Rick Warren Should Stay Home.

[Roadtoad]

This is just plain beyond the pale...

Under fire for opposing gay marriage, influential evangelical pastor Rick Warren said Saturday that he loves Muslims, people of other religions, Republicans and Democrats, and he also loves "gays and straights."

The 54-year-old pastor and founder of Saddleback Church in Southern California told the crowd of 500 that it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree on everything all the time.

"You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand," said Warren.

Warren also defended President-elect Barack Obama's invitation that he give the invocation at the Jan. 20 inauguration in the keynote speech he delivered at the Muslim Public Affairs Council's annual convention in Long Beach.

Obama's choice of Warren earlier this week sparked outcry from gay rights and other liberal groups, who said choosing such an outspoken opponent of gay marriage was tantamount to endorsing bigotry.

"Three years ago I took enormous heat for inviting Barack Obama to my church because some of his views don't agree (with mine)," he said. "Now he's invited me."

Read it here. Any further comment on my part is superfluous. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/warren_speech)

[Silentknight]

On the other hand, this national stage Barack Obama has provided would be the perfect opportunity for a man who has struggled to repress his blatant homosexual tendencies his whole life to finally come out.

Who knows? He might even burst out into song.

It's okay be gay, let's rejoice with the boys in the gay way
Hooray for the kind of man that you will find in the gay way
It's okay to be gay, let's rejoice with the boys in the gay way
Hooray for the kind of man that you will find in the gay way

[kedo1981]

NO NO NO dudes
Warren is the perfect preacher man to have on the podium, no neo-con would dare car bomb Obama with him up there.

[Bob Blaylock]

Obama's choice of Warren earlier this week sparked outcry from gay rights and other liberal groups, who said choosing such an outspoken opponent of gay marriage was tantamount to endorsing bigotry.


Seems like a big non-issue to me. Obama himself has stated that he is opposed to “gay marriage”; and in recent elections, so have the majority of voters in at least three different states. As a professed Christian, Mr. Warren would have some serious explaining to do if he supported legitimizing an abomination that is so solidly condemned in the Bible.

Those who wish to put forth a vulgar mockery of the sacred union of marriage, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as equivalent to the real thing, need to accept that they are still in the minority; and, for the time being, are still on the losing side of this battle.

They are free to condemn Obama for choosing to give the invocation at his inauguration, a man who opposes “gay marriage”; but they might just as well condemn Obama for selecting someone who most likely supports capitalism over socialism; or for holding just about any other view that happens to be held by most Americans.

[Darth Rotor]

Politics.

Need I say more?

RT, it contaminates everything it touches. One way to mitigate the irritation over that is in my hand right now: Wiser Canadian Whiskey, on the rocks. Call it a spiritual refuge, if you like. ;)

[billw]

Those who wish to put forth a vulgar mockery of the sacred union of marriage, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as equivalent to the real thing, need to accept that they are still in the minority; and, for the time being, are still on the losing side of this battle.


Dude, I totally agree. That's why when me and my third wife Wanda got married last month at the Graceland Chapel in Vegas, we made sure that our sacred wedding vows were aided and abetted by the young Elvis impersonator, rather than the old, fat Elvis impersonator.

After all, one must maintain ones standards.

[Fnord]

Politics. Need I say more?


Politics ... pandering ... showmanship ... just how many suckers were born during the minute it took for Obama's people to make the announcement?

[Roadtoad]

Politics.

Need I say more?

RT, it contaminates everything it touches. One way to mitigate the irritation over that is in my hand right now: Wiser Canadian Whiskey, on the rocks. Call it a spiritual refuge, if you like. ;)

I prefer Maker's Mark, but I get your drift. Off to the store I go.

Of course, the way this whole affair is going, I'll need to buy a case before it's through.

Dude, I totally agree. That's why when me and my third wife Wanda got married last month at the Graceland Chapel in Vegas, we made sure that our sacred wedding vows were aided and abetted by the young Elvis impersonator, rather than the old, fat Elvis impersonator.

After all, one must maintain ones standards.

That is so worth a nom.

[Wolfman]

Those who wish to put forth a vulgar mockery of the sacred union of marriage, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as equivalent to the real thing, need to accept that they are still in the minority; and, for the time being, are still on the losing side of this battle.

I'd like to point out that it was not that long ago in your nation's history that those who supported equality for blacks were in the minority. Or that those who supported equality for women were in the minority.

And there were tons of bigots saying exactly the same thing, to try to make them shut up.

So no...there's absolutely nothing in this that we "need to accept"; and that is something that you will have to learn to live with.

[GreyICE]

Seems like a big non-issue to me. Obama himself has stated that he is opposed to “gay marriage”; and in recent elections, so have the majority of voters in at least three different states. As a professed Christian, Mr. Warren would have some serious explaining to do if he supported legitimizing an abomination that is so solidly condemned in the Bible.

Those who wish to put forth a vulgar mockery of the sacred union of marriage, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as equivalent to the real thing, need to accept that they are still in the minority; and, for the time being, are still on the losing side of this battle.

They are free to condemn Obama for choosing to give the invocation at his inauguration, a man who opposes “gay marriage”; but they might just as well condemn Obama for selecting someone who most likely supports capitalism over socialism; or for holding just about any other view that happens to be held by most Americans.
Tides of history are against you. Because once it's been established for 5, 10 years, and people see that society does not, in fact, collapse, and frogs do not, in fact, rain down upon the earth, there's no chance of it being revoked.

So basically you have to win every time, in every place, and hold your winnings for the bigotry to continue. The tides of history don't run that way.

[Skeptic Guy]

Warren was interviewed on the Today show recently and as part of his defence of his stand on gay marriage he pointed out that for five-thousand years man has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I was not surprised.

And when asked if he would still be against gay marriage if science were to prove that homosexuality was biological and not a "choice", he said yes. I thought it had already been demonstrated that homosexuality is biological, but I might be wrong. Still doesn't matter to me.

[bokonon]

Warren was interviewed on the Today show recently and as part of his defence of his stand on gay marriage he pointed out that for five-thousand years man has defined marriage as between a man and a woman. I was not surprised.
I don't suppose they asked the tough follow-up questions about marriages throughout that 5000-year stretch that were between a man and many women, in which the women were nothing more than property passed from father to groom.

I think at the very least, Warren should be a little more consistent. For five-thousand years, man defined "transportation" as walking or riding an ass. Why pick and choose which definitions are worthy of changing with the times?

[KingMerv00]

Those who wish to put forth a vulgar mockery of the sacred union of marriage, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as equivalent to the real thing, need to accept that they are still in the minority; and, for the time being, are still on the losing side of this battle.

For the squillionth time, a simple majority vote DOES NOT OVERRULE THE CONSTITUTION. I don't care what the majority thinks until the put forth an constitutional amendment.

[Silentknight]

Seems like a big non-issue to me. Obama himself has stated that he is opposed to “gay marriage”; and in recent elections, so have the majority of voters in at least three different states. As a professed Christian, Mr. Warren would have some serious explaining to do if he supported legitimizing an abomination that is so solidly condemned in the Bible.
Yes, condemned by the priestly writers of the Torah who said we should execute homosexuals, and later on in the New Testament by a saint who was most likely gay himself and struggling to reconcile his innermost urges with his religious beliefs.

Those who wish to put forth a vulgar mockery of the sacred union of marriage, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as equivalent to the real thing, need to accept that they are still in the minority; and, for the time being, are still on the losing side of this battle.
Whining about something isn't going to make it go away. Unless it's common sense in your case.

They are free to condemn Obama for choosing to give the invocation at his inauguration, a man who opposes “gay marriage”; but they might just as well condemn Obama for selecting someone who most likely supports capitalism over socialism; or for holding just about any other view that happens to be held by most Americans.
Well if you love Jesus so much, why don't you marry him? Do you want to marry him? Well you CAN'T! Now how does that make you feel?

