Comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.
I think there should be a federal law. One issue protests only. If the issue is gay marriage, then fine. Only pro-gay marriage folks. No Nazis, no anti-church/state people, no nut's, gee, it just becomes one big cluster fuck for stupidness.
Some of the people there were freaky, most were not. And unlike some of the anti-Prop 8 protests during the previous 10 days, everyone at this demonstration was well behaved.
Of course, had the march passed by any churches it may have been a different story.
Some of the people there were freaky, most were not. And unlike some of the anti-Prop 8 protests during the previous 10 days, everyone at this demonstration was well behaved.
Of course, had the march passed by any churches it may have been a different story.
OT
Bye, bye. Well, I'm off to get ready for Christmas f'n cheer at the theatre tonight. IT'S TOO DAMN EARLY FOR A CHRISTMAS SHOW. I haven't even shot the turkey yet.
OT
Bye, bye. Well, I'm off to get ready for Christmas f'n cheer at the theatre tonight. IT'S TOO DAMN EARLY FOR A CHRISTMAS SHOW. I haven't even shot the turkey yet.
I know! They've been showing Christmas specials here since Holloween!
I just can't help but think that if the vote had gone the other way and conservatives had gone to the courts to get it overturned that they would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and skewered by the media, the pundits, and everyone else under the sun.
I really don't like the way that I am being treated by my country these days, to be honest.
OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.
So, this is all about those 2 words.
First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.
I just can't help but think that if the vote had gone the other way and conservatives had gone to the courts to get it overturned that they would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and skewered by the media, the pundits, and everyone else under the sun.
I really don't like the way that I am being treated by my country these days, to be honest.
Some of the people there were freaky, most were not. And unlike some of the anti-Prop 8 protests during the previous 10 days, everyone at this demonstration was well behaved.
Of course, had the march passed by any churches it may have been a different story.
The protests at the churches thing has to stop, if they have any moral high ground they lose it when they do that.
I read someone, somewhere, who said that the best advertisement for gay marriage was the steady parade of gay couples rehabbing houses and changing decors on the various home improvement shows (HGTV and Bravo have some of them. Keep your significant other away from those shows. They're expensive.)
And yeah, I see what they mean. Ordinary people living ordinary lives getting along as best they can.
But these folks kinda sully the cause, in my opinion. And if they were straight and acting like that, it'd be detrimental to heterosexual marriage, too.
I just can't help but think that if the vote had gone the other way and conservatives had gone to the courts to get it overturned that they would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and skewered by the media, the pundits, and everyone else under the sun.
I really don't like the way that I am being treated by my country these days, to be honest.
conservatives tend to accept the results of the process, and would not have created havoc. However, the ridicule and skewering would probably have taken place, anyhow.
OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.
So, this is all about those 2 words.
First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.
sometimes you hear the word 'gay' in an old movie and you have to go, "oh, that's what it used to mean."
occasionally, i still use it in the old way.
people giggle when i say, "i feel so gay today."
i don't think gov't should be in anybody marriage one way or the other
why should a single worker pay a different tax rate than a married person. and marriage is a religious issue as well different religions have different views on marriage why pick one esp now that america isn't only a christian country even christians don't agree on how or if you can end a marriage.
I read someone, somewhere, who said that the best advertisement for gay marriage was the steady parade of gay couples rehabbing houses and changing decors on the various home improvement shows (HGTV and Bravo have some of them. Keep your significant other away from those shows. They're expensive.)
No joke man, I can't keep my girlfriend off of those shows. I'm getting ready to buy a home, and she's already got a whole binder full of samples, sketches, and plans. . . .none of which we have money for. It's going to lead to some pretty upsetting arguments down the road a bit, I imagine.
conservatives tend to accept the results of the process, and would not have created havoc. However, the ridicule and skewering would probably have taken place, anyhow.
True, on both counts. How very unfortunate it is that we have to play by the rules, but everyone else is allowed to break them. And yet, that is why we're conservatives. No post-modern interpretation of rule playing is acceptable to us.
This Prop. 8 protest deal is annoying but I can't get worked up about it.
The confirmation that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State has taken all of the wind out of my sails.
sometimes you hear the word 'gay' in an old movie and you have to go, "oh, that's what it used to mean."
occasionally, i still use it in the old way.
people giggle when i say, "i feel so gay today."
Hey, reine.de.tout and I are playing Scrabble online, and I have been led to believe that you may want to join us...
It's not that they are fighting. It's how they are fighting.
The photos cover a demonstration 13000 strong at Civic Center, LA, the only ugly in this demo are the "god hates gay" crew that showed up, and the inevitable WCW goons who show up at every demo, rain or shine.
OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.
So, this is all about those 2 words.
So it's a separate institution but it's an equal institution. I think we've heard that before.
maybe we should pick the jewish idea of marriage and devorce i.e. with out a religious devoce you are still married even if you get a civil devorice american marriage laws are based on prot. christian views. or maybe we should have FLDS view or muslim
OR BETTER YET THE GOV'T SHOULD NOT BE IN THIS AT ALL. LET EACH GROUP DECIDE FOR THEMSELEVES AS LONG AS THEY CAN'T FORCE IT ON OTHER GROUPS
It's not that they are fighting. It's how they are fighting.
Can't really disagree there. . .but you know protests, they tend to draw out the most emphatic/enthusiastic portion of whatever group is represented. But you're right, just like the Black Panthers didn't really help the cause of the civil rights movement, some of these folks aren't exactly making their cause look attractive.
That really only works if you remove the benefit system associated with getting married.
But really either way without Government involvement the entire thing gets screwy.
For example: If you leave marriage up to the Religions, then that leaves non religious people out of the ability to get married. Ok, so now you allow those without Religion to marry. But by what constraints? You can't enforce your religious constraints on them, nor can you have universal constraints as that is Government involvement. So now you have everyone have their own constraints...which really means NO constraints. Fine. In this scenario, men can marry men, women can marry women, a man can marry two women, a woman can marry a man and an woman, a man can marry 100 different people, you can marry a dog, couch, the stars, etc. (I think you get the idea). Ok so at this point marriage is nothing more than a contract between parties...(which might be ok to some) but if it is nothing more than a contract then it is meaningless & no longer marriage.
i don't think gov't should be in anybody marriage one way or the other
why should a single worker pay a different tax rate than a married person. and marriage is a religious issue as well different religions have different views on marriage why pick one esp now that america isn't only a christian country even christians don't agree on how or if you can end a marriage.
Short of keeping census records (useful for genealogy research) I agree. Take the entitlement out of it and nobody cares. Then private concerns can call it what they want without infringing on others.
maybe we should pick the jewish idea of marriage and devorce i.e. with out a religious devoce you are still married even if you get a civil devorice american marriage laws are based on prot. christian views. or maybe we should have FLDS view or muslim
OR BETTER YET THE GOV'T SHOULD NOT BE IN THIS AT ALL. LET EACH GROUP DECIDE FOR THEMSELEVES AS LONG AS THEY CAN'T FORCE IT ON OTHER GROUPS
But it used to be that governments cared to do what was best for society, and most people accepted that marriage was best for the health of the society. No one makes these arguments anymore, and when I raise it in conversation people look at me as if I'm completely wacko. Which I may be, but I don't think this is the reason why.
If you are equating the institution of Slavery and the resulting civil rights struggle to this political movement, I have to think that is a bit of a stretch. And many blacks I know would be (and are) highly insulted by such an equivocation.
Maybe that is why they voted it down.
The photos cover a demonstration 13000 strong at Civic Center, LA, the only ugly in this demo are the "god hates gay" crew that showed up, and the inevitable WCW goons who show up at every demo, rain or shine.
My reference is to the other "demonstrations" and incidents. I haven't looked at this one as I'm at work.
sometimes you hear the word 'gay' in an old movie and you have to go, "oh, that's what it used to mean."
occasionally, i still use it in the old way.
people giggle when i say, "i feel so gay today."
I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.
The state has a legitimate interest in marriage, and regulating it. It was actually a huge victory just to get the concept of civil marriage and divorce accepted.
We do not want the state to completely withdraw from marriage.
Can't really disagree there. . .but you know protests, they tend to draw out the most emphatic/enthusiastic portion of whatever group is represented. But you're right, just like the Black Panthers didn't really help the cause of the civil rights movement, some of these folks aren't exactly making their cause look attractive.
True. Such people are a minority that hurt the efforts of the majority.
{vxbush} thank you so much for thinking of me but,
i'm so bad at cards, board games, puzzles etc. and i run from the room when charades starts up. i was always the kid who sat in the corner, coloring.
i've never played scrabble. i'll pass for now, and let someone, skilled, have my seat.
My 6-year-old asked me what "gay" meant yesterday. I tried to keep it simple and said it's when boys like boys and girls like girls. He seemed satisfied with that for now and let it go.
I wonder how many of those that voted Yes did so just as a protest against the judges making same-sex marriage legal because the people wanted to make that decision. I personally don't care if gays get married. Atheists can marry and no one seems to have a problem with them.
Ok I've been looking through the pictures and I have a couple comments.
1st, Ringo, thanks for taking them.
2nd, not allowing ANYONE to marry someone of the same sex is NOT discrimination!
3rd, Homosexual marriage (aka the right to do whatever the heck you want just because you want to) is NOT a Civil RIGHT!
4th, those who believe that marriage should remain between a man & a woman (as it has been since the beginning of time) DO NOT hate homosexuals.
5th, Believing that marriage is between a man & a woman is not equal to thinking that Gays should be beaten up or discriminated against.
6th, not being able to marry someone of your own sex is NOT the same as being forced to sit in the back of a bus, not being allowed to use certain bathrooms, being lynched, being beat up for walking down the street, not being able to vote, not being able to get a job, not being able to attend University...
But they past a constitutional amendment. Game is over. Are we still fighting for McCain to win? No. Why? He lost. We are fighting for our party but not through law suits and violence, but through fundamental changes to the plat form to win in another election.
Gay marriage is something the majority of the population doesn't agree with as is proven by this vote. Because the vote didn't go your way does NOT give you the right to scare people in churches, to be violent and belligerent or to force your agenda on a private business (eHarmony). These things tend not to engage people to your cause. Go live with your SO. I don't care. I don't care what you do in your bedroom with a consenting adult. Don't mistake my tolerance for acceptance, however.
(When I say you, its the collective you, for clarification)
If you are equating the institution of Slavery and the resulting civil rights struggle to this political movement, I have to think that is a bit of a stretch. And many blacks I know would be (and are) highly insulted by such an equivocation.
Maybe that is why they voted it down.
Yes - I've heard the same thing here. It's also hypocritically cowardly that these protesters have plenty of hate to spread around to white churches - yet didn't dare to protest, say a black Baptist Church or a Hispanic Catholic Church.
Not that I'd want them to - just pointing out the inconsistency.
This is NOT an issue of "Separate but equal" as everyone regardless of sexual orientation or any other presumed protected class (assuming sexual orientation is a protected class) is forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex.
Hillary Clinton is essentially a "Reality TV" star. Watching her lie/being lied to during hubby's tenure should have been a brief and meaningless interlude in American politics.
She wasn't even qualified to be a Senator, and now she's the Sec. of State? It boggles the mind.
Oh yeah, or any blacks too. Apparently 70% of the African American population of California voted Yes on 8; and a few days ago any black near Westwood, near UCLA, got heckled with racial slurs. It's OK when gays do it, apparently. Also, apparently African-Americans didn't see it as a civil rights issue.
I think the method for getting Prop. 8's point across was not the correct one, but the SCOC left very little wiggle room for the detractors of gay marriage. I am all in favor of granting gay couples some sort of "civil union" so they can get similar benefits to married people. But, almost all of the rights they say they do not have, they already have. There is nothing in the law that prevents partnerships, nothing that prevents beneficiaries from being named. The only thing a "gay married couple" might run into is when "family members only" visitation is at stake. Their rights are not being trampled, they are not being "persecuted", they are not victims. They wanted to have the court act as a legislature in a questionable manner...and this is the response they get back.
I have gay friends, gay relatives and I love them all. But, asking the society to change a natural and age old tradition for their own narrow personal agenda is asking too much. Two consenting adults can do whatever they wish with each other, it's none of my business. But, when a very small group of people wish to force their lifestyle upon me and society in general, that is too much...
Democracy works Obama won.
Democracy failed Prop 8 passed.
Same election.
Same voters.
Cognitive Dissonance.
How about this:
Use logic to win if possible, but if you fail . . .
Use appeals to emotion to win, but if emotion fails . . .
Use the law to win, but if the law fails . . .
Use force.
You don't see street demonstrations protesting Obama's election, you don't see a rash of lawsuits, you don't see the Republicans setting up a "government in exile," and you're not going to see George Bush flying around visiting foreign governments as did Jimmy Carter. Why? Because most Republicans respect our Constitution, while the "moonbat" left simply uses and abuses our Constitution when it's convenient.
My 6-year-old asked me what "gay" meant yesterday. I tried to keep it simple and said it's when boys like boys and girls like girls. He seemed satisfied with that for now and let it go.
I wonder how many of those that voted Yes did so just as a protest against the judges making same-sex marriage legal because the people wanted to make that decision. I personally don't care if gays get married. Atheists can marry and no one seems to have a problem with them.
Actually, I have a friend in California that said she knew many, many people that voted no because they just felt it was inevitible. The were against gay-marriage and had voted twice to ban it - but with the courts over-ruling them each time they had just given up.
Regardless of which side you are on regarding Prop 8, the militant radicals in the gay movement have demonstrated that they truly are domestic terrorists. They've stomped on crosses carried by their opponents, silencing the opposition by brute force instead of debate; sent hate mail and envelopes with white powder to Mormon temples to scare mormons away from practicing their beliefs.
And now, they are attempting to use the California Supreme Court to overturn a mandate that is written in the constitution to allow people to vote for and install constitutional amendments. The California Supreme Court is walking a thin line. If they overturn Prop 8, they overturn the entire California constitution and over the law of the land installing their own, unique form of government--rule by judicial fiat where the justices create the laws.
Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.
Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.
This Prop. 8 protest deal is annoying but I can't get worked up about it.
The confirmation that Hillary Clinton will be Secretary of State has taken all of the wind out of my sails.
I'm just glad the election is over so I don't have to pretend to have any respect for HRC anymore.
Yeah, she was better than the Chicago Marxist. She still had no class.
Actually, I have a friend in California that said she knew many, many people that voted no because they just felt it was inevitible. The were against gay-marriage and had voted twice to ban it - but with the courts over-ruling them each time they had just given up.
I think Obama got a lot of votes based on that logic, too. Folks were told that he was going to win, so they voted for him.
re: #103 vxbush
The closest I ever got to living in a house that size, it was a house boat, 900 sq ft. the kind you see moored in Sausalito, which is where I would have moored it.
Couldn't get a bank loan for it.
That was probably a reasonable outcome.
...sent hate mail and envelopes with white powder to Mormon temples to scare mormons away from practicing their beliefs.
The threats made me want to go more often. Of course I also took the whole family down to Centennial Olympic Park the day after the Olympic bombing in 1996 just to send the terrorists a message.
So it's a separate institution but it's an equal institution. I think we've heard that before.
Black people ARE identical to white people, however.
Men are not identical (even beyond genitals) to women.
Thus, male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships are not all interchangable.
If Cali. judges overturn Prop. 8 over the will of the people, BHO will have a few more judges to look at for SCOTUS. In BHO's world, justice is not blind. Twist the law to fit your liberal/socialist ideaology.
I used to be pro-gay marriage. The way that it has unfolded over the last four or five years has changed my mind. I'm sure that for some of the people, they really do want to get married and have a "traditional" marriage with their chosen spouse. I am also sure that that is the minority view. The way it has played out, I think it is more about getting in the face of straights and changing societal norms to be more accommodating to them. In other words, they want to force me to approve of their choices.
Trying to go through the courts has been a big mistake. Three unelected judges telling the whole State (let alone the whole country) that they don't have a right to their views is a recipe for failure. It guarantees a backlash, and that's what just happened in California. The gays have succeeded in changing hearts and minds, it is just that they have gone in exactly the opposite direction from what they wanted.
I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. I used to be a lot more sympathetic to gays. No more - their thuggery has absolutely disgusted me. From hate crimes legislation to teaching 5 year olds about their lifestyle. Enough!
Civil Unions are legal in almost all 50 states. The marriage issue is also a states rights issue. If gays want to marry there are at least two states at this point in time that allow it. Let them vote with their feet.
Marriage pre-dates the United States, pre-dates the Constitution, even pre-dates organized Religion. It exists solely as a social construct. I lived in MA when Margaret Marshall issued her "landmark" ruling that homosexuals should be given all of the rights and protections that married couples have. I don't consider gay couples "married", and that's all that really matters to me.
jewish law says the issue is more complex than just one male and one female. some types of jews were not allowed to marry others in some subsets of jews.
but then we don't want to force our beliefs on gentiles and we don't want gentiles to force there beliefs on us. and this issue could just do that.
Black people ARE identical to white people, however.
Men are not identical (even beyond genitals) to women.
Thus, male-male, female-female, and male-female relationships are not all interchangable.
Society, not just social conservatives. There were a lot of people who pulled the lever for Obama and voted "yes" on Prop.8. No one, I mean no one of any significance in either Party was for gay marriage. You don't have to like that. But that is the fact of where we stand today.
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.
Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.
It's been said here before, but when a gay couple can produce a child without a third party we'll talk.
Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.
Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.
Should gay marriage be taught in school as a natural and normal behavior? Should it be presented as exactly the same as marriage between and man and woman? I do not think I would like a school to basically tell my 2nd grader that it's perfectly natural and normal for two women or two men to get married, just as it is for a man and a woman. Marriage between a man and a woman is a the foundation of our society. Please show me how it is not.
Society is slowly accepting the fact that there are gay people. If certain members of the gay community continue this method of protest, they are hurting their cause way more than they are helping it.
Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.
Social conservatives (and clearly many liberals, after all this is California) are not for "two parent families", they are for families with both a mother and a father (or at least maintaining that as the ideal).
I agree whole heartedly with your assessment. I used to be a lot more sympathetic to gays. No more - their thuggery has absolutely disgusted me. From hate crimes legislation to teaching 5 year olds about their lifestyle. Enough!
Civil Unions are legal in almost all 50 states. The marriage issue is also a states rights issue. If gays want to marry there are at least two states at this point in time that allow it. Let them vote with their feet.
What about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Won't other states have to abide by the legal decisions of another states?
All I know is that the people voted, the vote should stand. Same deal if 8 hadn't passed. If 8 is overturned, the precedent can come back to haunt everyone, including these protesters. Unfotunately, I get the feeling that most of these protesters only care about democracy as long as it's not their vote that is overruled.
My 6-year-old asked me what "gay" meant yesterday. I tried to keep it simple and said it's when boys like boys and girls like girls. He seemed satisfied with that for now and let it go.
I wonder how many of those that voted Yes did so just as a protest against the judges making same-sex marriage legal because the people wanted to make that decision. I personally don't care if gays get married. Atheists can marry and no one seems to have a problem with them.
That would be turn, I'm fed up with liberal judges reversing the will of the people. Otherwise I don't really care one way or another. BTW my favorite uncle was gay. I can still remember the night the family was sitting around the dinner table when my father broke the news to my brother and I, hell I had to be about 9 or 10 at the time. The conversation turned to my uncle (mom's younger brother) and then mom and dad began cryptically arguing over whether dad should tell my brother and I something. After a few shots of ten high my dad just came out and said "Lee is gay, he likes other men." Oh I realized what he meant right away but I had no idea up until that point what gay meant. Long story short, Uncle Lee remained my favorite uncle and my parents seemed to be very relieved. Oh and at my dad's funeral I found out that uncle had been sleeping with my cousin Bret for years!
Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.
That's a pretty broad brush you are painting with there pilgrim. I happen to think that the government shouldn't define marriage and should get out of the entitlement business. Then let the various factions be guided by the dictates of their own conscience.
Any government that can forbid something can also require it.
Of course I have a very libertarian streak. I believe that a population must practice private morality - something that just cannot be legislated.
The difficult part is balancing individual rights with community standards with the common good. I fear anyone who professes to have an easy answer to that question.
Mine was 1200 sq feet. I am sending this link to my husband. He took me to lunch today (SAP WARNING: called out of the blue, said "Baby, meet me at Chipotle cause I miss you") and we were talking about building a house behind my house and tearing the house I live in down. Its old, its big, its drafty. I said I wanted small, new, small and new. This is perfect. Not for the environment, for CLEANING.
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
Oh yeah, or any blacks too. Apparently 70% of the African American population of California voted Yes on 8; and a few days ago any black near Westwood, near UCLA, got heckled with racial slurs. It's OK when gays do it, apparently. Also, apparently African-Americans didn't see it as a civil rights issue.
To be precise, it isn't. I don't hate gays, but I do dislike some of their political views.
It's been said here before, but when a gay couple can produce a child without a third party we'll talk.
But they do have children, why are children of gays valued less than children of heterosexuals? Isn't it important for them to grow up in a two parent household. are Social conservatives pro-family?
I think you deliberately obfuscate the point. Nobody wants to punish gay people, but marriage between a man and a woman has proven benefits to Society, so Society makes it rewarding for a man and woman to marry. If you want to simply ban marriage in all forms because it somehow discriminates against single people, then you'd have a point.
I am glad you wrote about that, because that is precisely what this movement is all about.
It is not so much about marriage as it is about being accepted as normal, and to be taught in schools and churches as such.
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
There is a huge difference between taking away an existing right vs. inventing a new right. Using your logic, society would be infringing on the right of a bigamist if we disallowed multiple weddings from the same person, or if we disallowed drug users from using drugs. Society has to have rules.
All I know is that the people voted, the vote should stand. Same deal if 8 hadn't passed. If 8 is overturned, the precedent can come back to haunt everyone, including these protesters. Unfotunately, I get the feeling that most of these protesters only care about democracy as long as it's not their vote that is overruled.
Well said, I agree completely. The courts are trying to usurp the voter's power.
Mine was 1200 sq feet. I am sending this link to my husband. He took me to lunch today (SAP WARNING: called out of the blue, said "Baby, meet me at Chipotle cause I miss you") and we were talking about building a house behind my house and tearing the house I live in down. Its old, its big, its drafty. I said I wanted small, new, small and new. This is perfect. Not for the environment, for CLEANING.
There you go! Why spend hours cleaning? I bet you could clean that entire structure in under 1 hour flat!
Social conservatives say they are for liberty, except when it comes to gays.
Yeah, I'm sure that Thomas Jefferson is spinning in his grave because most people don't think that gay "marriage" is equivalent to traditional marriage.
jewish law says the issue is more complex than just one male and one female. some types of jews were not allowed to marry others in some subsets of jews.
but then we don't want to force our beliefs on gentiles and we don't want gentiles to force there beliefs on us. and this issue could just do that.
Probably without meaning to you've hit the nail on the head. I believe this whole kurfluffle is a gambit to force churches - traditionally against the gay lifestyle - to perform gay marriages. It's an attempt to destroy the churches. Period.
If prop 8 had not passed, I, as a Mormon, can guarantee you that I would not have sent white powder to a homosexual's house as someone did to two of our temples (and a Catholic fraternity).
I don't see how the no on 8 crowd can expect to make any progress with the kind of behavior being displayed. Their "progress" has been measured by overturning election results through Mayor directives and an indifference by their Supreme Court towards the law and now by these "protests" that would make MLK turn in his grave.
On the other hand, in the states where gay marriage has passed the results of the elections have been respected. Even when the CA leadership began to issue gay marriage licenses in defiance of their own vote the movement for prop 8 conducted itself legally and with no 'white powder' techniques in the form of the ballot initiative.
Whose behavior appears to be that of the bigot?
[keep in mind, I am not referring to everyone who opposed prop 8 - I know there are many people, friends and acquaintances of mine alike, who were opposed to prop 8 for reasons other than the perennial 'religion is full of bigots' reasons]
Ok, let's say all of this is reversed and gay marriage becomes the law again. And, let's say other states grant it as well. Where does this end?
I can see some dude showing up at city hall in a few years and proclaiming that he is deeply in love and wishes to marry: Barbara AND Tim. You see, he is bisexual and is love with both of them, and they are in love with him too. So, it's trampling on that poor guys rights to not accept his marriage to a man and a woman...So, let's add that...
What's after that Man and animal?
Gay people...I love you...you are human beings, just like everyone else...I do not judge you, and please, do not judge me...I am not asking you to change your entire culture, but you are asking me to change mine...sorry.
But they do have children, why are children of gays valued less than children of heterosexuals? Isn't it important for them to grow up in a two parent household. are Social conservatives pro-family?
Just curious. What does 2 gay parents have to do with marriage? 2 gay parents can bring up child with out being "married"?
Should gay marriage sexuality be taught in school as a natural and normal behavior?
Isn't this what we're really talking about when it comes to "marriage" education in schools?
Really - I'd rather teach it at home. (...and please don't advocate the state take over parenting duties for the ignoramuses who won't instruct their own children about the facts of life).
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
I thin it was five. Anyway. Take religion out of it, societies through out the ages have given special consideration to marriage because it provides the next generation of that society. Your argument ignores the fact that societies make rules for the continuance of that society and the prosperity of it's members. When that stops happening societies fail.
We've seen the effect broken homes across America, and, in fact, the World.
Ignoring the need for a functioning society is the only way that L. Neil Smith can make their uber-individualistic philosophy work.
I too was very Pro-Gay marriage until Gavin Newsom (sp?) decided to thumb his nose at the entire state. The way that the Homosexuals have labeled me, attacked religion, and otherwise responded to this issue has pushed me even further against Gay Marriage. Their confusing being pro Traditional Definition of Marriage, and being Anti-Homosexual has pretty much ensured that they will never have me back.
Like most emotional, immature, leftists, they have confused the actual issue, and overplayed their hand with me.
You are correct when you state that: "in other words, they want to force me to approve of their choices." This is EXACTLY what it is about for the actual Homosexuals. You will notice however from the photos that they are not alone. Their issue has been wiillingly co-opted by those who take every step possible to attack the core of the United States. (ex: World Can't Wait)
Their co-opting of the actual Civil Rights Movement adds to my disgust with their cause. Their inability to get everything they want (but are denied to everyone equally) is NOT the same as the disgusting treatment of African Americans, or even Women throughout history.
Their comparing their cause to that of the Civil Rights Movement just further evidences how sick, and selfish their movement really is! That they cannot see the difference should offend everyone.
The interesting thing about the word gay is that it has been redefined in colloquial use. It mutated away from the meaning of happy to homosexual. But it has also, subsequently evolved to be a pejorative as in, That was gay!
But languages are not static and constantly evolve. I think the same occurred with the word terrific, stemming from the word terrible. But then again, I could be wrong.
But can you imagine if someone with that house died what the will would be? "I will my house to my dog." Because it's just an oversized dog house. But I find it strangely tempting.
marriage between a man and a woman has proven benefits to Society,
Aside from procreation (which can and does occur without marriage) , what benefits does society get out of heterosexual marriage? What "benefits" are lost if gays and/or lesbians marry?
They won by 3 percent, that doesn't mean the support is overwhelming. There is a great deal of cognitive dissonance with individual rights going on here. Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?
The state is telling a lot of people that - and they're not gay!
Their significant others were previously married and produced at least one child. The the former spouses have a "right" to the money of the new significant other - if the two SO's marry.
The state (that is, A) presumes to tell a person (B, the prospective spouse) that they can be robbed for the benefit of the child of a former marriage (C).
So Wrath and Iron fist, you changed a principled stance because of the 10 percent rule? (10 percent of any population are idiots...) Sounds petulant and unreasoned to me.
Probably without meaning to you've hit the nail on the head. I believe this whole kurfluffle is a gambit to force churches - traditionally against the gay lifestyle - to perform gay marriages. It's an attempt to destroy the churches. Period.
Correct. Much of this is an attempt to destroy our institutions. Nothing would make the gay-left alliance (meaning, those gays who are also lefty moonbatish) then to put the Boy Scouts, Catholic Church, etc out of business in America. Look at what happened to E-Harmony this week.
Hang on folks! We're forgetting the bisexuals out there. If gays can get married, should bi's be able to have one male and one female marriage too? Are all three married? Is it just one union, or two separate ones?
Until the gays can answer that, they are not seeking any form of rights, just their own agenda.
Easy answer on your part. I think my point if valid. It is a rubber stamp on their lifestyle that they want the most. If this is overturned and accepted and other states grant it, it opens up the flood gates of an agenda that wants to change our society at it's core. I greatly respect your opinion and think you are a very smart guy, but on this issue, it is not as cut and dry as you are stating.
The state is telling a lot of people that - and they're not gay!
Their significant others were previously married and produced at least one child. The the former spouses have a "right" to the money of the new significant other - if the two SO's marry.
The state (that is, A) presumes to tell a person (B, the prospective spouse) that they can be robbed for the benefit of the child of a former marriage (C).
The state is a scoundrel!
More importantly, Dianna, people like Thanos are saying that because the measured only passed by 3% (or 5%) that it really isn't a valid election. Pretty scary stuff.
Past recipients include former US presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, former Czech leader Vaclav Havel and former South African President Nelson Mandela.
The state is telling a lot of people that - and they're not gay!
Their significant others were previously married and produced at least one child. The the former spouses have a "right" to the money of the new significant other - if the two SO's marry.
The state (that is, A) presumes to tell a person (B, the prospective spouse) that they can be robbed for the benefit of the child of a former marriage (C).
The state is a scoundrel!
Including the income of a new spouse when calculating CS? That's whack.
strawman, we are talking about marriage between two adult humans.
But if 4 members of a California court can rule that any laws banning gay marriage to be invalid, why not overturn a law saying a 40 year-old can't marry a 12 year old?
Prop 8 should go through the system. Not everything decided by popular vote is constitutional.
Maybe, but I imagine you'll start to have second thoughts down the road as the line is redrawn for the thousandth time because a vocal minority doesn't like it.
Yes, it really is. You are giving the slippery slope fear argument when we are talking about marriage by the state between two consenting adults who might or might not have children.
Strawman, we are talking about gay marriage, not bigamy laws. Stay with the subject.
I disagree. You want to bend the existing rules and replace them with something different. You are making universal statements about invented rights being tarnished.
Where does your non-sense end? will it be that if gays can marry than the whole world will be in balance and no one's rights are infringed? I doubt it. More likely it sets a precedent and everyone with a made-up grievence will be free to use your arguments.
