, why? For instance, let's say that I think that religion has been a destructive force throughout human history, and I put together a majority that agrees with me; would we be justified in prohibiting you from practicing your religion... out of concern for your welfare as well as ours?

There's also a difference between having one's opinions criticized in the course of debate, and being ridiculed. I'm sorry if you feel that you've been ridiculed, but I don't see it. From my perspective, that's a reaction unwarranted by what's been written.

----------


## shanbaum

> Is there a God? Regardless of your opinion or mine, there is a correct answer and an incorrect answer to that question. One of us is RIGHT and one of us is WRONG.


You could each answer the question differently, and both be wrong, in all but the most limited sense. 

For instance, you won't find two more ardent adherents to the propositions that a) there is a God, and b) there is truth that is universal, absolute, and knowable, than Mother Theresa and Osama bin Laden. Are they both RIGHT?

----------


## Rim Ranger

> Well, this is an interesting position... you want to prohibit people from engaging in behavior you believe to be harmful out of compassion for them. So, you propose a kind of "nanny state".
> 
> Does that modality recognize any limit - and if so, why? For instance, let's say that I think that religion has been a destructive force throughout human history, and I put together a majority that agrees with me; would we be justified in prohibiting you from practicing your religion... out of concern for your welfare as well as ours?
> 
> There's also a difference between having one's opinions criticized in the course of debate, and being ridiculed. I'm sorry if you feel that you've been ridiculed, but I don't see it. From my perspective, that's a reaction unwarranted by what's been written.


Okay, if your argument is, things that are bad for you and morally wrong should still be legal, then I understand, and I give in because there is no way you can outlaw all bad things.   

The frustrating part for people like myself who believe in God and believe that homosexuality is wrong, is that by legally recognizing gay marriages, you are endorsing it morally.  Homosexuality is an activity.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> You could each answer the question differently, and both be wrong, in all but the most limited sense. 
> 
> For instance, you won't find two more ardent adherents to the propositions that a) there is a God, and b) there is truth that is universal, absolute, and knowable, than Mother Theresa and Osama bin Laden. Are they both RIGHT?


Yes they are both right on those two points.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> I'm sorry if you feel that you've been ridiculed, but I don't see it. From my perspective, that's a reaction unwarranted by what's been written.


Clarification. I didn't mean I was ridiculed here. I was referring more to society. In North America, it's more socially acceptable to practice sodomy than to say it's wrong.

----------


## Spexvet

> These days its easier to be a vocal homo than to be a vocal hetero.


Oh really?

*Shortly after midnight on October 7, 1998, 21-year-old Matthew Shepard met Aaron James McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson in a bar. According to McKinney, Shepard asked them for a ride home. Subsequently, Shepard was robbed, severely beaten, tied to a fence and left to die. McKinney and Henderson also found out his address, intending to burgle his home. Shepard was discovered 18 hours later, alive and unconscious.*

*Shepard suffered from a* *fracture** from the back of his head to the front of his right ear. He also had severe* *brain stem** damage, which affected his body's ability to regulate* *heartbeat**,* *body temperature**, and other* *vital signs**. There were also about a dozen small lacerations around his head, face and neck. His injuries were deemed too severe for doctors to operate. Shepard never regained consciousness and remained on full life support. He died at 12:53 a.m. on October 12 at Poudre Valley Hospital in* *Fort Collins**,* *Colorado**.*

*Police arrested McKinney and Henderson shortly thereafter, finding the bloody gun as well as the victim's shoes and credit card in their truck. The two murderers had attempted to get* *alibis** from their girlfriends.*

*[**edit**]*


*The trial*

*During court cases both of the defendants used varying stories to defend their actions. Most notably they used the "**gay panic defense**", arguing that they were driven to* *temporary insanity** by Shepard's alleged sexual advances towards them. At another point they stated that they had only wanted to rob Shepard, and never intended to kill him.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

and

*Many, if not most, performances of The Laramie Project are picketed by* *Fred Phelps** or his followers. Phelps also faxes a review to newspapers in the city in which the play is being performed: "the fag play 'The Laramie Project' is a tacky bit of melodramaunaffecting and drearily predictablewithout artistic merit or redeeming social value."*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laramie_Project

----------


## shanbaum

> Okay, if your argument is, things that are bad for you and morally wrong should still be legal, then I understand, and I give in because there is no way you can outlaw all bad things. 
> 
> The frustrating part for people like myself who believe in God and believe that homosexuality is wrong, is that by legally recognizing gay marriages, you are endorsing it morally. Homosexuality is an activity.


You might understand my objection to the assertion that anything which is legal is "morally endorsed". This will be problematic for a society that places a premium on individual liberty.

Homosexual conduct is an activity that was formerly criminalized, but which a (hopefully) maturing and evolving society is in the process of deciding shall henceforth be a matter of for individuals to decide according to their own beliefs. That is, freedom has been _added to_. You remain free to regard such conduct as whatever you care to regard it; you can speak against it with all of your powers of persuasion, you can work against it - in the private sector - to your heart's delight.

But you don't get to use the power of the state to enfore your religious beliefs. Sorry if that's frustrating.

----------


## shanbaum

> Clarification. I didn't mean I was ridiculed here. I was referring more to society. In North America, it's more socially acceptable to practice sodomy than to say it's wrong.


I think that's not remotely true.  Millions of people say it's wrong.

----------


## Spexvet

> The frustrating part for people like myself who believe in God and believe that homosexuality is wrong, is that by legally recognizing gay marriages, you are endorsing it morally. Homosexuality is an activity.


Didn't God make homosexuals and homosexual sex?

----------


## Rim Ranger

> Didn't God make homosexuals and homosexual sex?


No.  Homosexuals made it.

Did God make murder?  Did God make adultery?  Did God make you type your answer?  Does God make you support homosexuality?

----------


## Rim Ranger

> I think that's not remotely true. Millions of people say it's wrong.


Yes but the law says it's right.  Why is beastiality illegal?  Who does it harm if the animal doesn't resist?

----------


## coda

> Yes but the law says it's right. Why is beastiality illegal? Who does it harm if the animal doesn't resist?


The difference here is consent.  There is substantial legal precident showing that animals are unable to give consent (neither can children) hence the legallity is different.

----------


## Spexvet

> Does God make you support homosexuality?


I think my position is more like "I believe it is not my place to stop people from marrying a consenting adult, regardless of their race, creed, or gender"

----------


## shanbaum

> Yes but the law says it's right.


No, the law says it's not prohibited.  It is a mistake, in a society that presumes to call itself "free", to construe the absence of prohibition as an imprimatur, a sign of rectitude.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> The difference here is consent. There is substantial legal precident showing that animals are unable to give consent (neither can children) hence the legallity is different.


How do you know that animals give consent to being ridden upon, eaten, kept as pets, hunted, tested on, etc?  But they need consent to have sex with a human?  why the distinction?  Is it because beastiality is disgusting?  Disgusting is in the eye of the beholder and should stay out of law you say.  Do you want to legalize beastiality?  We already know that animals consent to having sex with each other.  If your poodle humps your leg, isn't he giving you consent?

----------


## Rim Ranger

> I think my position is more like "I believe it is not my place to stop people from marrying a consenting adult, regardless of their race, creed, or gender"


Oh, you take the hands off approach to what's right and wrong in the world.  That is your choice and your freedom.  I consider my responsibilities to be more important than my freedoms.  That's the difference between you and me.

----------


## coda

> How do you know that animals give consent to being ridden upon, eaten, kept as pets, hunted, tested on, etc? But they need consent to have sex with a human? why the distinction? Is it because beastiality is disgusting? Disgusting is in the eye of the beholder and should stay out of law you say. Do you want to legalize beastiality? We already know that animals consent to having sex with each other. If your poodle humps your leg, isn't he giving you consent?


The distinction is primarily in the law.  In any event attempting to draw parallels between the actions of two consenting adults and an adult and an animal is foolish and insulting.

----------


## Spexvet

> If your poodle humps your leg, isn't he giving you consent?


Maybe, but I do not give him consent, no matter how attractive he feels I am. Now, if it were a golden retriever...;)

----------


## Rim Ranger

> No, the law says it's not prohibited. It is a mistake, in a society that presumes to call itself "free", to construe the absence of prohibition as an imprimatur, a sign of rectitude.


By legalizing something, there is an element of moral acceptance.  

By the way, are you a lawyer?  Or do you just sound and look like one?

----------


## coda

> By legalizing something, there is an element of moral acceptance. 
> 
> By the way, are you a lawyer? Or do you just sound and look like one?


No, law and morallity are fundamentally disconnected just as the law and justice are not linked. We often think of them as contiguous or as ideally contiguous but as our nation is a nation based on the rights of both the many and the few it would be often be impossible to have laws which would overlap with the morals of both groups. Don't confuse your morallity with my laws.

I presume your 'lawyer' comment was an attempted zinger at Shanbaum.  Not smart, not nice.

----------


## shanbaum

> By legalizing something, there is an element of moral acceptance.


Not if you believe that liberty should be maximized; in which case there will be many things around you that are not prohibited, which you and/or many others will find objectionable, for all kinds of reasons - that is, reasons not limited to morality.

However, because you are inclined to see the power of the state used to prohibit behavior that you find objectionable (including, or perhaps limited to, immoral behavior), I can see where you would think that.

But I think that means you're more interested in righteousness than liberty. That's your choice.

BTW, the reason beastiality can still be prohibited (while homosexual conduct cannot) is that like most, though not all prohibitions, its prohibition enjoys broad support, and has not been found to violate anyone's liberty rights - at least not yet. Even if it were found to do that, it might nonetheless be supported on some "rational state interest" (e.g., public health) argument.

It has nothing to do with consent, which is a doctrine that simply doesn't apply to animals.





> By the way, are you a lawyer? Or do you just sound and look like one?


More questions having more than one answer. I'm reluctant to respond, because someday I may be appointed to the Supreme Court, and I wouldn't want to appear biased to the parties who might come before me.

Oh, shoot, too late for that... oh, well, I don't have any pals in really high places anyway...

----------


## Rim Ranger

> "to construe the absence of prohibition as an imprimatur, a sign of rectitude."


Sounds like a lawyer to me.  I'm not trying to insult.  Lawyers are intelligent and they use rare words.

----------


## drk

Free society be damned.  That concept is misapplied too often.  There's no such thing as a free society.  The terms are mutually exclusive.  There are "freer" societies, yes.

The question is: is homosexual marriage good for our society?  Is it bad for our society?  What precedent does it set?

The argument is this: homosexual marriage is the first move towards a NEW definition of marriage.  Marriage is a good thing in society, as it is.  We need more of it, not new forms of it.  If we stand for the inheirent goodness of marriage as it is now, and wish to support it, additional forms of it will dilute the original, which is already in a failing state.  

How can marriage be special if we have several forms of it?  How can anything be special if there is a loss of uniqueness?

Maybe we don't want marriage to be special?

----------


## shanbaum

> Free society be damned.


 
Ouch! Then what, exactly, _is_ on the march, if not freedom?

Connecticut now (as of five days ago) supports "civil unions" between same-sex couples; as best I can tell, the only difference between these and "marriage" is the name.

I detected no change whatsoever in my marriage upon this law becoming effective, and anticipate none.

I can see no substance at all in the assertion that marriage will be damaged in some way by allowing same-sex couples to engage in it; the way I see it, this can only lead to _more_ marriages.

But, thank's, drk, for bringing the topic full-circle.

----------


## coda

> The argument is this: homosexual marriage is the first move towards a NEW definition of marriage. Marriage is a good thing in society, as it is. We need more of it, not new forms of it. If we stand for the inheirent goodness of marriage as it is now, and wish to support it, additional forms of it will dilute the original, which is already in a failing state.


Your arguements:

1. Marriage is a good thing
2. We need more marriage
3. Marriage is in a failing state
4. Additional forms of marriage will dilute or alter it

Seems to me diluting or altering something that ideally is a good thing but in practice is in a 'failing state' is probably a good idea.

In any event, in our society marriage is essentially a legal contract.  That hardly makes it a unique thing.  I'm for eliminating any legal definition of marriage, make it something between the partners and their God(s) and keep the state out of it.  In the mean time, let the gays marry.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> BTW, the reason beastiality can still be prohibited (while homosexual conduct cannot) is that like most, though not all prohibitions, its prohibition enjoys broad support, and has not been found to violate anyone's liberty rights - at least not yet.


I think you just blew the legs out from under your previous arguments.  Prohibiting beastiality doesn't violate anyones rights?  What about the rights of people who are attracted to animals?  How can you discriminate against them?  If gays don't choose to be gay, then beastialists don't choose beastiality either.  You better get city hall prepared for the onslaught of animal brides and their human husbands.

You say "broad support" is enough to justify a law?  Are you sure you want the consequences that come with that belief, your honour?

----------


## drk

> I detected no change whatsoever in my marriage upon this law becoming effective, and anticipate none... the way I see it, this can only lead to _more_ marriages.


This would be detectable over the long haul, in ways not necessarily recognizable.

----------


## drk

> Your arguements:
> 
> 1. Marriage is a good thing
> 2. We need more marriage
> 3. Marriage is in a failing state
> 4. Additional forms of marriage will dilute or alter it
> 
> Seems to me diluting or altering something that ideally is a good thing but in practice is in a 'failing state' is probably a good idea.
> 
> In any event, in our society marriage is essentially a legal contract. That hardly makes it a unique thing. I'm for eliminating any legal definition of marriage, make it something between the partners and their God(s) and keep the state out of it. In the mean time, let the gays marry.


Your strict utilitarian outlook may work in the business world, but there is a deeper meaning to life than that. Does your utilitarian philosophy work as well in _your marriage_?  If you were to have your wife "break the contract", could you run out and sign on another dotted line and be just peachy?

----------


## Rim Ranger

> Free society be damned. That concept is misapplied too often.


I'm glad someone understands that unlimited freedom in society is no better than giving your kids unlimited freedom.  Some things are more important than freedom.

----------


## drk

> I'm glad someone understands that unlimited freedom in society is no better than giving your kids unlimited freedom. Some things are more important than freedom.


Not to those who are personally "rebels" at heart. Authority in most forms is abhorrent to them.

Even when the authority is for their own good.  Doing "what they want to" is the immature end-all, be-all.

You know, in the spirit of charity, I bet most _people-that-practice-homosexual-sex_ are perfectly satisfied with things the way they are, and don't necessarily want to join the ranks of the "_political gays_" who want special treatment for their particular form of deviation from the norm.

----------


## coda

> Your strict utilitarian outlook may work in the business world, but there is a deeper meaning to life than that. Does your utilitarian philosophy work as well in _your marriage_? If you were to have your wife "break the contract", could you run out and sign on another dotted line and be just peachy?


Whether you want to acknowledge it or not the point we're discussing is in fact the legal contractural aspect of marriage.  Making marriage between people of the same sex does not mean that churches must recognize or sanctify it.  Not any more than the Roman Catholic church is required to sanctify marriages between a Protestant and a Jew.  That, essentially, reduces this to an matter of contract law though a highly speciallized segment thereof.

So my point is, keep the 'deeper' meaning in the place it belongs, our hearts and churches.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> Whether you want to acknowledge it or not the point we're discussing is in fact the legal contractural aspect of marriage. Making marriage between people of the same sex does not mean that churches must recognize or sanctify it. Not any more than the Roman Catholic church is required to sanctify marriages between a Protestant and a Jew. That, essentially, reduces this to an matter of contract law though a highly speciallized segment thereof.
> 
> So my point is, keep the 'deeper' meaning in the place it belongs, our hearts and churches.


What kind of world would it be if we allowed everything that we can't legally and logically prove to be wrong?

Like this
-widespread divorce
-widespread pornography
-widespread corruption
-widespread selfishness

in other words, a culture of death.

Why do we outlaw drugs?

I think the above is already evident in society.

----------


## Rim Ranger

By the way, selfishness is nothing but evil disguised as freedom and human rights.

----------


## chm2023

> I don't see how it's a sexless existence. I hear a lot of people talk about equal rights. We all have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. That IS an equal right. Let's not confuse that with FAIR. Some people are born rich and some people are born poor. Do they enjoy the same quality of life? Not at all. Should we create a law that says the government should give all poor people a new Mercedes and buy them a house?


No but neither should we create a law that says the government should deny anyone a Mercedes or new house.  Analogies make my head hurt.....;)

----------


## shanbaum

> I think you just blew the legs out from under your previous arguments. Prohibiting beastiality doesn't violate anyones rights? What about the rights of people who are attracted to animals? How can you discriminate against them? If gays don't choose to be gay, then beastialists don't choose beastiality either. You better get city hall prepared for the onslaught of animal brides and their human husbands.
> 
> You say "broad support" is enough to justify a law? Are you sure you want the consequences that come with that belief, your honour?


Yes. You ascribe rights to the bestialist that he doesn't presently have - just as the homosexual didn't have the right to engage in homosexual conduct prior to _Lawrence v. Texas._ He may or may not ever come to have those rights; if he does, it will be because the broad support for the prohibition will have diminished. Like the recently-recognized right to engage in gay sex, it will no doubt continue to be opposed by a religious minority - but they specifically lack the right to impose their will on society, other than by amending the Consitution; under the circumstances I'm hypothesizing, that wouldn't happen, by definition.

I didn't say that _only_ "broad support" is sufficient to support a prohibition - it must also be the case that the prohibition must not abrogate anyone's liberty rights, or for that matter, any other provision of the U.S. Constitution, or the constitution of the State in question. At the federal level, a prohibition _should_ be grounded in a legitimate federal power.

But don't be surprised by the importance of "broad support" in a democracy.

----------


## shanbaum

> What kind of world would it be if we allowed everything that we can't legally and logically prove to be wrong?
> 
> Like this
> -widespread divorce
> -widespread pornography
> -widespread corruption
> -widespread selfishness
> 
> in other words, a culture of death.


 
I guess that makes you a pessimist; we do "allow" all of these things, and somehow muddle through. 

Though, there's a bit of a gulf between divorce, pornography, corruption, and selfishness on the one hand, and _death_ on the other.





> Why do we outlaw drugs?


There are lots of ways to answer that, but here are a couple: 

1) because we think we can legislate "right" behavior in this area, despite all the evidence to the contrary; 

2) because we learned nothing from Prohibition.

----------


## drk

Ah, the "separation of church and state" argument!

----------


## drk

> Whether you want to acknowledge it or not the point we're discussing is in fact the legal contractural aspect of marriage. Making marriage between people of the same sex does not mean that churches must recognize or sanctify it. Not any more than the Roman Catholic church is required to sanctify marriages between a Protestant and a Jew. That, essentially, reduces this to an matter of contract law though a highly speciallized segment thereof.
> 
> So my point is, keep the 'deeper' meaning in the place it belongs, our hearts and churches.


This is the post I refer to.

----------


## shanbaum

> By the way, selfishness is nothing but evil disguised as freedom and human rights.


You need to explain this.  You seem to be trying to equate "freedom and human rights" to "selfishness and evil" on the other, which strikes me as deplorable - but I'm not really sure what this sentence means.

----------


## chip anderson

What we need in our area is more solid marriages. We lead the nation in *******s (no I refuse to use more politically correct terms for the spawn of the unwed hovel.). We lead the nation on people socially dependent on others to support them. We lead the nation in political corruption. We lead the nation in illiteracy. We lead the nation in many types of crimes, especially those that are of a social or violent nature.

In our churches those that are blessed with "teaching" children's classes threaten to resign for lack of parental discipline with their charges.

Any you want tell me that we need more freedom from morals and any social restraint! You stays up North there in your little wasp neighborhood with all your well educated liberal friends in clueless seclusion. 

Git REAL!

----------


## coda

> Like this
> -widespread divorce
> -widespread pornography
> -widespread corruption
> -widespread selfishness
> 
> in other words, a culture of death.


Which one of those is related to death?  Seriously.


> Why do we outlaw drugs?


The stated premis is as a public health issue.  Of course that's pretty specious since we allow alcohol and subsidize the growth of tobacco.  The fundamental reason we outlaw drugs is because they were difficult to tax and the prohibitionists had recently been dealt a blow with the repeal of Prohibition.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> I didn't say that _only_ "broad support" is sufficient to support a prohibition - it must also be the case that the prohibition must not abrogate anyone's liberty rights, or for that matter, any other provision of the U.S. Constitution, or the constitution of the State in question. At the federal level, a prohibition _should_ be grounded in a legitimate federal power.


Okay then, how does beastiality take away anyone's liberty?

----------


## Rim Ranger

> I guess that makes you a pessimist; we do "allow" all of these things, and somehow muddle through. 
> 
> Though, there's a bit of a gulf between divorce, pornography, corruption, and selfishness on the one hand, and _death_ on the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of ways to answer that, but here are a couple: 
> 
> ...


So either you approve of cocaine or you think it should be legalized anyway.

----------


## shanbaum

> Okay then, how does beastiality take away anyone's liberty?


I'm not sure I understand - the _prohibition_ of bestiality could be found to be an abrogation of a liberty right, but that right has not been recognized - and I suspect, never will be.

Was that the question?

----------


## shanbaum

> So either you approve of cocaine or you think it should be legalized anyway.


I don't personally advocate it, but I think putting hundreds of thousands of people in jail for using it is insane.  And its prohibition creates a criminal domain that wouldn't otherwise exist, giving us two problems (a drug problem and a crime problem) where we could have just the former.

----------


## shanbaum

> What we need in our area is more solid marriages. We lead the nation in *******s (no I refuse to use more politically correct terms for the spawn of the unwed hovel.). We lead the nation on people socially dependent on others to support them. We lead the nation in political corruption. We lead the nation in illiteracy. We lead the nation in many types of crimes, especially those that are of a social or violent nature.
> 
> In our churches those that are blessed with "teaching" children's classes threaten to resign for lack of parental discipline with their charges.
> 
> Any you want tell me that we need more freedom from morals and any social restraint! You stays up North there in your little wasp neighborhood with all your well educated liberal friends in clueless seclusion. 
> 
> Git REAL!


Chip, by "we" do you mean Southerners generally, or just Mississipians?

----------


## Rim Ranger

> I'm not sure I understand - the _prohibition_ of bestiality could be found to be an abrogation of a liberty right, but that right has not been recognized - and I suspect, never will be.
> 
> Was that the question?


Why is it okay to make homosexuality a liberty, but not beastiality?  What is fundamentally different about the 2 preferences?

Some people prefer sex with a consenting adult of same gender.  This hurts no one, therefore is a legally protected right.

Some people prefer sex with a consenting animal.  This hurts no one.  Why is it not legally protected, except for the fact that the majority wants it illegal?

----------


## Rim Ranger

The bottom line is divorce, pornography, abortion, euthanasia, selfishness, all contribute to the destruction of the family unit.  Destroy families and you destroy society.  Sounds like death to me.

----------


## Spexvet

> ... The argument is this: homosexual marriage is the first move towards a NEW definition of marriage. Marriage is a good thing in society, as it is. We need more of it, not new forms of it. If we stand for the inheirent goodness of marriage as it is now, and wish to support it, additional forms of it will dilute the original, which is already in a failing state. 
> 
> How can marriage be special if we have several forms of it? How can anything be special if there is a loss of uniqueness?
> 
> Maybe we don't want marriage to be special?


I don't think there is one, static, definition of marriage. Currently, in our world, there are cultures where bigamy is common (as if one spouse is not enough). Even in our Judeo-Christian heritage, there are examples of bigamy. Think of all the old testament figures with multiple wives. And they were God's chosen!

----------


## drk

This is my same old statement, over and over, but it's "all I got".

Despite the noble intentions of "fairness" and "human rights" for all, we aren't going to get that in this world.  It may be unfair, and some people may have to have their perceived rights unfulfilled in order to maintain a coherent, functioning society.

America has traditionally been a Christian country, and still is, although marginally so.  There are many minorities, now, and they may be free from becoming Christian, but essentially they cannot be free FROM Christianity.  

Now, in 20 years (or so), I think Christians will be a minority, and will be viciously persecuted by the future majority.  Pure speculation, yes, but unfortunately that's what a large percentage of Christian prophetics would say is going to happen.  

Being a minority now isn't that bad a deal, and the Christians are to be thanked for that.

Anyone want to be a Christian in the Islamic world?  A woman?

----------


## Spexvet

> The bottom line is divorce, pornography, abortion, euthanasia, selfishness, all contribute to the destruction of the family unit. Destroy families and you destroy society. Sounds like death to me.


And same gender marriage creates families. Sounds like the beginning of a solution.

----------


## coda

> Now, in 20 years (or so), I think Christians will be a minority, and will be viciously persecuted by the future majority. Pure speculation, yes, but unfortunately that's what a large percentage of Christian prophetics would say is going to happen.


Where's your justification for this?  The majority of immigrants entering the country are from South America, most of those countries have higher rates of church attendence than the US, they are all Catholic (I believe they're ususally considered Christian).  

Ya know, Japan has never been a Christian nation and certainly aren't now but they seem to have a 'coherent' and 'functioning' society.  Lower crime there, by the by.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> And same gender marriage creates families. Sounds like the beginning of a solution.


Same gender marriage creates financial and legal protection for homosexuals.

----------


## chip anderson

DRK:   Take heart, it ain't that marginal.  Christian Churches and Jew Synagogs outnumber still all others 200 to 1.

We just don't make as much noise.

----------


## Rim Ranger

One side says "being gay is wrong."

The other side says "it doesn't matter. We have the freedom to be gay."

Don't forget, with freedom comes the responsibility to accept the consequences.

We have the freedom to smoke. Look at all the innocent people suffering as a result of second-hand smoke in society. Many years from now, how many innocent people will suffer the consequences of second-hand homosexuality? That is, innocent children who grow up in a home with 2 Moms or 2 Dads?

We have the freedom to watch pornography. Look at all the innocent people suffering as a result of second-hand pornography. People exposed to it in stores. Or worse, being used to produce it because of the demand by the free!

We have the freedom to get divorced. Look at the innocent children suffering from the divorce of their parents, just because they have the right. Children growing up knowing that, if problems come into their marriage, they might divorce.

Children deserve more than just laws based on everyone's sexual urges and freedoms.  They deserve a society that nurtures them and promotes what is right.

----------


## coda

> We have the freedom to smoke. Look at all the innocent people suffering as a result of second-hand smoke in society. Many years from now, how many innocent people will suffer the consequences of second-hand homosexuality? That is, innocent children who grow up in a home with 2 Moms or 2 Dads?
> 
> We have the freedom to watch pornography. Look at all the innocent people suffering as a result of second-hand pornography. People exposed to it in stores. Or worse, being used to produce it because of the demand by the free!
> 
> We have the freedom to get divorced. Look at the innocent children suffering from the divorce of their parents, just because they have the right. Children growing up knowing that, if problems come into their marriage, they might divorce.


Care to hypothesize the 'consequences of second-hand homosexuality'?  Now base your arguements on observed behavior.

Do the same for people exposed to pornography in stores.

Now try the other side.  Hypothesize the consequences of living in household where parents hate each other and would divorce if they could but the state forces them to continue to live togther.  (Clearly that's what you're proposing).

----------


## drk

> I don't think there is one, static, definition of marriage. Currently, in our world, there are cultures where bigamy is common (as if one spouse is not enough). Even in our Judeo-Christian heritage, there are examples of bigamy. Think of all the old testament figures with multiple wives. And they were God's chosen!


True, that. However the bigamists suffered needlessly, and I think God laughed at their foolishness.

Is bigamy really that culturally prevalent, nowadays?

P.S.  My wife told me in the Netherlands two women and a man are trying to be married.  Can-o-worms, I say.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> Care to hypothesize the 'consequences of second-hand homosexuality'? Now base your arguements on observed behavior.
> 
> Do the same for people exposed to pornography in stores.
> 
> Now try the other side. Hypothesize the consequences of living in household where parents hate each other and would divorce if they could but the state forces them to continue to live togther. (Clearly that's what you're proposing).


Before anyone died of second hand smoke, there is no way you could have proved it was harmful.  The same may be true of homosexuality and gay marriage.

I'm not saying outlaw divorce but why do we need an official label for every sexual urge?

Why not have doggy-style marriages too?

Why not have incest marriages?

Why not have living/deceased marriages?  (The deceased could agree while they are still living.)

Why not have married singles? Maybe you love yourself and you like to masturbate, so you should be protected under the law.

----------


## drk

> Where's your justification for this? The majority of immigrants entering the country are from South America, most of those countries have higher rates of church attendence than the US, they are all Catholic (I believe they're ususally considered Christian). 
> 
> Ya know, Japan has never been a Christian nation and certainly aren't now but they seem to have a 'coherent' and 'functioning' society. Lower crime there, by the by.


This is just my doomsday scenario from my religious perspective. Don't you think that the number of "true" (not nominal) Christians is decreasing? I hope I'm wrong. 

(What I really think is going to happen is too far out to post.)

I'm not saying the religion has to be Christian to have a functioning society (heck, the Romans had a highly functioning pagan society), but a society that thrives and persists over time has to have some form of religious/value/moral agreement to hold the citizens together.

The post-modernist "whatever goes" mentality will not hold this country together, and will weaken it tremendously, IMO. But who knows?  I base this on a common sense philosophy that "like will stick to like".  Heck, in Quebec it seems that even two languages can cause a separatist rift.  Look how the US almost fractured over something morally (and commercially) based!

----------


## coda

> Why not have doggy-style marriages too?


In fact we do.  We allow people of opposite genders to have what ever marriage they want to have, doggy style, asexual, whatever.  We allow incestuous marriages as well (at least between 1st cousins in some states).  

That you compare a specific sexual act (doggy style) to a sexual preference (the standard word, not my belief that it is actually a choice) is pretty specious.

----------


## coda

> (What I really think is going to happen is too far out to post.)
> 
> I'm not saying the religion has to be Christian to have a functioning society (heck, the Romans had a highly functioning pagan society), but a society that thrives and persists over time has to have some form of religious/value/moral agreement to hold the citizens together.


We have the 'grown up' version of that.  It's called the rule of law, wherein the laws are a generally accepted set of societal rules to which the members of society must adhere or face the consequences.  They don't have to be based on religion.  Certainly the roman empire embraced dozens of religions and functioned quite well for far longer than the US has been around.  In fact the roman empire underwent significant religious metamorphoses over it's history ending, ultimately, as an Eastern Orthodox empire.  Values and morals changed over the centuries as well.  In fact one much smarter or informed than I could probably make a pretty good arguement that the values and morals evolved to fit societal needs.  A little like the acceptance of homosexuallity in our current culture.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> In fact we do. We allow people of opposite genders to have what ever marriage they want to have, doggy style, asexual, whatever. We allow incestuous marriages as well (at least between 1st cousins in some states). 
> 
> That you compare a specific sexual act (doggy style) to a sexual preference (the standard word, not my belief that it is actually a choice) is pretty specious.


Fine.  Bad example.  Why not allow same-person marriages?  If a man can marry another man because that's his sexual preference, then why can't a man marry himself for the same reason?

----------


## coda

> Fine. Bad example. Why not allow same-person marriages? If a man can marry another man because that's his sexual preference, then why can't a man marry himself for the same reason?


Well, primarily because marriage is the union of two individuals.  But if some religion wants to sanctify a solo marriage then the more power to them.  From a legal standpoint there could be no possible advantages to a solo marriage (he already gets his own health care and a single person could obviously not file jointly).  This is really a non-starter as an arguement against same-sex marriage.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> Well, primarily because marriage is the union of two individuals. But if some religion wants to sanctify a solo marriage then the more power to them. From a legal standpoint there could be no possible advantages to a solo marriage (he already gets his own health care and a single person could obviously not file jointly). This is really a non-starter as an arguement against same-sex marriage.


So you really can't answer the question, can you? 

You are against one-person marriages "because marriage is the union of two individuals."
I am against gay marriages because "marriage is the union of a man and a woman."

Your argument about "no advantages" doesn't work because you don't use advantages to support gay marriages, you use "freedom" to support it.

----------


## coda

> So you really can't answer the question, can you? 
> 
> You are against one-person marriages "because marriage is the union of two individuals."
> I am against gay marriages because "marriage is the union of a man and a woman."
> 
> Your argument about "no advantages" doesn't work because you don't use advantages to support gay marriages, you use "freedom" to support it.


I answered the question but I guess I wasn't clear enough.  Let him marry himself (what I meant by 'more power to them').

To the point of 'advantages'; marriage does bestow 'advantages' on the married and by excluding a class of people you are thereby discriminating against that class of people.  By your statements is fairly clear that you're not actually against the 'concept' of gay marriage but actually against gays as a group of people.  A group of people to whome you would deny the advantages you would bestow on everyone else.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> I answered the question but I guess I wasn't clear enough. Let him marry himself (what I meant by 'more power to them').
> 
> To the point of 'advantages'; marriage does bestow 'advantages' on the married and by excluding a class of people you are thereby discriminating against that class of people. By your statements is fairly clear that you're not actually against the 'concept' of gay marriage but actually against gays as a group of people. A group of people to whome you would deny the advantages you would bestow on everyone else.


Okay I understand your point. But I'm not against gays as a group. In fact, I don't even consider them a group. Black is a group. Handicapped is a group. Gay is not a group. (Or a "class of people" as you call it.)  Gay is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Theft is a sin. I want all of those people to have the same freedoms, liberties and rights. (The right to marry one person of opposite sex.) I also want all of those people to stop sinning for their own sake, not mine.

----------


## drk

> We have the 'grown up' version of that. It's called the rule of law, wherein the laws are a generally accepted set of societal rules to which the members of society must adhere or face the consequences. They don't have to be based on religion.


What do you mean "grown up"?

The "great white secular hope"--rule of law--IS TOTALLY BASED ON MORALITY.  Which morality do you prefer, Coda?

----------


## chip anderson

Are not Priests and Nuns said to be married to God?

----------


## coda

> Okay I understand your point. But I'm not against gays as a group. In fact, I don't even consider them a group. Black is a group. Handicapped is a group. Gay is not a group. (Or a "class of people" as you call it.) Gay is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Theft is a sin. I want all of those people to have the same freedoms, liberties and rights. (The right to marry one person of opposite sex.) I also want all of those people to stop sinning for their own sake, not mine.


I'm going to quote you from a previous post now:



> However, people should not be ashamed of feeling gay or being physically attracted to someone of the same gender. These feelings are not a choice and therefore should not be condemned.


Surely if gays don't choose to be attracted to their own sex then they are as much a 'group of people' as the handicapped or african-americans.  I understand that you don't want to believe that you're against gays but your rhetoric would indicate otherwise.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> Surely if gays don't choose to be attracted to their own sex then they are as much a 'group of people' as the handicapped or african-americans. I understand that you don't want to believe that you're against gays but your rhetoric would indicate otherwise.


You're confusing the feeling with the action.  What is your definition of gay?  That would help us to understand each other better.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Why is it okay to make homosexuality a liberty, but not beastiality? What is fundamentally different about the 2 preferences


Because it's consensual?

----------


## Rim Ranger

> Because it's consensual?


But as I said earlier, when your poodle humps your leg, is that not consent?

----------


## coda

> What do you mean "grown up"?
> 
> The "great white secular hope"--rule of law--IS TOTALLY BASED ON MORALITY. Which morality do you prefer, Coda?


No it is most explicitly not.  Law is based on generally accepted rules necessary to maintain society.  While some of these rules are based on the generally accepted morals of our culture (don't murder, for example) many are not (don't broadcast private communications in the FM radio band).

My morality is essentially (in no particular order): Do no harm to others; Value individuals; Strive to Advance peace and prosperity for all people; Understand others to the best of my ability; Protect those in need of protection; Support my family and friends to the best of my ability; Leave the world a better place than I found it

----------


## coda

> You're confusing the feeling with the action. What is your definition of gay? That would help us to understand each other better.


No, I don't think I am.

Gays are people who are at least primarily sexually attracted to members of their own sex.

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Why do we outlaw drugs?


Because politicians can't get re-elected if they support the decriminalizing of illicit drugs.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> No, I don't think I am.
> 
> Gays are people who are at least primarily sexually attracted to members of their own sex.


Okay, by that definition, I see them as a group.  And by that definition, I don't condemn gays.  They can't help it, right?  Feelings are neither right, nor wrong, they just are.  How can you fault someone for their feelings?

Actions on the other hand, you control.  I am against gay activity, not gay feelings.  Gay sexual activity does not deserve a special recognition under the law.  I think all people who are performing gay activities are committing sins.  People who are attracted to the same sex, yet refrain from activity are guilty of nothing wrong.

----------


## drk

> ...generally accepted rules necessary to maintain society.  
> 
> My morality is essentially (in no particular order): Do no harm to others; Value individuals; Strive to Advance peace and prosperity for all people; Understand others to the best of my ability; Protect those in need of protection; Support my family and friends to the best of my ability; Leave the world a better place than I found it


Hairsplitting, I would say.

I admire your ethical code.  Is it secular or religious?  Warning: I am trying to trap you.

----------


## drk

Quite frankly, I'm attracted to some women other than my wife. "Gays" (would probably be considered) those who are attracted to their own gender. 

Neither of those things are going to bring happiness, though, just pain and emptiness, ultimately.

Homosexuality is wrong because it's not the Creator's plan for His children. Many, many, many things I do are wrong, too. Homosex is not my specific sin, so I do not condemn those who have this sinful behavior. In fact, I rather sympathize (not patronize) with them.

We have to support what is best for our fellow men, and help each other to do what we should be doing, in God's eyes.  I would appreciate anyone else's help, as well.  

We're all sinners and have fallen short.

----------


## coda

> Hairsplitting, I would say.
> 
> I admire your ethical code. Is it secular or religious? Warning: I am trying to trap you.


My ethical code is derived from my own personal experiences, my understanding of how this and other societies operate, my understanding of interpersonal interactions, the society in which I would like to live and my own spirituallity.  As I am most decidedly non-religious (though still somewhat spiritual) my ethical code is decidedly non-religious.  

You should also understand that this is _my_ ethical code.  Warning: I'm trying to trap you.

----------


## chip anderson

"Freedom must always be paid for in blood."    If no one is willing to pay for this in the "proper coin" why are we even bothering to notice?

One person's freedom to do something or have something is usually at the cost of something equally dear to someone else.

No freedoms were ever attained at a voting booth or on a debateing squad.


Chip

----------


## coda

> Okay, by that definition, I see them as a group. And by that definition, I don't condemn gays. They can't help it, right? Feelings are neither right, nor wrong, they just are. How can you fault someone for their feelings?
> 
> Actions on the other hand, you control. I am against gay activity, not gay feelings. Gay sexual activity does not deserve a special recognition under the law. I think all people who are performing gay activities are committing sins. People who are attracted to the same sex, yet refrain from activity are guilty of nothing wrong.


You presume married gays would be having sex.  Given a number of hetrosexual marriages I  know of that's not a safe assumption.  In any event, as has been shown repeatedly, what two consenting adults do in private is none of the governments business ergo from a legal standpoint your arguement doesn't work.

Incidentally, people who are attracted to members of the same sex and act on that attraction are guilty of nothing wrong.

----------


## coda

> "Freedom must always be paid for in blood." If no one is willing to pay for this in the "proper coin" why are we even bothering to notice?


Matthew Sheppard paid in blood as did Teena Brenden.




> One person's freedom to do something or have something is usually at the cost of something equally dear to someone else.


What is the dear thing lost here?  (Which really does bring the whole conversation full circle!)

----------


## drk

> My ethical code is derived from my own personal experiences, my understanding of how this and other societies operate, my understanding of interpersonal interactions, the society in which I would like to live and my own spirituallity. As I am most decidedly non-religious (though still somewhat spiritual) my ethical code is decidedly non-religious.


You perceive a somewhat universal set of principles that you adhere to, right?

Where did this universality come from?  Jung's or Joesph Campbell's collective unconscious? Rationalism?

As to what is at stake for the majority (fortunately) of Americans: "Sanctity of Marriage"

Main Entry: *sanc·ti·ty* 
Pronunciation: 'sa[ng](k)-t&-tE
Function: _noun_
Inflected Form(s): _plural_ *-ties*
Etymology: Middle English _saunctite,_ from Middle French _saincteté,_ from Latin _sanctitat-, sanctitas,_ from _sanctus_ sacred
*1* *:* holiness of life and character *: GODLINESS*
*2 a* *:* the quality or state of being holy or sacred *: INVIOLABILITY* *b* _plural_ *:* sacred objects, obligations, or rights 



It's deep to some of us!

(on vacation for 4 days.  Carry on)

----------


## spartus

Couple of things:




> America has traditionally been a Christian country...


Yes, but no. If by "Christian country", you mean populated by a majority of Christians, certainly yes. If by "Christian country" you mean "founded on Christian values, by Christian men, and it's the reinstitution of those Christian values that will right the ship and send the nation hurtling ever faster toward greatness", no.

We'll skip over the history of the people who were already here when the Europeans arrived, since that's not really pertinent to the discussion. However: The Pilgrims, who _were_ basically the Founding Fathers' great-grandfathers, came here not to found a Christian nation, but to escape religious persecution. When, some years later, we achieved independence from Britain, the Founding Fathers took great pains to separate church and state, in deliberate contrast to GB (keep in mind the head of state is also the head of the Church of England), to keep the same sort of persecution from happening again. So, while a majority of the populace is (practicing or non-) Christian of some shape, size or denomination (and it's important to keep in mind here that barely over a century ago, the Catholics weren't even considered in the "Christian" bloc), this nation, is most assuredly *not* an Official Christian Nation™.

State-supported enforced, or mandated religion is a bad, bad thing, and is antithetical to democracy (which is a good, good thing). It sets a nation on the path toward theocracy, or at least a theocratic-flavored government. For the bad side of theocracies, see Spain in the 15th century, or most of the Middle East today.

Second, stop comparing homosexuality to bestiality, unless, of course, you have trouble differentiating between a consenting adults and animals. 

Which, now that I think about it, could explain your feelings on the matter. Fluffy forgives you, come back home....  ;) 

And third, it's very odd reading page after page lecturing people about the evils of homosexuality from someone nicknamed "Rim Ranger".  :)

----------


## drk

Spartus:

No, you're right, I didn't mean "USA: the official Christian country". Your finer points on separation of church and state are mostly valid.

What I mean is that the sensibilities that prevailed in those times and until recently have been Christian (or Judeo-Christian, if you will). Not atheist, humanist, or other philosophies, nor any other religion. In the de-facto sense, America has been a Christian nation. 

I don't think we disagree. 

If such a thing as homosexual marriage would have reared its head 50 or, heaven forbid 250 years ago, I think we all know what the result would have been.

Are we more "enlightened" now than they were because we have internet access? No. We are just less Christian. We're post-Christian in the US, almost, like I hear it is in Europe.

BTW: No takers on the three-way marriage subject?  http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/sep/05093008.html

----------


## chip anderson

Spartus: The founding fathers took great measures to separate state from church. Not to separate the church from the state. i.e. forbid the state to establish a state religion. They too no measures to keep the church out of the state. This idiotic idea was introduced only recently by the courts legistateing from the bench.

Read the pre-emble to all 50 states constitutions (I will e.mail you a copy if you must have proof) every damn one of them starts out with a reference to Almighty God or a Supreme Being.

Of course all 50 states could be wrong....

Chip

----------


## spartus

> The founding fathers took great measures to separate state from church. Not to separate the church from the state. i.e. forbid the state to establish a state religion.


When you say "the state", do you mean "The State" as in the nation, or "The State" as in "The State of Alaska"? If the latter, then you're partially right--the individual states are in no way forbidden to establish a state (as in State-of-Vermont) religion. There can be, as defined by the Constitution and clarified by the Thomas Jefferson quote below, no _National_ religion, as defined by the federal government. 




> "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, 1808. ME 11:428





> They too no measures to keep the church out of the state. This idiotic idea was introduced only recently by the courts legistateing from the bench.


Depends on your definition of "recently":




> "No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425


And, for that matter, "courts" and "bench".

I do have to say that your interpretation of "the separation of church and state" to mean that the state can't get involved with the church, but the church can get involved with the state, novel to say the least. Explain this further, or forgive my misinterpretation.

And drk, I'm glad we can largely come to a consensus on the matter. The "America is a Christian nation" canard is a major pet peeve of mine. It's factually accurate, but never in the sense in which it's used. Oh, and three-way marriage is bigamy and dumb to boot. :)

----------


## coda

> You perceive a somewhat universal set of principles that you adhere to, right?


Nope.  I even gave you an out when I emphasized _my_ and told you it was a trap.  They're not universal principles, they're _my_ values.  I'm not so presumptuous as to presume they are or should be anyone elses values.  

I'm not anywhere near as presumptuous as you in presuming that you know God's values.  Hubris, drk, hubris.

----------


## Rim Ranger

> You presume married gays would be having sex. Given a number of hetrosexual marriages I know of that's not a safe assumption. In any event, as has been shown repeatedly, what two consenting adults do in private is none of the governments business ergo from a legal standpoint your arguement doesn't work.
> 
> Incidentally, people who are attracted to members of the same sex and act on that attraction are guilty of nothing wrong.


I agree the government can't tell people what to do in the bedroom.  The gay marriage issue is not about that.  It's about officially recognizing a life that is dedicated to sin.  You obviously don't think sodomy is a sin and that's your choice.  But just like "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law," neither will denial excuse you from paying the price for your sins.

Another thing, these debates always turn into "Christians vs. Homosexuals."  Think about those self-described labels for a second.  "Christians" commit to a life based on the life of Christ, the son of God.  "Homosexuals" commit to a life based on sodomy.

----------


## shanbaum

> I agree the government can't tell people what to do in the bedroom. The gay marriage issue is not about that. It's about officially recognizing a life that is dedicated to sin. You obviously don't think sodomy is a sin and that's your choice. But just like "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law," neither will denial excuse you from paying the price for your sins.
> 
> Another thing, these debates always turn into "Christians vs. Homosexuals." Think about those self-described labels for a second. "Christians" commit to a life based on the life of Christ, the son of God. "Homosexuals" commit to a life based on sodomy.


You persist in conflating the absence of prohibition with validation ("recognizing a life... dedicated to sin").

You can do that if you want, but it's certainly inconsistent with "the government can't tell people what to do in the bedroom."

----------


## shanbaum

And, by the way, I suspect that there are more than a few homosexuals who would take exception to your characterizing them as leading lives "based on sodomy". In fact, I suspect there are many who think they lead lives every bit as much based on the life of Christ as yours.

Or, is your life really "based" on heterosexual sex?

----------


## Spexvet

> Another thing, these debates always turn into "Christians vs. Homosexuals." Think about those self-described labels for a second. "Christians" commit to a life based on the life of Christ, the son of God. "Homosexuals" commit to a life based on sodomy.