[James Fox]

Hey Obama is just being inclusive, multi cultural, non-partisan and extending an olive branch to the many millions of conservative Christian voter types in this country (or cynical and pandering). Warren is more or less representative of the largest religious demographic in the country and look at how many presidents had Billy Graham over for a chat or to say a prayer in similar situations. This really is SOP political stuff and grand theatre given the circumstance of the inauguration.

Things do change and big changes usually take time. Redefining marriage is a pretty big thing for most folk. I personally think that the government should get out of the marriage business and only involve itself in civil unions (regardless of sex/gender) and let churches do a “marriage” thing if they want. That would allow churches that support gay marriage (or don’t have any noted objection) to do as they please.

[bruto]

Those who wish to put forth a vulgar mockery of the sacred union of marriage, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as equivalent to the real thing, need to accept that they are still in the minority; and, for the time being, are still on the losing side of this battle.

So does that mean that if and when your own views become those of a minority you'll shut up and accept it? Is this kind of utilitarianism actually what you would like to see, or is it only for others?

Civil marriage is not a "sacred union." It never was.

[Roadtoad]

So does that mean that if and when your own views become those of a minority you'll shut up and accept it? Is this kind of utilitarianism actually what you would like to see, or is it only for others?

Civil marriage is not a "sacred union." It never was.

I'm reading this as the same "compassionate" folks who put Prop 8 on the ballot are asking the courts to annull the marriages which have already taken place. Men and women who asked for little more than basic recognition of what they were already doing are now being thrown under the bus. Again.

(And, no, I don't think Jerry Brown is helping. Brown's an arrogant idiot, willing to play whichever side is politically expedient.)

Civil marriage as a "sacred union" is simply one more secular/religious amalgam, partly custom, partly utility. It's another form of social laziness, an indication that we really don't want to think about what's really happening between people, because then we'd have to confront our own prejudices, our own bigotry. We'd have to relate to people for who they really are.

Answer this basic question, and you might have a clearer picture of what's at stake: What is marriage?

To me, it is the voluntary union between individuals, and the choice to share a life together, including (but not limited to) procreation, unity of personal and real resources, and the right to compassionate decisions which relate to the care of one another. I believe it should be between two people, mainly because I can't imagine it working well with more than that, but as some have shown on this board, it can and does. Am I right or wrong? I don't know. Further discussion is required.

Arthwollipot has mentioned his relationship on other threads. It works for him, but at the same time, he conducts himself with a degree of honesty with his mates which most of us would have a hard time matching. I could imagine in a divorce-type situation, things might get very sticky. (Yes, folks, in all situations, you have the regrettable duty of considering what to do in an end game.) I have made choices based upon my abilities as a man, he's made choices based on his. Who's right? If you have any idea, let me know.

I do know this: What has worked for me hasn't worked for others.

For Rick Warren to decide in a near unilateral fashion what is and is not marriage is offensive to me. I have come to know too many gays and lesbians who have managed to build relationships that are marriages in all but name. Considering some of those relationships have endured a lot longer than many straights' relationships have, continuing to deny them the right to be married and have that marriage legally recognized is something of an affront, particularly given that I've been legally married for nearly 24 years.

On another point, given that the state has assumed this role of determining what is and is not a marriage, what is to keep the State of California from deciding, for example, that since Peggy can no longer get pregnant, we're no longer married? Pretty scary stuff, if you ask me.

What's your goal in state recognized marriage? Considering the examples we've had of legal marriages, such as Britney Spears and her embarassment in Vegas, you have to wonder. And, while I understand there's a logical fallacy in this, when you consider that a significant number of people who are supposedly aligned with Warren's viewpoint are themselves treating marriage with a remarkable degree of contempt, (50% of all Christian marriages fail, according to Focus on the Family), at some point, you have to ask whose side they're really on.

Name examples? Don't mind if I do.

Sandi Patti divorced her husband John Helvering after her affair with a back-up singer. Then she claimed he's "abused" her. In spite of her husband's stated desire to rebuild, she took off with the other man.

Mike Warnke, in addition to lying about his "satanic" past, has been married at least four times. One of his exes blamed "Satan" for the collapse of their marriage, even though, IIRC, she was wife number 3. Mike's track record left a hell of a lot to be desired.

I don't think I need to rehash the PTL mess. And, while yes, Jim Bakker has apologized and repented of his actions, how many people have followed his lead?

Richard Roberts divorced his wife, Patti, (an incredible singer, BTW), and remarried, even though his dad, Brother Oral, has made it clear that God frowns on divorce. (At least anyone's other than his boy's.)

This is just the stuff that gets headlines. If you've spent any time in the Church, trust me, you get to see a whole lot worse.

Sorry. If you want a marriage, you owe it to yourself and to society at large to treat it as something that has value. If not, shack up and shut up.

And one more thing: I understand a great deal of where Bob is coming from. Earlier this year, I lost my Uncle, Mel Ethington, to a heart attack. He and my Aunt Ginger had been married since the mid 1950's. Yes, they were both Mormons.

As a bus driver for Greyhound, he had plenty of opportunities to cheat, and he had plenty of chances to leave my aunt when things got ugly, (and in any marriage, they do.) When you consider they stayed together for over 50 years, that's a devotion to something well beyond yourself. I don't know how much of that is related to their faith, but I do know that for the greater part of it, it had to do with their love for one another. Love can hit in an instant. Passion takes years.

[Skeptic Guy]

I don't suppose they asked the tough follow-up questions about marriages throughout that 5000-year stretch that were between a man and many women, in which the women were nothing more than property passed from father to groom.

I think at the very least, Warren should be a little more consistent. For five-thousand years, man defined "transportation" as walking or riding an ass. Why pick and choose which definitions are worthy of changing with the times?

No, the interview was conducted by Ann Curry, whose interview-fu is not great. I thought of the polygamy and property thing and actually yelled at the TV to ask that question, but to no avail. I was thinking that we also thought the world was created in seven days, disease was caused by bad spirits, the global flood, all kinds of nonsense.

I'm disappointed that Obama is having him at his inauguration.

[Roadtoad]

No, the interview was conducted by Ann Curry, whose interview-fu is not great. I thought of the polygamy and property thing and actually yelled at the TV to ask that question, but to no avail. I was thinking that we also thought the world was created in seven days, disease was caused by bad spirits, the global flood, all kinds of nonsense.

I'm disappointed that Obama is having him at his inauguration.

Disappointed, but not surprised. The goal is look inclusive. This was an ugly presidential campaign, and there's some intent here to try and make things look a bit more "compassionate." :duck:

Curry isn't a very good interviewer, but then, she's working in television. That's pretty much set aside for the 20 second sound bite. If you want a detailed or intelligent answer in an interview, you watch PBS. Of course, they aren't likely to interview Rick Warren, but they seem to be more interested in actual News rather than "infortainment."

A former co-worker once worked in a radio station, where the news director handed out cartridges with only 7 seconds of tape. (Damn, I'm dating myself!) There was a three actuality minimum, but nothing more than seven seconds, lest the listeners get bored. You wouldn't get much information, but you wouldn't be bored!

[Toke]

Things do change and big changes usually take time. Redefining marriage is a pretty big thing for most folk. I personally think that the government should get out of the marriage business and only involve itself in civil unions (regardless of sex/gender) and let churches do a “marriage” thing if they want. That would allow churches that support gay marriage (or don’t have any noted objection) to do as they please.
You are close.

I prefer that goverment ran the marriage business with all the legal implications.
Recogniced churches could be allowed to fill out the paperwork with whatever ceremony they fancy.
If a couple, strait or gay, cannot find a church that will marry them or don´t care for religion they could go to city hall and get married without ceremony.