If you are equating the institution of Slavery and the resulting civil rights struggle to this political movement, I have to think that is a bit of a stretch. And many blacks I know would be (and are) highly insulted by such an equivocation.
Maybe that is why they voted it down.
What I'm saying is that there are superficial similarities. Isn't that the point of simile and metaphor, anyway? An example given on wikipedia.org's on similes is "his mind is as sharp as a samurai's sword.". The similarities between a mind and a samurai's sword are exceptionally superficial, but then again, that's kind-of the point. Similes, by their very nature, are also quite prone to hyperbole. If you don't exaggerate, the point your trying to make might be lost.
So, anyway, you're completely right - the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement are completely different. Indeed, as far as I know, the institutions actually are equal - I just don't see the need for them to have another name. The website protectmarriage.com discussed the consequences of gay marriage in Massachusetts and I think the points if makes are valid ones. Of course, I don't think the problems in Massachusetts stem from their not defining marriage as being between a man and a women but rather between their non-discrimination stuff.
California could always say "adoption agencies must not distinguish between civil unions and marraige" and that'd, essentially, be the same thing as saying "adoption agencies must not distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual marriages". I mean, what's wrong with the adjective? Why do new words have to be invented?
But if 4 members of a California court can rule that any laws banning gay marriage to be invalid, why not overturn a law saying a 40 year-old can't marry a 12 year old?
It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope...
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.
Please stop equating homosexuality with bestiality and pedophiles . It's bigoted, offensive and stupid.
The beastiality is a stretch, granted. And, PLEASE, I did not mention pedophiles. However, I can turn the tables of your own argument against you when it comes to three people marrying. I can use the same approach and same reasoning you are right now to justify it. Why would that be wrong? If two guys or two girls is ok, why not a girl and two guys? Or, two girls and one guy? They are consenting adults and want to do it? Why not let them?
What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?
What about the Full Faith and Credit Clause? Won't other states have to abide by the legal decisions of another states?
The only way I can answer that (as I am not a constitutional attorney) is a case here in Virginia. Two gay ladies were residents of Virginia. They married in MA and moved to Vermont because Vermont recognized the union. One of the women had had a child with her husband before they divorced and she became gay.
after a couple of years the gay couple divorced. The mother of the child left Vermont and went back home to Virginia. Vermont mom sued for visitation and Vermont issued some sort of injunction on Virginia mom. Virginia - the state - hit back and said forget it! We don't recognize your marriage or your claim.
In the meantime, gay mom became not gay again and got back together with her ex-husband. This was Virginia trump card. When Vermont tried to push back, Virginia - the state - told Vermont to drop it as they had the biological mom, the biological dad and the child. Case was dropped.
So, that's what I know about that. Not much and I understand your question, but the law is already no where near caught up with this.
Yes, it really is. You are giving the slippery slope fear argument when we are talking about marriage by the state between two consenting adults who might or might not have children.
But why just 2 adults? Seriously, why can't 4 adults get married to each other? Because it's the "rule"? Well let's just change the rule. If enough people want it that seems to be good enough, right?
What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?
Any one see today's USA today? As we all know, the most generous state in America is Utah. They donate both time and money to charitable causes roughly twice the rate of the rest of the country.
But they do have children, why are children of gays valued less than children of heterosexuals? Isn't it important for them to grow up in a two parent household. are Social conservatives pro-family?
And what about all the infertile straight couples who can't produce a child?
To have children or not have children is moot. What is glaring at you right now, is a justification of a lifestyle. What other lifestyles should be granted equal status? It is a slippery slope, that is the point. It is a floodgate ready to open.
More importantly, Dianna, people like Thanos are saying that because the measured only passed by 3% (or 5%) that it really isn't a valid election. Pretty scary stuff.
I see Thanos' point - not on the percentage by which Prop 8 passed, but his broader one.
My problem with the current behavior has to do with the very serious issue of judicial activism. The people spoke; the people can speak again, if gays make the effort. It is asking for severe trouble to rely on an activist judiciary.
I've stayed out of this up to this point. Yes, some of them to have children. Usually it is from a previous heterosexual relationship.
I have no problem with their marriage by the state, or civil union, as one may call it. However, I do not think anyone should force such a thing on religious marriages. It should be up to each sect or religion if they choose to have them marry within said sect or religion.
marriage between a man and a woman has proven benefits to Society,
Aside from procreation (which can and does occur without marriage) , what benefits does society get out of heterosexual marriage? What "benefits" are lost if gays and/or lesbians marry?
My little sister is gay..She seems happy and does not constitute a threat to western civilization as we know it.. That's my opinion.
I admit..I don't understand homosexuality..I've been around some very very handsome men..And I'm not the least bit attracted to them..So it may be chemical.. I honesty don't know...And while i don't agree with the lifestyle If anyone threatened my sister or called her names they would have to deal with the hoopster and it wouldn't be pretty.
A challenge to the FF&C Clause has been turned down?
I can look it up but I think there have been at least five appeals turned away. There was fear that the last one came close to being accepted which is why some people started pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument.
Interracial marriage has never been universally illegal. Moses was married to an African-American (yes, I used that term to be funny).
Several racist societies had many laws, including those dealing with interracial marriage. But one man, one women marriage goes back to English common law in the US.
OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.
So, this is all about those 2 words.
First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.
Because all these characters have stolen or twisted meanings. "Peoples Democratic Republic" = Communist. Certain crosses mean hate groups. Maltese cross associated with Nazis as was the swastika. A simple rainbow arch, starting off meaning diversity, is twisted as bizarre groups leapt aboard the bandwagon. "Peoples Army" = Communist Army. The list goes on and on. The names and symbols start off innocuous to mislead people. Look at names of communist front groups in the US; United for Peace and Justice. Then there is Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development a front name for Islam terror.
The idea is to come up with emblems, logos, and names that when a person speaks against them, they will be held up to ridicule. Who can be against Relief and Development? Against Peace and Justice?
Some of this makes NO sense at all. Like the one that said: "I had an affair with Mormon bishop with 6 kids for 2 years." OK, so both he and the (most likely FORMER) Bishop are both perverts. And what does THAT have to do with Prop 8? Oh, nothing, just his lame attempt at Mormon bashing.
-LAME
It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope...
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.
I don't think so. Prohibiting Interracial marriage is, clearly, unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution referring to 'sexual orientation.'
I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.
I agree, even as a monogomous Latter-day Saint (mainstream Mormon). However I would be hard pressed to accept the "law of the land" telling me I had to provide government benefits to the multiple spouses of polygamists or to any other marital arrangement.
That's why the government should take the entitlements out of any kind of social bond. (of course I'm not voluntarily giving up my deductions as long as it's allowed).
Easy answer on your part. I think my point if valid. It is a rubber stamp on their lifestyle that they want the most. If this is overturned and accepted and other states grant it, it opens up the flood gates of an agenda that wants to change our society at it's core. I greatly respect your opinion and think you are a very smart guy, but on this issue, it is not as cut and dry as you are stating.
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
The threats made me want to go more often. Of course I also took the whole family down to Centennial Olympic Park the day after the Olympic bombing in 1996 just to send the terrorists a message.
I'm glad you went. However, it's not the desire that they're shutting down, but the ability to go to Mormon temples that they're attacking. If they send a letter with white powder in it, the people inside must be evacuated safely, HAZMAT must be called, FBI must be called, and the Mormon temple is closed down for an indefinite period of time--thus removing the ability to go to that particular Mormon temple. It's domestic terrorism pure and simple and why the media has not run the story is disingenuous.
Correction: This is true for THAT ONE mortgage company. Not a Freddie/Fanny policy. I was told by the loan officer that since it was a company policy, it wouldn't be on the net. I apologize. That was not the way it was described. I guess she didn't want us looking at other companies.
No, it's not a slippery slope. It's gay marriage. You still haven't given a good reason why gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, can you stay on subject and give some reason other than "what if"?
I have no personal objections to polygamy as long as all participants are consenting adults.
But would you sue to force an employer to provide benifits to all of your spouses? Would you sue E-Harmony because they don't have a polygamist page? Would you sue the Boy Scouts, Salvation Army and attack the Catholic church because they don't share your views on this?
A 2 parent household doesn't mean simply having 2 people parenting. Its 2 people with the mother role and father role. For simplification, the mother role is to be warm and nurturing. The father role is the rule enforcer, the protector. It works. Healthy children are raised. Can healthy children be raised in a same sex household? Yes, I am sure they are, just as some unhealthy children are produced from a 2 parent mother/father household. A single parent can raise a happy child, too, but it takes a hell of a lot of work to integrate male or female role models as the case may be. There are few that pull that off - kudos, BIG BIG kudos to the single parents that do.
The only way I can answer that (as I am not a constitutional attorney) is a case here in Virginia. Two gay ladies were residents of Virginia. They married in MA and moved to Vermont because Vermont recognized the union. One of the women had had a child with her husband before they divorced and she became gay.
after a couple of years the gay couple divorced. The mother of the child left Vermont and went back home to Virginia. Vermont mom sued for visitation and Vermont issued some sort of injunction on Virginia mom. Virginia - the state - hit back and said forget it! We don't recognize your marriage or your claim.
In the meantime, gay mom became not gay again and got back together with her ex-husband. This was Virginia trump card. When Vermont tried to push back, Virginia - the state - told Vermont to drop it as they had the biological mom, the biological dad and the child. Case was dropped.
So, that's what I know about that. Not much and I understand your question, but the law is already no where near caught up with this.
I wondered what had happened to that case. Thanks!
Do you think we could have them hold another demonstration this weekend...most of these folks probably wouldn't notice the 8 ft chainlink and concertina wire fence construction around them for a day or two...
Keep freaks off the streets! That's a demonstration I could support.
Sooner or later the child, however s/he has come to be, realizes that either one or the other of its parents is not all that it purports to be. Myself, I could care less what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, but they cannot (in the circumstances as described) conceive a child in any natural manner. Therefore, the couple cannot be 'parents' of said child. What these individuals are looking for is recognition and justification for their 'unnatural' behavior. If they are granted legal recognition, then we all become responsible for the potential results of any other 'unnatural' behavior as a result of their 'act'. Why I should pay (public defender ring any bells?) for something of which society sees no benefit is beyond me.
No, it's not a slippery slope. It's gay marriage. You still haven't given a good reason why gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, can you stay on subject and give some reason other than "what if"?
Yes, it really is. You are giving the slippery slope fear argument when we are talking about marriage by the state between two consenting adults who might or might not have children.
If we were arguing out of fear, that statement might be valid. The problem is, when the courts intervene over the will of the people, that slippery slope becomes a greased ramp.
There's a great deal about this issue that's difficult; it won't be improved by tearing at each other. This needs to be thrashed out by the great, mushy middle. Not the activists on either side.
Ok, let's say all of this is reversed and gay marriage becomes the law again. And, let's say other states grant it as well. Where does this end?
I can see some dude showing up at city hall in a few years and proclaiming that he is deeply in love and wishes to marry: Barbara AND Tim. You see, he is bisexual and is love with both of them, and they are in love with him too. So, it's trampling on that poor guys rights to not accept his marriage to a man and a woman...So, let's add that...
What's after that Man and animal?
Gay people...I love you...you are human beings, just like everyone else...I do not judge you, and please, do not judge me...I am not asking you to change your entire culture, but you are asking me to change mine...sorry.
Guy already tried that in MA. Showed up with two sisters and said it was his alternative lifestyle.
Look, society makes laws all the time in what they will except and what they will not. Someone please explain how this is any different that the country wide ban on polygamy? Polygamy is not only not permitted it is criminal. People go to jail for it. Why is this determination any different?
These people have equal rights, they have equal protection. They are just being denied one thing - the term marriage. I'd say they have it a lot better than the polygamists.
I can look it up but I think there have been at least five appeals turned away. There was fear that the last one came close to being accepted which is why some people started pushing the Federal Marriage Amendment.
This is one issue I just cannot get all worked up about either way.
But why just 2 adults? Seriously, why can't 4 adults get married to each other? Because it's the "rule"? Well let's just change the rule. If enough people want it that seems to be good enough, right?
But enough people DIDN'T want it. that's the point. Prop 8 passed and the PEOPLE said No.
But that is a medical condition preventing it. And honestly, I don't care if heterosexual couples decide not to have children, either. Doesn't make me ok with gay marriage.
What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?
You are asking the question, why don't you answer it? Why can't four adults get married ala Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land" or whatever?
Not sure what that refers to but the answer to my questions is obviously hypocrisy, and bigotry. I have yet to hear any argument for gay marriage that can't also be applied to polygamy other than the number of people involved which I fail to see as being relevant. And since you apparently had no answer, I'm still waiting to hear the arguments.
No, it's not a slippery slope. It's gay marriage. You still haven't given a good reason why gays shouldn't be permitted to marry, can you stay on subject and give some reason other than "what if"?
Why should gay people be given special rights and privileges by society when those special rights and privileges are Societal Carrots to propagate and expand that society? The number of gay people who marry to raise a family is pretty small.
One of the interesting topics this elevates is, where does it end?
One of my brother's friends wants to marry his left hand. Why not? He's very affectionate of his left hand and is in a very intimate relationship with it. So, because he truly loves his left hand he should be able to marry his left hand and then gain all the benefits of marrying his left hand. On his taxes he could now claim his left hand as a dependent--his hand cannot survive without him. But, after he marries his left hand, he also wants to marry his right hand. Why should a polygamous marriage be excluded? He may favor the left, but his right he still loves. And then there's his pet pygmy goat...
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
Now, THAT is one point at which I'll fight like hell.
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.
Some of this makes NO sense at all. Like the one that said: "I had an affair with Mormon bishop with 6 kids for 2 years." OK, so both he and the (most likely FORMER) Bishop are both perverts. And what does THAT have to do with Prop 8? Oh, nothing, just his lame attempt at Mormon bashing.
-LAME
I've known other Mormons in my own congregations who "discovered" they were gay late into a marriage with multiple kids. Left the family over it... the aftermath was not pretty in either case.
I was more upset with their abandonment of the family they had covenanted to care for than whatever subsequent lifestyle they chose to live.
The bragging about it is exactly that - A smug self-righteous kind of superiority knowing that they are now enlightened and not subject to the ignorance of their former beliefs. I've heard it many times.
Funny when I left my former belief system to become a Mormon I didn't feel the need to destroy or prove wrong what I had left. I also didn't have to abandon my dependents to do so.
Correction: This is true for THAT ONE mortgage company. Not a Freddie/Fanny policy. I was told by the loan officer that since it was a company policy, it wouldn't be on the net. I apologize. That was not the way it was described. I guess she didn't want us looking at other companies.
That's what I suspected. Boot her butt to the curb. She's unethical.
Now, THAT is one point at which I'll fight like hell.
It happened in Albuquerque just last year. The People's State of New Mexico went after the photographers because they refused to do a shoot of a commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.
Sorry but marriage is not a "special right" or "privelage". It was around before the Christian church, or the US. For that matter, gay marriage was legal until it was outlawed by a Christian Roman Emperor.
What are the rules based upon? What the majority wants? When it comes to individual rights, the majority can be a tyrant. Again, put that shoe on your foot, what if the state were saying you couldn't marry your significant other?
I'm trying to imagine the scenario, but I struggle because of 3000 years of societal history.
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the rules regarding marriage are based on Common Law and have been codified in various state laws, which derive their authority - ultimately - from the US constitution. The US constitution does not grant any special rights based on sexual orientation. So, it is totally within the authority of the states to define the legal parameters.
In this particular case, I do not see tyranical behavior. Folks should be free in their bedroom to do whatever. I do not see anything that is hamstringing a gay couple from continuing to live happy and productive lives.
It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope...
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.
I think you are reading things into the post that aren't there. Until DD says or suggests they are the same, I will takes his words at face value.
A gay man is already able to marry a woman. I don't see any discrimination there.
You give the sarcasm slash, but what you say is true. Gays have the same rights as straights. No law says that a straight person can marry the same sex.
Sorry but marriage is not a "special right" or "privelage". It was around before the Christian church, or the US. For that matter, gay marriage was legal until it was outlawed by a Christian Roman Emperor.
Any reference for that? I never heard that. I am not questioning your veracity, just a reference if possible?
My real problem with this has less to do with the legality/illegality of homosexual marriage than it does with mob rule. The protestors are angry that the proposition passed. OK, I can see not being happy with it. I'm unhappy Dick Durbin was not unseated in the Senate (yes, I voted for his opponet). I'm unhappy Barack Obama being President-elect instead of John McCain. However, I did not feel the need to take to the street and try to impose my will on others. If these folks are so unhappy with the passage of Proposition 8, they get off their asses and make a new Proposition to counteract Proposition 8. If they care enough about the issue, they should make their case, present it to the people in the next election, and get their own proposition passed. If they do not, then they are full of crap because it is less about the issue than them having a temper tantrum in public.
But they past a constitutional amendment. Game is over.
Obviously, the game is NOT over, as the passage of Prop 8 was immediately legally challenged, and those challenges are pending in California courts at this time.
Here is the fact of the matter as I see it: Discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal. And yet, California has just passed a constitutional ammendment treating homosexual couples differently than heterosexual couples under the law. We're singling out a group and telling them they can't enjoy a privelege that everyone else in the USA enjoys. That seems very much like discrimination to me. . . no matter WHAT I might personally think about gay marriage. But hey, at least we had the wisdom as a state to grant LIVESTOCK additional rights on the same ballot.
As Thanos so aptly put it:
"Put the shoe on the other foot: what if the state were telling you that you couldn't marry your significant other?"
Can't get it to load, and yes I have a P.C.! Probably for the best anyway. But I, for one, would be OK with overturning Prop. 8, and making same-sex marriage legal everywhere in exchange for overturning the presidential election.
IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.
I have no problem with the church building itself as well as its' associated functionary buildings being tax exempt. My heartburn kicks in when a particular church buys other properties around the town or city and they in turn are afforded tax exempt status, thus removing the properties from the tax rolls. I see this happening in Savannah with not only churches, but most noted of all SCAD (Savannah College of Art and Design). Many properties through out the city have been removed from the tax rolls because tax exempt organizations purchase them and in many cases profit from the purchase.
IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.
Was your significant other male or female? You are being obtuse. Same-sex sex results in no procreation, and that is something that cannot be argued. The purpose of 'marriage' is children, although some married couples are not blessed in that regard. I applaud your efforts as a father, and I would bet that if your current spouse were asked she would claim them as her children as well. That cannot be said if your current 'spouse' were male, now could it?
It happened in Albuquerque just last year. The People's State of New Mexico went after the photographers because they refused to do a shoot of a commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.
I was talking mainly about the chruch issue but, I can also see it's wrong to go after the photographer.
Can't get it to load, and yes I have a P.C.! Probably for the best anyway. But I, for one, would be OK with overturning Prop. 8, and making same-sex marriage legal everywhere in exchange for overturning the presidential election.
Like I said in #256, they should, if they don't like it, present their case to the people and have their own proposition passed by the people in the next election. Anything else is not democracy, but instead, it is mob rule.
Any reference for that? I never heard that. I am not questioning your veracity, just a reference if possible?
342 AD, a decree by Theodosian, the punishments match those meted out by Islamic extremists for being gay now. You can look it up on HNN.net, I posted the link in a few threads.
My real problem with this has less to do with the legality/illegality of homosexual marriage than it does with mob rule. The protestors are angry that the proposition passed. OK, I can see not being happy with it. I'm unhappy Dick Durbin was not unseated in the Senate (yes, I voted for his opponet). I'm unhappy Barack Obama being President-elect instead of John McCain. However, I did not feel the need to take to the street and try to impose my will on others. If these folks are so unhappy with the passage of Proposition 8, they get off their asses and make a new Proposition to counteract Proposition 8. If they care enough about the issue, they should make their case, present it to the people in the next election, and get their own proposition passed. If they do not, then they are full of crap because it is less about the issue than them having a temper tantrum in public.
Sorry but marriage is not a "special right" or "privelage". It was around before the Christian church, or the US. For that matter, gay marriage was legal until it was outlawed by a Christian Roman Emperor.
Guess again, bub. Societies other than Christian have been giving marriage special rights and privileges since the dawn of man.
And your history is wrong. There was no official recognition of gay marriage in the Roman Empire. Constantine began to outlaw homosexuality around 312 AD primarily because of the Book of Leviticus.
My point is that gays exist, gays have permanent relationships, gays have children. They have through all of history, and their population has always been 1-2 percent of the general. Why are their children deprived of married parents?
I'm going to have to leave soon, but I want to ask: when can a city, state, or nation determine to do what is in its best interest over the interest of individuals? This applies in many situations (Kelo comes to mind) but sociological research seems to indicate pretty clearly that children do best and adults do best in a one man, one woman marriage. If that is best for the individuals, then it would be better for society to support that institution as it will result in a better society overall.
But marriage as an institution has existed for millennia. This isn't something specific to the US.
Just when did a sexual act preference become a protected class?
I want equal protection for heterosexuals or asexuals too! Why should I be invited to see flagrant displays of public affection, vulgarity, stupidity, demeaning acts, even if they're between consenting adults? Sex belongs behind closed doors - it's warmer that way!
I don't see that a gay marriage harms mine. In fact if gays can marry, and adopt, some more of the children who are now waiting to be adopted could have parents. Unless the opponents of gay marriage intend to take care of them all.
...
[keep in mind, I am not referring to everyone who opposed prop 8 - I know there are many people, friends and acquaintances of mine alike, who were opposed to prop 8 for reasons other than the perennial 'religion is full of bigots' reasons]
What are those reasons (other than the bigotry ones)?
Religious opposition to something is not bigotry, but religious imposition on others is tyranny.
Let's be consistent here. Straight couples should have their marriages annulled if they don't produce offspring within, say, 5 years; and atheists should never be allowed to marry, and if the prophets have a new vision one day, Mormons should be allowed to marry multiple wives.
Yes, they do, but it would be more effective if they set about using legal channels to have their own proposition and present their own case to the people in the next election.
And I still can't see [Link: www.ringospictures.com...] I guess we overloaded Ringo's hamsters. Maybe he should get an enhanced set, like Charles did...
In the case of a 3 person 'arrangement,' sould social security pay double 'survivor' benefits when one dies? Should insurance cover both spouses?
That is the slippery slope. I would buy the logical fallacy argument if there weren't bona-fide groups like NAMBLA out there trying to get the American Psychological Association to declare Man Boy Love a normal healthy relationship.
Homosexuality was considered abnormal behavior prior to gay rights groups changing the agenda within the APA.
Regardless of where your opinion falls on normal vs. abnormal sexual behavior, the precedent of giving groups rights under the law takes the fallacy out of the slippery slope.
342 AD, a decree by Theodosian, the punishments match those meted out by Islamic extremists for being gay now. You can look it up on HNN.net, I posted the link in a few threads.
I am reading it as this debate goes on, but it does't appear quite as clear cut as you make it.
I wasn't my kids biological parent, I raised them, they call me dad, they call their bio father by his first name when they speak of him at all, which they don't like to because he was an SOB.
It happened in Albuquerque just last year. The People's State of New Mexico went after the photographers because they refused to do a shoot of a commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple.
I'm really damned tired of people suing everybody in sight. I can pretty much guarantee that there is more than one professional photographer in Albuquerqe. I'd also guess that this couple's guests own cameras, so if they didn't tell the photog in advance what kind of event he/she was being hired to shoot, and the photog freaked out and left the scene, somebody could have taken lovely pics for them.
I frankly couldn't care less about gay marriage one way or the other. But the people of CA got to vote, and they voted against it. Gays who want their unions to be called marriages can move to Massachusetts or (maybe?) Vermont. Otherwise they can take advantage of the civil union benefits available to them. There is no legal discrimination involved either way.
I voted for McCain. Should I be out on the streets flinging poo and making an ass of myself because he lost?
IMHO, churches shouldn't have tax exemption anyway. The drive to construct ostentatious monstrosities to house churches is really offensive. Yeah, the construction workers get paid, but the churches should pay at least property taxes.
Gak! there are thousands of small churches that could not exist paying property taxes...Leave the churches alone...It's not like EXXON.
And the benefits they contribute to America far outweigh the benefit of taxing them out of existence..
/Can you believe I'm defending churches here?
weird thread
Yes, they do, but it would be more effective if they set about using legal channels to have their own proposition and present their own case to the people in the next election.
Their tantrum might work against the latter option.
What worries me if same sex marriage becomes the law of the land, especially considering that a clear majority of Americans are against it, is that people will be coerced into doing and even saying things which they do not believe to be true. Either out of fear being labled a bigot or out of fear of being sued (or worse). The case of E-Harmony is just one example. If same sex marriage is legal and therefore equivalent to traditional marriage the floodgates will be open for countless similar lawsuits.
There is also no doubt that married homosexual characters would soon find their way into school text books and onto the shelves in elementary school libraries. The books are already written. Fairy tales in which the prince marries another prince are waiting to be donated to the local school library, most likely by an attorney.
There are some good arguments for allowing same sex marriage but please do not pretend that it will not be revolutionary, because it will. It will effect every aspect of our culture...Make no mistake about it.
And once the toothpaste is out of the tube there is no putting it back.
...so what if the multiple spouses then sue for equal protection under the law when they get tired of receiving only half benefits from the government?
Again - why does the government have to provide benefits based on marital status at all?!
/Promoting population growth is sooo 19th century.
This applies in many situations (Kelo comes to mind) but sociological research seems to indicate pretty clearly that children do best and adults do best in a one man, one woman marriage.
I've seen plenty of sociological research indicating that children do just as well raised by homosexual male couples. I'm sure each side of the argument has its own favored sources of sociological research supporting their side.
If this is really about children, then based on what you've said, it'd be best not only to ban gay marriage, but to take children away from single parents, and place them all with a one man, one woman married couple. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?
Nobody is stopping anyone from having loving relationships with whomever they want to marry. Prop 8 simply amends the state constitution to clarify that marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the only kind that will be recognized by the state. To have one's marriage recognized by the state through a marriage license is no more a "right" than is having one's ability to drive a vehicle officially recognized by the state through the granting of a driver's license. The state giveth, and the state can taketh away, just like with any license. The citizens of California have decided (repeatedly) that the interests of society are best served by sanctioning and promoting marriage between 1 man and 1 woman as the fundamental unit of society. Love really has nothing to do with it, and is not a prerequisite for having one's relationship validated by the state; there are first cousins that genuinely love each other, adults that love minors, siblings that love each other, etc., and while in most cases the state does not prevent them from having loving relationships, it does not recognize those relationships by granting a marriage license. These laws regarding marriage are not the products of some nameless, faceless state, they are the products of the collective judgment of the citizens of California. If the citizens want to revise that collective wisdom and allow the granting of marriage licenses to homosexual couples, they will do it at the ballot box. So far though, the majority of citizens have again ratified their collective judgment that marriage between 1 man and 1 woman is the only marriage that should be recognized by the state. Amplifying this most recent ratification is the fact that the citizens are again restating the position that was originally taken from them by judicial fiat.
Frankly, it doesn't matter if Iron Fist is personally opposed to gay marriage. The voters in CA voted for Prop 8. It passed, with a pretty respectable margin. Done deal.
There are quite a few people here at LGF who want the government to say that human personhood begins at conception. Colorado voters were against that initiative by a huge margin--73% against. Done deal.
At least the Operation Rescue freaks aren't out behaving badly in CO.
Do these gay marriage proponents really think they are going to win anybody over with these antics?
So far the only clear case I"ve heard that isn't totally what iffish is the potential of Gays to insist that churches marry them. I don't think that would stand in court due to the protections that religion has in the constitution, and the fact that marriage is in the end civil, not religious. The church doesn't issue your license.
Churches should be allowed not to marry gays even if it were legal. In the two states that it is legal, have any churches been sued?
342 AD, a decree by Theodosian, the punishments match those meted out by Islamic extremists for being gay now. You can look it up on HNN.net, I posted the link in a few threads.
You are not correct. Valentinian around 392, and succeeding emperors, in the Lex Dei decreed that burning was the punishment for homosexual acts...but only on the "catcher" so to speak. The Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian have a very convoluted law that says that marriage based on "unnatural sex" should be punished. Some of this was geared towards the eeastern peoples that practiced polygamy. The level of the severity of the punishment is debated still.
Bob Woodward had this to say about Clinton's nomination as SoS:
Being president is about control, and tell me who ever controlled Bill or Hillary Clinton. They can't control each other. ... I think it's because Warren Buffett and Paul Volcker and others have convinced Obama, 'You're going to have to focus like a laser on the economy. That's issue Number One. And give Hillary and Bill the world.' ... I think people are fantasizing or smoking something if they think Joe Biden's going to call Hillary Clinton up and say, 'This is what we want you to do.'
I don't see that a gay marriage harms mine. In fact if gays can marry, and adopt, some more of the children who are now waiting to be adopted could have parents. Unless the opponents of gay marriage intend to take care of them all.
The first part of your statement is true. Whether or not gays can marry and divorce should not harm your marriage.
I support civil unions and, with those, gay couples can adopt. In fact, they can do most everything that heterosexual couples can. I am not convinced that gay 'marriage' is a good idea. I'm waiting for Thanos to give a good argument.
...so what if the multiple spouses then sue for equal protection under the law when they get tired of receiving only half benefits from the government?
Again - why does the government have to provide benefits based on marital status at all?!
/Promoting population growth is sooo 19th century.
They do have "equal protection". Both would be getting the same amount (1/2 of their spouses bennies) . No difference, no inequality
I have stated my reason for my opposition of it. It isn't a fairness isue. It is about forcing society to condone and accept a lifestyle that society doesn't accept. Forcing the issue of gay marriage is the imposition of moral value that are not embraced by the majority of the populace.
So if the majority decided to vote in a measure ammending the Constitution to deny gays the privelege of having a driver's license, you'd feel it's wrong to oppose that too? I mean, it wouldn't be a fairness issue, it'd be about forcing society to condone and accept gays driving!
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
Also - how about sex education curriculum of public schools? They would have to teach that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are equivalent.
Also, a Catholic orphanage which does not allow homosexuals to adopt could lose their license to adopt out to anyone. Its a state by state matter.
This is a very serious issue. Read some articles about it before dismissing it as "it doesn't affect me." It will affect the entire society as we know it.
I've seen plenty of sociological research indicating that children do just as well raised by homosexual male couples. I'm sure each side of the argument has its own favored sources of sociological research supporting their side.
If this is really about children, then based on what you've said, it'd be best not only to ban gay marriage, but to take children away from single parents, and place them all with a one man, one woman married couple. Doesn't that sound ridiculous?