I just caught up in the thread - had to read 2 1/2 pages. Following are some disjointed reactions to what I've read.

I don't think anyone here is attacking Christianity or Christian values. And I, for one, would prefer not to be attacked with Christian values. No one is insisting that you marry someone of the same gender as you. 

Our laws are not Judeo-Christian laws. It's not unlawful to lie, or covet. We tried blue laws, and I have to say that it's nice to be able to buy gas on Sunday. 

There are plenty of Christian homosexuals. Just like there are plenty of Christian liars, thieves, adulterers, pedophiles, coveters, murderers, etc. Why is it that you think only homosexuals can't be Christian? Some of the Christian values that you might want to focus on are "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and "judge not, lest ye be judged".

Let's all try to use examples and analogies that involve two, consenting, adult human beings. After all, we could spiral down into "wouldn't a chair's freedom be compromised if you don't allow it to marry a dog?"

If you think that Christians will be a minority in the future, you should consider treating the current minorities more fairly. Paybacks are a b*tch!

----------


## Bill West

We don't need to waste our time on this issue.
God himself will judge on judgement day. I can't wait to hear them explain to him how it was ok.
TOO LATE

----------


## shanbaum

> We don't need to waste our time on this issue.
> God himself will judge on judgement day. I can't wait to hear them explain to him how it was ok.
> TOO LATE


 
Really. You know His decision already, what's left for Him to do? In fact, why not do the job for Him, and go ahead and consign the infidels to their fate here and now?

And if this is a waste of time, why did you post?  Do you have time to waste?

----------


## Spexvet

> We don't need to waste our time on this issue.
> God himself will judge on judgement day. I can't wait to hear them explain to him how it was ok.
> TOO LATE


Then allow them to marry - It's their eternal soul to do with what they will.

----------


## coda

> Another thing, these debates always turn into "Christians vs. Homosexuals."


This is an interesting statement.  You claim you have no animosity towards gays but now characterize this debate as "Christian vs. Homosexuals".  I haven't seen anyone on this board attack Christianity and, to the best of my knowledge, no one who has posted in this forum is gay.  In fact many of the people posting on the pro gay marriage side are Christian.  It appears that the only person engaging in a 'Christians vs. Homosexuals' debate here is you.  I'll actually take it a step further and say that you're not even engaging in a debate.  When I question you or provide you with a talking point you ignore it, this indicates to me that even you recognize that you're arguing from a pretty weak position.



> Think about those self-described labels for a second. "Christians" commit to a life based on the life of Christ, the son of God. "Homosexuals" commit to a life based on sodomy.


 This is so patently offensive as to be unworthy of response.

----------


## Spexvet

I'd like to commend everyone for keeping this debate civil. :cheers:

----------


## Rim Ranger

> There are plenty of Christian homosexuals. Just like there are plenty of Christian liars, thieves, adulterers, pedophiles, coveters, murderers, etc. Why is it that you think only homosexuals can't be Christian?


Anyone can be Christian.  The key is that you WANT to stop committing sins.  Christianity says homosexuality is a sin.  So is adultery.  How many people do you know that say "I am an adulterer and proud of it.  Adulterers deserve equal rights!"  

If I have a tendency to steal, then as a Christian, I want to stop stealing.  I'm not supposed to bask in the glory of being a proud shoplifter and march down the street saying "Shoplifter Pride."

----------


## Rim Ranger

> When I question you or provide you with a talking point you ignore it, this indicates to me that even you recognize that you're arguing from a pretty weak position.


I apologize for that.  My emotion can influence my response because I feel passionate about this subject.  I'm not trying to argue the point on pure logic.  Although I will try.

----------


## chm2023

Having read thru this thread I have concluded:

:bestiality is a much more pressing issue than I ever realized.  What about homosexual bestiality???  That ought to keep you busy for a while.
:I have lived nearly 60 years without hearing the term "second hand homosexuality"--where have I been? There are several really, really bad jokes that come to mind.
:"Jew synagog" (sic)--ok I bite, is there another kind???

Thank God it's the weekend.

----------


## Bill West

TOUCHY! TOUCHY! OH WISE ONE





> Really. You know His decision already, what's left for Him to do? In fact, why not do the job for Him, and go ahead and consign the infidels to their fate here and now?
> 
> And if this is a waste of time, why did you post? Do you have time to waste?

----------


## Bill West

1st part nix 
MARRIGE IS A MAN & A WOMAN
THEY DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE
WE DON'T DEMAND THEY DON'T LIVE TOGETHER
THEY MAKE ALL THE PERVERTED DEMANDS AND INSIST THAT WE ACCEPT THEM. SORRY 


2nd part AMEN





> Then allow them to marry - It's their eternal soul to do with what they will.

----------


## Jacqui

> I'd like to commend everyone for keeping this debate civil. :cheers:


It's been very hard to remain civil, since I am personally involved with this topic.

----------


## shanbaum

> When you say "the state", do you mean "The State" as in the nation, or "The State" as in "The State of Alaska"? If the latter, then you're partially right--the individual states are in no way forbidden to establish a state (as in State-of-Vermont) religion. There can be, as defined by the Constitution and clarified by the Thomas Jefferson quote below, no _National_ religion, as defined by the federal government.


Sorry, that's not correct. Explicitly since 1947, and implicitly since the late 19th century, the First Amendment has applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment - which, though mangled by the Court subsequent to Reconstruction, was intended to ensure that the rights enjoyed by citizens of the United States could not be abrogated by the states - and it now does that, albeit by a more circuitous route than originally intended.

So, we all enjoy the "freedom from" of the Establishment Clause, as well as the "freedom to" of the Free Exercise clause. Even in Mississippi.

----------


## spartus

Oooh, my mistake to rely purely on Jefferson's letters from the 18th century, rather than doing the rest of my homework on it. Thank you for catching that. This, I'm sure, is why Bush brought up the Dred Scott decision during the presidential debate last year--or is it <i>Plessy v. Ferguson</i>? One of the two emasculates the 14th amendment, which is a big deal to certain religious groups, for reasons I've just now figured out. :)

And it seems we're getting close to the root of the other matter under discussion. To wit, and also to digress for a second:




> Christianity says homosexuality is a sin.


Please find me the applicable quote in the Bible. New Testament only, please.

Next, what part of being recognized in the eyes of the (secular) state equates with Christianity? Many weddings are performed in churches, but they still must be recognized by the capital-S State to be legally valid. Your religion can feel any way it would like to about it (and I support your and your church's right to feel that way) but it shouldn't have any say in the public (ie. legal) recognition of the marriage, civil union...whatever.

----------


## Bill West

New Testament: Romans chapter 1 esp; verses 26,27,28
Clear as can be unless you are blinded by Satan himself.






> Oooh, my mistake to rely purely on Jefferson's letters from the 18th century, rather than doing the rest of my homework on it. Thank you for catching that. This, I'm sure, is why Bush brought up the Dred Scott decision during the presidential debate last year--or is it <i>Plessy v. Ferguson</i>? One of the two emasculates the 14th amendment, which is a big deal to certain religious groups, for reasons I've just now figured out. :)
> 
> And it seems we're getting close to the root of the other matter under discussion. To wit, and also to digress for a second:
> 
> 
> 
> Please find me the applicable quote in the Bible. New Testament only, please.
> 
> Next, what part of being recognized in the eyes of the (secular) state equates with Christianity? Many weddings are performed in churches, but they still must be recognized by the capital-S State to be legally valid. Your religion can feel any way it would like to about it (and I support your and your church's right to feel that way) but it shouldn't have any say in the public (ie. legal) recognition of the marriage, civil union...whatever.

----------


## omisliebling

Why do most people get married, because they love eachother, right?!

So why can't same sex relationships have the same right as "straight", to marry because they're in love. Love one another and accept that just by not allowing homosexuals to marry they won't go away. What's the big deal, they're people like you and I, it doesn't make them scary just because they don't love what you love, we're all individuals and have the right to choose who we're with. How many "straight" marriages end up in divorce and how many children are not cared for by their straight parents. I don't get it, I am for gay marriage, absolutely. And I'm not even gay. Good luck you all.

----------


## Chairtime

> Why do most people get married, because they love eachother, right?!


That's an oversimplified, childish, fairytale view of life.  Here's a partial list of people you can love without marrying:

Brother/sister
Parents
Children
Friends
Strangers
Neighbors
Self
Pets

----------


## chip anderson

Question:

How does same gender marriage help you enough to make you bother to mount a campaign for it?
Who the H*** cares and what does it have to do with the optical business?

Chip

----------


## Chairtime

> Question:
> 
> How does same gender marriage help you enough to make you bother to mount a campaign for it?
> Who the H*** cares and what does it have to do with the optical business?
> 
> Chip


Chip, gays wear glasses too, you know.  All these "human rights" activists don't want to lose business.  It's all about the $$$.

----------


## omisliebling

> That's an oversimplified, childish, fairytale view of life. Here's a partial list of people you can love without marrying:


I might see life in an oversimplified, childish, fairytale kinda way, but I'm not the one stressing over simple things like homosexuality, I take everyone the way they are and give them the same rights I have. Plain and simple, keeps me from having a nervous breakdown over little things that some people see as big things. Keep your cool and be positive, makes life a lot easier and joyful.

----------


## Lynne

> I might see life in an oversimplified, childish, fairytale kinda way, but I'm not the one stressing over simple things like homosexuality, I take everyone the way they are and give them the same rights I have. Plain and simple, keeps me from having a nervous breakdown over little things that some people see as big things. Keep your cool and be positive, makes life a lot easier and joyful.


Right on!! Does the Bible teach against it? Yes! Also stealing, lying, adultery, fornication etc etc. Does gay marriage hurt me? No!! Do the aforementiond sins hurt me? You betcha, if you steal from me, lie to me, or commit adultery with my husband....

"All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" and "Judge not, that you be not judged". He will be judge of us all one day!

It's not for us to dictate another persons sexual preferences or orientation, being gay in this instance, even if we think they are wrong. Now pedophiles and other such behaviour is wrong, and we are right to restrain anything that causes the loss of innocence in a young person, or causes harm to anyone.

----------


## Spexvet

> Question:
> 
> How does same gender marriage help you enough to make you bother to mount a campaign for it?


Because if you rep/cons continue your repressive policies, eventually you'll get around to resticting something that IS important to me. Like freedom of religion or the fredom to think for one's self. ;) 



> Who the H*** cares and what does it have to do with the optical business?
> 
> Chip


Not much in this forum has to do with the optical business.

----------


## Chairtime

Repressive Policies defined:  Marriage of a man and a woman.

----------


## Spexvet

> Repressive Policies defined: Marriage of a man and a woman.


*A* man and *A* woman?

Then what did Esau, and Jacob, David, and other biblical figures call their multiple partner arrangements?:hammer:

----------


## Chairtime

Spexvet.  Proud promoter of

-Homosexuality
-Bigamy
-Fornication

----------


## finklstiltskin

Another question: why does no one seem to mind their own business?

----------


## Chairtime

Another way of saying mind their own business is "turning a blind eye" to wrongdoing. Do you expect Spexvet to just sit there and do nothing while a few religious fanatics try to take away the freedoms of Homo-Americans and teenagers?

----------


## acredhead113

> Right on!! Does the Bible teach against it? Yes! Also stealing, lying, adultery, fornication etc etc. Does gay marriage hurt me? No!! Do the aforementiond sins hurt me? You betcha, if you steal from me, lie to me, or commit adultery with my husband....
> 
> "All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God" and "Judge not, that you be not judged". He will be judge of us all one day!
> 
> It's not for us to dictate another persons sexual preferences or orientation, being gay in this instance, even if we think they are wrong. Now pedophiles and other such behaviour is wrong, and we are right to restrain anything that causes the loss of innocence in a young person, or causes harm to anyone.


By being something that for most of us is not normal or acceptable is to me what we should scutinize. What health problems are caused by having these tendencies. I have had many highschool class mates die in their 40's just because they said their bodies were different. I think that what is not normal is no reason for anyone to accept this type of behavior. When you start accepting what is bad behavior then this is what you can expect in the future. What will be next. When Clinton was President he lied to our children that it was okay for him to be above the law. Was that okay with you to? What cause will be next?

----------


## spartus

> New Testament: Romans chapter 1 esp; verses 26,27,28
> Clear as can be unless you are blinded by Satan himself.


Charming. The text of what you're referring to, which you, for reasons that are a mystery to me, completely failed to provide, is this:




> Source
> 1:26. For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
> 
> 1:27. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. 
> 
> 1:28. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient.


The gist, as best I can gather in my reading of this, is that in retribution for idolatry, god delivered "shameful affections", whatever those are. The only bit I can see that's marginally clear enough to buttress your case is the bit that reads, "_men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error,_" but it's so poorly translated it could mean practically anything. Could be continued admonitions to idolatry, it could be lawnmower repair, which, if you've got a dog, can tend on the filthy side as well, whether or not you've got a helper or two.

All of which, of course, I mean that I don't really find it a strong foundation on which to base (or *de*base, which seems to be more the inclination here) a lifestyle around. "Receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error"? Honestly.

Anyway, in my search, I opted to seek out analysis other than my own. In doing so, I found a few interesting tidbits. First one's here, which has in particular this quote that I found interesting as well as amazingly pertinent when viewing your initial reply to my post: "It is striking how contemporary Christians using Romans 1:26-27 fall into the same trap: focusing on the immorality they see in others when they should be seeking God's grace and love for themselves." I'll see my mote, and raise you your beam, if you get my drift.

Or, put another way, contrast the one, single, bizarrely translated reference to what may or may not be homosexuality (see here for more takes on the matter) in the entire NT to Jesus preaching "love your brother" and "help the poor". 

I now will wait, secure in the knowledge that you will someday receive the recompense which was due to your error.

----------


## spartus

To put a finer point on my post above, which I felt necessary to reply to in depth, however ludicrous the general point, it's foolish to try and tie the Christian--or any other--faith to whether or not loving, monogamous couples can have their relationship recognized by the state in order to gain the same legal, fiscal, and general societal protections (which I already laid out in greater detail a few pages back) that heterosexual married couples already enjoy. 

Your religion matters to me precisely as much as mine does to you--not at all. I'm genuinely regretful that people who are nominally of "faith" seem to be on some sick crusade--pardon the expression--to deny other people what, for them, is a normal life.

----------


## spartus

Lastly, it bears pointing out that Rim Ranger seems to have left, but Chairtime has valiantly picked up the torch for him. Oddly enough, it seems that Chairtime registered the very same day Rim Ranger stopped posting. Coincidence?

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet. Proud promoter of
> 
> -Homosexuality
> -Bigamy
> -Fornication


Spexvet. Proud promoter of

- an individual's freedom to marry any consenting adult human(s), regardless of race, religion, nationality, gender, etc.
- prohibitting conservative republicans from reproducing. It's against my religious beliefs.;) 

Actually, allowing same gender marriages would reduce fornication:

Main Entry: *for·ni·ca·tion* 
Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
Function: _noun_
*:* consensual sexual intercourse between two persons *not married to each other* 

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...tion&x=24&y=14

but don't let actual facts get in the way...

----------


## Spexvet

> By being something that for most of us is not normal or acceptable is to me what we should scutinize.


"Normal" and "acceptable" are in the eye of the beholder.




> What health problems are caused by having these tendencies.


No more than by heterosexual tendenceis.




> I have had many highschool class mates die in their 40's just because they said their bodies were different.


Or was it the "un-normalness" and "un-accaeptableness" they felt about themselves, or were ridiculed and condemned for?




> I think that what is not normal is no reason for anyone to accept this type of behavior.


See above.




> When you start accepting what is bad behavior then this is what you can expect in the future.


Please explain. What is what we can expect in the future?




> What will be next. When Clinton was President he lied to our children that it was okay for him to be above the law. Was that okay with you to?


No more oK than:
Nixon on Watergate: "I am not a crook"
Reagon on Iran-Contra: "I did not trade arms for hostages."
George W Bush on WMD in Iraq: "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."




> What cause will be next?


You never know. This nation of ours could go crazy with an Amish fascination, and legislature could be introduced to make everyone live without electricity and drive around in those horse and buggies. Would you like to be forced to live your life according to Amish values? I would fight for your freedom to live by the values you choose (as long as they don't hurt others or interfere with thier values).

----------


## Jacqui

> "Normal" and "acceptable" are in the eye of the beholder.


Spexie:

I wonder if this is a good time to tell people that Diane and I are married   :Confused:  

Yup, everyone's favourite Transsexual/Lesbian, Grandmother/Nurse/Optician and her girlfriend were married in Canada almost a year ago.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexie:
> 
> I wonder if this is a good time to tell people that Diane and I are married   
> 
> Yup, everyone's favourite Transsexual/Lesbian, Grandmother/Nurse/Optician and her girlfriend were married in Canada almost a year ago.


No, not a god time, but when would be? ;)
I think I heard some heads explode. How could a nice lady like you, who went to Louisiana to help flood victims, be a dev-i-ant?  :Rolleyes:  It just doesn't make sense! 

I hope your marriage is more than symbolic. 

BTW, did you forget "engineer"?

----------


## Jacqui

Sorry Spex, 

It should be Grandmother/Nurse/Midwife/Optician/Engineer/etc  :)

----------


## Chairtime

Rim Ranger was interpreted by a few people to mean something other than what I intended it to mean.  The Rim refers to an eyeglass rim.  I hope you don't think Chairtime is some homophobic reference.

----------


## omisliebling

CONGRATULATIONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


More power to you and all of you out there !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

----------


## spec_chick

I'm new to this thread (and the board) but I did want to say congrats Spexvet!


And from reading earlier posts I see that the whole stereotype of lesbians as serial monogamists isn't as popular as the 'gay guys are promiscuous" stereotype.

With my GF for 3 years now myself, not that long but not exactly  bed hopping either. Oh and I consider myself a christian- well versed in scripture.  I look forward to some bible-thumping good debates like the one I've seen here!  Bring it!:hammer: 


Jess

PS And I've never known anyone (gay or straight) that wants to add their one-night stand to their health insurance:p

----------


## Spexvet

> I'm new to this thread (and the board) but I did want to say congrats Spexvet!
> 
> 
> And from reading earlier posts I see that the whole stereotype of lesbians as serial monogamists isn't as popular as the 'gay guys are promiscuous" stereotype.
> 
> With my GF for 3 years now myself, not that long but not exactly bed hopping either. Oh and I consider myself a christian- well versed in scripture. I look forward to some bible-thumping good debates like the one I've seen here! Bring it!:hammer: 
> 
> 
> Jess
> ...


Welcome and congrats on your relationship. Hopefully, some day you'll be allowed to marry and enjoy all the benfits (and problems) it brings.

----------


## Jacqui

Welcome Jess, hope you enjoy it here.

----------


## QDO1

> Main Entry: *for·ni·ca·tion* 
> Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n
> Function: _noun_
> *:* consensual sexual intercourse between two persons *not married to each other*


Gey great - I am a fornicator, and will never have kids!

Marriage ought to be societies way of recognising the relationship between two individuals, and formalising thier leagal rights as a couple... so when one dies (for example) the others life does not fall to pieces, because they have no rights. To that end it doesnt matter who the two people are. In the same way as a contract would recognise a business relationship, a marriage contract should recognise a coulples relationship. 

Children, abortion and phobias should have no bearing on the contract, and in this debate are red herrings

----------


## mlm

Jacqui,

May I wish you and your wife a belated congratulations?  I hope you both have many happy years together. :cheers:

Myra

----------


## QDO1

Having had a quick read of this thread I have a few questions (as an athiest)

what has god got to do with itwill Christians recognise an alternate form of marriage - for example State/Hindu/Bhuddist/MulsimWhat has the Bible got to do with it - I cant stand people quoting verses of some old book that has been re-translated to say what ever the latest thought train isI wish the religious types would respect the rights of others to believe (or not), and leave us to get on with our lives, rather than trying to impose thier own polarised views on the rest of us

The church/religions doesnt have a exclusive pitch on the moral high ground - lets think of a few examples

Galeleo's mother was burnt at the stake for being a witchThe roman catholic church promotes the contraception is evil philosophy in the third world.. If you are in Calcutta, the last thing you want is another 6 kidsSpanish inquisitionHow many holy warsFatwa'sThat list is just a tiddly dent in the injustices and travesties that religion has handed us

Congratulations to Jacqui may i wish you both the best for the future, and also express that I admire your pluck and nerve, too stand above the crowd and remain civil in the face of such rot

----------


## Jacqui

Thank you, everyone.  :) 

Diane and Jacqui

----------


## Chairtime

> what has god got to do with it


Everything.  He made you and your open mind and your ability to choose your lifestyle.


> I wish the religious types would respect the rights of others to believe (or not), and leave us to get on with our lives, rather than trying to impose thier own polarised views on the rest of us


What's being imposed is gay marriage and the view that it is morally acceptable.

----------


## QDO1

> Everything. He made you and your open mind and your ability to choose your lifestyle.What's being imposed is gay marriage and the view that it is morally acceptable.


As you say, that is what YOU believe, but why should your views have any precidence over the next persons?

----------


## Chairtime

> As you say, that is what YOU believe, but why should your views have any precidence over the next persons?


That's a good question.  Why should yours?

----------


## QDO1

> That's a good question. Why should yours?


 It doesnt - and people who dont believe in god generally dont ask it to either.  It is just that we tend to have a softer starting point - we are prepared for an open debate, and a consensual ending.  In my experience religious types start with the philosophy of "my god is right, and thus, so am I", that leads to a closed debate and either a autocratic ending or no ending at all

----------


## Chairtime

And in my experience, athiest types take the stance that "since I can't see God, He doesn't exist, so right and wrong is all subjective."  That leads to more selfishness in society and the severe moral decay that we see in America today.

----------


## QDO1

> And in my experience, athiest types take the stance that "since I can't see God, He doesn't exist, so right and wrong is all subjective." That leads to more selfishness in society and the severe moral decay that we see in America today.


Well to me the debate about gay marriage is not subjective at all.  Generally the only groups that object to it at all, do so on religious grounds.  It isnt a moral issue for me at all

You say America shows moral decay, well with so many proported christians running the country, and with George Bush being lead by god nowadays, perhaps the decay comes from within the christian community.  There is a parable about logs and splinters

----------


## Suzy W

Congrats Jacqui and Diane!:) 

Many years of happiness to you.

Suzy

----------


## Jacqui

Thank You  :)

----------


## Spexvet

> What's being imposed is gay marriage and the view that it is morally acceptable.


Nobody is trying to force you to marry another woman, so what's the imposition?

----------


## Spexvet

> And in my experience, *athiest* types take the stance that "since I can't see God, He doesn't exist, *so right and wrong is all subjective*." That *leads to more selfishness* in society and the severe moral decay that we see in America today.


Are you trying to insinuate that religious people are not selfish?

----------


## shanbaum

> What's being imposed is gay marriage and the view that it is morally acceptable.


Imposed, how? No one is being forced to get married (on the contrary, in 49 of the 50 states, homosexuals are presently forced _not_ to get married, by operation of laws that we are in the process of finding anachronistic).

Nor is the view that it is morally acceptable being forced _on you_. Nothing will prevent you from disapproving.

But you will not get to exercise this non-existent right you claim - the right to prevent free people from doing what they want to do (a/k/a "pursuing happiness").

If anything is being imposed, it's freedom. Don't like it? Tough. There are plenty of places on Earth where freedom is not worshipped; you had the apparent misfortune to be born in the one country where it _is_ - at least, theoretically. What's happening is a continuation of a process in which our nation tries to live up to its long-stated, and long-unreached, values.

Furthermore, you presume to be the arbiter of morality; but whether what homosexuals do is moral or not is not up to you. I suspect you would agree that that is ultimately up to God. While you may believe quite firmly that you know His mind, what you believe is ultimately insignificant beyond measure, at least in the context of the universe as you see it. He'll decide as He decides, and you must allow for the possibility that you're wrong - that is, that you don't know God's will any better than Osama bin Laden does (to mention another human who thinks he has special insight into the mind of God). 

You believe, do you not, that He will ultimately judge these people, along with yourself, and me, and everyone else - isn't that enough? Do you really think that your judgment _adds_ anything? 

Maybe you or the homosexuals will face a rough time, come Judgment Day - or maybe there will be a big barbecue at which everybody gets a medal. What do _you_ know about it, really?

----------


## Chairtime

> Imposed, how? No one is being forced to get married (on the contrary, in 49 of the 50 states, homosexuals are presently forced _not_ to get married, by operation of laws that we are in the process of finding anachronistic).
> 
> Nor is the view that it is morally acceptable being forced _on you_. Nothing will prevent you from disapproving.
> 
> But you will not get to exercise this non-existent right you claim - the right to prevent free people from doing what they want to do (a/k/a "pursuing happiness").
> 
> If anything is being imposed, it's freedom. Don't like it? Tough. There are plenty of places on Earth where freedom is not worshipped; you had the apparent misfortune to be born in the one country where it _is_ - at least, theoretically. What's happening is a continuation of a process in which our nation tries to live up to its long-stated, and long-unreached, values.
> 
> Furthermore, you presume to be the arbiter of morality; but whether what homosexuals do is moral or not is not up to you. I suspect you would agree that that is ultimately up to God. While you may believe quite firmly that you know His mind, what you believe is ultimately insignificant beyond measure, at least in the context of the universe as you see it. He'll decide as He decides, and you must allow for the possibility that you're wrong - that is, that you don't know God's will any better than Osama bin Laden does (to mention another human who thinks he has special insight into the mind of God). 
> ...


Those 49 states you mentioned? I predict they will all allow gay marriage in the near future.

Freedom? Actually I love freedom, the freedom to express my opinion and I intend to use that freedom. People like yourself have the same right. As the gay society has shown, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I will continue to express my opinion to stop those who would take all the oil. Gay society has shown that it would create a law preventing anyone from speaking against homosexuality. If this law is formed, it would be a crime to say "homosexuality is wrong." Do you love freedom enough to fight this law?

You seem to be a man of reason and empiricism so let's look at the facts. Human beings were created (intentionally or not) with a male and a female sex. These two genders are physically compatible with the opposite sex. Unless you believe that nothing is moral or immoral (God help you then) you must ask yourself: Which is it? 

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

No one has all divine knowledge.  Does my judgment add anything to God?  No.  But neither does your acceptance.

----------


## Chairtime

> Are you trying to insinuate that religious people are not selfish?


Not at all.  But as a Christian, I strive for unselfishness.

----------


## Spexvet

> Those 49 states you mentioned? I predict they will all allow gay marriage in the near future.


That is great news for the freedom fighters!




> Freedom? Actually I love freedom,


You love having your own freedom, not freedom itself.




> the freedom to express my opinion and I intend to use that freedom. People like yourself have the same right. As the gay society has shown, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I will continue to express my opinion


As yo are free to do...




> to stop those who would take all the oil.


To take away their freedom, you mean. Seems like maybe you don't like freedom so much, at least other peoples' freedom.




> Gay society has shown that it would create a law preventing anyone from speaking against homosexuality. If this law is formed, it would be a crime to say "homosexuality is wrong." Do you love freedom enough to fight this law?


Crime against someone solely because they are gay is a hate crime. I would fight a law prohibiting my freedom to say "homosexuality is wrong". Even though the sentiment is incorrect. 




> You seem to be a man of reason and empiricism so let's look at the facts. Human beings were created (intentionally or not) with a male and a female sex. These two genders are physically compatible with the opposite sex. Unless you believe that nothing is moral or immoral (God help you then) you must ask yourself: Which is it?...


You need two genders to _reproduce_, not to have sex.

----------


## Spexvet

> Not at all. But as a Christian, I strive for unselfishness.


I'll bet a lot of athiests do, too.

----------


## shanbaum

> Gay society has shown that it would create a law preventing anyone from speaking against homosexuality. If this law is formed, it would be a crime to say "homosexuality is wrong." Do you love freedom enough to fight this law?


Yes I would indeed; though I am unaware of any attempt anywhere to criminalize moral condemnation of homosexuality.




> You seem to be a man of reason and empiricism so let's look at the facts. Human beings were created (intentionally or not) with a male and a female sex. These two genders are physically compatible with the opposite sex. Unless you believe that nothing is moral or immoral (God help you then) you must ask yourself: Which is it?


You make a tremendous leap from observations about human anatomy to moral judgment without any connecting logic... though you verge on suggesting that if an act is physically possible, God must have intended it to be done.

----------


## acredhead113

> As a rule homosexuals change partners frequently. If they become included on health benefits, and insurance programs the effect on rates for straights could increase exponentially. Often ex-spouses and prodiginy if any, must continue to be covered under insurance plans plus any new spouses and dependents if any.
> 
> 
> In heritance and palamony laws can become a nightmare.


If they want to marry why should they endanger each other. I for one do not want to pay for their diseases.

----------


## Jacqui

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairtime
Not at all. But as a Christian, I strive for unselfishness. 


Spexvet wrote

I'll bet a lot of athiests do, too.


*So do us Pagans !!*

----------


## Chairtime

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Chairtime
> Not at all. But as a Christian, I strive for unselfishness. 
> 
> 
> Spexvet wrote
> 
> I'll bet a lot of athiests do, too.
> 
> ...


I'm sure there are many here who will congratulate you on your paganism.

----------


## Chairtime

> Yes I would indeed; though I am unaware of any attempt anywhere to criminalize moral condemnation of homosexuality.


No surprise here.


> You make a tremendous leap from observations about human anatomy to moral judgment without any connecting logic... though you verge on suggesting that if an act is physically possible, God must have intended it to be done.


Ah, so you choose not to decide then.  That is your right.

Many people say "I believe in God."  Then they promptly go about their business living exactly the same life as the person they criticize for saying "I'm an athiest."

----------


## coda

> I wonder if this is a good time to tell people that Diane and I are married


Cheers!

----------


## QDO1

The problem I have with the God Squad is the way they project all of thier boundaries on to everyone else, assuming a majority on "rightness".  

Why should I accept your view, just because you say that you believe your view is right, because you believe your god told you this?  That is the crux of this whole debate.  I chalenge any religious person to explain to me (without reference to god or some antiquated texts) why I should by default accept your view of the world as being the right one

Thats why I defend gay rights, because in so far as I can see, gay men and women, do nothing at all wrong, infact they are generally more peaceful than the heterosexul community.  Infact, they (as individuals) have more of a chance of furthering society, if they are not persecuted and marginalised

----------


## Spexvet

> Many people say "I believe in God." Then they promptly go about their business living exactly the same life as the person they criticize for saying "I'm an athiest."


Look in the mirror.

----------


## Chairtime

Well I give. The objective debate is long gone. My arguments have no effect. I have no choice but to admit I'm wrong. Homo is in. Straight is out. I hope our next president is gay. Let's turn all the public schools into brothels. I'm leaving my wife.  Chip, wanna get married?

----------


## acredhead113

> Well I give. The objective debate is long gone. My arguments have no effect. I have no choice but to admit I'm wrong. Homo is in. Straight is out. I hope our next president is gay. Let's turn all the public schools into brothels. I'm leaving my wife. Chip, wanna get married?


Chip:

What do you say?

Pretty soon the world as we know it will be extinct including the human race!

----------


## Spexvet

> Well I give. The objective debate is long gone. My arguments have no effect. I have no choice but to admit I'm wrong. Homo is in. Straight is out. I hope our next president is gay. Let's turn all the public schools into brothels. I'm leaving my wife. Chip, wanna get married?


Something tells me that our arguements worked about as well as yours did.:bbg: 

I wouldn't characterize things as "Homo is in. Straight is out." What is, is. Just allow it to happen. I think schools as brothels is just a little over the top, don't you? Colleges, ok, but let's not encourage minors to have sex.;) 

Good luck with Chip, I think you'll be the third or fourth Mrs. Anderson.

----------


## Jedi

> let's not encourage minors to have sex.;)


We should have a thread about that.;)

----------


## chm2023

> Well I give. The objective debate is long gone. My arguments have no effect. I have no choice but to admit I'm wrong. Homo is in. Straight is out. I hope our next president is gay. Let's turn all the public schools into brothels. I'm leaving my wife. Chip, wanna get married?


Well I really don't think anyone is seriously thinking of _forcing_ you to marry someone of the same sex.  But it is nice to keep your options open, don't you think?;)

----------


## spartus

> Well I give. The objective debate is long gone. My arguments have no effect. I have no choice but to admit I'm wrong. Homo is in. Straight is out. I hope our next president is gay. Let's turn all the public schools into brothels. I'm leaving my wife.  Chip, wanna get married?


The objective debate is gone? Let's try again: *How does same gender marriage hurt you?* Not children, not Baby Jesus, not me, not him, her, them, the Constitution, zoo animals, furniture or anything else. How. Does. It. Hurt. You?

----------


## spec_chick

Yeah lets here it...I couldn't find an answer to that in the past pages of discussion...

----------


## Spexvet

Let's be magnanimous. Chairtime has admitted defeat - let's not kick a man when he's down. :cheers:

----------


## spartus

I thought about letting it drop, but the disingenuousness bothered me. How can you acknowledge you haven't got a leg to stand on when, immediately after agreeing to drop it, you throw out a cheap shot like this?




> Homo is in. Straight is out. I hope our next president is gay. Let's turn all the public schools into brothels. I'm leaving my wife. Chip, wanna get married?


Based on the bad-faith attempt to bury the discussion, I politely refuse to retract my (okay, Spexvet's) original question: *How does same gender marriage hurt you?*

----------


## QDO1

same gender marriage does not hurt me at all

----------


## Chairtime

> How. Does. It. Hurt. You?


It. Doesn't. Hurt. Me. At. All. You can unite a busload of gays in holy matrimony and it doesn't affect me whatsoever. They can wear rings, say 'I do' and call themselves Mr. and  Mr. Jones and it does not hurt me at all.

----------


## Bill West

We owe it to our children and grand children to leave them a better world to live in if we can. This does not include leaving them a world of *godless perverts* who would say to them , ignore right and live as you dam well please. If the perverts would shut up and keep their sick disgusting lives private and not want to be open and force everyone else to agree with them it would be less of a problem. It is not our business what goes on between two people in private if they are both consenting *ADULTS*. However, when you want to force your *sick lifestyle* on my family you got a dam good fight on your hands. 
And you are one sick somebody if you promote it. 
So to all the twisted minds out there.*STUFF IT!* 
*YOU AIN'T GOING TO WIN THIS FIGHT!*




> I thought about letting it drop, but the disingenuousness bothered me. How can you acknowledge you haven't got a leg to stand on when, immediately after agreeing to drop it, you throw out a cheap shot like this?
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the bad-faith attempt to bury the discussion, I politely refuse to retract my (okay, Spexvet's) original question: *How does same gender marriage hurt you?*

----------


## QDO1

> We owe it to our children and grand children to leave them a better world to live in if we can. This does not include leaving them a world of *godless perverts* who would say to them , ignore right and live as you dam well please. If the perverts would shut up and keep their sick disgusting lives private and not want to be open and force everyone else to agree with them it would be less of a problem. It is not our business what goes on between two people in private if they are both consenting *ADULTS*. However, when you want to force your *sick lifestyle* on my family you got a dam good fight on your hands. 
> And you are one sick somebody if you promote it. 
> So to all the twisted minds out there.*STUFF IT!* 
> *YOU AIN'T GOING TO WIN THIS FIGHT!*


Thats a bit strong. Historically (across the world) gay people, or black people, disabled or any other minoritory have been persecuted because of who they are, not what they do, or where they do it. That is clearly wrong. It is wrong to do so if you are a christian, jew, athiest, muslim, black, white or green.

It is equally as wrong for those minoritory groups to rub thier opinion in your face, as much as it is wrong to rub your opinion in thier faces. I would say that perhaps a quiet gay couple finds your opinion as offensive to them, as you find a more vocal gay couple offensive to you

It is very wrong to call people godless perverts - I for one would call myself Godless, but certainly not a pervert

I know many gay and lesbian couples, and without exception, I find them to be quiet, friendly, hard working family units, which contribute an equal share to the community, and add to the fabric of life. Just as there are a few outspoken heterosexual people, there are a few outspoken gay people. I could not immagine the gay community wants to thrust thier vision of the world down your throat... I could imagine they want to lead peaceful and meaningfull lives, with equal rights to the rest of the community they contribute to

I started this post with the words historically. and im ending it with some historical thoughts

- persecution of coloured people
- persecution of women, and diminished womans rights
- thousands of years holy wars (or wars atributed to some religion)
- banning of contraception
- inquisitions
- ethnic cleansing
- persecution of jews
- persecution of arabs

I could wrte a very long list, but in each case, the major cause of the problem was stuborn men, religion and hatred of what is different

Fifty years ago, most would have felt the same way about coloured people in the USA, some still do.. but, today, I wouldnt imagine that anyone posting on this board would make a stand against a man if he were black


-

----------


## Bill West

I DOUBT MOST OF THESE PEOPLE YOU NAME WOULD LIKE TO BE CLASSIFIED WITH PERVERTS. SEEMS LIKE THE GAY THING CAN NEVER STAND ALONE BUT ALWAYS HAS TO DRAG SOMEONE WITH THEM TO TRY AND GET APPROVAL FOR THEIR PERVERTED LIFE STYLE, MUCH THE SAME AS YOU ARE DOING NOW. GET REAL AND GET OFF THE SOAP BOX AND DON'T POOL ALL THESE INNOCENT FOLK WITH THIS PROBLEM. IT JUST AIN'T THE SAME THING.
*DOES THE Q IN YOUR NAME MEAN THAT YOU ARE A PERVERT?*



> Thats a bit strong. Historically (across the world) gay people, or black people, disabled or any other minoritory have been persecuted because of who they are, not what they do, or where they do it. That is clearly wrong. It is wrong to do so if you are a christian, jew, athiest, muslim, black, white or green.
> 
> It is equally as wrong for those minoritory groups to rub thier opinion in your face, as much as it is wrong to rub your opinion in thier faces. I would say that perhaps a quiet gay couple finds your opinion as offensive to them, as you find a more vocal gay couple offensive to you
> 
> It is very wrong to call people godless perverts - I for one would call myself Godless, but certainly not a pervert
> 
> I know many gay and lesbian couples, and without exception, I find them to be quiet, friendly, hard working family units, which contribute an equal share to the community, and add to the fabric of life. Just as there are a few outspoken heterosexual people, there are a few outspoken gay people. I could not immagine the gay community wants to thrust thier vision of the world down your throat... I could imagine they want to lead peaceful and meaningfull lives, with equal rights to the rest of the community they contribute to
> 
> I started this post with the words historically. and im ending it with some historical thoughts
> ...

----------


## QDO1

> *DOES THE Q IN YOUR NAME MEAN THAT YOU ARE A PERVERT?*


 

No, It means Qualified (Dispensing Optician), and I have had QDO1 as part of my my e-mail address for ages

I'm surprised you want to personalise this debate. But for the record I am a jazz loving heterosexual male, who lives a quiet life with my partner. I dont particularlary support gay rights more than anything else, but what I cant abide is when a stuborn biggoted attitude in one section of society impinges on the rights of another

I recommend you edit your post

----------


## Spexvet

> So to all the twisted minds out there.*STUFF IT!*


It's very Christian of you to say that.



> *YOU AIN'T GOING TO WIN THIS FIGHT!*


I think you're wrong. More people are realizing how discriminatory your perspective is, and they're taking steps to correct the situation.




> I DOUBT MOST OF THESE PEOPLE YOU NAME WOULD LIKE TO BE CLASSIFIED WITH PERVERTS. SEEMS LIKE THE GAY THING CAN NEVER STAND ALONE BUT ALWAYS HAS TO DRAG SOMEONE WITH THEM TO TRY AND GET APPROVAL FOR THEIR PERVERTED LIFE STYLE, MUCH THE SAME AS YOU ARE DOING NOW. GET REAL AND GET OFF THE SOAP BOX AND DON'T POOL ALL THESE INNOCENT FOLK WITH THIS PROBLEM. IT JUST AIN'T THE SAME THING...


Please don't shout.

These people _should_ be grouped together because they've all been treated the same way - perscuted. Not allowed to sit in the front of the bus, not hired for jobs, not allowed to marry whomever they want. 

As far as perversion goes - IMHO, you have perverted the teachings of Jesus Christ. You are not following the golden rule, loving your neighbor as you love yourself, or loving your enemy. Jesus taught love and brotherhood, not the hate and persecution that you espouse.

----------


## QDO1

> These people _should_ be grouped together because they've all been treated the same way - perscuted. Not allowed to sit in the front of the bus, not hired for jobs, not allowed to marry whomever they want.


Im glad someone understood what I meant, for a moment I tought i was typing in another language

By the way, would Prostitutes be perverts too?  I vaugly remember from class at school that Jesus singled out a prostitute in the crowd for favour.  Infact where in the Bible does it say that marriage is mandatory before having sex (or making love)?

Marriage was a common thing before the New Testament, and was a tradition, not an obligation

----------


## Chairtime

There is a huge difference between a black man and a person who practices sodomy. The black man did not choose his color. The sodomist chooses sodomy.

If you're going to group homosexuals with blacks then you should include pedophiles, necrophiles and beastialists as well.

----------


## QDO1

> There is a huge difference between a black man and a person who practices sodomy. The black man did not choose his color. The sodomist chooses sodomy..


 Yes, the point is that they all are/or were persecuted because of what group they are in. What links them is the indiscriminate and blatant persecution they have suffered at the hands of people with stuborn closed minds




> If you're going to group homosexuals with blacks then you should include pedophiles, necrophiles and beastialists as well.


There you go, you have done it again. Not only are you content to discriminate against a minoritory, you have tarred homosexuals with the same brush as pedophiles, necrophiles and beastialists. 

It is exactly that sort of discrimination I abhor, regardless of who the target group is. I would defend the rights of any group being discriminated against, on grounds of gender, race, creed, religion, disability, ethnicity, class etc. Please dont think its exclusivley a gay thing. I would defend your rights to practice your religion with the same zeal, if you were being persecuted, despite the fact I am a Athiest

----------


## Spexvet

> There is a huge difference between a black man and a person who practices sodomy. The black man did not choose his color. The sodomist chooses sodomy.


They are identical in they way that they have historically been treated by conservative republicans.:finger:

----------


## Chairtime

> Yes, the point is that they all are/or were persecuted because of what group they are in. What links them is the indiscriminate and blatant persecution they have suffered at the hands of people with stuborn closed minds
> 
> 
> 
> There you go, you have done it again. Not only are you content to discriminate against a minoritory, you have tarred homosexuals with the same brush as pedophiles, necrophiles and beastialists. 
> 
> It is exactly that sort of discrimination I abhor, regardless of who the target group is. I would defend the rights of any group being discriminated against, on grounds of gender, race, creed, religion, disability, ethnicity, class etc. Please dont think its exclusivley a gay thing. I would defend your rights to practice your religion with the same zeal, if you were being persecuted, despite the fact I am a Athiest


You are wrong.  I don't discriminate against homosexuals.  Discrimination is based on prejudice, an opinion formed on irrelevant considerations.  If I said, homosexuals are dishonest, so I won't hire them, that's an example of discrimination.  It is NOT discrimination for me to say that sodomy is a choice.  {because it is a choice}

----------


## finklstiltskin

> Infact where in the Bible does it say that marriage is mandatory before having sex (or making love)?


Think of all the many things that are not in the Bible, but accepted as God's own Truth! Some pope was sitting around one day and said, "Hmmm....let's say that it is WRONG to say f***, $h!t, and b****. We'll call those curse words. And...sticking-up your middle finger. That's bad, too, right?" And all the cardinals felt that giving people more ways to burn in Hell would only help their cause...and bring more gold to the tithe plates, so they nod in agreeance.

And their god said it was good.

----------


## Chairtime

That's just plain dumb.

----------


## finklstiltskin

> That's just plain dumb.


Such is the answer of a religious zealot when faced with the truth.

----------


## Spexvet

> You are wrong. I don't discriminate against homosexuals. Discrimination is based on prejudice, an opinion formed on irrelevant considerations. If I said, homosexuals are dishonest, so I won't hire them, that's an example of discrimination. It is NOT discrimination for me to say that sodomy is a choice. {because it is a choice}


Please tell me when you chose to be heterosexual.

----------


## Chairtime

> Such is the answer of a religious zealot when faced with the truth.


The term "religious zealot" is used by people who are afraid of being seen as not religious enough.

----------


## Chairtime

> Please tell me when you chose to be heterosexual.


I did not choose to be attracted to women.  I DID choose to act on that attraction.  Do you understand the difference?

----------


## finklstiltskin

> The term "religious zealot" is used by people who are afraid of being seen as not religious enough.


Trust me when I say that I personally do not fall under that heading. Had you said "spiritual enough", then maybe I'd concur. Hopefully, no one will ever view me as one who is, even the least bit, religious. I'd rather not be associated with any major (or minor) religion. Evil is inherent in organized religion.

Good try, though.

----------


## Spexvet

> I did not choose to be attracted to women. I DID choose to act on that attraction. Do you understand the difference?


So you feel that only heterosexuals should be allowed the joy of sex?

----------


## finklstiltskin

> So you feel that only heterosexuals should be allowed the joy os sex?


Of course! Gay people deserve no joy, right, Chairtime? Gay people only deserve the right to burn in the Lake of Fire for all eternity (scary).

 :angry: <---gay smilie in a Lake of Fire

And yeah, I know he wasn't talking to me...I do that sometimes.

----------


## Chairtime

> So you feel that only heterosexuals should be allowed the joy os sex?


No I don't feel that way.  Are you saying that everyone should be allowed to act on all of their sexual fantasies?  Some people are born with sexual urges that don't include a willing adult partner.  (example, pedophiles)

I'm sure you agree that pedophiles should deny themselves from acting out their sexual fantasies.  And if you agree with that, then you are saying that some people must not be "allowed the joy of sex," because their urges are inappropriate.


Born attracted to animals, deny the attraction, not a beastialist.
Born attracted to children, deny the attraction, not a pedophile.
Born attracted to same sex, deny the attraction, not a homosexual.

Born attracted to animals, act on urge, a beastialist.
Born attracted to children, act on urge, a pedophile.
Born attracted to same sex, act on urge, a homosexual.

So you see, it really is a choice.

----------


## finklstiltskin

> No I don't feel that way. Are you saying that everyone should be allowed to act on all of their sexual fantasies? Some people are born with sexual urges that don't include a willing adult partner. (example, pedophiles)
> 
> I'm sure you agree that pedophiles should deny themselves from acting out their sexual fantasies. And if you agree with that, then you are saying that some people must not be "allowed the joy of sex," because their urges are inappropriate.
> 
> 
> Born attracted to animals, deny the attraction, not a beastialist.
> Born attracted to children, deny the attraction, not a pedophile.
> Born attracted to same sex, deny the attraction, not a homosexual.
> 
> ...