In short I don´t like the term civil union for some marriages and not others.

[ferd burfle]

Richard Roberts divorced his wife, Patti, (an incredible singer, BTW), and remarried, even though his dad, Brother Oral, has made it clear that God frowns on divorce.

And all this time I thought his son's name was Anal :D

Ferd

Oh yeah, and everything Toad said

[bobcarp]

Why don’t we just have a Witchdoctor do a little dance with a string of chicken bones for the invocation and him put some voodoo curse on our enemies?

[Ladewig]

I don't suppose they asked the tough follow-up questions about marriages throughout that 5000-year stretch that were between a man and many women, in which the women were nothing more than property passed from father to groom.

Or that for 4960 of the past 5000 years, marriage was legally defined as a man and woman of the same race.

[Roadtoad]

Why don’t we just have a Witchdoctor do a little dance with a string of chicken bones for the invocation and him put some voodoo curse on our enemies?

I tried that. The neighbors bitched about the noise.

[Silentknight]

As I said in the other thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=131180) on this topic, I was initially upset with Obama's choice, but I have to admit that this is a clever political chess move. He's been stuck in the unenviable position of having to piece together a divided country into some semblance of a union. As a politician, he's going to have a lot of hands to kiss and babies to shake, and sometimes those babies are quite ugly.

As much as I'd like to see Obama tell those on the other side of the political spectrum to screw off, that's exactly what Bush did over the past 8 years, and look where that got us.

[Wally]

And all this time I thought his son's name was Anal :D

Ferd



That's his brother, the faith healing proctologist .:eek:

[Skeptic Guy]

Or that for 4960 of the past 5000 years, marriage was legally defined as a man and woman of the same race.

Or for much of human history before the 5,000 years people were just hooking up with people in whatever fashion they thought appropriate.

The fact that he is only thinking back 5,000 years says so much about his fundamental beliefs.

[Toke]

I am sure that stoneagers had their own religions and marrige form and ceremonies.
But you are right that they did not live on young earth.

[Skeptic]

(Scratches head)

Am I the only one who sees nothing wrong at all in what Warren said here? Or was roadtoad saracstic? I think he's (er... Warren, not Roadtoad) a douche, frankly, but when he's right, he's right.

He explicitly states here that he does not think this invitation means Obama agrees with his views, but only that they both want to show that these differences don't mean they're enemies. Which is exactly Obama's point in inviting him.

Well then? What's the problem?

Now, when even Warren himself openly says he does not think the invitation means (or was intended to mean) that Obama agrees with him, I think we can stop all the nonsense about this invitation being "signal" of a an upcoming gay-bashing theocracy, or a "betrayal" of anybody by Obama.

[Skeptic Guy]

I would have been happier if he had selected a gay minister. I know a couple.

[Roadtoad]

I am sure that stoneagers had their own religions and marrige form and ceremonies.
But you are right that they did not live on young earth.

Of course not. They lived in Cleveland.

[cj.23]

NO NO NO dudes
Warren is the perfect preacher man to have on the podium, no neo-con would dare car bomb Obama with him up there.


I would not bet on it. I don't think many neo-cons would care much about Warren - I did not think neo-cons tended to Evangelical Christianity - but a look at the "usual suspects" of the Religious Right shows me that Warren is one of the most despised figures out there. They may be more likely to target him than Obama.

cj x

[Corsair 115]

Redefining marriage is a pretty big thing for most folk. I personally think that the government should get out of the marriage business and only involve itself in civil unions (regardless of sex/gender) and let churches do a “marriage” thing if they want. That would allow churches that support gay marriage (or don’t have any noted objection) to do as they please.


The problem I see in the above is that it presumes that religions have sole claim and ownership of the word "marriage."

I don't think they do. The word has long since passed into common usage and taken on broader meaning.

[cj.23]

The problem I see in the above is that it presumes that religions have sole claim and ownership of the word "marriage."

I don't think they do. The word has long since passed into common usage and taken on broader meaning.

Was it actually ever religious in the first place? Thats a serious historical point, from a Christian. Was marriage a religious or a civil contract in the Ancient World? Why did marriage become a sacrament? As far as I can see the ancient Jewish world was polygamist -- and I have often speculated Christianity adopts monogamy from the fashions of Rome, where it was all the rage in the upper classes? I think the making it a sacrament is much later, and based on nothing more than Jesus attending the wedding at Cana? I'm happy to be corrected here.

cj x

[bokonon]

I would have been happier if he had selected a gay minister. I know a couple.
He's planning to tap a gay Mayan priest for the 2013 inauguration.

[Roadtoad]

He's planning to tap a gay Mayan priest for the 2013 inauguration.

Nope. Too conservative.

Now, if he were a gay Mayan polygamous priest, that might work.

[Skeptic Guy]

He's planning to tap a gay Mayan priest for the 2013 inauguration.

:boggled: Does Michele Obama know about that?

[KingMerv00]

Those who wish to put forth a vulgar mockery of the sacred union of marriage, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as equivalent to the real thing, need to accept that they are still in the minority; and, for the time being, are still on the losing side of this battle.

For the squillionth time, a simple majority vote DOES NOT OVERRULE THE CONSTITUTION. I don't care what the majority thinks until the put forth an constitutional amendment.

No response BB?

[Skeptic]

For the squillionth time, a simple majority vote DOES NOT OVERRULE THE CONSTITUTION. I don't care what the majority thinks until the put forth an constitiional amendment.

But there's obviously noting in either the federal or any state constitution that includes the right for gays to marry. The proposed anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments are simply on the "better safe than sorry" principle -- as a guard against the courts magically "discovering" the right to gay marriage there, no matter what the people want.

When gays called for civil unions, those who saw this as a first step towards gay marriage were derided as anti-gay homophobes and paranoids. It turns out that this was indeed the plan all along, and obviously so -- in short, just what the "paranoid homophobes" warned against.

Today, the "paranoid homophobic" opponents of gay marriage claim that, once gay marriage passes, the next step would be to criminalize any criticism of it as "hate speech". (It is already considered bad social form to point out that gay "marriage" is in any way, shape, or form not absolutely the same as regular marriage). They add the step after that, obviously, is for polygamists and various other groups to demand similar recognition, and ask the courts to discover a "right" of one man to marry four wives, of for two men to marry seven women where each has all the others as sexual partners, etc.

I think that -- once again -- the "homophobes" are probably correct in their fears, and obviously so, since the bad fate of the pro-gay-marriage folks about their real goals has been very clearly demonstrated by their past behavior. So it is a good thing that the proposed amendments to ban gay marriage clearly define marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman, to stop the same thing happening against with polygamy, incest (between adults), etc.

[cj.23]

OK, quick thought exercise - if Abraham Lincoln was alive today, would it be appropriate for Obama to invite him?

cj x

[Silentknight]

I think that -- once again -- the "homophobes" are probably correct in their fears, and obviously so, since the bad fate of the pro-gay-marriage folks about their real goals has been very clearly demonstrated by their past behavior. So it is a good thing that the proposed amendments to ban gay marriage clearly define marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman, to stop the same thing happening against with polygamy, incest (between adults), etc.
Except that homosexual attraction has nothing to do with polygamy. Polygamy already exists in Fundamentalist Mormon colonies, which are not only tax-exempt but also living off of welfare. This is a form of straight marriage that religious fundamentalist groups, not gays, engage in and are pushing for legitimization. Therefore it makes no sense that gay marriage, between one partner and another, would open the door to legalized polygamy any more than straight marriage would. There's no causal relation between the two.

The reason the push for civil unions has lead to the push for gay marriage is because they wanted legalized marriage in the first place, but had to settle for civil unions instead. The reason this debate is still going on now is because there are certain rights that marriage confers that civil unions do not, including the right to federal benefits, recognition of the union across state lines, the tax-free transfer of assets and wealth, health insurance benefits, social security survivor benefits, hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights.