Yes, but I grew up with my grandparents, and my father was out of the picture. I think things would have been very different for me and I would have avoided a lot of social problems if I had lived in a home with two parents.
I have stated my reason for my opposition of it. It isn't a fairness isue. It is about forcing society to condone and accept a lifestyle that society doesn't accept. Forcing the issue of gay marriage is the imposition of moral value that are not embraced by the majority of the populace.
You would scream if someone were trying to re-impose sodomy laws in the United States. You would claim that "Christianists" were imposing their moral standards on society.
That's a knife that cuts both ways.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment (because truly, I have no dog in this hunt), I do see a big difference. For one thing, this nation has always valued individual rights over tyranny of the majority. Just because 52% of people feel some way does not mean that their will should be imposed on others if their will is to take rights and freedoms away from the group in the minority.
Also, one can easily list exactly the rights, protections, and freedoms taken away from gays by Prop 8. Can someone tell me exactly what has been "taken away" from straight people by allowing gays to marry?
They do have "equal protection". Both would be getting the same amount (1/2 of their spouses bennies) . No difference, no inequality
So do we split the benefits equally between children right now? How about mistresses - does the wife have to share with them? After all that's just another time honored social contract.
So far the only clear case I"ve heard that isn't totally what iffish is the potential of Gays to insist that churches marry them. I don't think that would stand in court due to the protections that religion has in the constitution, and the fact that marriage is in the end civil, not religious. The church doesn't issue your license.
Churches should be allowed not to marry gays even if it were legal. In the two states that it is legal, have any churches been sued?
Not yet. But wait. Some loopy judge will rule against the church and the church will lose tax-exempt status. I don't think gays go to church much anyway.
Gak! there are thousands of small churches that could not exist paying property taxes...Leave the churches alone...It's not like EXXON.
And the benefits they contribute to America far outweigh the benefit of taxing them out of existence..
/Can you believe I'm defending churches here?
weird thread
POINT ONE.. no, there was only one payee into the system. The 'spouses" would have to divide the benifits
POINT 2,,, yes, as long as the payee paid for the extra premiums!
Those are good 'common sense' answers, but they are hardly codified and fully/clearly understood. My point was more rhetorical. It's one thing to say folks can do whatever they want in the bedroom. I'm fine with that. But there are tons and tons of issues that would emerge if society would allow multiple marriage partners. The court system would become a mess.
Can someone here tell me the major legal differences between a civil union and marriage?
Well i think you are saying..there is no difference.. So what is the problem?
Call it what you will..doesn't hurt or affect you or your family..
Let em call it marriage..get over it and live your life righteously in the eyes of your God and morals you define.
I promise you this..It make take 5 years or a hundred years but gays will have the right to get married in America.
It will happen.. And how does that destroy your life or infringe on your rights?
What is the problem..there is a small % of people that are gay.It's always been that way and always will be that way...You want to burn them at the stake or let them live their lives happily?
What does it matter to you?
I'm really damned tired of people suing everybody in sight. I can pretty much guarantee that there is more than one professional photographer in Albuquerqe. I'd also guess that this couple's guests own cameras, so if they didn't tell the photog in advance what kind of event he/she was being hired to shoot, and the photog freaked out and left the scene, somebody could have taken lovely pics for them.
I frankly couldn't care less about gay marriage one way or the other. But the people of CA got to vote, and they voted against it. Gays who want their unions to be called marriages can move to Massachusetts or (maybe?) Vermont. Otherwise they can take advantage of the civil union benefits available to them. There is no legal discrimination involved either way.
I voted for McCain. Should I be out on the streets flinging poo and making an ass of myself because he lost?
No, that wouldn't be politically correct. It IS politically correct in this mixed up society to be perverted, hedonistic and stupid, though. Which is why S.F. has Gavin.
So do we split the benefits equally between children right now? How about mistresses - does the wife have to share with them? After all that's just another time honored social contract.
SS laws are clear cut. Unless I otherwise specify, my wife(s) gets the bennies. If she dies also, my kid(s) do. You can't pass them on after that to next door neighbors, your mechanic, the lady that does your taxes , (responding to your "mistresses" canard)
So clearly you simply ignore anything you don't like, and seem to often support your arguments with "iffy" facts.
No, so far all of the arguments I've heard against it tie back to different flavors of "it's how we do things, it's traditional" "It's what society wants, individual rights be damned"
which goes back to my original point. Gay marriage isn't about equal rights. It is about forcing societal norms to change through an Imperial Judiciary. That one's a loser if you allow a vote.
You're right. It's about discrimination against a group because of their sexual preference, something that is illegal in this nation, no matter if the majority is in favor of that discrimination or not.
Any time the courts get involved in anything--Duck!
What. The. Fuck?
They were hired to handle meat. Since lines are usualy divided, if they did not want to handle pork, they should have looked elsewhere for a job, or asked to be on the chicken or beef lines only.
Well i think you are saying..there is no difference.. So what is the problem?
Call it what you will..doesn't hurt or affect you or your family..
Let em call it marriage..get over it and live your life righteously in the eyes of your God and morals you define.
I promise you this..It make take 5 years or a hundred years but gays will have the right to get married in America.
It will happen.. And how does that destroy your life or infringe on your rights?
What is the problem..there is a small % of people that are gay.It's always been that way and always will be that way...You want to burn them at the stake or let them live their lives happily?
What does it matter to you?
I just ask a simple question. What are you talking about? I am not a lawyer. It is relevant to the debate and I am not conversant with the real differences? I was making NO judgement.
Gak! there are thousands of small churches that could not exist paying property taxes...Leave the churches alone...It's not like EXXON.
And the benefits they contribute to America far outweigh the benefit of taxing them out of existence..
/Can you believe I'm defending churches here?
weird thread
There would be complications for sure. Other real estate is valued by business level and comparisons with other sales. Churches aren't often bought and sold, so what would the tax level basis be?
However, to take other side, the truth is that they do "consume" the same resources that all other property does, like roads, fire, police and so on. If only a minority of a population attend a particular church, (or mosque or synagogue or scientologist head shrink shop) or all churches in an area, why should all the others subsidize them?
As to tax out of existence, if there are not enough members in one to pay the bills, there is probably another larger one nearby that they can join. Worship is not just a matter of personal convenience, is it?
Exactly! My point in asking the questions was rhetorical.
I might be convinced that gay marriage is a good idea...I'm not, but I'm open to listening to the arguments. Civil Unions seem like the right approach to me, unless Thanos (or someone else) can get me to understand the injustice of not allowing marriage.
Multiple marriage partners is just plan assinine. The court costs alone would become astronomical!
Those are good 'common sense' answers, but they are hardly codified and fully/clearly understood. My point was more rhetorical. It's one thing to say folks can do whatever they want in the bedroom. I'm fine with that. But there are tons and tons of issues that would emerge if society would allow multiple marriage partners. The court system would become a mess.
Actually, in the case of life insurance, it is a CONTRACT that is 100% " codified and fully/clearly understood". Today, I could call my broker, take out a million dollar life ins. policy and name you, who I do not know, the benificiary. As long as I live up to my end of the contract (paying the premiums) you'll get a mill. when i die!
Also, a Catholic orphanage which does not allow homosexuals to adopt could lose their license to adopt out to anyone. Its a state by state matter.
. . ..
In Massachusetts I believe, Catholic Charities no longer operates adoption services for just this reason.
You're right. It's about discrimination against a group because of their sexual preference, something that is illegal in this nation, no matter if the majority is in favor of that discrimination or not.
So if civil union and marriage are the same thing to all intents and purposes, what's the difference? Why are you quibbling over a word then? Please explain.
You're right. It's about discrimination against a group because of their sexual preference, something that is illegal in this nation, no matter if the majority is in favor of that discrimination or not.
I agree with you. Say gay marriage becomes law. Say a minister at a church does not believe in gay marriage and refuses to perform the ceremony. His church could be in danger of losing its tax exempt status. Just for one backlash.
A photographer who refused to take pictures of a gay couples nuptials was sued for discrimination and he lost. Slippery slope.
This is not true. Gay people are not looking to change the rules and practices of religious organizations. There are multiple statements about this available on the web. The goal is the legalization of civil marriage.
Also, it's worth noting that a few Christian denominations currently marry gay people, but those marriages are not recognized as legal.
Again, the goal is legal civil marriage, w/ churches making whatever decisions they want about whom they will marry.
There is a lot of general inertia regarding change within society, and
this inertia in general imparts some stability to our culture. For most of us, there is continuity between the past and present ( a la Burke). Don't really have a tradition of gay marriage in this country, and it is difficult to know whether allowing marriage between gays is good or bad change, as far as long term impact on our culture. As an aside, I do distinctly remember being told by some gays I knew 15-20 years ago, that marriage was just for "breeders", and I don't think they meant this as a compliment. How times change.
Yes it is possible. IIRC The Civil Rights laws did the same thing. They found that anti Black laws were unconstitutional.
That being said, those laws don't apply to this scenario.
Well, there is a constitutional difference between the two. The anti-Black laws violated an already agreed upon portion of the Constitution, specifically Amendments 14 and 15. This does not violate the Constitution in any way shape or form. Nothing regarding it has been hased out one way or the other constitutionally on a national scale.
No it isn't and don't be so obtuse. I'm sorry your emotions tell you that Homosexuals should be able to marry whomever they would like, but I deal in logic, and facts.
And the facts are that the Homosexual community have the same rights that the Heterosexual community does. Both groups are treated equally. NEITHER can marry someone of their own sex.
I'm sorry you don't like the reality but that is what it is.
Being a person who loves numbers and statistics, I would love to see the percentage of homosexual couples who want marriage that have had no more than 3 partners and have currently been in a committed relationship for more than 2 years. Just to choose some random numbers out of a hat.
Would the church be able to move the kids to another state?
I'm not certain how many actual "orphanages" remain.
I do know that Catholic Charities has been very active in the area of free pregnancy counseling, pre-natal care, and adoption placement services, no payment required, no questions asked, for it seems like a gajillion years, and they are very very good at this.
However, they have ceased to operate in Massachusetts, which requires services to all couples.
SS laws are clear cut. Unless I otherwise specify, my wife(s) gets the bennies. If she dies also, my kid(s) do. You can't pass them on after that to next door neighbors, your mechanic, the lady that does your taxes , (responding to your "mistresses" canard)
Not a canard. We are talking about changing defined laws including Social Security benefits. If individuals can argue for the right to be granted government benefits based on social contracts other than marriage as currently defined - who is to say when and where those rights cannot be enforced for other types of untraditional social bonds?
I'm very consistent in saying the government should not be redistributing funds based on the relationships individuals decide to get into. I have even been advocating (against my self interest) that traditional marriage should not be the reason someone can take a tax deduction.
Social security benefits would have to be revisited or perhaps couples (triples and what not) would be asked to declare beneficiaries like they do with life insurance. Nice and legal and not forcing society to define religious concepts for anyone but themselves.
There remains the matter of community standards - which is a far trickier subject IMO
This is not true. Gay people are not looking to change the rules and practices of religious organizations. There are multiple statements about this available on the web. The goal is the legalization of civil marriage.
Also, it's worth noting that a few Christian denominations currently marry gay people, but those marriages are not recognized as legal.
Again, the goal is legal civil marriage, w/ churches making whatever decisions they want about whom they will marry.
This is not true. Gay people are not looking to change the rules and practices of religious organizations. There are multiple statements about this available on the web. The goal is the legalization of civil marriage.
It may not be their intention, but it will be the unexpected consequences. People need to read up on this topic. I have and it is a very serious issue. This is the time to address it and stop its progression.
No it isn't and don't be so obtuse. I'm sorry your emotions tell you that Homosexuals should be able to marry whomever they would like, but I deal in logic, and facts.
And the facts are that the Homosexual community have the same rights that the Heterosexual community does. Both groups are treated equally. NEITHER can marry someone of their own sex.
I'm sorry you don't like the reality but that is what it is.
Ahhh, but they want MORE rights. That's the point. that, and wanting their relationships NORMALIZED.
Being a person who loves numbers and statistics, I would love to see the percentage of homosexual heterosexual couples who want marriage that have had no more than 3 partners and have currently been in a committed relationship for more than 2 years. Just to choose some random numbers out of a hat.
Well, there were people who argued against prop 8 on the grounds of civil rights without resorting to insults.
That there are nutcases (more than their fair share) among gay rights groups is indisputable, but it seems to me that prop 8 (along with the one here in Florida) is designed to deny civil rights.
What arguments do you have that gay marriage denies anyone else their rights? It wouldn't change mine any way that I can see, and I've been married (once) for 32 years.
I just ask a simple question. What are you talking about? I am not a lawyer. It is relevant to the debate and I am not conversant with the real differences? I was making NO judgement.
Oh I'm sorry to you.. I was just venting alittle..
kind regards..
Like I said my little sister is gay and I'd protect her from any person..
'll wait for the next thread to post again..unless. I have too..
:)
Conversely, the only case you've made for gay marriage instead of civil unions is that childred of gay parents don't have parrents that are 'married.' I don't see that as a big deal. Why am I wrong?
Honoray Yooper. I would love to continue this conversation (as on its own it is a very interesting one) but insofar that the Anti-Man/Woman Marriage movement is trying to co-opt an actual struggle for equal rights, I will not discuss it here and play into their ruse, and propaganda.
The Anti-Man/Woman Marriage movement has nothing to do with Equal RIght. The right to marry whomever (or WHATever) you want is NOT a Civil Right.
Also - how about sex education curriculum of public schools? They would have to teach that heterosexual and homosexual marriage are equivalent.
Also, a Catholic orphanage which does not allow homosexuals to adopt could lose their license to adopt out to anyone. Its a state by state matter.
This is a very serious issue. Read some articles about it before dismissing it as "it doesn't affect me." It will affect the entire society as we know it.
Got some linkage for that? I'm truly interested, not challenging here.
And the facts are that the Homosexual community have the same rights that the Heterosexual community does. Both groups are treated equally. NEITHER can marry someone of their own sex.
I'm sorry you don't like the reality but that is what it is.
No, the fact is that's it's legal for a heterosexual to marry who they fall in love with. It is illegal for a homosexual to do so. If you really believe that fits the definition of "equality", then I think you could probably be just a little less heartless.
I'm sorry you don't like my view of fairness but that is what it is.
I'm not certain how many actual "orphanages" remain.
I do know that Catholic Charities has been very active in the area of free pregnancy counseling, pre-natal care, and adoption placement services, no payment required, no questions asked, for it seems like a gajillion years, and they are very very good at this.
However, they have ceased to operate in Massachusetts, which requires services to all couples.
Prop 8 did not take any rights away from anybody, because no right to have one's marriage officially sanctioned by the state has ever existed, in any state of the union, ever. Opponents of Prop 8 have been extremely clever in framing this as a civil rights issue, but it simply is not. There is no right spelled out in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that is taken away by Prop 8.
Oh I'm sorry to you.. I was just venting alittle..
kind regards..
Like I said my little sister is gay and I'd protect her from any person..
'll wait for the next thread to post again..unless. I have too..
:)
Nah, stay - it's cool. I stil am kinda curious about the real differances. For the record my sister is gay. We dont' get along but that is because she is a liberal moonbat.
How/why is that a strawman Mandy? Are you trying to state that after we base marriage on nothing more than "love" that one will not in the future claim that it is his or her "Civil Right" to marry their sister, or a few people?
Had you had a conversation in the 1940s about Homosexuals wanting to get married...those living then would tell you it is nothing more than a "strawman" that will never happen...yet, today we are living that reality.
Not a canard. We are talking about changing defined laws including Social Security benefits.
No we're not. Right now the SS law says i can split my benneis between my wife and child 100%-0% ,,, 50%-50% ,,,75%-25% ,,, any way I choose as long as it adds up to 100%. So why not with 2 wuves and 1 child,,, 33%,,33%,,33% ,,, or 40% ,,,40% ,, 20%
No law changed, just my desired split of the same amount of money
The covenant of marriage,as a religious ceremony, cannot be between two of the same sex. To try to force the faithful to accept what their faith deems an abomination is to deny freedom of religion. However, we have the right to choose to not belong to an organized religion and to not be bound by any such restrictions. The problem for gay people of faith is that they know that their desires do not coincide with their faith. They know what thier burden is before G-d. They are wrong to force their views into the Church, but not wrong to seek some avenue outside of religion. I dare not judge what is desirable for them as I have enough to be judged for already.
So if civil union and marriage are the same thing to all intents and purposes, what's the difference? Why are you quibbling over a word then? Please explain.
My understanding is that it is not the same, when it comes down to the important issues, like life and death, children and so on. Civil union is more of a financial agreement with legal rights limitations.
Being a person who loves numbers and statistics, I would love to see the percentage of homosexual couples who want marriage that have had no more than 3 partners and have currently been in a committed relationship for more than 2 years. Just to choose some random numbers out of a hat.
Shoot, until my friends started getting married a few years back, THEY couldn't have met that criteria. . . and they're straight.
Being a person who loves numbers and statistics, I would love to see the percentage of homosexual couples who want marriage that have had no more than 3 partners and have currently been in a committed relationship for more than 2 years. Just to choose some random numbers out of a hat.
Prop 8 did not take any rights away from anybody, because no right to have one's marriage officially sanctioned by the state has ever existed, in any state of the union, ever. There is no right spelled out in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that is taken away by Prop 8.
Don't start pretending that the State has no interest in marriage just because it's not in the constitution! The constitution says nothing about marijuana but I guarantee you if I blaze up in front of an officer I'm going to jail.
Nobody is preventing homosexuals from engaging in homosexual acts in the privacy of their homes by supporting the long-standing definition of one-man-one-woman marriage. Nor is anyone who supports Proposition 8 arguing in favor of kicking in the doors of those afflicted with homosexual urges and persecuting them. (In fact, it is the militant homosexuals who are clearly engaging in brownshirt mob thuggery against those who oppose them.)
The ONLY reason the militant homosexuals are so incensed about this issue is because they are demanding the rest of society endorse homosexuality as 'normal' by equating homosexuality with heterosexuality. It doesn't matter to homosexuals that most of us couldn't care less what they do in the privacy of their homes. That isn't enough...they want adulatory acceptance of their sexual choices from those of us who find such acts deplorable. The fact that a majority of people refuse to accept homosexuality as 'normal' is simply unacceptable to militant gays.
These protests are essentially the same sort of temper tantrum a child throws in line at the grocery store when Mommy says, "No, you don't need any candy right now..." only with significantly more ominous repercussions should Mommy reward the tantrum by giving in.
How/why is that a strawman Mandy? Are you trying to state that after we base marriage on nothing more than "love" that one will not in the future claim that it is his or her "Civil Right" to marry their sister, or a few people?
Had you had a conversation in the 1940s about Homosexuals wanting to get married...those living then would tell you it is nothing more than a "strawman" that will never happen...yet, today we are living that reality.
Children and animals cannot consent.
As far as relatives are concerned, doesn't society/state have an interest in not perpetuating genetic abnormalities?
Iron Fist got to the core of this entire issue above. It isn't about their Demand to Marry whom or whatever they want, its about forcing the community to accept their lifestyle.."whether we like it or not".
It is simply another "victocrat" community, using emotions, confusion, and guilt to destroy the core values of America, and attack people with religious values.
Answer the question yourself. Why are you arguing over the word? Why don't gays avail themselves of the legal remedies that are already available to them?
And if arguing over the word is so unimportant, why not give them access to it? I mean, if it's really not worth arguing over. . .
So if civil union and marriage are the same thing to all intents and purposes, what's the difference? Why are you quibbling over a word then? Please explain.
To me, in one case, we've defined for so many thousands of years, a compact called marriage between a man and a woman. I understand what it's about. Now, we are inventing a new compact between two women or between two men. I don't understand it, but I want to be fair and give them the correct legal cover so that they can pursue happiness in their own way.
Iron Fist got to the core of this entire issue above. It isn't about their Demand to Marry whom or whatever they want, its about forcing the community to accept their lifestyle.."whether we like it or not".
A free society means putting up with people whose values may differ from your own. It's called "tolerance". For the record, both sides need a little more of it (I'm referring to the attacks on Sunday services perpetrated by gay activists).
Not a canard. We are talking about changing defined laws including Social Security benefits.
No we're not. Right now the SS law says i can split my benneis between my wife and child 100%-0% ,,, 50%-50% ,,,75%-25% ,,, any way I choose as long as it adds up to 100%. So why not with 2 wuves and 1 child,,, 33%,,33%,,33% ,,, or 40% ,,,40% ,, 20%
No law changed, just my desired split of the same amount of money
OK, somebody tell me where I am off the rails here.
Prop. 8 is all about the word "marry" and "marriage".
Gays can already have civil unions, adopt children, will their property, have hospital visitations, form any kind of legal contract they wish.
All of that is already legal in California.
So, this is all about those 2 words.
First off, I am still pissed that they stole the word GAY, which was a perfectly useful word that had entirely different meanings before its definition was changed by the modern usage. That word is now forever changed on the ears of all that hear it. That alone is a crime, IMHO.
What you said. I'm also very pissed off that the "gay" people commandeered the rainbow. Now my unicorns can't have rainbows. They'd better not take over unicorns, or I'll be really really pissed.
WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS COST AS IT IS! At least that is what I keep hearing as the reason why we need socialized medicine!
(So I can't count, sorry!)
I have one wife and one child. I pay $XX.XX per paycheck for my health insurance. My co-worker has one wife and 4 children, he pays $XXX.XX for his. The same math would work for mulitple spouses as it does for multiple children.
More, it was a way of transferring property, through the person of a woman.
Which is one of the reasons that civil marriage in Europe - and elsewhere - was such a huge step forward for women and children. It changed women from part of the property to people with much stronger legal rights.
Well, the market bounced back a little today with the Dow finishing 494 and the S&P 500 up 47.
Crude climbed back up over the $50 dollar mark slightly.
There were 2,019 issues advancing, 975 declining and 52 staying the same for a ratio of advancers to decliners of 2.07
The TED spread has stalled for the last week as money market funds are still staving for cash as investor stay away from them in droves. I think they will until we get a week or two of quiet investment news.
Some of the investing public is shell shocked now.
I'm on my way out of town for a couple of days, and thought I'd take a moment to sneak into the active thread and wish everyone a safe and pleasant weekend!
The man who doesn't relax and hoot a few hoots voluntarily, now and then, is in great danger of hooting hoots and standing on his head for the edification of the pathologist and trained nurse, a little later on.
The kingdom will contribute ``naval assets to help in pursuing piracy in the region, and this is the only way this can be dealt with,'' Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal told reporters in Oslo today after meeting with his Norwegian counterpart, Jonas Gahr Stoere. ``Negotiations and ransoms only encourage piracy and are not a solution.''
Oh please, the gay community is the most openly hostile anti-Christian group out there.
Which is a bit like saying, "Israelis are the most openly hostile anti-Palestinian group out there." It's called "fighting for survival against those who wish to destroy you."
Oh really? Tell that to the guy who started eHarmony.
Did the eHarmony people respond to public pressure, or was there a lawsuit?
Also, churches are not commercial services. A church cannot, for instance, be forced to administer communion to anyone. Why would the state have more control over other sacraments?
You are the one insisting that society change. What do you base that on? Anywhere in the Constitution? How about anywhere in the world? What other nations do allow gay marriage, and when did they start allowing it?
Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. I am totally tolerant of gay relationships. Not so much when its crammed down my 10 year old's throat or put forth as "normal". I don't want to send anyone to GITMO, and yes, I tell my gay friends this is how I feel. 99.9% of my gay friends, and their friends agree, gay marriage shouldn't happen. They think its a conspiracy started by divorce attorneys. They might be right.
Yes, Thanos. I have gay friends and I LOVE them. They are honest when I ask if a certain outfit makes my butt look fat.
No, I asked first - why does it matter? If two gays are married and want to raise a child, how does that harm you? How does that harm society? The borderline for limiting rights to me is only when it's to prevent harm. Show me the harm if you can.
Nah, stay - it's cool. I stil am kinda curious about the real differances. For the record my sister is gay. We dont' get along but that is because she is a liberal moonbat.
HAHA..my sis is a moonbat of epic proportions.. She lives in seattle and spends her days being an environmental avocate for wildlife..
She is good people and loves wildlife...
If she is happy being with another woman..Then that is her life..her beliefs and I believe..her right..
My opinion is colored...But I don't care.
Kind regards
A free society means putting up with people whose values may differ from your own. It's called "tolerance". For the record, both sides need a little more of it (I'm referring to the attacks on Sunday services perpetrated by gay activists).
Yeah those mobs of Mormon protesters storming the San Fransisco bath houses and spray painting obscenities on the wall was just over the top.
I don't have real numbers for you, but I do have an anecdotal aside.
When MA "legalized" gay marriage, the various City Clerks had to do a little fancy footwork to keep up and some towns/cities were in no hurry to do so. It allowed for a tiny bit of debate to take place despite the Judicial fiat.
Long story short...
The newspapers/airwaves were immediately flooded with "studies" and "reports" that "proved" that homosexuals were uber-stable and far more faithful than straight people. Not to mention that they were high-achievers and high-earners at a level that straights could never aspire to. Once all the towns were on the same page, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those studies was exposed as a farce. If you do ever get "numbers", don't trust them.
Oh, and the celebrated "first" gay couple married in Worcester, MA were two lesbians who also had the first gay-divorce after one filed domestic abuse claims against her "wife".
Which is a bit like saying, "Israelis are the most openly hostile anti-Palestinian group out there." It's called "fighting for survival against those who wish to destroy you."
From what I've seen the churches that preach hate towards homsexuals has shrunk significantly. That kind of hate is in the minority now.
Not to mention with that arguement it justifies gays disrupting church servces.
I know. But people already say the Family premium is too high. If you have 1 wife and 1 kid, should you pay the same as the guy with 10 wives and 800 kids? The way its structured now, you would. (Single, Employee +1 dependent, Family).
Did the eHarmony people respond to public pressure, or was there a lawsuit?
Also, churches are not commercial services. A church cannot, for instance, be forced to administer communion to anyone. Why would the state have more control over other sacraments?
You seem to have mixed arguments here. Is marriage a "civil right" or is it a State controlled privilege? If it is a privilege then the state can set restrictions (such as the ones you stated), if it is a Right then the State has no right to restrict it. This is exactly the anti-Prop 8 argument...that it is a right and the State has no right to restrict it to only "a man & a woman".
I believe that it is a privilege and thus the state can decide to restrict it in any manner it wants. (and it does by making it solely between ONE man & ONE woman).
I will joyfully discuss the other issues in my next post so as if not to confuse my argument with my intellectual fancy.
You are the one insisting that society change. What do you base that on? Anywhere in the Constitution? How about anywhere in the world? What other nations do allow gay marriage, and when did they start allowing it?
from your linky Your marriage certificate, if you are a widow or widower
So ,,if your marriage certif said Bob, Mary and Alice,,,
But you don't have to divide the benefeits up as a fraction of 100% as you were arguing. Families with children get more - up to 180%
"Maximum family benefits
There is a limit to the benefits that can be paid to you and other family members each month. The limit varies, but is generally between 150 and 180 percent of the deceased’s benefit amount."
/please argue with my point if you are going to argue my point
HAHA..my sis is a moonbat of epic proportions.. She lives in seattle and spends her days being an environmental avocate for wildlife..
She is good people and loves wildlife...
If she is happy being with another woman..Then that is her life..her beliefs and I believe..her right..
My opinion is colored...But I don't care.
Kind regards
My biggest problem with my sisters choice of women is her actually choice of woman> I mean talk about being hard on the eyes! My sister and I certianly could never date the same girl?
I read someone, somewhere, who said that the best advertisement for gay marriage was the steady parade of gay couples rehabbing houses and changing decors on the various home improvement shows (HGTV and Bravo have some of them. Keep your significant other away from those shows. They're expensive.)
And yeah, I see what they mean. Ordinary people living ordinary lives getting along as best they can.
But these folks kinda sully the cause, in my opinion. And if they were straight and acting like that, it'd be detrimental to heterosexual marriage, too.
Actually, I'm very grateful to all the gay couples who refurbished my neighborhood, which was once quite a decrepit area. These couples helped make my house quite valuable, at least until the market crash.
I also agree that a lot of the objection to gay couples is not about quiet, decent people (I'm not talking about the word "marriage" here, another issue entirely). The problem is the overt and often quite disgusting raunchiness, which has a place in the world, but not necessarily on public streets.
You are the one insisting that society change. What do you base that on? Anywhere in the Constitution? How about anywhere in the world? What other nations do allow gay marriage, and when did they start allowing it?
Societies always change; haven't you noticed?
Gays can even get elected to serious office for example. When I was a kid trying to do that would have risked a lynching.
Hell, one day even an (admitted) atheist might be elected to the Senate, or higher. Who knows?
The point is that the days when a religious majority could impose their beliefs on everyone are gone (even as I have to drive 45 minutes from my place in Georgia to buy a bottle of booze) //
I 100% tolerate the Homosexual lifestyle. I have many friends who are gay, and couldn't care less for what they do in their bedrooms, in their clubs, etc. This isn't about being AGAINST homosexuality, its about the fact that society has a right to control marriage, and what Marriage IS.
HAHA..my sis is a moonbat of epic proportions.. She lives in seattle and spends her days being an environmental avocate for wildlife..
She is good people and loves wildlife...
If she is happy being with another woman..Then that is her life..her beliefs and I believe..her right..
My opinion is colored...But I don't care.
Kind regards
I would be willing to bet almost everyone here has a gay family member. Mine happens to be a brother who is also a completely whacked out druggie, but that's a different story. re: #452 ArmyWife
Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. I am totally tolerant of gay relationships. Not so much when its crammed down my 10 year old's throat or put forth as "normal". I don't want to send anyone to GITMO, and yes, I tell my gay friends this is how I feel. 99.9% of my gay friends, and their friends agree, gay marriage shouldn't happen. They think its a conspiracy started by divorce attorneys. They might be right.
Yes, Thanos. I have gay friends and I LOVE them. They are honest when I ask if a certain outfit makes my butt look fat.
Yeah those mobs of Mormon protesters storming the San Fransisco bath houses and spray painting obscenities on the wall was just over the top.
The Mormon church in Utah spent millions to support a ballot measure in another state written expressly for the purpose of taking away the legal ability of gays to marry in CA. Am I equating the two actions? No. But am I pretending that the gay community doesn't have a right to feel that the church directly attacked their community? No, I'm not willing to go there either.