I doubt that pedophiles get the "joy of sex" from what they do. They probably enjoy the power in dominating someone who is weaker and defenseless. Pedophiles destroy lives. To equate this with consensual homosexuals is pure idiocy.

----------


## acredhead113

> It's not for everyone, but neither is opera, and we don't try to outlaw that, do we? I know people are offended by homosexuality (male or female), but how does it negatively effect you, personnally?


It increases my overall health insurance rate!

----------


## spartus

> We owe it to our children and grand children to leave them a better world to live in if we can. This does not include leaving them a world of *godless perverts* who would say to them , ignore right and live as you dam well please. If the perverts would shut up and keep their sick disgusting lives private and not want to be open and force everyone else to agree with them it would be less of a problem. It is not our business what goes on between two people in private if they are both consenting *ADULTS*. However, when you want to force your *sick lifestyle* on my family you got a dam good fight on your hands. 
> And you are one sick somebody if you promote it. 
> So to all the twisted minds out there.*STUFF IT!* 
> *YOU AIN'T GOING TO WIN THIS FIGHT!*


Lighten up, sunshine. You're gonna give yourself a coronary if you hold on to that level of anger.

Secondly, I'm not sure what part of my "sick lifestyle" you were deploring. Could you clarify it for me?




> I DOUBT MOST OF THESE PEOPLE YOU NAME WOULD LIKE TO BE CLASSIFIED WITH PERVERTS. SEEMS LIKE THE GAY THING CAN NEVER STAND ALONE BUT ALWAYS HAS TO DRAG SOMEONE WITH THEM TO TRY AND GET APPROVAL FOR THEIR PERVERTED LIFE STYLE, MUCH THE SAME AS YOU ARE DOING NOW. GET REAL AND GET OFF THE SOAP BOX AND DON'T POOL ALL THESE INNOCENT FOLK WITH THIS PROBLEM. IT JUST AIN'T THE SAME THING.
> *DOES THE Q IN YOUR NAME MEAN THAT YOU ARE A PERVERT?*


Wow. Just...wow.




> It. Doesn't. Hurt. Me. At. All. You can unite a busload of gays in holy matrimony and it doesn't affect me whatsoever. They can wear rings, say 'I do' and call themselves Mr. and Mr. Jones and it does not hurt me at all.


Cool. Then stop worrying about it.

----------


## QDO1

I have a couple of unanswered questions in this debate
Would any one care to tell me what is wrong with being gay?I fundamentally dont understand that part of the argument against gay marriage



On a different note...
Would any one please tell me - is being a Christian a choice?And the earlier question, that evey one avoided

In society, why should the views of the religious, have precedence over the views of the non-religious?And to finish, the other question that was avoided ...

Where in the Bible is marriage defined as mandatory, as opposed to an existing civil tradition which was historically commonplace in New Testament times?further to that question, where does it say that sex before marriage is a sin?

----------


## Spexvet

> It increases my overall health insurance rate!


Can you show any evidence that this would happen? The same thing would happen all the time with heterosexual couples, when they get married. Are you insinuating that heterosexual couples shouldn't get married because your health insurance premium would go up?

As things are, right now:

*Both partners have individual coverage.* When they get married, they are eligible for family coverage. Ok, so the insurance companies lose the difference between individual and married premiums on X amount of policies. Do you think the number of same gender marriages would be enough to tip the scales? I know that whenever insurance comanies have to pay a dime they take it out on the rest of us (got to keep up that stock performance ;) ) but would there be a significant enough of an impact to increase your premiums?

*One partner with individual coverage, one with no coverage or government-paid coverage.* When these folks are married, the financial burden is transferred from the government (who pays the premiums or the whole bill for uninsured patients) to the private sector. This should reduce your tax burden, while increasing premiums paid to the insurance company - not that you would see a reduction in your premiums, and not that the republicans won't find a "bridge to nowhere" to eat up their resultant savings. 

Did I miss anything, or was my reasoning unsound?

----------


## Spexvet

> No I don't feel that way. Are you saying that everyone should be allowed to act on all of their sexual fantasies? Some people are born with sexual urges that don't include a willing adult partner. (example, pedophiles)
> 
> I'm sure you agree that pedophiles should deny themselves from acting out their sexual fantasies. And if you agree with that, then you are saying that some people must not be "allowed the joy of sex," because their urges are inappropriate.
> 
> 
> Born attracted to animals, deny the attraction, not a beastialist.
> Born attracted to children, deny the attraction, not a pedophile.
> Born attracted to same sex, deny the attraction, not a homosexual.
> 
> ...


Can you really not recognize the difference between consenting adults and all other situation? We've discussed this before. Do you need to stay after for extra work?:hammer:

----------


## Spexvet

> ... 
> Born attracted to animals, deny the attraction, not a beastialist.
> ... 
> Born attracted to animals, act on urge, a beastialist.
> ...


FYI:
Bestiality is legal (or at least not expressly outlawed) in these Red states: 

Alaska 
Arizona 
Colorado 
Florida 
Hawaii 
Iowa 
Kentucky 
Louisiana 
Missouri 
Nebraska 
Nevada 
New Mexico 
Ohio 
South Dakota 
Texas 
West Virginia 
Wyoming 

It must be nice being from a morally superior red state. Woof.

----------


## Chairtime

> Can you really not recognize the difference between consenting adults and all other situation? We've discussed this before. Do you need to stay after for extra work?:hammer:


I can recognize the difference.  The problem is you cannot recognize the similarities.

----------


## QDO1

> I can recognize the difference. The problem is you cannot recognize the similarities.


Similar like a (just) underage unmarried couple making love and a just married couple making love?

----------


## Chairtime

[QUOTE=QDO1]I have a couple of unanswered questions in this debate
Would any one care to tell me what is wrong with being gay? [it's unnatural and hinders the human race. But you have the right to be gay if you want to. Just don't expect everyone else to officially recognize your commitment.]I fundamentally dont understand that part of the argument against gay marriage



On a different note...
Would any one please tell me - is being a Christian a choice? [yes]And the earlier question, that evey one avoided
In society, why should the views of the religious, have precedence over the views of the non-religious? [They shouldn't.]And to finish, the other question that was avoided ...
Where in the Bible is marriage defined as mandatory[It's not. for example, priests don't marry], as opposed to an existing civil tradition which was historically commonplace in New Testament times?further to that question, where does it say that sex before marriage is a sin? [Open the bible to any page. hint: fornication]

----------


## finklstiltskin

> FYI:
> Bestiality is legal (or at least not expressly outlawed) in these Red states: 
> 
> Alaska 
> Arizona 
> Colorado 
> Florida 
> Hawaii 
> Iowa 
> ...


I don't usually give Arkansas much credit, but THANK GAWD we're not on that list.

----------


## NavyChief

> It increases my overall health insurance rate!


Now, how does someone elses sexual preferance effect your insurance rate? That doesn't seem to make sense. For the most part, domestic partners can't get medical coverage from the partners provider.

----------


## chip anderson

Navy Chief:

Simple insurance rate goes up due to expanded definition of the words "spouse and dependent."  Also gays (and I balk at this politicly correct term) tend to change partners frequently.  In some circumstances and policies the policy holder (in some cases  translates to employee) maintains liability for ex-"spouse"'s medical expenses.  There are also addittional medical risks for "gays" hense higher premiums for all (if group policy).

Now what of this don't you understand.

----------


## RT

By Chip's definition, then _hetero_sexuals increase my insurance rates by virtue of procreating, which puts far more people on the insurance plan than even the most promiscuous "gays".  And generally, the act of bringing those new "heteros" into the world is fairly expensive, subsidized by all the other premium payers.  At least when those promiscuous "gays" bring new lovers onto the health plan, it only costs a couple of umbrella drinks.

But even the argument that more people on the insurance plan increases the cost to you is pretty weak.  Most small business try to get MORE people on the insurance to spread the costs over a wider population, and thus bring the costs down.  That's how insurance works.

What is being implied here is that AIDS is the "gay disease", and that gay people must have higher health care bills than straight people.  By that logic, we ought to deny smokers the right to marry, since that might bring more smokers onto our health plans, clearly increasing the costs.  Ditto for diabetics, alcoholics, obese people, and people who are employed (since going out of the house to go to work increases your risk of catching something, increasing health care costs for the rest of us).

----------


## chip anderson

RT:  

More employees on the plan is one thing, more dependents on the plan is quite another.   More employees, more money in the plan.  More dependents, more money out o the plan.
Chip

----------


## QDO1

> Navy Chief:
> 
> Simple insurance rate goes up due to expanded definition of the words "spouse and dependent." Also gays (and I balk at this politicly correct term) tend to change partners frequently. In some circumstances and policies the policy holder (in some cases translates to employee) maintains liability for ex-"spouse"'s medical expenses. There are also addittional medical risks for "gays" hense higher premiums for all (if group policy).
> 
> Now what of this don't you understand.


sorry - so you are saying that 18 year old heterosexuals dont swap partners either

To nail My flag on the wall I would say that at the age of 38 I have had 3 long term relationships, and slept with 9 women.  I would venture to guess that most heterosexuals wouldnt be too far away from those figures either.  I have never had a STD, and have always practiced safe sex, I dont smoke, drink a little, and am not particularlary over weight... Would you  like me in your insurance scheme?

Anyone else prepared to honestly nail thier flag on the wall?

----------


## Spexvet

> Navy Chief:
>  ... Also gays (and I balk at this politicly correct term) tend to change partners frequently...


These are people who WANT TO GET MARRIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They DON"T want to change partners frequently.
And you're not letting them.

BTW, saying that homosexuals are promiscuous is about as true as saying southerners are dumb.

----------


## QDO1

> These are people who WANT TO GET MARRIED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> They DON"T want to change partners frequently.
> And you're not letting them.


I never thought about it like that, but that is kinda obvoius. Homosexuals who want to marry are asking to openly declare thier love and union for eachother, and the fact thet they are settled and a family unit. Why not grant them the same perks - in terms of tax, inheritance, social standing, and stability, when a partner dies etc.?

----------


## spartus

> I never thought about it like that, but that is kinda obvoius. Homosexuals who want to marry are asking to openly declare thier love and union for eachother, and the fact thet they are settled and a family unit. Why not grant them the same perks - in terms of tax, inheritance, social standing, and stability, when a partner dies etc.?


I've been trying to say exactly that for weeks now, but the issue keeps getting clouded by clowns equating it to having sex with furniture or something. Perhaps the question should be rephrased: Why does giving oppressed minorities equal rights scare you so much?

----------


## drk

[QUOTE=chm2023]Having read thru this thread I have concluded:

:bestiality is a much more pressing issue than I ever realized. /QUOTE]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...rsesex19m.html

----------


## acredhead113

> I've been trying to say exactly that for weeks now, but the issue keeps getting clouded by clowns equating it to having sex with furniture or something. Perhaps the question should be rephrased: Why does giving oppressed minorities equal rights scare you so much?


I guess as long as you do not try anything funny with me you can do what you damn well please but.... I do not want you to influence my family, my kids, grandkids with such nonsence. Gays relationships with people of their own sex is not the norm and never ever will be!

----------


## drk

> Please find me the applicable quote in the Bible. New Testament only, please..


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...20;&version=31;

----------


## QDO1

> I guess as long as you do not try anything funny with me you can do what you damn well please but.... I do not want you to influence my family, my kids, grandkids with such nonsence. Gays relationships with people of their own sex is not the norm and never ever will be!


what exactly are you afraid of?

Our societies have such double standards.  lets consider heterosexual children and sexuality

one can buy a g-string for a 7 year old in a mainstream high street storechildrens magazines are packed full of sex and relationship advicepop musisians activly market with sex, and the audience - childrenalmost any TV program has sexual referencesmost advertizing is sexuallook at a barbie dollIf you want to bang on about something, then the above list would be a better starting place, thats if you really want to protect your childeren from whatever it is you are all so scared off

----------


## drk

> Charming. The text of what you're referring to, which you, for reasons that are a mystery to me, completely failed to provide, is this:
> 
> 
> 
> The gist, as best I can gather in my reading of this, is that in retribution for idolatry, god delivered "shameful affections", whatever those are. The only bit I can see that's marginally clear enough to buttress your case is the bit that reads, "_men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error,_" but it's so poorly translated it could mean practically anything. Could be continued admonitions to idolatry, it could be lawnmower repair, which, if you've got a dog, can tend on the filthy side as well, whether or not you've got a helper or two.
> 
> All of which, of course, I mean that I don't really find it a strong foundation on which to base (or *de*base, which seems to be more the inclination here) a lifestyle around. "Receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error"? Honestly.
> 
> Anyway, in my search, I opted to seek out analysis other than my own. In doing so, I found a few interesting tidbits. First one's here, which has in particular this quote that I found interesting as well as amazingly pertinent when viewing your initial reply to my post: "It is striking how contemporary Christians using Romans 1:26-27 fall into the same trap: focusing on the immorality they see in others when they should be seeking God's grace and love for themselves." I'll see my mote, and raise you your beam, if you get my drift.
> ...


The point is this: homosexuality is a degraded behavior.  Humans are base and prone to evil, since the fall.  Homosexuality is not unique in this regard, and I am guilty of equivalent things myself.

I happen to be trying to be following the kind advice of a Person who cares about me.  All this "homosexuality is OK" stuff is a lie that will hurt people in this life, and keep them from eternal presence with God in the eternal part of our lives (which is, in comparison, the infinite majority of our lives!).

Any of you that have been practicing homosexuality, beware of the deceit you are being fed.

----------


## drk

> what exactly are you afraid of?
> 
> Our societies have such double standards. lets consider heterosexual children and sexuality
> 
> one can buy a g-string for a 7 year old in a mainstream high street storechildrens magazines are packed full of sex and relationship advicepop musisians activly market with sex, and the audience - childrenalmost any TV program has sexual referencesmost advertizing is sexuallook at a barbie dollIf you want to bang on about something, then the above list would be a better starting place, thats if you really want to protect your childeren from whatever it is you are all so scared off


You're right.  That's wrong.  That doesn't change the facts that gay marriage is bad, too.  We DO, however, need to have all that stuff addressed, somehow.

----------


## QDO1

> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...20;&version=31;


 here is a interesing rub on that... found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm


Some important words in Romans 1:26-27:

It is important to understand the precise meaning of certain key words in Verses 26 & 27, as expressed in the original Greek:

About the words "vile affections:" The Greek phrase translated as "vile affections" in the King James Version of the Bible is also translated as: "vile affections and degrading passions" (Amplified Bible)"dishonorable passions" (English Standard Version)"degrading passions" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, & New Revised Standard Version)"shameful lusts" (New International Version)"shameful desires" (New Living Translation)"evil things" (Living Bible)"shameful affections" (Rheims New Testament)"immoral, unnatural drives" (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)In the original Greek, the phrase probably does not mean "passions" or "lust" as people experienced in normal, day-to-day living -- the type of emotion that one encounters in a marriage or sexually active relationship. It seems to refer to the "frenzied state of mind that many ancient mystery cults induced in worshipers by means of wine, drugs and music." 2 It seems to describe the results of ritual sexual orgies as performed in many Pagan settings at the time. Paul seems to be referring here to Pagan "fertility cult worship prevalent in Rome" at the time. 4 Vestiges of this type of sex magic are still seen today in some Neopagan religious traditions. The Wiccan "Great Rite" is one example. However, in modern times, such rituals are restricted to committed couples in private.

About the words "exchanged," "leaving," "change," and "abandoned:" These words are important, because they precisely describe the people about whom Paul is talking. From the text, he is obviously writing about women with a heterosexual orientation, who had previously engaged in only heterosexual sex, who had "exchanged" their normal/inborn behaviors for same-sex activities. That is, they deviated from their heterosexual orientation and engaged in sexual behavior with other women. Similarly, he describes men with a heterosexual orientation who had "abandoned" their normal/inborn behaviors and engaged in same-sex activities. In both cases, he is describing individuals with a heterosexual orientation, who were engaging in same-sex behavior -- in violation of their natural desires. In normal life, these are very unusual activities, because heterosexuals typically have a strong aversion to engaging in same-sex behavior. However, with the peer pressure, expectations, drugs, alcohol and other stimulants present in Pagan sex rituals at the time, they appear to have abandoned their normal feelings of abhorrence and tried same-sex behavior.About the word "natural:" "The operative term in Pauls original Greek is "phooskos", meaning "inborn", "produced by nature" , "agreeable to nature". 1 This term, and the corresponding phrase "para physin" described below, are open to interpretation: To many religious liberals, gays, lesbians, mental health therapists, and human sexuality researchers, homosexual and bisexual orientations are normal, natural, and inborn for a small percentage of human adults. For gays, lesbians and bisexuals with these orientations, opposite-sex behavior would be abnormal and unnatural. To most religious conservatives, and perhaps to Paul himself, all same-sex behavior is abnormal and unnatural, no matter by whom it is done and irregardless of the nature of their relationship.About the word "against nature," "unnatural," etc:The Greek phrase "para physin" is commonly translated into the English as: "unnatural and abnormal" (Amplified Bible)"contrary to nature" (English Standard Version)"against nature" (King James Version, Rheims New Testament) "sin with each other" (Living Bible)"unnatural" (New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version)"immoral, unnatural drives" (The Great Book: The New Testament in Plain English)This does not seem to be an accurate translation. It may demonstrate prejudice on the part of the translators. "Unnatural" implies that the act is something that is to be morally condemned. M. Nissinen defines "para physin" as "Deviating from the ordinary order either in a good or a bad sense, as something that goes beyond the ordinary realm of experience." 3 The word "unconventional" would have been a more precise word for translators to use. The phrase "Para physin" appears elsewhere in the Bible:

In 1 Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the phrase to refer to long hair on men as unusual and not ordinary. In Romans 11:24, Paul used it to describe God's positive actions to bring Jews and Gentiles together.About the phrase "just reward:" Romans 1:27 refers to the idolaters receiving a recompense or penalty for "their error which was due." (NKJ, ASV, etc). This appears to be a reference to the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which was epidemic among such Pagan fertility cults at the time.


The context in which Verses 26 & 27 appear:

It is important to analyze the preamble to the verses quoted above: 

Romans 1:7 says that Paul is writing his epistle "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints...": That is, his letter is written to all of the Christians in Rome. His recipients would be submerged in the Roman culture, where homosexual behavior was both widespread and acceptable by society. Romans 1 is concerned with "Paul's vigorous denunciation of idolatrous religious worship and rituals." 2 This is not often mentioned today. Rather, verses 26 and 27 are broken out of the longer passage and cited by themselves to condemn same-sex behavior.Verses 21 to 28 include the following topics: 

Verses 21-23: The people had once been Christians. But they had fallen away from the faith, and returned to Paganism. They made images of Pagan gods in the form of men, birds, animals and reptiles for their religious rituals. The latter were probably held in Pagan temples.Verse 24: Next, they engaged in heterosexual orgies with each other as part of these pagan fertility rituals.Verse 25: Next, they worshipped the images that they had made, instead of God, the creator. Paul is specifically condemning idol worship here.Verse 26: Because of these forbidden practices, God intervened in these fertility sex-rituals and changed the people's behavior so that women started to engage in sexual activities with other women. Verse 27: describes how God had the men also engage in same-sex ritual activities. They (presumably both the men and women) were then punished in some way for their error. Verse 28: Again, because they did not acknowledge God, then He "gave them up" to many different unethical activities and attitudes: evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, etc.


Conclusions:

As in virtually all other "hot" religious topics, religious conservatives and liberals take opposite views on this and the other "clobber" passages in the Bible that are often regarded as referring to homosexuality:

Conservative view: The assertion of Bennett Sims, the former Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, is a good example of a viewpoint that is held by many conservative Christians. He believes that these verses have done more to form Christians' negative opinion of homosexuality than any other single passage in the Bible. He writes: "For most of us who seriously honor Scripture these verses still stand as the capital New Testament text that unequivocally prohibits homosexual behavior. More prohibitively, this text has been taken to mean that even a same-sex inclination is reprehensible, so that a type of humanity known as 'homosexual' has steadily become the object of contempt and discrimination." 1Views by others: Many religious liberals, secularists, homosexuals, and others view this passage as an attack on heterosexual persons who were formerly Christians, who reverted to Paganism, and who engaged in ritual sexual behavior as a part of their newly adopted Pagan services. During these rituals, the Pagans were whipped into such a state of sexual frenzy that they went against their heterosexual nature and started engaging in sexual behavior with members of the same sex. Paul condemns such behavior. He concludes that Pagan worship will inevitably leads to other negative behavior: "...unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, [and] unmerciful." 

The beliefs that persons of other religions are all morally corrupt and that followers of one's own religion behave on a much higher moral plane was common in Paul's time. The same assertions have been made throughout history. Yet, modern-day studies indicate that followers of no one religion have a monopoly on good behavior. No group of religions exhibits consistently immoral behavior among their followers.

The passage deals with immoral behavior among heterosexuals who have converted from Christianity to Paganism and engaged in behavior which is against their nature. There is no real connection between: Former Christians in the first century CE who have returned to Paganism and engaged in sexual orgies, andPersons with a homosexual orientation who have entered into a loving, committed relationship or same-sex marriage.Having lived in a pre-scientific era, Paul would not have had access to the research in human sexuality which started in the late 19th century and which only became widespread in the latter half of the 20th century. He would have been unaware of the concept of sexual orientation.




References:
"How to be true to the Bible and say 'Yes' to same-sex unions," at: http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/bennett.html
R.S. Truluck, "The six Bible passages used to condemn homosexuals," at: http://www.truluck.com/html/
Quoted in: Bruce Hane, "'Natural' and 'unnatural' " at: http://www.newvisionsproject.org/
"Free to be gay: A brief look at the Bible and homosexuality," Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, at: http://www.ualberta.ca/~cbidwell/UFMCC/

Copyright © 1996 to 2005 by Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Latest update: 2005-APR-05
Author: B.A. Robinson

----------


## drk

> The problem I have with the God Squad is the way they project all of thier boundaries on to everyone else, assuming a majority on "rightness". 
> 
> Why should I accept your view, just because you say that you believe your view is right, because you believe your god told you this? That is the crux of this whole debate. I chalenge any religious person to explain to me (without reference to god or some antiquated texts) why I should by default accept your view of the world as being the right one


Ok, I'm going to try, if you're on this thread, anymore.

Don't accept MY view.  Decide whether you:
1.) Believe in truth or not
2.) Believe one can actually know the truth, or not
3.) Care to know the truth or not
4.) Care to respond to the truth, or not.

Serious Christians have decided in the affirmative on all these questions.  

The truth that we've reached is so interesting and unexpected and important that we're compelled to share it, in the spirit of brotherly love.

Accept NOTHING that you do not wish to.  That is your (God-given) right.

----------


## drk

> here is a interesing rub on that... found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm


What that weighty post illustrates is that there is a singularity that is "truth" and an infinite number of "incorrects".  The distance between "the truth" and "incorrect" may be a mile wide, or it may be two microns wide.  But the truth is the truth.

You have gone to (a well known) liberal religious website and quoted liberal theologians against my conservative, fundamentalist views.  There is (gasp!) division even amongst the most conservative of Christians, as well.  

Don't be deceived by the liberal ones, they are influenced by you-know-who.  As their website title suggests, their agenda is peace on earth through religious tolerance, which, while superficially noble, is insipid.

----------


## QDO1

> What that weighty post illustrates is that there is a singularity that is "truth" and an infinite number of "incorrects". The distance between "the truth" and "incorrect" may be a mile wide, or it may be two microns wide. But the truth is the truth.
> 
> You have gone to (a well known) liberal religious website and quoted liberal theologians against my conservative, fundamentalist views. There is (gasp!) division even amongst the most conservative of Christians, as well. 
> 
> Don't be deceived by the liberal ones, they are influenced by you-know-who. As their website title suggests, their agenda is peace on earth through religious tolerance, which, while superficially noble, is insipid.


 Im not decieved by any of them, I just appreciate there are a lot of views, some mainstream,, some not so, for the same text. I posted the text to offer some balance. I dont subscribe to the you know who theory either.  I am just a plain old athiest.  You guys are still arguing about how to interpret ancient Hebrew and Greek, and we think thats funny

----------


## ksquared

> Im not decieved by any of them, I just appreciate there are a lot of views, some mainstream,, some not so, for the same text. I posted the text to offer some balance. I dont subscribe to the you know who theory either. *I am just a plain old athiest*.  You guys are still arguing about how to interpret ancient Hebrew and Greek, and we think thats funny


So you are an atheist.  Are you absolutely sure that there is no God?

----------


## QDO1

> So you are an atheist. Are you absolutely sure that there is no God?


I know where that argument is going.  I base my decisions on facts, or percieved facts, science, but definatally not faith.  I dont proclaim to be right; and understand that over time the basis of my judgments will evolve with advances in science etc.

----------


## drk

> I know where that argument is going. I base my decisions on facts, or percieved facts, science, but definatally not faith. I dont proclaim to be right; and understand that over time the basis of my judgments will evolve with advances in science etc.


1.) Where does science say there is no God?

2.) Laugh all you want, but it's not just Christians that have the task of interpreting ancient languages, nor are the difficulties unique to our case.  It's the same case when translating Greek classics, or Egyptian heiroglyphs.  It's really not something that you can laugh at, in the condescending way, and I'm not sure why you'd want to laugh at scholars, with your "scientific religion".

----------


## QDO1

> 1.) Where does science say there is no God?
> 
> 2.) Laugh all you want, but it's not just Christians that have the task of interpreting ancient languages, nor are the difficulties unique to our case. It's the same case when translating Greek classics, or Egyptian heiroglyphs. It's really not something that you can laugh at, in the condescending way, and I'm not sure why you'd want to laugh at scholars, with your "scientific religion".


1.) where does it say there is one?
2.) I have great respect for linguists, but it seems people interpret the Bible to suit thier argument, there are masive differences between the different versions, and it seems odd to base your decisions on something so variable. Example - there are a few different words and menaings that sometimes are interpreted from Greek and Hebrew for fornication - meaning anything from Idolatary to lewd sexual acts, but in the King james bible they are just interpreted as fornication - and that somewhat changes the meaning of the sentances. to base your life on something so interperative, and variable is like building your house on sand

----------


## drk

If your supposition that the Bible is subject to wide variation in its content, then you'd be correct that Christians' faith is built on sand.

That supposition is incorrect, and there is ample evidence to prove it.  Just a "popular" one:  the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered 1947 (or so) but written from about 200 BC to 70 AD (or so) varied in an insignificant way from the current Old Testament.  That's 2000 years of consistency, unheard of in ancient literary studies.

There's mountains more where that came from.

I know it'd be easier to maintain your world view if the Bible were a big pile of junk, but it's an amazing book by any scholar's standard.  You are misinformed on the most central aspect of our existence, my friend.

You're alive and well, right now, but how will you feel when you are facing stepping over the threshold into another phase of your life ("death")?  You do not die, you know.  You are created eternal, meaning you are at the infinitesimally small beginning of your eternal life.  But this vanishingly short life is a test with horrific consequences: DON'T FLUNK IT BECAUSE YOU LIKE EVENINGS AT THE PUB AND DOING WHAT YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE.  You'll be in agony at the Great White Throne Judgement, and there won't be a thing you can do about it, then.  Jesus will literally look in the Book of Life for your name.  If it's not there, you are to be separated from Him forever, and that is Hell.

You owe it to yourself not to take this lightly.  Even a year's worth of this life's time is not too much to invest to study this question.  I can help you, if you like.

----------


## QDO1

> If your supposition that the Bible is subject to wide variation in its content, then you'd be correct that Christians' faith is built on sand.
> 
> That supposition is incorrect, and there is ample evidence to prove it. Just a "popular" one: the Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered 1947 (or so) but written from about 200 BC to 70 AD (or so) varied in an insignificant way from the current Old Testament. That's 2000 years of consistency, unheard of in ancient literary studies.
> 
> There's mountains more where that came from.
> 
> I know it'd be easier to maintain your world view if the Bible were a big pile of junk, but it's an amazing book by any scholar's standard. You are misinformed on the most central aspect of our existence, my friend.
> 
> You're alive and well, right now, but how will you feel when you are facing stepping over the threshold into another phase of your life ("death")? You do not die, you know. You are created eternal, meaning you are at the infinitesimally small beginning of your eternal life. But this vanishingly short life is a test with horrific consequences: DON'T FLUNK IT BECAUSE YOU LIKE EVENINGS AT THE PUB AND DOING WHAT YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE. You'll be in agony at the Great White Throne Judgement, and there won't be a thing you can do about it, then. Jesus will literally look in the Book of Life for your name. If it's not there, you are to be separated from Him forever, and that is Hell.
> ...


 sorry it doesnt wash with me, there are even arguments about what books should and shouldnt be included in the bible, there is the interpretation thing, and the stories in the bible seem so silly, and at odds with the world around us - fossils, Noah's ark.  by the way - who married Adam and Eve? just how old was Adam when he died, where the siblings guilty of insest?... its a fairy tale from the beginning

----------


## Chairtime

> I know where that argument is going. I base my decisions on facts, or percieved facts, science, but definatally not faith. I dont proclaim to be right; and understand that over time the basis of my judgments will evolve with advances in science etc.


QDO1 I'd like to understand your viewpoint a little better.  Do you have a firm conviction that there is NO God, or is it just difficult for you to believe in God because the science is inconclusive?  And the other question I have is, if science proved to you that God exists, would you change your life in any way?

----------


## ksquared

> Originally Posted by *QDO1*_:_ Im not decieved by any of them, I just appreciate there are a lot of views, some mainstream,, some not so, for the same text. I posted the text to offer some balance. I dont subscribe to the you know who theory either.* I am just a plain old athiest*. You guys are still arguing about how to interpret ancient Hebrew and Greek, and we think thats funny





> Originally Posted by *ksquared*_:_ So you are an atheist. Are you absolutely sure that there is no God?





> Originally Posted by QDO1: I know where that argument is going.


 What argument would that be? I haven't offered an argument (as of yet).  All I've done to date is ask a question. 

 


> Originally Posted by *QDO1*: I base my decisions on facts, or percieved facts, science, but definatally not faith. I dont proclaim to be right; and understand that over time the basis of my judgments will evolve with advances in science etc.


 I commend you for basing your decisions on facts and science but this doesnt answer my question. You say you are an atheist. Are you absolutely certain there is no God?

----------


## drk

> sorry it doesnt wash with me, there are even arguments about what books should and shouldnt be included in the bible, there is the interpretation thing, and the stories in the bible seem so silly, and at odds with the world around us - fossils, Noah's ark. by the way - who married Adam and Eve? just how old was Adam when he died, where the siblings guilty of insest?... its a fairy tale from the beginning


Try this link, if you care: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

----------


## QDO1

> QDO1 I'd like to understand your viewpoint a little better. Do you have a firm conviction that there is NO God, or is it just difficult for you to believe in God because the science is inconclusive? And the other question I have is, if science proved to you that God exists, would you change your life in any way?


At the moment I have a firm conviction there is no god.  If the general body of scientific research  began to prove there was one, then I might re-evaluate.  I dont have a closed head, because I know things move on, for example: one would have had fun explaining radio waves to someone in the middle ages.  On the other hand, I see so many flaws in religion, scriptures, and the arguments which "believers" of most faiths put forwards, that it seems to me that the concept of god is a fanciful idea plugging a gap in the lives of believers.  It just doesnt hold any water for me at all

----------


## QDO1

the certainty question is a cyclical one...

"are you absoloutley certain there is no god" is exactly the same as "are you absoloutley certain there is a god"

There are two philosophocal standpoints here - how do you know something is true/exists, and how do you know something isnt true/exists.  Neither question can be given a 100% answer

Religious certainty is based on faith.  And that is the crux of it - relegoius devotees may try to prove that the god they have faith in exists, whereas everyone else doesnt feel the urge to prove or dis-prove god, because the motivation of faith isnt there.  I might argue that I believe that the world was created by a big green blob of jelly, thats visible to me in the night sky - you might as me to prove it, and I might ask you to disprove it.  that is where this debate is standing just now

I see religion and faith as forfilling a psychological need within "folowers".  Whats a real shame is that more often than not, the most warped and twisted ideas from religion, are impinged on the rest of society, often with zeal, and appaling outcomes

----------


## chip anderson

OD1:  

You are very correct there is no god.  But I fear that you will learn some day that there is God.

----------


## Chairtime

> At the moment I have a firm conviction there is no god. If the general body of scientific research began to prove there was one, then I might re-evaluate. I dont have a closed head, because I know things move on, for example: one would have had fun explaining radio waves to someone in the middle ages. On the other hand, I see so many flaws in religion, scriptures, and the arguments which "believers" of most faiths put forwards, that it seems to me that the concept of god is a fanciful idea plugging a gap in the lives of believers. It just doesnt hold any water for me at all


Thanks, Q.  I can actually relate to what you're saying because my own faith is not infallible, it's less than 100%.  

But what about this.  Science says the universe was created by "the big bang."  Science also says that all energy and motion comes from a source.  So then what caused the big bang?  Two planets colliding, maybe?  So what started the planets moving? Science cannot explain that, but religion can.

The scientific theory is incomplete and believing in it requires "faith without reason."  Believing in God only requires "faith with reason," which is the easier of the two.

----------


## Spexvet

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *spartus*
> _
> Please find me the applicable quote in the Bible. New Testament only, please.._
> 
> 
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...0;&version=31;


How something in the Gospels - maybe in Jesus' own words. Paul was merely human, after all...

----------


## Chairtime

One more thing I would add.  People once believed the world was flat.   

"The earth doesn't look round.  It doesn't feel round.  I don't see any proof that it's round.  Science says it's flat, so it must be flat."  Does this logic sound familiar to anyone?

----------


## Spexvet

> What that weighty post illustrates is that there is a singularity that is "truth" and an infinite number of "incorrects". The distance between "the truth" and "incorrect" may be a mile wide, or it may be two microns wide. But the truth is the truth.


Did Galileo know the truth that the earth circled the sun, or did the church know the truth that the sun circled the earth?

Truth is not always truth.

Welcome back, DRK.

----------


## Chairtime

> Did Galileo know the truth that the earth circled the sun, or did the church know the truth that the sun circled the earth?
> 
> Truth is not always truth.
> 
> Welcome back, DRK.


The church can be wrong about science, just like scientists can be wrong about religion.  But truth is always truth.

----------


## Spexvet

> Thanks, Q. I can actually relate to what you're saying because my own faith is not infallible, it's less than 100%. 
> 
> But what about this. Science says the universe was created by "the big bang." Science also says that all energy and motion comes from a source. So then what caused the big bang? Two planets colliding, maybe? So what started the planets moving? Science cannot explain that, but religion can.
> 
> The scientific theory is incomplete and believing in it requires "faith without reason." Believing in God only requires "faith with reason," which is the easier of the two.


Are you saying that God is merely what created matter/energy and caused the big bang, but aside from that everything can be explained through science and God is not necessary?

----------


## Spexvet

> The church can be wrong about science, just like scientists can be wrong about religion. But truth is always truth.


But we may not know it, yet?

----------


## Chairtime

> Are you saying that God is merely what created matter/energy and caused the big bang, but aside from that everything can be explained through science and God is not necessary?


I don't know where you got that idea.  But no.  You are partially correct.  The part about God creating matter and energy is correct.  The part about science being able to explain everything is way off.  God not being necessary might be wishful thinking on your part.

----------


## drk

> Did Galileo know the truth that the earth circled the sun, or did the church know the truth that the sun circled the earth?
> 
> Truth is not always truth.
> 
> Welcome back, DRK.


Thanks, Spexvet.  You know what I meant :Rolleyes:

----------


## Spexvet

> I don't know where you got that idea. But no. You are partially correct. The part about God creating matter and energy is correct. The part about science being able to explain everything is way off...


Example?

----------


## Chairtime

> Example?


Just 2 examples, are
The human brain.  Science can't understand much of it.
Humour.  Science can't explain how or why something is funny, or why humour exists.

----------


## Chairtime

3.  ESP.  Proven to exist but no explanation why or how.
4.  Female orgasms.  Proven to exist but no explanation why or how.

----------


## drk

Spex, for cryin' out loud...

Break down what we typically call "science" so it's not so...so..."awesome".  

Scientists are just a bunch of geeks sitting around doing experiments or math formulas.  Heaven's knows I spent enough time at school with these guys: chemist, mathemeticians, physicists.  They're not all that smart.  They have biases and personality flaws and emotional needs.

Science itself is just the body of knowlege collected over the past 300-400 years, essentially.  It's also a method of thinking.  But the fundamental method of thinking is "we're looking for explanations of phenomena and trying to understand how things work" by making observations, hypothesi, testing it, etc.  But theories are always starting with a few underlying assumptions: If we can't explain it "inside our natural, material, we can touch it-feel it-smell it-see it-taste it" real, physical world, then we aren't going to mess with it.

In other words, they try to study "reality".  What's tangible.  What's in this time and space we live in.  The universe.  Not outside the universe.

So, at BEST, with the most excellent science-geeks ever known, they will explain the workings of the universe.  

Now...where did the universe come from?  Why does IT exist?  Why is there existence, anyway?  Science cannot answer that, because it's outside the definition of science.

That's where religious belief comes in, right?  What's the ULTIMATE reality?  "Why", not "how".

----------


## Spexvet

> Try this link, if you care: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp


I especially like this passage:

"*2.* Children have no problem in understanding the meaning of Genesis. The only reason why other ideas are entertained is because people apply concepts from outside the Bible, principally from evolutionary/atheistic sources, to interpret the Bible"

Again: Galileo.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex, for cryin' out loud...


 :cry:  




> Scientists are just a bunch of geeks sitting around doing experiments or math formulas. Heaven's knows I spent enough time at school with these guys: chemist, mathemeticians, physicists. They're not all that smart. They have biases and personality flaws and emotional needs.


A priest, pedophile and homosexual walked into a bar. The first thing he did was to ask the bartender for a drink...
In other words, People of the cloth aren't so different from _those guys_.



> So, at BEST, with the most excellent science-geeks ever known, they will explain the workings of the universe.


So what do you do when their legitimate, proven, scientific findings are in direct conflict with what's written in the Bible. Example: The Biblical age of earth is about 10,000 years (I think - correct me if I'm wrong), but does anyone here dispute that dinosaurs existed on earth 65 million years ago. What gives?



> Now...where did the universe come from? Why does IT exist? Why is there existence, anyway? Science cannot answer that, because it's outside the definition of science.
> 
> That's where religious belief comes in, right? What's the ULTIMATE reality? "Why", not "how".


I'll know when I die. Until then, please allow me to believe whatever I want, and allow homosexuals to marry whomever they want. I don't mind being preached to, as long as I have the opportunity to reciprocate, but I won't force you to live your life a certain way, and I don't expect to be forced to live my life a certain way (consenting adult / no one hurt laws apply).

----------


## Bill West

Ps 14:1
1 *The fool hath said in his heart*, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (KJV)




> At the moment I have a firm conviction there is no god. If the general body of scientific research began to prove there was one, then I might re-evaluate. I dont have a closed head, because I know things move on, for example: one would have had fun explaining radio waves to someone in the middle ages. On the other hand, I see so many flaws in religion, scriptures, and the arguments which "believers" of most faiths put forwards, that it seems to me that the concept of god is a fanciful idea plugging a gap in the lives of believers. It just doesnt hold any water for me at all

----------


## Spexvet

> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...20;&version=31;


Instead of using an ambiguous passage as a rallying point, why don't people like Chip and Chairtime rally around JESUS' words. Try: "Love thy enemy". Maybe if you actually listen to Jesus' words, and follow his teachings, you'll allow same gender marriage because you love those people. Or heed the Golden Rule. If you want to marry whomever you want, allow others to marry whomever thay want. Now isn't that crystal clear? :Nerd:

----------


## Chairtime

> Instead of using an ambiguous passage as a rallying point, why don't people like Chip and Chairtime rally around JESUS' words. Try: "Love thy enemy". Maybe if you actually listen to Jesus' words, and follow his teachings, you'll allow same gender marriage because you love those people. Or heed the Golden Rule. If you want to marry whomever you want, allow others to marry whomever thay want. Now isn't that crystal clear?


Is love about giving people what they want or about really trying to help them?  If you give drugs to a drug addict are you loving them?  I love "gays" so therefore I want them to stop practicing the sin of homosexuality.  The problem is, almost none of them are willing to consider the fact that its a sin, so they don't want any help.  What's crystal clear is that you either think sin is in the eye of the beholder -or- you think a sin can't be committed by consenting adults.

----------


## Spexvet

> Is love about giving people what they want or about really trying to help them?


I doubt they would describe your persecution as "help".:shiner:  Kinda like Romans helping Christians by feeding them to the lions, or Salemites helping the accused witches by burning them at the stake.

----------


## Chairtime

> I doubt they would describe your persecution as "help".:shiner: Kinda like Romans helping Christians by feeding them to the lions, or Salemites helping the accused witches by burning them at the stake.


Of course.  In America, anything that takes away someones pleasure is called "persecution."

----------


## Spexvet

> 4. Female orgasms. Proven to exist but no explanation why or how.


Chairtime! You have a sense of humor! That was funny.

----------


## Spexvet

> Of course. In America, anything that takes away someones pleasure is called "persecution."


Wouldn't it be persecution if you weren't allowed to marry a woman?
(I'm deducing you're male)

----------


## Spexvet

> Wouldn't it be persecution if you weren't allowed to marry a woman?
> (I'm deducing you're male)


(and heterosexual);)

----------


## QDO1

> Did Galileo know the truth that the earth circled the sun


He certainly knew the catholics burnt his mother aliveat the stake for being a witch

----------


## QDO1

> Ps 14:1
> 1 *The fool hath said in his heart*, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (KJV)


Come on in fighting why dont you Bill

----------


## chip anderson

I hate to come out on the side of gay marriage which I am opposed to as well as homosexuallity.  However I do remember that when I was a teenager in Houston,TX one of the major sports was "Queer Rolling."   Straights made dates with them, then beat them up and took whatever they had with impunity (and no I did not participate in this.) However we all were of an anti-queer disposition.  (The word "Gay" did not exist at this time.

Then one day, it hit me that the more queers there were, the more straight women were left for me.  After that, I did not resent them.

Chip

----------


## Spexvet

> I hate to come out on the side of gay marriage which I am opposed to as well as homosexuallity. However I do remember that when I was a teenager in Houston,TX one of the major sports was "Queer Rolling." Straights made dates with them, then beat them up and took whatever they had with impunity (and no I did not participate in this.) However we all were of an anti-queer disposition. (The word "Gay" did not exist at this time.
> 
> Then one day, it hit me that the more queers there were, the more straight women were left for me. After that, I did not resent them.
> 
> Chip


Forgive me if I repeat myself. That's very Christian of them. :Rolleyes:

----------


## QDO1

> Did Galileo know the truth that the earth circled the sun, or did the church know the truth that the sun circled the earth?
> 
> Truth is not always truth.


That is the fundamental difference betwen science and religion.  Science as an establishment is big enough to evolve its reasoning, and has a built in method for doing so - Research.  Religion however does not evolve its reasoning, and when confronted with a reasonable thesis, often becomes entrenched and oppresive

----------


## Chairtime

Chip, that's very enlightening.

Spexvet: "Wouldn't it be persecution if you weren't allowed to marry a woman?"

Spex, we're going in circles.  Of course it would be persecution.  But you're forgetting that I believe homosexuality is a sin.  Let's keep the argument progressing.

----------


## Chairtime

> That is the fundamental difference betwen science and religion. Science as an establishment is big enough to evolve its reasoning, and has a built in method for doing so - Research. Religion however does not evolve its reasoning, and when confronted with a reasonable thesis, often becomes entrenched and oppresive


You're right. But which of those options would be consistent with having an absolute truth?  Would you "evolve your reasoning" or would you "become entrenched?"

----------


## QDO1

> You're right. But which of those options would be consistent with having an absolute truth?


Neither.  Religion often professes to have an absoloute position - who knows what that has to do with the truth

----------


## Chairtime

> Neither. Religion often professes to have an absoloute position - who knows what that has to do with the truth


Now you're just avoiding the question.  If you believe in what you say, you can pick one.

----------


## Spexvet

> You're right. But which of those options would be consistent with having an absolute truth? Would you "evolve your reasoning" or would you "become entrenched?"


What truth is absolute?

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet: "Wouldn't it be persecution if you weren't allowed to marry a woman?"
> 
> Spex, we're going in circles. Of course it would be persecution.


So you like to persecute people. Did Jesus preach that?




> But you're forgetting that I believe homosexuality is a sin. Let's keep the argument progressing.


Someone in the world thinks heterosexualtiy is a sin - count on it. Are you suggesting that the persecution of sinners is OK?:finger:

----------


## ksquared

> Originally Posted by *QDO1*: _Im not decieved by any of them, I just appreciate there are a lot of views, some mainstream,, some not so, for the same text. I posted the text to offer some balance. I dont subscribe to the you know who theory either. I am just a plain old athiest. You guys are still arguing about how to interpret ancient Hebrew and Greek, and we think thats funny_


 


> Originally Posted by *ksquared*: _So you are an atheist. Are you absolutely sure that there is no God?_


 


> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* I know where that argument is going.


 


> Originally Posted by *ksquared*: What argument would that be?


 


> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* I base my decisions on facts, or percieved facts, science, but definatally not faith. I dont proclaim to be right; and understand that over time the basis of my judgments will evolve with advances in science etc.


 


> Originally Posted by *ksquared:* I commend you for basing your decisions on facts and science but this doesnt answer my question. You say you are an atheist. Are you absolutely certain there is no God?


 


> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* the certainty question is a cyclical one..."are you absoloutley certain there is no god" is exactly the same as "are you absoloutley certain there is a god".


 Why are you so reluctant to answer this question? Saying the 2 statements above are similar isn't an answer. 




> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* There are two philosophocal standpoints here - how do you know something is true/exists, and how do you know something isnt true/exists. Neither question can be given a 100% answer.


 Although you are correct that some things cannot be answered with 100% certainty, this doesnt mean you cant know truth. Take a worldview for example. Both atheists and theists make truth claims but because the claims are mutually exclusive, they cant both be true. So how does one determine which is true. You look at the evidence.

Atheistic belief system: Nobody created something out of nothing. God doesnt exist. The universe is eternal. Non-life gave birth to life. Simple cells became simple life forms. Simple life forms increased in complexity through the random process of natural selection until they became creatures such as ourselves.

Theistic belief system: Somebody created something out of nothing as evidenced by the big bang. God exists. The creator is eternal but the universe has a beginning and an end. The universe is delicately balanced by design not by chance. For example, change one small aspect like the centrifugal force of the planetary movements and nothing would be held in orbit around the sun. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, calculated there is 1 chance in 10 to the 138th power that the 122 constants that make life on earth possible could have occurred by chance. There are only 10 to the power of 70 atoms in the entire universe. THe simpliest life form contains the information equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias. DNA, a list of building instructions. RNA, the instructions for building the instructions. 