If the majority of the people one day decided that they wanted to legalize gay marriage, would you have a problem with it?

[Roadtoad]

Does it matter whether or not the majority wants gay marriage?

The greater question remains: Is marriage a right? To my way of thinking, it is. As long as the responsibilities which accompany marriage are maintained, I don't see why this is even an issue for anyone. Considering the gays and lesbians I know who are in long term relationships fulfill all the requirements with the exception of a ring and certificate, (and many go with the ring, anyway), how can you honestly say "no" to this? (And, no, I don't think Skeptic is being a "homophobe." He's bringing out some genuine concerns.)

Consider this another way: A straight couple, oddly enough, has more rights than a gay or lesbian couple when the straight couple simply cohabitates. I mean, WTF!?! In some states, IIRC, if you live together longer than five years, you're considered "married." (Common Law Marriage.) That was what my friend Will had, and in the end, he actually received a certain amount of survivor benefits when his wife died. (Yes, I know they weren't actually "married.")

How do you justify this?

[bokonon]

OK, quick thought exercise - if Abraham Lincoln was alive today, would it be appropriate for Obama to invite him?

cj x
Oh, hell no. Obama is all about change and the optimism of youth; a 200-year-old ante-bellum relic would put a damper on the celebration.

[Toke]

I would like to see the look on Abraham Lincoln´s face when he saw a black precident.:D

[Roadtoad]

I would like to see the look on Abraham Lincoln´s face when he saw a black precident.:D

That noise you're hearing in Springfield, IL isn't Abe turning over in his grave.

He's applauding.

[Tiktaalik]

IMHO, a truly inspired choice, if an invocation has to be made at all, would have been for Obama to ask William Sinkford, the African American head of the Unitarian Universalists of America.

1) Sinkford is a black leader of a multi-racial liberal religion
2) The UUs have a history of supporting civil rights (James Reeb)
3) The UUs have a history of supporting gay rights ("welcoming" congegations)

Seems like that would have covered a bunch of bases at once. But it would have alienated "Dr." Laura, who hates UUs...

[Bob Blaylock]

For the squillionth time, a simple majority vote DOES NOT OVERRULE THE CONSTITUTION. I don't care what the majority thinks until the put forth an constitutional amendment.

Seems like a big non-issue to me. Obama himself has stated that he is opposed to “gay marriage”; and in recent elections, so have the majority of voters in at least three different states. As a professed Christian, Mr. Warren would have some serious explaining to do if he supported legitimizing an abomination that is so solidly condemned in the Bible.

Those who wish to put forth a vulgar mockery of the sacred union of marriage, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as equivalent to the real thing, need to accept that they are still in the minority; and, for the time being, are still on the losing side of this battle.

They are free to condemn Obama for choosing to give the invocation at his inauguration, a man who opposes “gay marriage”; but they might just as well condemn Obama for selecting someone who most likely supports capitalism over socialism; or for holding just about any other view that happens to be held by most Americans.

No response BB?


I don't know what response you are looking for. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is is what marriage has always been, and that is what marriage will always be, and that is how all civilizations have always recognized it. It is the basis on which families are built; and families, in turn, are the basis on which stable societies are built. You seem to be trying to argue that in defending proper definition of marriage, I am somehow going against the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. The idea that it needed to address this isn't anything that would ever have occurred to the great men who wrote it; who would never have imagined the attacks and perversions that would be directed in our day at marriage and family and indeed the very foundation of our civilization. If they had thought that the Constitution needed to include a definition of marriage, then they surely would have included a definition that is entirely consistent with the position that I am taking; and not with that of those who wish to force the rest of us to accept a sick caricature of marriage as being in any way comparable to the genuine form thereof.

“Evil that used to be localized and covered like a boil is now legalized and paraded like a banner.” — Dallin H. Oaks

[bruto]

I don't know what response you are looking for. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is is what marriage has always been, and that is what marriage will always be, and that is how all civilizations have always recognized it. It is the basis on which families are built; and families, in turn, are the basis on which stable societies are built. You seem to be trying to argue that in defending proper definition of marriage, I am somehow going against the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. The idea that it needed to address this isn't anything that would ever have occurred to the great men who wrote it; who would never have imagined the attacks and perversions that would be directed in our day at marriage and family and indeed the very foundation of our civilization. If they had thought that the Constitution needed to include a definition of marriage, then they surely would have included a definition that is entirely consistent with the position that I am taking; and not with that of those who wish to force the rest of us to accept a sick caricature of marriage as being in any way comparable to the genuine form thereof.
“Evil that used to be localized and covered like a boil is now legalized and paraded like a banner.” — Dallin H. OaksYou are, of course, entitled to your viewpoint, but I would like to point out that in the landmark Vermont Supreme Court decision that gave rise to the first civil union law, one of the most prominent arguments in favor of a change was the need to recognize gay and lesbian couples as the foundation of families, which they have increasingly become. You can disparage this if you please, and be disgusted by it if you are so inclined, but the principal argument that carried the case in this instance was the recognition and protection of families.

I can still understand homophobia, and the reluctance of persons who are morally opposed to homosexuality itself to accept gay unions of any type, but I simply cannot understand what the "defense of marriage" is actually trying to defend against! One's own marriage is whatever one defines it to be. The rest is just a package of civil rights and obligations, and why granting this should depend on anyone's prejudices I cannot fathom, even if the prejudices are well founded.

[Toke]

That noise you're hearing in Springfield, IL isn't Abe turning over in his grave.

He's applauding.

Yes, after he gets over the initial schock/surprise.
I would like to see him* before that.

*Or any other from a hundred or more years back.

[Loon]

But there's obviously noting in either the federal or any state constitution that includes the right for gays to marry. The proposed anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendments are simply on the "better safe than sorry" principle -- as a guard against the courts magically "discovering" the right to gay marriage there, no matter what the people want.

Right. Just like the courts "discovered" the right of black people to not have to use different bathrooms.

When gays called for civil unions, those who saw this as a first step towards gay marriage were derided as anti-gay homophobes and paranoids. It turns out that this was indeed the plan all along, and obviously so -- in short, just what the "paranoid homophobes" warned against.

The opponents of civil unions were not derided because they foresaw legal marriage for gay people. (Gay advocates saw that, too.) They were (and are) derided for having an issue with people marrying the (consenting...) partner of their choice.

(It is already considered bad social form to point out that gay "marriage" is in any way, shape, or form not absolutely the same as regular marriage).

In much the same way that it is considered bad form to point out that the sun is purple and god created the world last week. Marriage is in no way what it was 5000 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 300 years ago. What's different about marriage for two people of the same sex than about marriage of two people of the opposite sex, other than that I'm even less likely to participate in the former than the latter?


They add the step after that, obviously, is for polygamists and various other groups to demand similar recognition, and ask the courts to discover a "right" of one man to marry four wives, of for two men to marry seven women where each has all the others as sexual partners, etc.

Well, for one, nobody is pushing for polygamist rights. For two, who cares? If people want to get themselves into something that complicated, let them. All that the state is doing in saying "you can marry" is saying "you can now have hospital visitation rights and some tax advantages." Who does that hurt?

I think that -- once again -- the "homophobes" are probably correct in their fears, and obviously so, since the bad fate of the pro-gay-marriage folks about their real goals has been very clearly demonstrated by their past behavior.

Can you rephrase this? I don't understand what you mean by "bad fate"


So it is a good thing that the proposed amendments to ban gay marriage clearly define marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman, to stop the same thing happening against with polygamy, incest (between adults), etc.

I'd say no it's not good, but your conclusion obviously depends on the first part of this paragraph which isn't particularly clear. So I'll just assert that the passage of marriage bans is a bad thing and we can hash out the rest later.