[Link: www.opm.gov...]
This one is for federal employment.
California, as well as New York and numerous other states have enacted laws (such as New York's Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act) making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. In California, gays are also protected under the hate-crime laws, same as minorities etc. etc. To have such laws in place in California, yet still pass Prop 8, is laughable.
Thanks. For the record, I agree that this was a stupid suit, but it has no implications for churches. eHarmony may have been launched by religious people for religious purposes, but it's still a commercial service.
I first heard about it at doggie park, of all places.
I can see it on one hand. Should a parent marry someone else who has a higher income that goes toward a nicer lifestyle then get to deny sharing that lifestyle with the child?
I know. But people already say the Family premium is too high. If you have 1 wife and 1 kid, should you pay the same as the guy with 10 wives and 800 kids? The way its structured now, you would. (Single, Employee +1 dependent, Family).
No it's not. my co-worker has 4 kids ,, I have 1. We both have the same insurance ( United Health Care EPO) He pasy more than I do bi-weekly
No, I asked first - why does it matter? If two gays are married and want to raise a child, how does that harm you? How does that harm society? The borderline for limiting rights to me is only when it's to prevent harm. Show me the harm if you can.
There is some evidence that the lack of either a mother or father in the home is detrimental to a child's development. Most of the arguments are put forth by fathers rights groups.
I will admit the jury is still out and opposing studies can be found.
Now if we can just find a psychologist who leaves agendas at the door!
Oh I don't know, I can check. They were just being funny. Many were gay lawyers - DC is the mecca of gay lawyers. Some magnet or something draws them there!
Which is a bit like saying, "Israelis are the most openly hostile anti-Palestinian group out there." It's called "fighting for survival against those who wish to destroy you."
Say what, I must have missed the story about the church group that drove an explosive ladened car to the local gay and lesbian community center then detonated it.
Thanks. For the record, I agree that this was a stupid suit, but it has no implications for churches. eHarmony may have been launched by religious people for religious purposes, but it's still a commercial service.
What person in their right mind would want to marry anyone if they didn't have to, especially if they could enjoy all the same rights as if they were married? Heterosexuals marry in order to conform to existing religious and societal norms.
The way I see it, gays and lesbians who want to marry are nuts.
You seem to have mixed arguments here. Is marriage a "civil right" or is it a State controlled privilege? If it is a privilege then the state can set restrictions (such as the ones you stated), if it is a Right then the State has no right to restrict it. This is exactly the anti-Prop 8 argument...that it is a right and the State has no right to restrict it to only "a man & a woman".
I believe that it is a privilege and thus the state can decide to restrict it in any manner it wants. (and it does by making it solely between ONE man & ONE woman).
I will joyfully discuss the other issues in my next post so as if not to confuse my argument with my intellectual fancy.
But you don't have to divide the benefeits up as a fraction of 100% as you were arguing. Families with children get more - up to 180%
"Maximum family benefits
There is a limit to the benefits that can be paid to you and other family members each month. The limit varies, but is generally between 150 and 180 percent of the deceased’s benefit amount."
/please argue with my point if you are going to argue my point
I was talking about 100% of you BENEFITS. "The limit varies, but is generally between 150 and 180 percent of the deceased’s benefit amount."",,, at 180% of your "amount", that IS 100% (read ALL) of your bennies
As far as relatives are concerned, doesn't society/state have an interest in not perpetuating genetic abnormalities?
As for the animals, tell that to Peter Singer. The children? Tell that to Nambla. (gag)
A more reasonable case--why couldn't a man marry his mother, if he were to get a vasectomy? Surely they can love and care for each other, and should therefore be allowed all the rights of unrelated people who do the same.
Likewise two men who are not homosexual. They can love and care for each other with out sexual attraction.
The point is, either you have a completely arbitrary standard or you go with what has sustained civilization.
No it's not. my co-worker has 4 kids ,, I have 1. We both have the same insurance ( United Health Care EPO) He pasy more than I do bi-weekly
Here is another one. I can cover my kids till 19 till 23 if they are in school. How come after 23 or even after 19 with no school, can't I cover them even if I am willing to pay an extra premium? I still love them ( well most of the time-just kidding )?
[Link: www.opm.gov...]
This one is for federal employment.
California, as well as New York and numerous other states have enacted laws (such as New York's Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act) making it illegal to discriminate against homosexuals. In California, gays are also protected under the hate-crime laws, same as minorities etc. etc. To have such laws in place in California, yet still pass Prop 8, is laughable.
This is an important discussion, you might think I'm strongly for gay marriage, I'm not. I'm a recent convert to the cause because I got challenged (by my mom no less, who I win 85% arguments with) and really couldn't come up with a good argument of why not. Nobody yet has offered me one to convert me back. Let's keep going, because I don't think campaigning for or against gay marriage is going to stop, and we might as well hash it out now. Other than religious objections, are there good reasons why gays can't marry?
No, so far all of the arguments I've heard against it tie back to different flavors of "it's how we do things, it's traditional" "It's what society wants, individual rights be damned"
Just out of curiosity. Where do we stop? Where does traditional morality end and state legislated morality begin? How many individuals does it take to force an agenda the average American does not want into law?
Ironically, the opposition to gay marriage could just as well be based on evolutionary theory; specifically, the paramount importance of the family, the nurturing and reproductive unit that ensures both the social and the biological survival of the community. Homosexuals may do as they please, in my opinion, but they do not have a legitimate claim to the kind of priority all human tradition assigns to the continuation of the species. The notion that they do is a shallow and ill-informed conception based, once again, on the superficial worldview of mass media culture.
Religious activists might win this fight if more of them were willing to embrace evolutionary theory and cite the evolutionary origin of marriage rather than simply insisting that it is an edict from God.
Well if gays get married does that mean they have to do
without sex like the rest of "normal" married people do?
They get all the benefits of being miserable as hetro couples.. including divorce. What a sec.. Is this being pushed by divorce lawyers?
/mmm..more biz for our shark friends..
Your plan is strikingly different than most. Be happy. Of the 8 plans my company offers, they are all structured this way. As were the 5 my last company offered, no company offered premiums based on numbers of dependents (I headed the benefits department at that company, I got to bid out to multiple carriers). Anyone else have premiums based on the number of dependents beyond what I outlined?
Oh I don't know, I can check. They were just being funny. Many were gay lawyers - DC is the mecca of gay lawyers. Some magnet or something draws them there!
Here is another one. I can cover my kids till 19 till 23 if they are in school. How come after 23 or even after 19 with no school, can't I cover them even if I am willing to pay an extra premium? I still love them ( well most of the time-just kidding )?
the gov't figures (and to an extent I agree) that even at 23 if they are in school they are dependent on you. If they are not and at that age they should be able to fend for themselves
Exactly. As a the owner of a Web design company does this mean I have to allow KKK and NAZI ads in the advertizing part of my site? I have a strict policy of no hate ads being accepted. If they come up with an ad that doesn't mention hate, do I now have to run it out of fear of being sued?
The threats made me want to go more often. Of course I also took the whole family down to Centennial Olympic Park the day after the Olympic bombing in 1996 just to send the terrorists a message.
Unless you were FBI, ATF, GBI, or the Atlanta Fire Department or something similar, you had to wait a week.
I'm a recent convert to the cause because I got challenged (by my mom no less, who I win 85% arguments with) and really couldn't come up with a good argument of why not.
Thanks. For the record, I agree that this was a stupid suit, but it has no implications for churches. eHarmony may have been launched by religious people for religious purposes, but it's still a commercial service.
I'm upset with Eharmony on that one, just opens the door for more shakedowns.
Your plan is strikingly different than most. Be happy. Of the 8 plans my company offers, they are all structured this way. As were the 5 my last company offered, no company offered premiums based on numbers of dependents (I headed the benefits department at that company, I got to bid out to multiple carriers). Anyone else have premiums based on the number of dependents beyond what I outlined?
I never saw any. I have Tricare now and they sure don't.
As for the animals, tell that to Peter Singer. The children? Tell that to Nambla. (gag)
A more reasonable case--why couldn't a man marry his mother, if he were to get a vasectomy? Surely they can love and care for each other, and should therefore be allowed all the rights of unrelated people who do the same.
Likewise two men who are not homosexual. They can love and care for each other with out sexual attraction.
The point is, either you have a completely arbitrary standard or you go with what has sustained civilization.
I don't know of any civilized nation that allows incest.
Your plan is strikingly different than most. Be happy. Of the 8 plans my company offers, they are all structured this way. As were the 5 my last company offered, no company offered premiums based on numbers of dependents (I headed the benefits department at that company, I got to bid out to multiple carriers). Anyone else have premiums based on the number of dependents beyond what I outlined?
My company, thru United Health Care, offers thre plans,,
EPO ,,, POS ,,, PPO. Each one's premiums rise (not by much however) with mulitple children
The Mormon church in Utah spent millions to support a ballot measure in another state written expressly for the purpose of taking away the legal ability of gays to marry in CA. Am I equating the two actions? No. But am I pretending that the gay community doesn't have a right to feel that the church directly attacked their community? No, I'm not willing to go there either.
The Mormon (LDS) church is headquartered in Utah but there are tons of Latter-day Saints living in California. Los Angeles county alone has the fifth highest population of LDS of any county in the United states. Only four counties have more and three are in Utah.
This is also an issue that has national implications. There are Latter-day Saints in every state in the union.
More to the point - let them argue, legislate and debate all they want. You wont find the LDS involved in physical attacks on someone elses community. If it ever were to happen they would be excommunicated faster than you could say "drop that green jello and get away from my gay pride float!"
For what it's worth, I think E Harmony should be able to dictate the type of service they provide; there are plenty of gay dating site alternatives.
I also think the Catholic church should be able to provide adoption services to Catholics, and when the church eventually decides to accept gays in 500 years or so, then they can work with them too (as long as they are married, of course).
To increase divorce rates, to increase income. The premise is gay relationships don't last, thus an increase in divorce, typically without kids, easy money.
You are the one insisting that society change. What do you base that on? Anywhere in the Constitution? How about anywhere in the world? What other nations do allow gay marriage, and when did they start allowing it?
Here's a list:
* The Netherlands/Holland, 2001.
* Belgium, 2003.
* Massachusetts, USA, 2004.
* Canada, 2005.
* Spain, 2005.
* South Africa, 2006.
* Connecticut, 2008.
* Norway, 2009.
Scroll down a bit on this page, and you'll see a list of countries that permit civil unions on a national basis.
Just out of curiosity. Where do we stop? Where does traditional morality end and state legislated morality begin? How many individuals does it take to force an agenda the average American does not want into law?
I don't know but in five hundred years I would wager that people will look back in wonder at the energy that people put into this and scratch their heads, just as we do now when we look back at miscegnation laws.
the gov't figures (and to an extent I agree) that even at 23 if they are in school they are dependent on you. If they are not and at that age they should be able to fend for themselves
Yeah, I know. But if they can't why am I not allowed to pay and extra premium to have them covered. It's just a theoretical question. In my case I can afford to cover them on a sperate pollicy if I have to, but it would be much more expensive. Since they are either uner 19 and/or all in school, I am ok so far.
"Civilized" is a tricky qualifier, but i can assure you that in both the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent, marriage among cousins is traditional and practiced to this day.
I 100% tolerate the Homosexual lifestyle. I have many friends who are gay, and couldn't care less for what they do in their bedrooms, in their clubs, etc. This isn't about being AGAINST homosexuality, its about the fact that society has a right to control marriage, and what Marriage IS.
This, I guess, is the crux of the argument. I guess it depends on who you define as "society", and who gave them the right to control a concept that belongs to all of us? Again, we get back to the "tyranny of the majority" concept. It wasn't so long ago that our "society" did not tolerate inter-racial marriage. We those people "right" simply because they were a majority? Not in my book.
That COULD be a part of it, but I am pretty sure it is NOT the entire thing. The Bar Association is Left on every issue. Not even center-left, just left. They are part of the legal structure in Sacramento that could find any finding within the law that they want to exist. The are not honest in their legal interpretation, and tend to lean towards legal activism.
This is an important discussion, you might think I'm strongly for gay marriage, I'm not. I'm a recent convert to the cause because I got challenged (by my mom no less, who I win 85% arguments with) and really couldn't come up with a good argument of why not. Nobody yet has offered me one to convert me back. Let's keep going, because I don't think campaigning for or against gay marriage is going to stop, and we might as well hash it out now. Other than religious objections, are there good reasons why gays can't marry?
Here are a couple of articles from NRO from a couple of years ago discussing this issue that made enough of an impression on me that I remembered they existed.
No it's not. my co-worker has 4 kids ,, I have 1. We both have the same insurance ( United Health Care EPO) He pasy more than I do bi-weekly
I agree - completely unfair. I have seven kids. (I still don't volunteer to pay more but I wouldn't protest for the rights I have now if the practice were made more equitable).
The notion that the Romans recognized gay marriage is about as absurd as it gets. Such "marriages" as were made in the decadent of the Empire were trangressive, personal dramas that might (or might not) include a legal element such as "lateral adoption." Roman family law was what we would call very conservative. They were one of the very few ancient civilizations, e.g., that did not recognize polygamy.
Incidentally, there was no emperor by the name of "Theodosian." I suppose that oft-repeated name is a result of confusing the Theodosian Code of Theodosius II, a 5th century emperor of the Byzantine East, with the name of an actual person.
Personally, I don't see the threat that same-sex marriage poses to my heterosexual relationships. However, is it not a matter of semantics at this point? Marriage versus civil union and all that?
I also think the Catholic church should be able to provide adoption services to Catholics, and when the church eventually decides to accept gays in 500 years or so, then they can work with them too (as long as they are married, of course).
;)
Will never happen, since marriage in the Catholic Church takes a natural act of procreation to be valid. This even stops some straight people from getting married.
Technically they are no longer dependents at that point. Stress on the TECHNICAL part.
I fully inderstand that, but if some people marry or form civil unions either because they love each other or for the benefits, do I love my children any less at 19 or 23?
There was a pretty good discussion of some of the legal issues in this conflict between religious and sexual liberty in the Weekly Standard a couple of years ago, I just found the link:
[Link: weeklystandard.com...]
No particular answer for the question Thanos poses.
Absolutely not, and I didn't mean to imply that. I'm merely offering Amsterdam as an example of what happens when there's too much "tolerance." The flip side of authoritarianism is anarchy.
Yeah, I know. But if they can't why am I not allowed to pay and extra premium to have them covered. It's just a theoretical question. In my case I can afford to cover them on a sperate pollicy if I have to, but it would be much more expensive. Since they are either uner 19 and/or all in school, I am ok so far.
Ironically I must find another way to insure my 19 year old because he is taking two years off for a Mormon mission. That doesn't count the same as if he were in school according to my insurance company.
/Where do I sign up for my civil rights lawyer? (kidding)
To increase divorce rates, to increase income. The premise is gay relationships don't last, thus an increase in divorce, typically without kids, easy money.
Not so easy if there are adopted kids and lotsa' assets.
Exactly. As a the owner of a Web design company does this mean I have to allow KKK and NAZI ads in the advertizing part of my site? I have a strict policy of no hate ads being accepted. If they come up with an ad that doesn't mention hate, do I now have to run it out of fear of being sued?
Basically, yes.
You can be sued.
Anyone can be sued.
Who wins, however, is the issue.
In the case of eHarmony, they "settled" because the cost of the suit was higher than they wanted to pay because potentially, the outcome would be that they have to provide the services.
The suit did not really "settle" the issue of whether or not the business is legally obligated to provide the services.
Not a lawyer here, and so that's just my understanding.
I'm not suggesting that the State has no interest in marriage because it's not in the constitution, but rather that a state-sanctioned marriage is not a right, and it never has been, which is why you must obtain a license (which, like any license, can be revoked) in order for it to be recognized by the state. You are correct that the state (read: the will of the citizens of California as expressed through their elected representatives) has an interest in marriage, which is why it has repeatedly decided that the interests of the state are best served by restricting marriage licenses to relationships between 1 man and 1 woman.
Personally, I don't see the threat that same-sex marriage poses to my heterosexual relationships. However, is it not a matter of semantics at this point? Marriage versus civil union and all that?
No threat.
Just a lot of channel-changing when they show them kissing on the news.
"Civilized" is a tricky qualifier, but i can assure you that in both the Middle East and the Indian sub-continent, marriage among cousins is traditional and practiced to this day.
I was speaking of close relatives, i.e., parents and siblings.
I don't know but in five hundred years I would wager that people will look back in wonder at the energy that people put into this and scratch their heads, just as we do now when we look back at miscegnation laws.
Then again, it is possible in 500 years people would look back and say, THIS is where it all fell apart. Much like we do the Roman empire and others when their cultures started fading.
Here are a couple of articles from NRO from a couple of years ago discussing this issue that made enough of an impression on me that I remembered they existed.
Again, I understand what marriage is. It's had one definiton since birth.
Now, gays have come out of the closet and they want equal treatment. I'm sympathetic, but I think society is better off defining a new institution - Civil Unions - that define that arrangement.
To me, a new definition for a new arrangement makes more sense.
Not that I am advocating this, but there is a low risk of issues between cousins. From Forbidden Relatives: The American Myth of Cousin Marriage by (1996), anthropologist Martin Ottenheimer:
First-cousin marriage isn't a surefire recipe for congenital defects. True, marriage among close kin can increase the chance of pathological recessive genes meeting up in some unlucky individual, with dire consequences. The problem isn't cousin marriage per se, however, but rather how many such genes are floating around in the family pool. If the pool's pretty clean, the likelihood of genetic defects resulting from cousin marriage is low. A recent review (Bennett et al, Journal of Genetic Counseling, 2002) says that, on average, offspring of first-cousin unions have a 2 to 3 percent greater risk of birth defects than the general population, and a little over 4 percent greater risk of early death. While those margins aren't trivial, genetic testing and counseling can minimize the danger. An argument can be made that marriages of first cousins descended from strong stock can produce exceptional children. Charles Darwin, for example, married his first cousin Emma, which wasn't at all unusual in their prominent and successful family--their common grandparents were cousins too. Three of Charles and Emma's ten kids died in childhood, it's true, but that was standard for Victorian England; the others went on to productive and in some cases distinguished careers.
That COULD be a part of it, but I am pretty sure it is NOT the entire thing. The Bar Association is Left on every issue. Not even center-left, just left. They are part of the legal structure in Sacramento that could find any finding within the law that they want to exist. The are not honest in their legal interpretation, and tend to lean towards legal activism.
Isn't there any even more Lefty legal association?
Heh, there were very few good scenes in "Don't mess with the Zohan," but what that amused me slightly was the terrorist waking up in bed with twenty scantily-clad women.
But the problem polygamy holds in Muslim countries is that the rich have multiple wives... and the poor... have none. All the women went to marry the rich sheikh.
So yeah, if he wants to get sex, he has to blow himself up and go to the afterlife. Sick.
I agree - completely unfair. I have seven kids. (I still don't volunteer to pay more but I wouldn't protest for the rights I have now if the practice were made more equitable).
WHA?!?!?! I think it's completely FAIR that he (who has 4 kids) pays more than I do for 1 kid!
Again, I understand what marriage is. It's had one definiton since birth.
Now, gays have come out of the closet and they want equal treatment. I'm sympathetic, but I think society is better off defining a new institution - Civil Unions - that define that arrangement.
To me, a new definition for a new arrangement makes more sense.
I completely agree with you.
I'm about to get ready for the first performance of my play as drama director. Wish me luck!
I can see it on one hand. Should a parent marry someone else who has a higher income that goes toward a nicer lifestyle then get to deny sharing that lifestyle with the child?
The child - and the former spouse - are in no way entitled to the earnings of the new spouse, in my not-terribly-humble opinion. It's ridiculous. If the other parent wishes for the child to be part of the "nicer lifestyle," the child can visit.
Especially since the new spouse is being robbed without any benefit. He/she cannot deduct the child support being taken out of his/her check. Nor may he/she claim the child as a dependent, unless the child lives with the parent the new spouse married.
And usually, where that sort of thing is happening, the child lives with the former spouse.
Absolutely not, and I didn't mean to imply that. I'm merely offering Amsterdam as an example of what happens when there's too much "tolerance." The flip side of authoritarianism is anarchy.
I don't care what you do in your bedroom with a consenting adult. Don't mistake my tolerance for acceptance, however.
(When I say you, its the collective you, for clarification)
It's not your tolerance they want, or acceptance for that matter. They've had that for years. They want your/our celebration...and that's what crosses over the line for me...
This is an important discussion, you might think I'm strongly for gay marriage, I'm not. I'm a recent convert to the cause because I got challenged (by my mom no less, who I win 85% arguments with) and really couldn't come up with a good argument of why not. Nobody yet has offered me one to convert me back. Let's keep going, because I don't think campaigning for or against gay marriage is going to stop, and we might as well hash it out now. Other than religious objections, are there good reasons why gays can't marry?
Hmm, how about when they dance at their own wedding, who gets to lead?
They should get a jobby job and get their own insurance. Nothing to do with love, baby. Its responsibility. Or so I tell my 17 year old who better get her darn college essays complete THIS WEEKEND.
Will never happen, since marriage in the Catholic Church takes a natural act of procreation to be valid. This even stops some straight people from getting married.
500 years from now I suspect there will be amazingly natural things that can be done in the name of god. Even today, most American catholics accept birth control, even while the Pope doesn't.
I don't know but in five hundred years I would wager that people will look back in wonder at the energy that people put into this and scratch their heads, just as we do now when we look back at miscegnation laws.
Actually, I think it will happen much faster than that because young people just do not care about this issue.
Age is another demographic characteristic that affects attitudes on this issue. Opposition to gay marriage is most pronounced among older Americans, with more than two-thirds (67%) of those age 65 and older opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed.
"Lizard By The Bay", I like you from "knowing" you around here at LGF, but your constant comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement after I have repeatedly proven how this is not a Civil Rights issue, is becoming very frustrating.
But because it is Friday, I'm going to have patience.
First, Prop 8 is not an issue about allowing one group rights that it does not allow another. In fact, both groups (heterosexual, and homosexual) are treated equally under prop 8. Both groups are forced to accept that they cannot marry someone of the same sex. Furthermore, no one has taken away a Homosexuals right to marry. Just like every person of all protected classes, Homosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they like.
There is no "tyranny of the majority" because there is no "tyranny". There is no discrimination, or withholding of rights with prop 8.
WHA?!?!?! I think it's completely FAIR that he (who has 4 kids) pays more than I do for 1 kid!
I was agreeing with you. Sorry I wasn't more clear. The scales are definately tipped in favor of "cheaper by the dozen" and that creates an inequity with smaller families.
re: #387 father_of_10
Hey father. Have you read Neal Maxwells A More Determined Discipleship? Amazing when you consider it was written nearly 30 years ago yet foreshadows current political events. There's some compelling arugments regarding religions role in politics:
"A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it” (Human Life Review, Summer 1978, pp. 58–59).
"This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions. Resistance to abortion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.
Then again, it is possible in 500 years people would look back and say, THIS is where it all fell apart. Much like we do the Roman empire and others when their cultures started fading.
I'll point out that the Roman Empire didn't fall apart until after it outlawed gay marriage :)
I see I don't have time to read this whole thread so I'll just jump in here with my own view on marriage. I've decided to draw the line on this issue, the use of the word "marriage" because it's time to draw a line in the sand. There is no issue that can't be turned into a "civil right." Why can't I declare my cat my husband and force my employer to pay vet costs? Why can't I marry my own children? Etc. etc.
As a great fan of science fiction, I know there are many examples of things one can do. Most people don't really have the imagination to see how far things could go, if we didn't impose some standards. Check out the novels of Lois McMaster Bujold for some great stories about stretching boundaries. Surprisingly, or not, slavery reappears with a bang (pun intended) if there are no boundaries.
It really doesn't take long for society to disintegrate. I've seen it happen in my short lifetime. Some LGFers were reminiscing the other day about how nice San Francisco used to be. Why is it a city of homeless people and sexual perverts now?
It's because the SF government has encouraged that behavior through its supposedly liberal policies. I don't see what's so liberal about driving heterosexuals out of the city.
I have much younger San Francisco relatives who believe in socialism and voted for Obama because they see so many homeless people. They think that that's normal. They're surrounded by craziness, which they think is normal. They're too young to know anything about warfare and national defense, so they think that the only reason to have government is to give away money to the less fortunate.
There are some advantages to getting older, and the main one is being able to see how things change. Sometimes things change for the better, but not always.
Basically, yes.
You can be sued.
Anyone can be sued.
Who wins, however, is the issue.
In the case of eHarmony, they "settled" because the cost of the suit was higher than they wanted to pay because potentially, the outcome would be that they have to provide the services.
The suit did not really "settle" the issue of whether or not the business is legally obligated to provide the services.
Not a lawyer here, and so that's just my understanding.
I'm pretty sure you're right. Of course I'd have to fight that, no matter what the cost. I really don't understand why eHarmony didn't. Even if they lost, it was still a worthy fight, even if only for the sake of private business.
I don't know but in five hundred years I would wager that people will look back in wonder at the energy that people put into this and scratch their heads, just as we do now when we look back at miscegnation laws.
No. This is a very big societal change. It should not be done lightly or easily. In fact, if it is taken lightly it would be more alarming to me, not less.
They should get a jobby job and get their own insurance. Nothing to do with love, baby. Its responsibility. Or so I tell my 17 year old who better get her darn college essays complete THIS WEEKEND.
Actually they are pretty industrious and would probably get good jobs and some how I would still get stuck with the car and insurance bills?
Isn't there any even more Lefty legal association?
I have a feeling that you are referring to the National Lawyers Guild. They are solely a political organization however...thus, not like the State Bar.
The child - and the former spouse - are in no way entitled to the earnings of the new spouse, in my not-terribly-humble opinion. It's ridiculous. If the other parent wishes for the child to be part of the "nicer lifestyle," the child can visit.
Especially since the new spouse is being robbed without any benefit. He/she cannot deduct the child support being taken out of his/her check. Nor may he/she claim the child as a dependent, unless the child lives with the parent the new spouse married.
And usually, where that sort of thing is happening, the child lives with the former spouse.
I find it interesting that in each one of those countries listed the indigenous population is in decline because of low birth rates.
I doubt that is because people are choosing same-sex rather than traditional marriage. After all, in any country, the percentage of people who want to marry a person of the same sex will be quite small.
Heh, there were very few good scenes in "Don't mess with the Zohan," but what that amused me slightly was the terrorist waking up in bed with twenty scantily-clad women.
But the problem polygamy holds in Muslim countries is that the rich have multiple wives... and the poor... have none. All the women went to marry the rich sheikh.
So yeah, if he wants to get sex, he has to blow himself up and go to the afterlife. Sick.
Hey father. Have you read Neal Maxwells A More Determined Discipleship? Amazing when you consider it was written nearly 30 years ago yet foreshadows current political events. There's some compelling arugments regarding religions role in politics:
Us MoLizard's are outing ourselves in large numbers on this thread!
Thanks for that, you are leading where I was going to next. Young people really don't care if gays marry. It's an issue that's moot to them for the most part, and strong opposition to gay marriage paints the Republicans into a demographic corner if they go that route.
I was agreeing with you. Sorry I wasn't more clear. The scales are definately tipped in favor of "cheaper by the dozen" and that creates an inequity with smaller families.
you're making my hair hurt!
HAVE MORE ,, PAY MORE (why!?!? because you're GETTING more)
HAVE LESS ,,, PAY LESS (why? because you're GETTING less)
For what it's worth, I think E Harmony should be able to dictate the type of service they provide; there are plenty of gay dating site alternatives.
I also think the Catholic church should be able to provide adoption services to Catholics, and when the church eventually decides to accept gays in 500 years or so, then they can work with them too (as long as they are married, of course).
;)
Hiya, Naso!
I have no objection to e-Harmony providing OR not providing certain services; they are a privately owned business and should be able to determine what their services will be. I have no objection to any company providing match-up services for anybody. I honestly don't care who is what or who they are attracted to. It's none 'a my bidness.
Catholic charities is required, as are all other such services, to provide without discrimination.
If the state is now going to require religious-affiliated organizations to provide services that fall outside of their beliefs, they will go out of business. And many, many people who need those services will be without. And I think that's an absolute shame, that 95% of the population will do without good reasonable services they need from organizations like this because the organization is legally required to either provide also for 5% in contradiction of its beliefs, OR go out of business.
The joys of parenthood! Of course, my Daddy paid my car insurance far longer than he should have, even AFTER I was married with the first. But we were so darn poor. Privates just don't make enough to support ArmyWifes.
I have a feeling that you are referring to the National Lawyers Guild. They are solely a political organization however...thus, not like the State Bar.
500 years from now I suspect there will be amazingly natural things that can be done in the name of god. Even today, most American catholics accept birth control, even while the Pope doesn't.
Stranger things have happened.
Understood, but I was just going off of Canon law. I mean how does anyone know if the wife and I have ever "done it"? OK if we didn't have kids, how would any know.
No. This is a very big societal change. It should not be done lightly or easily. In fact, if it is taken lightly it would be more alarming to me, not less.
Again, if it's "big and hairy" show me the harm to you.
After all, in any country, the percentage of people who want to marry a person of the same sex will be quite small.
You've just made the argument in favor of prop 8,by nature the law cannot be fair to everybody it must attempt to be as equitable as it can to the largest portion of the population as possible
I don't know. Despite my near membership in it myself (when I believed all they did was protect the rights of protestors from overzealous Government), I haven't been following them
I'll point out that the Roman Empire didn't fall apart until after it outlawed gay marriage :)
I'm not quite convinced that is the reason the empire fell apart; because gays could no longer marry.
I've never been a fan of the "anything goes" civilization. I've always felt certain restrictions were inherently in place to govern societal behavior resulting in better lifestyles for the majority of the population. I would be hard pressed to document this or even prove it, which is why I've hung back from this discussion. Can't really prove instinct or quantify moral standards to the degree that many want. Just my opinion and nothing more.
Sorry, I forgot to include the link. In the study I cited, young was defined as under 30. In the Prop 8 voting, too, there was a major effect of age.
Here, again, is the paragraph, so that all the info is together. This was a Pew Foundation study.
Age is another demographic characteristic that affects attitudes on this issue. Opposition to gay marriage is most pronounced among older Americans, with more than two-thirds (67%) of those age 65 and older opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed.