So, who has more faith; an atheist or a theist. 

I personally believe truth can be known by examining both the arguments and the evidence. 

Evidence and scientific facts aside, I can certainly understand why you may have dismissed Christianity. Take Christian morality for example. Many of the moral laws appear to restrict our choices. Its only natural that we would want to fulfill our own personal desires. Who would want to have to answer to anyone, be accountable for our actions and yield our freedom to "do our own thing" to an unseen God. 

But I think you have a grave misunderstanding of how faith pertains to the Christian. It is a common misconception that Christians are supposed to just have faith. This couldn't be further from the truth. Christianity requires that you live your life based on truth. Christians are commanded to know what they believe and why they believe it. The Christian God requires that one look at the evidence.

----------


## QDO1

> Why are you so reluctant to answer this question? Saying the 2 statements above are similar isn't an answer. 
> 
> Although you are correct that some things cannot be answered with 100% certainty, this doesnt mean you cant know truth. Take a worldview for example. Both atheists and theists make truth claims but because the claims are mutually exclusive, they cant both be true. So how does one determine which is true. You look at the evidence.


As I said - I knew where that was going

I am not reluctant to answer the question.  You project the word truth about like athiests have a question to answer.  "I dont believe in god", does not require me to prove there isnt a god.  "I believe in god" implies that you have seen or felt something tangiable.. and that is where the proof should come from

A child isn't born believing in anything, and without input would grow up to be an athiest, not believing in a god.  God as far as I am concerened is just an idea in your head

You tell me - what is truth

----------


## Chairtime

> So you like to persecute people. Did Jesus preach that?
> 
> 
> 
> Someone in the world thinks heterosexualtiy is a sin - count on it. Are you suggesting that the persecution of sinners is OK?:finger:


You're missing the point.  Homosexuality is a sin.  A gay marriage by definition asks God and all of us to formally recognize a commitment to sin.  Since I don't approve of a commitment to sin, I don't recognize a "gay marriage."

You think disapproving of a sin is persecution?  That's not true at all.

----------


## Chairtime

> Why are you so reluctant to answer this question?


I think QDO1 has already answered it.


> At the moment I have a firm conviction there is no god.


At the moment, you don't sound too convinced.


> A child isn't born believing in anything, and without input would grow up to be an athiest,


Now I understand. Your parents didn't believe in God, and nobody told you about God... so you're an athiest. That's not scientific at all. 

QDO, if you're starting to feel uncomfortable right about now, it could be the Holy Spirit telling you your parents were wrong. After all...


> Science evolve(s) its reasoning


I hope for your sake, your reasoning evolves too.

----------


## Spexvet

> You're missing the point. Homosexuality is a sin. A gay marriage by definition asks God and all of us to formally recognize a commitment to sin. Since I don't approve of a commitment to sin, I don't recognize a "gay marriage."


No, you're missing the point. Just because you believe homosexuality is a sin doesn't mean everyone does. Those who don't should be allowed to marry. You don't have to approve, you don't have to recognize - in fact, it's none of your business, were it not for the fact that you want to prohibit it.

----------


## QDO1

> Now I understand. Your parents didn't believe in God, and nobody told you about God... so you're an athiest. That's not scientific at all.


You have missunderstood me, I was talking in the third person. I will try again

If as an experement, one took a baby child, and isolated it from any type of religious culture, It would not grow up believing in god, neither would it grow up believing there was not a god. That child would be an athiest, as it does not believe in god

*ksquared* was implying that Athiests have to prove there isnt a god, I was commenting that they dont have to, as you are asking me to prove the (non)existance of Nothing. I think that god only exists in the minds of religious people. If religious people believe there is a god, then they ought to be able to prove it. Who knows, perhaps I should take a carear as a Spatial Analyst

I do not feel uncomfortable by the way

----------


## Chairtime

> You have missunderstood me, I was talking in the third person. I will try again


No, I understood you. You explained how a person becomes an athiest. If nobody teaches an "experiment child" about God, then the child is an athiest. You are also an athiest. Did your parents teach you about God?

I don't think you have to prove there isn't a God. I'm just trying to understand your belief system. You say "at the moment I don't believe there is a God." You also say that "science evolves its reasoning." It seems like a weak belief system. I get a sense that you are afraid of knowing there is a God because it will turn your world upside down.

It would be different if you said "I don't care if there is a God or not. I will live as I please." But you're not saying that. You're saying "I don't think there is a God."

----------


## QDO1

> No, I understood you. You explained how a person becomes an athiest. If nobody teaches an "experiment child" about God, then the child is an athiest. You are also an athiest. Did your parents teach you about God?
> 
> I don't think you have to prove there isn't a God. I'm just trying to understand your belief system. You say "at the moment I don't believe there is a God." You also say that "science evolves its reasoning." It seems like a weak belief system. I get a sense that you are afraid of knowing there is a God because it will turn your world upside down.
> 
> It would be different if you said "I don't care if there is a God or not. I will live as I please." But you're not saying that. You're saying "I don't think there is a God."


Actually religious people are athiests who have become relegious, we are all born athiests

I am not afraid of knowing if there is a god. Prehaps I am unusual to you, because "nothingness" doesnt phase me

If we are talking about religion, I dont have a belief system.  What I did say is that I have a scientific and open mind, and I do understand that our view of the Universe (for example) has changed over the years, in a similar way to our view on evoloution

My parants are utterly irrelevant to this disscusion

----------


## Chairtime

> Actually religious people are athiests who have become relegious, we are all born athiests
> 
> I am not afraid of knowing if there is a god. Prehaps I am unusual to you, because "nothingness" doesnt phase me
> 
> If we are talking about religion, I dont have a belief system. What I did say is that I have a scientific and open mind, and I do understand that our view of the Universe (for example) has changed over the years, in a similar way to our view on evoloution
> 
> My parants are utterly irrelevant to this disscusion


It still sounds like you're unwilling to commit to anything, and you don't want to examine your own beliefs because you might find something you don't want to find.  You speak in generalities.  According to your own definition of an athiest, your parents have everything to do with your belief.

----------


## spartus

You know, I almost made some point-by-point replies to all the churchy clowning going on, but then I caught myself. To sum up:

*Your religious beliefs have no legal bearing on this.*

You can cluck your tongue and disapprove all you want, no one's asking *churches* to recognize these marriages, they're asking that of the state. This is why, two years ago in San Francisco, a city with no shortage of churches, people were in mile-long lines to get married at City Hall. I know, it's a fun game, to get people entangled in ridiculous discussions of bible stories and this and that, but it's just clouding the subject.

----------


## chm2023

> You know, I almost made some point-by-point replies to all the churchy clowning going on, but then I caught myself. To sum up:
> 
> *Your religious beliefs have no legal bearing on this.*
> 
> You can cluck your tongue and disapprove all you want, no one's asking *churches* to recognize these marriages, they're asking that of the state. This is why, two years ago in San Francisco, a city with no shortage of churches, people were in mile-long lines to get married at City Hall. I know, it's a fun game, to get people entangled in ridiculous discussions of bible stories and this and that, but it's just clouding the subject.


BRAVO!!!!

I never understood the notion that somehow my religious beliefs require civil confirmation or need to be aggressively shoved upon other people.  I have enough on my hands nurturing my own relationship with God and other people, don't understand this arrogant posture that not only do I have a unique insight into the almighty, but I am justified in burdening others with that insight.

Personally, having observed a lot of the evangelical TV types who feel entitled to foist their bizarre visions on me, I am pretty confident that God has way more taste than to traffic with such fools.

----------


## chip anderson

No! You are asking the courts to do this.  Put it up for election and see where the chips fall.

----------


## Chairtime

> You know, I almost made some point-by-point replies to all the churchy clowning going on, but then I caught myself. To sum up:
> 
> *Your religious beliefs have no legal bearing on this.*
> 
> You can cluck your tongue and disapprove all you want, no one's asking *churches* to recognize these marriages, they're asking that of the state. This is why, two years ago in San Francisco, a city with no shortage of churches, people were in mile-long lines to get married at City Hall. I know, it's a fun game, to get people entangled in ridiculous discussions of bible stories and this and that, but it's just clouding the subject.


Okay, so you think churches are for fools and God is a friend of Santa Clause.  That's fine.  I'm sorry but laws, people and morals are not mutually exclusive.  They are intertwined whether you like it or not.

----------


## chm2023

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. 

Thomas Jefferson


...bringing us full circle to how does SSM hurt you?  It doesn't, therefore it is no concern of the government nor within the rightful scope of the law.  What an outrageous idea--something offends me, therefore I need to have it outlawed??  If that's the case, I have a loooooonnnngggg list of proposals!!!!;)

----------


## Spexvet

Do you believe that God created the universe in seven days?

Do you believe Jonah was in the stomach of a giant fish for three days before being spit out on the beach?

Do you believe a pair of every animal on earth was aboard Noah's ark?

----------


## Chairtime

> The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson


I agree with this statement.  I don't agree that legally recognizing a commitment to homosexuality does no harm to society.

----------


## drk

> I doubt they would describe your persecution as "help".:shiner: Kinda like Romans helping Christians by feeding them to the lions, or Salemites helping the accused witches by burning them at the stake.


Spex, 
Better bone up on your definitions of "persecution" and "feeding to lions" and "burning". :D

----------


## drk

> That is the fundamental difference betwen science and religion. Science as an establishment is big enough to evolve its reasoning, and has a built in method for doing so - Research. Religion however does not evolve its reasoning, and when confronted with a reasonable thesis, often becomes entrenched and oppresive


"Religion" believes in divinely-revealed truth.  Who you gonna trust, if there is a discrepancy?

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex, 
> Better bone up on your definitions of "persecution" and "feeding to lions" and "burning". :D


Actually, it's Chairtime's definition of "help" that needs reassessment.

----------


## drk

> As I said - I knew where that was going
> 
> I am not reluctant to answer the question. You project the word truth about like athiests have a question to answer. "I dont believe in god", does not require me to prove there isnt a god. "I believe in god" implies that you have seen or felt something tangiable.. and that is where the proof should come from
> 
> A child isn't born believing in anything, and without input would grow up to be an athiest, not believing in a god. God as far as I am concerened is just an idea in your head
> 
> You tell me - what is truth


Oooh. Oooh.  I want to answer this one.

Hey, if God were a construct, why has it been so prevalent in history and today?  Because of "simple-mindedness"?  Because "we" have figured so much out, now, that God isn't necessary?  Do you think as we become more enlightened in the future that most will be atheists?

Spirituality is not an external to humanity!  Kids do not grow up to be atheists without help.  This is easily refuted.  Nice try.

Truth is a statement that corresponds to reality.  Reality _is what is_.  It's self-explanatory and necessary.

----------


## Spexvet

> Oooh. Oooh. I want to answer this one.
> 
> Hey, if God were a construct, why has it been so prevalent in history and today? Because of "simple-mindedness"? Because "we" have figured so much out, now, that God isn't necessary? Do you think as we become more enlightened in the future that most will be atheists?


I think that when humans knew less, there were more gods to explain what we didn't know. Thor, to explain thunder, Apollo, to explain how the sun moves across the sky, Posiedon, to explain the activity of the seas, etc. Now we have fewer questions. One God explains how we were created, why we are here, and what happens to us after we die - what questions remain unanswered? Chair, I'll get back to you on the female orgasm question. So, in answer to the question, yes, as we understand more, we will have less need to use God as an explanation.

----------


## drk

> Do you believe that God created the universe in seven days?
> 
> Do you believe Jonah was in the stomach of a giant fish for three days before being spit out on the beach?
> 
> Do you believe a pair of every animal on earth was aboard Noah's ark?


"Yes", "yes", and I'm not totally sure that that's what's being said, but I'll say: mostly "yes".

The bottom line of this thread is that we have to decide as a society what we will recognize. Which language? What behavior? What institutions? Which values? What economy? etc, etc. 

Don't cop out and say that "everyone should have a right to do what he or she or he-she (couldn't resist that one, hee-hee) wants". That's not a very reasonable argument.

An open letter to gay people, and do-gooder liberal activists:

In order to change the status quo, you have to prove that it's wrong. The one man/one woman relationship is a building block of human society. 

You gay folks can do whatever you want on your own time. Don't go "mainstream" anyway. It's not "cool". Gay men, you have no problem with this one, do you? Gay women, I know you like to "settle down" and raise kids, and all, but you'll have to play by the rules to get acceptance from this society.

If you guys keep up the good work, you will eventually, in about twenty years, be able to change societies values so that you will be able to get what you think you want: legitimacy and everything that goes with it. So hang in there.

You are way too early for this one. The laws will not occur in most locations in this (USA) country. Save it for later.

----------


## drk

> I think that when humans knew less, there were more gods to explain what we didn't know. Thor, to explain thunder, Apollo, to explain how the sun moves across the sky, Posiedon, to explain the activity of the seas, etc. Now we have fewer questions. One God explains how we were created, why we are here, and what happens to us after we die - what questions remain unanswered? Chair, I'll get back to you on the female orgasm question. So, in answer to the question, yes, as we understand more, we will have less need to use God as an explanation.


Aaah, Spex, those were my words, exactly, in my younger days...

Answer this: if everyone is so red-hot looking for explanations for natural phenomena, why isn't everyone boning up so hard on the science books, these days?  Why do humans tend to fervently worship stuff?  

Fact is, nobody gives a big crap about "where did stars come from" before or now.  Sounds like a "Jay Walking" Tonight Show topic.  Curiosity about nature isn't that powerful a motivating force, now, is it?

----------


## acredhead113

> OD1: 
> 
> You are very correct there is no god. But I fear that you will learn some day that there is God.


 
OH!!!! When the Houston Astros pitcher said " Oh my GOD !" Did he mean that there was a God or is God real?

----------


## spartus

> Okay, so you think churches are for fools and God is a friend of Santa Clause.  That's fine.  I'm sorry but laws, people and morals are not mutually exclusive.  They are intertwined whether you like it or not.


No, I said your/my/their/our religion is irrelevant to the discussion. I realize you feel the only way you feel you can come out on top is to distort what people who oppose you are saying, but stop trying it with me. It doesn't work.

----------


## acredhead113

Yes if you all wait long enough society will accept about anything that is repeated and accepted over time as the truth!


That is why this stupid and inconsistent theory that it is okay to mate with a person of the same sex is so bad! It is bad! For those of you are normal people and say you would accept this type of behavior this is BAD! I do not care is your attitude!

Being GAY is BAD! It tells people that being GAY is like a belligerent attitude. Being gay is a disease! People die of AIDS! It is a death that can be stopped by admitting to yourself that you can be helped through medical or psychological means.

I do not care what your belief or non-belief is. Whether you are religious or not. This has nothing to do with the issue! Being gay is accepting that you are not normal.

Maybe you need to take courses in some type of self help! Heal yourself! Stop and take a good look on how you can become normal!

----------


## Spexvet

> Aaah, Spex, those were my words, exactly, in my younger days...
> 
> Answer this: if everyone is so red-hot looking for explanations for natural phenomena, why isn't everyone boning up so hard on the science books, these days? Why do humans tend to fervently worship stuff?


It's EASIER to say "it's God's will, God works in mysterious ways". People want to abdicate responsibility. And let's face it - there's no way to find out what happens after death and that scares most people. Scares them to the point that they fervently worship stuff.

----------


## Spexvet

> "Yes", "yes", and I'm not totally sure that that's what's being said, but I'll say: mostly "yes".


 Really? I have some land in Florida that I'll sell you.



> The bottom line of this thread is that we have to decide as a society what we will recognize. Which language? What behavior? What institutions? Which values? What economy? etc, etc.


We should all adopt MY language, MY values, MY behavior, and MY economy, of course.;)

----------


## Chairtime

> No, I said your/my/their/our religion is irrelevant to the discussion.


Government recognition and acceptance of homosexuality affects society.  Society is made up of people with moral beliefs.  Therefore moral beliefs are very relevant to the discussion.

----------


## spartus

If this were a theocracy, you'd be correct, but in our system, objecting to civil law based on relative moral values as defined by certain religions is not.

----------


## Spexvet

Do You...

Eat pork?
Eat shellfish?
Celebrate Passover?
When your children were born, did your wife go to the entrance of the meeting tent and sacrifice a year-old lamb and a young pigeon or dove for a sin offering?
When you have a swelling or rash on your skin, do you go to a priest, who will isolate you for 7 days?
If your clothing is contaminated with mildew, do you take it to a priest, who will isolate it for 7 days, and if the mildew spreads, does he burn the clothing?
Do you hold back the wages of a hired man overnight?
Do you wear clothing woven of two kinds of material?
Do you eat rare meat?
Do you cut the hair at both sides of your head, or trim your beard?
You have a tattoo?

----------


## Chairtime

Do you...

celebrate Christmas?
new year?
Thanksgiving?
Do you agree that today is October 27, 2005?
Do you go to a funeral when someone dies?

----------


## Robert Martellaro

> Answer this: if everyone is so red-hot looking for explanations for natural phenomena, why isn't everyone boning up so hard on the science books, these days? Why do humans tend to fervently worship stuff?


For the same reason people play the slots instead of the horses-you don't have to think.

----------


## Spexvet

> Do you...
> 
> celebrate Christmas?
> new year?
> Thanksgiving?
> Do you agree that today is October 27, 2005?
> Do you go to a funeral when someone dies?


Do you...

care to answer my questions?

----------


## Chairtime

> Do you...
> 
> care to answer my questions?


As long as you answer mine.

----------


## Chairtime

Let me say that I think these questions are a trap but I will answer them anyway because I am not afraid of the truth, even if I am wrong.


> Do You...
> 
> Eat pork? yes
> Eat shellfish? yes
> Celebrate Passover?  no
> When your children were born, did your wife go to the entrance of the meeting tent and sacrifice a year-old lamb and a young pigeon or dove for a sin offering? no
> When you have a swelling or rash on your skin, do you go to a priest, who will isolate you for 7 days? no
> If your clothing is contaminated with mildew, do you take it to a priest, who will isolate it for 7 days, and if the mildew spreads, does he burn the clothing? no
> Do you hold back the wages of a hired man overnight? no
> ...

----------


## QDO1

we are a long way away from the thread? How does same gender marriage hurt you?

----------


## QDO1

by the way - i dont do christmas

----------


## drk

> Do You...
> 
> Eat pork?
> Eat shellfish?
> Celebrate Passover?
> When your children were born, did your wife go to the entrance of the meeting tent and sacrifice a year-old lamb and a young pigeon or dove for a sin offering?
> When you have a swelling or rash on your skin, do you go to a priest, who will isolate you for 7 days?
> If your clothing is contaminated with mildew, do you take it to a priest, who will isolate it for 7 days, and if the mildew spreads, does he burn the clothing?
> Do you hold back the wages of a hired man overnight?
> ...


You've been reading Deuteronomy, haven't you? 

Old Testament, baby.  Old, as in: I don't have to deal with it.

----------


## spartus

> You've been reading Deuteronomy, haven't you? 
> 
> Old Testament, baby.  Old, as in: I don't have to deal with it.


Then Genesis should stop being cited as the prototype of marriage.

----------


## drk

Zinggggg!;)

----------


## drk

> by the way - i dont do christmas


Well, at least you're consistent!

Hey, for all intents and purposes, I was an atheist, too, for awhile.  I know where you're coming from.

You can be a "good person" (at least by human standards) and still be an atheist.

----------


## drk

> It's EASIER to say "it's God's will, God works in mysterious ways". People want to abdicate responsibility. And let's face it - there's no way to find out what happens after death and that scares most people. Scares them to the point that they fervently worship stuff.


Is it your observation that religious people have a tendency towards fear of the "afterlife"?  Do you think most religious people are motivated that way?  No, I didn't think so...

Why on earth would a seemingly sane, somewhat educated, and somewhat literate person like myself say the things I say and do the things I do?  Care to guess?

----------


## spartus

> Is it your observation that religious people have a tendency towards fear of the "afterlife"?  Do you think most religious people are motivated that way?  No, I didn't think so...
> 
> Why on earth would a seemingly sane, somewhat educated, and somewhat literate person like myself say the things I say and do the things I do?  Care to guess?


With regards to the first point, religion was created by man to explain things they couldn't comprehend--how does the sun rise?, where did all my crops go?, what happens when we die?, and so forth. Science has managed to explain most of these things, although a scientific explanation of the afterlife has, as yet, eluded us. This is why religion still has a corner on that particular market--it's the one thing that science will likely not be able to explain, so we turn to our beliefs in order to understand what is, for most people, a relatively scary inevitability. In reality, it's most of what religion's got left in the modern world: "You're going to heaven/hell, and this is why." Why most people seem more willing to cast their fellow man into the lake of fire rather than helping them is beyond me.

As to the second point, no clue.

----------


## drk

So millions of Americans get up and go to church on Sunday because they are trying to allay their fears that they are going to some terrible existence after they die. They've bought into it! Suckers! If they weren't so busy worrying about hell, then they could relax, have a cold one, and live and let live, right?

By the way, when you impersonalize "science" that bugs me.  You mean "people" have figured out why the sun rises, etc.  Regular people, over time, slowly but surely.

----------


## spartus

Science has a big white beard and lives in the sky. Don't make fun of Science.

----------


## Spexvet

> As long as you answer mine.


Sure. I asked first, you answer first.

----------


## Spexvet

> You've been reading Deuteronomy, haven't you? 
> 
> Old Testament, baby.  Old, as in: I don't have to deal with it.


Leviticus.

----------


## Spexvet

> Let me say that I think these questions are a trap but I will answer them anyway because I am not afraid of the truth, even if I am wrong.
> Do You...
> 
>  Eat pork? yes
>  Eat shellfish? yes
>  Celebrate Passover?  no
>  When your children were born, did your wife go to the entrance of the meeting tent and sacrifice a year-old lamb and a young pigeon or dove for a sin offering? no
>  When you have a swelling or rash on your skin, do you go to a priest, who will isolate you for 7 days? no
>  If your clothing is contaminated with mildew, do you take it to a priest, who will isolate it for 7 days, and if the mildew spreads, does he burn the clothing? no
> ...


My point is that the answers to these questions are in the bible, very clearly described. BTW, you ticked off God with 8 of your answers, and I'll bet if you employed someone, you'd pay them weekly, so you're going to hell.;) Anyway, you've chosen to  pick an ambiguous passage, in the same Bible, that may or may not be about homosexuality to hang your hat on, and yet you don't give a big rat's buttocks about breaking these other rules, yourself. Why pick homosexuality as the issue to fall on your sword? Why not "remember the sabbath" and try to get a constitutional ammendment to close businesses on Sunday? It's an issue that's alot more clear-cut than homosexual marriage! How about a constitutional ammendment against lying? Please help me understand.

----------


## Spexvet

> Is it your observation that religious people have a tendency towards fear of the "afterlife"? Do you think most religious people are motivated that way? No, I didn't think so...


Think Terry Schaivo. Yes, I think their worst fear is that when you die, worms eat you. And nothing else. There's a huge reassurance factor there. Besides, how would it sound to preach "if you follow God's teaching, when you die, you'll enter the kingdom of....I'm sorry, worms will eat you, just like they'll eat everybody else. So, keep sacrificing so that worms will eat you." Doesn't sound as good without the fire and brimstone, does it?

----------


## Spexvet

[QUOTE=Chairtime]Do you...




> celebrate Christmas?


yes



> new year?


yes



> Thanksgiving?


yes



> Do you agree that today is October 27, 2005?


relatively speaking, yes



> Do you go to a funeral when someone dies?


sometimes

Karen, eat your heart out. Quote - response - quote - response. :Cool:

----------


## drk

> My point is that the answers to these questions are in the bible, very clearly described. BTW, you ticked off God with 8 of your answers, and I'll bet if you employed someone, you'd pay them weekly, so you're going to hell.;) Anyway, you've chosen to pick an ambiguous passage, in the same Bible, that may or may not be about homosexuality to hang your hat on, and yet you don't give a big rat's buttocks about breaking these other rules, yourself. Why pick homosexuality as the issue to fall on your sword? Why not "remember the sabbath" and try to get a constitutional ammendment to close businesses on Sunday? It's an issue that's alot more clear-cut than homosexual marriage! How about a constitutional ammendment against lying? Please help me understand.


Simple answers:
1.) The Old Testament is no longer in effect, for about 2000 years, now.  Even the Ten Commandments are null and void.  We're on a new and better system, now.

2.) Not trying to legislate morality with the gay marriage issue.  Just trying to preserve something of value.  Even if there were a morally-neutral scenario that reduced the sanctity of marriage, we'd be against it.  Doesn't matter that it's gay activists.  It could be Regis Philbin, for all we care.

----------


## finklstiltskin

> So millions of Americans get up and go to church on Sunday because they are trying to allay their fears that they are going to some terrible existence after they die.


Uh..._yeah_. Exactly. Then again, some go to take money from people (such as the preacher at the church where I last attended), or to gossip, or to meet members of the opposite sex, or to meet members of the _same_ sex, or they go because their parents force them to (case in point: the first 18 years of my life)...and maybe a few actually go for the right reasons.

And to answer the original question: same-gender marriage doesn't hurt me, or Chairtime, or drk, or anyone else. It may bother you. Hell, it  may bother you *a* *lot*, but it doesn't hurt any of us a single bit, and you all know it.

----------


## QDO1

> Even if there were a morally-neutral scenario that reduced the sanctity of marriage, we'd be against it


Thats why in the wonderful country of America you can go to the "chapel" and get married dresed up as Elvis? Likewise in the UK there are civil weddings, where God isnt mentioned - are those marriages void in your eyes

----------


## Spexvet

> 1.) The Old Testament is no longer in effect, for about 2000 years, now. Even the Ten Commandments are null and void.


Since when? You better tell that to all the folks that want them posted in the courthouse. Does that explain why many conservative Christians behave immorally? Does this mean that Jesus was wrong when he quoted and defended Scripture?




> We're on a new and better system, now.


Let us in on the secret. It doesn't appear that anyone is adhering to the New Testament system, either. They're not treating others as they would like to be treated, not loving their enemies, etc., etc.




> 2.) Not trying to legislate morality with the gay marriage issue.


I don't think you're being honest with yourself on this one.:finger: 




> Just trying to preserve something of value...


Explain how adding marriages jeopardizes "something of value". Why not try legislating against divorce, if that's your goal?

----------


## drk

(Hey, how do you do that "multiple quote" thing where you get all those boxes?)

The New Testament is a "new deal", so to speak.  This is explained in the NT book of Hebrews (author uncertain, but thought to be Paul, a former Pharisee who had a personal encounter with Jesus after his Resurrection, but saw him as a light http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...=22&version=31  and 
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=8&version=31)

The bottom line is this: the Jewish religion is null and void.  Jesus came to fulfill the Jewish religion which was for Israel (The Law, Temple worship, animal sacrifice) and bring His own, better, more excellent version. 

The first one was for God's chosen nation of Israel, who's job it was to bring news of the Real God to the world (for no one else at that time was worshipping the Real God, just Satan), produce Jesus, and produce the the throne that Jesus will sit on when He returns (He is part of the Davidic Dynasty.)  So, that's what God's original Law was for.  Until Jesus.

The New Testament religion really boils down to this:  People who want to invite the Holy Spirit to literally come and live with them in their body.  Their body is literally inhabited by two spirits.  Christians' bodies are called "the (modern-day) Temple of the Lord" since He lives there, now, and are asked to respect it as such.  (God used to do the same thing for the Hebrews: He literally lived in Solomon's temple).  

When you are inhabited by the Holy Spirit, you are not supposed to go around following laws such as the Ten Commandments.  You are supposed to submit your will to the Holy Spirit, and let Him take control of what you do, and think, and say, and feel.  It's a merging with God.  If God controls your life, then you don't have to follow rules.  Your free.  God IS the rules, so whatever He wants to do through you, it's OK.

Does this sound dangerous?  You bet!  It's not well understood, even by Christians, and there are many, many possible pitfalls.  You just have to cling to Him, really tightly.  He helps, and makes it possible.

----------


## drk

Explain how adding marriages jeopardizes "something of value". Why not try legislating against divorce, if that's your goal?


If something is unique and special, and everyone gets into the act, it ceases to be unique and special.  Need an analogy?

----------


## Spexvet

> (Hey, how do you do that "multiple quote" thing where you get all those boxes?)


 I could tell you, but then I'd have to cut my own tongue out.



> You are supposed to submit your will to the Holy Spirit, and let Him take control of what you do, and think, and say, and feel.


I accept responsibilty for my own actions. Nobody controls me but me - I make no excuses for what I choose to do, and I think I live a moral life.

----------


## Spexvet

> Explain how adding marriages jeopardizes "something of value". Why not try legislating against divorce, if that's your goal?
> 
> 
> If something is unique and special, and everyone gets into the act, it ceases to be unique and special. Need an analogy?


So what steps are you planning to take to reduce the number of heterosexual marriages? :Rolleyes:  :p Can't let everybody get into the act!

----------


## drk

> I could tell you, but then I'd have to cut my own tongue out.
> 
> I accept responsibilty for my own actions. Nobody controls me but me - I make no excuses for what I choose to do, and I think I live a moral life.


I'm sure you, and maybe everyone would think so.  But we don't really matter.

----------


## drk

> So what steps are you planning to take to reduce the number 
> of heterosexual marriages? :p Can't let everybody get into the act!


Have you heard of the "covenant marriage" idea?  I think it's only big in Christian circles.  It's supposed to be a "higher level" of marriage that you can't "no-fault" your way out of...extra binding.

Thanks to a thought-provoking thread like this, though, I see where that would be hypocritical, if your a gay marriage opposer.

----------


## Chairtime

> How about a constitutional amendment against lying? Please help me understand.


I don't support a government-issued license for people to commit to a life of lying, either.


> Nobody controls me but me


I see...


> actions speak louder than words


I agree. Look at your actions:

Do you celebrate Christmas, New Year's and Thanksgiving?
Spexvet: "yes"

Do you agree that today is October 27, 2005?
Spexvet: "yes"

Guess what?  Your actions are based on Christianity.

----------


## Spexvet

> I don't support a government-issued license for people to commit to a life of lying, either.I see...I agree. Look at your actions:
> 
> Do you celebrate Christmas, New Year's and Thanksgiving?
> Spexvet: "yes"
> 
> Do you agree that today is October 27, 2005?
> Spexvet: "yes"
> 
> Guess what? Your actions are based on Christianity.


I never claimed they wouldn't be.

----------


## chip anderson

Spexvet:  I don't know what kind of cult you belong to but Jesus Christ himself said:  "I come not to change the law...."

Even Christ believed in the teaching of the Old Testament and had no intentions of it's ambanonment.

----------


## drk

> Spexvet: I don't know what kind of cult you belong to but Jesus Christ himself said: "I come not to change the law...."
> 
> Even Christ believed in the teaching of the Old Testament and had no intentions of it's ambanonment.


I think you're addressing me, not Spex.  No cult, here.  You are correct, Jesus came to "fulfill the law".  But it's deeper than that, if you look.  And HE DID have intentions of it's abandonment, in the greater sense. 

Obviously, the Ten C's are God's law to the Israelites, and, while not specific to us here and now, they're still God's word and should be treated as such.

----------


## Chairtime

> I never said [my actions] wouldn't be based on Christianity


Oh really?


> as we understand more, we will have less need to use God as an explanation.


"Straights made dates with gays, then beat them up"


> That's very Christian of them.


And this is my personal favourite:


> When behavior does not match rhetoric, actions speak louder than words.

----------


## Spexvet

> Oh really?
> "Straights made dates with gays, then beat them up"


I didn't say that.




> And this is my personal favourite:


And your point is....?????

----------


## Chairtime

> I didn't say that.


I didn't quote you as saying that.  Read it again.

In response to "people beating up gays" YOU SAID "it's very Christian of them," an obvious statement of your opinion of Christians.  Yet you admit you celebrate Christian holidays.  That's my point.  It's just ironic that you also criticize behaviour not matching rhetoric, which directly applies to you in the above example.

----------


## QDO1

> Yet you admit you celebrate Christian holiday.


 MOst of us dont get any choice to "celebrate" christian holidays - they are foisted on us by tradition, shops and factories close etc

Personally - I dont celebrate christmas, I have a couple of quiet days off, because I have no choice.  Christmas and other similar holidays are unwanted puctuation to the year, that I would rather skip

----------


## Spexvet

> I didn't quote you as saying that. Read it again.
> 
> In response to "people beating up gays" YOU SAID "it's very Christian of them," an obvious statement of your opinion of Christians.


Actually, that was sarcasm. I meant that those people were probably Christian (since Chip associated with them), and their behavior was about as far from Jesus' teaching as you can get.



> Yet you admit you celebrate Christian holidays. That's my point. It's just ironic that you also criticize behaviour not matching rhetoric, which directly applies to you in the above example.


_Of course_ my behavior is "based on Christianity", which is exactly how you phrased it. I live in a predominently Christian area, I was raised Christian, and the way Jesus taught to live one's life is the way I try to live my life. I just don't feel compelled to make everyone else live that way. And I am sickened by those who claim to be Christian but don't behave in a Chrstian way.

----------


## QDO1

what upsets people about gay people - the fact that they love and care for eachother, or the sex they have?

----------


## Chairtime

_




 Originally Posted by spexvet

as we understand more, we will have less need to use God as an explanation.


  Sorry, you are NOT a Christian._

----------


## Chairtime

> what upsets people about gay people - the fact that they love and care for eachother, or the sex they have?


Well if I had to choose between your 2 options, it would be the latter.  But that's not the real issue, it's just another sin as far as I'm concerned.

What upsets people is the state issuing a license to live a life committed to ANY  sin.

----------


## Spexvet

> _  Sorry, you are NOT a Christian._


Did I say I am?

----------


## spartus

> What upsets people is the state issuing a license to live a life committed to ANY sin.


Not everything you think is a sin is against the law. This isn't the 14th Century.

----------


## QDO1

> What upsets people is the state issuing a license to live a life committed to ANY sin.


So for example - if 2 pagans wanted to marry - perhaps one calls themselves a witch, the other a druid... and they have a pagan ceromony, should they be issued a marriage certificate?

Should people who have had sex before marriage be given a marriage certificate?

Should the state issue divorce documents?

Should divorced people be allowed to re-marry?

Is it wrong to be gay, or is just gay lovemaking wrong?

----------


## chip anderson

O.K, Here's a reason for you liberals which I am sure you will support.

It's one of the principal things that makes the Moslems think we are an irretrivablely decadent society.  Whe surly wouldn't want offend the Moslems.

Chip

----------


## QDO1

> O.K, Here's a reason for you liberals which I am sure you will support.
> 
> It's one of the principal things that makes the Moslems think we are an irretrivablely decadent society. Whe surly wouldn't want offend the Moslems.
> 
> Chip


From your point of view... why should what Moslems think, alter the way you behave?  

From my point of view... I see you have tried the Christian arguments, and they did not stack up, so in the same breath, why should the Moslem argument work either

Whats wrong with the Moslems thinking we are a decadant society - they have thier own duplicitious issues - Denouncing modernity but using technology etc

----------


## Chairtime

> Did I say I am?


You don't know what you are.

----------


## Chairtime

QUOTE=QDO1:  So for example - if 2 pagans wanted to marry - perhaps one calls themselves a witch, the other a druid... and they have a pagan ceromony, should they be issued a marriage certificate? This is a tough one.  I would have to know the exact definitions of "pagan," "witch," and "druid."

Should people who have had sex before marriage be given a marriage certificate? YES, everyone has past sins. This marriage would put an end to the fornication.

Should the state issue divorce documents? YES. Some marriages fail legitimately.

Should divorced people be allowed to re-marry? YES.

Is it wrong to be gay, or is just gay lovemaking wrong? 
That's a good distinction. Being gay without sex is not homosexuality. "Being gay" is not a sin. Homosexuality is a sin.

----------


## QDO1

> Should people who have had sex before marriage be given a marriage certificate? YES, everyone has past sins. This marriage would put an end to the fornication.


Is homosexuality a greater sin?




> Should the state issue divorce documents? YES. Some marriages fail legitimately.


 under what instances should this be ok then? 




> Should divorced people be allowed to re-marry? YES.


under what circumstanses?




> Is it wrong to be gay, or is just gay lovemaking wrong? 
> That's a good distinction. Being gay without sex is not homosexuality. "Being gay" is not a sin. Homosexuality is a sin.


whats the difference between Gay and Homosexuality. Isnt even thinking about loving somone else defined as a sin, as much as the act

I think that people have an aversion to Gay sex, and they project that onto thier arguments. It maybe invoves practices that you find unsavoury. There is a difference between you not liking something, and actually being wrong. The problem for religious people Is the Bible /Kouran etc sets a very high hurdle, but Is one sin worse than another? both books would indicate there is no difference between the different types of sin

Many have argued "xxx.... my children" well gay people dont want to corupt your children, they want to settle down and be allowed to live normal lives, in peace. Peadiophillia is a neither gay or straight issue

Nobody yet has actually defined why same sex marriage is wrong. If Gay people dont get married, they still are not going to have children (because they wont be having sex with people of the opisite sex ), which deflates the "it is not natural, life wont continue" argument. 

In a society that is not, and ought not to run by the church.. (we established that earlier in the threads), nobody has come up with a valid reason against same sex marriage. Arguments seem to be based on squeamishness and fear rather than facts and reason

What gay people are asking for is a recognition of thier parnership.. that deflates the "gay people are promiscuious" argument, because by saying they want to get married, they are saying "we dont want to be promiscuious"

Why shouldnt the rights of a couple be the same, regardless of gender or orientation? No one can answer that question, because the only arguments they pose are based on a a book (bible/koran etc) that the rest of us do not recognise. Do we live in a Cristian society where rules are made by the church (Rome for example) or a secular society, where rules are made by consensus (canada for example)... the consensus being made up from people of all persuasions from society. That is the society I recognise, thats democracy. That means in a sociatal sense pagans, christians, muslums, athiests, hindus, blacks, whites, homosexuals, straight, men women - are all treated as equal in the law, equal in thier rights and equal in thier potential 

what right does one of the above groups have over the others?

----------


## acredhead113

Does anyone understand the words "unconditional LOVE"?

----------


## QDO1

> Does anyone understand the words "unconditional LOVE"?


probrably gay people who manage to raise thier head above the abuse and stilll remain in love

----------


## spartus

King, prepare to be ignored. I've been trying to raise the same points, and no one's yet responded with anything useful or sensible yet. :)

Chair--may I call you Rimmy? Great, thanks. Rimmy, do you have a handbook, maybe, of all these sins? I'm having difficulty keeping track at this point. I mean, surely there has to be something concrete you're going off of, in informing us of which things in the Bible listed as sins aren't sins any longer, like divorce, or killing being okay if you're not actually _murdering_ anyone, right?

Or are you just making it up as you go along? 

I ask merely for information. Because, as I've noted at length, it doesn't really have much to do with the discussion at hand, as I keep mentioning to deafening silences. But I _am_ curious.

----------


## chip anderson

Acrehead:  Unconditional love?   Only those who love and obey God know this.

----------


## drk

How many times must you have homosexual relations to be a "gay person"? You know, the kind of person that is in an oppressed minority group like ethnicities? Once? Exclusively? Whatever they consider to call themselves? 

I don't think there is a objective way to say whether a person is "gay" or not.

What's my point? There aren't "gay people". There are people who have homosexual relations/relationships. A behavior does not an oppressed minority make.

Oh, but you're going to tell me that "many people have always felt that they were gay, ever since they were three years old". Surely, those are the "true gays"! But the guy like the former Governor of New Jersey, who started the gay sex later on in life, does he have the right to "gay marriage" if he wants to?

What about someone who has been "straight" his whole life, and wants to plunge in (no pun intended, yuck) after his first homo affair? 

My point is that homosexuality is a behavior, and not an ethnicity (which cannot be helped) nor a gender, nor a national origin. As such, that means that any other "behavior-group" should have access to marriage as well, IN ORDER TO BE FAIR. 

Why then, not triple-person marriages, like has happened recently in Amsterdam? Why not people who like animals? How would you justify excluding these behaviors? Maybe they just can't help themselves, either.

----------


## Chairtime

> Chair--may I call you Rimmy?


Prefer you didn't.


> do you have a handbook, maybe, of all these sins?


The Holy Bible.


> But I _am_ curious.


In more ways than one, I bet.

----------


## Chairtime

> that means that any other "behavior-group" should have access to marriage as well, IN ORDER TO BE FAIR.


Exactly!  How can you possibly say that being born "gay" is different from being born "attracted to squirrels?"  Some people prefer big hairy guys, some prefer little hairy squirrels.  (There's nuts involved in both cases.)  Marriage isn't just about what turns your crank.

----------


## rinselberg

> My point is that homosexuality is a behavior, and not an ethnicity (which cannot be helped) nor a gender, nor a national origin. As such, that means that any other "behavior-group" should have access to marriage as well, IN ORDER TO BE FAIR. Why then, not triple-person marriages, like has happened recently in Amsterdam? Why not people who like animals? How would you justify excluding these behaviors? Maybe they just can't help themselves, either.


drk - I think your argument here is based on false premises or inappropriate analogies. As for triple-person marriages, the problem with that is polygamy per se, not whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Many (if not most) societies have found that "tea for two" (only) is a practical limit - three or more partners in a marriage causes too many problems inside the marriage that propagate outwards and disturb the society surrounding it. Of the societies that do officially recognize polygamous marriages, there is typically a limit. I think that some of the Islamic-influenced nations that recognize polygamous marriage typically set a limit of one man and a maximum of four wives. So when we consider positively the possibility of offically recognized homosexual marriage, that is not opening the door to other marriage possibilites without any practical limit, as you are suggesting. And as far as bringing animals into these discussions - bestiality - that's a red herring. Animals aren't qualified to give their consent. Prohibiting bestiality is not just an arbitrary exclusion of some particular "behavior-group" - it's for many definite reasons that no significant society could tolerate, including protection of animals and protection of public health. The bottom line is that I think you are trying to insert a square peg into a round hole (logically), as far as this discussion of same-sex marriages is going.



rinselberg - good posts for your good times
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...3&postcount=16

----------


## rinselberg

> As a rule, homosexuals change partners frequently. If they [are] included in health [insurance] benefits and insurance programs, the effect on [insurance premiums] for [the heterosexual majority] could increase exponentially. Frequently, ex-spouses and [children are typically] covered by an individual's health insurance policy, [in addition to any new spouses and children.] Inheritance and palimony laws [could] become a nightmare.





> ... Rinsel Tinsel found some more "ammo" against the "Everybody gets AIDS" myth: Of the 298,248 men (13 years or older) who were living with AIDS, 
> * 58% were *men who had sex with men* (MSM) 
> * 23% were injection drug users (IDU) 
> * 10% were exposed through heterosexual contact 
> * 8% were both MSM and IDU. 
> 
> Of the 82,764 adult and adolescent women with AIDS, 
> * 61% were exposed through heterosexual contact 
> * 36% were exposed through injection drug use. 
> ...


In my opinion, the best arguments that have been posted on this thread in favor of continuing to NOT have the government recognize same-sex marriage are the practical arguments involving insurance premiums and public health consequences. The problem is that (again, just IMO) these "best" arguments aren't really very good. I would say that at best, they are _arguable_. So in my view, these putative or conjectural insurance coverage and public health risks are TRUMPED by the Preamble to our Declaration of Independence:


> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


Technically, that was only a Declaration of Independence, and not the U.S. Constitution, but I think it [The Preamble] carries considerable legal and governmental weight, as the Constitution is *derived* from the Declaration of Independence. (I guess you could say that I'm not a "strict constructionist" when I step up to the "bar".)

----------


## QDO1

> In my opinion, the best arguments that have been posted on this thread in favor of continuing to NOT have the government recognize same-sex marriage are the practical arguments involving insurance premiums and public health consequences. The problem is that (again, just IMO) these "best" arguments aren't really very good. I would say that at best, they are _arguable_


The best one so far is the fact that by wanting to get married they are in essense denouncing promiscuity.  That argument pretty much kicks into touch any health issues (and subsequent expense) that derive from "sleeping arround". Straight people sleep around too, and often have more than one partner in thier lives (see my personal post earlier). There would probrably be less health issues for a gay couple than a striaght on, because pregnancies would be off the agenda

----------


## spartus

> do you have a handbook, maybe, of all these sins?





> The Holy Bible.


Ah, Rimmy, Rimmy, Rimmy. It wouldn't be a proper reply from you unless you distorted or downright ignored what I was actually saying. This is why I try, when quoting, to quote in full. The context makes all the difference, like Voltaire said:




> The


I rest my case.

Anyway. My initial question, which, to be fair, was several questions. I'll bold the really important part, so you don't get confused again:




> Rimmy, do you have a handbook, maybe, of all these sins? I'm having difficulty keeping track at this point. I mean, surely there has to be something concrete you're going off of, in informing us of *which things in the Bible listed as sins aren't sins any longer*, like divorce, or killing being okay if you're not actually _murdering_ anyone, right?


Or, I submit politely for the second time, are you just making it up as you go along? 

For instance, the Bible says eating shellfish is a sin, but we seem to have evolved past that idea.

I know, I know, it's from the Old Testament, so I guess we should just toss the whole thing out, yeah? Oh no, wait! There goes "Thou shalt not kill," too! Damn, I liked that one.

----------


## Chairtime

> I SWEAR I'm happily married!!  I only help out in the gay pride parades because I feel sorry for gays.  I vacation in San Francisco because I have an "uncle" that lives there.  And I only hang out in gay bars because I like the music!!!


I believe you, spartus.  I really do.

----------


## QDO1

> King, prepare to be ignored. I've been trying to raise the same points, and no one's yet responded with anything useful or sensible yet. :)
> 
> Chair--may I call you Rimmy? Great, thanks. Rimmy, do you have a handbook, maybe, of all these sins? I'm having difficulty keeping track at this point. I mean, surely there has to be something concrete you're going off of, in informing us of which things in the Bible listed as sins aren't sins any longer, like divorce, or killing being okay if you're not actually _murdering_ anyone, right?
> 
> Or are you just making it up as you go along? 
> 
> I ask merely for information. Because, as I've noted at length, it doesn't really have much to do with the discussion at hand, as I keep mentioning to deafening silences. But I _am_ curious.


absoloute silence - we must have won the argument then!