[Loon]

Also, regarding the OP, I don't think Rick Warren should stay home. I don't think he should have been invited (though I suspect it was just very canny politics on Obama's part). But since he's been invited, he'd be a fool to say no and give up a chance to spread his message, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I wouldn't turn down that opportunity to spread my message (whatever that message may be) to such an audience just because a lot of people disagreed with me.

[Paulhoff]

Marriage is in no way what it was 5000 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 300 years ago.
That is a very good point, and one that many people today don't understand. Marriage has always been changing, it has not always been the same as it is today.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Damien Evans]

I don't know what response you are looking for. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is is what marriage has always been, and that is what marriage will always be, and that is how all civilizations have always recognized it. It is the basis on which families are built; and families, in turn, are the basis on which stable societies are built. You seem to be trying to argue that in defending proper definition of marriage, I am somehow going against the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. The idea that it needed to address this isn't anything that would ever have occurred to the great men who wrote it; who would never have imagined the attacks and perversions that would be directed in our day at marriage and family and indeed the very foundation of our civilization. If they had thought that the Constitution needed to include a definition of marriage, then they surely would have included a definition that is entirely consistent with the position that I am taking; and not with that of those who wish to force the rest of us to accept a sick caricature of marriage as being in any way comparable to the genuine form thereof.

“Evil that used to be localized and covered like a boil is now legalized and paraded like a banner.” — Dallin H. Oaks

:dl:

Dude, pass the pipe, you're clearly done.

[bruto]

Also, regarding the OP, I don't think Rick Warren should stay home. I don't think he should have been invited (though I suspect it was just very canny politics on Obama's part). But since he's been invited, he'd be a fool to say no and give up a chance to spread his message, regardless of whether I agree with it or not. I wouldn't turn down that opportunity to spread my message (whatever that message may be) to such an audience just because a lot of people disagreed with me.I agree, now that he's been invited, we can always hope that he will use the opportunity not only to spread his message, but to say either directly or by implication that for the greater good of the nation it is possible for people who disagree even on some core issues to work together rather than continuing the stupidity of the so-called "culture war." Well, we can hope, anyway.

[Roadtoad]

I agree, now that he's been invited, we can always hope that he will use the opportunity not only to spread his message, but to say either directly or by implication that for the greater good of the nation it is possible for people who disagree even on some core issues to work together rather than continuing the stupidity of the so-called "culture war." Well, we can hope, anyway.

*Sigh*

Except I know this crowd too well. That's not going to happen.

God, I need a stiff drink.

[bruto]

*Sigh*

Except I know this crowd too well. That's not going to happen.

God, I need a stiff drink.Yeah. But you never know....yeah well, skoal or prosit or whatever.

[Ladewig]

I don't know what response you are looking for. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That is is what marriage has always been, and that is what marriage will always be, and that is how all civilizations have always recognized it. It is the basis on which families are built; and families, in turn, are the basis on which stable societies are built.

Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, and Belgium seem to be pretty stable societies and they have all legalized gay marriage.

In the early 20th century folks in many countries around the world argued that interracial marriage went against "what marriage has always been" and they believed that legalizing it would overturn "the basis on which stable societies are built." Those people were wrong.

[cj.23]

. Marriage is in no way what it was 5000 years ago, or 2000 years ago, or 300 years ago.

yep - hence my comment in
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=4293074#post4293074
on the actual history of marriage and the Church. :)

cj x

[KingMerv00]

But there's obviously noting in either the federal or any state constitution that includes the right for gays to marry.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. The idea that it needed to address this isn't anything that would ever have occurred to the great men who wrote it; who would never have imagined the attacks and perversions that would be directed in our day at marriage and family and indeed the very foundation of our civilization. If they had thought that the Constitution needed to include a definition of marriage, then they surely would have included a definition that is entirely consistent with the position that I am taking; and not with that of those who wish to force the rest of us to accept a sick caricature of marriage as being in any way comparable to the genuine form thereof.

The Supreme Court declared marriage to be a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia.

So it is a good thing that the proposed amendments to ban gay marriage clearly define marriage as between ONE man and ONE woman, to stop the same thing happening against with polygamy, incest (between adults), etc.

I don't know what response you are looking for. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

Even if marriage is not a right, you may not define it as only between opposite genders. To do so is to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Explain something to me. If a state chooses to ignore a legal contract based solely on the genders of the participants, how is that NOT sex discrimination?

[Beanbag]

I've always held that one of the most important things is to listen to people with differing viewpoints and beliefs. You don't have to agree with them, but you shouldn't just dismiss them out of hand and ignore them. That leads to people thinking the only way they can get their opinions noticed is to pack a rental truck with fuel oil and fertilizer, and park it in front of a federal building. People blew off the white supremacists and neo-nazis, marginalized them, and look what happened.

For whatever other faults Bill Clinton had, he was known as a person who listened well. As one person put it, when you were talking with him, he gave the impression that your problem was important to him, and that he was considering it carefully. Not agreeing with it, mind you, but that he was paying attention.

In a way, I think that's the deciding difference between a successful politician and a populist preacher: the good politician can at least appear to consider other options, while the bible-beater can't, since his playbook's already been written, and he can't deviate from it.

I think it's a very diplomatic move to have Warren speak. It will be interesting to see if he's smart enough to realize the opportunity he's been given and use it carefully, or whizz it away to make some ridiculous statements from the bully pulpit.

Just my opinion.

Beanbag

[Bob Blaylock]

Even if marriage is not a right, you may not define it as only between opposite genders. To do so is to violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.


Not any more so than defining marriage to require both participants to be the same species, which would deny “equal rights” to someone who wants to marry a horse, or a redwood tree, or a microscope.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Not any more so than defining marriage to require both participants to be the same species, which would deny “equal rights” to someone who wants to marry a horse, or a redwood tree, or a microscope.

Ummm... Non-sentient animals, plants, and inanimate objects have no ability to consent. Gays and lesbians, on the other hand, do.

Just say it Bobby... You hate homosexuals and wish to make their existance as unpleasant as possible. Spare us all the "defense of marriage" rhetoric, because we know it's pure BS that only poorly camouflages your mindless hate.

I'd rather deal with an honest bigot than a lying one.

[thatguywhojuggles]

My question is why do we need a prayer at this thing? Is it a religious ceremony? What god are we praying to?

[KingMerv00]

Not any more so than defining marriage to require both participants to be the same species, which would deny “equal rights” to someone who wants to marry a horse, or a redwood tree, or a microscope.

:rolleyes:2

You are being silly to the point of accidental parody.

1)Contract law requires consent. (Microscopes cannot give consent.)
2)The 14th Amendment only applies to certain "protected classes". (Microscopes are not in a protected class.)

I notice you didn't respond to this bit:

If a state chooses to ignore a legal contract based solely on the genders of the participants, how is that NOT sex discrimination?

Try again without the histrionics.

[ShowerComic]

As a professed Christian, Mr. Warren would have some serious explaining to do if he supported legitimizing an abomination that is so solidly condemned in the Bible.

What's that now? Christmas Trees, Haircuts? Sending rapists to jail, rather than marrying them off to their victims? Eating Pork? Worshipping Idols? (i.e. figurines of the Virgin Mary, or Monuments of the 10 Commandments)

[Achán hiNidráne]

My question is why do we need a prayer at this thing?

The simple answer: Despite our technical magnificence, most Americans still believe in primitive magic of one sort or another, the most popular variety is called "Christianity." They don't want our country to be cursed with any bad juju by angering the Volcano God... I mean, Yahweh.