HAVE MORE ,, PAY MORE (why!?!? because you're GETTING more)
HAVE LESS ,,, PAY LESS (why? because you're GETTING less)
easy concept
One more time... I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU
Have more pay more would be more fair and the current system where I don't have to pay as much per child is unfair to others (even though I kind of like the benefit). This is consistent with my position that the gubbament does not need to be in the business of advocating or discouraging any type of marriage arrangement (even one man, one woman).
Then it appears we are quibbling over language. Fine, if I accept that no one has a "right" to marriage, wether gay or straight, will you concede that Prop 8 took the legal ability of gays to marry away from them?
And really, in modern language usage, the legal right to do something a the legal ability to do something are pretty interchangable concepts.
Other than religious objections, are there good reasons why gays can't marry?
Assuming the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable partnership to raise children, I believe it is much more useful to have one role model of each gender that the children can learn from
The Mormon church in Utah spent millions to support a ballot measure in another state written expressly for the purpose of taking away the legal ability of gays to marry in CA. Am I equating the two actions? No. But am I pretending that the gay community doesn't have a right to feel that the church directly attacked their community? No, I'm not willing to go there either.
The "Church" spent about $2000 which was identified a airfare for travel to speak to the congregations in California. The $20 million was all from individual church members. That's democracy.
BRB. I made chicken chili and home made corn tortillas. Gonna go feed my offspring and see if the 17 year old is going out, or if I am going to be bombarded with the group here (my preference, its sort of ugly weather, I can keep an eye on things, etc.)
Both groups are forced to accept that they cannot marry someone of the same sex. Furthermore, no one has taken away a Homosexuals right to marry. Just like every person of all protected classes, Homosexuals can marry anyone of the opposite sex that they like.
There is no "tyranny of the majority" because there is no "tyranny". There is no discrimination, or withholding of rights with prop 8.
The whole point is that gays want to change the existing definition of marriage.
It's an absurd and offensive example.
Re: slippery slope...
You can apply that to anything. When interracial marriages were illegal you could make the same argument. What's next? Will interspecies marriages be next? It's stupid and bigoted.
I don't think so. Prohibiting Interracial marriage is, clearly, unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution referring to 'sexual orientation.'
Interracial marriages were only unconstitutional after the passage of the fourteenth amendment. Prior to that, it seems to me that such discrimination would be constitutional despite it being morally wrong.
At the very least, the fourteenth amendment was the deciding factor in Loving v. Virginia, which, according to wikipedia.org, "[ended] all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States".
After all, in any country, the percentage of people who want to marry a person of the same sex will be quite small.
You've just made the argument in favor of prop 8,by nature the law cannot be fair to everybody it must attempt to be as equitable as it can to the largest portion of the population as possible
That makes no sense at all. There's no "greatest good for the greatest number" issue at stake w/ regard to same-sex marriage. No one's right to marry whomever they want is restricted by allowing the same right to all.
I'm not quite convinced that is the reason the empire fell apart; because gays could no longer marry.
I've never been a fan of the "anything goes" civilization. I've always felt certain restrictions were inherently in place to govern societal behavior resulting in better lifestyles for the majority of the population. I would be hard pressed to document this or even prove it, which is why I've hung back from this discussion. Can't really prove instinct or quantify moral standards to the degree that many want. Just my opinion and nothing more.
I'm not convinced either, but the Roman Empire fell apart after adopting Christianity and outlawing gay marriage, so those arguing that it will lead to decay and destruction do have a precedent to look at to counter that strawman.
Imagine if I went to a gay dating site and demanded that they provide their services to my preferential group - Christian heterosexuals - or I would sue. How long before the media would denounce me as a Christian fascist nutjob?
I don't know of any civilized nation that allows incest.
There are several ancient civilizations that did, Egypt being the most obvious...and of course most civilizations throughout history have allowed polygamy. No civilization has ever sanctioned homosexual marriage, not even the ones which were tolerant, or even embracing, of homosexual practice.
Assuming the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable partnership to raise children, I believe it is much more useful to have one role model of each gender that the children can learn from
Why of each gender? I can understand for biological reasons (e.g. breastfeeding) but not for other.
The truly frightening thing is that these groups are suing to void this amendment claiming that "the voters of california do not have the authority" to make this change. Not joking. When those in power pick and choose the 'laws' that will be enforced, we no longer have 'rule of law'.
Assuming the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable partnership to raise children, I believe it is much more useful to have one role model of each gender that the children can learn from
three things
I agree that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable partnership
I disagree that is is to raise children (I know several loving childless couples,,, their choice, not natures)
I agree that it is much more useful to have one role model of each gender HOWEVER,, if the choice is abusive or negelctful parent(s) as opposed to a loving gay couple ,, I would rather see the child with the loving couple
I think there should be a federal law. One issue protests only. If the issue is gay marriage, then fine. Only pro-gay marriage folks. No Nazis, no anti-church/state people, no nut's, gee, it just becomes one big cluster fuck for stupidness.
At least those multi-issue temper tantrums get it all out of the way at once, so we don't have the Sexual Deviant rights march one weekend, Illegal Aliens the next, Jews for the Metric System the next, etc.
Strangest combo-protest I ever saw in person was "Wiccans Against The War In Iraq So Undocumented Immigrants Can Have Affordable Housing." I am not making that up.
The CDC publishes data showing the average life expectancy of homosexual males (discounting impact of HIV/AIDS) is on average 20 years less than heterosexual males. (you can check for a link yourself - the data is readily available through PubMed/MDConsult and other medical databases.)
There is no biological/species benefit to homosexual behavior.
Studies of identical twins do not support the claim of biological determinism with regard to homosexual tendencies, but seem to indicate a combined environmental/biological impact on an individual's psychological development that leads to homosexual behaviors.
Since there is no benefit to either the species nor to the individual, homosexuality is not normal. This does not mean people afflicted with homosexual tendencies should be persecuted, but just as we don't encourage people to engage in other self-destructive behaviors (smoking, excessive drinking, indiscriminant unsafe sex, poor diet, riding without a helmet, etc) we should not be encouraging people to engage in unhealthy, self-destructive acts.
Thus, the crux of the problem. Homosexuals refuse to accept this position, and petulantly demand that the rest of us not just accept - but rather glorify - homosexuality. No matter how much either side blathers on about their chosen technicalities, that is the issue.
Imagine if I went to a gay dating site and demanded that they provide their services to my preferential group - Christian heterosexuals - or I would sue. How long before the media would denounce me as a Christian fascist nutjob?
I don't know, but since the precedent has been set with the suit against e-harmony, why not try it? Who knows you could cash in.
I'm not quite convinced that is the reason the empire fell apart; because gays could no longer marry.
I've never been a fan of the "anything goes" civilization. I've always felt certain restrictions were inherently in place to govern societal behavior resulting in better lifestyles for the majority of the population. I would be hard pressed to document this or even prove it, which is why I've hung back from this discussion. Can't really prove instinct or quantify moral standards to the degree that many want. Just my opinion and nothing more.
I think that sums up the broader dilemmna well. At what point does "community standard" preserve the health and welfare of the individuals in it vs. suppressing their right to persue happiness? I don't have a clear clean cut answer for society. I do however have a clear clean cut set of rules for my own behavior that I don't impose on anyone other than my minor children... and I figure that is the ultimate answer. To preserve our freedom we must have a virtuous population.
At least those multi-issue temper tantrums get it all out of the way at once, so we don't have the Sexual Deviant rights march one weekend, Illegal Aliens the next, Jews for the Metric System the next, etc.
Strangest combo-protest I ever saw in person was "Wiccans Against The War In Iraq So Undocumented Immigrants Can Have Affordable Housing." I am not making that up.
Again, if it's "big and hairy" show me the harm to you.
I'm not saying it's 'big and harry.' I'm saying that I don't know enough.
I've made this point several times before, so my apologies for repeating...
Again, I understand what marriage is. It's had one definiton since I was born.
Now, gays have come out of the closet and they want equal treatment. I'm sympathetic. It's fine that folks pursue happiness in their own way and I don't want society to have laws that prevent that.
However, I think society is better off defining a new institution - Civil Unions - that define that arrangement. To me, a new definition for a new arrangement makes more sense. We don't have enough history to group the two institutions together. So we are better off keeping it separate till we truly understand the implications.
Rushing headlong into mixing marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals could have bad consequences.
I'm not convinced either, but the Roman Empire fell apart after adopting Christianity and outlawing gay marriage, so those arguing that it will lead to decay and destruction do have a precedent to look at to counter that strawman.
Please do provide a link to your assertion about the Roman Empire outlawing gay marriage. Certainly does run counter to all I have learned in my studies.
Trust me even if the insurance companies raised the rates of families with more children they would never lower anyones rates.
Actually, because company I work for grew last year, my premiums (for the same coverage) will be less next year than this one (group policy thru United Health Care )
The "Church" spent about $2000 which was identified a airfare for travel to speak to the congregations in California. The $20 million was all from individual church members. That's democracy.
And yet, we act indignant when foreigners make campaign contributions in our Presidential campaigns, but millions and millions from out-of-state donations are spent here in CA and we're supposed to be pleased by this example of "democracy in action"? Do I smell a little hypocrisy here?
Strawman, we are talking about gay marriage, not bigamy laws. Stay with the subject.
How is it not the subject? Marriage has a particular and defined meaning in our society. It's limited to 1 heterosexual of legal age marrying another heterosexual of legal age. The laws governing marriage do not allow more than 2 people to be married to each other in one marriage. This is not anti-gay, it's pro-traditional marriage.
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has just completed a study of 1000 state laws and concluded that at least 350 of them would likely trigger liability for conscientious objectors, including religious organizations, should same-sex marriage be recognized.
Their conclusion was that “Legal recognition of same-sex marriage—whether imposed by courts or enacted by legislatures—poses a great threat to freedom of conscience that has been honored in this country before the Founding.”
They recommend that “legislatures amend state antidiscrimination statutes now to include robust exemptions for those with religious or other conscientious objections to same-sex marriage.”
They conclude that, “Lawsuits will likely arise when religious people or religious organizations choose, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, not to hire individuals in same-sex marriages, refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex spouses, refuse to make their property or services available for same-sex marriage ceremonies or other events affirming same-sex marriage, or refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples. This wide-ranging conflict between governments and conscientious citizens would take years of litigation to resolve, assuming that it could be resolved.”
Yeah, maybe cousins don't qualify as "incest", but I still think it's illegal in this Country (maybe it isn't, I've just always thought it was). Anyway, in the context of this discussion (if it actually is illegal) it shows an existing compelling Government interest in preventing marriage between people who cannot/should not procreate.
Equal protection, yes. I've known a couple of gays who are/were married (both to opposite sex people). Just as I've known someone who I swear is a closet polygamist who was married (to one person).
heh.
When she says something and I want a link, she asks me to look up my own link.
When I say something and she wants a link, I give it to her.
But, she is always very polite.
Did you ask me for something? As a general rule, I try to provide links for any assertions that I make. Sorry if I missed doing that in an exchange w/ you.
Catholic charities is required, as are all other such services, to provide without discrimination.
I'm not an expert here, but cannot churches provide certain services only to their members? Is anyone allowed to come in and try the wine, for example, or can they be refused?
Here's one mention:
"Most scholars interpret a convoluted law from the year 342 AD surviving in both the Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian as a decree from the emperors Constantius II and Constans that marriage based on unnatural sex should be punished meticulously. Although Constans himself was later denounced as having male lovers, this trend of the emperors in condemning male homosexuality in laws would continue. In a law of 390, surviving in the Theodosian Code and the Lex Dei (‘Law of God’), the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius ordained that any man taking the role of a woman in sex would be publicly burned to death."
[Link: hnn.us...]
Why of each gender? I can understand for biological reasons (e.g. breastfeeding) but not for other.
Because each gender has innate strength and weaknesses and I believe the children raised in a partnership would be better served by being exposed to, learning about, and learning from both genders at an early age.
Actually, because company I work for grew last year, my premiums (for the same coverage) will be less next year than this one (group policy thru United Health Care )
Yes that is because the company was able to negotiate a lower premiums because they had more employees. I doubt your company would renegotiate premiums every time someone had a child.
Assuming the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable partnership to raise children, I believe it is much more useful to have one role model of each gender that the children can learn from
There is an excellent point in here! The purpose of marriage - traditionally - is to provide that stable relationship. I know not all married hetero sexuals have kids, but that's the purpose and that's the basis for most of the law/tradition.
The purpose of gay civil unions is to codify life partnerships. I know som gays adopt, but their the exception. Until we understand the implications of the gay civil union over time, we would be fools to mix the two contracts.
That is another good point. Just as a Church couldn't choose to keep African Americans out, or Women out as they are Civil Rights Protected Classes, when Homosexuals are made into a Civil Rights Protected Class, religion will be forced to go against their actual teachings and be forced to accept Gay Marriages, and homosexual behavior.
Funny how religion is not allowed to interfere with Government, but the Government does everything it can to interfere with one's individual liberty of religion.
And yet, we act indignant when foreigners make campaign contributions in our Presidential campaigns, but millions and millions from out-of-state donations are spent here in CA and we're supposed to be pleased by this example of "democracy in action"? Do I smell a little hypocrisy here?
Once again... there is a huge LDS population in California. (In fact I couldn't get away from the Valley Girls and Guys at BYU!)
They send a gazillion dollars to Salt Lake City every week to pay for the assistance of millions of mormons and non-mormons all over the world. (The LDS Church is one of the wolrds largest providers of disaster and economic assistance - including California and they don't discriminate in who receives it).
How can Muslims be against any kind of marriage imaginable when they glorify the heterosexual marriage of an adult male and a prebuscent female?
Because the Prophet married 6 year old Aisha & they view him as a perfect man. Mohammads own predilictions have much of the world screwed up for centuries.
Imagine if I went to a gay dating site and demanded that they provide their services to my preferential group - Christian heterosexuals - or I would sue. How long before the media would denounce me as a Christian fascist nutjob?
Yeah, maybe cousins don't qualify as "incest", but I still think it's illegal in this Country (maybe it isn't, I've just always thought it was). Anyway, in the context of this discussion (if it actually is illegal) it shows an existing compelling Government interest in preventing marriage between people who cannot/should not procreate.
I want to thank you for the sprited debate. For those wondering, I actually left Prop 8 blank when I voted. It really doesn't afect me either way. But the libertarian in me can't help but interject into these discussions.
I've always liked you too, Wrath, and I'll continue to enjoy your posts on other threads.
OMG, yes!
NO NO NO NO NO !
I must say NO!
I spend too much time on line as it is!
yes yes yes yes NO NO NO NO NO!
(Get thee behind me, reine!)
WOLFIE -
Everybody has 2 days to take their turn. It actually doesn't take that much time and it's a relaxing fun way to play, PLUS we use the dictionary LOL.
PLEASE - one game to see?
Ok since it seems that I, a Jew, am coming out (pun intended) on the side of the LDS' church accidentally as I support Prop 8 (and voted for it), I am going to take this opportunity to ask that you kind Mormons stop converting us to Mormon in the grave and trying to convert us.
Marriage licenses are issued by a state, being able to pick who you marry as long as they are adult, mentally competent, and human shouldn't be regulated.
Social conservatives are for two parent families unless they happen to be gay is the gist of it.
Sorry to be so late in my response, just got home from work. I have a problem with gay "marriage" because of the slippery slope we will then descend. Same sex couples will then pursue adoption of children since they are "married" ( I know its already happening ). A gay couple cannot bring the same degree of a parenting balance that a male & female couple can. Also, one must consider the child. Just how does a child relate to his/her peers when they are taunted about having 2 mothers or 2 fathers? All parents are aware of just how cruel kids can be when their child is "different".
We must think this whole thing through all of its ramifications, something the founders did when they wrote our constitution. Liberals have a problem thinking beyond the next step and make poor chess players. Liberals are the poster children of "instant gratification". Over many years, I have noticed that conservatives are into delayed gratification and liberals not so much. One reason why conservatives don't have hissy fits when things don't go their way. Once again, liberals not so much in containing their anger.
It reminds me of the difference between dogs and cats. Dogs give immediate response, while for the most part, cats take their time to contemplate and formulate a response. Witness a dog seeing a squirrel in your yard vs a cat. The dog will take chase immediately, while the cat will crouch down and slowly stalk the prey.
/I have a cat & dog and I'm not saying one is better than the other
Yes that is because the company was able to negotiate a lower premiums because they had more employees. I doubt your company would renegotiate premiums every time someone had a child.
ya just gotta know how to negotiate, actually. When I was self employed, my agent told me " $XXX.xx is what this insurance will cost you". I countered with 1/2 of $XXX.xx. He re-countered, I re-re-counterd ,, we agreed !
I want to make sure that you are not confusing "Gay marriage" with Gay activities.
(as many do on this topic)
I am asking someone to provide a link to the assertion they made that the Roman Empire became Christianized and outlawed gay marriage. Not gay activities, gay MARRIAGE.
I am going solely on the basis of what was written, intent need not apply.
My response didn't address many arguments for Prop 8. It only countered the arguments that "Lizard By The Bay" was relying on.
Ahh. Well I didn't read everything, but to be honest you sound kind of pedantic on that one because it leads nowhere, and while I'm not as experienced as you (here), I tend to think that the first one to call "liar" loses.
Need a lawyer to help here (or someone familiar with the law)...
Would prop 8 prevent a same sex couple from receiving the same benefits as a "married" couple under current CA law?
If it passes could LDS social services which provides adoption services to couples (LDS and non-LDS alike) but receives no government money for the service be forced to provide those services to gay couples even though the church defines marriage as between a man and a women?
The answer to those two questions would inform my opinion greatly. Any takers?
Thanks. For some reason, I'm unable to listen to streaming audio without the feed stopping and reloading every twenty seconds. I'm relatively clueless as to computers so I have no idea what I'm doing wrong. I also miss WEEI.
We don't need private or church charities. The State will take care of us.
We don't need families either. (Ask the 70%+ of single women who voted for Obama.)
We don't need customs, religion, and all that "wisdom" of the ages. Who gives a crap what millenia of human experience may tell us? History is bunk.
The State will tell us what is right and what our "rights" are.
I'm not an expert here, but cannot churches provide certain services only to their members? Is anyone allowed to come in and try the wine, for example, or can they be refused?
sacramental services, of course can be limited to members.
but "public" services, like those provided by Catholic Charities, I suppose they COULD be, but I know that organization has a belief that it is important to help everyone, and they operate that way. No one is turned away. There are no attempts to convert people to the faith. Their services are a way for the church to live its faith by providing these services to others.
ya just gotta know how to negotiate, actually. When I was self employed, my agent told me " $XXX.xx is what this insurance will cost you". I countered with 1/2 of $XXX.xx. He re-countered, I re-re-counterd ,, we agreed !
Once again that was you negotiating , a company with hundreds or even thousands of employees could not or would not negotiate each individual employees premium.
No, they do not. They do not have the right to marry a person of their choosing.
Actually they do. Under California law it is just not called 'marriage'. It's called either a civil union or a civil partnership. It has all of the same rights as marriage under the state law. (Federal law is a different issue because of DOMA.) It is a civil / non-religious recognition of a formal partnership with each of the partners have specific rights - just as heterosexual couples and requiring a divorce or elimination of the partnership in order to end the status and be free to establish a new civil partnership with someone else.
Given the strength of the California civil union provision which extends at the state level the same benefits and restrictions as a 'marriage' extends to heterosexual couples, just what is the real issue around the need to redefine a term that has had a single meaning across multiple civilizations for thousands of years? We don't redefine apple to also mean a yellow fruit with a wrinkled skin that used to be known as a lemon just because an apple grows on a tree - as does the fruit formerly known as a lemon does. Words have meanings - therefore changing the meaning of words has to have a purporse. What is the purpose of changing 'marriage' as the burden of proof should be on those who want to change the definition.
Also, from a legal and constitutional status in California - the State constitution clearly places the final decision making power on issues in the hands of the people. The people spoke in 2000 and in 2008 regarding the redefinition of the word 'marriage' in a legal constitutional basis. It's time that people accept the voice of the majority of the people and cease with the canards around deprived rights. There is no right for marriage even for heterosexual couples. If one is going to make a cogent argument, please make it. Start another petition process, get a new prop on the ballot - and at some point you may get 50%+1 of the vote and win the re-definition of the word in California.
Ok since it seems that I, a Jew, am coming out (pun intended) on the side of the LDS' church accidentally as I support Prop 8 (and voted for it), I am going to take this opportunity to ask that you kind Mormons stop converting us to Mormon in the grave and trying to convert us.
Thanks.
We don't do that. We are only supposed to do proxy work (which is ordinance work the the deceaced have the option and free will to accept or reject beyond the grave) for our own direct ancestors unless permission is asked of the deceased persons descendants and granted.
In the case of some overzealous Saints who decided that baptizing holocaust victims would be a kindness, the names were removed from the ordinance records and the church issued a formal apology.
Despite the rumors of cult control we really don't have flawless control over our members following our policies to the letter.
Thanks. For some reason, I'm unable to listen to streaming audio without the feed stopping and reloading every twenty seconds. I'm relatively clueless as to computers so I have no idea what I'm doing wrong. I also miss WEEI.
At this point Howie Car and WEEI are about the only things keeping me here! A great sports radio station AND right-leaning (with a few annoying exceptions).
LIZARD: why do you insist on continuing to push a lie? Homosexuals have the same right to marry as anyone else.
You are starting to upset me on this issue. I don't like liars.
Wrath, I gave you my answer to this issue in post #399. If you can't marry the person you love becuase it offends Joe down the street (who had no legal roadblock to marrying the person he loved), then you're just not being treated equally by the law as Joe. I understand your argument. I don't agree with the logic behind it. But I won't call you names because of it.
"Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country and hijacking its ship is a bigger crime than other ships," Sheikh Abdirahim Isse Adow, an Islamist spokesman, told Reuters. "Haradheere is under our control and we shall do something about that ship."
Need a lawyer to help here (or someone familiar with the law)...
Would prop 8 prevent a same sex couple from receiving the same benefits as a "married" couple under current CA law?
If it passes could LDS social services which provides adoption services to couples (LDS and non-LDS alike) but receives no government money for the service be forced to provide those services to gay couples even though the church defines marriage as between a man and a women?
The answer to those two questions would inform my opinion greatly. Any takers?
I believe this has happened in Mass. with Catholic Charities, now out of business in Massachusetts I think, I'm still looking for my links.
We had been going back and forth on the issue of whether Prop 8 actually takes away any rights of one class of people over another. In at least 3 posts, I clearly explained that it didn't insofar that the ability of who can marry whom is equal for all classes of people. (gay, straight, black, white, man, woman, etc.). I also very clearly showed how it was not similar to the African-American Civil Rights movement, and explained that I actually find that comparison to be selfish, and offensive (in short: you cannot compare not being able to walk down the street or vote, and being lynched for violating it, to not being able to marry whoever you want).
But then I noticed that "Lizard By The Bay" was again using that argument with someone else. Thus, I used the term "liar". In hindsight I probably should have refrained from calling names, but one is only so patient.
sacramental services, of course can be limited to members.
but "public" services, like those provided by Catholic Charities, I suppose they COULD be, but I know that organization has a belief that it is important to help everyone, and they operate that way. No one is turned away. There are no attempts to convert people to the faith. Their services are a way for the church to live its faith by providing these services to others.
When they decide not to provide the service at all there seems to be a contradiction at play. One principle must be more important than another, it would seem.
Thirty-seven of these states have some kind of religious exemptions in their laws, but most of these are quite narrow and only apply to certain categories of religious activity.
Beckett Fund for Religious Liberties - October 2008
We don't need private or church charities. The State will take care of us.
We don't need families either. (Ask the 70%+ of single women who voted for Obama.)
We don't need customs, religion, and all that "wisdom" of the ages. Who gives a crap what millenia of human experience may tell us? History is bunk.
The State will tell us what is right and what our "rights" are.
Well, yes indeed - that's exactly where this is headed. Exactly.
And a shame.
hahahahhaha! I have been shitting my pants laughing at these pictures.
WTF, nazi guys out of the blue, weird counter protesters and demented anti-prop8 folks, all together. Crazy shit hahahaha.
When they decide not to provide the service at all there seems to be a contradiction at play. One principle must be more important than another, it would seem.
They did not make the decision to provide or not provide.
The state required them to provide something that is counter to beliefs.
They cannot provide something that runs counter to their beliefs.
So many many who benefit from these services, no longer have them.
At this point Howie Car and WEEI are about the only things keeping me here! A great sports radio station AND right-leaning (with a few annoying exceptions).
D&C every morning...I always make sure I'm in the car in time for Headlines!
P.S. Wrath of God. I was shocked and offended it happened a few times. I understand how it would upset you. I have never personally spoken to a Mormon who condoned doind proxy ordinances without the consent of a direct descendant. I even asked my Great Aunt for permission to baptize a beloved Great Uncle after his death. She consented once I explained it was his choice and I was doing it out of love and respect.
We don't do that. We are only supposed to do proxy work (which is ordinance work the the deceaced have the option and free will to accept or reject beyond the grave) for our own direct ancestors unless permission is asked of the deceased persons descendants and granted.
In the case of some overzealous Saints who decided that baptizing holocaust victims would be a kindness, the names were removed from the ordinance records and the church issued a formal apology.
Despite the rumors of cult control we really don't have flawless control over our members following our policies to the letter.
It's actually more like herding cats. Church members are taught that what separates us from animals among other things is freedom of choice - and we are encouraged to make up our own minds about everything - after studying the subjects at hand. Makes for very interesting Sundays as the LDS church is run from the pulpit by all volunteers - no paid ministers.
I'm not convinced either, but the Roman Empire fell apart after adopting Christianity and outlawing gay marriage, so those arguing that it will lead to decay and destruction do have a precedent to look at to counter that strawman.
It's actually more like herding cats. Church members are taught that what separates us from animals among other things is freedom of choice - and we are encouraged to make up our own minds about everything - after studying the subjects at hand. Makes for very interesting Sundays as the LDS church is run from the pulpit by all volunteers - no paid ministers.
Yup - one old Mormon joke is that "the Church must be true or the volunteers and the 19 year old missionaries would have destroyed it by now."
I love the Saints, I love being a Saint - but I admit we are a peculiar people.
Actually, I have to say...I thought most of the signs had far more class and tact than any of the other gay/anti-war marches we've seen over the last several years. Many of them appeared to support a more positive message than "we hate you back" or something.
Maybe it was just me? It just didn't appear outrageous this time. I mean, every protest tends to have a few nutjobs, but this one seemed like they were trying in general for a more positive message?
Or maybe I need more coffee again? =) Anyway, that's how it just seemed to me this time around.
Since I've spoken against gay marriage, it's only fair for me to say that I truly do understand where people are coming from on this issue.
The present catastrophic situation in San Francisco is rooted in the city's history of tolerance and this, in turn, was based on the best of intentions. In the 1950s, SF was one of the few places in the country where homosexuals and interracial couples, among others, could live openly without fear of physical assault; actual, literal, beatings and often worse.
When I was growing up in West Texas in the 50s and 60s, bigoted elements used homophobia as a kind of club to beat down all opposition or dissent. If you were an intellectual or an artist, you were at least suspected of being queer. If you weren't interested in playing football, the same suspicion was raised. I played football in both high school and college but I always felt a kind of resentment over it, as though it had been thrust on me against my will, though that was clearly not the case. It took a long time for me to realize that I resented having to prove something that should not have to be proved.
If you questioned the prevailing, and rather moronic, religious authorities, you were, once again, probably a fag. Car enthusiasts would get into heated arguments over whether foreign sports cars were as faggy as imports like the Renault Dauphin, whose gayness was taken for granted. I wonder how many boys killed themselves in muscle cars just because they were trying to prove they weren't gay? At one point in my late teens, it occurred to me that my compatriots and I were spending a great part of our lives trying to prove that we weren't gay. It was an insane society, and I am glad to see it fading, though slowly.
Need a lawyer to help here (or someone familiar with the law)...
Would prop 8 prevent a same sex couple from receiving the same benefits as a "married" couple under current CA law?
No. We have Civil Unions (or Domestic Partnerships) here in CA that give practically ALL rights to same-sex partnerships.
If it passes could LDS social services which provides adoption services to couples (LDS and non-LDS alike) but receives no government money for the service be forced to provide those services to gay couples even though the church defines marriage as between a man and a women?
Yes If homosexuals are given Protected Class status, any discrimination against them would be considered the same as Anti-Black discrimination. In this extent, YES the Church would be forced not to discriminate, to the same extent they couldn't just give services to Whites but not Blacks.
The answer to those two questions would inform my opinion greatly. Any takers?
I'm not saying it's 'big and harry.' I'm saying that I don't know enough.
I've made this point several times before, so my apologies for repeating...
Again, I understand what marriage is. It's had one definiton since I was born.
Now, gays have come out of the closet and they want equal treatment. I'm sympathetic. It's fine that folks pursue happiness in their own way and I don't want society to have laws that prevent that.
However, I think society is better off defining a new institution - Civil Unions - that define that arrangement. To me, a new definition for a new arrangement makes more sense. We don't have enough history to group the two institutions together. So we are better off keeping it separate till we truly understand the implications.
Rushing headlong into mixing marriage between heterosexuals and homosexuals could have bad consequences.
But the point is that there's precedent, rulings, and legal decisions that ecompass the word marriage that stretch back to 1776 - to try to recreate that structure around civil unions would take an army of clerks and lawyers fifty years or better to actually give "civil union" the same consideration in all things as marriage. Wouldn't it be better, easier, and more equal treatment to just say they can marry?
Hmm - I heard a report today that at least one Pentagon senior official (Navy Admiral) indicated that the worm / cyberattack came from the PRC and that some classified information has been compromised.
So, cyber / economic attacks on another country...
Just what steps are required to be taken for an act to be considered an act of war?
Other than religious objections, are there good reasons why gays can't marry?
Optimally, children need a married father and a mother to bring them up and then become grandparents to their children. Sadly, the evidence for this obvious statement has been brought to us by the results of divorce. The same therapists who have created therapeutically assisted divorces are now inclined to bray about how having 2 parents of the same gender is just the same as the more traditional arrangement. It's not, any more than divorce was better for children than having 2 squabbling vaguely discontented parents.
Traditional marriage needs, more than ever, to be fully supported by members of our society. Gay people jumping on the sinking ship of traditional marriage are not working towards that aim.
Very independent minded - that's how I like to think of it. My best friend at church is a sex therapist/marriage counselor. She gives great talks.