----------


## ksquared

> Originally Posted by *QDO1*: _Im not decieved by any of them, I just appreciate there are a lot of views, some mainstream,, some not so, for the same text. I posted the text to offer some balance. I dont subscribe to the you know who theory either. I am just a plain old athiest. You guys are still arguing about how to interpret ancient Hebrew and Greek, and we think thats funny_


 


> Originally Posted by *ksquared*: _So you are an atheist. Are you absolutely sure that there is no God?_





> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* I know where that argument is going.





> Originally Posted by *ksquared*: What argument would that be?





> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* I base my decisions on facts, or percieved facts, science, but definatally not faith. I dont proclaim to be right; and understand that over time the basis of my judgments will evolve with advances in science etc.





> Originally Posted by *ksquared:* I commend you for basing your decisions on facts and science but this doesnt answer my question. You say you are an atheist. Are you absolutely certain there is no God?





> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* the certainty question is a cyclical one..."are you absoloutley certain there is no god" is exactly the same as "are you absoloutley certain there is a god".





> Originally Posted by *ksquared:* Why are you so reluctant to answer this question? Saying the 2 statements above are similar isn't an answer.





> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* There are two philosophocal standpoints here - how do you know something is true/exists, and how do you know something isnt true/exists. Neither question can be given a 100% answer.





> Originally Posted by *ksquared:* Although you are correct that some things cannot be answered with 100% certainty, this doesnt mean you cant know truth. Take a worldview for example. Both atheists and theists make truth claims but because the claims are mutually exclusive, they cant both be true. So how does one determine which is true. You look at the evidence.
> 
> Atheistic belief system: Nobody created something out of nothing. God doesnt exist. The universe is eternal. Non-life gave birth to life. Simple cells became simple life forms. Simple life forms increased in complexity through the random process of natural selection until they became creatures such as ourselves.
> 
> Theistic belief system: Somebody created something out of nothing as evidenced by the big bang. God exists. The creator is eternal but the universe has a beginning and an end. The universe is delicately balanced by design not by chance. For example, change one small aspect like the centrifugal force of the planetary movements and nothing would be held in orbit around the sun. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, calculated there is 1 chance in 10 to the 138th power that the 122 constants that make life on earth possible could have occurred by chance. There are only 10 to the power of 70 atoms in the entire universe. THe simplest life form contains the information equivalent of 1,000 encyclopedias. DNA, a list of building instructions. RNA, the instructions for building the instructions. 
> 
> So, who has more faith; an atheist or a theist.
> 
> personally believe truth can be known by examining both the arguments and the evidence. 
> ...





> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* As I said - I knew where that was going. I am not reluctant to answer the question.


Not reluctant? Oh, I forget, you know where this conversation is going. 



> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* You project the word truth about like athiests have a question to answer.


Atheists dont have questions? Dont we all have to ask ourselves some questions in order to determine whether something is true or false? SHould we just accept what we're told?


> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* "I dont believe in god", does not require me to prove there isnt a god. "I believe in god" implies that you have seen or felt something tangiable.. and that is where the proof should come from. You tell me - what is truth


 You are absolutely correct. You can certainly make claims without any evidence or proof. Sometimes we refer to "these" as unfounded. Truth is the direct opposite of false btw.


> Originally Posted by *QDO1: ksquared* was implying that Athiests have to prove there isnt a god, I was commenting that they dont have to, as you are asking me to prove the (non)existance of Nothing. I think that god only exists in the minds of religious people. If religious people believe there is a god, then they ought to be able to prove it. Who knows, perhaps I should take a carear as a Spatial Analyst. I do not feel uncomfortable by the way


 If I had wanted you to prove the non-existence of god, my question would have been how do you know god doesnt exist, what proof do you have. But lets not overlook a fundamental fact here. Im not the one making the claims. You are. Have you ever considered that the person making the claim is the one who bears the burden of proof? If you cant support your claims, thats not my problem. Just dont expect too many here (well maybe a few) to accept your opinions as the truth.


> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* Religious certainty is based on faith. And that is the crux of it - relegoius devotees may try to prove that the god they have faith in exists, whereas everyone else doesnt feel the urge to prove or dis-prove god, because the motivation of faith isnt there.


Well, if it isnt faith, facts or evidence that motivates your claims, than what do you use for your motivation? Im really curious now.


> Originally Posted by *QDO1:* I might argue that I believe that the world was created by a big green blob of jelly, thats visible to me in the night sky - you might as me to prove it, and I might ask you to disprove it. that is where this debate is standing just now.


You can say that you believe a big blob of jelly created the world. And youre right. You can say anything you want. You can also say god doesnt exist. You can say the Bible is just a bunch of made up fairy tales. You can even say society needs to change the definition of certain words like marriage. However, to say your opinions constitute an argument without supplying any justification, facts or evidence, is outside the definition of an argument. And having an opinion, just like believing something, doesnt make it true. Some of us need more than just an opinion.

----------


## Spexvet

> Atheists dont have questions? Dont we all have to ask ourselves some questions in order to determine whether something is true or false? *SHould we just accept what we're told?*You are absolutely correct. *You can certainly make claims without any evidence or proof. Sometimes we refer to "these" as unfounded.* Truth is the direct opposite of false btw.
> 
> 
> If I had wanted you to prove the non-existence of god, my question would have been how do you know god doesnt exist, what proof do you have. But lets not overlook a fundamental fact here. Im not the one making the claims. You are. Have you ever considered that the person making the claim is the one who bears the burden of proof? If you cant support your claims, thats not my problem. Just dont expect too many here (well maybe a few) to accept your opinions as the truth.Well, if it isnt faith, facts or evidence that motivates your claims, than what do you use for your motivation? 
> 
> 
> You can say that you believe a big blob of jelly created the world. And youre right. *You can say anything you want.* You can also say god doesnt exist. You can say the Bible is just a bunch of made up fairy tales. You can even say society needs to change the definition of certain words like marriage. *However, to say your opinions constitute an argument without supplying any justification, facts or evidence, is outside the definition of an argument. And having an opinion, just like believing something, doesnt make it true. Some of us need more than just an opinion.*


K, Are you arguing that there is or is not a God? All of your arguments could be applied to either side of the debate. There is no proof, either way, only faith.

----------


## Spexvet

> Spexvet: I don't know what kind of cult you belong to but Jesus Christ himself said: "I come not to change the law...."


He also said (paraphrase): Moses told you an ey for an eye, but I tell you if a man strikes you on one cheek, offer him the other

Sounds like a change of a law to me...

----------


## Spexvet

> You don't know what you are.


Perhaps I don't. Or you don't have a convenient label for me.

----------


## chip anderson

Specvet:  There is a big difference between a slap on the cheek and losing and eye or a life.  Ask any lawyer.

----------


## Spexvet

> How many times must you have homosexual relations to be a "gay person"? You know, the kind of person that is in an oppressed minority group like ethnicities? Once? Exclusively? Whatever they consider to call themselves? 
> 
> I don't think there is a objective way to say whether a person is "gay" or not.


I agree, so allow any consenting adults of any gender to marry, regardless of their history.

What's my point? There aren't "gay people". There are people who have homosexual relations/relationships. A behavior does not an oppressed minority make.[/QUOTE]

So it would be OK to oppress a group of people whose behavior includes meeting on Sundays to drink wine and eat bread?  




> Oh, but you're going to tell me that "many people have always felt that they were gay, ever since they were three years old". Surely, those are the "true gays"! But the guy like the former Governor of New Jersey, who started the gay sex later on in life, does he have the right to "gay marriage" if he wants to?


Sure, even you should have that right. And a bisexual can marry male, then female, then male, then female, etc.




> What about someone who has been "straight" his whole life, and wants to plunge in (no pun intended, yuck) after his first homo affair?


Sure, why not?




> My point is that homosexuality is a behavior, and not an ethnicity (which cannot be helped) nor a gender, nor a national origin. As such, that means that any other "behavior-group" should have access to marriage as well, IN ORDER TO BE FAIR.


As long as they're consenting adults. Except conservative republicans, as I've stated, before.;) 




> Why then, not triple-person marriages, like has happened recently in Amsterdam?


I really don't have an issue with this, as long as they are consenting adults. Many cultures have allowed this, and many biblical figures entered into multiple-wife arrangements. I'm sure there's a certain economy of scale that allows a household to run more efficiently. Wouldn't it be nice if a single female with kids could join an existing marriage/family, gaining stability and a father figure? And I'm OK with multiple men and/or multiple women - equal opportunity. 




> Why not people who like animals? How would you justify excluding these behaviors? Maybe they just can't help themselves, either.


I have to assess some penalty points to drk. Maybe you were absent the day we covered this and agreed that we're talking about consenting adult humans, although Chairtime insists on get animals involved  :Eek:  .

----------


## Spexvet

> Specvet: There is a big difference between a slap on the cheek and losing and eye or a life. Ask any lawyer.


The discussion was about old/new testament laws. Jesus' quote is in direct opposition of Moses'.

----------


## chip anderson

No, it isn't specvet.  Even Christ once struck human beings with a whip and they were not even presenting a violent threat.  But I guess you libs can only see one point of view on anything.

----------


## Spexvet

> No, it isn't specvet.


Yes, it is, Chaps.



> Even Christ once struck human beings with a whip and they were not even presenting a violent threat.


Please cite your source.



> But I guess you libs can only see one point of view on anything.


But I guess you rep/cons can only see one point of view on anything.

----------


## chip anderson

Spex: Obviously you have never actually read the Bible.  Christ driving money changers out of the temple.

----------


## acredhead113

> Acrehead: Unconditional love? Only those who love and obey God know this.


Amen!!

----------


## acredhead113

This a a behavior problem that needs to be addressed and solved. People need to say "NO"! This typle of behavior is totoally unccepted by the majority of people around the world!!

If you have a problem go in search of proper health care!!

Stop trying to politically and relegiously jam it down our throat!!





> How many times must you have homosexual relations to be a "gay person"? You know, the kind of person that is in an oppressed minority group like ethnicities? Once? Exclusively? Whatever they consider to call themselves? 
> 
> I don't think there is a objective way to say whether a person is "gay" or not.
> 
> What's my point? There aren't "gay people". There are people who have homosexual relations/relationships. A behavior does not an oppressed minority make.
> 
> Oh, but you're going to tell me that "many people have always felt that they were gay, ever since they were three years old". Surely, those are the "true gays"! But the guy like the former Governor of New Jersey, who started the gay sex later on in life, does he have the right to "gay marriage" if he wants to?
> 
> What about someone who has been "straight" his whole life, and wants to plunge in (no pun intended, yuck) after his first homo affair? 
> ...

----------


## chm2023

> This a a behavior problem that needs to be addressed and solved. People need to say "NO"! This typle of behavior is totoally unccepted by the majority of people around the world!!
> 
> If you have a problem go in search of proper health care!!
> 
> Stop trying to politically and relegiously jam it down our throat!!


Just curious, what is your basis for the claim that homosexuality is "totally unaccepted by the majority of people around the world?"

----------


## Spexvet

> Stop trying to politically and relegiously jam it down our throat!!


Nobody is forcing to marry someone of the same gender. It is you who is jamming your religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else. :finger:

----------


## acredhead113

> Just curious, what is your basis for the claim that homosexuality is "totally unaccepted by the majority of people around the world?"


I guess that is a fair question. I do not accept it! I think the majority do not accept it or they are too busy with their own lives! As far as proof I have none.

I think it is just plain COMMON SENSE!

I think that all the exposure given to these type of acts by the media, politicans seeking votes, and the movies depicting these type of inidivuals as having these behaviorial problems are the cause of trying to get the world to accept this type of behavior. 



How many people are there with these type of problems is a small percentage in comparison to the total population of the world. Do you have any data?

----------


## Spexvet

> Spex: Obviously you have never actually read the Bible. Christ driving money changers out of the temple.


Sure have:

John 2:

15 When He had made a whip of cords, He drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and the oxen, and poured out the changers money and overturned the tables.

Where does it say he whipped a human being? Talk about reading into something! You would interpret "turn the other cheek" to mean "it's ok to kill, if he needs killin'":hammer:

----------


## acredhead113

> Nobody is forcing to marry someone of the same gender. It is you who is jamming your religious beliefs down the throats of everyone else. :finger:


This is not a religious matter! Stop hiding behind religion.

These type of people are SICK and need to be helped!

----------


## QDO1

> Not reluctant? Oh, I forget, you know where this conversation is going. 
> Atheists dont have questions? Dont we all have to ask ourselves some questions in order to determine whether something is true or false? SHould we just accept what we're told?You are absolutely correct. You can certainly make claims without any evidence or proof. Sometimes we refer to "these" as unfounded. Truth is the direct opposite of false btw.If I had wanted you to prove the non-existence of god, my question would have been how do you know god doesnt exist, what proof do you have. But lets not overlook a fundamental fact here. Im not the one making the claims. You are. Have you ever considered that the person making the claim is the one who bears the burden of proof? If you cant support your claims, thats not my problem. Just dont expect too many here (well maybe a few) to accept your opinions as the truth.Well, if it isnt faith, facts or evidence that motivates your claims, than what do you use for your motivation? Im really curious now.You can say that you believe a big blob of jelly created the world. And youre right. You can say anything you want. You can also say god doesnt exist. You can say the Bible is just a bunch of made up fairy tales. You can even say society needs to change the definition of certain words like marriage. However, to say your opinions constitute an argument without supplying any justification, facts or evidence, is outside the definition of an argument. And having an opinion, just like believing something, doesnt make it true. Some of us need more than just an opinion.


  this is just a diversion to the debate.  It was established earlier in the thread that the views of religion ought not to have a bearing on the laws to do with gay rights.  If you want a good debate about religion and athiesm, lets start a new thread

----------


## Spexvet

> This is not a religious matter! Stop hiding behind religion.


 If you read this thread, you'll see that it was those AGAINST same gender marriage who brought up religion.



> These type of people are SICK and need to be helped!


 You are incorrect. But even if they are, why do you want to stop them from marrying? Folks with Down Syndrome are allowed to marry. Even you are allowed to marry, I think. Why stop them?

----------


## Chairtime

> even if they are [sick], why do you want to stop them from marrying? Folks with Down Syndrome are allowed to marry.


Quit playing dumb.  Nobody wants to stop gays from marrying.  Gays, down's syndromes, deaf people, alcoholics, habitual masturbators, Ethiopians and war veterans are all allowed to marry someone of the *opposite sex.*

----------


## drk

I think the discussion between K squared and QDO1 may be enhanced by considering this:

It sounds like QDO1 isn't saying "there is no God", which is the true atheistic viewpoint,  it sounds like he's saying "I don't believe in God", which is almost an agnostic position.  Saying "I don't believe in God" is a factual statement, and cannot be argued with.

----------


## QDO1

> I think the discussion between K squared and QDO1 may be enhanced by considering this:
> 
> It sounds like QDO1 isn't saying "there is no God", which is the true atheistic viewpoint, it sounds like he's saying "I don't believe in God", which is almost an agnostic position. Saying "I don't believe in God" is a factual statement, and cannot be argued with.


I started a new thread on this subject, which should get this thread back on message

----------


## drk

I think Spexvet is being consistent on his argument.  

He says any consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other, regardless of gender, and within some practical limits, a group can get married.

I think that's fair and balanced.

I disagree with it, however, but it's consistent, fair, and balanced.  Kudo's for being internally consistent (but wrong:) ).

----------


## Spexvet

> I think Spexvet is being consistent on his argument. 
> 
> He says any consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other, regardless of gender, and within some practical limits, a group can get married.
> 
> I think that's fair and balanced.
> 
> I disagree with it, however, but it's consistent, fair, and balanced. Kudo's for being internally consistent (but wrong:) ).


Thank you. Wait - are you saying I'm consistently wrong?  :Cool:

----------


## Spexvet

How about this as a resolution:


*People of the same gender can marry, and get all the rights and privelages that intergender marriages get, but they have to promise that they won't have sex.*

Does that suit everybody?:cheers:

----------


## Jedi

> but they have to promise that they won't have sex.


Isn't that how opposite sex marriages work? 
 :D

----------


## chm2023

What shall we make of your quoting Bruce Wayne, who everyone knows is as gay as a Christmas goose?  I hear the next flix is  _Batman: The Civil Union_.  Personally always thought he could have done much better than that half wit Robin, but who is to say when it comes to love?

----------


## Spexvet

> Isn't that how opposite sex marriages work? 
> :D


I guess so, but I didn't make any promises! :cry:

----------


## Chairtime

> ...everyone knows is as gay as a Christmas goose?


By "everyone" I'm sure you mean "gay people."  The gays I know are always talking about how so-and-so is gay.  It's just wishful thinking.

----------


## QDO1

whats specifically wrong with gay sex? is it more wrong than a man having anal sex with his consenting wife?, or a man giving his consenting wife oral sex

----------


## chm2023

> By "everyone" I'm sure you mean "gay people." The gays I know are always talking about how so-and-so is gay. It's just wishful thinking.


No by "everyone" I pretty much mean "everyone".

I am trying to imagine these conversations you have with gay people wherein they confide in you--wistfully no less--who they think is gay.  Do you instigate these conversations?  Why you saucy little mynx.;)

----------


## chm2023

> whats specifically wrong with gay sex? is it more wrong than a man having anal sex with his consenting wife?, or a man giving his consenting wife oral sex


 
Oh you are a brave soul.  This is an APB for loony-tunes.  :idea:   Godspeed!!!!

----------


## QDO1

> Oh you are a brave soul. This is an APB for loony-tunes. :idea: Godspeed!!!!


whats wrong with asking the pertinant question?  seems that some have an acceptance of homosexuality, withouth gay sex, i just wondered what difference the sex bit made.  Is sex between unmarried men and women just as bad a s gay sex, or is gay sex particularlary bad? if so, why?

----------


## Chairtime

> whats wrong with asking the pertinant question? seems that some have an acceptance of homosexuality, withouth gay sex, i just wondered what difference the sex bit made. Is sex between unmarried men and women just as bad a s gay sex, or is gay sex particularlary bad? if so, why?


In my estimation, all consentual sex sins are about the same.

----------


## QDO1

> In my estimation, all consentual sex sins are about the same.


and my first question - 
_whats specifically wrong with gay sex? is it more wrong than a man having anal sex with his consenting wife?, or a man giving his consenting wife oral sex_

----------


## rinselberg

> No by "everyone" I pretty much mean "everyone".
> 
> I am trying to imagine these conversations you have with gay people wherein they confide in you--wistfully no less--who they think is gay.  Do you instigate these conversations?  Why you saucy little mynx.;)


I think that you meant to spell "minx". Not that I'm usually one to jump on spelling errors, but if a word is esoteric enough that I have to go look it up in my online dictionary, then I might as well report on my findings!

----------


## QDO1

> I think that you meant to spell "minx". Not that I'm usually one to jump on spelling errors, but if a word is esoteric enough that I have to go look it up in my online dictionary, then I might as well report on my findings!


thinks rinsel's umbilical cord might have beeen a LAN cable

----------


## Chairtime

> and my first question - 
> _whats specifically wrong with gay sex? is it more wrong than a man having anal sex with his consenting wife?, or a man giving his consenting wife oral sex_


Anal sex is a form of beastiality, so therefore it's the same.  Not sure about oral sex.

----------


## chm2023

> I think that you meant to spell "minx". Not that I'm usually one to jump on spelling errors, but if a word is esoteric enough that I have to go look it up in my online dictionary, then I might as well report on my findings!


Thanks, that doesn't even _look_ right!!:hammer:

----------


## Chairtime

> I might as well report on my findings!


Maybe you can also report to chm the word that means
"accusing someone else of activity actually engaged in by one's self."  ie: "minx"

----------


## chm2023

> Anal sex is a form of beastiality, so therefore it's the same. *Not sure about oral sex*.


Finally, an honest man!

----------


## QDO1

something is brewing


> Finally, an honest man!

----------


## Spexvet

> Anal sex is a form of beastiality, so therefore it's the same.


Can you cite your source?




> Not sure about oral sex.


Oh, the responses that come to mind that I can't post! Please, Steve, Please!

And what about masturbation?

----------


## QDO1

> Can you cite your source?
> 
> 
> Oh, the responses that come to mind that I can't post! Please, Steve, Please!
> 
> And what about masturbation?


or mutual masturbation

----------


## Chairtime

*sodomy* _n._ 1 abnormal sexual relations, especially between two males or between a human being and an animal. -dictionary

"Just over half of U.S. states explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the term of "sodomy")." -Wikipedia.org

----------


## QDO1

so far in this thread we have established that the rights and thoughts of the religious ought not to outweigh the rights of the non-religious

we have established that Gay people are not perverted or peadeophiles

we have established that in the act of wanting to get married, they gay couple are effectivley denouncing promiscuity (if it existed in the first place)

We have established that some same sex couples are childless, and in essence so would a gay couple be

We have established that a civil wedding for a straight couple, is not "marrying" in the eyes of god i.e. not part of the christian communion
So would someone explain to me why, in a democracy, are the rights of straight people different to those of gay people.. they dont want to marry in chuch, they are looking for a civil ceromony, and by being married, they would like the tax, health, inheritance and social rights of a straight couple

----------


## chm2023

> so far in this thread we have established that the rights and thoughts of the religious ought not to outweigh the rights of the non-religious
> 
> we have established that Gay people are not perverted or peadeophiles
> 
> we have established that in the act of wanting to get married, they gay couple are effectivley denouncing promiscuity (if it existed in the first place)
> 
> We have established that some same sex couples are childless, and in essence so would a gay couple be
> 
> We have established that a civil wedding for a straight couple, is not "marrying" in the eyes of god i.e. not part of the christian communion
> So would someone explain to me why, in a democracy, are the rights of straight people different to those of gay people.. they dont want to marry in chuch, they are looking for a civil ceromony, and by being married, they would like the tax, health, inheritance and social rights of a straight couple


Because some folks need external validation that their path is THE right path.  One way to do this is stigmatize, even to the extent of outlawing, other paths.  (If other people are bad, I must be good.) The trick is to get everyone to understand that internal validation is the brass ring.

----------


## acredhead113

> Because some folks need external validation that their path is THE right path. One way to do this is stigmatize, even to the extent of outlawing, other paths. (If other people are bad, I must be good.) The trick is to get everyone to understand that internal validation is the brass ring.


From the viewpoint of the US government I would think that they would want to broaden the tax base so they can collect more in taxes. Who cares how they get it!

From the viewpoint of people with same sex marriages they are trying to take advantage of the system. They want the same rights of others in the same category! In order to do so they must publicly announce to the world that they are gay and they want to be politically recognized to be able to collect the same benefits as man and wife!

----------


## Bill West

Christian people have their own rights just as other people do. 
Gay people are perverted.
Two people of the same gender cannot marry, it takes a man and a woman.
Why do they insist on doing something that is impossible?
Why would you mention God, a person who you say doesn't exist?
OOPS
We should never give in to the demands of sinful perverted people just to please their perverted minds.
See you at THE GREAT WHITE THRONE one day.




> so far in this thread we have established that the rights and thoughts of the religious ought not to outweigh the rights of the non-religious
> 
> we have established that Gay people are not perverted or peadeophiles
> 
> we have established that in the act of wanting to get married, they gay couple are effectivley denouncing promiscuity (if it existed in the first place)
> 
> We have established that some same sex couples are childless, and in essence so would a gay couple be
> 
> We have established that a civil wedding for a straight couple, is not "marrying" in the eyes of god i.e. not part of the christian communion
> So would someone explain to me why, in a democracy, are the rights of straight people different to those of gay people.. they dont want to marry in chuch, they are looking for a civil ceromony, and by being married, they would like the tax, health, inheritance and social rights of a straight couple

----------


## QDO1

> Why would you mention God, a person who you say doesn't exist?
> OOPS


I unlike you can think in the third person, and present a argument in the third person. If for just a few seconds you mananged to have some thoughts in the third person, and tried to understand another point of view (even if it isnt your point of view) you might come over in your next comment as someone who wasnt stubborn, arrogant and single minded

----------


## drk

> so far in this thread we have established that the rights and thoughts of the religious ought not to outweigh the rights of the non-religious
> 
> we have established that Gay people are not perverted or peadeophiles
> 
> we have established that in the act of wanting to get married, they gay couple are effectivley denouncing promiscuity (if it existed in the first place)
> 
> We have established that some same sex couples are childless, and in essence so would a gay couple be
> 
> We have established that a civil wedding for a straight couple, is not "marrying" in the eyes of god i.e. not part of the christian communion
> So would someone explain to me why, in a democracy, are the rights of straight people different to those of gay people.. they dont want to marry in chuch, they are looking for a civil ceromony, and by being married, they would like the tax, health, inheritance and social rights of a straight couple


Because there's no such thing as "gay people". Just people. No special treatment. If they want "marriage", then by all means, get married (hetero, that is). That's what marriage is. If they want something that is a facsimile of "marriage", by all means, go for it. Just don't ask us to change the definition of marriage just for you. Because if we do that, that takes away from the traditional definition of marriage. Plus, in a sense of fairness, how could gays plus straights then say "no" to anyone who would want to further change the definition of marriage?

If you want a "civil union" so be it. Just not marriage.  It's really very simple.  If the gay activists would try to get the government to legally recognize something other than marriage, they'd get less resistance.  Instead, they're trying to change something near and dear to the vast majority of people's hearts.

And that makes me wonder if CHM isn't correct, only in reverse.  Are the gays that desirous of the legal benefits of marriage, or the "acceptability" and "validation" that they would feel from society?  I think the latter is way bigger than most realize...they want to be told that "they're OK", when they themselves can feel that, really, they're not.

----------


## QDO1

> Because there's no such thing as "gay people". Just people. No special treatment. If they want "marriage", then by all means, get married (hetero, that is). That's what marriage is. If they want something that is a facsimile of "marriage", by all means, go for it. Just don't ask us to change the definition of marriage just for you. Because if we do that, that takes away from the traditional definition of marriage. Plus, in a sense of fairness, how could gays plus straights then say "no" to anyone who would want to further change the definition of marriage?
> 
> If you want a "civil union" so be it. Just not marriage.


so run me through this. if I (for example a athiest man) go marry my fiancee (for example a pagan woman) in the "Elvis chappel of love", after having spent 10 years living together, and having slept together - would you consider my marriage to be valid, in terms of your religious views? Is not what I propose a civil union, or is it one of the sacrements of god - marriage?

----------


## chm2023

> so run me through this. if I (for example a athiest man) go marry my fiancee (for example a pagan woman) in the "Elvis chappel of love", after having spent 10 years living together, and having slept together - would you consider my marriage to be valid, in terms of your religious views? Is not what I propose a civil union, or is it one of the sacrements of god - marriage?


I don't know what to call it, but please invite me, sounds fun!!!

----------


## drk

Boy, that's a valid point, QOD1! I agree, that example is not very representative of a sacred marriage! You're asking my religious viewpoint, here, right? What happens after your couple gets married? Are they able to be monogamous and love each other? If so, religiously they would be approved. A homosexual marriage, religiously, could never be approved, regardless of how nicely they behaved.

From a civil standpoint, though, your couple meets the definition of "marry-able".  I'm not for civil unions, I'm just not against them.

----------


## chip anderson

My observation is that even you idoloters should captalize God if you men the God of Abraham.

----------


## QDO1

> Boy, that's a valid point, QOD1! I agree, that example is not very representative of a sacred marriage! You're asking my religious viewpoint, here, right? What happens after your couple gets married? Are they able to be monogamous and love each other? If so, religiously they would be approved. A homosexual marriage, religiously, could never be approved, regardless of how nicely they behaved.
> 
> From a civil standpoint, though, your couple meets the definition of "marry-able". I'm not for civil unions, I'm just not against them.


but you allready have civil unions in the USA - homosexuals are only asking for a civil union.  They dont want to get married in your church, they just want to be treated like everyone else in the democracy

I watched a programm about one of these chappes of love, and the couples "getting married" were doing it with such flippancy (it was TV afterall). I presume those couples enjoy the civil benefits of being married.  Homosexuals are only asking for the same recognition and benifits - to be treated evenly and fairly

----------


## drk

Well, I'll admit to not following the details of this.  Do they want "gay marriages" or do they want "civil unions"?

----------


## Chairtime

drk, the number of your post indicates who you are worshipping

----------


## QDO1

> Well, I'll admit to not following the details of this. Do they want "gay marriages" or do they want "civil unions"?


well the civil union in the chappel of love is called a marriage, thats what the state calls it.  the church clearly doesnt have a exclusive right to the word marriage.  but a church person would only call the situation I described earlier as a civil union

----------


## Chairtime

Just kidding, Dude!! 

But seriously, the fact that this simple threat is so long indicates that this issue is much more than people want to believe.  It's not as simple as "modern discrimination" or human rights under the law.  It's about what's RIGHT and what's WRONG !!!!!!

----------


## QDO1

> drk, the number of your post indicates who you are worshipping


was your god only working in base 10, primitive...

----------


## Chairtime

> well the civil union in the chappel of love is called a marriage, thats what the state calls it. the church clearly doesnt have a exclusive right to the word marriage. but a church person would only call the situation I described earlier as a civil union


IF, as you say, the gays are only interested in the legal and financial protection, then they will have no problem adopting the term "gay union," and defining it as "a legal agreement."  Leave the word marriage out of it.

----------


## Chairtime

If you watch Dr Phil or go to a male hairstylist then you know gays like the label of being gay. It becomes their identity. As in "Hi my name is Terry and I'm gay. My favourite show is Will and Grace.

----------


## QDO1

> IF, as you say, the gays are only interested in the legal and financial protection, then they will have no problem adopting the term "gay union," and defining it as "a legal agreement." Leave the word marriage out of it.


but would you consider my hypothetical couple to be married in the sight of god?

----------


## Chairtime

> but would you consider my hypothetical couple to be married in the sight of god?


Not at all.  The court of law is powerless in the Kingdom of Heaven.

----------


## QDO1

> Not at all. The court of law is powerless in the Kingdom of Heaven.


so if my hypothetical couple are allowed to "marry" then why not gays?

----------


## Chairtime

Wait a second...  I thought your hypothetical couple WAS gay, and they were getting a "gay union." !!??!

----------


## QDO1

> so run me through this. if I (for example a athiest man) go marry my fiancee (for example a pagan woman) in the "Elvis chappel of love", after having spent 10 years living together, and having slept together - would you consider my marriage to be valid, in terms of your religious views? Is not what I propose a civil union, or is it one of the sacrements of god - marriage?


 that was my hypothetical couple a few posts ago

----------


## Spexvet

> Boy, that's a valid point, QOD1! I agree, that example is not very representative of a sacred marriage! You're asking my religious viewpoint, here, right? What happens after your couple gets married? Are they able to be monogamous and love each other? If so, religiously they would be approved. A homosexual marriage, religiously, could never be approved, regardless of how nicely they behaved.
> 
> From a civil standpoint, though, your couple meets the definition of "marry-able". I'm not for civil unions, I'm just not against them.


Marriage is a state sponsored contract. Try getting married in a church without the license. I don't think they would marry you, and if they did, you certainly would not get the benefits like filing a tax reurn jointly. So when you get it done in a church, call it something different - after all a judge can marry people in city hall, and a mayor can marry people on the beach! Not very religious, eh?

----------


## Chairtime

> that was my hypothetical couple a few posts ago


I'd say it's a different path to being married.  Let's say you're an optician in the UK and you move to New York.  You might be recognized as an optician there.

Now let's say you're a pharmacist in the UK and you move to New York.  No matter what, you're not an optician.

----------


## QDO1

i would say in our society the case for gay/ pagan/ athiest/ satanist marriage licenses is pretty much made, the case for the church not validating it as a marriage before god is pretty much made too

----------


## drk

I am willing to go this far:

_Non-Christians of opposite gender_: Civil marriage. Full benefits of the state.

_Christians getting married, opposite gender_: should be acknowledged as holy by church. (Substitute your favorite religious group here).

_All other non-traditional joinings_: Civil union. I will not actively oppose it, as this world is becoming non-religious or neo-pagan daily. Why should this be opposed any more than pornography on the internet? 

I guess my opinion has been modified, here.

As another alternative, we could just say that since marriage is already down the crapper, what with so many unholy unions, that marriage, as is, is already been lowered to the degree that "anything goes".  As long as there is a new, higher standard for my kind, Ok, then.

I guess I'm buying into the "marriage is already unholy" argument, QDO1.

----------


## QDO1

Early on in this thread, I gave the reasons as to why I supported Gay rights. I just wanted to re-itterate them again, and explain why I get so cross with people like Bill West

this thread has been about the rights of gay people. as far as I am concerned it could have been about the rights of jews, christians, blacks, whites, indidenous indians, straight people or any other group. No group in my opinion has the right to lord it over another. christians have no right to force thier views on to others, in the same way as men have no right to make women second class citizens

through our history we have learnt the hard way at every hurdle, that discrimination is not the way to go - for example

womens rightsright to free speachracismethnic cleansingreligious rightsright to be secularslaverythe list could go on and on. I am nailing my flag on the mast - I am not prepared to let the bullish majority, beat up on the minoritory for reasons of discrimination. I hold the concept of freedom and equalness as paramount

I would defend christians - if they were being persecuted for being christians. Not because iI agree with the philosophy, but I believe in thier right to expression, and thier right to be who they want to be. That includes you Bill West- for all your ranting and huffing and puffing - your rights to expresion, and living you life the way you want to, are as equal in value, as the gay mans right to his way of life


For the record I am a white, straight, male, Athiest with basically pacifistic tendancies

----------


## Spexvet

> I am willing to go this far:
> 
> _Non-Christians of opposite gender_: Civil marriage. Full benefits of the state.
> 
> _Christians getting married, opposite gender_: should be acknowledged as holy by church. (Substitute your favorite religious group here).
> 
> _All other non-traditional joinings_: Civil union. I will not actively oppose it, as this world is becoming non-religious or neo-pagan daily.


Are you really saying that a marriage between a Hindu male and a Hindu female shouldn't be acknowledged as holy by their church? C'mon drk!

----------


## rinselberg

> Are you really saying that a marriage between a Hindu male and a Hindu female shouldn't be acknowledged as holy by their church? C'mon drk!


I think that what *drk* means is:


1. Non-religious persons of opposite gender - *civil marriage* with complete legal/fiduciary benefits equal to marriage benefits.


2. Religious persons of opposite gender - acknowledged as *holy marriage* by tax-exempt religious establishment including church, temple, synagogue, mosque, drive-thru chapel (*), occult retail outlet in strip mall (*), Marriages Online (*) ... with traditional legal/fiduciary benefits of marriage.

(*) IF it has qualified for the tax-exempt status customarily granted to religious establishments


3. All other non-traditional joinings - *civil union* with complete legal/fiduciary benefits equal to marriage benefits.


See where *drk* put "Substitute your favorite religious group ...".



Make *RinselWorld* your first stop on the way to rinselberg's Home Page.

----------


## spartus

> What shall we make of your quoting Bruce Wayne, who everyone knows is as gay as a Christmas goose?  I hear the next flix is  _Batman: The Civil Union_.  Personally always thought he could have done much better than that half wit Robin, but who is to say when it comes to love?


Don't make fun of his nickname or he'll change it again. Ain't that right, Rimmy?

----------


## spartus

> Oh, the responses that come to mind that I can't post! Please, Steve, Please!


You probably typed the same response I just deleted. ;)

----------


## spartus

> "Just over half of U.S. states explicitly outlaw sex with animals (sometimes under the term of "sodomy")." -Wikipedia.org


What's more disturbing to me is that nearly half of states *don't*.

----------


## spartus

> Christian people have their own rights just as other people do. 
> Gay people are perverted.
> Two people of the same gender cannot marry, it takes a man and a woman.
> Why do they insist on doing something that is impossible?
> Why would you mention God, a person who you say doesn't exist?
> OOPS
> We should never give in to the demands of sinful perverted people just to please their perverted minds.
> See you at THE GREAT WHITE THRONE one day.


Sorry, something jumped out at me while I was reading the fallacies here. Are you talking about a toilet, and, if so, why?

(AKA: The Porcelain God)

----------


## spartus

> _All other non-traditional joinings_: Civil union. I will not actively oppose it, as this world is becoming non-religious or neo-pagan daily. Why should this be opposed any more than pornography on the internet?


I think there's been a lot of linguistic laziness on this particular front. I don't think anyone's really been trying to get *churches* to recognize these marriage...union...things, they've been trying to get the state to recognize them.

Some personal background, some of which may take you by surprise: I was not married in a church, but I was married by a Baptist minister, with a Bible present and everything. But we weren't *legally* married until two days later, when we got our marriage license. Could we have done one and not the other and have it count for things like taxes, insurance, and all the rest? Yes, but only one of them. 

So which one "counts"? Depends on what your priority is.

EDIT: Apologies about the five posts in a row. Trying to quote so many things in one reply gets much too messy much too fast.

----------


## acredhead113

> Early on in this thread, I gave the reasons as to why I supported Gay rights. I just wanted to re-itterate them again, and explain why I get so cross with people like Bill West
> 
> this thread has been about the rights of gay people. as far as I am concerned it could have been about the rights of jews, christians, blacks, whites, indidenous indians, straight people or any other group. No group in my opinion has the right to lord it over another. christians have no right to force thier views on to others, in the same way as men have no right to make women second class citizens
> 
> through our history we have learnt the hard way at every hurdle, that discrimination is not the way to go - for example
> womens rightsright to free speachracismethnic cleansingreligious rightsright to be secularslaverythe list could go on and on. I am nailing my flag on the mast - I am not prepared to let the bullish majority, beat up on the minoritory for reasons of discrimination. I hold the concept of freedom and equalness as paramount
> 
> I would defend christians - if they were being persecuted for being christians. Not because iI agree with the philosophy, but I believe in thier right to expression, and thier right to be who they want to be. That includes you Bill West- for all your ranting and huffing and puffing - your rights to expresion, and living you life the way you want to, are as equal in value, as the gay mans right to his way of life
> 
> ...


Bravo! Yes discrimination is the problem! 

I dislike someone try to force their religious beliefs on me. Who are they to say that there way  is the best or correct way. I believe that there is a higher power. You can name it God, Mohammed,etc. whatever you wish.

I think most people need a goal or something out there where they can address their fears so they can be supported and live a better life.

So many people are looking for what is better or greener on the other side of the fence or for that matter another planet! Gay people evidently are not fulfilled by the life so many other people say that makes them happy. So they are trying to find their goal to keep them happy!

----------


## spartus

> Bravo! Yes discrimination is the problem! 
> 
> I dislike someone try to force their religious beliefs on me. Who are they to say that there way  is the best or correct way. I believe that there is a higher power. You can name it God, Mohammed,etc. whatever you wish.
> 
> I think most people need a goal or something out there where they can address their fears so they can be supported and live a better life.
> 
> So many people are looking for what is better or greener on the other side of the fence or for that matter another planet! Gay people evidently are not fulfilled by the life so many other people say that makes them happy. So they are trying to find their goal to keep them happy!


I think I just said the same thing over here. How odd to come over here and see it echoed.

----------


## acredhead113

> I think I just said the same thing over here. How odd to come over here and see it echoed.


Spartus: I did not read your post 156- bUT IT IS NICE TO HEAR OTHER PEOPLE
HAVE SOMETHING CALLED COMMON SENSE!

----------


## amoura_0

i think whatever anyone says, no matter what anyone believes this issue stinks and it just makes me sooo sick.. be realistic, or make it have some sense..
i think this subject is not a game at all, its like cursing god in his face...

----------


## ksquared

> I think I just said the same thing over here. How odd to come over here and see it echoed.


 Wow, talk about cheap tricks. Taking another person's post (my post to be perfectly clear) completely out of context. I guess when you can't come up with a valid argument of your own, you just borrow and steal sections from someone elses, remove the context and presto, evidance for your claim. 

I think I just saw the same thing over there (use the link below).  How odd to come over here and see you doing it again. ;)


http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=118607#post118607

----------


## spartus

Your link is jacked up. It should point here.

Anyway. As to your issue with my linking to my other post, I should have been much more specific in what I was trying to link acredhead's viewpoint to mine. I only meant to reference the third paragraph of my post: 




> If you feel it makes you a better person, it helps you get through the day, that's great. Some people call it "God", others call it "Allah" or "Jehovah" and any other number of names. It's when people hide behind their religion to try and tell others they're gonna burn for eternity, or, worse, start holy wars because they're not on the same path that I have a problem.


And to be perfectly clear about it, I finished typing the above, clicked onto the next thread, and read this:




> I dislike someone try to force their religious beliefs on me. Who are they to say that there way is the best or correct way. I believe that there is a higher power. You can name it God, Mohammed,etc. whatever you wish.
> 
> I think most people need a goal or something out there where they can address their fears so they can be supported and live a better life.


I should have been clearer in what I was trying to say, but I was startled to see what I saw right at that moment and didn't think through what it might look like I was saying. You have my apology for being sloppy. Now, if you'd like to discuss the other point you took issue with, I'd be happy to over in the other thread. 29 pages of this is probably enough. :)

----------


## QDO1

> i think whatever anyone says, no matter what anyone believes this issue stinks and it just makes me sooo sick.. be realistic, or make it have some sense..
> i think this subject is not a game at all, its like cursing god in his face...


so just for the record - what do you think homosexual people should do?  

They have just the same right to live thier lives as you do.  This subject is not a game at all, you are right.  What gives your belief in your god a precidence over the rights and feelings of somone else, who may not share your beliefs?

Personally, I dont recognise your god, but I dont say that my beliefs or thoughts have any precedence over yours.  What makes you "sooo sick"? is it the sex that homosexuals have?  You tell me that what 2 women do with each other isnt so different to what heterosexual partners might do with each other

----------


## Aeonspheres

My Hard Earned Taxes = Equality

I dont understand why people cannot realize lesson after lesson that Discrimination/ segragation is WRONG!  I have jsut one question, Are gays exempt from taxes?  I dont think so,  then i should be protected by the COnstitution of this country.  For you Bible thumpers, keep your religious views outta this please.  In case you didnt realize that the Church should not have any influence in law making.  Nothing against the church but gay rights should not be weighed upon religious views.  '

"Live, Let live"

Aeon

----------


## QDO1

> My Hard Earned Taxes = Equality
> 
> I dont understand why people cannot realize lesson after lesson that Discrimination/ segragation is WRONG! I have jsut one question, Are gays exempt from taxes? I dont think so, then i should be protected by the COnstitution of this country. For you Bible thumpers, keep your religious views outta this please. In case you didnt realize that the Church should not have any influence in law making. Nothing against the church but gay rights should not be weighed upon religious views. '
> 
> "Live, Let live"
> 
> Aeon


that sounds quite fair and striaghtfoward... :cheers:

----------


## finklstiltskin

> Sorry, something jumped out at me while I was reading the fallacies here. Are you talking about a toilet, and, if so, why?
> 
> (AKA: The Porcelain God)


ROFLMMFAO!!!!

----------


## spartus

> ROFLMMFAO!!!!


A laugh delayed a week or so is still a laugh.  :bbg:

----------


## finklstiltskin

> A laugh delayed a week or so is still a laugh.  :bbg:


Sorry. Been out of town for a while. Very funny indeed.

----------


## QDO1

i see in the Times today that from next month the UK is to recognise in a civil ceromony same sex unions.  I am pleased that the UK is showing a lead to  the "civilised world" on this issue



*Long road in the fight for equal rights* 

*·* 1885: acts of "gross indecency" between men criminalised 

*·* 1895: Oscar Wilde sentenced to two year's imprisonment for his homosexuality 

*·* 1955: Peter Wildeblood's book Against the Law triggers modern gay rights movement 

*·*of consent lowered to 16 

*·* 2000: ban on  1957: Wolfenden report calls for law to be changed 

*·* 1967: homosexuality decriminalised in England and Wales 

*·* 1988: section 28 of the Local Government Act bans "promotion" of homosexuality in schools 

*·* 1991: Actor Ian McKellen meets John Major to put the case for legal reform 

*·* 1994: homosexual age of consent lowered to 18 *·* 1998: homosexual age gay people serving in military lifted; section 28 repealed in Scotland 

*·* 2003: law on gross indecency repealed; section 28 repealed in England and Wales 

*Here is the proposed ceromony...*

A CEREMONY FOR CIVIL PARTNERSHIPS
(compiled in conjunction with the Society of Registration Officers)

*Opening Words*
We welcome you here today on this very special occasion of deep significance for .. And ., Today they will affirm their love and publicly declare their commitment to each other.

*Introduction*
This place in which you are now met has been duly sanctioned according to law for the registration of civil partnerships. You are here to witness the formation of a civil partnership byAndIf any person present knows of any impediment to this civil partnership, he should declare it now.
. And .. have chosen to pledge themselves to each other by committing to a legally binding contract. Their Partnership will enable the love and respect that they have for each other to develop into a deep and lasting relationship. We who are witnessing your civil partnership, hope that despite the stresses inevitable in any life, your Love, trust and understanding of each other, will increase your contentment and heighten your joy in living.

*Vows*
(Please choose one of the following)
I ---------.pledge to share my life openly with  I promise to cherish and tenderly care for you, to honour and encourage you. l will respect you as an individual and be true to you through good times and bad. To these things I give my word.
or
----------- I choose you above all others, to share my life. I promise to honour this pledge as long as I live.

*The Giving of a Ring*
The giving of a band signifies the promise of a love that is everlasting and is a public affirmation that the contract between  and . will be honoured.
(Each partner, in turn, to repeat the following words as the rings are exchanged,)
..This ring is a token of my abiding love and a sign of the promise I make to you today

*To Close (these words may be omitted)* 
Everyday you live, learn how to receive love with as much understanding as you give it. Find things within yourself, then you can share them with each other. Do not fear this love. Have an open heart and a sincere mind. Be concerned with each other's happiness. Be constant and consistent in your love. From this will come security and strength.

*Signing of the Civil Partnership Schedule*
We now come to the signing of the schedule, which will bind . And  together in law.
(each partner to repeat the following in turn)
I declare that I know of no legal reason why we may not register as each others civil partner. I understand that on signing this document we will be forming a civil partnership with each other.
 and  would you please step forward to sign the Civil Partnership Schedule (and Register if you intend providing one) along with .. and . Your witnesses

*Presentation of Commemorative Certificate*
. And you are now Partners in law and it is with pleasure that I present you with your Civil Partnership Certificate Now that the ceremony is over and the experience of living day by day as legal partners is about to begin, go and meet it gladly.
Please join with . And .. As they celebrate their partnership.

----------


## Jacqui

QDO1, Lovely ceremony. I've printed it out so that others here may see it and maybe use it.

----------


## QDO1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...tm?POE=NEWISVA

Vatican publishes, defends gay priest document 

VATICAN CITY  The Vatican published its long-awaited document on gays in the clergy Tuesday, saying men with "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies should not be ordained but those with a "transitory problem" could be if they had overcome them for three years. 