It's the reason why you hear morons on the Christian Right, from Pat Robertson and the thankfully late Jerry Fawell all the way down to rank an file believers like our very own DOC, claim that any trace of secular progress leads to their deity's anger. Enforce the 1st Amendment by taking state-sponsored prayer out of the schools, God shows his displeasure by sending a depressed student with daddy's shotgun to mow down the jocks and popular girls who picked on him during homeroom. Liberate women from religion-approved drudgery and/or get society to treat homosexuals as anything other than pirah, God lowers his divine deflector screens and lets a competing group of religious fanatics fly planes into our major landmarks.

Yes, invocations are silly and supersticious, but so are a majority of the American people. No president-elect, no matter how "liberal," has the guts, spine, or balls to risk their re-election chances by doing the reasonable thing and tell Rick Warren and other's of his dubious profession to peddle his nonsense elsewhere.

Sad, really.

[Skeptic]

Except that homosexual attraction has nothing to do with polygamy.

Who said it did? But if gay "marriage" becomes recognized, there is no way to not have polygamy as well. If two men can marry, why not one man and four women? If the sex of the participants is not relevant, neither is their number. And you don't want to DISCRIMINATE against the poor, opressed polygamists who ONLY WANT THE SAME RIGHTS as monogamists, do you?

By the way, a word about the idiotic "interracial marriage was illegal for a long time in the USA, too". True. And so was marriage that involves adults marrying children, polygamy, incest, and goats. The mere fact that SOME restrictions on marriage were unfair is no reason at all to think that ALL are. The fact that interracial marriage was illegal and now is legal is no evidence at all either for, or against, gay marriage. It's simply irrelevant.

[KingMerv00]

Who said it did? But if gay "marriage" becomes recognized, there is no way to not have polygamy as well. If two men can marry, why not one man and four women? If the sex of the participants is not relevant, neither is their number. And you don't want to DISCRIMINATE against the poor, opressed polygamists who ONLY WANT THE SAME RIGHTS as monogamists, do you?

Same sex marriage does not deal with the same legal issues as polygamy. Equal protection under the law is more difficult achieve when it comes to polygamy. For example, would health insurance companies have to give benefits to all spouses or just one? If someone showed me that a married polygamist received the same benefits as a married couple, I'd be OK with it.

[Roadtoad]

There is also the question in Polygamy regarding what's best.

Considering this in the light of "all things being equal," yes, Polygamy probably would work out.

Unfortunately, all things are not equal, as we saw with the Texas polygamy case involving the (forgive me for saying this) "Mormon" sepratist sect. (Personally, given the abuse that was emerging, I question how they could be called "Mormon," but that's me...) There's enough history of spousal and child abuse in polygamy, I'd be hard pressed to go along with that. I'm not sure that would ever fly.

I could be wrong, so if you have the evidence, I'm interested.

[Ladewig]

By the way, a word about the idiotic "interracial marriage was illegal for a long time in the USA, too". True. And so was marriage that involves adults marrying children, polygamy, incest, and goats. The mere fact that SOME restrictions on marriage were unfair is no reason at all to think that ALL are. The fact that interracial marriage was illegal and now is legal is no evidence at all either for, or against, gay marriage. It's simply irrelevant.

I brought the issue up in post #57 to point out that the arguments against gay marriage today are often a word-for-word repetition of the arguments against interracial marriage in the past century. All that "never in the history of civilzation" crap, "the Bible condemns it" twaddle, and "society needs stability" nonsense were wrong then and are wrong today.

As for mentioning children and goats, all I can say is WTF? Do we really need to point out that children by their nature (and by legal fiat) are constitutionally unable to give consent? As for sibling incestuous marriages, they harm an innocent people: the couple's children.

If two consenting adults want to engage in an activity that harms no one else, I say let them.

[Achán hiNidráne]

If two consenting adults want to engage in an activity that harms no one else, I say let them.

Of course, homophobes like Bob and Skeptic have an exaggerated sense of what constitutes "harm" and are more than willing impose it on said consenting adults regardless of harm (e.g. personal, financial, legal) it inflicts on same-sex couples.

I ask again to Bob and now Skeptic: Please just admit that you hate homosexuals. We don't care why. However, you aren't fooling anyone with the family-values fascist talking point about "protecting marriage" from the evil gays and sexual practices that somehow revolt you.

We won't stand for your lies anymore.

[KingMerv00]

Of course, homophobes like Bob and Skeptic have an exaggerated sense of what constitutes "harm" and are more than willing impose it on said consenting adults regardless of harm (e.g. personal, financial, legal) it inflicts on same-sex couples.

I ask again to Bob and now Skeptic: Please just admit that you hate homosexuals. We don't care why. However, you aren't fooling anyone with the family-values fascist talking point about "protecting marriage" from the evil gays and sexual practices that somehow revolt you.

We won't stand for your lies anymore.

I don't think they hate homosexuals. They probably view them in the same light as alcoholics...people with a problem.

[Roadtoad]

Of course, homophobes like Bob and Skeptic have an exaggerated sense of what constitutes "harm" and are more than willing impose it on said consenting adults regardless of harm (e.g. personal, financial, legal) it inflicts on same-sex couples.

I ask again to Bob and now Skeptic: Please just admit that you hate homosexuals. We don't care why. However, you aren't fooling anyone with the family-values fascist talking point about "protecting marriage" from the evil gays and sexual practices that somehow revolt you.

We won't stand for your lies anymore.

On what basis do you say they hate homosexuals? That's one very strong word, and ought to be used with a degree of caution.

What they've said is they disapprove of gay marriage. (FTR: my approval is irrelevant.) If there's anything I'm seeing here, it's a lack of evidence on their part to oppose it.

[Silentknight]

Who said it did? But if gay "marriage" becomes recognized, there is no way to not have polygamy as well. If two men can marry, why not one man and four women? If the sex of the participants is not relevant, neither is their number. And you don't want to DISCRIMINATE against the poor, opressed polygamists who ONLY WANT THE SAME RIGHTS as monogamists, do you?
Show me the slightest shred of evidence that there's a causal relationship between legalizing same-sex marriage and legalizing polygamy. I already explained that the connection between the push for civil unions and the push for gay marriage was directly related because they wanted marriage to begin with, but apparently you ignored it. Your own logic is actually an argument against straight marriage as well: If a man can marry one woman, why not allow him to marry several?

By the way, a word about the idiotic "interracial marriage was illegal for a long time in the USA, too". True. And so was marriage that involves adults marrying children, polygamy, incest, and goats. The mere fact that SOME restrictions on marriage were unfair is no reason at all to think that ALL are. The fact that interracial marriage was illegal and now is legal is no evidence at all either for, or against, gay marriage. It's simply irrelevant.
Wrong, there's a huge difference between marriage restrictions based on harmful consequences and marriage restrictions based on bigotry against a group of people. In order for your analogy to hold, you'd have to provide evidence that gay marriage between two consenting adults has the same harmful consequences. The fact that you find it "deviant" is only evidence of your prejudice, not proof that it's comparable to pedophilia, incest, or bestiality.

[Olowkow]

I have often wondered what would happen if two lesbians applied for a marriage license, and one was really very masculine looking. If the clerk or judge had doubts, will they order a physical exam? Or what if a man and a woman are applying but the man is very effeminate? Does the judge say "ok, drop 'em", before he can marry them? This is the reductio ad absurdum of the law.
I feel that when a person is comfortable publicly criticizing gays, that person is probably making a public statement about his own doubts concerning his sexuality.

That is, "Them bad", means "Me good".

[Olowkow]

it. Your own logic is actually an argument against straight marriage as well: If a man can marry one woman, why not allow him to marry several?



That is the biblical way! after all. Why not? Because marriage laws are determined by law, not by the church...thank goodness. I have yet to hear a reasonable argument against gay marriage. It just makes the arguer sound ridiculous.