Not to turn this thread into a private discussion - but I bet she could teach a great fireside on how to educate children about sexuality within a Christian values framework. More parents (LDS or not) need that info.
Yes If homosexuals are given Protected Class status, any discrimination against them would be considered the same as Anti-Black discrimination. In this extent, YES the Church would be forced not to discriminate, to the same extent they couldn't just give services to Whites but not Blacks.
Which, if I am not overreading this - would result in homosexual couples being able to take legal action against religious organizations who will not let them marry on the basis of discrimination against a protected class...which means that even religous organizations would be forced to accept gay marriage even if it is against their core beliefs.
I would like to see the evidence he uses to make that assertion.
Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, I would presume. But he could be joking.
To put it simply, the Empire taxed the merchants and farmers out of business to support ever-increasing extravagance for the elites and the Roman economy eventually collapsed under its own weight, but Gibbon was far too much of a anti-Christian bigot to ever accept that.
The truly frightening thing is that these groups are suing to void this amendment claiming that "the voters of california do not have the authority" to make this change. Not joking. When those in power pick and choose the 'laws' that will be enforced, we no longer have 'rule of law'.
But 4 unelected judges can change the law/consistution.
The gay lobby had so much time to convince people to see things their way. It did not work. Now, they will bully everyone UNTIL they see it their way.
I'm glad to see civility is alive and well.
Yes, I'm serious. It's historically factual. Rome did fall apart sometime after adopting Christianity and outlawing Gay Marriage. You can look it up in the history books, I did not say it was causitive however.
Simply cast your attention to the list of people proposed to run the Obamanation. Is there a single one who is not a lawyer? One?
Surely with all these big bulging legal brains, these paragons of proven virtue, these exemplars of the best and brightest among us will solve this tiny little argument to everyone's satisfaction.
Not to turn this thread into a private discussion - but I bet she could teach a great fireside on how to educate children about sexuality within a Christian values framework. More parents (LDS or not) need that info.
Ironically the church does a better job than most in presenting a constrained social view of sexual behavior regarding marriage. Without the boundaries, men and women are faced with an anything goes dilemna - and many men are freaked out over all the possibilities.
Today, though, there is no standard scenario for meeting and mating, or even relating. For one thing, men face a situation—and I’m not exaggerating here—new to human history. Never before have men wooed women who are, at least theoretically, their equals—socially, professionally, and sexually.
By the time men reach their twenties, they have years of experience with women as equal competitors in school, on soccer fields, and even in bed. Small wonder if they initially assume that the women they meet are after the same things they are: financial independence, career success, toned triceps, and sex.
But then, when an SYM walks into a bar and sees an attractive woman, it turns out to be nothing like that. The woman may be hoping for a hookup, but she may also be looking for a husband, a co-parent, a sperm donor, a relationship, a threesome, or a temporary place to live. She may want one thing in November and another by Christmas. “I’ve gone through phases in my life where I bounce between serial monogamy, Very Serious Relationships and extremely casual sex,” writes Megan Carpentier on Jezebel, a popular website for young women. “I’ve slept next to guys on the first date, had sex on the first date, allowed no more than a cheek kiss, dispensed with the date-concept altogether after kissing the guy on the way to his car, fucked a couple of close friends and, more rarely, slept with a guy I didn’t care if I ever saw again.” Okay, wonders the ordinary guy with only middling psychic powers, which is it tonight?
In fact, young men face a bewildering multiplicity of female expectations and desire.
If we're talking about the Fall of the Roman Empire, then I think we should segue into our border control issues. I've always found the collapse of our border security to be most evocative of the Roman Empire's travails.
But 4 unelected judges can change the law/consistution.
They did once, and the people, the final authority under the CA State Constitution overrode them. I do not think that they see themselves as above the State Constitution or the authority of the people and will try to force a change of the constitution via judicial fiat. That would open a clear crisis in California that would make the budget challenges pale in comparison. 4 unelected and unaccountable judges making decisions like this are not representative of a Republic, but of a dictatorship.
Homosexuals would be given all rights against discrimination as African-Americans. Thus if you wish to actually understand how deep this rabbit-hole gets, you just need to turn it into a Black & White issue.
IE: Instead of can the chuch not allow Gay Priests, you have to just ask. "could the chuch not allow BLACK priests". Can the church decide not to give only to Homosexual charities, (or whatever), you just ask "could the church decide not to give only to Black charities" etc.
But 4 unelected judges can change the law/consistution.
but they were selected by our elected officials and confirmed by the Senate..It all balances out my friend...
Ok.. I have a short time to post and my next one is about pictures on flickr.
I have at least a thousand pictures of Jordan in Iraq this last year...
I want to share them with the lizards..
My cousin was in a very abusive relationship - divorced the guy - then tried having her best friend - a girl - as her lover for a while. They both decided that they probably weren't gay - but that was after several months.
There are some well defined roles that both women and men play in marriage, but not always the roles that you would expect. Much of the family research I've seen shows that the more a father shows affection to his children in their younger years the more they are likely to adopt their parents morals and values as an adult.
There are definite advantages to having a masculine and feminine role model in the same parental team.
Now you can argue that that is a social construct vs. a biological imperative, but the effect is the same.
Yes, we're quibbling over language, but it's not an inconsequential quibble; the left has co-opted the term "right" in an effort to equate state-sanctioned marriage with the types of "inalienable rights" enumerated in the Declaration and the Constitution, and yet it is not. Prop 8 did take away the legal ability of homosexuals to marry, but that legal ability was granted not by the legislature, as it should have been, but by the judicial branch through judicial fiat. Prop 8 corrected that error and restored the prerogative to determine which types of marriage can and cannot be legally recognized by the state, to the state--as it historically has been. The word "right" has indeed become adulterated over the years, but principally because the left is so fond of characterizing each item on their agenda that cannot be accomplished through the legislative process as a "right" that must be "restored" through an unelected judiciary.
Yes, I'm serious. It's historically factual. Rome did fall apart sometime after adopting Christianity and outlawing Gay Marriage. You can look it up in the history books, I did not say it was causative however.
A lot of the fear is what happens to private schools run by Orthodox religions. They will be sued to force them to hire teachers who don't believe in the schools/church's teachings. Really it's Liberal Facism. You don't just live the lifestyle you want. You force others to live your life style also.
A lot of the fear is what happens to private schools run by Orthodox religions. They will be sued to force them to hire teachers who don't believe in the schools/church's teachings. Really it's Liberal Facism. You don't just live the lifestyle you want. You force others to live your life style also.
Violates the free association clause - doesn't it?
ah ok, I read that but thought you were referring to a new statement. Aren't a couple of stereotype assumptions underlying your roles? I've seen very nurturing men, and very strong dominant women (three of them were my sisters, one of the reasons I grew up tough...)
There are some well defined roles that both women and men play in marriage, but not always the roles that you would expect. Much of the family research I've seen shows that the more a father shows affection to his children in their younger years the more they are likely to adopt their parents morals and values as an adult.
There are definite advantages to having a masculine and feminine role model in the same parental team.
Now you can argue that that is a social construct vs. a biological imperative, but the effect is the same.
I would argue rather that it's a social stereotype. There are strong and weak in either sex. I used to coach women's softball, I know that for a fact.
Had missed them. But see them now. Glad to hear that it is no longer taking place. I never blamed ALL mormons though.
will admit that although I do not have an opinion on ALL mormons (except that the Temple in Utah is really pretty, and has a wonderful Jerusalem exhibit) I have unfortunately experienced some very raw Anti-Semitism from Mormons who I had considered good friends.
Just on the basis of being a minority does not entitle that minority to super-rights over that of the majority. The US and CA constitution are structured to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by a majority - not to raise the minority to a level above of the majority. When it comes to truly fundamental rights, the minority is entitled to being equal to that of the majority - not more.
A number who I know who voted Yes on 8 did so because of the way the rights were being lifted to provide a level above that of the majority.
The No on 8 crowd needs to rethink their argument and re-present it so that it better conforms with the state constitution, does not elevate a priviledge to a right, and makes are compelling cogent argument why a word has to be re-defined when 'civil union' or 'civil partnership' suffices and describes the situation accurately. From that, if the gay couple down the street want to introduce themselves as married at the next BBQ - so be it - I don't have a problem with them using the word - only redefining it.
See the 753 post. Stereotypes are based in fact, and I was pointed in the fact that I was simplifying for the sake of discussion. There are roles both genders play, dependent on the situation. I live it first hand. My husband LOVES his girls. He is the best Daddy, very involved in all they do. But hands down, I give in way more than he ever will in discipline situations. By the same token, he will cave for desserts or other things that I can stand firm on.
Personally speaking, I don't think the State should be in the marriage business in the first place (it's a religious institution), but should recognized only such things as legal contracts: a "domestic partnership" should be treated in the same way as something like a business contract. Leave the church out of it (and stay out of the church, as well). If people want a religious ceremony to "consecrate" their partnership, that's between them and their church.
Just on the basis of being a minority does not entitle that minority to super-rights over that of the majority. The US and CA constitution are structured to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by a majority - not to raise the minority to a level above of the majority. When it comes to truly fundamental rights, the minority is entitled to being equal to that of the majority - not more.
As stated in the Declaration of Independence and confirmed by the US Constitution, "rights" are held by individuals, not groups. The Left has lost sight of that fact (or is deliberately obscuring it).
I would argue rather that it's a social stereotype. There are strong and weak in either sex. I used to coach women's softball, I know that for a fact.
It's not about strong and weak. That is a common misconception. In fact the single most telling factor in the social health of children when they were adults is how much nurturing (affection) the father showed them as children. The results were independent of how much nurturing the mother gave.
MINNEAPOLIS – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today announced that a federal district court in St. Paul, Minn., recently approved consent decrees that settle two religious discrimination lawsuits against a leading St. Cloud, Minn.-based chicken processor, Gold’n Plump Poultry, Inc., and an employment agency, The Work Connection, which referred workers to it.
Under the decree preliminarily approved in the Gold’n Plump case, the employer will add a paid break during the second half of each shift which -- in addition to a break early in the shift and lunch breaks otherwise required by applicable law -- will accommodate the religious beliefs of Muslim employees who wish to pray during the course of the work day. The timing of the added break will fluctuate during the year so as to coordinate with the religious timing for Muslim prayers.
In addition to other related relief, Gold’n Plump will provide $215,000 in monetary relief to a class of Somali Muslims who claimed religious discrimination, including discharge and discipline. An additional $150,000 will be paid to class members under the consent decree entered in The Work Connection case. EEOC attorneys estimate that the total number of individuals receiving monetary relief in the cases after claims processing will be in the 40 to 80 range.
The decree in The Work Connection case has also been given preliminary approval and entered by the court. The EEOC had alleged in The Work Connection case that, in order to be referred for work at Gold’n Plump’s facilities in Cold Spring, Minn., and Arcadia, Wis., applicants were required to sign a form stating that they would not refuse to handle pork in the course of their jobs. In addition to stopping use of the “pork form,” The Work Connection will offer placement at Gold’n Plump to job seekers previously turned away for refusing to sign the form.
The EEOC held that both companies violated the religious discrimination prohibition of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The decrees in both cases prohibit retaliation by the employers and provide for training and reporting to the EEOC.
See the 753 post. Stereotypes are based in fact, and I was pointed in the fact that I was simplifying for the sake of discussion. There are roles both genders play, dependent on the situation. I live it first hand. My husband LOVES his girls. He is the best Daddy, very involved in all they do. But hands down, I give in way more than he ever will in discipline situations. By the same token, he will cave for desserts or other things that I can stand firm on.
When Kasey doesn't get a biscuit out of my wife she comes to me too.
But no civil rights are being violated. Can you point to the clause in the Bill of Rights where homosexuals are excluded from the rights contained therein? They DO have the right to marry just as I had the right to marry.
I think there should be a federal law. One issue protests only. If the issue is gay marriage, then fine. Only pro-gay marriage folks. No Nazis, no anti-church/state people, no nut's, gee, it just becomes one big cluster fuck for stupidness.
Yeah.
Like, could somebody explain to me why this post is down-dinged (before I up-ding it)? I mean really, those protesters are quite confusing. They're anti-what? again? But before you make it a federal law (hehe) let's be more clear. Is it true that those against marriage redefinition are actually anti-gay marriage? Weird -- I'm not. ...Maybe I'm anti gay-marriage - since there is no such thing. But that doesn't make me anti-gay at all. I'm very angry at those morons (liberal-left journalists who long for a standard-less world) who think it does ... it's quite insulting to me that, just because I'm bright enough to know what a real marriage is, means I'm somehow against somebody - anybody - in any way at all!
Rather than demonizing gay-marriage, conservatives should emphasize the availability of civil unions — and then ask: What exactly is not enough protection in such current contracts, and how can such legal statutes be improved to protect the legal rights of gay couples? Civil unions should be seen as an avant-garde institution for novel times, while traditional marriage is reserved as a retrograde stuffy institution for the hopelessly straight. ~~ VDH
Thus, the crux of the problem. Homosexuals refuse to accept this position, and petulantly demand that the rest of us not just accept - but rather glorify - homosexuality. No matter how much either side blathers on about their chosen technicalities, that is the issue.
The issue of "glorification" is where I left the liberal plantation. As I said earlier, homosexuals should be able to live together with domestic benefits, etc. However, their attacks on various religious beliefs plus their glorification of homosexuality so that no one will feel bad in school just makes their position weak and offensive. When "Heather Has Two Mommies" came out, I asked myself "Why do we have to teach this in elementary school"? My answer was (1) they wanted homosexuality to become the new normal, and (2) they were ramming it down my throat.
The gay activists don't care about my freedom or my civil rights. They care about making me conform to their vision of society. I have just as much right to my views as they have to theirs.
It's not about strong and weak. That is a common misconception. In fact the single most telling factor in the social health of children when they were adults is how much nurturing (affection) the father showed them as children. The results were independent of how much nurturing the mother gave.
Personally speaking, I don't think the State should be in the marriage business in the first place (it's a religious institution), but should recognized only such things as legal contracts: a "domestic partnership" should be treated in the same way as something like a business contract. Leave the church out of it (and stay out of the church, as well). If people want a religious ceremony to "consecrate" their partnership, that's between them and their church.
It does go beyond the religious. Even in a heterosexual marriage in a church, for it to be legally binding from the position of the State, there has to be a license issued for the partnership. Then the license is executed and recognized by the State. In CA, the heterosexual couple gets a marriage license from the local city or county clerk. The homosexual couple cannot get a marriage license- they get a civil partnership - using a different term to define a different event. Now both events, in the eyes of the State, mean the same thing and have the exact same advantages and restrictions. So, fundamentally, it comes down to the use of the terms and why one term, marriage, cannot be used by both. While the end result is the same, the starting point is not, hence two definitions. But, two definitions are not discriminatory in their own right.
Had missed them. But see them now. Glad to hear that it is no longer taking place. I never blamed ALL mormons though.
will admit that although I do not have an opinion on ALL mormons (except that the Temple in Utah is really pretty, and has a wonderful Jerusalem exhibit) I have unfortunately experienced some very raw Anti-Semitism from Mormons who I had considered good friends.
Sorry to hear that - we have our share of schmucks (or putz's if you prefer them smaller). I appreciate you treating us as individuals and hope your interaction with the Saints is overwhelmingly positive in the future.
There is not one single codex of the Roman Empire, much less the Roman Republic, that recognized "gay marriage." (The toleration of trangressive behavior is another thing entirely.)
The draconian laws of the Christian emperors were against homosexual activity in general. To describe them as "abolishing gay marriage" is to (1)minimize their severity and (2)to imply quite falsely that Roman law and custom previously sanctioned homosexual marriage.
Had missed them. But see them now. Glad to hear that it is no longer taking place. I never blamed ALL mormons though.
will admit that although I do not have an opinion on ALL mormons (except that the Temple in Utah is really pretty, and has a wonderful Jerusalem exhibit) I have unfortunately experienced some very raw Anti-Semitism from Mormons who I had considered good friends.
Brigham Young University has a live-in Jerusalem Center in Israel and a huge waiting list of students to attend. In 30 years I've never heard anti-semitism expressed - neither in church, in private company with LDS people - or in our curriculum books. Much the contrary.
It doesn't just stop at what they call it or how they present themselves. You are describing the boat, and ignoring the ripple of waves behind it.
Once Homosexual Marriage is forced on us. (it will be btw), Homosexual relationships will be given equal status to that of Heterosexual relationships. This means that not teaching them equally with Hetrosexual relationships would be a form of discrimination. Thus when a child at age 4 comes to their teacher and explains that they love their same-sex best friend and wants to marry them, the teach will be forced by law to encourage that behavior. Thus, children will be taught from a very young age that they can now CHOOSE to be gay! Thus, even if it is not a choice now, it will become one. Further, when they teach sex ed, they will have to teach homosexual sex, so as if not to discriminate. Say what you will about me, but I don't want my children sitting in school learning about sodomy.
If a child at the correct maturity and age to be making decisions about his or her sexuality decides or realizes that he or she is gay, then I will, of course, accept that. What frightens the bajeebus out of me is the thought that my child will be indoctrinated with the homosexual lifestyle as a choice from a very impressionable age. This is the scenario in a zero-sum-gain environment...BUT I live in California.
That means that my public school system will go out of their way to ensure they do not "discriminate" against this new class, and will actually give preferential treatment to the homosexual lifestyle, and teach my children that not only is it ok to be homosexual (see not that its ok IF they are but its OK all around) but that it is something they will probably want to try to see if they are gay. It will no longer be something we must tolerate (we should) but instead an alternative choice. (but in CA with preferential treatment). I'm sure CA will have "act gay" day, and take kids to Gay Weddings, and have lessons on "if you decide to be gay, who of your friends would you marry".
It does go beyond the religious. Even in a heterosexual marriage in a church, for it to be legally binding from the position of the State, there has to be a license issued for the partnership. Then the license is executed and recognized by the State. In CA, the heterosexual couple gets a marriage license from the local city or county clerk. The homosexual couple cannot get a marriage license- they get a civil partnership - using a different term to define a different event. Now both events, in the eyes of the State, mean the same thing and have the exact same advantages and restrictions. So, fundamentally, it comes down to the use of the terms and why one term, marriage, cannot be used by both. While the end result is the same, the starting point is not, hence two definitions. But, two definitions are not discriminatory in their own right.
It would be better for everyone if the term "marriage" did not appear in State legal documents. Call it a "domestic partnership" for legal matters and leave it at that. That will be the only way to permanently keep the State's nose out of the Church's business.
See my note above, there are 200 + years of legal precedent that make marriage more equal than civil union.
Sorry, but no, particularly under the process within CA. If the argument is being made on the Federal level - the DOMA from 1996 effectively does protect marriage as the federal government does not recognize civil unions as a specific status or standing. By that, is marriage more equal, yes. Then by all means, work with the Congress to change DOMA by making a compelling and cogent argument...that's the process as opposed to by judicial or executive fiat.
There is not one single codex of the Roman Empire, much less the Roman Republic, that recognized "gay marriage." (The toleration of trangressive behavior is another thing entirely.)
The draconian laws of the Christian emperors were against homosexual activity in general. To describe them as "abolishing gay marriage" is to (1)minimize their severity and (2)to imply quite falsely that Roman law and custom previously sanctioned homosexual marriage.
Theodosian Code 9.8.3: "When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion {quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.
I have unfortunately experienced some very raw Anti-Semitism from Mormons who I had considered good friends.
I'm sorry to hear that, my experience has been that of DistantThunder's and I have never heard the slightest bit of anti-semitism. If I ever met any Mormons like that in my (Mormon) church I would question their planet of origin.
Yes, yes there is. And no where in that 200 years will you find language in or legislation proceeding FROM the Bill of Rights excluding homosexuals from rights enjoyed by all citizens.
Think of it this way - heterosexuals do not have unfettered right to marry whomever or whoever they chose, either. I can't marry my best friend's husband, now can I?
But no civil rights are being violated. Can you point to the clause in the Bill of Rights where homosexuals are excluded from the rights contained therein? They DO have the right to marry just as I had the right to marry.
You didn't have a right to marry. You could exercise the priviledge to become married in your state as long as you were able to fit within the basic definitions that your state established - age, relationship to your partner, and by the way, one was a male, and one was a female...one cannot eliminate one limitation around the priviledge of being married without technically eliminating all.
The most annoying (and deliberately deceptive) ploy of the pro-gay-marriage knobs is their equating of anti-redefining marriage folks as anti-gay Crusaders.
Ugh, get over yourselves. Nobody cares what you do in your bedroom. just keep it out of our Courts, Legislatures and Corporations.
Did you ask me for something? As a general rule, I try to provide links for any assertions that I make. Sorry if I missed doing that in an exchange w/ you.
Yes, JMV, the other day I asked you for a link to confirm your assertion that Planned Parenthood provides pregnancy and adoption services. You told me I would need to look it up.
Why should marriage be re-defined or be made to include couples that can't or won't commit?
(I'll get flack for this but...)
I don't think marriage should be re-defined to fit a subculture's agenda. I don't think society-at-large should be made to foot the bill or even tacitly accept people who won't legally or morally commit to marriage. The minority of gay people who seek acceptance by "marrying" will never have that no matter how they whine about it. We have forgotten the true meaning of marital commitment and that has caused us to suffer.
Just saying.
I see an amazing reliance on anecdote in this argument, something that was unnecessary in the true civil-rights movement where the problem was entirely obvious to anyone who wasn't brought up under racism (and a large number who were and rose above it).
I believe most folks against homosexual marriage are dancing around the issue because they are afraid of being branded a bigot or worse. It is a justifiable fear nowadays. But, someone has to state the truth so I will take a stab at it.
The purpose of marriage is to publically celebrate the union of a man and a woman beginning their new life as a committed family unit that will bring forth the next generation of a value added citizens to the community of man.
Since recorded history, the committed family ideal has always been a man, a woman and children. It is called the family unit and mankind is physically and emotionally, wired for it. This is what everybody strives, or should strive, for if they want to start a family.
I would wager that most people, whether they say it or not, believe homosexual proclivities fall in a similar category with pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality with respect to sexual deviancy and view it with similar disgust. The only difference is that homosexual activity is engaged by two, or more, consenting adults and the others do not.
Being that this is a free country, consenting adults can do whatever they like with each other and that’s the way it should be.
What people against gay marriage don’t like though is: Not only do we have to tolerate that behavior; we now have to embrace and celebrate that behavior. We are being told that these are valid role models to emulate.
That’s were millions draw the line. They believe that homosexuality is not a healthy lifestyle and don’t want it promoted. This is not just religious belief either. Common sense dictates this also. On the physical level, humans were not designed to be homosexual. Among men it is even unhealthy. That alone should tell you that there is something wrong with this picture. As parents, children are infinitely better served by having both a mother and a father raising them.
For many years now liberals have been promoting homosexual behavior as normal and desirable i.e. “Will and Grace” and numerous other cultural examples. The reality is quite different most cases. I won’t go into that but, the Folsom Street Fair should give you an indication of the lifestyle and you won’t see that on network television.
It is all about where you set the moral bar. 40 years ago homosexual behavior was unacceptable now it is but, most folks believe in their hearts that it shouldn’t be celebrated and that’s why gay marriage bans continue to win when put to a vote.
Unfortunately, racists come from every sub-group. I don't blame all Mormons for the actions of those I used to know.
I wouldn't suspect you to be that type of person. I just hate hearing stories of "this Mormon I knew". It's not that I hate the stories because I think the person telling it is a liar, but just the opposite, it's because I know there are bad apples and I wish there weren't.
Thank you. It is very interesting. i not that all the examples you give have changed their laws within the last ten years. For 1700 years or so gay marriage wasn't an issue. I basing that figure on the example Thanos gave of the Romans outlawing it. That doesn't mean that prior to that gay marriage was the norm, BTW. Maybe one day the bad old emperor woke up and decided to outlaw gay marriage nullifying the many happy couples who had been blissful up to then.
More likely there was a gradual societal change that was culminated by that law/proclamation. I'm not sure that you really want to insist of norm from the Roman Empire. Manslaughter was legal in arena combat, where slaves were forced to fight to the death for the entertainment of the crowds.
I'd say we are much different from Rome.
Be that as it may, there are available options to the gay community. They can move to any of the nation/states where it is legal nd have at it. No one is stopping them. Just as no one is stopping them from availing themselves of the many legal avenues to accomplish the same legal results as marriage. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that they can't do is inherit their domestic partner's social security benefits. If this is really an issue, it would be more profitable for homosexuals to lobby congress to remove that restriction.
Both the House and the Senate are controlled by the Democrats, as will be the Presidency after 20 January. Change the law. It should be easy.
Like I've said several times already, it is difficult for me to take their claims that they are so badly oppressed by not being able to marry when they aren't availing themselves of the legal remedies that they have available.
Frankly, I don't believe that fairness is in the equation at all. Gays want this issue as a thumb in the eye to straight society. I didn't used to believe that, but witnessing the way this issue has been handled over the last five years or so has certainly changed my mind.
Prior to that it still wasn't the norm, it was accepted however. Gays were still ridiculed etc. according to historians, but nobody really cared if they got married. The laws preceding that had to do with homosexual rape of children however, and those were quite strict, forget the name for them, lex something.
Ok, how about against gay rights? I'm not sure that sounds better.
Gay rights? Gays have no rights over and above what any other American citizen is entitled to. Again, there are no "group rights", only individual rights.
I just got back from my walk (very scenic, nice day) and after some rumination I have considered that, to the "gay marriage" political movement, traditional marriage is just the next sacred thing that must be torn down, as all things with value must be laid to waste.
As a student of the Left, I know that this is so. That is what they mean by Revolution.
Every thing of value to the traditional community must be cast away. Every respected person must be discredited. Every long standing tradition must die.
This is just the thing that is presently in the cross hairs of the Left.
Thank you. It is very interesting. i not that all the examples you give have changed their laws within the last ten years. For 1700 years or so gay marriage wasn't an issue. I basing that figure on the example Thanos gave of the Romans outlawing it.
Since this keeps popping up I must ask again if the Lex Scantinia, from 150 BC, predates the 300 AD date being thrown around when it comes to banning homosexual marriage.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
If we're talking about "rights", and if you voted for Prop 8 you're "anti" this or "anti" that...then I have a good idea.
We get another proposition to vote on in CA. This one will encompass EVERYONE'S rights. Her goes:
Proposition 8A...will allow Gays to marry. It will also allow polygamists to marry. It will also allow relatives to marry.
Why discriminate against anyone? Doesn't everyone have "rights"...if we're going to use that word?
Allow Joe to marry the Smith triplets. They all really love each other...why deny them their "rights"?
And let aunt Bertha marry her little nephew Timmy (when he turns 18 of course). Why deny them their "rights"? They really love each other, why can't they get married?
Let's put all of into the proposition...why leave anyone out? Why deny anyone their "rights"?
Gay rights? Gays have no rights over and above what any other American citizen is entitled to. Again, there are no "group rights", only individual rights.
You have the right to marry whom you choose, why not someone who's gay? Is that not an individual decision?
What frightens the bajeebus out of me is the thought that my child will be indoctrinated with the homosexual lifestyle as a choice from a very impressionable age. ...
I'm sure CA will have "act gay" day, and take kids to Gay Weddings, and have lessons on "if you decide to be gay, who of your friends would you marry".
It's hysterical paranoia. I really wonder if subconsciously this is tied in with the religious nuts who try to "cure" homosexuality and attempt to force people to change their sexual orientation. It would be horrific if gays tried something like that.
We don't do that. We are only supposed to do proxy work (which is ordinance work the the deceaced have the option and free will to accept or reject beyond the grave) for our own direct ancestors unless permission is asked of the deceased persons descendants and granted.
In the case of some overzealous Saints who decided that baptizing holocaust victims would be a kindness, the names were removed from the ordinance records and the church issued a formal apology.
Despite the rumors of cult control we really don't have flawless control over our members following our policies to the letter.
And in this case, none are being trampled, gay or not!
If churches are forced by law to accept homosexuality against their religious beliefs (for example, they could be sued for refusing to perform a marriage between two men or two women), then the members of that church are having their rights to Freedom of Religion and Free Assembly trampled.
Sadly, I can't find the one I was referring too and don't have the reference at the PC I am at.
Here is a study that references some meta-analysis of several other studies on the topic. The sample size for their own study is very small, but the other studies cited in the beginning have some good info.
I would wager that most people, whether they say it or not, believe homosexual proclivities fall in a similar category with pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality with respect to sexual deviancy and view it with similar disgust.
I really find that attitude disturbing and it's sad that so many here are eager to dehumanize other human beings.
You have the right to marry whom you choose, why not someone who's gay? Is that not an individual decision?
That's why I think "marriage" is very much a loaded word and should not appear in state law. The State should be dealing with contracts, like "domestic partnership" or "civil union".
I have felt this way for 30 years, long before this became a public issue.
Sadly, I can't find the one I was referring too and don't have the reference at the PC I am at.
Here is a study that references some meta-analysis of several other studies on the topic. The sample size for their own study is very small, but the other studies cited in the beginning have some good info.
You need to review your Latin. Nubo (nubere, nuptus) and matrimonium conjugere are not the same thing. Nubo could be and often was used simply to denote sexual intercourse.
In any event, the prohibition against such activities is not what I was denying. I deny that any codex of the R Empire or Republic sanctioned matrimonium (legal marriage) between persons of the same sex.
I have three children, daughter, daughter and then a son in that order. I am a male. My son is now 26. When my daughters were real young they bonded with my then wife. When they got older ( 3-8 yrs. old) they bonded with daddy ( the whole wrapped around their finger thingy ). At the ripe old age of 9 thru 12 they bonded with mommy again. Once they reached their teens, they once again bonded with me (dad) and it continues to this day.
Reverse that history when it comes to my son. I was a model for my daughters' choice in a spouse and a threat to my son in his quest to make it on his own. I provided my children a model for their choices in life. After my divorce, I take much pride in the fact that they are all very successful in the endeavors they chose. As a single parent I am most happy and confidant in traditional values.
I think that the "Gay" movement has decided that they must be perceived as "victims" of something, anything in order to validate their existence. They latch onto whatever "oppressor" happens to be handy (Religion, Government, etc.) and then rail against imaginary oppression. The gay marriage farce is just a way for them to flog their imaginary victim status. It's really quite sad.
That's why I think "marriage" is very much a loaded word and should not appear in state law. The State should be dealing with contracts, like "domestic partnership" or "civil union".