A long-expected Vatican document defining when, if ever, gay men may train for the priesthood was released Tuesday to acclaim, outrage and fear that it could drive away gay Catholics.  long-expected Vatican document defining when, if ever, gay men may train for the priesthood was released Tuesday to acclaim, outrage and fear that it could drive away gay Catholics. 

Leading U.S bishops welcomed the guidelines for discerning who is fit for ordination. They say men with a "deep-seated" homosexual tendency  an inclination that shapes their lifelong behavior  or involvement in "gay culture" should not be accepted at seminaries or ordained. 
But critics say the document, which has been in the works since 1994, is a thinly veiled effort to drive out gay seminarians and even gay priests who are committed to celibacy and faithfully teach Church doctrine that all sex outside marriage is wrong for anyone. 

"This is nothing new to us. In the past 20 to 25 years we've asked prospective seminaries to give us a history of their emotional and relational life as well as their academic career," says Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D. As chairman of the vocations committee for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, he's leading a new national vocations campaign. 

Bishops want to know, "Does this guy have any agenda that he puts ahead of the Gospel? Sexuality is only a part of that," says Cupich, a former seminary rector. "He can't have unresolved areas in his life."

The guidelines specify at least three years of celibacy for a prospective seminarian who has a homosexual inclination.

----------


## Blake

It's my understanding that Catholic priests (with few exceptions, such as converted Episcopal priests) aren't supposed to be having sex with _anyone_; man, woman or beast.  So it does seem rather strange to single out gay sex as verboten, but say nothing about priests who are active heterosexuals, or bestialists, or pedophiles (ouch!).

The three year cooling off period is kinda weird.  And what part of "gay culture" is unacceptable?  Leave the rectory TV on Bravo for more than 5 minutes? What about ministering to  people with AIDS?

----------


## spartus

> It's my understanding that Catholic priests (with few exceptions, such as converted Episcopal priests) aren't supposed to be having sex with _anyone_; man, woman or beast.  So it does seem rather strange to single out gay sex as verboten, but say nothing about priests who are active heterosexuals, or bestialists, or pedophiles (ouch!).


Maybe they're lowering the standards? 




> The three year cooling off period is kinda weird.  And what part of "gay culture" is unacceptable?  Leave the rectory TV on Bravo for more than 5 minutes? What about ministering to people with AIDS?


I'm thinking mesh tank tops. Or ownership of the "Will and Grace" series DVDs.

----------


## Maria

In Britain we are bringing in gay marriages later this month. And I really don't see the problem! You talk about health care issues, but surely it's still the same gay people making claims, regardless of whether or not they're married? How will they get more ill?

And why do people feel 'uncomfortable' about it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the gayness you are uncomfortable with, not the marriage part? 
And those of you who say that gay people are more promiscuous, surely a public and legal contract to a partner will reduce that, not increase it?

In this day and age, when there is divorces, wars, killer floods and people having DNA tests on television, can you not just be pleased that two people love each other? Do you really not have that in you?

----------


## chip anderson

They will get more ill with AIDS and by being listed as spouses on insurance.

----------


## Maria

More ill with AIDS? From being married? What if there was some sort of protective sheath to put over the marriage certificate? Obviously the paper would need to be treated so the spermicide didn't spoil it.

You run your own business, so I don't see how you are missing the maths of this. There are x amount of gay people in the world. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that none of them believe in saving yourself for the marriage bed. I am also going to guess that gay marriage isn't going to entice any straight people into a gay relationship.

Therefore, x gay people are already having gay sex, and are exposed to any risks. Being married will not and can not increase these risks. If anything, it will promote monogamy and commitment within the gay community, which will reduce risks.

And as far as spousal benefits are concerned, it is WRONG that a couple, any couple, live together, buy their house together, work day in day out together to build their lives, and then one dies and the other one is denied anything that would be made available to a hetrosexual married spouse. So there.

----------


## chip anderson

More ill from AIDS from being queer.  More of a liability from being on company insurance policies as a dependent.

----------


## Maria

Still not with you there. Explain how allowing gay people to get married makes more AIDS cases.

And what about lesbian marriage? Lesbians are particularly low-risk when it comes to AIDS. Can the lesbians get married?

----------


## rsandr

> Still not with you there. Explain how allowing gay people to get married makes more AIDS cases.
> 
> And what about lesbian marriage? Lesbians are particularly low-risk when it comes to AIDS. Can the lesbians get married?


He isnt online at the minute, I guess he is down at the market to pick a new slave. 
Bit of queer bashing on the way home, then sit down to a meal prepared by his wife (i'm guessing she knows her place), probably something he shot himself.

Still as long as his sort are in church each Sunday all is well.

----------


## chip anderson

OK Maria:  Gays are many, many times more likely to get aids.  Having two of them on the company insurance policy makes twice the risk.  Treatment and drugs for a single case can cost as much as hundreds of cases of "ordinary illness".  Hense the premiums go up in a hurry for all policy holders.  

As to the gay bashing, when I grew up and just learned of such things they were Queer.  Only in the early 60's did the newspeak term Gay become a term other than an expression for happiness.   So where is the insult (bash) here?

A rose is a rose.  In fact most of the gay men I know (and yes, I have lots of queer men friends) they either refer to themselves as queer or Queens.

Chip

----------


## Maria

I don't know a great deal about American health insurance, but surely most Americans have health insurance, so there will only be the same amount of claims, regardless of whether or not it's a single person claiming or a spouse?

----------


## chip anderson

American insurance rates are based on the amount that the insurance company spends for average member of group policy.  Get a few really sick ones with something like cancer, diabetes, heart trouble and the rates go up a lot quicker than you salary.   A lot of straight Americans view conditons like AIDS to be almost a voluntary exposure contracture and therefore something they don't feel they should be burdened with the cost.

This should be simple enough for Spartus to comprehend.  I haven't said any of this was right or wrong, just this why it is the way it is.

And Maria:  I don't fear strangers, but I don't infer trust to anyone until it is earned.

----------


## Maria

I can't go on, I'm losing the will to live:hammer:

----------


## QDO1

although this has allready been said.. it would seem to make very logical sense that a couple that is getting married and is declaring thier love for eachother is less likley to be sleeping around than single unmarried people. marriage = commitment = less HIV.  It might also be said that heterosexuals are just as likley to be sleeping arround as gay people

----------


## spartus

Most Americans do have health insurance, Maria--there's only 45 million that don't. Don't be ashamed that you can't understand our Byzantine for-profit healthcare system, because no one else understands it either. 

Chip, as far as I can tell, is still laboring under the late-70s impression that being gay is a cause of AIDS. It's not. Certainly, it increases your risk of contracting AIDS, if you engage in high-risk behaviors, but so does intravenous drug use and we don't seem to be arguing whether heroin addicts should be allowed to marry.

Chip is, in his own way, technically correct while being fundamentally wrong. It is interesting, on a side note, that the discussion that started with religion being a chief cause of keeping gay marriage unsanctioned by law is now ending with pocketbook issues.

----------


## spartus

I forgot to mention--I appreciate the cheap shot, Chip. Shows you're paying attention, even if you're not replying.

----------


## chip anderson

Spartus: I hear some alarming statistics just yesterday, that stated only 20% of Americans now have private health  insurance.   This did not include those included in federal, state, etc. doles (entitlements) .

----------


## spartus

> Spartus: I hear some alarming statistics just yesterday, that stated only 20% of Americans now have private health  insurance.   This did not include those included in federal, state, etc. doles (entitlements) .


I'm not surprised to learn that what you heard isn't true:




> http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/...th/002484.html
> The number of people with health insurance coverage rose from 242.4 million in 2002 to 243.3 million in 2003. Nonetheless, the percentage with coverage dropped from 84.8 percent to 84.4 percent, mirroring a drop in the percentage of people covered by employment-based health insurance (61.3 percent in 2002 to 60.4 percent in 2003). This decline in employment-based health insurance coverage essentially *explains the drop in total private health insurance coverage, from 69.6 percent in 2002 to 68.6 percent in 2003.*


From the same page:




> *The percentage of people covered by government health insurance programs rose in 2003, from 25.7 percent to 26.6 percent*, largely as the result of increases in Medicaid and Medicare coverage. *Medicaid coverage rose 0.7 percentage points to 12.4 percent in 2003*, and Medicare coverage increased 0.2 percentage points to 13.7 percent.


There are more people without any insurance (45 million, or about 16%) than are on Medicaid. I don't know which is fact is worse.

Side note: I don't know why people accept "statistics" that they hear without attribution with an uncritical ear. I read Chip's post, searched Google for "Americans with private health insurance", and this US Census page is the #3 result. Fact-check people, sheesh.

Also: I did double-check my 45-million-uninsured number in my previous post (which the Census page linked above corroborates) before posting, since the last number I remember hearing a year or so ago was 42 million. Wanted to be up-to-date.

----------


## chm2023

> American insurance rates are based on the amount that the insurance company spends for average member of group policy. Get a few really sick ones with something like cancer, diabetes, heart trouble and the rates go up a lot quicker than you salary. A lot of straight Americans view conditons like AIDS to be almost a voluntary exposure contracture and therefore something they don't feel they should be burdened with the cost.
> 
> This should be simple enough for Spartus to comprehend. I haven't said any of this was right or wrong, just this why it is the way it is.
> 
> And Maria: I don't fear strangers, but I don't infer trust to anyone until it is earned.


Actually one of the big reasons for insurance rate hikes is underreported: insurance companies have taken to playing the market under the wonderful world of deregulation (think savings and loan scandal, feel better?); they, like everyone else, have seen their capital shrink or at least not grow since the internet bubble burst. How do they make up that shortfall? Right.

----------


## Spexvet

W: Let's see.... what's on the agenda....

Iraq war not going well
Government trampling our privacy
President's approval rating in the toilet
International influence dwindling
Immigration issue not resolved
Bird flu pandemic imminent
Still dealing with Katrina aftermath
Republican culture of corruption embarrassing
Gas prices eliminating disposable income
Healthcare costs in orbit
Global warming 
National security / terrorist attacks

I know..... let's try to push through a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage!

----------


## ziggy

Spexvet, when you started this thread 19-20 months ago, I was one of the first to resopnd in support of a ban. But you were/are right there is so much more to be concerned about..... we should just let people be happy.

----------


## acredhead113

Why don't they just let it go away!! Don't they have enough votes yet?





> W: Let's see.... what's on the agenda....
> 
> Iraq war not going well
> Government trampling our privacy
> President's approval rating in the toilet
> International influence dwindling
> Immigration issue not resolved
> Bird flu pandemic imminent
> Still dealing with Katrina aftermath
> ...

----------


## Bill West

There is no such thing as same sex "marriage". Some folk will tell you anything and expect you to believe it.





> W: Let's see.... what's on the agenda....
> 
> Iraq war not going well
> Government trampling our privacy
> President's approval rating in the toilet
> International influence dwindling
> Immigration issue not resolved
> Bird flu pandemic imminent
> Still dealing with Katrina aftermath
> ...

----------


## shanbaum

> There is no such thing as same sex "marriage". Some folk will tell you anything and expect you to believe it.


So, a Constitutional amendment would surely be superfluous, would it not?

Or do you think we should amend the Constitution to prohibit something that doesn't exist?





> Some folk will tell you anything and expect you to believe it.


Amen.

----------


## acredhead113

Stop such nonsense!!! It is not possible to have same sex marriages. How would it be possible for two men or two women to have children??? Explain this phenomen to me?!!




> So, a Constitutional amendment would surely be superfluous, would it not?
> 
> Or do you think we should amend the Constitution to prohibit something that doesn't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.

----------


## shanbaum

> Stop such nonsense!!! It is not possible to have same sex marriages. How would it be possible for two men or two women to have children??? Explain this phenomen to me?!!


I see... there can be no marriage, but for procreation.  Now I get it.

----------


## acredhead113

I guess next you want cows and horses to have the same rights?!!! 





> I see... there can be no marriage, but for procreation. Now I get it.

----------


## shanbaum

> I guess next you want cows and horses to have the same rights?!!!


I have no difficulty distinguishing between humans and animals.

----------


## Spexvet

> There is no such thing as same sex "marriage". Some folk will tell you anything and expect you to believe it.


Is there such a thing as interracial marriage?
Interreligion marriage?
Polygamy?

----------


## Bill West

If the Judges of this country had not over stepped their boundries we would not be having such a problem. They do not have the right to do this.





> So, a Constitutional amendment would surely be superfluous, would it not?
> 
> Or do you think we should amend the Constitution to prohibit something that doesn't exist?
> 
> 
> 
> Amen.

----------


## shanbaum

> If the Judges of this country had not over stepped their boundries we would not be having such a problem. They do not have the right to do this.


Well, technically, they have an _obligation_ to "do this" (that is, decide if a law is unconstitutional) when such a question comes before them, your disagreement with their decisions notwithstanding.

"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." _Marbury v. Madison,_ 5 U.S. 137, 177 (U.S. Dist. Col., 1803).

And how do you reconcile your assertion with the fact that the people of Connecticut decided to recognize same-sex unions through legislation - signed by a Republican governor? No judicial input there at all.

----------


## RT

We thought we were voting for marrying cows and horses.

----------


## rinselberg

> W: Let's see.... what's on the agenda....
> 
> Iraq war not going well
> Government trampling our privacy
> President's approval rating in the toilet
> *International influence dwindling*
> Immigration issue not resolved
> Bird flu pandemic imminent
> Still dealing with Katrina aftermath
> ...


Rubbish!

What other president receives mail like this?




The mother of all letters: Iran's president writes to one George Walker Bush. See *Ahmadinejad to earth ...*

----------


## Spexvet

> If the Judges of this country had not over stepped their boundries we would not be having such a problem. They do not have the right to do this.


Do they have the right to ban abortion?

----------


## Spexvet

How can increasing the number of marriages and married people threaten the institution of marriage?

How can creating households with two legally joined parents jeopardize the family concept. Are children who live with a mother & aunt, mother & grandmother, a mother & her girlfriend or a father & his boyfriend worse off than those who live with only a mother or a father & aunt or a mother & her boyfriend? 

How is it that the bible teaches that God's chosen men had multiple wives, and now marriage is defined differently, as the union of *a* man and *a* woman?

Why is it that just because you don't like something, you have to try to force others to have the same opinion? If I used that rationale, I should push for a constitutional ammendment banning beets, bestiality, pedophilia, fundamentalist Christianity, strawberry ice cream, baseball (sorry Rinnsey), NASCAR, republicans, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

----------


## Bill West

> Well, technically, they have an _obligation_ to "do this" (that is, decide if a law is unconstitutional) when such a question comes before them, your disagreement with their decisions notwithstanding.
> 
> "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." _Marbury v. Madison,_ 5 U.S. 137, 177 (U.S. Dist. Col., 1803).
> 
> And how do you reconcile your assertion with the fact that the people of Connecticut decided to recognize same-sex unions through legislation - signed by a Republican governor? No judicial input there at all.


*Could this mean that the majority of people in this state are homo or maybe just twisted in their thinking or worse yet godless.*

----------


## Bill West

> Do they have the right to ban abortion?


They never had the right to legalize it in the first place. Legalized murder of defenseless little people.

----------


## shanbaum

> *Could this mean that the majority of people in this state are homo or maybe just twisted in their thinking or worse yet godless.*


I'm not sure if that's a statement or a question, but it's interesting to see how you explain it.

I suspect that upon a few nanoseconds' reflection, you'll realize how unlikely the first and third possibilities are (though you may judge anyone who does not share your particular brand of parochialism as "godless", in which case, it may be possible that the people of Connecticut are godless, at least as you use the term). 

We _could_ be twisted in our thinking, or, more likely, we might believe that the state lacks the power to intrude into the private behavior of its citizens to the extent that it can prevent same-sex unions. That is to say, we just might believe that sexual orientation is no bar to an individual's right to enjoy the "blessings of liberty."

But that, I see, did not occur to you.

----------


## shanbaum

> They never had the right to legalize it in the first place. Legalized murder of defenseless little people.


 
So, it is your opinion that the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the power to find laws unconstitutional?

----------


## Bill West

> I'm not sure if that's a statement or a question, but it's interesting to see how you explain it.
> 
> I suspect that upon a few nanoseconds' reflection, you'll realize how unlikely the first and third possibilities are (though you may judge anyone who does not share your particular brand of parochialism as "godless", in which case, it may be possible that the people of Connecticut are godless, at least as you use the term). 
> 
> We _could_ be twisted in our thinking, or, more likely, we might believe that the state lacks the power to intrude into the private behavior of its citizens to the extent that it can prevent same-sex unions. That is to say, we just might believe that sexual orientation is no bar to an individual's right to enjoy the "blessings of liberty."
> 
> But that, I see, did not occur to you.


*The key words here are "private behavior". When the perverts decided to "come out" and make public their perverted behavior and in doing so declared that there is nothing wrong with that behavior, so we straight people must have something wrong with us or we are just too stupid to get it. In order to keep the perverted behavior private they would have to crawl back into the closet. Too late for that so next step "marriage" in order to give this perversion approval. No thanks not today or even a later date. Maybe they should all consider moving to a more favorable climate say NH or Mass.*

----------


## shanbaum

> *The key words here are "private behavior". When the perverts decided to "come out" and make public their perverted behavior and in doing so declared that there is nothing wrong with that behavior, so we straight people must have something wrong with us or we are just too stupid to get it. In order to keep the perverted behavior private they would have to crawl back into the closet. Too late for that so next step "marriage" in order to give this perversion approval. No thanks not today or even a later date. Maybe they should all consider moving to a more favorable climate say NH or Mass.*


"Privacy" in this context has a somewhat special meaning - it doesn't mean "out of the view of others"; it refers to a zone of personal autonomy, including what you think, what you believe, where you choose to be, what you choose to do, at least to the point at which these choices do not adversely impact others.

You obviously think that homosexuality is a perversion; I suspect you think it's a perversion because of your religious beliefs. In any case, you're entitled to believe what you want - because it's within your zone of privacy.

What you do not get to do, however, is intrude upon the zones of privacy of others, by using the power of the state to constrain their activities to conform to what you think is appropriate. That's only fair; you get to have beliefs, and do things, that I consider odious, and I get to have beliefs, and do things, that you consider odious. That's the bargain of liberty; we both win.

Your equivalence of "legalization" with "approval" betrays a fundamentally illiberal (in the classical sense) mindset. American law is not founded on the notion that all that which is not explicitly allowed is prohibited. State governments can regulate behavior, but depending on the behavior they're regulating, they need varying degrees of support. Run-of-the-mill regulations require only that the regulation be "rationally related to a legitimate state interest". When fundamental rights are involved, the test is different: the regulation must be _necessary_ to a _compelling_ state interest. And over the course of the twentieth century (and into the twenty-first), the courts have recognized additional rights as fundamental, including private sexual conduct (_see, e.g. Griswold v. Connecticut; Lawrence v. Texas_)_._ Personally, I think that's a good thing, because it means the government has _less_ power to say what I can and cannot do, which is to say, I'm more free as a result.

It also means it will be harder for people like you to use the power of the government to coerce me and others to conform to _your_ idea of how people should behave; at the same time, your right to do as you please is undiminished. In sum, therefore, liberty is increased.

It's true that the courts have generally led the way in this process (though they haven't been so far ahead of legislatures as one might think), just as they led the way in the civil rights movement of the 50's and 60's. Is that _undemocratic_? Maybe - but remember that "democracy" and "freedom" are two very different things, and the former does not invariably promote the latter.

----------


## chm2023

> *Could this mean that the majority of people in this state are homo or maybe just twisted in their thinking or worse yet godless.*


Are you thinking what I'm thinking?? Theme park!!!!

Are you suggesting that the combined total of (God help me) "homos" and twisted thinkers and godless (sic) is more than 50%--using the Cotton Mather/Bill West standard for Godliness, natch; or that the incidence of all three variables occuring together is more than 50%?  Because I just don't see how the latter is possible.......

:hammer: 

It's a source of constant amazement to me that more people don't walk out into traffic.  My Godless liberal opti-pals will get a kick of this.  I have taken to monitoring Fox News, just for s**** and giggles.  What is hard to believe is the mangling of the English language that occurs on a regular basis--the other day some one was yammering on about Iran and stated that we needed the support of "other international countries"--one assumes as opposed to other intergalactic countries.  But this AM took the cake--the "reporter" stated that the amnesty part of the immigration bill, versus the security part, was "very more controversial".   Oh my ears...... :Eek:

----------


## Bill West

> "Privacy" in this context has a somewhat special meaning - it doesn't mean "out of the view of others"; it refers to a zone of personal autonomy, including what you think, what you believe, where you choose to be, *what you choose to do*, at least to the point at which these choices do not adversely impact others.
> *MAYBE WHEN I GO TO THE MALL I'LL TAKE A LEAK IN THE FOUNTAIN AND CALL IT "MY PRIVACY ZONE".*
> 
> You obviously think that homosexuality is a perversion; I suspect you think it's a perversion because of your religious beliefs. In any case, you're entitled to believe what you want - because it's within your zone of privacy.
> What you do not get to do, however, is intrude upon the zones of privacy of others, by using the power of the state to constrain their activities to conform to what you think is appropriate. That's only fair; you get to have beliefs, and do things, that I consider odious, and I get to have beliefs, and do things, that you consider odious. That's the bargain of liberty; we both win.
> 
> *Gen 13:13*
> *But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.* 
> 
> ...


*Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.*
*For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.*
*And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.*

----------


## shanbaum

I figured it would come to that; I just didn't know how long it would take.

----------


## Bill West

> I figured it would come to that; I just didn't know how long it would take.


*GOD HAS THE FINAL SAY, LIKE IT OR NOT.*
Have a good day!

----------


## shanbaum

Thank you, God... I mean, Bill...

----------


## chm2023

> Thank you, God... I mean, Bill...


It's odd you never see them together.  Hmmmm.

----------


## shanbaum

> It's odd you never see them together. Hmmmm.


Like George Bush and Satan.

----------


## shanbaum

chm, do you think maybe there's a parallel universe where we're Stetler and Waldorf?

----------


## Spexvet

> *Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.*
> *For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.*
> *And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.*


Judge not, lest ye be judged.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives. Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included:

Esau with 3 wives;

Jacob: 2;

Ashur: 2;

Gideon: many;

Elkanah: 2;

David: many;

Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth

Rehaboam: 3

Abijah: 14

Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives

From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 ) had nine wives

----------


## chm2023

> chm, do you think maybe there's a parallel universe where we're Stetler and Waldorf?


Not only did I not immediately realize who Stetler and Waldorf are, I didn't even realize they had names!! And yes, we have that cranky bit down, though I like to think we are slightly better looking!!!:cheers:

Re your comment on W and Satan--which is sooo true:  I always laugh when I hear the word "Satan", can't seem to get that Church Lady routine out of my head!!!!  (Oh s***, this goes onto my "godless" column I guess...)

----------


## shanbaum

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/...age/index.html

----------


## Spexvet

We brush with greatness. Congrats on being published, Robert.

----------


## Spexvet

Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
--Abraham Lincoln

----------


## Bill West

> Is there such a thing as interracial marriage?
> Interreligion marriage?
> Polygamy?


*Does'nt make it right just because people choose to do it.*

----------


## Bill West

> Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.
> --Abraham Lincoln


*He was really a big screw up.*

----------


## chm2023

> *He was really a big screw up.*


He also slept in _the same bed_ with other men on many occasions.  Pervert.

----------


## rinselberg

Lincoln - almost as bad as *FDR!*

See "The challenge of leadership"
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16903



Don't shoot the messenger ...
Postcard from Tora Bora
Gravity's Rainbow
Axis of Knievel
Scientists building new telescope - at bottom of the sea
Ya' think ...
Satan decided they should play their home games at Coors Field ... 
prejudice
145 becomes a very lucky number for MNF Iraq ...
A non-running computer produces fewer errors ...

Just the ten latest reasons to make RinselWorld** your next Internet port of call ...

----------


## Spexvet

Why can't people just mind their own business?




> Even as same-sex couples across California begin making plans to tie the knot, opponents are redoubling their efforts to make sure wedding bells never ring for gay couples in the nation's most populous state.

----------


## gemstone

Please, please, back in the closet!

----------


## For-Life

Gay marriage will lead to communism.

----------


## braheem24

> Why can't people just mind their own business?


 
The society we live in is everyone's business, same sex marriage allows the adoption of children. 

It also assumes that the adoption of children by a same sex couple is equal to that of a heterosexual couple. 

This is my main problem with same sex 'marriage'.

My .01 cent (adjusted for exchange rate) would be to allow the union without extending the right for adoption to be equal to that of a heterosexual couple.  ie, heterosexual couple and same sex couple want to adopt the same child, heterosexual couple should be favored.

----------


## chip anderson

Why can't they just hang out in gay bars and swap partners several times a night like they always have?

----------


## braheem24

> Why can't they just hang out in gay bars and swap partners several times a night like they always have?


C'mon Chip, tell us how you really feel. :idea:

----------


## For-Life

> The society we live in is everyone's business, same sex marriage allows the adoption of children. 
> 
> It also assumes that the adoption of children by a same sex couple is equal to that of a heterosexual couple. 
> 
> This is my main problem with same sex 'marriage'.
> 
> My .01 cent (adjusted for exchange rate) would be to allow the union without extending the right for adoption to be equal to that of a heterosexual couple.  ie, heterosexual couple and same sex couple want to adopt the same child, heterosexual couple should be favored.


Yeah, because we know that heterosexual couples never make mistakes when raising kids.  Thing is, I have a lot, and I mean A LOT more admiration for a gay couple who make a logical choice to have kids through adoption that someone who mistakenly got pregnant.

----------


## Jacqui

> Why can't they just hang out in gay bars and swap partners several times a night like they always have?


By now you should know better than that !!

----------


## Spexvet

> The society we live in is everyone's business, same sex marriage allows the adoption of children. 
> 
> It also assumes that the adoption of children by a same sex couple is equal to that of a heterosexual couple. 
> 
> This is my main problem with same sex 'marriage'.
> 
> My .01 cent (adjusted for exchange rate) would be to allow the union without extending the right for adoption to be equal to that of a heterosexual couple. ie, heterosexual couple and same sex couple want to adopt the same child, heterosexual couple should be favored.


Do you think that people who would enter into a same sex marriage are inherently poor parents (and why), or it would automatically make them less able to raise children than heterosexual parents (and why)? What do you think of gay people, who entered into a heterosexual marriage raised children? How do rank them?




> By now you should know better than that !!


Too much hate in him to add anything new.

----------


## Judy Canty

> Yeah, because we know that heterosexual couples never make mistakes when raising kids. Thing is, I have a lot, and I mean A LOT more admiration for a gay couple who make a logical choice to have kids through adoption that someone who mistakenly got pregnant.


AND what about us heterosexual couples who have a gay child?  

GOOD GRIEF!

----------


## Jacqui

> Please, please, back in the closet!


*NEVER !!*

----------


## For-Life

> AND what about us heterosexual couples who have a gay child?  
> 
> GOOD GRIEF!


Only communists can raise gay children.  That and terrorists.

----------


## Spexvet

> Only communists can raise gay children. That and terrorists.


Are you saying only Communists raise gay children and terrorists, or only Communists and terrorists raise gay children? :p

----------


## For-Life

Let me ask the writer of my conservative newsletter and I will get right back to you.

----------


## Spexvet

> Let me ask the writer of my conservative newsletter and I will get right back to you.


I just wanted to clarify because I think that only gay Nazis can raise communist terrorists. I think.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## braheem24

> Do you think that people who would enter into a same sex marriage are inherently poor parents (and why), or it would automatically make them less able to raise children than heterosexual parents (and why)? What do you think of gay people, who entered into a heterosexual marriage raised children? How do rank them?


The children will either be missing a mother or a father figure, all things being equal the child will be at a disadvantage which he or she has no control over.

----------


## For-Life

> The children will either be missing a mother or a father figure, all things being equal the child will be at a disadvantage which he or she has no control over.


Again, lets compare this to people accidentally having children, people who are just awful parents, and single parents.

Why should homosexual couples who have made a well thought out decision go behind these people?

Honestly, I do not see the difference between a male and female versus a male and male or female and female raising a child.  Males and females are supposed to be equal.  If you want to talk about the differences between a male and female, I think you are looking too broadly.  In reality, if that matters so much, then there should be extensive psychology and personality testing.  Because personality types will mean WAY more than if the person is a male or female.

----------


## braheem24

Please notice the part of my sentence where I said *'all things being equal...'*

Now that I'm old enough to make a decision for myself I'm glad I had a parent with an XY and a parent with an XX chromosomes raise me, how do you plan to figure which child will be a good candidate for a same sex couple and which will not?


Not only is the reproduction process in same sex humans not exist in nature, you're asking people to circumvent the process (which is fine) but then you're asking to force a child into the situation.  That part I cannot believe should be allowed, unless you're willing to wait till they're 18 to make an informed adult decision.

----------


## For-Life

If you have two candidates with the exact same situations, love, and so forth, except one is gay, that is one thing.

But you are discussing not allowing adopted kids to go with any gay couple.  You want to talk about being informed?  kids never pick their parents.  

When it comes down to it, the love the parents can provide matters.  You say that you were happy that you had a XY instead of a XX.  What if you had a XY who abused you instead of a XX that didn't.  Yeah, you can say all things being equal, but if it is going to be a ban, then it is a shame.

----------


## Spexvet

> The children will either be missing a mother or a father figure, all things being equal the child will be at a disadvantage which he or she has no control over.


Should we make a constitutional ammendment that single people shouldn't be allowed to marry because they might end up being single parents? :D After all, a child mey be raised without the benefit of a male and female parent.




> ...Now that I'm old enough to make a decision for myself I'm glad I had a parent with an XY and a parent with an XX chromosomes raise me,


And you decided this after comparing it to your experience as the child of two male or two female parents? How could this be a legitimate, informed decision?




> how do you plan to figure which child will be a good candidate for a same sex couple and which will not?


The same way you do now.




> Not only is the reproduction process in same sex humans not exist in nature,


Not an issue. By that logic, people who are incapable of bearing their own children should not be allowed to adopt.




> . That part I cannot believe should be allowed, unless you're willing to wait till they're 18 to make an informed adult decision.


So I should have been willing to wait until you were 18 to decide that you wanted one male and one female parent?




> . You want to talk about being informed? kids never pick their parents. 
> ...


Bingo! See above.

BTW, there are lots of gay folks with children. They may have been pressured into hiding their sexuality, or had sex with the oposite gender only to have their own child. Any of our parents could be gay. There are also children being raised by a mother and grandmother. Should this be illegal?

----------


## HarryChiling

I don't see anything wrong with it, except the fact that they want to be married.:hammer:  Run people Run!!!!!!!  :D

----------


## chip anderson

Actually I have figured it out.  Allow it provided they all agree to live in California and Mass where they will fit in fine.

Chip (Maybe this one will get me banned.)

----------


## braheem24

> Any of our parents could be gay. There are also children being raised by a mother and grandmother. Should this be illegal?


Never said it should be illegal, but gay adopting parents in the eyes of the court should NOT be treated as an equal to a biologically correct family.

You want to compare an infertile couple to a gay couple in nature? Good luck convincing the rest of the world. :(

----------


## Spexvet

> Never said it should be illegal, but gay adopting parents in the eyes of the court should NOT be treated as an equal to a biologically correct family.
> 
> You want to compare an infertile couple to a gay couple in nature? Good luck convincing the rest of the world. :(


And the rest of my points?

----------


## gemstone

> And the rest of my points?


How does my disgust hurt you?

----------


## For-Life

Because you use your disgust to impose restrictions on others, ie: ban on gay marriage

----------


## Jacqui

Why are you so disgusted?? What harm will it do to you personally??

----------


## For-Life

Whatever happened to promoting freedoms?

----------


## gemstone

> Whatever happened to promoting freedoms?


If I were single and wanted to marry, I would not involve the government.  I would agree with my partner and to heck with the government.  Why does the government have to be involved, it is none of their business.  Why do homosexuals make it such a big deal.  They can make the deal between themselves and likely find a church that approves of such behaviour.

----------


## Spexvet

> If I were single and wanted to marry, I would not involve the government. I would agree with my partner and to heck with the government. Why does the government have to be involved, it is none of their business. Why do homosexuals make it such a big deal. They can make the deal between themselves and likely find a church that approves of such behaviour.


Because the Government gives benefits to a one-man / one-woman marriage (regardless of their sexual preference;)). 

Why does the government have to get involved in prohibiting the marriage of two people who want to get married?

----------


## For-Life

> If I were single and wanted to marry, I would not involve the government.  I would agree with my partner and to heck with the government.  Why does the government have to be involved, it is none of their business.  Why do homosexuals make it such a big deal.  They can make the deal between themselves and likely find a church that approves of such behaviour.


if the government should be be getting involved then why is there a ban on it?  Why will the government not recognize it?  

and like Spexvet says, there are benefits provided to those who are married versus two people living together.  These are benefits that are greater than those provided through civil unions.

and FYI - There are a few churches that approve of gay marriage, and yes they are Christian ones.  

That is why homosexuals make it such a big deal.  Why do you make it such a big deal?

----------


## Spexvet



----------


## rbaker

> 


It was just announced by our Bishop that the Church is closing five churches in the Diocese. Small wonder. This is just one reason that there are fewer practicing Catholics today.

----------


## Spexvet

> It was just announced by our Bishop that the Church is closing five churches in the Diocese. Small wonder. This is just one reason that there are fewer practicing Catholics today.


The Baptists are in on it, too.

----------


## For-Life

The United Church, and from my understanding it is growing strongly.  No wonder.

----------


## drk

Let's define marriage.

I think that those philosophically opposed to same-sex marriage have a different definition than those in favor.

----------


## For-Life

> Let's define marriage.
> 
> I think that those philosophically opposed to same-sex marriage have a different definition than those in favor.


This is my problem with the anti group.  Yes, I agree that some people strongly believe marriage is the sacred union between a man and a women.  However, within that group, there is a large section that says that and preach the bible, yet they never go to church or read the bible.  They question if there is a God and do not practice what is taught.  Furthermore, a some of them are even divorced.

So then I question, is the one side more of a definition question, or is it just general dislike of the idea.

----------


## chip anderson

If I tole you again, Judy and Steve would kick me off Optiboards permanently.  Doesn't do to have points of view that differ too much from the politically correct one.

Chip

----------


## Steve Machol

Yeah, that must be it.  :Rolleyes:

----------


## drk

There are different inclinations in more than sexual preference.

For those who tend to look at things culturally, historically, anthropologically, one could study the "history of marriage" in various cultures over different times and try to draw some conclusions.

Some are very "new age" and progressive, and draw more upon their own sense of what is correct, or tend to believe that we're more advanced as a society, now, and have little need for the traditional.

We have very diverse "world views" in North America right now, and I'll characterize them as "conservative" and "liberal" (or "progressive" if "liberal" has been changed into a perjorative term).

It is very, very difficult for the two sides to be reconciled because polar opposite worldview differences can never be mutually satisfied, i.e., no "win-win". The best case scenario would be "compromise"--a low form of "win-win". 

What currently happening, though, is a culture _war_, which is by definition "win-lose". I'm not sure anyone is ready to signal a truce yet...not enough blood spilled yet.

But on the great Optiboard, let's try to hammer out a "compromise". Here's a starter: what about different types of marriages? 

It's been proposed in Christian circles that there be such a thing a "covenant" marriages...i.e. you sign away your civil right for no-fault divorces, etc. http://marriage.about.com/cs/covenan...a/covenant.htm
What about "civil unions"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_unionThe point in compromise is no one is going to get exactly what they want. They will not get exactly what they don't want, either. It seems that gays want the exact same marriage that traditional couples have. Traditional couples want to have marriage all to themselves. Something has to give to compromise, but I don't think anyone is ready to compromise on either side. 

Meanwhile, the war will be waged on the battlefield of fundamental principles, not corollaries like marriage. It all comes down to religion, ultimately.

I will repeat this: in America we are looking at disharmony NOT BECAUSE of a "meanie" like George Bush and DESPITE the "savior" Barack Obama (i.e. the president is not responsible...see George Will's piece http://www.newsweek.com/id/138505) but because of our diversity in religion.

Religion is the underlying belief system by which humans metaphysically understand themselves and their universe. Diversity in religion means diversity in world view, which means inabilty to agree on fundamental issues.

The U.S. has essentially been a nation of Christians (or at least the "ruling class" has been, if you are a socialistic type). Not so anymore; we have been becoming more secular humanist for a long time. We have larger immigration groups that are not compelled to assimilate ergo the growth of Islam et al. New Age religion is on a steep upward climb. 

This begs the question: what constitutes a functioning society? Can groups with radically different concepts of what's right and wrong function together in a society, or will it tear the country to pieces? That seems to be the next assignment in the Great American Experiment.

(For a little Rinselberging: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...dikiv.asp?pg=2)

----------


## braheem24

> I don't see anything wrong with it, except the fact that they want to be married.:hammer: Run people Run!!!!!!! :D


 
That was discussed with more detail in your previous posts below :D

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29351

I say we elect JOHNS as the Optiboard marriage arbitrator and FEZZ as the bachelor party co-ordinator.

----------


## Fezz

> I say we elect JOHNS as the Optiboard marriage arbitrator and FEZZ as the bachelor party co-ordinator.


 
I'll drink to that!

Hey.......................
...........................................wait a minute here!

Are you implying that Johns and I are _________?



The same gender?

;):cheers::D:cheers:;)

----------


## Johns

> That was discussed with more detail in your previous posts below :D
> 
> http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29351
> 
> I say we elect JOHNS as the Optiboard marriage arbitrator and FEZZ as the bachelor party co-ordinator.


 
Uhh..I don't know if that's such a good idea. You're talking about a guy that doesn't own a TV and is  pretty conservative.  

I thought "same sex" marriage meant that it was the "same"  everytime you did it.  And in my case, it was with the "same" person (my wife) everytime.

I'm thinking...what's so bad about same sex marriage, as long as it's great everytime?  

I was about to buy bumper stickers, march in the parade, pay my dues to the club and everything...and then I found out what it meant to other people!!

No thanks!

But if you want to run any of your marital problem by me, I guess I could try to give it a go.

Most of the people that I see getting divorced seem to always
cite "irreconciable differences"  Well,what's up with that?  

I married my wife because she's so diffent from me!  

Is this what the same sex people aer trying to avoid -  differences?  Hmm...;)  Well, I guess it would cut down on the amount of things that would be different!  Heck, you could even wear the same clothes and probably buy hygene products in bulk!

Well, now that I've given this issue some serious thought, I have to say that I'll stick with my own version of a "same sex" marriage.  As for the rest of you, I'll try to keep an open mind, but it won't be easy.

----------


## For-Life

DRK, just so you know, civil unions does not give people half the rights that they get if married.

Additionally, Canada's gay marriage laws do not force churches to have gay marriages.  That is up to each church (and several do them).

----------


## Jacqui

> DRK, just so you know, civil unions does not give people half the rights that they get if married.
> 
> Additionally, Canada's gay marriage laws do not force churches to have gay marriages.  That is up to each church (and several do them).


It took Diane and I some time to find a Canadian church to marry us.

----------


## For-Life

yeah, that is why I said some and not most.  I doubt a catholic or presbyterian church would.  Some Anglicans will (I think), United will.  

Any municipality will too.  Actually, I am applying for a job when I may be doing marriages in the future :)

----------


## 35oldguy

Too bad morals have dropped in the gutter! I am totally against marriage between two men or two women. Next they will want to legalize marrying a dog and a man. I have had many high school chums die of the aids virus in their 40's. If only they would have gotten some psycological help!




> At the risk of sounding like a right wing nut.............. for me its about drawing a line. I'm not comfortable with pushing the envelope that far. I think that MOST of the population feel the same, its not something you can put your finger on. It is a moral issue that most of the folk I come in contact with are not willing to bend. Over the last 30 years it has become easier for homosexual couples to live open, and will most likely take another 30 for them to get married, at least in conventional terms.

----------


## Judy Canty

Psycological help for what?

----------


## Jacqui

> Psycological help for what?


That's what I was wondering.  :Confused:

----------


## Johns

> Next they will want to legalize marrying a dog and a man. 
> 
> 
>  If only they would have gotten some psycological help!


 
Help for their dogs?:o

----------


## For-Life

> Too bad morals have dropped in the gutter! I am totally against marriage between two men or two women. Next they will want to legalize marrying a dog and a man. I have had many high school chums die of the aids virus in their 40's. If only they would have gotten some psycological help!


How many people have died from other STDs that they have received from straight people?   Hmm, pre-marital sex and affairs are evil.  Want to create laws to stop them?

----------


## chip anderson

Actually I think the Christian bible says: Men lying with me is also evil also.  Don't think women were given too much concideration at that time, they were just stoned to death if they missbehaved..    

Chip

----------


## For-Life

The bible also calls affairs and divorce evil.

The bible also tells us not to eat pork.

----------


## chip anderson

Actually I have had affairs and divorce and both are evil.  When you get older you will realize how great a mistake either is.   While I think the bibical prohibition on pork has more to do with tricamonus cysts, it can sure play hell with the digestion.

Chip

----------


## braheem24

> The bible also tells us not to eat pork.


Hey, my people and my cousins the Jews are with you on that one :D

----------


## 35oldguy

Same sex marriages are simply unacceptable. Anyone who thinks it is right is wrong and need to have their heads examined! Go to a pychriatrist!




> That's what I was wondering.

----------


## Jacqui

> Same sex marriages are simply unacceptable. Anyone who thinks it is right is wrong and need to have their heads examined! Go to a pychriatrist!


You've been in Kansas too long. Get out and open your mind.

----------


## Jacqui

> Hey, my people and my cousins the Jews are with you on that one :D


You're not the only ones, others say the same thing.

----------


## rbaker

Life is way too short to sweat what other rational adults chose to do as long as it doesn't effect my life.

----------


## For-Life

> Actually I have had affairs and divorce and both are evil. When you get older you will realize how great a mistake either is. While I think the bibical prohibition on pork has more to do with tricamonus cysts, it can sure play hell with the digestion.
> 
> Chip


so why don't you make them illegal?

----------


## For-Life

> Same sex marriages are simply unacceptable. Anyone who thinks it is right is wrong and need to have their heads examined! Go to a pychriatrist!


I wonder what a psychiatrist would say about these last two posts of yours.

----------


## Steve Machol

> I wonder what a psychiatrist would say about these last two posts of yours.


It's been pretty much established that the most virulent homophobes are the ones who have some serious unresolved sexuality issues of their own.

In all of these posts, not one person has come up with a single reason why Same Sex Marriage would affect them. Nada. 

If people were really concerned about the 'Institution of Marriage' then there are far greater threats to it - such as adultery and divorce. (By the way, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation. Those damn Liberals!) 

The objections to Same Sex marriage have no basis in fact. It's either a psychological reaction, or based on their own Religious beliefs which they want to impose on others.




> Life is way too short to sweat what other rational adults chose to do as long as it doesn't effect my life.


Well said. :)

----------


## rinselberg

> Same sex marriages are simply unacceptable. Anyone who thinks it is right is wrong and need to have their heads examined! Go to a pychriatrist!


But make sure it's a psychiatrist that does not subscribe to the American Psychiatric Association's Position Statement 200502 Support of Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Civil Marriage or it's a moot point.

----------


## 35oldguy

No, I was raised believing that it is wrong to have sex with a man and wrong for a women to have sex with a women. They cannot make babies unless I have been in Kansas too long! I guess where you live it is acceptable to live with an open mind that accepts this type of behavior!

My mind is open but only to things that create right behavior! 96% of the population deems it is wrong. Why should we have to accept what only 4% want to jam down our throats!

It is too bad that the misbehavior of only a few people disrupts society so much!

Acceptance of being a homesexual is a matter of choice! If 96% of the population were to accept this type of open minded living as you say there would be no reproduction and our life as humans would end. Unless cloning is an option!

I prefer to stay married with my wife and continue to promote having babies!






> You've been in Kansas too long. Get out and open your mind.

----------


## Steve Machol

> My mind is open but only to things that create right behavior! 96% of the population deems it is wrong. Why should we have to accept what only 4% want to jam down our throats!


You really have no idea what you are talking about. 96% is b-s.

Rather than show your ignorance, I suggest you do some investigating first. The first few links I found:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in565918.shtml

The 'jam down our throats' quote is a very telling remark by the way. See post #823. 




> I prefer to stay married with my wife and continue to promote having babies!


And how does someone else's private behavior affect that? This issue should have absolutely no affect on you and your marriage - unless of course there are some unresolved issues that are affecting your relationship with your wife.

----------


## Andrew Weiss

My salute to DrK, who once again shows his clarity and kindness.  I couldn't have said it better.

Personally: same-sex marriages effect me positively by supporting more happy and stable relationships.

----------


## Jacqui

> I guess where you live it is acceptable to live with an open mind that accepts this type of behavior!!


Maybe up here in the Northwoods we are different, we just see things like most of the rest of the world. 




> 96% of the population deems it is wrong. Why should we have to accept what only 4% want to jam down our throats!!


I don't see where you get 96%. Up here it's about 49.5%. And no one is jamming it down anyone's throat. When Diane and I got married it was done very quietly and privately. 




> It is too bad that the misbehavior of only a few people disrupts society so much!!


What misbehavior??





> Acceptance of being a homesexual is a matter of choice!!!


HUH ???? That's been proven to be a complete line of BULL----!!




> If 96% of the population were to accept this type of open minded living as you say there would be no reproduction and our life as humans would end. Unless cloning is an option!!


Yes there would, only 10% would want this. 




> I prefer to stay married with my wife and continue to promote having babies!


Wonderful !!

----------


## fvc2020

Steve

I usually don't disagree with your statements, but I think you're coming across harsh and rude. That being said you are right no one here has stated how physically they will be hurt. They have expressed their views based on ones morals. I was raised that homosexualality was wrong. I have come to believe that its is considered a sin. Christ speaks of this in the Gospels. However, sin is a personal issue. I don't care if you're gay..I multiple friends who are and rock on Jaqui(love is love)...I won't judge anyone, its not my job, duty etc...what you do is between you and God(if you believe). Does same sex marriage hurt me? Of course not! I do look at society on the level of historic basis alot. In the end days of Rome and Greece when the moral system of the time was getting looser, both great civilization started to fall(this is fact)...I personally am more considered w/all morals going out the door, instead of 2 people who are committed and love each other getting married. Affairs and divorce are very bad, whether you gay or straight. 

I could go on but you need to be open to all views, respect them and not be ugly about someone's answer to a question.

Jaqui, this a dumb question(I'm not orginally from Minnesota), but where exactly is Frostbite Falls? Also congrats...it might be late, but I'm a way big believer in love and marriage...

Christina

----------


## DragonLensmanWV

Well, after reading through this thread, I've come to some conclusions:
The people who object to this do so for religious reasons, not logical reasons.
And they think THEIR religion is the only one that matters.Nevermind all the other religions, Christianity is the only one that matters. And I have seen in other forums how you can prove ANYTHING you want by selectively taking quotes from the Bible.

People get taught incorrect things all the time.

----------


## For-Life

> No, I was raised believing that it is wrong to have sex with a man and wrong for a women to have sex with a women. They cannot make babies unless I have been in Kansas too long! I guess where you live it is acceptable to live with an open mind that accepts this type of behavior!
> 
> My mind is open but only to things that create right behavior! 96% of the population deems it is wrong. Why should we have to accept what only 4% want to jam down our throats!
> 
> It is too bad that the misbehavior of only a few people disrupts society so much!
> 
> Acceptance of being a homesexual is a matter of choice! If 96% of the population were to accept this type of open minded living as you say there would be no reproduction and our life as humans would end. Unless cloning is an option!
> 
> I prefer to stay married with my wife and continue to promote having babies!


Very interesting.  Our world is becoming over-populated.  An estimated 10% of the population is gay.  Makes me think that this is possibly a way to control the population.

FYI - I am straight

----------


## Steve Machol

> Steve
> 
> I usually don't disagree with your statements, but I think you're coming across harsh and rude.


Good because that's exactly the way I meant it. My son is Gay and I am getting very angry with all the people in this world who look down on him, insult him, and want to deny him the right due to any other Citizen and Human Being. (This is not directed at you. You clearly have a much more understanding attitude.)

And yes -there are some people who even want to exterminate him and anyone that does not meet their 'moral' standards. Of course, I see nothing _moral_ about bigotry, hatred, and the threat to freedom and civil liberties that these people represent. Nor do I feel I have to tolerate it.

I strongly recommend that everyone read *American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America* by Chris Hedges. There is a very real danger from the extreme Christian Fundamentalists, and their similarity to Islamic Fundamentalists is scary stuff.

----------


## 35oldguy

Thanks Steve. I did read the article. Very informative. So the numbers have changed over the years but as you realize change happens slowly over a long period of time. Back in my grandparents days, they knew nothing about homosexuals or gays. Now 50 years later we have been given a choice to accept these type of people or not. It affects everyone in some way or another. I do not know how many children or grandchildren that you have but I will not accept these changes in our society that may do potential harm to my loved ones. When my little grandson comes home from school with some more unanswered questions that the teachers are afraid to talk about for fear of being fired, then this really concerns me. Grandpa he says to me, " Why was that man kissing another man? I was taught in Sunday school that was wrong!" Our society continues its downward plunge!




> You really have no idea what you are talking about. 96% is b-s.
> 
> Rather that show your ignorance, I suggest you do some investigating first. The first few links I found:
> 
> http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in565918.shtml
> 
> The 'jam down our throats' quote is a very telling remark by the way. See post #823. 
> 
> ...

----------


## gemstone

> Because the Government gives benefits to a one-man / one-woman marriage (regardless of their sexual preference;)). 
> 
> Why does the government have to get involved in prohibiting the marriage of two people who want to get married?


These benefits cost ALL and any taxpayer on this MB. There is one answer.

----------


## 35oldguy

More power to you and yours! I have a nephew who is gay and he only cares about his community. Unfortunately, they have fewer persons now as many have contacted the AIDS virus and have passed on from this crazy world that we live in to a better place! They loved each other very much but lived only a few years. They died happily! Yes it is too bad many of us are unkind and uncaring for people who have the right to do as they want! We all share in this!




> Maybe up here in the Northwoods we are different, we just see things like most of the rest of the world. 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see where you get 96%. Up here it's about 49.5%. And no one is jamming it down anyone's throat. When Diane and I got married it was done very quietly and privately. 
> 
> 
> 
> What misbehavior??
> ...

----------


## Steve Machol

90 years ago women were not allowed to vote in this country. Less than 200 years ago people were allowed to *own* other people. Do you believe that was 'moral'?  If you do, then that really is all we need to know about you.

If not, than on what do you base you belief that your morality is superior to the people that justified slavey in the past? Remember that many people claim their source of morality is the Bible, Koran etc. Those things all existed in the recent past and were, in fact, used to justify slavery and the subjugation of woman as being inferior and subservient to men. How can that be, unless there is an evolving sense of what is moral and what is not?

----------


## chip anderson

I support gay men!  The more of them there are , the more straight women are left for ME!

Chip

----------


## 35oldguy

Yes Steve your point is well taken. In my opinion owning slaves was immoral. Thank God for the Quakers who helped many gain their freedom!

In our study of history, the fall of the Roman Empire morality as they knew it led to their fall. Perhaps man has improved his past and in the future may as you say become more evolved! The question of morality exists in the mind of each individual. In the place where you live what you believe to be moral may not be the same belief as a person living in other countries.




> 90 years ago women were not allowed to vote in this country. Less than 200 years ago people were allowed to *own* other people. Do you believe that was 'moral'? If you do, then that really is all we need to know about you.
> 
> If not, than on what do you base you belief that your morality is superior to the people that justified slavey in the past? Remember that many people claim their source of morality is the Bible, Koran etc. Those things all existed in the recent past and were, in fact, used to justify slavery and the subjugation of woman as being inferior and subservient to men. How can that be, unless there is an evolving sense of what is moral and what is not?

----------


## chip anderson

Anyone notice that owning slaves never has a moral judgement passed on it in the Bible?  
Some things are specificly pointed out and named as sins, amoung them are not:
Drinking
Slavery
Tobacco
Quite a few social faux paux(s)

Do you know what Christ said was the greatest sin of all?

"Gossip"



Chip

----------


## Judy Canty

Are you saying that if the Bible says it's ok...it's ok?

----------


## chip anderson

Maybe in the eyes of God.  However I do not presume to know the mind of God.
I do think if society says genocide (abortion), homosexuality, and similar laws and conventions are O.K. this does not make it OK in the eyes of God.
If society says smoking is a sin, drinking in moderation is a sin, or whatever is a sin, and God (or the Bible) has not at least alluded to it's being a sin, it may not be a sin in the eyes of God.
Other than the passage of the good Smaratin, I don't get the message that discrimination is a sin.  There are several passages that might even indicate quite the opposite.  (Yes, Judy this is your que to get irrate.)
And yes, I do feel that God's laws as laid out in the Bible supercede the laws of men.

Chip


Chip

----------


## FullCircle

> Acceptance of being a homesexual is a matter of choice!


So you really think these people suddenly woke up one day and decided they wanted to be attracted to their same sex? They purposely chose to risk everthing they had and possibly be ostracized by family and friends, potentially lose their job, risk being beaten up by total strangers?  For what?




> Back in my grandparents days, they knew nothing about homosexuals or gays


That's not true.  It was just waaaaay more secretive.




> I do not know how many children or grandchildren that you have but I will not accept these changes in our society that may do potential harm to my loved ones.


HOW can these changes do harm?  Can you site some examples?




> Next they will want to legalize marrying a dog and a man


Helluva jump from marrying people to marrying an animal. Especially since dog. cats, etc are still considered property.




> I have had many high school chums die of the aids virus in their 40's


And now one of the fasteast growing segments of the population in terms of HIV diagnoses is straight women.  Getting it from their husbands.


I have yet to hear, either here or from "friends", a single legit reason for keeping gays from marrying.  One person I know got close and said they didn't want them called marriages because they didn't take place in a church. I then reminded this person that their marriage (to a member of the opposite sex) took place in a courtroom and mine in a Vegas stripmall.  So we too shouldn't be allowed to call our marriages marriages.

And for any close minded person...THERE IS NO GAY AGENDA!  They don't want to make your kids gay, they don't all want to fornicate in the streets and they aren't out to ruin the "moral fabric" of America. 

Let them marry, let them find out that being tied to one person can be a tough job.I know my state currently has a $2 billion deficit and could probably use the additional revenue that the cost of marriage licenses could help cover.  Think of the increase to the economy! The money influx from an increase in weddings, gift giving, honeymoons, this could be a very good thing.

I don't think anyone wants to force the churches to marry people they don't want to.  Those that do, will, those that don't won't. What these couples want is the same rights afforded to use stright married folks.  The right to be with our spouse at the hospital, the right to help make choices about spousal care, the list goes on.

----------


## FullCircle

> I support gay men! The more of them there are , the more straight women are left for ME!


 
Oh goodness....Hey Jacqui! Can I join your team? :D  Are there any sign up bonuses? Free toasters? Sensible shoes?

----------


## Jacqui

Sure, hop in, the water is fine.

----------


## Johns

As long as some of us are talking Christianity...

How do you think Jesus would view homosexuals?  Is not AIDs the leporasy of today?  He showed compassion to all, (except for that fig tree he toasted) and chose the tax collectors, thieves, and other outcasts of society to spend his time with.  He said that he was not here to judge, but to serve. We should follow that example.

How does same sex marriage affect my life?  Sure, I have to pay benefits if it is a recognized union, however, I would have to if they were married to opposites as well.  Otherwise, the employees that I have that are gay are better parents than some of the straight employees I have, and they have opened my eyes to their world.  I don't agree with their lifestyle, but they are adults, and have all the same information I have, and they've made a choice.

What I don't like it radicalism, I don't like "in your face" homosexuality, Catholisism, Islam, environmentalism, conservatism, or liberalism.  I consider myself a staunch conservative, which means that I have a conservative lifestyle and espouse to more traditional values. It doesn't mean that I preach my lifestyle to my employees, or stand on street corners with a megaphone shouting/spouting my beliefs.  They are my beliefs and if others don't share them, that's fine with me.

I have a problem with radical gays that have parades on the day I choose to take my son to a baseball game, and we have to cut down back alleys so that I can avoid having my ten year old exposed to men on stilts, wearing rainbow wigs and g-strings, and sex "toys" hung around their neck, asking the community to accept their lifestyle.  I should be allowed certain freedoms as well, and that should include the freedom to walk the public streets without fear of being exposed to public displays of lewdness.

I think it's funny when someone says, "They're gay?  I never knew that!"  Well why should we know, and why should we care?

----------


## Spexvet

> ... It affects everyone in some way or another....


 How?



> These benefits cost ALL and any taxpayer on this MB. There is one answer.


Take the benefits away from multi-gender marriages, too? 



> ...The question of morality exists in the mind of each individual. ...


Then please keep it your to yourself, the way proponents of same-gender marriage do. No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same gender, or prohibitting you from marrying someone of the opposite gender, are they?

----------


## Spexvet

> ...and we have to cut down back alleys so that I can avoid having my ten year old exposed to men on stilts, wearing rainbow wigs and g-strings, and sex "toys" hung around their neck,...


I agree with this. The same goes for more traditional, "heterosexual" events like Mardi Gras and Fantasy Fest.

----------


## FullCircle

> I agree with this. The same goes for more traditional, "heterosexual" events like Mardi Gras and Fantasy Fest.


Yeah, I'm not a big fan of PDAs (public displays of affection) be it straight or gay.

----------


## Johns

> I agree with this. The same goes for more traditional, "heterosexual" events like Mardi Gras and Fantasy Fest.


I agree with that as well, but people at those events expect to see stuff like that.  I'm talking about going to a ball game on a Saturday afternoon, and having to avoid it on a public steet.

----------


## 35oldguy

So gay people have all the answers! Yes it has been hidden perhaps for many centuries that people have an inclination to be this way. I just would rather it continue that way, hidden! Must make you proud to want the world to know the truth! Why all of a sudden has this changed?

How does it hurt you not to be normal? How do people that are gay hurt me? Morally, to me, God did not plan the human race this way! It is abnormal behavior!

Abortion also is not normal. God planned for a man and women to conceive a baby. Not to kill it because it was not wanted. In the Bible show me where God planned for people of the same sex to be this way. Convince me!




> So you really think these people suddenly woke up one day and decided they wanted to be attracted to their same sex? They purposely chose to risk everthing they had and possibly be ostracized by family and friends, potentially lose their job, risk being beaten up by total strangers? For what?
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true. It was just waaaaay more secretive.
> 
> 
> 
> HOW can these changes do harm? Can you site some examples?
> ...

----------


## For-Life

> So gay people have all the answers! Yes it has been hidden perhaps for many centuries that people have an inclination to be this way. I just would rather it continue that way, hidden! Must make you proud to want the world to know the truth! Why all of a sudden has this changed?


People were quite happy with slavery and black people not having the same rights as whites.  "Why must things change" they would say.

----------


## AngryFish

I see a bit of a conundrum in homosexuality. Homosexuals represent a proportionally higher level of achievement and education and is evidenced by their socioeconomic placement of well above mean.

Given their higher education the understanding of evolutionary imperative should cause them to reason that the defining behaviors are counter the very essence of life. Further, the behavior denies mankind the benefit of the genetically desirable traits that facilitate their achievement. I would go a step further than that and suggest that their emotional make up is also conditioned, as the result of persecution and cultural bias, to be a healthier overall psychological disposition. 

So to me the tragedy is one of loss. "...the loss of any man diminishes me..."

If there is no genetic cause for the desire then, as a culture, effort needs to be directed at understanding the dynamics and offering a solution.

----------


## chip anderson

Actually I saw many, many hours of research on this and male vs. female and all things in between seem to be currently blamed on the amount of testosterone the mother has available at what time while the embryo is in the womb.

That don't make it bibicly correct though.

Chip

And no I did not learn whether this testosterone was available from her own system or furnished by her significant other.

----------


## AngryFish

As I understand it many men have the chromosome indications of female, yet in all appearances they are physically functioning men.

The characteristics of male and female have a range that almost seems like a connected circle. There are men from very masculine to very feminine, without being homosexual, and similarly women who range from very feminine to very masculine without being homosexual. And you have hermaphridites(sp).

I have a vague understanding of microevolution, which is accepted by many Creationists as occurring, which begs the question what, if any mechanisms are in the human genome that exclusively prevent the blurring of gender characteristics in light of the fact that almost all other characteristics of humans are subject to change? Is it presumptuous to assume that this one area is uniquely different from the others? .

----------


## For-Life

Being a straight male, I know that I am not attracted to other men.  Therefore, if it was psychological and not biological, wouldn't other men be attracted to other men?  I always love when "straight" people tell gay people to surpress their desires.  For you to believe it is psychological it makes me believe that you have similar desires and you have surpressed them.  If we are not supposed to love people from the same sex, then why are some people made that way?

----------


## FullCircle

> How does it hurt you not to be normal? How do people that are gay hurt me? Morally, to me, God did not plan the human race this way! It is abnormal behavior!


I think you need to stick to the words "gay" and "straight" (or some version therein). "Normal" is subjective. Using it to describe something that conforms would not describe me, AND i'M STRAIGHT.

In terms of Biology, normal means "functioning or occurring in a natural way."  As many of us have established, homosexuality is something you're born with, like brown eyes. Therefor, it occurs in nature so being gay or straight is normal.

Also, don't forget that there are many Christians that give birth to gay children.  So your God must not be totally against homosexuality.

You still have not clued us in as to how gay marriage harms you. Not every gay couple is so flamboyant and over the top that they'd be shoving it in your face.  Heck, I'd be willing to bet you come into contact with many homosexual people and you don't even know it.  How would it matter if they were married and wore a ring?




> Why all of a sudden has this changed?


It wasn't all of a sudden. Go google Stonewall Riots and you'll see.  this was building for a long time. Stonewall was for them like Rosa Parks and the marches on Washington were for African Americans




> In the Bible show me where God planned for people of the same sex to be this way. Convince me!


Why should I have to? This has nothing to do with religion. This is about the state banning the rights of a group.  I couldn't give a rat's **** about if a church doens't want to marry same sex people.  I wasn't married in a church and I wouldn't want to force the parishioners to do anything in their house of worhip that goes against their beliefs.

But, I will say, one logical reason the Bible promotes sex, babies and not homosexuality is they needed bodies and believers in their churches.  Easiest way to make a believer is to have them be born into the church.

----------


## 35oldguy

Interesting replies on this board! A real education! Gays are different from straight people and straight people are different from gay people. As long as the two groups do not try to force thier way of life upon you then there is no harm being done! 

Does this satify most peoples way of thinking?




> I think you need to stick to the words "gay" and "straight" (or some version therein). "Normal" is subjective. Using it to describe something that conforms would not describe me, AND i'M STRAIGHT.
> 
> In terms of Biology, normal means "functioning or occurring in a natural way." As many of us have established, homosexuality is something you're born with, like brown eyes. Therefor, it occurs in nature so being gay or straight is normal.
> 
> Also, don't forget that there are many Christians that give birth to gay children. So your God must not be totally against homosexuality.
> 
> You still have not clued us in as to how gay marriage harms you. Not every gay couple is so flamboyant and over the top that they'd be shoving it in your face. Heck, I'd be willing to bet you come into contact with many homosexual people and you don't even know it. How would it matter if they were married and wore a ring?
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Johns

> As long as the two groups do not try to force thier way of life upon you then _there is no harm being done_!


 
..._To Me_.   The question was "How does same gender marriage hurt _you_?"

----------


## Judy Canty

Shouldn't that be "as long as the groups don't try to force their way of life on each other"?

----------


## Chris Bowers

I remember as a young boy hearing one of our astronauts remark as he circled the globe as to the absence of lines
Im fairly certain that the distribution of sexual orientation is constant as the distance from the equator is increased.
I will be eternally grateful that I got to know my sisters bride, Shannon. We were as different as oil and water and yet we had great love and respect for each other. And every day after her death I still miss her. This I know to be true and I wish everybody will have the chance I had to learn of love. 
Same sex marriage helped me grow it has not hurt me.
Thats all I have to say about that!

----------


## 35oldguy

It does not in the least personally. Morally it is an obsession that the Bible, if you are a Chritian believer, says is wrong. If you are not what the heck. Do as you please!





> ..._To Me_. The question was "How does same gender marriage hurt _you_?"

----------


## Johns

> It does not in the least personally. !


 
Then you've answered the question!:cheers:

Anything else is a whole _different_ matter! :Rolleyes:

----------


## 35oldguy

Thank you. End of subject!




> Then you've answered the question!:cheers:
> 
> Anything else is a whole _different_ matter!

----------


## jcasowder

I'm Baptist, and believe Jesus is my savior, yet I know many people that are homosexual.  They are wonderful individuals that I trust implicitly, whom I would feel comfortable raising my daughter if, God forbid, something happened to my husband and I.  Morally, according to my faith, it's wrong.  That's the one thing I pray for all the time-that someone is not judged or condemned for their orientation.  There are many heterosexual people I would not trust with my child, and many that I would.  My aunt was in a relationship with a woman for 13 years.  Sexual preference has nothing to do with morals.  I know WAY too many straight people that are not what I would consider "good people".  Same with races.  Saying you don't like homosexuals is the same as saying you don't like blacks, asians, women, jews, or any other ethnic group.  It's just another form of being sexist or racist to me.

----------


## Spexvet

> Anyone notice that owning slaves never has a moral judgement passed on it in the Bible? 
> Some things are specificly pointed out and named as sins, amoung them are not:
> Drinking
> Slavery
> Tobacco
> Quite a few social faux paux(s)
> 
> Do you know what Christ said was the greatest sin of all?
> 
> ...


Don't forget that the bible tells you not to get a tattoo, eat shellfish, work on Sunday, trim the hair on the sides of your head, wear cotton/polyester blended clothing (or fur/cloth), eat pork, pay your employees daily. So, instead of focussing on same gender marriage, how about getting your own house in order.:finger:




> Actually I saw many, many hours of research on this and male vs. female and all things in between seem to be currently blamed on the amount of testosterone the mother has available at what time while the embryo is in the womb.
> ...


And you persecute people for this! Hmm.. :Rolleyes: 




> ... As long as the two groups do not try to force thier way of life upon you then there is no harm being done! 
>  ...


Banning same gender marriage is one way of forcing a belief on someone, IMHO.  :Mad: 




> ... Do as you please!


Thanks! That's mighty kind of you.  :Cool: 




> I'm Baptist, and believe Jesus is my savior, yet I know many people that are homosexual. They are wonderful individuals that I trust implicitly, whom I would feel comfortable raising my daughter if, God forbid, something happened to my husband and I. Morally, according to my faith, it's wrong. That's the one thing I pray for all the time-that someone is not judged or condemned for their orientation. There are many heterosexual people I would not trust with my child, and many that I would. My aunt was in a relationship with a woman for 13 years. Sexual preference has nothing to do with morals. I know WAY too many straight people that are not what I would consider "good people". Same with races. Saying you don't like homosexuals is the same as saying you don't like blacks, asians, women, jews, or any other ethnic group. It's just another form of being sexist or racist to me.


I would pay more attention to what your heart and mind tell you, not what someone else or a book tells you. :cheers:

----------


## AngryFish

Jcasowder, nice answer and I believe very true. How is it your a Baptist, the most legalistic of the lot, and have come to your very reasoned and caring position?

From the gay men that I have known one thing seems to be a constant and that is their relationship with their fathers. They usually either were never close or in conflict. And I haven't run across anyone who "wanted" to be gay.

I agree with your logic about having no real problem with a gay couple raising your child, as in the senerio you presented. I believe based on what I have seen that a pair of loving parents is far more important and has far more significant impact on a child regardless of sexual orientation, than anything else, education or economic conditions. And if the influence of distance from the parents does in any way foster this disposition it would stand to reason that two loving male parents would not be any more likely to raise a gay son than heterosexual couples.

I don't see a movement to cram it down our throats iI see what we have seen throughout history, namely an oppressed group reaches a point where they are compelled to stand up and confront the circumstances that create their oppression. So we should expect some over the top actions for the sake of attention and as a result of having been compressed so far for so long, like a spring under tension final released. 

As to AIDS, homosexuality is not the cause of AIDS it is just one way to transmit it. AIDS is not the result of homosexual activity just like gonaria (sp) is not the result of hetrosexuality, just one method of transmition not caused or created by hetro or homo sexual activity.

----------


## chip anderson

Spex:  
The bible tells you not to labor or let any within thy gate work on *The Sabath* (Saturday) for it is the Lord's.  It doesn't say anything about what you do on Sunday.
The advise about tattoos is very good advise, despite what some young social wierdos think.  No one *ever* looked better or appeared more intelligent as a result of having tattoos.  
Now in your case the latest thing in England replacing tattoos is branding, and equally repugnant and dangerous procedure.  You should try it.

Chip

----------


## drk

(Only the secular humanist will try to resolve this issue with science! Don't trust current science too much, folks.)

The only basis to answer this question PERSONALLY is religion. Suffice it to say that the God of Abraham, Issac, & Jacob, YHWH (that is, the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible) repeatedly discourages and forbids homosexuality. Why? Ask Him. I'll not speak for Him, here.

However, we are really talking about how we CIVILY solve the issue. This is a question about America (I'm too ignorant of Canadian principles of government) instead of about homosexual marriage. We're talking about how "plural" a country can be.

Christians find themselves in a tough position in this day and age, and aren't quite sure how to behave when civics are involved.

----------


## AngryFish

I share some sceptism of the secular humanist ideals but in science its influence is filtered by the scientific method.

If we are considered to be in a fallen state and sin is manifest as a result are we limited by what we can do so that we can only use religion to address the influence of sin?

If we say homosexuality is the result of sin and only through God can sin be addressed and in the process we deny the gifts of reason and intellect given to us by our Creator are we standing on well reasoned ground?

Death itself is the result of sin and so to must be the progression toward it yet we have extended and continue to work toward extending the life expectancy of humans on earth. We are nearly double the life expectancy of a few hundred years ago. Is this a subversion of Gods law?

Obesity was thought to be the result of sin so was mental illness and leprosy yet science has given us understanding that enabled us to treat many of these things. How can we know that homosexuality is not another "sinful" condition that can be understood through science?

----------


## drk

Angryfish, that's an amazing post.  

I'll have to reduce that and analyze as I go, because I haven't thought about it nor had it discussed before...

You're saying: 
1. If one stipulates that the universe is "under the curse" (which is in need of further definition, BTW), then what exactly are the ramifications of the curse?

2. Are we futile in light of God's curse, or are we to sally forth?  

3. Is, somehow, sexual behavior related to these concepts?

----------


## AngryFish

That's a good summation.

As for "fallen state", I would say that anything less than perfection, in terms of the  biological systems of man, is the result of the inevitable fall. Given free will its just a matter of time. If not Adam, then Cain, if not Cain then Abraham, if not Abraham, then you or I, just a matter of time.

I have begun to question the literal and by transference leagalistic dogma that is handed down and think that context is important as is the limited ability to understand a God and His ways so far outside of our comprehension.

There are some problems with this, for example Jesus needs to be literal, death, resurrection, and assention, in order for His claim as the Only Way to be true.

----------


## drk

Angry, we're getting into rare theological air which is probably not appreciated on this thread.

You're obviously a mature Christian, and I'd like to discuss this stuff with you via PM.

----------


## AngryFish

Thank you, but I shy away from any thought that any maturity I seem to display is reflected in all my actions. I would likely be judged more "un-Christian" on balance if I were as know to all as I am know to myself.

----------


## Spexvet

> .... This is a question about America (I'm too ignorant of Canadian principles of government) instead of about homosexual marriage. We're talking about how "plural" a country can be.
> ....


 I think it's more about whether we are going to discriminate against those who are different than us. Is that what America stands for?

----------


## For-Life

It is funny.  I know several gay people.  They (the ones I know, not the stereotypes):

- contribute to the economy
- provide other intangiable benefits such as entertainment, friendship, and leadership 
- they do not commit crimes
- they pay their taxes


The only negative, as seen by some, is that they like people from the same sex.  Seriously, aren't their more important things we should be fighting to stop than this????  I mean, it is not like we are present when they have relations.

----------


## drk

> I think it's more about whether we are going to discriminate against those who are different than us. Is that what America stands for?


How should we proceed Spex? Should we:
1. establish a "norm", and measure people against that, or 
2. forget the whole normative thing and let things go the way they will?

I ask because I don't know what other special interest groups this discrimination idea will apply to. 

On the one hand, we can say "This is a free America, do what you will". 

On the other hand, we can say "These are our societal standards, measure up".

Which way should we go? How far can we take freedom? All the way?

----------


## FullCircle

> . establish a "norm", and measure people against that,


Measuring people against a "norm" would tend to smell more of Naziism.  That's a slippery slope I don't think we, as a country, want to be on.




> On the one hand, we can say "This is a free America, do what you will". 
> 
> On the other hand, we can say "These are our societal standards, measure up".
> 
> Which way should we go? How far can we take freedom? All the way?


It goes against what American is built on to hold people back.  For some reason, we have to keep relearning this concept. Native Americans, African Americans, homosexuals.  Now, I undertand we have laws. These laws are to protect us (yes, there's a whole 'nother thread right there. But go with me on the generality of it).  The laws that were on the books descrimination the abovementioned groups and others were worng because these people as a whole weren't presenting a harm to anyone.  They were there strictly to hold these groups back. 

There is no logical reason to keep homosexuals from marrying.  Their unions will not directly harm anyone. The whole "people will end up marrying their dog" is simply silly as animals are still considered property, people on the other hand are not.

My family has fought for this country from damn near day one.  The main reason this whole place got started was because of persecution.  And here we are, almost 400 years later, persecuting some of our own.

----------


## AngryFish

Embracing your identity is better than being in perpetual flight from it and so it may be with those who claim "pride". How much abuse do you take compounded with an internal struggle that is far more troubling and never seems to resolve, at a point I guess you stop running.

I hear repeatedly gays stating that they don't want to be gay they just are in the same way that heterosexuals just are. So to me the compassionate thing to do as a society is to figure out the reasons, environmental, biological, or psychological and offer a solution to those who want one. 

I mean think about it, we have surgery for people who want to change their gender how is giving them another option, to be gay or strait, any different? If it is biological in time we will have an understanding sufficient to offer a choice. Isn't giving a choice the compassionate, moral, and human, thing to do?

----------


## Grubendol

I know I haven't really been involved in this conversation but there was an editorial of sorts posted at the San Francisco Chronicle's website today by Mark Morford which I thought I should add here...  I know it will be controversial with some, but I think some really good points are raised, even if they are veiled in some pretty acidic commentary:




> *Farewell, all you old homophobes*
> 
> *California's extraordinary, newfound majority support for gay marriage? Thank the young*
> 
> By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist
>   Wednesday, June 11, 2008
> 
> 
> It's a generational thing, you could say, grinning just a little as you do so. 
> ...

----------


## drk

Older people have different opinions than younger people, by and large, not because "they're old and square" but because they have experience in life.

How old is this writer?  No doubt under 30.

Are we to trust the country to such idealistic people?  Can you seriously see this writer handing anything more serious than looking for a new roommate for his loft apartment?

It seems to me that anyone who evaluates what impression we have of world history and current events would understand that guys like the writer live in a bubble, and their unbridled naiivite is only present because of those who are conservative and careful.

I want that 3 minutes of my life back.

----------


## drk

Well, here's all you need to know about Mark:
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/archive/

Here's a bio of John McCain, who Mark feels free to dismiss:

http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?u=63650



Simply put, the sheer folly of this guy's absolute lack of sense of who he himself is, and who he has the temerity to criticize disqualifies his opinion past being other than "just some guy with a keyboard". 

Where's the sense of reality amongst these people?

----------


## drk

What is "persecution"? How are homosexuals persecuted by the United States of America?

Are you seriously going to draw the parallel between a outcompeting/conquering European-based nation of a hopelessly overmatched native population to what a homosexual goes through? Where's your sense of proportion on that?

Are you saying that homosexuals have been bought and sold as property, whipped, abused, and enslaved? Exactly how is that a valid comparison?

Shame on anyone for drawing such silly parallels.  The lack of proportion in that argument is disgusting.

----------


## Grubendol

I know that Mark’s style would get under at least one person’s skin, but I thought it important to share.

  Yes, older people have life experience, and not all are crotchety old men, but I think that McCain’s age is really only a tangential issue with him.  He has a long history of corruption, while touting himself as a “maverick”.  It’s posturing.

  BUT, this thread is not about the election.  It’s about Gay Marriage, and I think that Mark Morford is absolutely correct on this issue.

  This, IMHO, is no different than the time when interracial marriage was illegal in most states.  All the “young idealists” of the time thought it was silly/stupid/hypocritical and the “old” generation thought that it was “just wrong” or “against nature” for white and blacks to marry.

  Over time, what has happened but an awakening and an awareness by the general population (those who are now crotchety and old, but who were young then) to realize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with whites and blacks marrying.

  This, simply put, is no different.  We will fight about it now, but the seed change is already happening.  The change has been developing slowly over the past 30 years, as Morford correctly points out.  In thirty years time, everyone will look back on this battle as silly and bigoted, just as we do the issue of interracial marriage now.


  I don’t disagree that there is a very sad epidemic of the young in this country not being aware of the past and having a pathetic understanding of the world in which they live…but that being left aside, an infant shows no bigotry or bias.  This is something that is inherent in all of us.  We are taught to distrust what we don’t know/understand.  That is the source of the problems with this issue.

----------


## drk

The argument is framed entirely incorrectly.  It's not "how does same gender marriage hurt _you_", but "how does same gender marriage hurt _marriage_"?

Let's face it, folks; marriage is under assault today.  Divorce rate is high.  No-fault divorces are available.  Marriage often involves pre-nuptual agreements.  Infidelity abounds.

What exactly is it about marriage that we really care to protect, anyway?  

Let's take it from that perspective...what is marriage?  Is marriage worth protecting?



Let me go back to the question of what we think marriage should be in this country.  Is it something to be recognized by the civil authorities, or 'just who gave the government the right to sanction my relations, anyway'?

Is it a contract to share wealth and certain rights?

Why do we need marriage in the first place?  Obviously we aren't too concerned about traditionalism, here, with the gay marriage thing, so feel free to think it over anew.

----------


## drk

What's not to know or understand about gay sex?  Seems pretty simple to me.


The problem is, for all you idealists out there, is that you take a gay sex issue and inflate it out of all proportion, likening it to all sorts of real social evils, mistakenly couching the whole thing in some kind of a "societal evolution" framework, some generation-gap issue.

There's been homosexual behavior for a very long time.  What's so different about now?  Even animals exhibit homosexual behavior.  What's the million-man march about?

May I suggest that many people have some kind of authority problem and they're constantly looking for a cause celebre?

----------


## shanbaum

> drk wrote:
> 
> Are we to trust the country to such idealistic people?


I missed the part where anyone proposed entrusting Mr. Morford with anything at all, let alone, "the country".

If and when you finish with your _ad hominem_ attacks, it would be interesting to hear what you have to say about any of the substantive assertions the writer actually made (e.g., the notion that norms and values may have a generational aspect).

----------


## shanbaum

> The argument is framed entirely incorrectly. It's not "how does same gender marriage hurt _you_", but "how does same gender marriage hurt _marriage_"?
> 
> Let's face it, folks; marriage is under assault today. Divorce rate is high. No-fault divorces are available. Marriage often involves pre-nuptual agreements. Infidelity abounds.


OK, then answer your own question: how does gay marriage hurt marriage?

By the way, marriage may not be under so great an assault as you think; the commonly-quoted statistic that "one-half of marriages fail" is misleading. In fact, something like one-quarter of _first_ marriages fail.

We can probably agree that the cause of this is, it's mostly _young_ people who get married in the first place.

----------


## AngryFish

I want my three minutes back as well.

When has a  populist perceptions, void of any historical understanding or meaningful context been so well expressed. The short sighted and political expeedence consider virtue is nothing less than simple rhetoric attempting to distill complex issues into a sound bite.

Voting for the first woman or black man simply because they are the first is asinine. Leading the most influential and world benefiting nation in history should take more serious attributes into consideration. So to should approval and endorsement of an ideal when the only argument is" why not"

----------


## shanbaum

> Voting for the first woman or black man simply because they are the first is asinine.


 
Apparently, most voters have concurred (or something like concurrence); otherwise, the first black president would have been Shirley Chisholm, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or Alan Keyes.

Perhaps voters are taking other factors into account.

----------


## drk

> I missed the part where anyone proposed entrusting Mr. Morford with anything at all, let alone, "the country".
> 
> If and when you finish with your _ad hominem_ attacks, it would be interesting to hear what you have to say about any of the substantive assertions the writer actually made (e.g., the notion that norms and values may have a generational aspect).


Shanbaum, do you think this guy is an isolated incident?  Where do you think he gets this stuff?  Do you deny that there are many in power or close to it that would swallow his tripe hook line and sinker?

At the very least, this guy's got a vote.

----------


## shanbaum

> There's been homosexual behavior for a very long time. What's so different about now? Even animals exhibit homosexual behavior. What's the million-man march about?


Um, it could be that homosexual behavior was criminalized in most states until 2003. Only after the Supreme Court found in 2003 that there was no sufficient state interest to allow that criminalization could homosexuals possibly assert the same rights as other Americans. So, they're asserting them.

The times, they _are_ a-changin'; the Court had upheld such laws as recently as 1986.

----------


## shanbaum

> Shanbaum, do you think this guy is an isolated incident? Where do you think he gets this stuff? Do you deny that there are many in power or close to it that would swallow his tripe hook line and sinker?


 
I don't know of any. In my experience, people in or close to power are of three kinds: really wealthy, really smart, or already aligned with some ideology. None of these are particularly easily influenced.






> At the very least, this guy's got a vote.


 
So do you. Do you propose taking his away?

I'm still not sure exactly what you find so objectionable. You haven't really said, you know...

----------


## drk

> I missed the part where anyone proposed entrusting Mr. Morford with anything at all, let alone, "the country".
> 
> If and when you finish with your _ad hominem_ attacks, it would be interesting to hear what you have to say about any of the substantive assertions the writer actually made (e.g., the notion that norms and values may have a generational aspect).


We have a real disagreement as to what constitutes "substantive".

Here's the common-sense analysis:  
Twenty year olds don't remember Gunsmoke or Jimmy Carter or the BeeGees.  Their perspective is quite foreshortened.  If they're a little more exposed to homosexual culture/behavior, most certainly they will be more "comfortable" with it.

That means exactly doodly squat.  

The same logic can be used to explain their "comfort" with abusive rap music as well.  

Where's the profundity saying that "the old generation doesn't understand my music"?  Where's the sagacity in saying that "Young folks today just don't appreciate prune juice"?

Simply put, OF COURSE IT'S "GENERATIONAL".  What isn't?  Are we still beating the "new generation" drum of the 50's and 60's?  B-O-R-I-N-G.

Now, back to the subject...

----------


## drk

> Um, it could be that homosexual behavior was criminalized in most states until 2003. Only after the Supreme Court found in 2003 that there was no sufficient state interest to allow that criminalization could homosexuals possibly assert the same rights as other Americans. So, they're asserting them.
> 
> The times, they _are_ a-changin'; the Court had upheld such laws as recently as 1986.


 
And the last time that anyone was PROSECUTED for being a homosexual?  Are you joking?

Face it, Shanbaum, politics are at the root of the persistence of those laws, not legal motivations.

----------


## drk

> I don't know of any. In my experience, people in or close to power are of three kinds: really wealthy, really smart, or already aligned with some ideology. None of these are particularly easily influenced.


 http://www.dailykos.com/

----------


## shanbaum

> And the last time that anyone was PROSECUTED for being a homosexual? Are you joking?


2003.  Well, for engaging in homosexual behavior, to be more precise.  A guy named "Lawrence".  In Texas.




> Face it, Shanbaum, politics are at the root of the persistence of those laws, not legal motivations.


See above.

----------


## shanbaum

> http://www.dailykos.com/


To which of the dozen or so articles are you intending to point?  And why?

----------


## drk

I already took a shower today, and if I read that site I'll have to  go over my hot water allotment.

----------


## AngryFish

Of the four you cite as examples...

Alan Keyes was a third party candidate and was even arrested for trying to participate in a presidential debate.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton or racemongers that even their own party would not endorse

Shirley Chisolm was unfortunately political at a time when her qualifications would have mitigated by her race. Could be other reasons but I was too young to follow her career.


These two, Clinton and Obama, are the first two with qualification to run in a major party that is far short of reason enough to support them.

----------


## shanbaum

> I already took a shower today, and if I read that site I'll have to go over my hot water allotment.


OK, so you just posted that link because you believe that _Daily Kos,_ being a left-leaning blog, must be utterly deprave and completely lacking in any content that could have any value whatsoever. Not worth looking at, certainly not worth reading. God forbid one should read it and think about it before dismissing it; what a waste of time.

Well, I can understand that, 'cause I feel more or less that way about Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, etc. However, I do occasionally read these kinds of sites, just to make sure that I can argue successfully against such substantive claims as they may make. Also, just to make sure that I know what kind of nonsense I can expect from the ideologues who drink their kool-aid and repeat what they say and write.

I like to think it makes me better informed.

----------


## shanbaum

> Of the four you cite as examples...





> Alan Keyes was a third party candidate and was even arrested for trying to participate in a presidential debate.
> 
> Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton or racemongers that even their own party would not endorse
> 
> Shirley Chisolm was unfortunately political at a time when her qualifications would have mitigated by her race. Could be other reasons but I was too young to follow her career.
> 
> 
> These two, Clinton and Obama, are the first two with qualification to run in a major party that is far short of reason enough to support them.


Actually, _all_ of these individuals were candidates for the nomination of the Democratic nomination, except for Keyes who was a candidate for the Republican nomination. Obviously, _none_ of those listed was ever "endorsed" by his party.

You are entitled to your opinion as to any of their "qualifications to run." I presume that because you do not support your assertions about their qualifications (or the criticisms you make of them) with any supporting evidence, you are not trying to be persuasive. However, you really need to re-think your statement that Chisholms qualifications would have been mitigated by her race. In the minds of racists, yes. I suspect thats not exactly what you meant.

You seem to be saying that Clinton and Obama are in a different league than their predecessors, but theyre still not _sufficiently_ qualified. Perhaps youd care to state some of the _ways_ in which, oh, say, George W. Bush, or John McCain, are, or were, qualified, in which Clinton and/or Obama are not?

Of course, I'm only guessing that that's what you actually think.

----------


## Grubendol

Dismissing opposing viewpoints without investigating or taking the time to consider them seems awfully immature :p ;)

----------


## AngryFish

As for qualifications, I base that on their not being able to get the endorsement of those who are ideologically of like mind. There were not viable for one reason or another to their party, if we assume race was not a discrediting issue within the party claiming to want to advance race with their agenda , there must other reasons they weren't advanced that were not race related.

----------


## Spexvet

> .... 
> How old is this writer? No doubt under 30.


I know alot of old stupid, biggotted people. Does age disqualify this guy from having a valid opinion?





> Are we to trust the country to such idealistic people? 
> ...


What's wrong with idealism. It seems to me that if it weren't for idealism, we'd still be subjects of the King of England.




> What is "persecution"? How are homosexuals persecuted by the United States of America?


They can't marry the person they love, for starters... :Cool: 




> ...Are you saying that homosexuals have been ... whipped, abused,...


Yes. And killed, and prohibited from buying a house or renting an apartment, denied jobs, etc., etc., etc.




> The argument is framed entirely incorrectly. It's not "how does same gender marriage hurt _you_", but "how does same gender marriage hurt _marriage_"?
> ....


Exactly! How does increasing the number of married people hurt the institution?




> ...The problem is, for all you idealists out there, is that you take a gay sex issue and inflate it out of all proportion, likening it to all sorts of real social evils,...
> ...


I think you have this perspective because you are not the victim. If people were trying to establish a constitutional amendment prohibiting Christians from marrying Christians, you might feel differently.




> ...Voting for the first woman or black man simply because they are the first is asinine...


And voting against a woman or black person because they would be the first is just as assinine .... but it's been going on for a looooong time.

----------


## FullCircle

> Can you seriously see this writer handing anything more serious than looking for a new roommate for his loft apartment?


Yes, actually I can.  However I'm not sure how you can surmise his age (BTW, he's 36) and life abilities from one article. Golly, I had no idea that the elderly had psychic abilities! *sitting down cross legged in front of drk in the hopes some skills like this will befall me*




> What is "persecution"?


Well, to persecute is _To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs_.




> How are homosexuals persecuted by the United States of America?


Go google PFC Barry Winchell, Billy Jack Gaither, Matthew Shepard for a quick taste.  All three were beaten and killed for being gay.  And those are the ones I've found in 45 seconds. I worked with a man who was afraid that if his sexuality came out, he'd be fired.  




> Are you seriously going to draw the parallel between a outcompeting/conquering European-based nation of a hopelessly overmatched native population to what a homosexual goes through


While you're googling, you might want to check your history. Hopelessly overmatched? Those hopelessly overmatched indians got those haphazard pilgrims through their first winter + here in America.  To repay them for their help, the indians were killed (guns vs. arrows), their villages burnt (those that weren't burnt were moved into by the new arrivers), and they were given things like small pox.  In later years, their women were raped, sexully transmitted disease was introduced and they took them on a "fun little walk" to their new home.  I walk both sides of the fence in terms of my heritage. Pilgrim blood and indian.

And yes, I'd compare what indians, blacks and gays go through. Actually, I did.  All have been killed for being different.




> Are you saying that homosexuals have been bought and sold as property, whipped, abused, and enslaved? Exactly how is that a valid comparison?


Abused, yes. Whipped, probably. Sold as property, no only because there's laws against that.




> Shame on anyone for drawing such silly parallels. The lack of proportion in that argument is disgusting.


Shame on you for not actually opening your eyes and taking a look at the real history. Not the distorted b.s. in the high school history books.




> The argument is framed entirely incorrectly. It's not "how does same gender marriage hurt _you_", but "how does same gender marriage hurt _marriage_"?


Drk, with all due respect, straight people have f'ed up marriage, not the homosexuals.




> Let's face it, folks; marriage is under assault today. Divorce rate is high. No-fault divorces are available. Marriage often involves pre-nuptual agreements. Infidelity abounds.


And your generation didn't really help teach your children's generation about how to be married correctly.  Without the correct tools, you know what *my* generation is left with?  We look at our parents and your generation and say we don't want to end up like you and want to avoid that at all costs.

Also, from your generation, there may not have been a high number of divorces, but spousal abuse, alcoholism and adultery were rampant. Y'all just didn't "talk about it."




> Is it a contract to share wealth and certain rights?


Removing religon and throught hte eyes of the government, yes. Basically.




> At the very least, this guy's got a vote


And for that, I'm grateful

----------


## drk

> I know alot of old stupid, biggotted people. Does age disqualify this guy from having a valid opinion?


No, his age doesn't disqualify him from having a valid opinion. It is my generous excuse for his insipid opinion.





> What's wrong with idealism. It seems to me that if it weren't for idealism, we'd still be subjects of the King of England.


Naivite would have been a better choice of words. Idealism has some positive connotations, yes. Maybe I gave him too much credit. 




> They can't marry the person they love, for starters...


Persecution-lite 




> Yes. And killed, and prohibited from buying a house or renting an apartment, denied jobs, etc., etc., etc.


Killed. Gays. America. Right. Holocaust. Genocide. Extermination. What a self-serving sentiment.




> Exactly! How does increasing the number of married people hurt the institution?


How does increasing the number of people crammed into a VW hurt the VW? More does not equal better. Impossible to fathom that argument.




> I think you have this perspective because you are not the victim. If people were trying to establish a constitutional amendment prohibiting Christians from marrying Christians, you might feel differently.


Sexual preference is not a special interest group. What about bisexuals...can they marry a man AND a woman? What about people who like multiple partners...can they practice "group marriage"? All Americans have access to marriage if they want. Just to one man and one woman at one time.  That would be called "marriage".

Marriage has to have a definition that means something or it means nothing.  By expanding the definition to include two women or two men destroys the definition and makes a mockery of the foundation of civilization.  Period.

----------


## Spexvet

> ...What about people who like multiple partners...can they practice "group marriage"?....


 You mean like they did in the Bible?




> Abraham had a wife Sarah (Sarai) and together they had Isaac. At Sarah's suggestion before she bore Isaac, Abraham went to the maidservant, Hagar, and together they had Ishmael. Some sources say that Hagar was a concubine,but the Bible says wife. Then, Abraham married Keturah and they had six sons...Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Bible references are Gen. 16:1, Gen.16:3, and Gen. 25:1.





> I Chronicles 3. In a few sentences it lists all descendants of King David, from his 11 children by 7 wives to descendants of King Solomon, some 30 generations. I Samuel also mentions another wife.





> Nevertheless, Solomon held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of royal birth and three hundred concubines


Look what I found! 

Biblical Polygamy.com

So you can ask yourself: What is the definition of marriage?

----------


## Grubendol

Marriage is about monogamy, thus eliminating bisexuality and group issues.

  And this is NOT about sex, it’s about sexual orientation.  BIG difference, IMHO.  