[GreyICE]

I don't know what response you are looking for. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman.* That is is what marriage has always been**, and that is what marriage will always be***, and that is how all civilizations have always recognized it****. It is the basis on which families are built*****; and families, in turn, are the basis on which stable societies are built‡. You seem to be trying to argue that in defending proper definition of marriage, I am somehow going against the Constitution‡‡. The Constitution doesn't say anything about marriage. The idea that it needed to address this isn't anything that would ever have occurred to the great men who wrote it‡‡‡; who would never have imagined the attacks and perversions that would be directed in our day at marriage and family and indeed the very foundation of our civilization‡‡‡‡. If they had thought that the Constitution needed to include a definition of marriage, then they surely would have included a definition that is entirely consistent with the position that I am taking ‡‡‡‡‡; and not with that of those who wish to force the rest of us to accept a sick caricature of marriage as being in any way comparable to the genuine form thereof.

“Evil that used to be localized and covered like a boil is now legalized and paraded like a banner.” — Dallin H. Oaks‡‡‡‡‡‡

*As currently convenient to be defined.
** For some value of 'always'
*** All claims of psychic foreknowledge should be treated skeptically. Except mine, obv.
**** Strictly speaking, this is not true, but please believe it for the purposes of this strawman.
***** For some civilizations. Please consult a history book to determine if your ancestry contains these civilizations.
‡ This may be incorrect, but sociology had all those long words.
‡‡ Just because it is misrepresenting your argument, and then using this misrepresentation as a whipping boy does not make it a strawman.
‡‡‡ Obviously Thomas Jefferson was stupid, so the fact that he could not legally marry his lover never occurred to him. Goddamn I hope you don't know history.
‡‡‡‡ As a reincarnation of Benjamin Franklin, I know this.
‡‡‡‡‡ Unless it was consistent with the actual definition of marriage used at the creation of the constitution. Goddamn, I really hope you don't read this.
‡‡‡‡‡‡ This does not in any way constitute an endorsement of what that goddamn Mormon says. Damn polygamous perverts.


Truth in advertising hits Bob hard.

[bruto]

I have often wondered what would happen if two lesbians applied for a marriage license, and one was really very masculine looking. If the clerk or judge had doubts, will they order a physical exam? Or what if a man and a woman are applying but the man is very effeminate? Does the judge say "ok, drop 'em", before he can marry them? This is the reductio ad absurdum of the law.
I feel that when a person is comfortable publicly criticizing gays, that person is probably making a public statement about his own doubts concerning his sexuality.

That is, "Them bad", means "Me good".
An interesting problem but I think that the marriage would be recognized only as long as the charade is undetected, after which the participants would be in a heap of trouble for fraud, because usually you need some ID for a marriage license. There is little if any form of valid ID that does not go back to the birth certificate, which pretty much gives the game away unless you illegally alter it.

I am pretty sure a marriage entered into under fraudulent circumstances would be automatically annulled.

[KingMerv00]

Bump.

Still waiting for a serious response to my 14th amendment argument.

[Bob Blaylock]

Bump.

Still waiting for a serious response to my 14th amendment argument.


I don't know what you are looking for. Marriage is what it is. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. There is nothing anywhere in the Fourteenth Amendment nor anywhere else in Constitution that disagrees with this.

In fact, the Constitution doesn't address anything to do with defining marriage. At the time any of it was written, the idea that there was a need to define it wasn't something that anyone would have considered. If any of the authors of anything in the Constitution had thought there was a need to define marriage therein, then surely they would have defined it, as a union between a man and a woman.

You are on the side that wants to replace marriage with a vulgar mockery thereof, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as being in any way comparable to the real thing. Give it up. Your side has lost, and will continue to lose.

This thread started by condemning Obama for choosing, for a key role in his inauguration ceremony, a man who opposes this mockery. Obama himself also opposes this mockery, as do the majority of the American people.

[Paulhoff]

You are on the side that wants to replace marriage with a vulgar mockery thereof, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as being in any way comparable to the real thing. Give it up. Your side has lost, and will continue to lose.
Vulgar mockery, not to change and grow up has a people is a Vulgar mockery. We still should have kings, slavery and segregation too, just to name a few.

Paul

:) :) :)

[KingMerv00]

I don't know what you are looking for. Marriage is what it is. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. There is nothing anywhere in the Fourteenth Amendment nor anywhere else in Constitution that disagrees with this.

In fact, the Constitution doesn't address anything to do with defining marriage. At the time any of it was written, the idea that there was a need to define it wasn't something that anyone would have considered. If any of the authors of anything in the Constitution had thought there was a need to define marriage therein, then surely they would have defined it, as a union between a man and a woman.

And Bob takes step 2 into "I don't understand how constitutional law works"-land. Don't feel bad, it is a very common mistake.

First off, the equal protection clause applies to all laws. The 14th amendment does not need to mention marriage specifically.
Second, did you know that the 1st Amendment says that "Congress shall make NO law...abridging the freedom of speech"? Therefore, it must be legal to threaten people, hire a hit men, yell "fire" in a crowded theater!

All constitutional and statutory law is subject to interpretation by the courts. The interpretation is called "common law". For example, the courts have declared that a state CAN abridge your freedom of speech when it comes to threatening people, hiring hit men, and yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

If a court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional, it is. End of story. I know you don't like that, but that's how the law works. Yes, they can even change the legal definition of marriage.


You are on the side that wants to replace marriage with a vulgar mockery thereof, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as being in any way comparable to the real thing. Give it up. Your side has lost, and will continue to lose.

This thread started by condemning Obama for choosing, for a key role in his inauguration ceremony, a man who opposes this mockery. Obama himself also opposes this mockery, as do the majority of the American people.

Nothing important to address here.

[Toke]

You are on the side that wants to replace marriage with a vulgar mockery thereof, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as being in any way comparable to the real thing. Give it up. Your side has lost, and will continue to lose.

Strange outburst.
In my world you cannot argue by namecalling, you have to provide a reasonable explanation for your cause.
You could try explaining what harm it would cause if two men or two women got married.

[cj.23]

I know plenty of heterosexual couples who made of their marriage a vulgar mockery. Still if it's the word marriage which is the problem, how about "civil partnership", just give the same rights but a different name as in the UK? :)

cj x

[Skeptic Guy]

I don't know what you are looking for. Marriage is what it is. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. There is nothing anywhere in the Fourteenth Amendment nor anywhere else in Constitution that disagrees with this.

In fact, the Constitution doesn't address anything to do with defining marriage. At the time any of it was written, the idea that there was a need to define it wasn't something that anyone would have considered. If any of the authors of anything in the Constitution had thought there was a need to define marriage therein, then surely they would have defined it, as a union between a man and a woman.

You are on the side that wants to replace marriage with a vulgar mockery thereof, and to force the rest of us to accept this mockery as being in any way comparable to the real thing. Give it up. Your side has lost, and will continue to lose.

This thread started by condemning Obama for choosing, for a key role in his inauguration ceremony, a man who opposes this mockery. Obama himself also opposes this mockery, as do the majority of the American people.

How in the hell do you get "vulgar mockery" from "gay marriage". Please, can you help me understand that.

Some have posted that you (and Skeptic) may not hate homosexuals, but I haven't seen anything in your posts to dissuade me from that opinion. I'm sure that those who opposed interracial marriage were doing so in defense of marriage and not because of any hatred of black people. :rolleyes:

[KingMerv00]

How in the hell do you get "vulgar mockery" from "gay marriage". Please, can you help me understand that.

I agree. Homosexuals want what straight people have because they like it not because they want to debase it. At worst, gay marriage is a "loving mimicry".

[bruto]

I know plenty of heterosexual couples who made of their marriage a vulgar mockery. Still if it's the word marriage which is the problem, how about "civil partnership", just give the same rights but a different name as in the UK? :)

cj xThat's been part of the argument here in the states, but the problem is that the rights just aren't quite the same, as long as there is no reciprocity between states, or between states and the Federal government, and whatever you think about the importance of the issue, the status is not the same. There is an abiding social difference between being civilly partnered and being married. If that social difference is important to the opponents of gay marriage, they cannot in honesty pretend that it should be of no importance to those who seek it.

[GreyICE]

There is also the question in Polygamy regarding what's best.

Considering this in the light of "all things being equal," yes, Polygamy probably would work out.

Unfortunately, all things are not equal, as we saw with the Texas polygamy case involving the (forgive me for saying this) "Mormon" sepratist sect. (Personally, given the abuse that was emerging, I question how they could be called "Mormon," but that's me...) There's enough history of spousal and child abuse in polygamy, I'd be hard pressed to go along with that. I'm not sure that would ever fly.

I could be wrong, so if you have the evidence, I'm interested. One would venture that wife-beaters do not reflect an inability for a man and a woman to make marriage work, and that promiscuous homosexuals do not show some inability for homosexuals to engage in a stable long-term exclusive relationship.

Google "Polyamory" for a more balanced view than what you'll usually get (and yes, blatant cop out. Just not in the mood. If someone wants to throw **** at me, they can probably annoy me enough to dig up the actual research, but right now, I'm tired, and the subject is of no great personal import to me).

I don't think it is for everyone (for instance me - I have a distinct problem with being in such a relationship) but I don't think it deserves a lot of the hate heaped on it.

However, Polygamy as a repressive tool to smash on the rights of women has a long and varied tradition. Whether it will shed that in the future is questionable.

[KingMerv00]

However, Polygamy as a repressive tool to smash on the rights of women has a long and varied tradition.

That's been true of marriage as a whole.

[GreyICE]

That's been true of marriage as a whole. Probably true, massively out of context, so w/e. Marriage has a long tradition of being a lot more than that, especially in recent years, while Polygamy, to be frank, hasn't. Doesn't mean it can't, but currently its carrying more baggage.

[Bob Blaylock]

If a court declares Prop 8 unconstitutional, it is. End of story. I know you don't like that, but that's how the law works. Yes, they can even change the legal definition of marriage.


The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

A tomato *IS* a fruit. That's a simple, biological fact, and no court ruling can change it.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's a simple fact, established by a higher power than many people here on this forum will recognize, and no court can change it.

The courts could rule that gravity is unconstitutional, or otherwise null or invalid, but that won't stop you from falling if you jump off a cliff.

[Paulhoff]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's a simple fact, established by a higher power than many people here on this forum will recognize, and no court can change it.
Show me the proof of this higher power. Is that the same one that says nothing against slavery. Marriage is people-made, and can be changed by people.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Toke]

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.
And the EU have ruled that a carrot is a fruit, to accomodate the marmelade.

Higher power, my ***.

You don´t like gays, ok don´t marry one.
I don´t know if there is any statistics, but I would find it amusing if gay marriages had less divorces than straights. (quite likely as they would think more before getting into one.)

[cj.23]

I don´t know if there is any statistics, but I would find it amusing if gay marriages had less divorces than straights. (quite likely as they would think more before getting into one.)


No. there is a higher divorce rates in Norway and Sweden in same sex marriage - discussed in this paper
http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf
I would imagine it would apply in the uSA too, for same reasons

cj x

[bruto]

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

A tomato *IS* a fruit. That's a simple, biological fact, and no court ruling can change it.

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's a simple fact, established by a higher power than many people here on this forum will recognize, and no court can change it.

The courts could rule that gravity is unconstitutional, or otherwise null or invalid, but that won't stop you from falling if you jump off a cliff.The law of gravity is not a government construct, and thus government would be out of line in attempting to alter it. Despite its resemblance to, and overlap with, holy matrimony, civil marriage, along with the rights and obligations it confers, is a government construct. Your conception of what constitutes natural law in this respect is no more relevant to the question as other religiousr conceptions of natural (or divine) law that justify slavery, polygamy, subordination of women, the burning of witches, the forbidding of condoms, or the banning of buttons and zippers.

[Toke]

No. there is a higher divorce rates in Norway and Sweden in same sex marriage - discussed in this paper
http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf
I would imagine it would apply in the uSA too, for same reasons

cj x

Nice google-fu, thanks
The result is not what I throught, but we have to live with reality.
A shame with the joke through.

[KingMerv00]

More legal ignorance.

The Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato is not a fruit.

A tomato *IS* a fruit. That's a simple, biological fact, and no court ruling can change it.


There are legal definitions and scientific definitions. The Supreme Court changed the legal definition to fix problems with tariff laws. At no point did they overrule the scientific definition of "fruit". Nix v. Heddon:


Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.


The attempt to class tomatoes as fruit is not unlike a recent attempt to class beans as seeds, of which Mr. Justice Bradley, speaking for this court, said: ‘We do not see why they should be classified as seeds, any more than walnuts should be so classified. Both are seeds, in the language of botany or natural history, but not in commerce nor in common parlance. On the other hand in speaking generally of provisions, beans may well be included under the term ‘vegetables.’ As an article of food on our tables, whether baked or boiled, or forming the basis of soup, they are used as a vegetable, as well when ripe as when green. This is the principal use to which they are put. Beyond the common knowledge which we have on this subject, very little evidence is necessary, or can be produced.'

Bolding mine. Remember, this decision was in 1893 so the tomato factoid wasn't that widely spread.


Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's a simple fact, established by a higher power than many people here on this forum will recognize, and no court can change it.

There is the legal defintion of marriage and the religious definition of marriage. I don't think anyone in here is demanding that churches sanctify gay marriage. That would be a violation of the free exercise clause. They are asking the government to apply legal definitions equally as is required by the 14th amendment.

As for a higher power...I disagree.

[cj.23]

Nice google-fu, thanks
The result is not what I throught, but we have to live with reality.
A shame with the joke through.


I did notice while searching that US states where same sex marriage is legal are seeing a greater decline in number of divorces across the board than in States where same sex marriage is not legal. Not sure why if there is indeed a causal relationship though but it made me smile! :)

cj x

[Toke]

I did notice while searching that US states where same sex marriage is legal are seeing a greater decline in number of divorces across the board than in States where same sex marriage is not legal. Not sure why if there is indeed a causal relationship though but it made me smile! :)

cj x

They are just trying to keep up pretenses, don´t want to look bad in comparison:D

[cj.23]

hey Toke, you might be interested in this
http://www.slate.com/id/2100884/

cj x

[KingMerv00]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. That's a simple fact, established by a higher power...

Your "higher power" can't even get the age of the earth right. I'll take my definitions over his.

[Toke]

Yes, very interesting.
Looks like gay marrige have no influence of straight marrige at all.
Sound reasonable, it is after all different people.

I know of only two gay marriages.
One is two women, a school leader and a museum leader.
The other is a male widower who married my uncle to a (female) priest, he (the priest doing the wedding) got a part time 7 year daughter he inherited from his husband. Who had her with a lesbian couple.
Sound a bit complicated, but so is divorces.

[cj.23]

Does a straight man marrying a lesbian (with bisexual moments) with a gay vicar officiating count? Is so you know another. :)


And in deference to Toke's signature, and anyone else interested --
Ikke noget forkert hos homosexual giftermål. At var min jeg netop beskrevet , men lad være afgøre en!

And I know Toke - it's thirty odd years since I went home to Falster, so I tried to cheat and mangled the grammar. Your English is excellent. :)
cj x

[GreyICE]

No. there is a higher divorce rates in Norway and Sweden in same sex marriage - discussed in this paper
http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf
I would imagine it would apply in the uSA too, for same reasons

cj x

Haha! I knew it! Actual proof!

However, a model that controls for the effect of such covariates (Extended model) instead reveals that the excess risk of divorce in female partnerships actually is more than twice that of the risk in male unions.

Men get along better than women! Booyah!