I have felt this way for 30 years, long before this became a public issue.
Yeah, but unfortunately it is, and has and there's 200 + years of precedent behind marriage that give it pluses over civil union.
I wouldn't suspect you to be that type of person. I just hate hearing stories of "this Mormon I knew". It's not that I hate the stories because I think the person telling it is a liar, but just the opposite, it's because I know there are bad apples and I wish there weren't.
We try to teach them - we really do! We just can't keep the stupid ones from spouting off! ;-)
My favorite is hearing about Mormons who can really hold their booze!
As I tell my yunguns... there is a reason Christ spent so much time teaching his own followers about forgiveness and patience and that reason be we!
This thread is about as productive as an ID/Evolution thread. It goes nowhere, but you sure do learn some of the personal feelings/beliefs of other lizards.
"Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country and hijacking its ship is a bigger crime than other ships," Sheikh Abdirahim Isse Adow, an Islamist spokesman, told Reuters. "Haradheere is under our control and we shall do something about that ship."
I think that the "Gay" movement has decided that they must be perceived as "victims" of something, anything in order to validate their existence. They latch onto whatever "oppressor" happens to be handy (Religion, Government, etc.) and then rail against imaginary oppression. The gay marriage farce is just a way for them to flog their imaginary victim status. It's really quite sad.
Since homosexuality is no longer a crime (see? there was an individual right being violated, but no longer), grievance-mongers look for new targets.
My knee jerks at the needlessly aggressive attempts to pirate the word "marriage". It's a simple word with a well known meaning to all.
My teenage daughter asked me a few years ago what I thought about gay marriage. I said then that words have meaning and while I was not opposed to gays or how they institutionalized their relationships or not, but that simply they should find a new word for those relationships. Civil Union is fine even if euphemistic. Call it for what it is for crying out loud - one should be able to take out a Homosexual Marriage License or a plain old Marriage License (one man one woman) and they should carry the same legal status. For those who point to difficulties with laws such as SS beneficiaries, I suggest changing those laws which really is not that steep a hill in my unlawerly opinion.
By the way, my daughter declared that she was a lesbian about 6 months ago. Tough to accept, especially for her mother, but does nothing to diminish the love we have for her. I hope we do someday have government sanctioned Homosexual Marriage, but let's keep the language straight (so to speak).
This thread is about as productive as an ID/Evolution thread. It goes nowhere, but you sure do learn some of the personal feelings/beliefs of other lizards.
So? I believe most lizards are very open with their feelings and beliefs.
This thread is about as productive as an ID/Evolution thread. It goes nowhere, but you sure do learn some of the personal feelings/beliefs of other lizards.
Well, you see, some people think vigorous discussion actually does lead somewhere. Clarification of thought. Affirmation of opinions, or changing of opinions.
Good discussion here all, thanks to almost all of you for remaining civil and reasonable. Time to move upthread though, it's Friday night here, work just got off the phone and it's time for some adult beverages.
Good discussion here all, thanks to almost all of you for remaining civil and reasonable. Time to move upthread though, it's Friday night here, work just got off the phone and it's time for some adult beverages.
You gotta love Kinky Friedman. When asked about homosexual marriage when he was running for Gov. he replied: Why shouldn't they have an opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of us. :>)
I didn't know anything about Thanos' assertions either regarding the banning of gay marriage until he mentioned it. And yeah, it doesn't really add much to either side of the ideologies, it just sets the date back 450 years. It was just something I found.
I didn't know anything about Thanos' assertions either regarding the banning of gay marriage until he/she mentioned it. And yeah, it doesn't really add much to either side of the ideologies, it just sets the date back 450 years. It was just something I found.
and, that is one reason why LDS is considered rediculous
What is unclear about certain members did this in direct violation of the Church's practices. They were told not to, the church apologized and removed the names from our records?
No one has the right to marry whomever they chose. As cited earlier, I cannot marry my best friend's husband. I can't marry my children, even when the become of age. So long as he is married to me, my unmarried girlfriend cannot marry my husband, even if she REALLY REALLY loved him.
Never mind Ploome - I don't really want to cross over into the territory of gratuitous mormon bashing. Start using words like rediculous to describe my faith when I've worked very hard to have civil dialogues with people of all stripes and I'm pretty much done.
I really find that attitude disturbing and it's sad that so many here are eager to dehumanize other human beings.
The human beings in question frequently are all too happy to dehumanize themselves. I refer you to Zombie's UYA post. They are not doing their cause any good with displays such as those.
The Roman Republic was what we would call very conservative. These laws, of course, were against homosexual activity, not against homosexual "marriage." There was no homosexual matrimonium under Roman law, not even in the much more permissive Empire.
Ok, how about against gay rights? I'm not sure that sounds better.
Gay rights? Like - rights for groups? ... not just for all individuals? Marriage isn't a right for anyone, is it? It's a sacrament in church (if your preacher approves of your plans) ... a government-sanctioned privilege, for certain qualifying individuals -- not children, not animals, not space aliens. It's a traditional thing having something to do with raising children in a world where governments sought to support that. As for basic rights (I'm no expert on this) I believe our government doesn't support the various church's specific ideas about marriage. I'm sure a gay man is still allowed (they don't care here in Texas) to marry a straight - or gay - woman, etc. ... I don't believe there's discrimination (by government) against gays in matters of marrying. If a gay woman wants to marry me she doesn't need special rights to do so. It's not discriminating in an unfair or unkind way for the state to simply rely upon an ages-old idea of the basic definition of what marriage is.
Anyway -- none of my rights come from the government.
This thread is about as productive as an ID/Evolution thread. It goes nowhere, but you sure do learn some of the personal feelings/beliefs of other lizards.
That may be, but all in all I think it's worth the discussion. A lot of mere informing happens in these kinds of discussions that help to develop one side or the other of the argument, which is a good thing.
The Roman Republic was what we would call very conservative. These laws, of course, were against homosexual activity, not against homosexual "marriage." There was no homosexual matrimonium under Roman law, not even in the much more permissive Empire.
Right. I realized there was no mention of homosexual marriage in that law but one could deduce; no homosexual activity - no homosexual marriage. When you say "There was no homosexual matrimonium under Roman law" does that mean that it was forbidden or that it just wasn't an issue to the people?
Neither Greece nor Rome had gay marriage. You might call the Roman Republic downright "Victorian" when it came to sexual morality, but the Empire certainly wasn't. The pre-Christian Greeks, needless to say, were about the least "homophobic" people in history. Accepting (or even glorifying) homosexual relations and providing legal same-sex marriage are two different things.
Wrong. I'm an atheist, I wasn't married in a church, the license is from the state of Alaska. It doesn't say "Civil union certificate" it says Marriage certificate.
does it bother you, that every single Jew is REPULSED by the fact the chrch continues to baptise dead JEws?
Baptism of the Dead was explained by a Mormon friend to me (sort of)when I fussed about the fact that a lot of my Quaker ancestors were being baptized too and I was not happy about that - the dead have to accept the baptism to make it stick - in other words (apparently) the dead have a choice. My point was that these people were dead for crying out loud and had their own chosen religion, so that made no sense at all. But the afterlife means a lot to Mormons and it is something they are supposed to do for ancestors.
It is a sticky situation. If one adult is allowed to marry one adult and religious issues should not play a part - then a man should be allowed to marry his adult daughter as long as they don't have children.
You have the right to marry whom you choose, why not someone who's gay? Is that not an individual decision?
The last time I checked, marriage was never a specified right in the constitution. It is a privilege granted under the constitution. Your right to behave the way you wish is granted under the constitution, but the blessing of the government on your actions is another matter altogether.
Gay "marriage" was never banned by any emperor, pagan or Christian, because it never was recognized in either the Roman Republic or the Empire. What was banned was homosexual activity of any kind.
when Jews cannot have ciVIl dialogue with a bunch of KOOKS who insist
in spite of every objection and argument to cease and desist
these KOOKS keep baptising DEAD JEWS
it is nauseating
Did you even read what I said? We don't do that and we don't condone it. You might as well accuse Mormons of condoning adultery or homicide because one of them had an affair or murdered someone.
Can I make harsh judgements about your social or religious group based on people in it who don't follow your own rules. Now what was that group Ploome? I don't recall you sharing it with us so it could be ridiculed as rediculous, fucken insane (sic) or KooKs.
(and "those people" are my people - I'm a Mormon. You really should read before responding.)
Gay "marriage" was never banned by any emperor, pagan or Christian, because it never was recognized in either the Roman Republic or the Empire. What was banned was homosexual activity of any kind.
In no way wold I dram of interfering with their belief or ceremony...just keep me and mine out of it
too many people have this pathologic interest and obsession with Jews
In my case the pathologic interest is in my dead ancestors. My dear friend who is a Jewish convert to Mormonism has it too. I would venture to guess her direct ancestry trumps your claim of ownership by religious affiliation. You ought to take it up with her.
There was no "ban" on it for the same reason that there was no "ban" on it in 18th century America. Marriage was defined as being a man and a woman. The idea of legally-sanctioned same-sex "marriage" never occurred to anyone.
The fact that most Jews are secular indicates their misunderstanding of Mormon's praying for them [baptizing, if you like]. They have forgotten the concept of "generation to generation" which exists in all civilized society including the Japanese religions that pray to ancestors. It is sad when anybody uses popular culture as status quo when it's only been around for about twenty years.
Also, studies have shown that as soon as any society becomes 20% infertile, the population starts to decrease. Not an earth shaking concept, but the concerns of those interested in the future as opposed to those hedonists just interested in the present do implicate a larger investment of thought and energy. Japanese economic production has dipped dangerously because of low birth rates. The demographic affected in this illustration (young workers) is lower than ever in recent times.
In no way wold I dram of interfering with their belief or ceremony...just keep me and mine out of it
too many people have this pathologic interest and obsession with Jews
Just making conversation...
My experience was in reference to my Quaker ancestors who were being baptized by descendents in droves, most of whom would likely be rolling over in their graves if they could.
I don't think you and I have much to worry about. It's symbolic, from what I understand, and to "stick" must be accepted on 'the other side'.
It is a sticky situation. If one adult is allowed to marry one adult and religious issues should not play a part - then a man should be allowed to marry his adult daughter as long as they don't have children.
I agree. Except I would add "long-standing universal human custom" to your "religious isssues."
Ok, but why would you consider homosexual marriage an attack on the family and religion? That is the question I was attempting to answer.
Change -- movin' too fast man ...
fear of a sort of soulless Brave New World notion that individuals don’t matter, that ease of lifestyle trumps every other difficult moral consideration, and that such thinking is the beginning — not the end — of something frightening. ~~VDH
The geneological records are separate from the Temple work. We collect records for all. We do the proxy work for our own families.
Please read up on the matter from someone besides anti-mormon partisans who would gladly make something that isn't our policy into our most favored doctrine if it made us look bad.
"SALT LAKE CITY 10 November 2008 Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are very disappointed over statements made in a media advisory from Mr. Ernest Michel, honorary chairman of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors. The advisory announced a press event on Monday, 10 November, in New York.
The Church stands by its word. It has no intention of performing baptisms or other rites in its temples for Holocaust victims, except in the very rare instances where such people may have living descendants who are members of the Church. Such exceptions were noted and agreed to in 1995. The understanding reached in 1995 determined that the Church would remove Holocaust names from its public database immediately, which the Church has done. It further said that Jewish groups would provide to the Church any names that reappeared on the database so the Church could remove them. The Church cannot understand why Mr. Michel has refused now to provide those names to the Church so the Church can maintain the spirit of that 1995 understanding.
The media advisory also claimed that Church leaders had refused to meet and “broke off negotiations in July. “ This is absolutely false. Church leaders met with Mr. Michel in New York on 3 November, along with representatives of other respected Jewish community organizations. The Church’s written response to Mr. Michel and to that meeting is found here. It did not receive a reply.
Church leaders and members empathize with the depth of feeling of all Jews regarding the Holocaust. Such regard and empathy have motivated the Church to remain in talks about this subject for so many years. However, with his press conference, Mr. Michel seems to have unilaterally terminated those discussions and has presumably rejected the proposals set forth in the Church’s 6 November 2008 letter. Those steps by Mr. Michel on behalf of the American Gathering were both unnecessary and unfortunate, and belie the long and valued mutual regard that has existed in the past years.
Frankly, I don't believe that fairness is in the equation at all. Gays want this issue as a thumb in the eye to straight society. I didn't used to believe that, but witnessing the way this issue has been handled over the last five years or so has certainly changed my mind.
Sorry -- I believe it is an attack upon standards in general. It's not about fairness really. It's about doing away with standards. I'm quite libertarian ... but I'm unwilling to throw out the western culture that brung me to the dance.
Sorry -- I believe it is an attack upon standards in general. It's not about fairness really. It's about doing away with standards. I'm quite libertarian ... but I'm unwilling to throw out the western culture that brung me to the dance.
Agreed. It's all about where you want to set the moral bar.
I have to go.
Wrong. I'm an atheist, I wasn't married in a church, the license is from the state of Alaska. It doesn't say "Civil union certificate" it says Marriage certificate.
Hmm, sorry -- doesn't that make my point? be more specific about where I was wrong please.
It's not my fight, it's not going to be my fight, if that makes me some kind of bigot I'll just do my best to live that down. I'm going to concern myself people that I truly see as oppressed, if I concern myself with anyone at all.
Yeah I thought I've seen that. I was hoping there was something that would parse better for me. This has been running like (an annoying) background process for me and the best I've come up with is lizardlanch for the noun and LGF'ed (with the accent on the 'effed') for the verb.
/off on another tangent...
Hmm, sorry -- doesn't that make my point? be more specific about where I was wrong please.
No, you said:
Marriage isn't a right for anyone, is it? It's a sacrament in church (if your preacher approves of your plans) ... a government-sanctioned privilege, for certain qualifying individuals
No, so far all of the arguments I've heard against it tie back to different flavors of "it's how we do things, it's traditional" "It's what society wants, individual rights be damned"
Yeah, it'd like to drink Val-U-Rite Vodka while driving 100 mph on the Turnpike...as long as I don't rear end a school bus full of Nuns it's cool...eh, Thanos? But _society_ deems the risk of epic failure in that circumstance too much to allow.
The trick to a free civilization is balancing the needs of the one against the needs of the many. In America we've kinda settled on this thing called "democracy" and the results of that should stand unless the results are egregious. Exactly what do gay partners lack that they can;t get through a civil union except certain tax benefits?
They just want to be loved and accepted equally. That isn't a Right...it's a desire.
There was no "ban" on it for the same reason that there was no "ban" on it in 18th century America. Marriage was defined as being a man and a woman. The idea of legally-sanctioned same-sex "marriage" never occurred to anyone.
They did not make the decision to provide or not provide.
The state required them to provide something that is counter to beliefs.
They cannot provide something that runs counter to their beliefs.
So many many who benefit from these services, no longer have them.
One belief is to help people; children included.
Another belief is not to recognize equal rights to certain groups.
I understand that the choice is difficult but, with due respect to your church, it seems to me that choosing the second over the first is choosing personal satisfaction over helping others.
As I said earlier, I suspect there could be a way to legally only help Catholics adopt (who presumably would not be gay couples), even if it would limit their scope.
Show me the harm in gay marriage, your comeback is preposterous.
The problem here, sir, is that you lack a fundamental lack of education on the benefits of marriage. Why does society afford special rights and privileges to marriage? The answer, sir, is that it promotes the strengthening of the family unit so that it may continue to provide new and properly raised members of teh society. That being that while Missy may have two Moms she would probably, not always, have a more balanced childhood experiance with a Mom and a Dad.
In case you just happened to miss it, sir, there are two sexes of humans on this planet. Because of physiological differences they tend to view the world from different perspectives. It is, sir, generally agreed that it is salubrious to the development of a child to experiance both viewpoints whilst growing up.
Therefore it is society's best interest, sir, to make that special arrangement whereby young Dick and Jane have a Mommy and a Daddy, both living in the same household as aforementioned children, as attractive as possible.
In your case, sir, you just want to pass on that special circumstances to a couple who first met on their knees at Blow Buddies and have exactly zero freaking interest in perpetuating the species let alone American Society. For no other reason,sir, than your misguided, ill-informed definition of the relationship between the individual and society.
The Catholic Church already "accepts gays", just as it accepts adulterers, liars, thieves, gossipers, and any other synonym for leftist ideologue.
The Catholic Church merely condemns sinful behavior in concordance with Catholic Doctrine.
That argument by itself does not justify not providing adoption services that are legal. They could just take regular confession from gay couples, as they will do for all of the worse categories that you list.
So explain to me why the children of gay parents should be deprived of the strengthening of that "family unit". Your definition of "family unit" might differ from mine, but I like families with two married parents.
Just as an aside here, I noticed a box at the top of the page (under "advertisement") that said I had a private message with an OK box to click. It's back to Pajamas Media now however.
I presume it was an ad for something, but I consider such advertising to be skirting very close to the line of spam and phishing, and basically dishonest.
So explain to me why the children of gay parents should be deprived of the strengthening of that "family unit". Your definition of "family unit" might differ from mine, but I like families with two married parents.
Oh, and speaking of "blow buddies" you seem to be a blowhard. Just get to your point, no need to use a dollar word where a nickle one will do, when you do so it indicates to me that you are over enamored with your own words.
So explain to me why the children of gay parents should be deprived of the strengthening of that "family unit". Your definition of "family unit" might differ from mine, but I like families with two married parents.
Because of two reasons, Thanos,
1. That isn't even close to being a fraction of a small percent of the gay community
2. That _isn't_ the stated objective of groups like Queer Nation or ACT UP. They want to be married simply because straight people do it. They want to be loved and respected for their lifestyle. And if we don't like it then they are just going to shove it down our throats...so to speak.
And lastly, Thanos, you aren't an honest debater. If you don't like someone's comments then you dismiss them. And you do so pompously. In this case I think that you are acting like a troll. You are unwilling to debate anyone else's point honestly.
In your case, sir, you just want to pass on that special circumstances to a couple who first met on their knees at Blow Buddies and have exactly zero freaking interest in perpetuating the species let alone American Society.
If you objectify gay people into "a couple who first met on their knees at Blow Buddies" then it's easy to dismiss the issue at hand.
Try imagining the shoe on the other foot and someone is telling you that you do not have the right to marry because you love someone of the same sex.
Meaning you can not counter effectively without bluster and condescending ad hominem so you are retreating. I claim the victory then. My education in marriage is 28 years long with the same spouse, three children raised. What's yours?
Because act up are asses (ten percent of any human population is almost guaranteed to be so) you would deny marriage to the rest? Corporal punishment.
The second person at LGF to call me a troll, I think the last was Ben, that was long ago. We were arguing over the surge, and the need to accept the Sunni back into the gov't iirc.
You , sir, are an ass. First I joined before there were up and down dings. Secondly you posted at something of the order of 1000% more posts then I have.
Look everybody "I'm loved more than booger brain over there"! What are you, four years old?
Grow up.
You are acting like a troll here in this thread for reasons I've outlined.
A google search on "civil union versus marriage rights" gives googles of hits and just taking the first as an example, there appears to be significant differences in essence, not to mention between states.
You , sir, are an ass. First I joined before there were up and down dings. Secondly you posted at something of the order of 1000% more posts then I have.
Look everybody "I'm loved more than booger brain over there"! What are you, four years old?
Grow up.
You are acting like a troll here in this thread for reasons I've outlined.
After the "Blow Buddies" remark and the "you, sir, should resign!" it looks like you are coming unhinged Quilly Mammoth.
And you are the one slinging invective, bigotry, and names because you can't reasonably counter the arguments. Go back to square one, start over with reason.
A google search on "civil union versus marriage rights" gives googles of hits and just taking the first as an example, there appears to be significant differences in essence, not to mention between states.
You are correct. They are not equal. And the link is relatively important in that it states:
But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.
But marriage is also a legal status, which comes with rights and responsibilities. Marriage establishes a legal kinship between you and your spouse. It is a relationship that is recognized across cultures, countries and religions.
So let's get back to the point, other than unreasoned fear, why do you want to deny those legal recognitions to just gay people?
And you are the one slinging invective, bigotry, and names because you can't reasonably counter the arguments. Go back to square one, start over with reason.
No, sir, you either ignored or rebutted every post I made with dismissive, ad hominem attack. Thanos, you are accusing me of what _you_ are doing. Can you restate how how the results of the Prop 8 election are the same as China's telling it's citizens what to do? Can you rebut the reasons that societies "across cultures, countries and religions" recognize marriage despite wat you have said? Can you explain yur mis-statement of Justinian?
You are not an honest debater in this thread because you _never actually_ challenge what is said.
And when you attempted to insult my marriage you really went over the line.
the thing about ;civil' contract is that it is anything you wnat it to include
There's one problem with that though, that even legalizing in a single state won't rectify -- US Code:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
the thing about ;civil' contract is that it is anything you wnat it to include
No, you cannot include some things that are taken for granted in marriage such as automatically recognized parenting rights, or life and death issues. Probably more, and then there is the portability issue between states regardless of what it says in one state.
You could draw up a civil contract that simply says it includes everything accorded to a marriage, but that would not be legally valid then.
It doesn't make me happy or unhappy, it is what it is. There's a long road before Gay marriage becomes accepted nationwide, one state legalizing it doesn't create equal protection if you cross state lines.
So let's get back to the point, other than unreasoned fear, why do you want to deny those legal recognitions to just gay people?
First you start with an insult? See? So, despite your rudeness I will answer.
Because I do not think that special rights and privileges for marriage should be extended to people who most likely will not reproduce. Because I do not believe that a Gay Marriage gives children the best chance at success, just as I do not believe that a single mother, or father, does well either. Some straights marry and know that they will not have children but that number is inverse of the number of gay people that will marry to _to_ raise children
We've done one hell of a job of destroying the institution of marriage, this is just one bit of the battle, and the results are not good. One parent families are failing at ab astounding rate. Something that most people will not like to hear or look at.
And frankly one of the few mistakes of Reagan was that when it was decided that a married couple had to work harder (get a job) for welfare it became obvious to mother's that to feed their kids they had to be single. Bad things happened.
A contract is worthless if not enforceable in court. A contract that assigns all rights of marriage might just as well then say that "This is a marriage contract".
It's not a mistatement of Justinian first off. It's Theodosian, 342 AD. Holy Roman Emperor code. I also pointed out that legal recorded gay marriages are mentioned in Roman manuscripts, which got ignored.
Theodosian Code 9.8.3: "When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion {quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.
Also see my note above citing Suetonius.
Certain inalienable rights -- if you deny someone the right to marry the person they choose, that certainly doesn't aid their pursuit of happiness, however in the case of Gays, allowing them that choice does you no harm.
The statement on China was a bit over the top, it's more akin to Socialist Europe, where the will of the state through mass vote overides individual liberty.
You argue that it would be a "special right" to grant gays ability to marry their spouse of choice, I argue that it's heterosexuals who are the special interest group with the special right to marriage who deny it to others.
...
Because I do not think that special rights and privileges for marriage should be extended to people who most likely will not reproduce. ...
Then why extend it to people who will not or do not reproduce?
Why allow gays to adopt?
Why allow gay families who have children of their own to keep them?
It seems that you primary objection is that they, gays, do not fit the majority norm and as a minority they should not be given the same human rights but, believe me, I know straight (if one can call them that) couples who should not be allowed to raise their children, nor should they be allowed to have more; but that is another human issue that we cannot simply eliminate by law for all the obvious reasons.
Gay couples who want marriage (and the more offensive once likely don't) are, in my opinion, far better people than some of the straight couple, married, that I have come across.
And, for those with religious objections, god made all of them.
But marriage was not sanctioned between homosexuals before that in Roman culture. You have to be actually read things from that era. And that quote is debated, it may likely be from 390.
You simply reject the idea that society's desires have any validity.
Yes, but don't heterosexual people also acquire STD's? Wouldn't allowing gays the ability to marry a single partner and maintain stable relationships decrease the probability of them acquiring AIDS?
I wonder whether the general use of the license as the legal underpinning of 'marriage' makes any of the civil liberty arguments pro or con of this issue moot. If I accept the state's authority to issue a 'license' governing something I would do, then the meaning of 'license': official permission, should be clear to me. With license comes "sanction': a set of rules and guidelines. These differ with each licencing jurisdiction, according to varying community standards, customs, statutes, etc. A particular license sanctions a closely defined activity; driving, operation of a business, carrying a firearm, what have you. The acceptance of the license is a waiver of your claim to an unrestricted right. Gay 'marriage' falls outside the realm of sanction expressed by the license, and defined by prop. 8. A valid definition of such a contract is going to have to be ironed out by those concerned, and may in time be standardized by being granted a category of license. I'm probably full of shit, but it seems like it would have to work this way in order to be a part of a civilised polity.
Then why extend it to people who will not or do not reproduce?
Why allow gays to adopt?
Why allow gay families who have children of their own to keep them?
snip
Well, when you cut out everything else I said to make your point why should I answer your question?
See, that's the whole purpose of reply/quote. That people actually understand what I said in the context that I said it. You are not honest in your question.
Another belief is not to recognize equal rights to certain groups.
No. The belief isn't "we won't recognize equal rights". The belief is that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman.
Sure, they could probably limit their services to Catholics. But why should they be forced to do so? They were forced into shutting down because the beliefs of the Catholic Church as to marriage, family, etc., won't allow them to operate in the manner required by the State of Massachusetts. Same reason why Catholic Hospitals will shut down if government requires hospitals to perform abortions. If they can only run a hospital if they will perform abortions, they will not run the hospital.
But marriage was not sanctioned between homosexuals before that in Roman culture. You have to be actually read things from that era. And that quote is debated, it may likely be from 390.
You simply reject the idea that society's desires have any validity.
It was sanctioned, see the Suetonius reference. Multiple times:
The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.
Naw, I think you are approaching the net of it, I think there needs to be give on both sides. The law enabling gay marriage needs to be written from the standpoint of an individual right, not a group or class right or privelege. As it stands now heterosexuals are the priveleged class protected by law. See the note I put in about US code above.
In the longer term I see this as a cooking, divisive controversy. If R's make it one of their main issues over time the demographics are going to work against them.
The CDC publishes data showing the average life expectancy of homosexual males (discounting impact of HIV/AIDS) is on average 20 years less than heterosexual males. (you can check for a link yourself - the data is readily available through PubMed/MDConsult and other medical databases.)
There is no biological/species benefit to homosexual behavior.
Studies of identical twins do not support the claim of biological determinism with regard to homosexual tendencies, but seem to indicate a combined environmental/biological impact on an individual's psychological development that leads to homosexual behaviors.
Since there is no benefit to either the species nor to the individual, homosexuality is not normal. This does not mean people afflicted with homosexual tendencies should be persecuted, but just as we don't encourage people to engage in other self-destructive behaviors (smoking, excessive drinking, indiscriminant unsafe sex, poor diet, riding without a helmet, etc) we should not be encouraging people to engage in unhealthy, self-destructive acts.
Thus, the crux of the problem. Homosexuals refuse to accept this position, and petulantly demand that the rest of us not just accept - but rather glorify - homosexuality. No matter how much either side blathers on about their chosen technicalities, that is the issue.
The logical conclusion of your argument, on an evolutionary survival basis, would be that we also should not allow most peoples in Africa to marry, since their survival rate is far lower than that of American homosexuals for all the reasons you give.
I don't know the statistics, but I suspect that the actual rate of homosexual marriage, where allowed, is a small minority of the gay community, but also that it is of those who do not fit your typical negative stereotype and to that extent it would be socially beneficial if more of the obviously promiscuous homosexuals could be persuaded to behave in the same manner.
"Self destructive" behaviors arguments can be used to discriminate against an even larger sector of Americans than gays, but I don't hear you saying so, and must conclude that your attempts at logic are a front for personal bias.
No. Making it "marriage" would result in homosexuals going to court to force religious and private institutions to bend to the militant homosexual agenda - in violation of the actual Constitutional protection of freedom of religion. The New Mexico 'wedding' photography case is a glaring example of what these politically correct fascists will most certainly do. The insane incidents of Christian ministers being charged with hate crimes for preaching against homosexuality from their pulpits up in Canada is another example of just how far militant homosexuals intend to force everyone to not just accept but praise their aberrant behavior.
Well, when you cut out everything else I said to make your point why should I answer your question?
See, that's the whole purpose of reply/quote. That people actually understand what I said in the context that I said it. You are not honest in your question.
I could have said the same thing without any quote. I thought this was better for clarification.
You are dishonest and insulting in your reply. If you think a key point is left out, please just copy it into your response, instead of taking off before a reply can be made.
No. The belief isn't "we won't recognize equal rights". The belief is that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman.
What I should have said is that they don't recognize the rights recognized by others in this case, and in this case it is a classic conflict between secular rights and religious beliefs. That is their right to do, but they are wrong to blame it on everyone else and say that it is someone else's fault that others have to suffer as a result.
Sure, they could probably limit their services to Catholics. But why should they be forced to do so?
I do not think they are "forced" to do so. That is their choice to follow their religious beliefs rather than some other, secular or not. Muslims are not forced to eat pork because it is sold in grocery stores and they may still have their own grocery stores that don't sell pork.
They were forced into shutting down because the beliefs of the Catholic Church as to marriage, family, etc., won't allow them to operate in the manner required by the State of Massachusetts.
I think you already said that they simply didn't want to limit their services to those who shared their religion, but they wanted to pick and choose between all the other beliefs.
Same reason why Catholic Hospitals will shut down if government requires hospitals to perform abortions. If they can only run a hospital if they will perform abortions, they will not run the hospital.
With respect, they should then stick to running churches and they can donate their money to, for example, a new clinic dedicated to cancer treatment just to be sure they don't help the wrong people.
Having the option to get married hasn't eradicated STDs in the heterosexual population, so what on earth makes you think it would stop STD transmission in homosexuals who were "married"?
The medical facts are simple: (please pardon the following rather graphic description)
The anorectal mucosa consists of columnar epithelium. That means it has a SINGLE layer of epithelial cells. It is not designed to handle the frictional forces inherent in phallic thrusting movements. This thin layer of cells ruptures, exposing the "catcher's" bloodstream to infectious agents in a manner that makes bloodborne infection much more likely.
The vaginal mucosa is made up of squamous epithelium, which means the cells are layered upon layers - exactly like the skin on your body - and is designed to tolerate the frictional forces of intercourse.