  Also, btw, a bisexual person has always been free to marry someone of the opposite sex, which may in fact be the person they want to spend their lives with….but now, if they so choose, they can spend their lives with someone of the same sex if that happens to be the person they fall in love with and want to commit to.

----------


## drk

Oh, so _you_ want to define marriage as monogamy, huh?

What about the bisexual who is equally in love with a man and a woman?  What about about a woman in love with two men who consent to share her?

Who are YOU to define what marriage is, Grubey?  Wouldn't you now be subject to the exact same argument you are using against me?


Get my point?  The California judge has opened Pandora's Box, here.  It won't last long, so get behind Ellen and Portia and hurry.

----------


## gemstone

> Oh, so _you_ want to define marriage as monogamy, huh?
> 
> What about the bisexual who is equally in love with a man and a woman? What about about a woman in love with two men who consent to share her?
> 
> Who are YOU to define what marriage is, Grubey? Wouldn't you now be subject to the exact same argument you are using against me?
> 
> 
> Get my point? The California judge has opened Pandora's Box, here. It won't last long, so get behind Ellen and Portia and hurry.


 You are so correct.  Once you change the definition of marriage the freaks can call any union of two or more marriage.   The question of how it hurts us was answered by the questioner.  Costly benefits are provided that effect all of us.  "Intitlements" I think the democrats call them.

----------


## Grubendol

I think this Pandora’s box argument is bunk.  I’ve heard it over and over and over.  It’s just silly…”well now it’s OK for a man to marry his goat” and all that garbage.

  IF social morals were to shift sufficient at some point in the distant future, then perhaps polygamy will become OK again.  But let’s be honest with each other.  IF that were to happen, it would be generations from now.

  Marriage has never been about procreation, otherwise infertile couples would not be allowed to get married.

  Marriage hasn’t been about multiple partners for centuries.

  Marriage HAS been about a commitment between a couple to love and cherish each other.  Whether that couple be young, old, mixed age, mixed ethnicity, mixed gender, or one gender, that’s what’s always been about.

----------


## chip anderson

You folks jus' doan be doe ta unastannin,  Most peoples got to have some-body they can feel sooperor to.  Sholy you woldn't take dat away from dem's would you?

Jus' thank bout how good you can feel if you feels evey body is inferior to you!

Chip

----------


## HarryChiling

Couple things I'd like to touch about, as a devout bar-b-cueian, I am glad we got off the subject of pork, shredded with hot sauce was not available in biblical times otherwise I think it would have been accepted.

The bible is a tool for each of us to interpret for ourselves, don't rob someone the knowledge that's available in the book.  It is to some filled with contradictions and to others it is very clear.  It falls on the reader to interpret and God I believe will guide us all to understadn what's important in the book.  If you feel and eye for an eye is a theme that you must follow in your life then it is in the bible and you are allowed that belief, if I believe that turning the other cheek is the right path that's there for me as well.  There is no one truth.

As for same sex marriage, it's no better or worse than arranged marriages, or marriage for money, or marriage for a green card.  I have personally experienced seen all the above and the only one still alive and kickin is the same sex marriage.  Maybe that's their punishment, eternal marriage. :D

----------


## drk

"An eye for an eye" was the God-given Mosaic civil/religious law for the nation of Israel about 1500 BC.

"Offering the other cheek" was Jesus' recommendation to be holy for everyone everywhere, and it is not a law.

There really are fewer loopholes and contradictions than advertised.

----------


## Spexvet

> Oh, so _you_ want to define marriage as monogamy, huh?


Grubie can't, cause I wanna define marriage! ;)




> ... The California judge has opened Pandora's Box, here. It won't last long, so get behind Ellen and Portia and hurry.


 Why didn't these things happen when the convention of marriage was changed from multiple wives being acceptable to monogamy only?  Wouldn't that be like opening Pandora's Box?




> You are so correct. Once you change the definition of marriage the freaks can call any union of two or more marriage...


Pssst: They think you're the freak.  :Eek:  In Canada, where homosexual couples can be married, is polygamy legal? Is marrying your goat legal?




> Costly benefits are provided that effect all of us. "Intitlements" I think the democrats call them.


So why didn't the repubicans, who were in charge of washington for so long remove all the "entitlements" that married couples get. Then there wouldn't be a same gander marriage issue, and you could stop complaining about entitlements. BTW, NOBODY feels more entitled that a white, male, conservative, repubican.

----------


## HarryChiling

> "An eye for an eye" was the God-given Mosaic civil/religious law for the nation of Israel about 1500 BC.
> 
> "Offering the other cheek" was Jesus' recommendation to be holy for everyone everywhere, and it is not a law.
> 
> There really are fewer loopholes and contradictions than advertised.


Then to you its clear. My interpretation is different and that's what makes it such a great tool.

And if I remember correctly the real issue was the blasphemy of pork. :)

----------


## hcjilson

Same gender marriage can't possibly hurt us. That is a period I put at the end of the sentence. Who thought it necessary to drag out a 4 year old thread and expose the rest of us to yet another round of this drivel. Being offended by it doesn't hurt you, nor does hurt come from acceptance. Disappointment can't hurt you, nor can enthusiastic acceptance. Will someone please tell me what shredded pork has to do with same gender marriage. (sorry Harry but you did leave yourself wide open)Lets consider putting this thread to rest unless, of course, someone can prove there is hurt to the way others choose to live their lives.

I mean no disrespect to the contributors of this thread  but I just couldn't believe what I was reading.

----------


## Judy Canty

Thank you Harry.  It was getting very tiresome.

----------


## Spexvet

> ... Who thought it necessary to drag out a 4 year old thread and expose the rest of us to yet another round of this drivel...


 I did. With California legalizing same gender marriage and a group plnning to legislate to stop said legalization, I felt that it was a timely and pertinent subject.

----------


## AngryFish

I see it as a way to grow or at least an opportunity.

Can you imagine what this thread would have been if we were able to set the clock back some fifty years and be discussing race? To go back and read it now would be informative in that it would lend to the understanding of the thinking of the time and the motivations of the people who held differing points a view. 

This is one of the more civil collections of points of view I have come across. I have been to "religious" website were bigoted pig headed people argue in circles never addressing the rebuttals to their loony statements and celebrate their ignorance and narrow mindedness as a badge of honor. 

Here the only disappointment is when a point is not refuted. 

It seems that the line have been drawn as extremes either homosexuality is immoral and should be repressed or it is no different that heterosexual relations except for the gender mix. Yet, as I stated earlier, I have not met a single gay person or heard one speak that says they want to be gay. Its either attributed to genetics by those for or as psychological or spiritual for those against. Both seem to miss the point of our obligation as a society to understand and offer a choice. And so for the sake of political posturing the battle rages and in the middle, like pawns, the hurting continue to be exploited.

----------


## hcjilson

> I did. With California legalizing same gender marriage and a group plnning to legislate to stop said legalization, I felt that it was a timely and pertinent subject.


Spex,

Hasn't 37 pages taught you that no one is hurt by same gender marriages? What more needs to be said that hasn't been said already? Do we keep this thread alive each time a state makes it legal?

----------


## drk

Re: Conservatives and Gay Marriage [Mark R. Levin]

Jim Manzi writes, in part, with kudos from the libertarian wing (of which I am sometimes a part): 
If subsidiarity is a working compromise designed to accommodate differing moral views, I think that it is a positive good in addressing the second type of objection: that gay marriage will ultimately lead to undesirable social outcomes. I am skeptical that gay marriage is part of a process of social breakdown, but lots of people disagree with me. We have differing theories. I accept that I might be wrong, or at minimum wrong for some times or places. It seems to me that the best way to answer this question is not to yell at each other, or even to see who can write the most elegant and persuasive books, but to let different groups of people voluntarily try different approaches and see what actually happens.Americans have a healthy aversion to telling other people how to live. Only about 30 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Why don’t we try letting people live how they want to live, and let others try to impose uniform national rules on a heterogeneous population of 300 million people?This is all well and good, except it completely ignores the manner in which we make these decisions in our society. And I would think this would be of some significant concern to those who care about liberty. 

If, as Jim writes, only 30 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, that is all well and good. But 61 percent of those who voted on the subject in California in 2000 favored traditional marriage as the law in California, and it was their vote that was overturned by the 4-3 decision of the California Supreme Court.

I assume Jim cited the 30 percent figure for some reason, and I assume that reason was to persuade us that the majority position should either win out, or that it will, as a practical matter, win out. But it didn't win out in California. 

Moreover, to say "let different groups of people voluntarily try different approaches and see what actually happens" is all well and good, but it's not on point. The voters in California did not seek to outlaw homosexual behavior or same-sex unions, for that matter. They prohibited their state from giving its official imprimatur, by way of marriage, to the behavior. 

Jim also asks, "Why don’t we try letting people live how they want to live, and let others try to impose uniform national rules on a heterogeneous population of 300 million people?" Who's stopping them from living as they wish? The assault on ordered liberty here is coming from the state bench, not the public.

And what of our constitutional system (federal and state)? Should we abandon that too? Should 4-3 decisions in California and Massachusetts, which do not adhere to the law in these states, be celebrated? Should these state courts be able to export their decisions to other states, which is, in fact the tactic of the litigants? What exactly is the standard by which we should be governed if we abandon Constitutional constructs? 

The manner in which these decisions are made is vital to the republic.

Moreover, if, as Jim suggests in his statistical exposition, that gay marriage is inevitable (I disagree, but don't want to divert from my point), then its inevitability will play out over time because of society's changing standards. And if it is inevitable, why the necessity of imposing it on a society, in this case California, by judicial fiat? 


05/16 12:28 PM





~~~~~~
Mark Levin is a constitutional lawyer and talk show host. NRO is a conservative website.

But the points are to be addressed:
The "will of the people" was not heeded in this decision.
The "will of the people" will be on a ballot sometime very soon in California.
The "will of the people" in other states has to be considered.

This particular decision is about government, not gays.  "Gay marriage" is dangerous to marriage, and "judicial activism" is dangerous to our republic.

----------


## hcjilson

No one is imposing anything, they are allowing it!  Any why not? It hurts no one!

----------


## AngryFish

I thought the courts roll was to determine the constitutionality, state or federal, of a law and if the law violated the state or federal constitution the law was to be rewritten to comply. 

The legislators at the request of their constituents created law  based on the best interests of the state or country and could amend the benchmark for the laws through a constitutional amendment.

That is the process as I understand it. The courts have checks and balances just like the other branches. 

What law was upheld or overturned by the court?

Can the court overturn the results of a popular vote if that vote violates the constitution?

If so the populace has recourse through amending the state constitution.

----------


## hcjilson

That would be the subject of another thread. Topic under consideration here is How does same gender marriage hurt you! Let's try to stick to that so we can all go to sleep tonight and put this thread to rest. If we can't stick to the subject, we can close it and start another on the court system in the US today.

----------


## drk

_Against homosexual marriage_ 


To be clear here, this is entirely a legal issue, Harry! How is it NOT?
People living a homosexual lifestyle want a specific legal status since they're apparently not happy with the status they now haveThis particular decision goes to the core of judicial activismThis particular decision goes to the federalism issueIn a nutshell, gay marriage hurts me by setting a legal precedent that redefines marriage, thereby setting a precedent to further redefine marriage. It also means that other states will be faced with a decision to accept transplanted gay marriages or not, creating a "Defense of Marriage Amendment" fight (just in time for a liberal Congress, as well.)

What legal argument can be used to oppose a further redefinition? 

No, simply put, traditional marriage has to enjoy a "favored status" over all other "civil unions" and remain a special case, because sure as shootin' this is NOT the end of it.

Now, if you have ANY common sense whatsoever you will realize that any society cannot endure if the basic building block, which is the nuclear family unit, is degenerated. This is not rocket science.

The abominable thing is that gay marriage PROPONENTS (not gay marriage enablers who are just clueless) don't give a crap about society. They care about themselves and their own sense of acceptance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you talking about another issue altogether, Harry? Discuss it if you wish:

*Against homosexuality, not homosexuals*
Most citizens DO NOT accept homosexual*ity,* nor in my opinon should they. They should, however, accept and treat homosexual*s* as anyone else.

Which is common sensical, because homosexuals are not "homosexuals". They are merely _regular people_ that have some frequency of homosexual sex. Get the difference? 

What they do in their own bedrooms does not define them in any way, shape, or form, unless they choose to "join the gay lifestyle" which is largely a political decision to define themselves, which many seem to want to do.

Since race (inaccurately) is the favorite analogy used to support gay marriage, I'll reluctantly drag blacks into this. There are no "black people", either--merely _people_ who have more melanocytes. They aren't "different" any more than any other population subset. They become "black people", though, when everything in their life is viewed through the prism of race. It's a hang-up.

People who practice homosexuality are great. Or slobs. Like anyone else.

Homosexuality is a forgivable sin. It's merely a sexual decision that is unprofitable, like many if not most sexual decisions. But there is a correct sexuality as defined by the Maker of man, and homosexuality is expressly prohibited. I won't pretend to have exhaustive knowledge on the dangers, but I could name a few. Just because monogamy is necessary for correct sexuality, it is not sufficent (for any of us).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problem with America these days is that too many identify with a political special interest group (including evangelical Christians, unfortunately). Multiculturalism divides a society. This striving to identify ourselves in some unique way is destructive to our cohesion; feminist, evangelical, gay, black, whatever.

To you politically active amongst us who think expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex partners is a reasonable request: PLEASE do what's right for society, not a special interest group. Support man-woman traditional nuclear families. To you who like to have sex with your same gender, this is your society too. We will all rise or fall together.

----------


## drk

> No one is imposing anything, they are allowing it!


If the people of California voted against it, and a judiciary changes the law to the contrary, how is that NOT imposition?

----------


## hcjilson

Again, off topic- The judiciary does not MAKE law, they INTERPRET law! They are not making same gendered people get married, they say the law allows it. How does this HURT ANYONE? Would any contributor to this thread care to come forth and tell us how same gender marriage has hurt them?

Dear Spex, we're up to 38 pages of nonsense and I don't think anyone has been hurt by same gender marriage yet! :):)

----------


## HarryChiling

> Will someone please tell me what shredded pork has to do with same gender marriage. (sorry Harry but you did leave yourself wide open)


LOL, someone made reference to eating pork being a sin in the bible earlier in the thread, I would have quoted it if the thread wasn't as logn as the bible.  I just thought it was funny and made what I thought was a humorous comment about it.

It doesn't in the least bit hurt me to see a same sex married or not couple.  I don't understand how annyone else can see it otherwise but it makes no difference to me, I did want to post simply to point outr my objection with people using the bible as some sort of proof something is wrong.  Again my belief is that the bible is a tool, just liek a hammer to a carpenter.  It doesn't support or deny anything just helps tyo guide us in our lives, gay or straight, the same bible applies.  That was all.

----------


## Uncle Fester

> Dear Spex, we're up to 38 pages of nonsense and I don't think anyone has been hurt by same gender marriage yet! :):)


I think some of you have blisters on your fingers from typing so much.:p

----------


## For-Life

> LOL, someone made reference to eating pork being a sin in the bible earlier in the thread, I would have quoted it if the thread wasn't as logn as the bible. I just thought it was funny and made what I thought was a humorous comment about it.
> 
> It doesn't in the least bit hurt me to see a same sex married or not couple. I don't understand how annyone else can see it otherwise but it makes no difference to me, I did want to post simply to point outr my objection with people using the bible as some sort of proof something is wrong. Again my belief is that the bible is a tool, just liek a hammer to a carpenter. It doesn't support or deny anything just helps tyo guide us in our lives, gay or straight, the same bible applies. That was all.


I made the comment.  I hope you enjoyed it.  It just goes to show you how people only use the bible when it is convenient for them.  Goes to support my belief that this is not a religious belief, but a personal dislike.

----------


## LilKim

So many personal dislikes and phobias can be validated by the person saying that "God doesn't like you if you do ______."  Times were different thousands of years ago.  Christians as a society were in the minority--they needed all the warm bodies they could get.  A couple of the same sex, whether it be male or female, would produce no offspring, thereby they woud not be contributing to the expansion of the Christian belief.  That, and I'm sure some tribal leader thought it was nasty.  :p  It's always easier to raise a person to accept a certain doctrine than it is for an outsider to accept it.  Look at how hard those Jehovah's Witnesses have to work!  I'm sure the early Christians viewed homosexuality as an indulgence for the wealthy of Roman society (which it sort of was).  And anything Roman was to be shunned.

----------


## 35oldguy

I have been keeping up with what all the opinions are on this subject.

Why not say the heck to any laws of any kind and let everyone do anything they want about everything. Would this be ok with those that think it is ok to have gay marriages? If we are going to bend for this group why not bend for every group that wants to act away from the norm!

As far as does it hurt anyone of us personally, physically possibly no but who knows for sure?





> Spexvet, it does not physicaly hurt or affect me. But that is no reason to allow gay marriage. I dont want to live in a where it's ok. Nor do I think late term aboration should be legal. Like I said eariler some where there should be a line drawn, I just feel as though its right of center.

----------


## For-Life

> I have been keeping up with what all the opinions are on this subject.
> 
> Why not say the heck to any laws of any kind and let everyone do anything they want about everything. Would this be ok with those that think it is ok to have gay marriages? If we are going to bend for this group why not bend for every group that wants to act away from the norm!
> 
> As far as does it hurt anyone of us personally, physically possibly no but who knows for sure?


no, because that logic makes no sense.  

I ask you, what is the purpose of a law?

----------


## ziggy

> At the risk of sounding like a right wing nut.............. for me its about drawing a line. I'm not comfortable with pushing the envelope that far. I think that MOST of the population feel the same, its not something you can put your finger on. It is a moral issue that most of the folk I come in contact with are not willing to bend. Over the last 30 years it has become easier for homosexual couples to live open, *and will most likely take another 30 for them to get married, at least in conventional terms*.


I was off by what, 26 years or so... I think I was off about a lot of things. I still dont agree with gay marriage, but I also dont agree with my doctor when he tells me that having that extra slice of cheese cake is bad for me!! This tread was started about four years ago and the only thing that has change for me is that my girls are older and I cant help but wonder if I would deny them the love and stability that their mom and I have if one of them were gay. If I hurt any one, I'm sorry. Love and peace to all.

----------


## drk

*Will gay rights trample religious freedom?*


 Los Angeles Times

_By Marc D. Stern_ 

_Early this morning, gay and lesbian couples were surely lining up at county clerk's offices across the state to exercise their new right to marry, bestowed on them last month by the California Supreme Court._

_In its controversial decision, the court insisted that these same-sex marriages would not "diminish any other person's constitutional rights" or "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person." Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices._

_And yet there is substantial reason to believe that these assurances about the safety of religious liberty are either wrong or reflect a cramped view of religion._

Read full story here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5628051.story 


I posted this because there is a danger involved in promoting one groups rights over another.

I think we can all agree that homosexual couples in the United States have a right to live together and have all the civil rights and privileges of all Americans (because they are Americans, regardless of their behavior), including some marriage alternative. 

I, for example, don't believe that the landlord can claim he's exercising religious freedom for not renting to non-marrieds. Where is the religious justification for that? There's none that I'm aware of in Christianity, although the guy may not have been Christian.

But can the government superimpose gay civil rights on religious-minded organizations as mentioned in the piece?

Should there be protection for those who conscientiously object to certain actions as against their religion?

There is a big case in Canada going on about this same thing.

What say you all to balancing sexual civil rights of Americans with religious civil rights of Americans?

----------


## Andrew Weiss

drk,

In theory I agree with you.  Religious organizations ought not to be compelled to perform actions which conflict with their doctrine or core values.

But I wish it were that simple.

What would you say about giving churches an exemption from banning interracial marriages, for example?  Or from banning people who are wheelchair-bound from services?

Before you say that both of those examples are specious, consider:
-- Interracial marriages were banned societally and religiously in the US for years.
-- Banning other people from church based on physical characteristics, etc., while not being done, is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

In other words, where do you draw the line?  Should religious institutions be compelled to act only in ways which agree with your interpretation of the Old/New Testaments?  Or should it be more broadly-based?  Or should religious institutions be given a free hand to do what they consider appropriate, regardless of who is discriminated against and why?

This is where lawyers have fits.  Drawing lines in situations like this is like building a sand-castle on a low-tide sand-bar.  How do we draw the lines, who gets to do it, and what (or whose) values does society apply?

Great discussion topic.  Very, very tough to actualize in the real world.

----------


## For-Life

DRK in Canada churches can refuse to facilitate gay marriages.  End of story

----------


## Steve Machol

Churches also are tax-exempt in the U.S. IMO that is a big advantage they have that give them preferential treatment not available to others. A huge advantage in fact.

----------


## Grubendol

And when they use that exempt status and then *illegally* actively campaign and endorse in political activities, they are breaching their “religious rights” civil contract with the government.


  I know my language there is all twisted around and poorly worded.  I apologize.  I drove about 1300 miles this weekend and didn’t get much sleep.  I’m a bit discombobulated.

----------


## drk

Issue #1: Tax exemption and responsibilities thereunder

FWIW, I totally agree that to retain tax-exempt status, religious organizations may not make overt publically-aimed political statements.

Now, that doesn't mean the preacher can't say whatever the heck he wants in his church, but it means that he can't go on Larry King Live and endorse John McCain or whomever, speaking in the capacity of leader of his church.

I personally think it's bad theology for Christ's church to be politically active, though only a portion evangelicals agree on this. It needs addressed.



Issue #2: What should be allowed in a church
Under the general rubric of "separation of church and state" (although not an official law, I know) whatever goes on in a church should be allowed, as it is voluntary to attend like a private club. We're talking doctrine/practices that are not considered criminal.   

I do think that the civil authorities can have jurisdiction over such things that threaten the vulnerable (minors, etc.), or such things as threaten the community at large. It cannot be a safe haven for pedophiles or terrorists.

Now, the rub is what is considered criminal, right? The concept of illegal "hate-speech" etc. blows the time-tested and commonsense approach above to all hell. Canada tries to make anti-homosexual speech illegal, and now they have ingress to church doctrines/practices and there goes freedom of religion.

That scenario alone (which is sort of the point of the article linked) should show how the whole "anti-discrimination" legislation thing is entirely untenable.  If a church wants to believe that only virginal Native American males are members, then so be it!

Sticks and stones do break bones, but freedom of speech is an inalienable right in all non-tyrannies.

----------


## Steve Machol

Easy solution. Churches should not be given tax-exempt status. There is no justification for this and it means that we, the taxpayers, end up subsidizing them. 

As for getting involved in Politics, they are doing this anyway. Removing their tax-exempt status with have virtually no affect on that activity. 

The article itself highlights a basic problem when two 'rights' collide with each other. You can say that you have freedom of speech, but that does not give you the right to cry 'Fire' in a crowded room. It's a constant balancing act and there is no way you are going to please everyone every time. Also what the artile does not mention is that some of thes schools and businesses receive Federal funds an in this case they are subject to the same laws and requirements of other schools and businesses.

The statement that _'it is religious rights that are likely to be "obliterated"'_ is so patently absurd and over-the-top that it brings into question the entire premise of this article, not to mention the reasoning abilities of it's author. Which given his history, is not an unreasonable conclusion:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/169/story_16982_1.html

----------


## For-Life

> Issue #1: Tax exemption and responsibilities thereunder
> 
> FWIW, I totally agree that to retain tax-exempt status, religious organizations may not make overt publically-aimed political statements.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean the preacher can't say whatever the heck he wants in his church, but it means that he can't go on Larry King Live and endorse John McCain or whomever, speaking in the capacity of leader of his church.
> 
> I personally think it's bad theology for Christ's church to be politically active, though only a portion evangelicals agree on this. It needs addressed.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Canada did not try to make it illegal.

A Canadian reported someone and they were investigated.  It is very similar to Americans who have been investigated for saying that the country should not have gone into Iraq.

----------


## drk

I don't see why one has to change the tax exempt status of churches. Look at this list and tell me that they are less deserving than others:
http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation...empt_orgs.html

If you want the governments to have access to the religious' tithing and gifts, what do you think the results would be? Less spending for 527 political ads? 

No sir. Less ministry, less outreach. You don't want to remove the biggest charitable institution in American history, do you? One could accuse one of wanting all charitable works to be performed by the state, but I don't think you've thought that far along.

There are already regulations that control how churches interact with politics, and one doesn't need to emotionally overreact. 
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...161131,00.html

And Steve, reexamine your point that taxpayers subsidize churches by their tax exempt status. You must realize that's tantamount to saying that taxes belong to the government in the first place!

I do agree that the author was being reactionary, so that's one reason I posted it: I'm fair and balanced.:D

----------


## drk

June 12, 2008 
*Deafening Silence*

*By* *David Warren*

Copyright 2008, Ottawa Citizen

_"As free speech disappears in Canada, one looks for instance not at the more celebrated cases of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, but at the much less publicized fate of e.g. Rev. Stephen Boisson, convicted by an Alberta kangaroo court ("human rights tribunal") last November for publicly expressing the Christian and Biblical view of homosexuality, on the say-so of an anti-Christian activist from his home town._

_Rev. Boisson has now been ordered to desist from communicating his views on this subject "in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet" so long as he should live. He has been ordered to pay compensation to Darren Lund, the anti-Christian activist in question, and further to make a public recantation of beliefs he still holds._

_Meanwhile, Fr Alphonse de Valk, editor of the magazine Catholic Insight, is being prosecuted by a gay rights activist in Edmonton, for having upheld both sides of the Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the pages of his magazine over more than a decade: that homosexual behaviour is sinful, but that we are nevertheless to love the sinner."_

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...g_silence.html

----------


## Grubendol

Since we’ve diverged into a discussion on the place of religion in society, I thought I needed to post this…

  It is the veto message from Pres. Madison.  The first veto ever used by a US President.  It was on a bill which would have allowed churches to administer a poverty program in Washington DC.  He felt it was not the place of churches to do what was the “Civil Duty” of government.  And, furthermore, he felt that churches being involved in the acts of government would corrupt both equally.  Church has no place in politics because the Church would then get into the business of lobbying.  Thus corrupting both politician and preacher.





> * To the House of Representatives of the United   States:*
> 
> 
> *Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:*
> 
> 
> *Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.*
> 
> 
> *Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty. [Writings of James Madison, 8:132-133; The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:176-177]*

----------


## For-Life

> June 12, 2008 
> *Deafening Silence*
> 
> *By* *David Warren*
> 
> Copyright 2008, Ottawa Citizen
> 
> _"As free speech disappears in Canada, one looks for instance not at the more celebrated cases of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, but at the much less publicized fate of e.g. Rev. Stephen Boisson, convicted by an Alberta kangaroo court ("human rights tribunal") last November for publicly expressing the Christian and Biblical view of homosexuality, on the say-so of an anti-Christian activist from his home town._
> 
> ...


and you are telling me that you have not heard the same things and comments about those in the US who protest the War on Iraq?

----------


## drk

I don't get the connection?  Are you saying that "free speech" in the US, if contrary to administration foriegn policy, is going to be sanctioned by some quasi-governmental authority?

No, actually I haven't heard of it, but that's not necessarily a good indication of whether it's happened.  Do you have a case in point?

----------


## Steve Machol

> I don't see why one has to change the tax exempt status of churches. Look at this list and tell me that they are less deserving than others:
> http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation...empt_orgs.html


Tax them all. Fine by me. I still do not see why Churches and religions should be exempt, particularly when many of them run full fledged business in every way you look at it.




> And Steve, reexamine your point that taxpayers subsidize churches by their tax exempt status. You must realize that's tantamount to saying that taxes belong to the government in the first place!


If Churches are exempt then why am I taxed? Like it or not, Government has some legitimate expenses that can only be paid for by taxation - defense, police and fire protection, etc. When someone else does not pay their fair share, it falls on the rest of us, or more appropriately in this age of fiscal irresponsibility - our children and their children. 

Just to show I am not 'anti-religion' in this, Yale University - the largest employer and real estate holder in New Haven, Connecticut (they own about 25% of the property within city limits) - is exempt from all local taxes. (Not sure about state and federal taxes.) 

Therefore the available tax base  is significantly reduced and insufficient to pay for Police, Fire and other city services. Because of this the New Haven literally has a crumbing infrastructure that it cannot afford to rebuild, let alone services it cannot provide. And unlike the US Government, New Haven cannot issue US Treasury bonds backed by the full security of the US so that China can come in and bail them out like they have our Federal Government.

Yet Yale University is extremely rich and is a very large money-making exterprise that not only uses these city resources, but refuses to contribute to paying for them. That is wrong. Pure and simple.

----------


## drk

Well, at least you're consistent. :shiner:

----------


## Steve Machol

Here's another real life example - albeit one with a bit of irony.

In the 60s I went to one of the most prestigious Jesuit High Schools in the nation - Brophy College Prep in Phoenix (which to this day still sits on some prime real estate in uptown Phoenix.) Brophy was bequeathed a property on the corner of 24th and McDowell in someone's will. They paid no inheritance tax.

One of the tenants on that property had an ironclad lease that lasted several years. So for the next few years Brophy was the (not so) proud landlord of one of the most explicit strip clubs in Phoenix at that time. All the money they collected in rent was non-taxable. The income had nothing to do with 'charity' - unless you consider strip clubs a form of altruism. Nor did it have anything at all to do with any 'religious' enterprise. It was a business with business income. Yet none of it was taxed, nor was the land subject to property taxes.

After the lease expired, Brophy quickly sold off the property to U-Haul which I believe still has a facility there. The proceeds of that sale were not taxed either.

By the way, I had little luck with my drive to change the school mascot. ;)

----------


## Spexvet

> *...* 
> I posted this because there is a danger involved in promoting one groups rights over another.


Like promoting Christian group's rights over gay group rights by prohibiting same gender marriages?




> But can the government superimpose gay civil rights on religious-minded organizations as mentioned in the piece?


Can the government superimpose religious-minded organizations' rights on gay people by prohibiting them from marrying who they want?




> Should there be protection for those who conscientiously object to certain actions as against their religion?


Sure.... they won't be forced to marry someone of their own gender.




> ... 
> What say you all to balancing sexual civil rights of Americans with religious civil rights of Americans?


One of our civil rights is the right to participate in a religion without interference from the government, so it's really the same thing - as long as ALL religions are treated equally and the exercising of one's religion doesn't interfere with someone else's civil rights (like marrying someone of the same gender). 




> I think we can all agree that homosexual couples in the United States have a right to live together and have all the civil rights and privileges of all Americans (because they are Americans, regardless of their behavior), including some marriage alternative.


How about this:
Any consenting adults can be married by the government, and get all the benefits that married people currently get. Those who want a religious ceremony to mark their wedding can have the wedding performed by a religious person, or can have a seperate religious ceremony.

Is everybody ok with that plan?

----------


## Spexvet

> Tax them all. Fine by me. I still do not see why Churches and religions should be exempt, particularly when many of them run full fledged business in every way you look at it.
>  ...


Absolutely!

----------


## drk

> Like promoting Christian group's rights over gay group rights by prohibiting same gender marriages?
> 
> 
> Can the government superimpose religious-minded organizations' rights on gay people by prohibiting them from marrying who they want?
> 
> 
> Sure.... they won't be forced to marry someone of their own gender.
> 
> 
> ...


You have a severe misunderstanding of the nature of this issue, Spex.  You would do well to broaden your perspective a little.

----------


## Grubendol

I’m actually on the opposite side on the taxing issue.  Since the beginning of this nation, churches have been exempt from taxation.  That’s one of those things I don’t have a problem with, even though I’m decidedly areligious…with the one caveat that if they are to remain tax exempt, then they MUST REFRAIN from all political action, and profiteering.  Churches, by their very nature, SHOULD be non-profit.  NO ONE should be making money off of other people’s faith, IMHO

----------


## For-Life

> I don't get the connection? Are you saying that "free speech" in the US, if contrary to administration foriegn policy, is going to be sanctioned by some quasi-governmental authority?
> 
> No, actually I haven't heard of it, but that's not necessarily a good indication of whether it's happened. Do you have a case in point?


DRK, I do not think you get it.  There is not anti-freedom of speech policy in Canada.  As I have pointed out several times there was someone who contended that the Minister in question was doing things that infringed on human rights.  Thus, he was investigated.  

I compared it to situations in the US where people reported their neighbours for saying things against the US war and they were investigated.  One source of that was Farhenheit 9/11.

----------


## Spexvet

> You have a severe misunderstanding of the nature of this issue, Spex. You would do well to broaden your perspective a little.


I think that you have a misperception that this issue is about good and evil. It's not. It's about differing points of view that should be treated equally. Prohibiting people of the same gender to marry is as wrong as forcing two people of the same gender to marry. 

When you say things like



> I posted this because there is a danger involved in promoting one groups rights over another.


and



> But can the government superimpose gay civil rights on religious-minded organizations as mentioned in the piece?


you come across as though you beleive that reversing this discriminatory behavior is somehow discrimination against you, which is preposterous.

----------


## chip anderson

Turn it around:  How does gay (not my choice of words) marriage help you?
What do you care one way or the other?

Chip

----------


## Grubendol

Whether or not it helps me is irrelevant.  It does help individuals.  Allowing gay marriage does not  hurt anyone.  No one is required to enter a gay marriage unless they choose to.  If someone is allowed to marry, it does no harm to any individuals, or groups.  It is a right which does not infringe upon anyone else’s rights.

  It seems like such a silly and pointless thing to argue against.

----------


## chip anderson

Grubendol: 
 My point was it is also a silly and pointless thing to argue for!

----------


## Grubendol

And my point is that it is not something silly and pointless to argue for.  There are rights and privileges associated with marriage unavailable, even in most domestic partner laws.

  And if there is no harm and it is something that they desire, then why not allow them to have it?

----------


## For-Life

> Turn it around: How does gay (not my choice of words) marriage help you?
> What do you care one way or the other?
> 
> Chip


increasing freedoms help everyone

If the government decides to prevent what goes on in the bedroom or to put regulations on who you can or cannot marry, then how far can it go? 

It also helps in a way that if one spouse loses his or her partner, who was the breadwinner in the marriage, then our tax dollars will not be used to support the widow through support services (welfare, low income housing, ect).  Since without the legal marriage, there would be the loss of financial support to that partner.

----------


## Spexvet

> Turn it around: How does gay (not my choice of words) marriage help you?
> What do you care one way or the other?
> 
> Chip


 It begins the slippery slope that leads to my wedding to my pet snake. :p

Someday, Chip, it might be you who is prohibited from doing something, just because that thing offends the tradition of those who are the majority. Maybe they want to outlaw the eating of craw daddies, because, the bible tells you not to eat shellfish.

----------


## chip anderson

Spex: 

In the name of "political Correctness" Optiboards already forbids a number of things and traditions of mine.
There are times when I enjoy OFF END ING those that are prone to be easily offended.

You know what the said about Harry Callihan, he doesn't discriminate he hates everybody.

Chip

----------


## braheem24

I'm assuming that everyone ok with gay marriage is also by the same token automatically alright with polygamy in heterosexual and homosexual marriges?

If the pro-gay marriage members would each answer, thanks.

----------


## Grubendol

braheem that's been covered...it's a ludicrous slippery slope argument.

----------


## Jacqui

> I'm assuming that everyone ok with gay marriage is also by the same token automatically alright with polygamy in heterosexual and homosexual marriges?
> 
> If the pro-gay marriage members would each answer, thanks.


Spexie started another thread about this.

----------


## For-Life

gay marriage is the gateway to communism.  That is my big problem with it.  The metric system and flourination of water were the first attempts by leninist.  Now they are trying a new way.

----------


## Icareforeyecare

I am covered under my partner's insurance, as are our 2 children.  We need the benefits of insurance as I just returned to work after being home with our children for 6 years.  We were only able to offer the one-on-one time (with insurance) to our children because we have affordable group healthcare that recognized our partnership.  My firstborn was in NICU at birth and we needed the insurance to protect his life.

Because we do not have many of the legal benefits, we spent a mini-fortune on legal agreements protecting our chidlren, protecting our assets, protecting our commitment.  Even after all of this protection, I understand that my partner is not legally considered our child's parent.  So, so sad.  I have a $200,000 life insurance policy designed just for legal fees for my partner in case something happens to me.

We also have to plan extra for our retirement.  Many benefits of marriage are not given to us - we have to duplicate it in as many forms as we can.  

We are Christians, accepted into our church with a commitment ceremony and a family commitment ceremony.  A marriage - in our typically quiet way - would help preserve our commitments in faith, in our children and as our family's future.  I am not on a political agenda.  I care about my family...and more than anything, about my children having access to the many, many benefits of the "system" of marriage.  Our "marriage" commitment is already there!

----------


## Jacqui

> gay marriage is the gateway to communism.  That is my big problem with it.  The metric system and flourination of water were the first attempts by leninist.  Now they are trying a new way.


and they are trying to keep us from organizing by raising the prices of gasoline and beer.

----------


## drk

> DRK, I do not think you get it. There is not anti-freedom of speech policy in Canada. As I have pointed out several times there was someone who contended that the Minister in question was doing things that infringed on human rights. Thus, he was investigated. 
> 
> I compared it to situations in the US where people reported their neighbours for saying things against the US war and they were investigated. One source of that was Farhenheit 9/11.


 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._fighting.html

Excerpt:

_"I have mentioned only the current cases in which periodical publications have been prosecuted, in the strange new world of "Kafkanada" -- where you can be tried for the same imaginary "hate crimes" in any or all federal and provincial jurisdictions, simultaneously or sequentially. A single complaint by any reader anywhere is enough to launch a secret inquiry. The target has no right to confront his accuser, and will not at first even be told who he or she is._

_Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence -- due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any "judgement" they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim._

_A Protestant minister in Alberta was, for instance, recently ordered to publicly renounce his Christian beliefs, as well as pay a big lump sum to the anti-Christian activist who had prosecuted him, in a case I mentioned in a_ _previous column__, and which I am pleased to see is getting wide publicity in the United States even if not up here. "Re-education" programmes are frequently assigned, for which the victim must also pay._
_All of the complainant's expenses are paid by the taxpayer, as well as all of the overheads and expenses of the jet-setting "human rights" bureaucrats, who do all the prosecutorial work, as well as providing both judge and jury. The system is, in principle, indistinguishable from that in place during the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China. It was perpetrated by leftwing activists on the Canadian people while they were sleeping. It is a system of the activists, by the activists, and for the activists."_


Scary what some will do to trample everyone's free speech rights to promote some's sexual rights.

----------


## KStraker

> I am covered under my partner's insurance, as are our 2 children. We need the benefits of insurance as I just returned to work after being home with our children for 6 years. We were only able to offer the one-on-one time (with insurance) to our children because we have affordable group healthcare that recognized our partnership. My firstborn was in NICU at birth and we needed the insurance to protect his life.
> 
> Because we do not have many of the legal benefits, we spent a mini-fortune on legal agreements protecting our chidlren, protecting our assets, protecting our commitment. Even after all of this protection, I understand that my partner is not legally considered our child's parent. So, so sad. I have a $200,000 life insurance policy designed just for legal fees for my partner in case something happens to me.
> 
> We also have to plan extra for our retirement. Many benefits of marriage are not given to us - we have to duplicate it in as many forms as we can. 
> 
> We are Christians, accepted into our church with a commitment ceremony and a family commitment ceremony. A marriage - in our typically quiet way - would help preserve our commitments in faith, in our children and as our family's future. I am not on a political agenda. I care about my family...and more than anything, about my children having access to the many, many benefits of the "system" of marriage. Our "marriage" commitment is already there!


Frist of all , I am a Christian and I am a member of a non-denominational church. I am curious about your commitment ceremony. Do you mean that you were committed to each other in a ceremony at your church, or were committed as members of the church? As a Christian I beleive that the Bible is the infallable word of God. If your pastor and your church endorsed, provided venue, or conducted a same sex ceremony, then they stand in direct oppostition to God's word. This would seem a difficult position for a Christian church. I support your right to love whomever you please and be happy. I support your right to provide for the stability of your family. I do not support the dilution of very concrete Christian mandates to appease the needs of the world. 

with respect-kevin

----------


## Icareforeyecare

Actually, both. We are members and our church recognized the commitment. I will add that we wanted it to be more of a family commitment - as in to care and honor our family as a Christian unity. My children are always my priority. 

I am quite familiar with all ends of the Christian (and other) response and we are welcomed and completely accepted within the UCC church. 

I just simply wanted to share how we could benefit---more importantly, my children could benefit from legislative support and recognition of our family unit. 

I am not one to be in the spotlight on my personal beliefs, spiritual beliefs or otherwise. And I am sorry, but I will always gracefully "bow out" of this conversation. If anything, I just hoped that someone, somewhere, would consider the possible benefits. 

I appreciate your question, though.

----------


## For-Life

> Frist of all , I am a Christian and I am a member of a non-denominational church. I am curious about your commitment ceremony. Do you mean that you were committed to each other in a ceremony at your church, or were committed as members of the church? As a Christian I beleive that the Bible is the infallable word of God. If your pastor and your church endorsed, provided venue, or conducted a same sex ceremony, then they stand in direct oppostition to God's word. This would seem a difficult position for a Christian church. I support your right to love whomever you please and be happy. I support your right to provide for the stability of your family. I do not support the dilution of very concrete Christian mandates to appease the needs of the world. 
> 
> with respect-kevin


There are several Churches that perform gay marriages.  Many of these include Christian scholars who have studied the bible from front to back.  They know what they are doing.

----------


## For-Life

> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._fighting.html
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> _"I have mentioned only the current cases in which periodical publications have been prosecuted, in the strange new world of "Kafkanada" -- where you can be tried for the same imaginary "hate crimes" in any or all federal and provincial jurisdictions, simultaneously or sequentially. A single complaint by any reader anywhere is enough to launch a secret inquiry. The target has no right to confront his accuser, and will not at first even be told who he or she is._
> 
> _Truth is no defence, the absence of harm is no defence, there are no rules of evidence -- due process is entirely subverted. The inquisitors of these kangaroo courts may ultimately reach any "judgement" they please, after months or years of playing cat-and-mouse with their selected victim._
> 
> _A Protestant minister in Alberta was, for instance, recently ordered to publicly renounce his Christian beliefs, as well as pay a big lump sum to the anti-Christian activist who had prosecuted him, in a case I mentioned in a_ _previous column__, and which I am pleased to see is getting wide publicity in the United States even if not up here. "Re-education" programmes are frequently assigned, for which the victim must also pay._
> ...


What is scary are some of these right winged columns.  Truth is, if the Human Rights Board feels that any accusation is false, then they can turn it down.  People have to have the right to have a formal board to complain to.  While some will make false claims and take advantage of the process, the consequences of not having a source has its own flaws.

This is why the US has a similar process where you can claim that people are being unAmerican.

----------


## Jacqui

> Frist of all , I am a Christian and I am a member of a non-denominational church. I am curious about your commitment ceremony. Do you mean that you were committed to each other in a ceremony at your church, or were committed as members of the church? As a Christian I beleive that the Bible is the infallable word of God. If your pastor and your church endorsed, provided venue, or conducted a same sex ceremony, then they stand in direct oppostition to God's word. This would seem a difficult position for a Christian church. I support your right to love whomever you please and be happy. I support your right to provide for the stability of your family. I do not support the dilution of very concrete Christian mandates to appease the needs of the world. 
> 
> with respect-kevin


Diane and I were married (legally) in a Christian Church by a pastor and congregation that agreed that there was nothing wrong with it. I suppose there are those that disagree, but everyone concerned with our marriage is happy. 

I think, IMHO, that people should go back and reread all of the Bible and not just the parts that they want to, things may become clearer. 

Steve, Moderators: I realize this post may get me in trouble, but it needed to be said.

----------


## drk

> What is scary are some of these right winged columns. Truth is, if the Human Rights Board feels that any accusation is false, then they can turn it down. People have to have the right to have a formal board to complain to. While some will make false claims and take advantage of the process, the consequences of not having a source has its own flaws.
> 
> This is why the US has a similar process where you can claim that people are being unAmerican.


Do you have any way of helping me know what "similar process" you are referring to?

This "right wing" column was written by a fellow countryman of yours.  Maybe he thinks too much like an American for your liking?

----------


## For-Life

> Do you have any way of helping me know what "similar process" you are referring to?
> 
> This "right wing" column was written by a fellow countryman of yours. Maybe he thinks too much like an American for your liking?


During Fahrenheit 9/11, a pacifist group was chronicled who were reported for being "anti-American."  I think they were reported to the FBI who investigated them.

And yes, we do have right wingers in Canada.  Everyone is free to have their opinion, but some are more believable than others.

----------


## Jacqui

> During Fahrenheit 9/11, a pacifist group was chronicled who were reported for being "anti-American."  I think they were reported to the FBI who investigated them.


Several Anti-War groups have also been "investigated" including my own group. Fortunately they thought we were just a bunch of drunk Vietnam vets.

----------


## Grubendol

> Several Anti-War groups have also been "investigated" including my own group. Fortunately they thought we were just a bunch of drunk Vietnam vets.


Let's hear it for subversive Drunk Vietnam Vets!!!

Here Here!!!  :cheers:

----------


## chip anderson

Don't know about the truth of this but Right wing egotist, Michael Savage reported a week or two ago, that one could be arrested in Canada for giving anti-muslem speachs.

Chip

----------


## For-Life

> Don't know about the truth of this but Right wing egotist, Michael Savage reported a week or two ago, that one could be arrested in Canada for giving anti-muslem speachs.
> 
> Chip


Not true.  Someone reported McClains magazine for doing such, and it got refused.  That is where Mr. Savage probably twisted his story from.

----------


## Grubendol

If Savage is saying something, you can pretty much assume that it's a lie or a twisting of facts to suit his hate-filled agenda.

----------


## drk

Your source is a Michael Moore movie?  Are you writing farce here?

----------


## drk

> Everyone is free to have their opinion, but


...but you can't speak it?

----------


## For-Life

> ...but you can't speak it?


I swear, it does not matter what I write, because you will just continue to have a preconceived expectation and not try to understand it.

I never said we do not have freedom of speech or that I was against it.  Everyone has the right to speak their opinion.

----------


## For-Life

> Your source is a Michael Moore movie? Are you writing farce here?


he is as believable as the right winged columns you have been showing me.  

Plus, Jackie said that she knew of people and included herself.  I believe that Jackie is a reasonable source.

----------


## Spexvet

> Scary what some will do to trample everyone's free speech rights to promote some's sexual rights.


 It's scarier what some will do to people who don't think like they do.

Matthew Shepard

Stonewall
I like this:



> On April 21, 1966, members of the Society staged a "sip-in" at Julius Bar a block northeast of Stonewall challenging a New York State Liquor Authority rule that said homosexuals should not be served alcohol because they are considered "disorderly."


Scary what some will do to persecute people who don't agree with them.

----------