From a purely biomedical standpoint, engaging in anorectal intercourse is not healthy, regardless of whether you choose to be homo or heterosexual. Neither is engaging in IV drug abuse, excessive drinking, eating sticks of butter rolled in sugar, having sex with multiple partners or smoking cigarettes...but people still do them. Each of these things described above is a behavior that individuals may CHOOSE to do. That doesn't mean anyone else should be REQUIRED to approve of such acts. Smoking is pretty much prohibited in public all over the country, because it is unhealthy and most people consider it bad or disgusting behavior. This country arguably was supported by tobacco growers in the beginning, yet we've realized how unhealthy smoking is and banned the exercise of this activity.
Sexual choices, truly, do not deserve to be elevated to the level of Constitutional Rights.
You are running off at the mouth. you can make the same silly pretense at technicalities about oral sex (hetero or gay), if you include gum disease in the equation.
With respect, they should then stick to running churches and they can donate their money to, for example, a new clinic dedicated to cancer treatment just to be sure they don't help the wrong people.
sorry for the sarcasm, nothing personal.
Naso - some of the first and for awhile the ONLY services that homosexual AIDS patients could get was from Catholic services. So please stuff the sarcasm up your ass. Nothing personal.
And, yes, the Church will be getting out of the hospital business. Fully 1/3 of the citizens in this country receive excellent health care from Catholic Hospitals. If the government wishes to remove those services from people by requiring hospitals to perform abortions, then so be it. And the country will be a poorer place for it.
I somehow think those hospitals will continue to operate and I doubt that good Catholics will no longer contribute to health care in this country. It will simply be that the management will not be answering to the Pope and that women who need abortions, for the many many reasons that they might, will continue to be helped in spite of that management change.
I somehow think those hospitals will continue to operate and I doubt that good Catholics will no longer contribute to health care in this country. It will simply be that the management will not be answering to the Pope and that women who need abortions, for the many many reasons that they might, will continue to be helped in spite of that management change.
No, the hospitals will close, it is already being discussed.
Catholics will continue to do whatever. Catholics will provide care to those who've had abortions and now need further health care, or mental health care; but Catholic hospitals will not provide abortions.
The law enabling gay marriage needs to be written from the standpoint of an individual right, not a group or class right or privelege.
The folks who see the pure, individual right seem to be opting out of the customary definition altogether. Lots and lots of people using 'partner' or 'better half' instead of 'spouse'. Like I said, a definition satisfactory to the society is needed for the society to 'license', or accept it. A Name is everything, but alas 'marriage' is already taken. One problem is that as regards this issue the majority don't see themselves as part of a group or class. It's the sudden politicization of the institution that they hold dear and the demands of a vocal, aggressive, and alien (to their sensibilities) group to change the institution which scares folks into saying 'wait a minute there'. Nobody likes to be a target.
The folks who see the pure, individual right seem to be opting out of the customary definition altogether. Lots and lots of people using 'partner' or 'better half' instead of 'spouse'. Like I said, a definition satisfactory to the society is needed for the society to 'license', or accept it. A Name is everything, but alas 'marriage' is already taken. One problem is that as regards this issue the majority don't see themselves as part of a group or class. It's the sudden politicization of the institution that they hold dear and the demands of a vocal, aggressive, and alien (to their sensibilities) group to change the institution which scares folks into saying 'wait a minute there'. Nobody likes to be a target.
I'm sure the same could have been said of slaves vs. non- slaves and women (before they were allowed to vote) vs. men, but it doesn't make the argument for an individual right less valid.
Even Christ said to the prostitute whom he saved from execution by stoning, "Go AND SIN NO MORE.." (emphasis mine) That being said, I am clearly no saint myself. But I'm not the issue...the MESSAGE is the issue.
Going to confession and then turning around and committing the same sin with the idea that you just have to go to a priest-in-a-box periodically - with no intention of actually trying to stop the sinful act - negates the requirement for remorse and intent to avoid the occasion of sin in order to receive absolution.
The Catholic Church doctrine is that homosexual acts are inherently disordered (meaning unnatural, sinful and against the Will of God). Deliberately working to turn over children for adoption to a homosexual couple is, by Catholic Doctrine, putting the child into a situation inherently disordered. It negates the basic tenet of Catholic faith (regarding homosexuality) - thus forcing the Catholic to condone the sin of homosexual acts by equating 2 homosexuals with a heterosexual married couple with regard to adoption.
You may disagree with Catholic Doctrine..it is a free country...but the Constitution guarantees that the Catholic Church cannot be FORCED (at least constitutionally) to place children for adoption to homosexual duos. The fact that the Catholic Charities adoptions group in Massachusetts was forced to stop doing adoptions is a blatant violation of the Bill of Rights.
Right...the medical facts showing the differention of columnar versus squamous epithelium - and what those structures are designed for - is just running off at the mouth.
Anorectal cancer rates in homosexual males - appearing at a higher incidence rate than even cervical cancer rates in women - but both caused by sexual transmission of Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) have nothing to do with mechanics...just promiscuity. Penile papilocarcinoma - also caused by HPV infection of the skin cells of the penis, has a much lower incidence rate than anorectal HPV cancers...but it couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the cellular structural and organ functions, could it?
You really want to argue medical data? Or do you simply want me to tell you the story of the HIV patient I cared for in clinic back in 1996 who contracted syphillis in his colostomy stoma from one of his partners deciding to use that as a sexport for his penis?
You can't justify bad and unhealthy things by trying to bring up other unhealthy things.
Back in the 50's, my mother was a Campfire girl. (I'm not sure that was throughout the country--it was like Girl scouts.) Anyway, they had a motto she used to say with her group. It went something like this:
As I skip gaily through the forest, bundling up fagots to burn in the fire...
With, yes, the--er--sensitive words.
That was gone by the time I was a Bluebird (Brownie equivalent), myself.
You do not tell your alcoholic patients that it's OK to drink.
You do not tell your diabetic patients that it is OK to stop taking insulin, nor do you tell your schizophrenic patients that it is OK to stop taking their anti-psychotic meds and just listen to the tempting little voices in their heads. Those conditions are not normal. You do not tell your COPD patients that it is OK to smoke, when it clearly is doing them harm.
Just because it is politically correct to portray homosexuality as 'normal' does not make it so. As mentioned above, (but studiously ignored by Thanos) there is no biological benefit either to the individual nor to the species for an individual to engage in homosexual acts. It is an evolutionary dead end, and it puts the individual at risk for a shorter lifespan.
No amount of elitist blather changes that point. Just because a group of militant homosexuals is throwing a ginormous hissy fit because a majority of Americans do not approve of homosexual acts and do not wish to equate what homosexuals do with the state of heterosexual marriage - does not give them any moral high ground. We've been trying to find a compromise in the civil union concept, but that isn't good enough for militant homosexuals. They insist on forcing the rest of us to accept and glorify their acts.
Thanos - are you seriously asking that question, or just baiting me?
I take care of infants born out of wedlock every day...I take care of infants with blood types that absolutely cannot have come from the husband purported to be the father...hence the joke that only the mother knows for sure who the baby's father is...promiscuity occurs in heterosexuals, so what on earth makes you think that MARRIAGE will do anything to bring down HIV rates or any other STD rates in homosexuals? Are you not aware of the websites dedicated to homosexuals deliberately looking to become seropositive for HIV by cruising for HIV positive sex partners?
Hippocrates really knew of which he spoke when he mandated his oath for physicians. I happily take care of babies because I cannot stomach some of the things that adults do to themselves and others...in a shortsighted pursuit of transient pleasure.
Comparing the indigenous populations of the African continent - most countries of which are in a third world developmental state - who have a clearly lower standard of living, lower average education levels, and
much lower technological/medical/financial infrastructure than do homosexuals in the US is rather bizarre as an argument, and woefully inadequate for reasonable analysis. You don't compare the efficacy of a medication for hypertension in an elderly patient with chronic renal disease with a different anti-hypertensive being used in a child with Wilms' Tumor and then claim one of the antihypertensive meds is better.
And to your other point - smokers, those with high cholesterol, those with high blood pressure...all ARE discriminated against in various ways. I would be discriminated against - quite reasonably, might I add - should I insist on a "right" to pursue my personal happiness of playing professional football. Just because I have little to no athletic ability, banged-up knees, would take half an hour to run 40 yards, and would be utterly creamed by the first real professional player to hit me...why should I be denied the 'right' for my personal happiness. How dare the owner of the team choose to ignore my quest for personal fulfilment by refusing to let me play on the team?
Just because you don't like my logic - and appear to have made the standard assumption that I dislike people afflicted with homosexual urges - doesn't mean the logic is flawed.
But I invite you to try again...
So - why isn't Catholic Charities doing adoptions in Massachusetts?
Which supreme court justices were commenting that we need to consider international legal opinions? I don't think it was the conservative ones...oh yeah...the ones who are cut from the same allegedly intellectual cloth that the marxist-elect is cut...
Wow...first off, it is a misnomer to comment that women NEED abortions. Such cases are unbelievably rare (mother needs chemo/radiation for rapidly growing cancer) the vast majority of abortions are performed for the convenience of the sperm donor to avoid the responsibility of fatherhood and the egg donor for the responsibility of motherhood.
The irony of assuming that CATHOLICS are bad for standing up for the principle of life, rather than chucking their principles to bow down to the altar of secular convenience is just...breathtaking...
Israel and the law of unintended consequences:
As inherited from the British Mandate of Palestine, and unchanged due to religious pressure, marriage in Israel is purely a matter for each religious group according to its own laws.
Israeli 'human rights' groups have long campaigned for civil marriage laws, unrelated to religion, that would cover those who fall outside the religious groups (such as inter-religious unions, or people banned by the religious authorities for whatever reason).
It used to be a big issue in Israel, but one that failed. As a result, Israeli-law has adjusted to give co-habitants the same rights as married people concerning property, social services, and even some forms of taxation. For instance, it is enough to register with the National Insurance office as co-habitants (term: common-law wife) to be taxed jointly for health purposes.
Now it seems that in failing to establish civil marriage Israel has saved itself a big headache. It simply doesn't matter, as marriage remains a religious thing while for all practical purposes co-habitation suffices.
So do you propose making it illegal for fatties to marry? They engage in unhealthy lifestyle? How about defrocked Catholic pederasts? Can they marry --- oh wait the Catholic Church doesn't defrock priests for child rape. I see a bit of hypocrisy working here.
Your graphic gross descriptions intended to shock doesn't change the fact that homosexuals exist and have for all of history. No measures of hate or exclusion are going to change that, it is what it is. Why do you hate their children and disallow their abilty to have two parent married families if that is a value, give me a reason that's not religious bigotry speaking.
When profamily went to anti-gay, that's when social conservatism started losing proponents.
When pro-life went to anti-science that's when social conservatism started losing proponents.
Take your small w Win while you hand Conservatism a huge loss.
If you value families, then what are you doing for the families of gays?
Will your religious bigotry against them continue? Yes it will.
Making your religious bigotry against gays part of party platform is highly counterproductive in the long term. Should alcoholics get divorced or be denied marriage? What about smokers? What about people who eat too much? What about people with body piercings, that's unhealthy right? What about... well you get the idea. You've singled out gays because of your religious beliefs, it's the Christian special interest majority overwhelming the familial needs of a minority.
Thanos - it's not bigotry to point out that there has been a Constitutional collision course set up between gays and those with deeply felt and widely shared beliefs regarding homosexuality. The 1st Amendment guarantees (among other things) the right of the people to express their religion. If the state sanctions same-sex marriage, then those with religious views could have their rights trumped by those who wish to have "equal rights" to marriage. There has to be mutual tolerance and respect - you seem to be arguing for it to go all one way. Constitutional rights are not like items on a buffet table, where you can pick the rights you like and pass over the ones you don't.
Wow...really? These last few posts of yours are your argument? One can always tell when you've flummoxed someone leaning towards the left on an issue, because they collapse into the tired refrain of "Bigot! Hater! Homophobe!"
You have quite clearly demonstrated the real problem, Thanos - you insist that I have no right to disagree or disapprove of one's choice to engage in homosexual acts, and that by doing so I am relegated to the ranks of bigoted knuckledragging religious fanatics.
Show me a single instance in any of my posts where I displayed hatred of anyone afflicted with homosexual tendencies. Show me where I am declaring my opposition to homosexual acts primarily from a religious standpoint. I answered another post regarding Catholic doctrine, but that has not been the main thrust of my position - no pun intended. you respond with bigoted anti-Catholic remarks...ironically against gay priests who molested boys.
Actually reading my posts, you would see I have concern for those afflicted with homosexual tendencies, just as I have concern for people afflicted with other medical problems. Your attempt to twist my meaning by asking if smokers or obese individuals should not be allowed to marry doesn't fit - smoking and obesity are not sexual behaviors demanding to be given protected class status as are those who willingly engage in homosexual acts. No one is telling people afflicted with homosexual tendencies that they cannot engage in their desired activities - but that isn't good enough for militant gays...you demand that we prostrate ourselves in adulation of homosexual acts that are inherently unhealthy and unnatural.
Social conservatism has not gone "anti-science". What makes more scientific sense? The acknowledgment that homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end, or that engaging in risky sexual activities with the potential to prematurely end one's life should be encouraged?
Fetal stem cell research has provided absolutely NO cures or treatments for any disease - in fact the attempt to help Alzheimer's Disease patients with fetal stem cells proved harmful to the test subjects. Cord blood stem cells and adult stem cell research have actually helped come up with treatments for SCID and other diseases...and these research avenues don't require the fetus to be destroyed for the harvest of stem cells. Why is it unscientific to oppose fetal stem cell research (that has no demonstrated benefit) when non-murderous forms of stem cell research are providing real scientific advancement?
You may think that calling me a hater and a bigot for my position on homosexuality gives you some sort of politically correct high ground, but in the end you will still be left with no answer to the very pertinent questions I've put forth. Denying the relevancy of those questions by calling me names does nothing but display the emptiness of your argument.
Will there always be people afflicted with the emotional disturbance of homosexuality? Sure - just like there will be people afflicted with all the disease and emotional problems that have wrecked havoc with humans for our entire existence.
Do I have any desire to be bashing in doors and lynching people afflicted with homosexual urges? Of course not - I really couldn't care less what you or anyone else does in your home. But that does NOT mean I want to be forced to applaud self-destructive behavior. If you think that makes me a hater and a religious bigot, then you are blinded by the irrationality of your cultural brainwashing.
That's an awful lot of words stating nothing new. Your religious underpinning in the argument comes directly from your posting of the doctrine, and continually dragging the church, church agencies, and Catholic Doctrine up. You brought them to argument, I replied.
You have every right to disagree with me, as do the majority of voters in CA. That doesn't convince me however.
Your lack of concern for the children of Gays discredits the notion that "you care about them" other than your duties insist you must.
You again call being gay "an affliction" so your bigotry shines forth. Your position is driven by doctrine, bile, and fear. Mine is driven by a love of liberty and concern for families.
Your church is steadily shrinking, do you think it's shrinking because it's attractive?
Thanos - it's not bigotry to point out that there has been a Constitutional collision course set up between gays and those with deeply felt and widely shared beliefs regarding homosexuality. The 1st Amendment guarantees (among other things) the right of the people to express their religion. If the state sanctions same-sex marriage, then those with religious views could have their rights trumped by those who wish to have "equal rights" to marriage. There has to be mutual tolerance and respect - you seem to be arguing for it to go all one way. Constitutional rights are not like items on a buffet table, where you can pick the rights you like and pass over the ones you don't.
Please explain how your rights would be trumped by allowing gays to marry, without paranoid delusions about what they might do, or what might follow. In other words leave out the slippery slope arguments, and tell me exactly how allowing two same sex people to marry infringes YOUR RIGHTS any way at all. Please I am interested.
Thanos - MY rights? It doesn't affect MY rights at all, because I do not have religious views that see homosexuality as immoral. So what? You don't think that decides anything, do you?
You seem to want to dismiss those with religious views as somehow less deserving of their 1st amendment rights than two same sex people and their 14th amendment rights.
It's not paranoid delusion to look at the fallout from the Dade v. Boy Scouts of America decision and see that although BSA maintained their rights to expressive association, gay rights supporters systematically set out to undermine scouting. That which they could not fundamentally change, allowing openly gay leaders, they set out to destroy.
Another poster linked to [Link: www.becketfund.org...] and if you have the time or inclination to read it, you can see the the collision course that is set in motion with state-sanctioned same-sex marriage.
It's a mistake to define the issue as narrowly as you have. You may think that all you have to consider are the two people who wish to marry, but I think we need to respect those with religious views who provide services such as wedding planners, venue owners, caterers, florists, photographers, et cetera, who will be targeted for their religious beliefs. Go ahead and call it bigotry and paranoia (as you're wont to do, though it doesn't help your cause) but I gotta tell you, it's just reading the writing on the wall. Look at the guy with 400 ADA lawsuits and hundreds of thousands of dollars later. Look at jdate.com and singlemuslim.com. Same thing.
Anyway, none of this may matter if the California Supreme Court decides that Prop 8 is a revision rather than an amendment to the state constitution. If they do, then there will have to be some kind of remedy for those "bigoted" and "paranoid" religious people and their trampled 1st amendment rights. (You should retract that, friend.)
The people have spoken not once, not twice, but three times on this...get over it.
...and the whole " marriage is a civil right " is BS, marriage is a religious ceremony ...how many gay's honor religion.
I am not a religious person, but I am against gay marriage because I know the real reason it is being pushed on the citizens of this country...Let them have civil unions.
To list all of the goals of the homosexual agenda would be tedious, but the ones on the forefront, in summary, are as follows:
1) Legalize homosexual/lesbian marriages; 2) Give homosexuals/lesbians parental and adoptive rights; 3) Classify HIV positive/AIDS carriers as disabled; 4) Enact "hate-crime" laws to include sexual orientation; 5) Use tax dollars to fund homoerotic AIDS/sex education in all grades; 6) Amend laws to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodation, and public services; 7) Prohibit the military to exclude anyone because of sexual preference; 8) Repeal all state sodomy laws; 9) Repeal laws controlling the age of sexual consent."5
I have a favorite family member who, with his "husband", have adopted two foster kids. They are heroes in my eyes.
Nobody wanted these drug-addicted babies when they came into this world. Now, both are being raised in a stable, two-parent, unorthodox, committed, gay home.
They did go through the adoption process for another baby who was taken away because (they were gay) a heretofore undiscovered family member claimed the baby.
It's a tough world out there. Let's be kind to one another here, hm?
You seem to want to dismiss those with religious views as somehow less deserving of their 1st amendment rights than two same sex people and their 14th amendment rights.
You never did answer Thanos as to how giving gay people the right to marry tramples on someone else's 1st amendment rights.
Lawsuits will likely arise when religious people or religious organizations choose, based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, not to hire individuals in same-sex marriages, refuse to extend spousal benefits to same-sex spouses, refuse to make their property or services available for same-sex marriage ceremonies or other events affirming same-sex marriage, or refuse to provide otherwise available housing to same-sex couples. This wide-ranging conflict between governments and conscientious citizens would take years of litigation to resolve, assuming that it could be resolved.
I have not seen any same- sex marriage laws on the books that require churches to marry gay couples. This reads like shrill, biased nonsense.
I'm sure similar legal arguments were made by pro- slavery activists and anti- suffragists in years past.
It does not answer the fundamental question:
Are gay people entitled to the same rights as people that are not gay?
Shrill? Did you look at it beyond the second paragraph you quoted? It simply lists all the areas where conflicts will arise.
I'll answer your question with this one: when should claims of sexual liberty prevail over claims of religious liberty, if ever? Or vice versa?
You're implying that I only read until the second paragraph. You don't know me very well. I only quoted the second paragraph because it provided a great summary of the garble to follow.
Answer to your question:
Should religion trample the individual rights of a person? No
Should a person's sexual preferences be imposed on a religion? No
Now, you have yet to answer my question:
Are gay people entitled to the same rights as people that are not gay?
Please explain how it is bigotry to believe that homosexual tendencies are an affliction? That's like telling me I am bigoted because I tell patients they shouldn't smoke. Just because you don't like what I have to say does not make me a bigot, no matter how much it feeds your desire to feel sanctimonious about disagreeing with me.
I fail to see how warning someone of the inherent unhealthiness of homosexual acts is hateful and full of bile. You are the one calling me names for expressing a set of beliefs you hold in disdain. Claiming that I don't care about "the children of gays" is rather amusing, considering what I do for a living. I am not holding a gun over anyone's head and telling them they can't adopt children, nor do I refuse to provide medical care to the best of my ability to an infant simply because the caregivers engage in homosexual acts.
What I find telling in your posts is the dripping animosity towards anyone who expresses disagreement with your position that those who engage in homosexual acts should be allowed to "marry" in an false imitation of heterosexual marriage. There is nothing keeping two people with homosexual tendencies from living together and sharing their material goods or making legal arrangements equal to those of heterosexual spouses. What grinds your axe is that there exists a majority of folks who do not equate two same sex individuals with a married heterosexual couple. Why do you care? I mean really...why do you insist on having anyone else's approval? Why does it matter to you that I, and those like-minded to me, are never going to shout out approval of homsexual acts? I am not keeping you from having whatever job you want, or prohibiting you from buying a house with your partner, or preventing you from adopting a child, or throwing you in jail, nor executing you a la certain islamic countries. Why are you so upset about what I think? How is it doing you any harm? Why does my disapproval make you spew out such angry sentiments?
The best man at my wedding...the person I chose to stand by me when I got married...is afflicted with homosexual tendencies. He knows exactly what I think about his choices, but he also knows he is my friend.
Really - why don't you ask yourself why you feel it so important that you either get my approval of homosexual acts, or failing that, try to browbeat me into submission.
Babydoc,
You are pretty stupid on top of all the above. You assume I'm homosexual, I"m not. Married 28 years to the same woman, which you would have seen if you'd paid attention upthread, so most of your post is pointless.
In my opinion you are a religious bigot. Bigots always pull out the "one of my best friends is x" line, which is telling. None of my current friends are gay, but I support their right to marry. It's a simple question of liberty. You don't have to like that.
re: #1051 gman A list of state statutes is "garble"?
It's pretty obvious you don't want to concede that there is a Constitutional collision course set up when you have rights that conflict with one another. That's my point, that is the problem, and until there is an intellectually honest supporter of same-sex marriage who will sensibly come to terms with it and find a way to reconcile these competing interests, we just talk past each other.
Incidentally, I'm concerned with each individual's rights, no matter who they are. It's funny how you couldn't even admit that we're talking about individuals with your "answer":
Should religion trample the individual rights of a person? No
Should a person's sexual preferences be imposed on a religion? No
Religious rights are strongly protected in the constitution, you can't and shouldn't base granting of rights on whether or not there might be future lawsuits. You can't assume that religion will be persecuted. You can see however that Gays are being somewhat persecuted now in the fact that they cannot marry the person they choose in most states.
A list of state statutes is "garble"?
It's pretty obvious you don't want to concede that there is a Constitutional collision course set up when you have rights that conflict with one another. That's my point, that is the problem, and until there is an intellectually honest supporter of same-sex marriage who will sensibly come to terms with it and find a way to reconcile these competing interests, we just talk past each other.
Incidentally, I'm concerned with each individual's rights, no matter who they are. It's funny how you couldn't even admit that we're talking about individuals with your "answer":
I think the disagreement here is that you believe religious freedom should trump an individual's right to same- sex marriage. I don't
and you still haven't answered my original question
Are gay people entitled to the same rights as people that are not gay?
It's pretty obvious you don't want to concede that there is a Constitutional collision course set up when you have rights that conflict with one another. That's my point, that is the problem, and until there is an intellectually honest supporter of same-sex marriage who will sensibly come to terms with it and find a way to reconcile these competing interests, we just talk past each other.
There have been plenty of "constitutional collisions" in the course of our young country's history. At the end of the day, though, you still have gay people wanting to know why they can't get married. Telling them that it is "complicated" is not going to satisfy their feelings of wanting to get married.
re: #1058 Thanos Well, it's like I said to gman, it's not "religion" that would be subject to lawsuits (although I've heard discussion about vigorously fighting the tax-exempt status of some churches) it's individuals.
I disagree with you that can't consider the consequences of state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. I've heard of a photographer who was threatened by a lesbian couple for refusing to provide her services because of her religious beliefs - it was in Ventura, California. I don't know if any discrimination suit was filed or not. There does seem to be opportunity to file discrimination lawsuits in order to compel a business to accommodate gays, or shake out settlements, or drive people out of business.
Should a person with religious views that homosexuality is immoral be compelled to participate in a same-sex wedding? Should that person have the right to object? I think the court will have a hard time with this issue because marriage/weddings are different than other non-religious situations, for example denying a same-sex couple notary services. Or whatever else that isn't inherently religious based.
I think the disagreement here is that you believe religious freedom should trump an individual's right to same- sex marriage. I don't
You mischaracterized my assertion. I asserted that there are competing rights between those who want religious freedom and those who want sexual freedom. I illustrated this point with the question of whose rights should come out on top? The answer has to be neither because the Constitution is not a smorgasbord of rights you get to pick and choose from.
Gentlemen, it's late and I'm tired. I'll look forward to your replies tomorrow. Good night.
It's not a case of rights competing with rights. It's a case of fear competing rights. Again, you have a strong majority special interest group witholding rights from a minority.
Similar arguments were made against repeal of sodomy laws and repeal of anti-miscegnation laws.
You aren't convincing me so far. Please go back to where this started, I'm stating that opposition to gay marriage is an anathema to conservatives putting forth a firm pro family agenda because they can easily be pictured as hating all gays. You already see a good example of that with a short hop upthread. It's a losing cause simply because the younger generations do not find it an issue, and demographics means that Gay marriage will be a reality within most states within 30 years. It's not good, it's not positive, it creates divisiveness within the party and cognitive dissonance between party values. It needs to get solved.
You mischaracterized my assertion. I asserted that there are competing rights between those who want religious freedom and those who want sexual freedom. I illustrated this point with the question of whose rights should come out on top?
So you feel you've been even- handed in this discussion?
Well, why bring up Becketfund (a public interest law firm for religious freedom) and their take on what they feel is an imposition on religious freedom and not counter with an examination of how gays feel their rights have been violated (a link to a pdf, anything)?
At that point, you could have safely asserted that "there are competing rights between those who want religious freedom and those who want sexual freedom." Yet you only argued from one side of the fence- ergo my implied assertion.
re: #1064 gman Fair enough! I had to go to the Huffington Post, but here is another point of view: [Link: www.huffingtonpost.com...]
You might note that none of the arguments in favor put my point to rest.
re: #1063 Thanos I don't think my specific concerns regarding my post 1061 are in any way the same as arguing for a prohibition on sodomy or on interracial marriage. And I believe it is reasonable to fear the state when it decides whose rights are protected because of their sexual preferences and whose rights will be subjugated because of their religious views.
I don't think either one of you will be persuaded that it's even important to consider the views of those who hold religious beliefs that homosexuality is immoral because you don't think it is. I think to the extent that people could be compelled by the state to provide services that are at odds with their faith it's worth considering.
All this may be rendered moot when the court rules whether Prop 8 was a revision or if it was an amendment. With regard to your belief that the young are more tolerant of gays, that's true. What's that saying about if you're under thirty and not a liberal you have no heart?
In December 2005, John and Furnish tied the knot in a civil partnership ceremony in Windsor, England. But, clarified the singer, "We're not married. Let's get that right. We have a civil partnership. What is wrong with Proposition 8 is that they went for marriage. Marriage is going to put a lot of people off, the word marriage."
"I don't want to be married. I'm very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership," John says. "The word 'marriage,' I think, puts a lot of people off.
"You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships."
Wow..really...you repeatedly resort to namecalling and deiberately avoid actually discussing any of the points I bring up, but I'm supposedly the stupid one...right. You stay classy, there, Thanos.
And for someone who supposedly bows at the altar of liberty, it's interesting how you ignore the simple question - why should someone afflicted with homosexual tendencies really care whether or not I or anyone else approve of what sexual acts the homosexual chooses to engage in? If liberty is all you truly cared about, you'd see how disingenuous your position is when you haughtily call me (and those who think like I do) bigoted for thinking differently than you do. Your position just drips with irony.
Congratulations on being married for 28 years. The gist of my posts was towards the position you espoused in this thread, not your personal matrimonial state. But if it helps you feels more secure in your animosity towards me, feel free to consider me stupid. Much smarter people than you have felt that way about me in the past.
Gay relationships are immoral. Says who? The Bible? Somehow, I always thought that freedom of religion implied the right to freedom from religion as well. The Bible has absolutely no standing in American law, as was made clear by the intent of the First Amendment (and as was very explicitly stated by the founding fathers in their first treaty, the Treaty of Tripoli, in 1791) and because it doesn't, no one has the right to impose rules anyone else simply because of something they perceive to be a moral injunction mandated by the Bible.
This shows a pretty significant blind spot on the part of the writer. The 1st amendment guarantees the right to express one's religion. When the state sanctions same-sex marriage and an individual is compelled because of anti-discrimination laws to be part of an activity that they believe is immoral, that's the collision of rights I've been talking about. It's because marriage/weddings are religious; they're not analogous to denying same sex couples the right to services that are not religiously based, like being able to get a document notarized.
Another flaw in the article is that it focuses on churches instead of individual rights. I'm not arguing that a church could be forced to allow a same-sex wedding, but the owner of a venue that hosts weddings could. That's where I see a conflict because, let's face it, there are litigious people who want to change - and if they cannot change, punish - those who view homosexuality and same-sex marriage as immoral.
I strongly believe that there is no remedy for those individuals who already have a Constitutionally protected right to their religious beliefs from being harassed by those who don't agree with them. Tolerance has to be a two-way street.
Good discussion and you've definitely made me look into more detail the coming (or so I believe) collision of interests in America once gay marriage laws are passed.
I hope that someday in the future, all gay people will be given the same rights and protection from discrimination as those that are heterosexual. Right now federal govt. employees and employees in the private sector (in seventeen states) are protected from sexual orientation discrimination.
I look forward to talking about this subject more on another thread.
You are a bigot enshrined in doctrine trying to force your view of marriage on other people. I don't agree, you don't have to like that. The Catholic church will continue to shrink in the US if folks like you remain the face of it, you don't have to like that either. The position you are taking is anti-family when it comes to gays, and anti-liberty.
You don't have the slightest understanding of the difference between government action and private action, and you have certainly destroyed any case you might otherwise have had with this Senator. -- Senator Gorton, to which Frank Zappa responds with "Is this private action?"
Frank says: