What is the sanctity of marriage?

[Upchurch]

There is a lot of talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage, but what does that mean? sanctity (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=sanctity)

1 : holiness of life and character : GODLINESS
2 a : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : INVIOLABILITY b plural : sacred objects, obligations, or rights (Obviously, I'm going at this within the context of gay marriage) So, what makes marriage holy or sacred? Based on the general themes of most religions, one would think that it is things like love, devotion, and commitment that are the key factors in the holiness of marriage. Only the Catholic Church puts "producing offspring" as the primary reason for marriage.

Why, then, do we propose a constitutional amendment to prevent gay couples from promoting and sharing in the sanctity of marriage, but we do nothing to make divorce illegal, which is the antithesis to everything marriage stands for in any religion?

[Zero]

Actually, government cannot do anything in regards to 'sanctity', since that is a specifically religious matter. After all, most places no longer have an anti-blasphemy law on the books, which is what this 'protection of marriage' nonsense is really all about. The folks involved should call it what it really is, like 'defense of religious bigotry', or 'defense against religious blasphemy from people we want to oppress'.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Zero
Actually, government cannot do anything in regards to 'sanctity', since that is a specifically religious matter. After all, most places no longer have an anti-blasphemy law on the books, which is what this 'protection of marriage' nonsense is really all about. The folks involved should call it what it really is, like 'defense of religious bigotry', or 'defense against religious blasphemy from people we want to oppress'.

I suspect "sanctity" is also used in a colloquial sense to mean "inviolability" (dictionary.com includes this), so not strictly religious.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Matabiri


I suspect "sanctity" is also used in a colloquial sense to mean "inviolability" (dictionary.com includes this), so not strictly religious. You suspect wrong. This is a specifically religious issue,obviously. Find me 3 people (who have no strong and obvious religious affiliation) speaking out against gay marriage. Nearly every mention of it I have seen has brought up "God" or "Scripture". Let's not pretend that this is anything other than religious bigotry,ok? At least let's have that amount of integrity...

[Monketey Ghost]

This issue seriously annoys me. I may be hetero, but... if the Constitution is actually amended to exclude certain people from having certain rights, well...

I may just give up on the U.S. and leave the country entirely.

Gawd, I hate this.

[Zero]

Originally posted by No Answers
This issue seriously annoys me. I may be hetero, but... if the Constitution is actually amended to exclude certain people from having certain rights, well...

I may just give up on the U.S. and leave the country entirely.

Gawd, I hate this. Are you like me,in that you think this sort of thing is the exact opposite of what America is supposed to stand for?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Zero
You suspect wrong. This is a specifically religious issue,obviously. Find me 3 people (who have no strong and obvious religious affiliation) speaking out against gay marriage. Nearly every mention of it I have seen has brought up "God" or "Scripture". Let's not pretend that this is anything other than religious bigotry,ok? At least let's have that amount of integrity...

Sorry, I missed your point the first time I read your post. I was commenting solely on the meaning of the word...

Anyone who argues that gay people shouldn't get married because of the "sanctity of marriage" should be forced to live naked in a garden all year round, because that's the closest you can get to being in a state of grace, right?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Matabiri


Sorry, I missed your point the first time I read your post. I was commenting solely on the meaning of the word...

Anyone who argues that gay people shouldn't get married because of the "sanctity of marriage" should be forced to live naked in a garden all year round, because that's the closest you can get to being in a state of grace, right? Yeah, and eat nothing, because of that whole 'sanctity of life' thing.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Zero
You suspect wrong. This is a specifically religious issue,obviously. Find me 3 people (who have no strong and obvious religious affiliation) speaking out against gay marriage. Nearly every mention of it I have seen has brought up "God" or "Scripture". Let's not pretend that this is anything other than religious bigotry,ok? At least let's have that amount of integrity... Don't speak too soon. According to a 1997 poll cited at this pro-gay-marriage website (http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=polls1997), just over one-third of respondents of no religious affiliation indicated that they did not approve of gay marriage. That's a highly significant minority, doubtless representing millions of unreligious Americans, who would object to your characterization of their position as religious bigotry.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
That's a highly significant minority, doubtless representing millions of unreligious Americans, who would object to your characterization of their position as religious bigotry.

So... just ordinary homophobia then?

[Zero]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Don't speak too soon. According to a 1997 poll cited at this pro-gay-marriage website (http://www.marriageequality.org/facts.php?page=polls1997), just over one-third of respondents of no religious affiliation indicated that they did not approve of gay marriage. That's a highly significant minority, doubtless representing millions of unreligious Americans, who would object to your characterization of their position as religious bigotry. Is there a reason you chose the oldest poll on the website?

Irregardless, as expressed in the media, this is a religious issue, and even if many non-religious people don't support it, we can still honestly say that this is MOSTLY about religion, overall.

[PotatoStew]

What about marriage between multiple partners (polygamy, I think, right?)? Should that be allowed? Why or why not?

[Zero]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
What about marriage between multiple partners (polygamy, I think, right?)? Should that be allowed? Why or why not? Sure, why not? Two moms would be better than one, you save on living expenses, and the kids get to have extra attention.

Of course, that's not the issue.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Matabiri


So... just ordinary homophobia then?

Whatever that might actually be, but I'd say close to the truth.

Part of the implication of this discussion is that the tiny activist gay/lesbian community, aided by a liberal judiciary, have "convinced" the rest of the population that gay is a lifestyle as accepted as heterosexuality. A moral rather than legal question for many people, whether based on religion or just on the "phew" factor, and how people see acceptable presentations of lifestyle choices to their younger generation.

Then the real problem arises when society tries to balance longer term societal viability vs the freedom for everyone to do as feels good today. By definition a gay/lesbian society will disappear in one generation (yes, I'm ignoring modern technology); what societal benefit accrues to that lifestyle? Gay is a genetic deadend (if truly genetic)

The next question is that is the individual reponsible for all personal choices and acts, or are some choices and acts more beneficial to society at large? Opponents of gay marriage are not discussing individual morals, rather what activities could and should be proscribed as less desirable.

If bestiality were declared "legal" tomorrow, what percentage of the population would begin to delve into that "lifestyle" over the next few years? Or, incest between adults? Or, etc.

just my 2cts ....

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Zero
Is there a reason you chose the oldest poll on the website?Yes. It was one of only two polls on the site, as far as I could tell, that reported data on religious affiliation. The other one was a 1998 poll regarding a specific legislative measure on same-sex partnerships in Michigan which, incidentally, reflected roughly the same one-third/two-thirds split in opinion among the nonreligious as the 1997 California poll did .
Originally posted by Zero
Irregardless, as expressed in the media, this is a religious issue, and even if many non-religious people don't support it, we can still honestly say that this is MOSTLY about religion, overall. I'm not quite sure what it means to say that this is a religious issue as expressed in the media. As is so often the case, it may say more about the media than about the issue, frankly. But at any rate, the poll data suggest the existence of important nonreligious factors that inform the opinions of opponents of gay marriage. In fact, addressing those factors may prove to be more crucial to the passage of gay marriage laws than the religious questions, because they are factors that may well be common to both the religious and nonreligious adherents of the anti-gay-marriage view. Moreover, the battle over gay marriage will ultimately have to be fought on nonreligious ground before lawmakers and judges, where overly reductive allegations of religious bigotry are likely to fall, quite justifiably, on deaf ears.

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by Zero
Sure, why not? Two moms would be better than one, you save on living expenses, and the kids get to have extra attention.

Of course, that's not the issue.

It is in the sense that part of the issue is a changing definition of what constitutes marriage.

I've spoken with people who don't see any problem with gay marriages, but think that polygamous marriages should not be allowed. Is that a consistent attitude? I don't know. It does seem to be a relevant issue in this discussion, IMO, but I could be wrong.

[Upchurch]

Getting back to the point of the thread (or at least, my point of the thread), why isn't divorce more of a threat to the sanctity of marriage than homosexuals are? Why is divorce acceptable if the concern is really about keeping marriage sacred?

[jnelso99]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Getting back to the point of the thread (or at least, my point of the thread), why isn't divorce more of a threat to the sanctity of marriage than homosexuals are? Why is divorce acceptable if the concern is really about keeping marriage sacred?

Probably because the political leaders who are pushing the anti-gay-marriage agenda don't want to look hypocritical since a bunch of them have been divorced themselves.

Have any fundies or people pushing the anti-gay-marriage agenda said one single word about Britney Spears' "marriage"? I'm guessing not. Apparently getting married on a whim and then changing your mind two days later doesn't hurt the sanctity of marriage...

And apparently having homosexuals marry means that heterosexual couples will, I don't know, explode or something.

[Ralph]

I asked a question on the rapture.ready board regarding the following: If 2 people are in a married,monogamous relationship
would it be "ok" (as in "not a sin")...if they made a porn video.......of themselves and watched it.

Nothing was said about sanctity----but it was suggested by one person that this would amount to "defiling the marital bed".

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Ralph
I asked a question on the rapture.ready board Hey, that's a great idea (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=127778)! Let's see what they come up with.

[c4ts]

No replies. Perhaps you're being a bit too hard on them, requiring them to think and all.

[Upchurch]

I tried to phrase it as non-commitally as possible, so that it doesn't sound like I think homosexuality is okay (which I do), but that I think divorce is worse (which I do) and worse for the sanctity of marriage.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I tried to phrase it as non-commitally as possible, so that it doesn't sound like I think homosexuality is okay (which I do), but that I think divorce is worse (which I do) and worse for the sanctity of marriage.
They seem to feel that Satan is lurking everywhere and go to great lengths to avoid him & his workings.

Perhaps they recognized you as one of those "I think homosexuality is OK" types and didn't want to taint themselves by responding to your post.

I'm not joking here either..............

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I tried to phrase it as non-commitally as possible, so that it doesn't sound like I think homosexuality is okay (which I do), but that I think divorce is worse (which I do) and worse for the sanctity of marriage.

Trying again, who posts here that you think would argue that point with you?

I want parenting tests passed before anyone gets married, and sterilization after bastard #1, Dad too if we can find him.

Also again, how many children should a married pair of male pedophiles be allowed to adopt?

[phildonnia]

Lets see, you got the open marriage, the marriage of convenience, the arranged marriage, the second, third and fourth marriage, the green-card marriage, the gold-digger marriage, the proof-I'm-not-gay marriage, the good old-fashioned shotgun marriage, and the new-fangled Britney Spears joke marriage.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Trying again, who posts here that you think would argue that point with you?

{garbage removed}Well, that's why I took it to rapture ready. Although from the looks of things, they don't want to argue the point with me either.

[hammegk]

Uppie, good response to:


... how many children should a married pair of male pedophiles be allowed to adopt?

Always ignore uncomfortable (moral) problems.

Got a link to help out? Maybe something from Physics 101?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

Also again, how many children should a married pair of male pedophiles be allowed to adopt? I'm sorry, what does pedophilia have to do with homosexuality? There are probably more straight pedophiles than there are gay pedophiles simply because there are more straight people than there are gay people. It's just that gay pedophiles have one more "ick" factor in the mix that the homophes can latch onto.

You might as well ask, how many little girls should a married straight pedophile be allwed to adopt?

[Professor Frink]

The concept of marriage in the US has been largely co-opted by the religious groups, who believe that the bible has the answers about marriage. The interesting thing is that the bible doesn't describe what a marriage is, or how a marriage ceremony should be carried out, etc. It simply refers to the institution of marriage. It is a social thing that is different in every country and culture.

I think that divorce should be legal and relatively easy. It's not something I like or think is fun, but I know people who were in marriages that were miserable, and they divorced their spouse and got on with their lives. Perhaps what should be harder to do is to get married in the first place? Some churches make it difficult, and force you to go through a lot of stuff before you can get married there, which (even though I'm not a church fan) is actually a reasonable approach.

[max]

marriage was only introduced because men thought they could be more certain that any offspring from his wife were his (note how everything was geared to what men wanted which makes religion even more blatantly man written) So why gays need to marry is beyond me. The piece of paper a marriage ceremony produces means jack sh't. If gays wish to live together and share everything with their loved one, all they need do is will all the worldly wealth to each other, afterall they can't produce offspring between 'em.

[Matabiri]

But marriage still provides certain rights in law, which is why the marriage ceremony does not mean jack sh*t.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by max
marriage was only introduced because men thought they could be more certain that any offspring from his wife were his (note how everything was geared to what men wanted which makes religion even more blatantly man written) So why gays need to marry is beyond me. The piece of paper a marriage ceremony produces means jack sh't. That may have been why marriage came about (I don't know), but in our society, there are certain privilages and rights afforded to married couples that can't be claimed by people who just love one another and live together. Things like inheretence rights, power of attorny (sp?), tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, and so on.

Heck, some lesbian aquaintences of mine got "married" last weekend, but if one of them has to go into the hospital, the other isn't classified as "the next of kin" in order to make decisions.

[BJS]

Originally posted by max
... So why gays need to marry is beyond me. The piece of paper a marriage ceremony produces means jack sh't. If gays wish to live together and share everything with their loved one, all they need do is will all the worldly wealth to each other, afterall they can't produce offspring between 'em.

Why do they want to get married? Its much much more than leaving their wealth to each other:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm

[max]

BJS
But further up this thread wealth does seem to be part of the reason for marrying.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by max

But further up this thread wealth does seem to be part of the reason for marrying. Actually, reasons why gays should could married have never been at issue. I'm taking issue with one of the supposed reasons why gay's shouldn't be allowed to get married.

[Upchurch]

hm. The thread (http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=127778) I started on Rapture Ready's forum board got moved to "Apologetics" without a word of explination. And some folks think JREF is an over-moderated board. :rolleyes:

[max]

upchurch
They can't marry because originally the marriage ceremony was and still is connected to religion and in a couple of books in the bible it states that man must not lie down with man. I guess if it wasn't a religious thing, they could marry no problem.
It's not a government issue, it's purely religious

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by max
upchurch
They can't marry because originally the marriage ceremony was and still is connected to religion and in a couple of books in the bible it states that man must not lie down with man. I guess if it wasn't a religious thing, they could marry no problem.
It's not a government issue, it's purely religious If that is true, then there are no legal grounds for banning gay marriage. To do so would would to be making a low in respect to the establishment of a religious practice and prohibiting the exercise of religons that allow gay marriage. Never mind all the laws that already exist concerning marriage that would be unconstitutional.

[BJS]

Originally posted by max
BJS
But further up this thread wealth does seem to be part of the reason for marrying.

Part, but not all.

My comment and link was in response to your wondering the about "need for gays to get married", and suggesting that if they want to live and love together, all they would need to do is leave each other everything in thier will.

That might solve the transfer of wealth, but does nothing to address many important issues that supply a reason for the "need" to allow homosexuals to marry if they wish.

Those issues were partially listed in the link.

[BJS]

Originally posted by max
upchurch
They can't marry because originally the marriage ceremony was and still is connected to religion and in a couple of books in the bible it states that man must not lie down with man. I guess if it wasn't a religious thing, they could marry no problem.
It's not a government issue, it's purely religious


My sister getting married by a justice of the peace, never mentioning religion or any god, is the furthest possible thing from a religious ceremony.

It had everything to do with goverment regulations recognizing marriage and bestowing certain privelages upon them.

The fact that homosexuals are barred from similiar official ceremony and recognition makes this a goverment issue, not a religious one.

[max]

ok sir I'm sure you know everything

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by max
ok sir I'm sure you know everything Hey, if you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it.



Incidently, the thread I started on Rapture Ready has really picked up and gotten interesting. There is some very level-headed, informed discussion going on, despite what we normally hear about that board. I guess that shows the value of keeping an open-mind, huh?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Hey, if you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to present it.



Incidently, the thread I started on Rapture Ready has really picked up and gotten interesting. There is some very level-headed, informed discussion going on, despite what we normally hear about that board. I guess that shows the value of keeping an open-mind, huh?


:p

[max]

upchurch
it was aimed at BJS:D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by frisian

:p :D Seriously, I was expecting billiefan2000 level of discussion. Have you encountered this guy?

edited to add:
And you have to admit, the other thread is much more interesting than this one.

[Andonyx]

Hmm...I'm "awaiting activation" before I can post over there. I'm really only interested in Upchurch's thread, but i can't use that link he placed...at least not yet.

So how long does this activation last? Or should I assume someone's going to ask for my believer credentials before I'm allowed to post?

In the meantime, can anyone direct me verbally to the thread in question?

[BJS]

Originally posted by max
upchurch
it was aimed at BJS:D
I never claimed to know everything, sir.

Let’s clear this up:

You started by talking about the origins of marriage as a religious ceremony for the sake of offspring, and therefore questioned why gays need to get married:

Marriage was only introduced because men thought they could be more certain that any offspring from his wife were his (note how everything was geared to what men wanted which makes religion even more blatantly man written) So why gays need to marry is beyond me. The piece of paper a marriage ceremony produces means jack sh't. If gays wish to live together and share everything with their loved one, all they need do is will all the worldly wealth to each other, afterall they can't produce offspring between 'em.
I responded, that it was more than just transfer of wealth, that marriage today grants certain additional rights and benefits, and that homosexuals would need to be recognized as “married” (or equivalent) in order to gain those same advantages.

You came back asserting that the marriage ceremony is religious and is not a government issue:


They can't marry because originally the marriage ceremony was and still is connected to religion and in a couple of books in the bible it states that man must not lie down with man. I guess if it wasn't a religious thing, they could marry no problem.
It's not a government issue, it's purely religious

I responded saying that some wedding ceremonies are not religious, and in the end the couple is granted legal (read: government) rights and advantages, thus making marriage more than a purely religious institution in these modern times. I am not arguing for all religions to allow homosexual marriages in their houses of worship, but to allow them to get married in the legal, government defined way.

Are we clear? Can we agree now?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Hmm...I'm "awaiting activation" before I can post over there. I'm really only interested in Upchurch's thread, but i can't use that link he placed...at least not yet.Jeeze, I'm sorry. Actually, I started the thread in a place that I think can be viewed by anyone, but it was moved and now is members only.
In the meantime, can anyone direct me verbally to the thread in question? It's under Apologetics and titled, "Threats to the sanctity of marriage." Doesn't look like you'll be able to see it until after your activated. Sorry again.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Jeeze, I'm sorry. Actually, I started the thread in a place that I think can be viewed by anyone, but it was moved and now is members only.
It's under Apologetics and titled, "Threats to the sanctity of marriage." Doesn't look like you'll be able to see it until after your activated. Sorry again.

Oh gosh, no needs for an apology.

I blame their slow activation time. I mean I don't even want to post, just read stuff.

This delay is unacceptable!

I mean....what if I was suddenly ready to be saved...right now! RIGHT NOW!!!!

Oops...too late. I changed my mind.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


Trying again, who posts here that you think would argue that point with you?

I want parenting tests passed before anyone gets married, and sterilization after bastard #1, Dad too if we can find him.

Also again, how many children should a married pair of male pedophiles be allowed to adopt?

Gee hammegk, the implications of your last statement are staggering, the vast majority of sexual abuse of children is committed by hetero sexual family memebrs!

[ramble:rant:not directed to hamme]

So how many times should you be allowed to rape children of the opposite sex? Especialy when they are biologicaly yours?

That is what is silly about the whole, gay-marriage=pedophilia argument. As presented by the now defunct Jedi Knight.

Why does everyone worry so much about a gay/lesbial couple getting married? We let hetero sexuals abuse each other and thier children everyday, and guess what there are even some mainstream churches that approve of this behaviour. Everyday when some wife and/or child talk to thier priest/minister/pastor they are told to 'submit' to the man of the houisehold. So why should we worry about gay couples adopting children, we have a much greater problems with Christian heterosexuals who abuse children on a daily basis.

It keeps me employeeed along with a lot of other helping professionals, who have to deal with the consequences of domestic violence and child abuse in thier clients, but hell, the vast majority of abuse is from Christian heteros, so lets just go after them, it would save the world a lot of misery and suffering!
[/ramble:rant]

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Gee hammegk, the implications of your last statement are staggering, the vast majority of sexual abuse of children is committed by hetero sexual family memebrs!
I'd suspect you are correct, in that most of the opportunity occurs in that setting (at the moment a male-female union) Is it not true that Mom is usually still part of the family while the abuse is occuring?

Interesting euphemism -- sexual abuse. Are we talking insertions, male-male, male-female, or less aggressive acts? Not that any act is not bad.

Let's go for 2 pedophiles -- male & married as a couple. Note there is no requirement they actually *be* gay.


So how many times should you be allowed to rape children of the opposite sex? Especialy when they are biologicaly yours?


Why does everyone worry so much about a gay/lesbial couple getting married? We let hetero sexuals abuse each other and thier children everyday,
Yeah, again that's currently where the opportunities exist.


and guess what there are even some mainstream churches that approve of this behaviour. Everyday when some wife and/or child talk to thier priest/minister/pastor they are told to 'submit' to the man of the houisehold. So why should we worry about gay couples adopting children, we have a much greater problems with Christian heterosexuals who abuse children on a daily basis.
Mainstream? I call bs on this one.


the vast majority of abuse is from Christian heteros, so lets just go after them, it would save the world a lot of misery and suffering!
Vast majority at the moment as previously pointed out; let's open up the playing field for ever combination of heteros & perverts. That should fix things. Not.

[max]

I find it amazing that posters can 'bash' christians on this forum but by god don't dare to 'bash' muslims Is this a majority muslim forum?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Ummm...Muslims? When did they enter this topic? No-one's mentioned them until now. But, for the record, if we're not allowed to bash them, it's news to me. Islam's just as silly a creed as Christianity, and the dress code's worse.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by max
I find it amazing that posters can 'bash' christians on this forum but by god don't dare to 'bash' muslims Is this a majority muslim forum? No, we had a muslim version of billiefan2000 (at least the billiefan2000 before he started engaging in discussion) a while back, but I can't remember his name. He'd post muslim propoganda from biased sources and then run away without defending his position. We tore into his theological mush like nobody's business.

See, this board isn't anti-Christian. It's anti anti-critical thought. If muslims, jews, scientologiests, buddhists, or christians come here and defend their claims with strong arguments, they are mostly respected if not liked. (Granted, as on any board, there are those who will attack anyone who thinks differently than themselves just because they think differently **coughtaiboxerkencough**, but the majority of us do give people a chance to make their case.)

edited because I'm a MORON

[Dylab]

Originally posted by Upchurch

See, this board isn't anti-Christian. It's anti-critical thought.

Huh. I wonder how long until that line finds its way into someones sig.

[Hexxenhammer]

Well, I see Bush managed to work "sanctity of marriage" right into his speech. Saying that we need a constitutional amendment to make it male-female only. What a b@st@rd.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Upchurch

See, this board isn't anti-Christian. It's anti-critical thought.

You mean anti anti-critical thought.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Andonyx
Hmm...I'm "awaiting activation" before I can post over there. I'm really only interested in Upchurch's thread, but i can't use that link he placed...at least not yet.

So how long does this activation last? Or should I assume someone's going to ask for my believer credentials before I'm allowed to post?

In the meantime, can anyone direct me verbally to the thread in question?

:rolleyes:

You don't need believer credentials to post there. Actually outside of Apologetics I suppose it could be said you do.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by c4ts


You mean anti anti-critical thought. D'OH! :hit:

Yes, that is what I meant. Stupid double-negatives.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Well, I see Bush managed to work "sanctity of marriage" right into his speech. Saying that we need a constitutional amendment to make it male-female only. What a b@st@rd.

IMHO, this 1 male 1 female argument is going to become as divisive on a gut-level, march-in-the-streets, way as abortion was and is. The argument to me is not about sanctity of marriage, rather it's about the actual "moral" acceptance of alternate lifestyles in the mainstream.

I also would not find it surprizing if crazies begin to plan "Pelican Brief" solutions for the most activist members of the judiciary.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

The argument to me is not about sanctity of marriage, rather it's about the actual "moral" acceptance of alternate lifestyles in the mainstream.Give it time. As older generations die off and newer ones come of age, acceptance will come. Just like it did for interracial marriage and such.

[Sidhedevil]

This whole blathering about how male pedophiles might get married to each other and adopt children is ridiculous--we know that male pedophiles get married to women who already have children, after all.

Didn't anyone read Lolita?

I have yet to hear any rational argument against gay marriage that doesn't wind up in religion.

Clearly, US civil society doesn't feel that legal marriages should only be contracted between people who have the capacity to procreate with each other--otherwise, my surgically sterile husband and I shouldn't have been allowed to wed, and my uncle and his wife shouldn't have been able to get married in their 60s, etc.

[Zero]

BTW, "activist judges' is a codeword for 'independant judiciary who we can't browbeat into supporting our intolerance'.'

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Zero
BTW, "activist judges' is a codeword for 'independant judiciary who we can't browbeat into supporting our intolerance'.' Oooooh. I've been hearing that alot lately, didn't quite know what it meant.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Oooooh. I've been hearing that alot lately, didn't quite know what it meant. Oh yeah...they claim that judges are re-writing laws when they extend freedoms to include everyone, not just the favored class.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Zero
Oh yeah...they claim that judges are re-writing laws when they extend freedoms to include everyone, not just the favored class. B@st@rds! What do they think this is? A place where all men are created equal, where they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights that, among these, are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness? Nonsense! It's un-American, I tells ya.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

I'd suspect you are correct, in that most of the opportunity occurs in that setting (at the moment a male-female union) Is it not true that Mom is usually still part of the family while the abuse is occuring?

I am not sure much abuse occurs in single parent familes by a boyfriend or family memebr, but it certainly occurs in 'intact' two parent families as well.


Interesting euphemism -- sexual abuse. Are we talking insertions, male-male, male-female, or less aggressive acts? Not that any act is not bad.

Well, that was the thing that got people off from punishment when the term sexual abuse was not used. Sexual abuse would be any act involving the sexual gratification of an adult that directly or indirectly impacts the well being of another.(Not a legal definition but a good catch all. The level of 'agression' is often unrelated to the emotional impact on the victim.

Let's go for 2 pedophiles -- male & married as a couple. Note there is no requirement they actually *be* gay.

Yes but it is already against the law to have children if you are a sex offender.

Yeah, again that's currently where the opportunities exist.

So that is where to focus the efforts to prevent child abuse.

Mainstream? I call bs on this one.
Are the Southern Babtists, Nazarenes and Mormon's lunatic fringe ? Then there is the hoarde of Christian counselors, 'Your husband beats you?Lets pray.'.

Vast majority at the moment as previously pointed out; let's open up the playing field for ever combination of heteros & perverts. That should fix things. Not.

When I see evidence that there is something dangerous about homosexuals raising children, then I will agee with you. In Illinois they are a segment of the population that is willing to adopt. More than I can say for the abortion foes!

I just feel that agian most of the pedaephiles are likely to be hetero.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Zero
BTW, "activist judges' is a codeword for 'independant judiciary who we can't browbeat into supporting our intolerance'.'
Yeah, unless they are some 'activist' like Judge Moore or other right wing kook, then they are the defenders of freedom. Especialy the ones that rule, religion is grounds for descrimination!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by max
I find it amazing that posters can 'bash' christians on this forum but by god don't dare to 'bash' muslims Is this a majority muslim forum?

Well Max I am bashing a strawman with a bigger straw man. And remember all those Plymouth Bretheren who left the blessed isle for our shores? Would you like them back? They really mess with our politics, that is why you can show gun violence on TV but no sex in the US.
;)

[max]

really, good God the Plymouth lot should have been sat on at birth, such bigots and prudes. No we wouldn't want 'em back here. They'd be worse than the witches of Salem:D

[tamiO]

It seems to me that "marriage" is a religious thing and no one should get married anywhere but the church of their choice.

The government should provide legal civil unions and church's should provide the religious ceremony for those who want that..

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

I am not sure much abuse occurs in single parent familes by a boyfriend or family memebr, but it certainly occurs in 'intact' two parent families as well.
Yeah, statistics would be interesting -- age, sex, race, 1 or 2 parent. Probably racist (per da Fool), but I dunno. May I guess -- abusees are likely minority, single mother?


Well, that was the thing that got people off from punishment when the term sexual abuse was not used. Sexual abuse would be any act involving the sexual gratification of an adult that directly or indirectly impacts the well being of another.(Not a legal definition but a good catch all. The level of 'agression' is often unrelated to the emotional impact on the victim.
Yeah I was afraid the judgement is prosecutorially subjective and unfactual.


Yes but it is already against the law to have children if you are a sex offender.
Someone had to catch & prosecute them first.


Yeah, again that's currently where the opportunities exist.

So that is where to focus the efforts to prevent child abuse.
Yeah, and why provide the factually aberrant regarding their sexual behavior be allowed anywhere near children?


Are the Southern Babtists, Nazarenes and Mormon's lunatic fringe ? Then there is the hoarde of Christian counselors, 'Your husband beats you?Lets pray.'.
Nor does your anecdotal evidence suggest any religious bias.


When I see evidence that there is something dangerous about homosexuals raising children, then I will agee with you.
Given that good & evil don't exist (for them or in this instance for you), some agree with you. What response do you think you'll get in non-urban areas (GWB country)?


In Illinois they are a segment of the population that is willing to adopt. More than I can say for the abortion foes!
Yeah I can see why adoption seems like a great idea to them. It's the good/evil routine again. If married-to-each-other lesbians are into bdsm, or bestiality, or -- pick your own aberration -- any problem with them as parents?


I just feel that agian most of the pedaephiles are likely to be hetero.
Since most people are hetero -- especially those with kids of their own, or men attracted to single women with kids -- you could be right. Offer more loonies oppportunities sounds good to you?

[max]

can someone give me an idiots guide to how you bring up quotes from other posters into a posting one wants to do.......thanks

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yeah, statistics would be interesting -- age, sex, race, 1 or 2 parent. Probably racist (per da Fool), but I dunno. May I guess -- abusees are likely minority, single mother?

Statistics are very hard to come by because of the privacy of the courts in all matters involving custody of a minor. Then there is the whole 'look good' family problem, reports are more likely to be rendered on the 'look bad' families, there is a lot of class issues in the way investigators, neighbors and the system deals with child abuse. If you can afford a private attorney it is a lot easier to get 'child abuse' turned into 'bad parenting'.

Yeah I was afraid the judgement is prosecutorially subjective and unfactual.

Naw, actualy the law is very clear and because evidence can be hard to determine when dealing with testimony and children, the 'abuse' standard is not the one the courts use. The current belief in the child abuse field is that only 20% of credible cases ever come to trial. This is due to the fact that ofetn knowledge-able adults are not willing to testify, they would rather forgive the family member than send them to jail. Cild abuser are pretty savvy about not leaving physical evidence and find some strange ways to get thier jollies at the expense of the children. They often just go to Thailand and openly abuse children there.

Someone had to catch & prosecute them first.

Yeah, darn bastards get away with rape every day, especialy if they have any power or prestige.

Yeah, and why provide the factually aberrant regarding their sexual behavior be allowed anywhere near children?

We allow factually abberant people of all persuasions to raise children, you show me that gay people abuse thier children at a significantly higher rate than non-gay individuals, and I can agree. What about heteros that are really bisexual?

Nor does your anecdotal evidence suggest any religious bias.

My anecdotal evidence is what it is , after a while of talking to battered women, you get kind of tired of hearing what thier pastors told them they should do to make thier marriages better, not even touching on the issue of domestic rape.

Given that good & evil don't exist (for them or in this instance for you), some agree with you. What response do you think you'll get in non-urban areas (GWB country)?

Well' duh. I realize that, the same areas that think it's okay to beat your wife and rape your children?
I think good and evil exist, I am not sure it has much to do with adult sexuality.

Yeah I can see why adoption seems like a great idea to them. It's the good/evil routine again. If married-to-each-other lesbians are into bdsm, or bestiality, or -- pick your own aberration -- any problem with them as parents?

Same standard as for hetero couples doing the same things, are they harming the children, like doing it in front of them? (defined as child abuse in Illinois)

Since most people are hetero -- especially those with kids of their own, or men attracted to single women with kids -- you could be right. Offer more loonies oppportunities sounds good to you?
Loonies? Like me?
I have know many mentaly ill individuals who nuture children quite well, I think that a lot of abuse occurs in churches. So it depends on your definition of harmful?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by max
can someone give me an idiots guide to how you bring up quotes from other posters into a posting one wants to do.......thanks

The easiest is to just use the quote button at the bottom of the post.
You can use the square brackets to do the edit stuff you see.
On my keybord the square brackets are under the curvy brackets {} <<<< Those there.

To make a quote appear you do this with the square brackets
{quote} and to end {/quote}
italics {i} and {/i}
bold {b} and {/b}

The rest of it is copy and paste.


If you use the quote button, you will see the format for the marks in the quote on your screen.

{quote}
{I} quoted by Max{/I}{B}
What a fine fellow am I!
{/B}
{/quote}
becomes this when you use square brackets.


quoted by Max
What a fine fellow am I!

[Attrayant]

Originally posted by max
can someone give me an idiots guide to how you bring up quotes from other posters into a posting one wants to do.......thanks

For a tutorial on the vB tags, click on the link at the bottom of the page that says "vB code is on".

Or just click right here. (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/misc.php?s=&action=bbcode)

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by hammegk
Part of the implication of this discussion is that the tiny activist gay/lesbian community, aided by a liberal judiciary, have "convinced" the rest of the population that gay is a lifestyle as accepted as heterosexuality.Where to start with the sentence above?

First of all, so? Setting aside the coding inherent in words like "activist" and "liberal," what is wrong with groups or individuals advocating against continued government discrimination, especially when it has no basis in rationality?

Next, regarding the point above, isn't it one of the tenants of conservatism to "get government off our backs?"

Third, why the fear that "the rest of the population" is being "convinced" of anything? Have you no faith in your fellow citizens to weigh an issue and come to their own conclusions?

And last, how 'bout putting aside the ol' hoary construct that maintains sexuality is a "lifestyle" choice.A moral rather than legal question for many people, whether based on religion or just on the "phew" factor, and how people see acceptable presentations of lifestyle choices to their younger generation.It's a moral question to you, perhaps. Of course, it's quite immoral to inflict the power of the government against an individual who only wishes to live his/her life with the same rights and privileges as others, so perhaps you're correct after all.

And (nevermind the reappearance of the "lifestyle" term), not to worry about the children, don't you think? They have parents for that.Then the real problem arises when society tries to balance longer term societal viability vs the freedom for everyone to do as feels good today.Again, you're generalizing and bending over backwards to justify a discriminatory practice. Government's default mode should be hands-off in matters pertaining to social engineering, especially when the matter is a simple issue of behavior between consenting adults.By definition a gay/lesbian society will disappear in one generation (yes, I'm ignoring modern technology); what societal benefit accrues to that lifestyle? Gay is a genetic deadend (if truly genetic)So? What business is it of government? What business is it of yours? Would you also outlaw tubal ligations? Vasectomies?

Live your life and let others live theirs. Go in peace. It's fairly simple.The next question is that is the individual reponsible for all personal choices and acts, or are some choices and acts more beneficial to society at large? Opponents of gay marriage are not discussing individual morals, rather what activities could and should be proscribed as less desirable.The above is rather unclear. But no matter. There is no compelling argument for a government which pretends to value freedom and liberty to withhold legal rights and privileges to a set of people based on their biological difference.If bestiality were declared "legal" tomorrow, what percentage of the population would begin to delve into that "lifestyle" over the next few years? Or, incest between adults? Or, etc.Is there some irresistible force which compels people to inject bestiality, incest, pedophilia and other such unrelated matters into the gay marriage topic? Do people not see the distinction, or is this intentional diversionary tactics?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
Is there some irresistible force which compels people to inject bestiality, incest, pedophilia and other such unrelated matters into the gay marriage topic? Do people not see the distinction, or is this intentional diversionary tactics? I think it is a Christian's way of saying that they want incest and beastiality for themselves...

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin

{Entire Post} :clap: :clap: :clap:

[max]

exellent post Reginald

[hawkins_anderson]

sacred
adj 1: concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music" [ant: profane] 2: worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling" 3: made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated chursh"; "the sacred mosque"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine" [syn: consecrated, sanctified] 4: worthy of religious veneration; "the sacred name of Jesus"; "Jerusalem's hallowed soil" [syn: hallowed] 5: (often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person; "a fund sacred to charity"; "a morning hour sacred to study"; "a private office sacred to the President"
WordNet/Princeton University

2: worthy of respect or dedication;
5: (often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person;


What is the sanctity of marriage?

As a man, that would be to respect and be dedicated to the woman I am marrying. I am devoting myself to that single woman out of the purpose of love. This transcends religious notions of conformity. Woman is the sanctity of marriage.

[hammegk]

Well backwards nicK, you hit most of the gay talking points, but you forgot to mention that homophobes are really gays afraid of their own sexuality. Have you actually considered the ramifications for the gay community if that is actually the case? Wouldn't you think attacking a person's sexuality opens a real chance of inviting a reponding physical attack? Given adequate nutrition & shelter from inclement weather, sex-sex-sex is the next drive. Add alcohol, and sex-sex-sex may be #1.

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
..... especially when it has no basis in rationality?
As mentioned, gays on a personal level possibly have much more to fear from irrational responses than rational ones. And yup, moral judgements tend to be irrational... we're stll waiting on the Mathematics of Secular Humanistic Morality to straighten us all out. Hume had some interesting observations on this little problem of morals.


Next, regarding the point above, isn't it one of the tenants of conservatism to "get government off our backs?"
Of course, but individual behaviors in this generation also need to be weighed against a societies interest in perpetuating itself to the next generation, and beyond.


Third, why the fear that "the rest of the population" is being "convinced" of anything? Have you no faith in your fellow citizens to weigh an issue and come to their own conclusions?
Huh? I'm sure most people have, but the majority are too polite and choose not to discuss the matter.


And last, how 'bout putting aside the ol' hoary construct that maintains sexuality is a "lifestyle" choice.It's a moral question to you, perhaps. Of course, it's quite immoral to inflict the power of the government against an individual who only wishes to live his/her life with the same rights and privileges as others, so perhaps you're correct after all.
Have you actually convinced yourself that there is no difference between being born an ethnic/racial minority, vs having a (perhaps) genetic bias towards (by choice abstainable) aberrant sex drives?


And (nevermind the reappearance of the "lifestyle" term), not to worry about the children, don't you think? They have parents for that.
Were all children blessed with stable married parents, and the "of course a gay lifestyle is as good as a married heteros lifestyle"
message was not propagandized by schools & media I might agree. As it is I don't.


Again, you're generalizing and bending over backwards to justify a discriminatory practice. Government's default mode should be hands-off in matters pertaining to social engineering, especially when the matter is a simple issue of behavior between consenting adults.So?
A simple issue? You joke. The behavior part you got right anyway.


What business is it of government?

That is the decision a society must make weighing shortterm freedoms against longterm viability.


What business is it of yours?

Is there some irresistible force which compels people to inject bestiality, incest, pedophilia and other such unrelated matters into the gay marriage topic?
Incest and pedophilia are different subjects I'm not addressing in this response.

In the sense that what masturbatory practices you care to indulge in, and with, behing closed doors, none. Manual, oral, anal, beat me-bite me-blah-blah; Man-man, woman-woman, bisexuality, bring whatever you please; you choice. My choice is to not accept that your behavior is moral and worthy of widespread societal acceptance, certainly not for children.


Would you also outlaw tubal ligations? Vasectomies?
Nah. One more bastard is one too many.


Live your life and let others live theirs. Go in peace. It's fairly simple.
Yes it is. Now, why did you say I should agree aberrent sex is as societally beneficial as is married heterosexuality? Just because this behavior "feels good & I wanna" doesn't really convince me.

Who knows -- maybe I am absolutely alone in my thinking on this matter.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
Live your life and let others live theirs. Go in peace. It's fairly simple.
Yes it is. Now, why did you say I should agree aberrent sex is as societally beneficial as is married heterosexuality? Just because this behavior "feels good & I wanna" doesn't really convince me. Ah, but the question is, does the government have the right to dictate morality? If so, what morality should it enforce and, since most people consider morality to be a function of religion, how is that not an infringement of the first amendment?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Yes it is. Now, why did you say I should agree aberrent sex is as societally beneficial as is married heterosexuality? Just because this behavior "feels good & I wanna" doesn't really convince me. Ah, but the question is, does the government have the right to dictate morality? If so, what morality should it enforce and, since most people consider morality to be a function of religion, how is that not an infringement of the first amendment? [/QUOTE]

If the goverment is of the people, and the majority decide what they deem as moral, why not?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by frisian
If the goverment is of the people, and the majority decide what they deem as moral, why not? Because the government is of all the people, not just the majority. When the English colonists first came to this contenent, they were escaping a society where the majority dictated what set of morals were legal and which set were not. It is antithetical to the core concepts of the United States to dictate laws based on the morality of one religion, even if it is the religion followed by the majority of the country. It is the duty of our government to protect everyone's rights, including the rights of the minority (if they truely are so) of religions to believe it is perfectly moral for gays to get married.

Consider an absurd example. There are some Christian religions that consider music and dancing to be immoral. If they were the majority, would you consider it proper for music and dancing to be made illegal?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by frisian
If the goverment is of the people, and the majority decide what they deem as moral, why not? [/B]

Should we discuss the morals of slavery, not letting women vote, persecuting Jews and signs that say "No Irish". These were all deemed to be moral and beneficial at one time. That is the problem with letting the majority deciding morals, in northern africa they think it is moral to mutilate female genitals. Is it moral just because a majority believes in it.
If homosexuality was a gun, every one would scream to protect it.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Because the government is of all the people, not just the majority. When the English colonists first came to this contenent, they were escaping a society where the majority dictated what set of morals were legal and which set were not. It is antithetical to the core concepts of the United States to dictate laws based on the morality of one religion, even if it is the religion followed by the majority of the country. It is the duty of our government to protect everyone's rights, including the rights of the minority (if they truely are so) of religions to believe it is perfectly moral for gays to get married.

Consider an absurd example. There are some Christian religions that consider music and dancing to be immoral. If they were the majority, would you consider it proper for music and dancing to be made illegal?

I don't believe it is of all the people. Is it economically? Socially? Has it ever been?

Do you don't believe a minority still dictate what occurs essentially in relation to a myriad of issues?

I wasn't suggesting morality based on one religion. I think you are assuming I meant something I did not.

I believe in majority rule. If that means ones of religious beliefs contrary to my own, I am fine with that. Fine in the sense that I am consistent. Would I be silent then? Hell no.

Resolving the "problem" of minority rights equates more so with socialism to me.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Should we discuss the morals of slavery, not letting women vote, persecuting Jews and signs that say "No Irish". These were all deemed to be moral and beneficial at one time. That is the problem with letting the majority deciding morals, in northern africa they think it is moral to mutilate female genitals. Is it moral just because a majority believes in it.
If homosexuality was a gun, every one would scream to protect it.

If you so desire. The problem with the majority decide morals? So who is deciding then?

Who said that IT IS moral if the majority deems it to be? I certainly did not. I said it should be law.

Trying to follow your homosexuality to gun analogy.

Nope. Don't get it.

[frisian]

Double post.

[Yahweh]

Keep in mind, letting a majority decide morality isnt the best idea I could imagine.

There is always the risk of the majority trumping or even revoking the rights of the minority. Not very Ethical in my opinion.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Ah, but the question is, does the government have the right to dictate morality?

You are living in a dream world. The "government" -- the power structure currently in place -- can do whatever its propaganda, clubs, and guns can maintain. The non-power structure can 1) blather, 2) in the US today try change via the ballot box, or 3) change by armed revolt.

In an enlightened govt, the choice is "are todays freedoms conducive to how we want the longer outlook to be, either maintaining the status quo, or moving towards change".

A poor analogy, but consider the effect the Brits' opium trade had on the chinese society it was directed against. As we both know, freedom has liabilities as well as rewards, but in no case is it "free".

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Statistics are very hard to come by because of the privacy of the courts in all matters involving custody of a minor. Then there is the whole 'look good' family problem, reports are more likely to be rendered on the 'look bad' families, there is a lot of class issues in the way investigators, neighbors and the system deals with child abuse. If you can afford a private attorney it is a lot easier to get 'child abuse' turned into 'bad parenting'.
actualy the law is very clear and because evidence can be hard to determine when dealing with testimony and children, the 'abuse' standard is not the one the courts use. The current belief in the child abuse field is that only 20% of credible cases ever come to trial. This is due to the fact that ofetn knowledge-able adults are not willing to testify, they would rather forgive the family member than send them to jail.
Er, yes, as I said the judgement is prosecutorially subjective and unfactual.


They often just go to Thailand and openly abuse children there.
Yeah, and some backwards places still allow 12 yr olds to marry IIRC. (Nor are we discussing 3rd world prostitution & slavery)


Yeah, darn bastards get away with rape every day, especialy if they have any power or prestige.
An area often as grey as the "define child sexual abuse & prove it" problem we've been discussing


We allow factually abberant people of all persuasions to raise children, you show me that gay people abuse thier children at a significantly higher rate than non-gay individuals, and I can agree. What about heteros that are really bisexual?
Yup, but if & when identified, child services tries to get the kids elsewhere; again why offer even more indiviuals a shot at the kids under the cloak of "gay marriage"?


My anecdotal evidence is what it is , after a while of talking to battered women, you get kind of tired of hearing what thier pastors told them they should do to make thier marriages better, not even touching on the issue of domestic rape.Soon I guess you'll be hearing about those issues in same sex marriages, huh?


Well' duh. I realize that, the same areas that think it's okay to beat your wife and rape your children?
You say GWB voters condone those acts? Seems a bit harsh to me & most likely a lie.



I think good and evil exist, I am not sure it has much to do with adult sexuality.

If married-to-each-other lesbians are into bdsm, or bestiality, or -- pick your own aberration -- any problem with them as parents?

Same standard as for hetero couples doing the same things, are they harming the children, like doing it in front of them? (defined as child abuse in Illinois)
What anyone does in private is their business. If the kids can't help but notice the aberrant sex practices & participants, no, it isn't ok, imnhso.


Loonies? Like me?
No, my friend. I'm apologise and am also sorry that you took it that way. :(


I have know many mentaly ill individuals who nuture children quite well, I think that a lot of abuse occurs in churches. So it depends on your definition of harmful
The loonies as I refer to them herein are the group that sexually abuse kids -- as ill-defined as that term may be.

[shecky]

Why the insistence on equating same sex marriage with child abuse?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Keep in mind, letting a majority decide morality isnt the best idea I could imagine.

There is always the risk of the majority trumping or even revoking the rights of the minority. Not very Ethical in my opinion.

What is the best idea? That is also practical?

What does ethics have do with how societies are arranged?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by frisian
What is the best idea? That is also practical?
Well, I dont much care about the question morality when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, but I would very much doubt that the government can impose moral standards.

I feel there is no legally (or morally) justifyable way to deny legal protection or marriage rights to a pair of adults on a basis of sexual orientation.

What does ethics have do with how societies are arranged?
Ethics make up quite a great deal of the foundation of any society, however the Utilitarian aspect of organizing legal codes is justifyable in the least (as I've already mentioned, a "majority rule" mentality could very well end up in revoking the rights of the minority).

[frisian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Well, I dont much care about the question morality when it comes to the sanctity of marriage, but I would very much doubt that the government can impose moral standards.

I feel there is no legally (or morally) justifyable way to deny legal protection or marriage rights to a pair of adults on a basis of sexual orientation.


Ethics make up quite a great deal of the foundation of any society, however the Utilitarian aspect of organizing legal codes is justifyable in the least (as I've already mentioned, a "majority rule" mentality could very well end up in revoking the rights of the minority).

Certainly the government can impose moral standards. It has in the past. Not believing it should perhaps is noble, but unrealistic.

To your moral code perhaps. If the majority deems otherwise, that their moral concept relates to what they want to see as law, what new form of government do you suggest?

Which government system is a Utilitarian one?

So how is everyone served in your system? Or your merely concerned with the minority or a specific one?

[Zero]

Originally posted by shecky
Why the insistence on equating same sex marriage with child abuse? Again, the religious bigots want to keep their monopoly on child abuse, of course!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by frisian


If you so desire. The problem with the majority decide morals? So who is deciding then?

Who said that IT IS moral if the majority deems it to be? I certainly did not. I said it should be law.

Trying to follow your homosexuality to gun analogy.

Nope. Don't get it.

Yeah, just pointing a straw gun at the issue, I guess.

The point is that the government shouldn't be in the business of religion. It is in the business of legislation and in our country the two are blessedly seperate.
The point is that while morals and the law are overlapping they are not totaly equal, why should we legaly care if two people want to have sex?
If they are not harming others why should it matter that they want to share common property or share benefits?
the objections to homosexual union are religous even though people will try to dress them them up in other concerns.
The solution is the disestablishment of marriage and the institution of civil union.
I find it much more 'phew' myself that in Colorado there are these guys forcing themselves on fourteen year olds in the name of marriage.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk


Er, yes, as I said the judgement is prosecutorially subjective and unfactual.
[b]
No that is exactly the issue, evidence is evidence as defined by judges and legislation. If the sole evidence is the testimony of a three year old, then it is very hard to get a conviction. Very often perpetrators know enough to not create 'physical' evidence. So idon't get your point child sexual abuse is the exploitation of children for the sexual gratification of adults, evidence in courts is what it is, and a very different standard.

Yeah, and some backwards places still allow 12 yr olds to marry IIRC. (Nor are we discussing 3rd world prostitution & slavery)

An area often as grey as the "define child sexual abuse & prove it" problem we've been discussing

Proving child abuse is amazingly simple, proving it in court is another matter. The first is very easy, a three year old child who has intimate knowledge of the mechanics of sex has been exposed to something they shouldn't. Proving that in court is another matter especialy when knowledgable adults refuse to testify
[b]
Yup, but if & when identified, child services tries to get the kids elsewhere; again why offer even more indiviuals a shot at the kids under the cloak of "gay marriage"?

Shows how much contact you have had with protective service, I wish the kid's were removed from the family.
And until you can demonstrate that gay people actualy abuse thier children I see no reason to deny them. Just a personal opinion.

Soon I guess you'll be hearing about those issues in same sex marriages, huh?

The reported rates of domestic violence in gay couples are lower than in the hetero population. But that is another stasitic.

You say GWB voters condone those acts? Seems a bit harsh to me & most likely a lie.

Well it may be unconfortable but true, a 'conservative' has values that are more likely to look the other way when it comes to domestic violence. Something about the 'king in his castle','minding your own bussiness', and 'traditional family values'. I wish that small town values in the conservative heart land were different but they aren't.

What anyone does in private is their business. If the kids can't help but notice the aberrant sex practices & participants, no, it isn't ok, imnhso.

I guess I just care if they take good care of thier children, there are plenty of heteos who can't.
No, my friend. I'm apologise and am also sorry that you took it that way. :(

No offense, I have been baiting you , mea culpa. :( Hey you really are Pahansiri! ;)

The loonies as I refer to them herein are the group that sexually abuse kids -- as ill-defined as that term may be. Understood, just more baiting on my part!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by frisian


What is the best idea? That is also practical?

What does ethics have do with how societies are arranged?

Stick to the Constitution.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Yeah, just pointing a straw gun at the issue, I guess.

The point is that the government shouldn't be in the business of religion. It is in the business of legislation and in our country the two are blessedly seperate.
The point is that while morals and the law are overlapping they are not totaly equal, why should we legaly care if two people want to have sex?
If they are not harming others why should it matter that they want to share common property or share benefits?
the objections to homosexual union are religous even though people will try to dress them them up in other concerns.
The solution is the disestablishment of marriage and the institution of civil union.
I find it much more 'phew' myself that in Colorado there are these guys forcing themselves on fourteen year olds in the name of marriage.

Who defines harm?
So what if the objections are religious?
Why must a free American or any other free citizen not be allowed to object on religious grounds?
Your solution is such, why cater to your whims?
What does rape have to do with legalized, recognized unions of homosexuals?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Stick to the Constitution.

Why?

Side note not directed at you - For being such free thinkers on this site, I see an awful lot of presupposed notions and firm conclusions. Not very skeptical eh?


:p

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


Who defines harm? The courts have found no harm,obviously, based on expert testimony, as have several major scientific organizations.

So what if the objections are religious? Objecting is fine, and every American has the right to object, but the law cannot be based on religious grounds in a secular government.

[/b]Why must a free American or any other free citizen not be allowed to object on religious grounds?[/b] You are objecting right now, and no one is arresting you for it. You can protest as much as you like....and probably will!

Your solution is such, why cater to your whims?It isn't catering to a whim, it is catering to liberty and justice for all, a concept that religious groups seem to disagree with pretty often.

What does rape have to do with legalized, recognized unions of homosexuals?
Nothing, as far as I know...I think the point is that heterosexuality is not automatically immune from negative behavior any more than homosexuality is automatically 'bad'.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
The courts have found no harm,obviously, based on expert testimony, as have several major scientific organizations.

Objecting is fine, and every American has the right to object, but the law cannot be based on religious grounds in a secular government.

You are objecting right now, and no one is arresting you for it. You can protest as much as you like....and probably will!

It isn't catering to a whim, it is catering to liberty and justice for all, a concept that religious groups seem to disagree with pretty often.


Nothing, as far as I know...I think the point is that heterosexuality is not automatically immune from negative behavior any more than homosexuality is automatically 'bad'.

Expert testimony? Expert to whom?

The law indeed can be based on the religious views of a majority within a republic.

Sure, I believe in civil disobedience, don't you?

Liberty and justice for all? You understand that is theory and not practical.

Sure the majority has disagreed with liberty and justice for all for all of recorded history, what's your point? So what some minority "enlightened thinkers" should rule? Who chooses these people? You?

I don't believe I stated heterosexuality implies one is immune from "negative" behavior. Within a religious context under certain interpretations homosexuality is most certainly deemed automatically bad.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


Expert testimony? Expert to whom?

The law indeed can be based on the religious views of a majority within a republic.

Sure, I believe in civil disobedience, don't you?

Liberty and justice for all? You understand that is theory and not practical.

Sure the majority has disagreed with liberty and justice for all for all of recorded history, what's your point? So what some minority "enlightened thinkers" should rule? Who chooses these people? You?

I don't believe I stated heterosexuality implies one is immune from "negative" behavior. Within a religious context under certain interpretations homosexuality is most certainly deemed automatically bad. The majority doesn't hold absolute rule in the United States; that power is balanced with a regard for equality for the minority. Last time I checked, America stood for freedom, not for narrow-minded ignorant religious positions, especially if it a majority viewpoint. Rights and freedom must exist for all of us, not just for the majority, or else it is meaningless.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
The majority doesn't hold absolute rule in the United States; that power is balanced with a regard for equality for the minority. Last time I checked, America stood for freedom, not for narrow-minded ignorant religious positions, especially if it a majority viewpoint. Rights and freedom must exist for all of us, not just for the majority, or else it is meaningless.

Certainly I agree the majority doesn't hold absolute rule.

Power is balanced? Really?

Economically it is? Socially? You do understand that economics relate to the legal system correct?

Last time I checked America is a republic.

Freedom for all is a phrase that draws on emotions and creates good symbolism for charismatic expressions. It has not happened in actuality. It is theory.

Sure to say freedom for all, and then say that the majority should rule indeed is contradictory.

I still haven't seen what you are suggesting should rule? The minority?


Oh, and slavery was freedom for all? Capitalism is motivated to benefit all?

[Zero]

Let's get down to brass tacks here. If two people live together, have sex with each other, own common property, and have made a lifelong commitment to each other, we call that marriage if it is a man and a woman. Some states even go so far as to declare couples who have lived together long enough to be in a 'common law marriage'. This gives legal standing to the idea that such an arrangement counts as a marriage even when no ceremony has been performed. To deny such a relationship based on sexual orientation is clearly illegal discrimination, no matter how many people disagree with homosexuality. To extend the rights of marriage to homosexual couples gives them teh same rights as any other couple, and takes nothing away from the majority.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Let's get down to brass tacks here. If two people live together, have sex with each other, own common property, and have made a lifelong commitment to each other, we call that marriage if it is a man and a woman. Some states even go so far as to declare couples who have lived together long enough to be in a 'common law marriage'. This gives legal standing to the idea that such an arrangement counts as a marriage even when no ceremony has been performed. To deny such a relationship based on sexual orientation is clearly illegal discrimination, no matter how many people disagree with homosexuality. To extend the rights of marriage to homosexual couples gives them teh same rights as any other couple, and takes nothing away from the majority.

As the laws are currently composed, I agree.

:p

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by hammegk
Well backwards nicK, you hit most of the gay talking points, but you forgot to mention that homophobes are really gays afraid of their own sexuality. Have you actually considered the ramifications for the gay community if that is actually the case? Wouldn't you think attacking a person's sexuality opens a real chance of inviting a reponding physical attack? Given adequate nutrition & shelter from inclement weather, sex-sex-sex is the next drive. Add alcohol, and sex-sex-sex may be #1."Gay talking points?" Judging by the remainder of your post, I'd guess you're attempting to be playful. That's nice, really. However, I wonder if your tone masks an edge.

Perhaps there appear to be "talking points" because the points are worth talking about. If my post reveals any sympathetic similarities, I assure you it's coincidental. I'm just a person (straight, BTW) interested in the ideal of fair play.

As to the rest of your comment above, I fear you're dipping into the theoretical and sidestepping the central, if not only, issue.Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
...especially when it has no basis in rationality?As mentioned, gays on a personal level possibly have much more to fear from irrational responses than rational ones. And yup, moral judgements tend to be irrational... we're stll waiting on the Mathematics of Secular Humanistic Morality to straighten us all out. Hume had some interesting observations on this little problem of morals.Again, beside the point. We cannot figure for every contingency, especially in an irrational quest for Utopia. Free will, and all that, no?Next...isn't it one of the tenants of conservatism to "get government off our backs?"Of course, but individual behaviors in this generation also need to be weighed against a societies interest in perpetuating itself to the next generation, and beyond.You can't be serious. If you are referring to reproduction, society's future existence is in no danger whatsoever.Third, why the fear that "the rest of the population" is being "convinced" of anything? Have you no faith in your fellow citizens to weigh an issue and come to their own conclusions?Huh? I'm sure most people have, but the majority are too polite and choose not to discuss the matter.Was I not clear? Allow me to try again.

You wrote earlier in this thread of your concern that homosexuals were interested in convincing the rest of the population that their "lifestyle" is acceptable. I merely responded (in perhaps a roundabout way) that these things have a way of working themselves out if we leave people to think for themselves.And last, how 'bout putting aside the ol' hoary construct that maintains sexuality is a "lifestyle" choice...It's a moral question to you, perhaps. Of course, it's quite immoral to inflict the power of the government against an individual who only wishes to live his/her life with the same rights and privileges as others, so perhaps you're correct after all.Have you actually convinced yourself that there is no difference between being born an ethnic/racial minority, vs having a (perhaps) genetic bias towards (by choice abstainable) aberrant sex drives?I have not convinced myself of anything. As a skeptic I am open to learning, even if it conflicts with my earlier education or predisposition. At this point, I am of the opinion (based on casual scientific reading as well as observation) that homosexuality is one of the flavors of nature's kitchen. Different from the norm, sure. Unusual even. But "aberrant?"And (nevermind the reappearance of the "lifestyle" term), not to worry about the children, don't you think? They have parents for that.Were all children blessed with stable married parents, and the "of course a gay lifestyle is as good as a married heteros lifestyle" message was not propagandized by schools & media I might agree. As it is I don't.Fine (sort of). Perhaps your issue is with the message rather than the messenger?

Anyway, I think you must agree. Because your generalization is surely that.Again, you're generalizing and bending over backwards to justify a discriminatory practice. Government's default mode should be hands-off in matters pertaining to social engineering, especially when the matter is a simple issue of behavior between consenting adults.A simple issue? You joke. The behavior part you got right anyway.At the core, it is simple. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be available to everyone until such time as the individual forfeits his/her place in society by inflicting harm on others.

And I see where you're going with the use of the word "behavior." Surely you're not interested in semantic distinctions without differences?What business is it of government?That is the decision a society must make weighing shortterm freedoms against longterm viability.What is a "short term" freedom?What business is it of yours?

Is there some irresistible force which compels people to inject bestiality, incest, pedophilia and other such unrelated matters into the gay marriage topic?Incest and pedophilia are different subjects I'm not addressing in this response.

In the sense that what masturbatory practices you care to indulge in, and with, behing closed doors, none. Manual, oral, anal, beat me-bite me-blah-blah; Man-man, woman-woman, bisexuality, bring whatever you please; you choice. My choice is to not accept that your behavior is moral and worthy of widespread societal acceptance, certainly not for children.I respect your position. However, I ask you to defend it.

Where is the harm in the state granting legal rights to couples who wish to formalize their relationship, especially when such a procedure is necessary for various legal issues?Would you also outlaw tubal ligations? Vasectomies?Nah. One more bastard is one too many.But mine was not a rhetorical question. You contend that part of your quarrel with homosexuals is that they are a "dead-end" reproductively. If that's the case, I ask that you be consistent in regard to other dead-end situations. (For intstance, should seniors not enjoy marital bliss?)Live your life and let others live theirs. Go in peace. It's fairly simple.Yes it is. Now, why did you say I should agree aberrent sex is as societally beneficial as is married heterosexuality? Just because this behavior "feels good & I wanna" doesn't really convince me.Perhaps your emotions are getting the better of you. There is a difference between sexual practice and sexuality. Naturally the two often overlap. But are you saying that you'd outlaw sexual practices that you consider "aberrant?" If so, then a lot of heteros are going to want a talk with you.

Also, it's nice (really) that you concern yourself with the benefit of society. I do as well. That's why I prefer to err (if erring it is) on the side of personal liberty so that all members of society are treated with respect.Who knows -- maybe I am absolutely alone in my thinking on this matter.No, but you show a desire to give it real thought.

[Regnad Kcin]

BTW, thanks for your comments, Upchurch and max.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
However, I wonder if your tone masks an edge.
Masks?

If you are referring to reproduction, society's future existence is in no danger whatsoever.
We could discuss the meaning of society I suppose, but I was referring to morality being imo a significant part of the glue that allows successful societies to perpetuate themselves for multiple generations.


You wrote earlier in this thread of your concern that homosexuals were interested in convincing the rest of the population that their "lifestyle" is acceptable.
And I thought I said that discussions tend to take place as if that convincing was a fait accompli. You think they are not?


At this point, I am of the opinion (based on casual scientific reading as well as observation) that homosexuality is one of the flavors of nature's kitchen.
It exists. The nature/nurture split is undetermined.


Different from the norm, sure. Unusual even. But "aberrant?"
I say yes. What would it take for sexual behaviors to reach aberrancy on your scales?


Perhaps your issue is with the message rather than the messenger?
Yes.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be available to everyone until such time as the individual forfeits his/her place in society by inflicting harm on others.
And we are discussing why I contend homosexuality may inflict societal harm to the extent it should not be accepted with approbation.


And I see where you're going with the use of the word "behavior." Surely you're not interested in semantic distinctions without differences?
Do you suggest there is no difference between "orientation" and "behavior"?


What is a "short term" freedom? My basic concept is considering the positive or negative effect on a society effectively extending more generations (the barbarians seem to still be out there).


I respect your position. However, I ask you to defend it.
LOL. Defend your own moral choices. I can only tell you what mine are, and if you believe yours are "rational" in all ways, I suspect you are wrong.


Where is the harm in the state granting legal rights to couples who wish to formalize their relationship, especially when such a procedure is necessary for various legal issues?
That's the short-term long-term problem we are discussing.


But mine was not a rhetorical question. You contend that part of your quarrel with homosexuals is that they are a "dead-end" reproductively. If that's the case, I ask that you be consistent in regard to other dead-end situations. (For intstance, should seniors not enjoy marital bliss?)
I do not recall myself advancing that argument, but if I did I withdraw it.


Perhaps your emotions are getting the better of you. There is a difference between sexual practice and sexuality. Naturally the two often overlap. But are you saying that you'd outlaw sexual practices that you consider "aberrant?" If so, then a lot of heteros are going to want a talk with you.
Nope, just keep private actions private, and if inadvertently those acts become public knowledge be willing to accept that society may decide to punish you. Heteros with kids have different concerns than those that don't imho.


That's why I prefer to err (if erring it is) on the side of personal liberty so that all members of society are treated with respect.
Yeah, that is more gratifying & easier than earning ones' respect.

And "respect" is such a multileveled word: Do you "respect" a crack-whore in the same way you "respect" your friends?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by frisian


Who defines harm?

Each of us seperately and communaly.

So what if the objections are religious?

And what if they are , my religous views are rolled over by the majority on a daily basis. My religion alolows for the ultimate divinity of the individual, the freedom of the individual and the idea that we must all nurture each other.

Why must a free American or any other free citizen not be allowed to object on religious grounds?

I can not state this clearly as of yet. 'Imaginary' harm as opposed to 'real' harm. Harm is generaly defined as physical injury or emotional truama. I would say that there are 'harms' under the religious banner that will fall under the general definition. But there are harms in the relgious setting that fall under sort of vauge beliefs. I can understand that there is a percieved harm that I don't agree with.
But is it really harmful to be encouraged or required to 'live in peace' with others who just simply don't share your values but are not harming you.

Your solution is such, why cater to your whims?

I understand that Frisian, and can only say , duh.

What does rape have to do with legalized, recognized unions of homosexuals?

Well, it is pointing out what I consider to be the foolishness of the whole 'family values' campaign. It seems that they just want to repress homosexuals, they don't care about the polygamists in CO forcing themselves on fourteen year olds, they don't care about the very real issue of domestic violence, they give lip service to 'child abuse' until it comes down to what they are doing to traumatize thier children.
So in a society where we have so many real issues where children are being harmed by so many different things, I just have to question worrying about 'marriage', I know homosexuals who are very good parents and I know heteros who are piss poor parents. The issue is not homosexuality but parenting and bigotry.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by frisian


Why?

Side note not directed at you - For being such free thinkers on this site, I see an awful lot of presupposed notions and firm conclusions. Not very skeptical eh?


:p

The Constitution has a lot going for it, if you examine it criticaly , that is if you assume that the premise that individual freedom is very important and needs to balance the power of society to create the greates good.

I think that the longer you are on the board the more you will realize that most people have applied critical thought to thier beliefs. Except on the P&CE forum.

:p ;)

[Zero]

What confuses me is that the anti-freedom people claim that minority groups are forcing their values on the majority. How is allowing gay marriage forcing anything on straight people?

[DarkPrimus]

If one thinks about it, the issue of gay marriage is a case of sexual discrimination.

After all, it's the denial of someone being able to marry someone they love simply because of their genders.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Dancing David


The Constitution has a lot going for it, if you examine it criticaly , that is if you assume that the premise that individual freedom is very important and needs to balance the power of society to create the greates good.

I think that the longer you are on the board the more you will realize that most people have applied critical thought to thier beliefs. Except on the P&CE forum.

:p ;)

Indeed a Republic is my favorite form of government at the moment.

Oh, I have seen beneath the intellectual groupthink facade on a few occasions.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zero
What confuses me is that the anti-freedom people claim that minority groups are forcing their values on the majority. How is allowing gay marriage forcing anything on straight people?
By requesting that people who disagree allow their children to be taught that both forms of marriage (& at heart sexual relations) have moral equivalency and that private acts of behavior in this case should not be a matter for concern, and possible disapprobation, by society at large.

Capiche?

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk

By requesting that people who disagree allow their children to be taught that both forms of marriage (& at heart sexual relations) have moral equivalency and that private acts of behavior in this case should not be a matter for concern, and possible disapprobation, by society at large.

Capiche? There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate religious people, without for a moment accepting their idiocy. There is no reason why we should not all be taught to tolerate others, whether or not we agree with them.

I wonder if you would suggest that we instead teach religious bigotry?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zero
There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. I tolerate religious people, without for a moment accepting their idiocy. There is no reason why we should not all be taught to tolerate others, whether or not we agree with them.

I wonder if you would suggest that we instead teach religious bigotry?
And you are mistaking religion for morality. Please advise how secular humanism demonstrates how aberrant sexual activities are not disadvantageous to a society.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

By requesting that people who disagree allow their children to be taught that both forms of marriage (& at heart sexual relations) have moral equivalency and that private acts of behavior in this case should not be a matter for concern, and possible disapprobation, by society at large. I find it interesting that you object to homosexuality being taught as morally equivalent to heterosexuality to our children, but you are for ID being taught as being factually equivalent to evolution. Should all theories be taught and let the kids make up their own mind or shouldn't they?

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk

And you are mistaking religion for morality. Please advise how secular humanism demonstrates how aberrant sexual activities are not disadvantageous to a society. You need to define 'abberant' by some standard beside religious bigotry. That needs to be your first step. Then you have to show how a specific 'abberant' behavior is specifically detrimental to society.

I find Christianity(and all religion, frankly) to be as harmful as drug addiction...if I can convince 51 percent of the population to agree with me, shall we ban religion in America?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I find it interesting that you object to homosexuality being taught as morally equivalent to heterosexuality to our children, but you are for ID being taught as being factually equivalent to evolution.
Damn language. I will state that my thoughts about what constitute ID do not agree with any religious creationism I'm aware of. As I've mentioned elsewhere, as well as several times before, think Bergson. In a word, "intent" rather than "random chance"; intent of what is unclear to me. Maybe the interacting web of boson fields that fill the universe?? Just kidding? Or am I?


Should all theories be taught and let the kids make up their own mind or shouldn't they?
Nope. Just agree that even though 0.999repeating = 1.0, we actually have a few more decimals to go before we conclude physical matter and secular humanism is all there is.

[ASRomatifoso]

Originally posted by No Answers
This issue seriously annoys me. I may be hetero, but... if the Constitution is actually amended to exclude certain people from having certain rights, well...

I may just give up on the U.S. and leave the country entirely.

Gawd, I hate this.

Totally agree with you! BTW, I also hate that this culture, country, bias, etc. makes you feel it necessary to say that you are hetero. Your orientation has no bearing but you felt compelled to mention it. That is the power of prejudice--that we feel we have to state who or what we are, so no one misconstrues things and holds that against us. I also am hetero, just so no one gets the wrong idea...damn!, see, I did it too:)

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
I find Christianity(and all religion, frankly) to be as harmful as drug addiction...if I can convince 51 percent of the population to agree with me, shall we ban religion in America?

Sure, if you'd like.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


Sure, if you'd like. Really? And if I convince 51% of the country that all Jews should be burned to death, that wouldn't bother you either?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Really? And if I convince 51% of the country that all Jews should be burned to death, that wouldn't bother you either?

Where did I say anything about being bothered or not?

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


Where did I say anything about being bothered or not? Let me rephrase it: wuold you have a problem with an American holocaust if a majority agreed with it? How about lynch mobs? Should those be legal if a majority in a town agrees to it?

Or do we say that the intent of American law is to confer the most freedom on the most people, including the freedom of the minority from the tyranny of the majority? I really think the issue rests on whether or not you support extending freedom and rights to as many people as possible, especially since there is no inherent harm in gay marriage.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Let me rephrase it: wuold you have a problem with an American holocaust if a majority agreed with it? How about lynch mobs? Should those be legal if a majority in a town agrees to it?

Or do we say that the intent of American law is to confer the most freedom on the most people, including the freedom of the minority from the tyranny of the majority? I really think the issue rests on whether or not you support extending freedom and rights to as many people as possible, especially since there is no inherent harm in gay marriage.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.

Depends.

[Fade]

I feel like I should chime in but I just don't wanna.

I think I am the only gay person on this forum that could be considered married.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Fade
I feel like I should chime in but I just don't wanna.

I think I am the only gay person on this forum that could be considered married.

Why would you not want to?

Considered married? What does that mean?

[Fade]

Originally posted by frisian


Why would you not want to?

Considered married? What does that mean?

Because I was married in a country that happens to recognize such things. That marriage holds nothing for me here, but I have gone through it. We're closing in on our 8th anniversary, which I dare say is longer than a lot of heterosexual marriages in todays world.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
No.

Depends. I asked more than 5 questions...

[frisian]

Originally posted by Fade


Because I was married in a country that happens to recognize such things. That marriage holds nothing for me here, but I have gone through it. We're closing in on our 8th anniversary, which I dare say is longer than a lot of heterosexual marriages in todays world.

Which country?

What does the length of your marriage have to do with anything?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fade
I feel like I should chime in but I just don't wanna.

I think I am the only gay person on this forum that could be considered married. Do you mind answering a few questions for us, or would that be prying?


BTW, congrats on 8 years, it is a longer run than I have managed to put together...

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
I asked more than 5 questions...

There were 4 sentences with question marks at the end of them.

There was 1 sentence with a period at the end. That one I commented, depends.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


There were 4 sentences with question marks at the end of them.

There was 1 sentence with a period at the end. That one I commented, depends. Oops...LOL


Still, though, you have to prove the harm in homosexual marriage before claiming that it is some sort of societal harm. The Supreme Court has ruled that simply being homosexual, or engaging in sex with another adult of the same gender, is a right that exists, based on the idea of equal protection under the law. Why should it somehow be illegal for homosexuals to them marry? They are Americans too, you know.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Oops...LOL


Still, though, you have to prove the harm in homosexual marriage before claiming that it is some sort of societal harm. The Supreme Court has ruled that simply being homosexual, or engaging in sex with another adult of the same gender, is a right that exists, based on the idea of equal protection under the law. Why should it somehow be illegal for homosexuals to them marry? They are Americans too, you know.

When did proof enter into what is made law? Whose proof? What is defined as sufficient proof? Who defines it?

It shouldn't be illegal for them to marry if that is how the law is worded.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


When did proof enter into what is made law? Whose proof? What is defined as sufficient proof? Who defines it?

It shouldn't be illegal for them to marry if that is how the law is worded. I think it is important that we repeal discriminatory laws, and don't create new laws that discriminate. Maybe that isn't important to you, but I happen to think that liberty actually should be more than a word that people pay lip service to, while squashing it when it satisfies their personal bigotry.

[Fade]

Originally posted by frisian


Which country?

Doesn't matter. You can take a guess knowing that I am from Ireland and my husband is from Greece. For the sake of our families we wanted neither of them to travel too long of a distance.

What does the length of your marriage have to do with anything?

I have chosen to bond to a single person, and only a single person. I have chosen not to stray in that relationship at all. I have chosen to love that person for the rest of my life. I have held this relationship in the way that many heterosexuals never do. I have not cheated, I have not abused my partner, I have not done any of the nasty things that some do. Yet, my relationship is not equal in the eyes of the law, nor in the eyes of the public.

The two of us are contributing, upstanding members of the community. Neither of us have ever commited any crime (we don't even have any sort of traffic violations) we have donated enormous time and money to the community. We are, in every way but one, an ideal american couple. Why should my relationship not be at the very least recognized by the government.

The fact is, the US was founded on principles of individual civil liberties. The framers of our constitution knew all to well that their forefathers had fled an oppressive system to make their own lives here. The people who came here initially were not all of one stalk, and that was okay. Even the puritans, who passed down quite a bit of their culture into the colonies, never preached to anyone outside their own. Their rules were theirs, and if you were not a part of them they simply didn't apply.

We have, as a nation, lost perspective on this. It is quite simply unconstitutional that I am being denied the same civil liberties that heterosexuals enjoy in regards to marriage. My relationship is not any different (at all) from that of a child-less heterosexual couple. Any argument that my own partnership is somehow less of a paternship than a heterosexual relationship MUST hold the same basic truths for those heterosexual couples that do not have, and do not plan to have children. Sterile people, under this logic, should not be allowed to marry.


Of course, that is silly. We have evolved far beyond a point where our relationships are for the singular purpose of procreation. Our species will not stop breeding, ever. Nature has guaranteed that we will have more people being made to offset deaths. So, being that reproduction is very obviously not the purpose of marriage laws (though you do get extra benefits for having children, which is a good thing), what is it's purpose?

Well, simple. A society with established, permanent partnerships will have a stronger underlying fibre than one without. Alone, neither of us would have the resources at our disposal to do for the community what we have done. Our sharing has worked out to a (rather large) surplus income, most of which is recycled back into society, to help those less fortunate than we are.

But, not all of it goes back.

We've had to pay rather hefty legal fees to ensure that neither of us loses the power of attorny over one anothers estate and person. I have reams of attorneys ready at a seconds notice if I am denied hospital visitation rights, denied the right to my husbands possessions if he happens to pass on. I have been forced, in essence, to pay a poll tax. I have to do extra things to guarantee I am given the same rights that you are. I have to spend time and money that you do not, to achieve the same benefit. That is in the most basic sense, unfair. Our system strives to BE fair, so there is something amiss here.

There is no push to recognize homosexual relationships as having moral equivalency to heterosexual relationships. That sort of question is not up to me to answer for you. That is up to you to answer for you. Our government is, right now, not giving us that choice. Our government is, right now, assigning moral superiority to your own form of relationship, simply by deferring resources and privelages to yours while my own do not receive anything at all.

But, it doesn't really matter anyway. In a few decades the people screeching today will be laughed at as the segregationists were in the 60's. Same old story, slightly different tune.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
I think it is important that we repeal discriminatory laws, and don't create new laws that discriminate. Maybe that isn't important to you, but I happen to think that liberty actually should be more than a word that people pay lip service to, while squashing it when it satisfies their personal bigotry.

Repeal laws that make distinctions?

Liberty is indeed important to me.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Fade


Doesn't matter. You can take a guess knowing that I am from Ireland and my husband is from Greece. For the sake of our families we wanted neither of them to travel too long of a distance.


I have chosen to bond to a single person, and only a single person. I have chosen not to stray in that relationship at all. I have chosen to love that person for the rest of my life. I have held this relationship in the way that many heterosexuals never do. I have not cheated, I have not abused my partner, I have not done any of the nasty things that some do. Yet, my relationship is not equal in the eyes of the law, nor in the eyes of the public.

The two of us are contributing, upstanding members of the community. Neither of us have ever commited any crime (we don't even have any sort of traffic violations) we have donated enormous time and money to the community. We are, in every way but one, an ideal american couple. Why should my relationship not be at the very least recognized by the government.

The fact is, the US was founded on principles of individual civil liberties. The framers of our constitution knew all to well that their forefathers had fled an oppressive system to make their own lives here. The people who came here initially were not all of one stalk, and that was okay. Even the puritans, who passed down quite a bit of their culture into the colonies, never preached to anyone outside their own. Their rules were theirs, and if you were not a part of them they simply didn't apply.

We have, as a nation, lost perspective on this. It is quite simply unconstitutional that I am being denied the same civil liberties that heterosexuals enjoy in regards to marriage. My relationship is not any different (at all) from that of a child-less heterosexual couple. Any argument that my own partnership is somehow less of a paternship than a heterosexual relationship MUST hold the same basic truths for those heterosexual couples that do not have, and do not plan to have children. Sterile people, under this logic, should not be allowed to marry.


Of course, that is silly. We have evolved far beyond a point where our relationships are for the singular purpose of procreation. Our species will not stop breeding, ever. Nature has guaranteed that we will have more people being made to offset deaths. So, being that reproduction is very obviously not the purpose of marriage laws (though you do get extra benefits for having children, which is a good thing), what is it's purpose?

Well, simple. A society with established, permanent partnerships will have a stronger underlying fibre than one without. Alone, neither of us would have the resources at our disposal to do for the community what we have done. Our sharing has worked out to a (rather large) surplus income, most of which is recycled back into society, to help those less fortunate than we are.

But, not all of it goes back.

We've had to pay rather hefty legal fees to ensure that neither of us loses the power of attorny over one anothers estate and person. I have reams of attorneys ready at a seconds notice if I am denied hospital visitation rights, denied the right to my husbands possessions if he happens to pass on. I have been forced, in essence, to pay a poll tax. I have to do extra things to guarantee I am given the same rights that you are. I have to spend time and money that you do not, to achieve the same benefit. That is in the most basic sense, unfair. Our system strives to BE fair, so there is something amiss here.

There is no push to recognize homosexual relationships as having moral equivalency to heterosexual relationships. That sort of question is not up to me to answer for you. That is up to you to answer for you. Our government is, right now, not giving us that choice. Our government is, right now, assigning moral superiority to your own form of relationship, simply by deferring resources and privelages to yours while my own do not receive anything at all.

But, it doesn't really matter anyway. In a few decades the people screeching today will be laughed at as the segregationists were in the 60's. Same old story, slightly different tune.

Nice post. I still don't understand what the length or commitment of your marriage has to do with anything????

But guess what, I am ok with homosexuals getting married and it being recognized as such by the goverment. It is not a theocracy we live in, and I as a Christian don't want it to be so.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


Repeal laws that make distinctions?

Liberty is indeed important to me. Grrrrr...Laws that specifically limit the rights of groups of people, not because of something illegal they did, but simply for being who they are, are discriminatory laws, and should be repealed.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Regnad Kcin
If you are referring to reproduction, society's future existence is in no danger whatsoever.originally posted by hammegk
We could discuss the meaning of society I suppose, but I was referring to morality being imo a significant part of the glue that allows successful societies to perpetuate themselves for multiple generations.Well, I note your "imo" qualifier. And while I believe your premise wouldn't withstand scrutiny, it is nevertheless far afield of our discussion, so I'm going to try to get us back on track. Here's the issue again, as explicit as I can make it:

If any two adults wish to formalize their personal partnership in the eyes of the law, that process being necessary to fully avail themselves of the law's benefits and protections, where is the compelling reason why they should not be allowed to do so?

Any judgment as to an individual's--or group's--"morality" is going to be arbitrary. Indeed, what you or I might find acceptable or not may be at odds. So, too, might a third person's, and so on. As long as there is no harm being caused by our choices, liberty (and humanity!) allows for this diversity.

Back to marriage.

Under your proposal to hang a moral prerequisite on the right to marry, a convict serving a life sentence for, say, murder, would not be allowed to do so, something which is clearly not the case. Indeed, list a moral failing, from thievery to drug abuse to larceny to you-name-it, and nothing stops the person who suffers from it from walking into the Kwik-E-Wedding chapel and exiting on the road towards marital bliss.

As it stands today, nearly any couple composed of opposite sexes can marry, regardless of their personal moral choices. Moreover, your imaginary up-'til-now moral person is allowed to stay married, even if he/she should fall afield of society's generally accepted standards of behavior (as reflected in our laws).

Now, you wish to disqualify a group of people from even the opportunity to consider the marital option and, moreover, impose punishment by withholding from them the consequential treatment the simple piece of paper provides.

Huh?

I'm going to call your bluff. Something about same-sex relationships rubs you the wrong way and you are merely seeking some rationalization to justify your point of view. Yes or no?

You wrote earlier in this thread of your concern that homosexuals were interested in convincing the rest of the population that their "lifestyle" is acceptable.And I thought I said that discussions tend to take place as if that convincing was a fait accompli. You think they are not?You're inventing (or at the very least inflating) a demon to rail against.At this point, I am of the opinion (based on casual scientific reading as well as observation) that homosexuality is one of the flavors of nature's kitchen.It exists. The nature/nurture split is undetermined.And very well may always be. But again, it's beside the point.Different from the norm, sure. Unusual even. But "aberrant?"I say yes. What would it take for sexual behaviors to reach aberrancy on your scales?Never mind about me. See, I don't care how other people get their yuks.

Frankly, there is no template for normality when it comes to sexuality; such is the evidence of basic anthropological observation. Now, if one wants to have a child, there's pretty much only one (direct physical) way to go about it. But human (and other primate) behavior shows that couples do not just couple to have a couple.

But, again, we both digress.Perhaps your issue is with the message rather than the messenger?Yes.And I miswrote. What I meant to suggest is that perhaps you feel put upon by the efforts of the gay community as they are passed along by the messenger, that being the not always reliable, nor mature, mass media."Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" should be available to everyone until such time as the individual forfeits his/her place in society by inflicting harm on others.And we are discussing why I contend homosexuality may inflict societal harm to the extent it should not be accepted with approbation.All right then. You're making the contention; tell us all what the harm is. Furthermore, consider that we're not starting from a position of neutrality; there is today clear and definite harm being done against this group of people.

It's not a leap to assume (based on the aforementioned observations of the animal kingdom) that homosexuality has always been a part of life. We also know that there are some species which alternate between sex depending on their present biological need.

Let's not forget, you're seeking to maintain the denial of rights to a group of people not because of what they do, but because of what they are.And I see where you're going with the use of the word "behavior." Surely you're not interested in semantic distinctions without differences?Do you suggest there is no difference between "orientation" and "behavior"?Of course there's a difference. A heterosexual may engage in homosexual behavior by choice. And vice (if you'll pardon the pun) versa.What is a "short term" freedom?My basic concept is considering the positive or negative effect on a society effectively extending more generations (the barbarians seem to still be out there).Well, I've read your response a few times and can make little of it. Would you please clarify?

I respect your position. However, I ask you to defend it.LOL. Defend your own moral choices. I can only tell you what mine are, and if you believe yours are "rational" in all ways, I suspect you are wrong.Here again are your words:Originally posted by hammegk
In the sense that what masturbatory practices you care to indulge in, and with, behing closed doors, none. Manual, oral, anal, beat me-bite me-blah blah; Man-man, woman-woman, bisexuality, bring whatever you please; you choice. My choice is to not accept that your behavior is moral and worthy of widespread societal acceptance, certainly not for children."My choice is to not accept that your behavior is moral and worthy of widespread societal acceptance, certainly not for children."

As to the last point first, I have already indicated that children, being such, are the responsibility of their parents; students of theirs, if you will.

As to my request that you defend your point of view, if you believe it to be superior, promote it and let it stand on its merits. See, you're the one insisting on passing judgement on others. No need to get upset or "LOL" when someone in turn asks, "Why?"

I don't care what people do behind closed doors either. But again, for the umpteenth time, we're talking about equal rights for all, regardless of their private, consenting activities.Where is the harm in the state granting legal rights to couples who wish to formalize their relationship, especially when such a procedure is necessary for various legal issues?That's the short-term long-term problem we are discussing.So your answer is?But mine was not a rhetorical question. You contend that part of your quarrel with homosexuals is that they are a "dead-end" reproductively. If that's the case, I ask that you be consistent in regard to other dead-end situations. (For intstance, should seniors not enjoy marital bliss?)I do not recall myself advancing that argument, but if I did I withdraw it.Originally posted by hammegk
By definition a gay/lesbian society will disappear in one generation (yes, I'm ignoring modern technology); what societal benefit accrues to that lifestyle? Gay is a genetic deadend (if truly genetic)Moving on...Perhaps your emotions are getting the better of you. There is a difference between sexual practice and sexuality. Naturally the two often overlap. But are you saying that you'd outlaw sexual practices that you consider "aberrant?" If so, then a lot of heteros are going to want a talk with you.Nope, just keep private actions private, and if inadvertently those acts become public knowledge be willing to accept that society may decide to punish you. Heteros with kids have different concerns than those that don't imho."Society may decide to punish you?" Wow.

Hey, no one (least of all me) is advocating public displays of lovin'. We already have jots on the books for such matters. What I am (again) talking about is official discrimination, not on behavior (which is a temporary condition), but on an individual's self. This is the issue.

My guess is that you just can't bear the idea of the state officially sanctioning a particular type of couple. But so long as that couple needs certification to legally operate then a solution must be found.That's why I prefer to err (if erring it is) on the side of personal liberty so that all members of society are treated with respect.Yeah, that is more gratifying & easier than earning ones' respect.

And "respect" is such a multileveled word: Do you "respect" a crack-whore in the same way you "respect" your friends?First bestiality, now crack-whores? Y'know, clouding-the-issue/inflammatory-rhetoric may be fun, but usually doesn't contribute much to a discussion.

BTW, I notice you skipped right over the "personal liberty" part.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Grrrrr...Laws that specifically limit the rights of groups of people, not because of something illegal they did, but simply for being who they are, are discriminatory laws, and should be repealed.

"simply for being who they are"

I love that defense.

You know how subjective law would become?

[Fade]

Nice post. I still don't understand what the length or commitment of your marriage has to do with anything????

Well part of my purpose in these types of threads is to destroy the idea that homosexuals are one-night-standers all around. As of now, there is no real statistic about gay couples. Nobody cares about comparing straight couples to gay couples, I constantly see statistics comparing straight *marriages* to gay coupling.. which doesn't work. Anyhow, that's one of the stereotypes negatively effecting gay-marriage laws getting passed.

I would also attempt to show that my relationship is very likely to last until one or the other of us die. This is not something the average heterosexual ever achieves in our modern society. I am, in fact, holding my relationship to a higher, and more rigorous standard than the average heterosexual. If there is to be sanctity in marriage, then perhaps we should allow those actually commited to one another to marry.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


"simply for being who they are"

I love that defense.

You know how subjective law would become? No, I don't know, but I am sure you would love to tell me, right?

[Fade]

"simply for being who they are"

I love that defense.

You know how subjective law would become?

I think you miss the point. The current capricious nature of our laws tends towards grave injustices. There should be no application of law that does *not* ask the question "What harm are we preventing?"

If I outlaw murder, I am saving people from being killed. I am saving them from harm.

If I outlaw eating broccoli, I am not saving anyone (except the broccoli!) and in fact may be hurting people needlessly.


In that sense, homosexuals are being discriminated against under no basis I can see other than plain out bigotry. In the years I have been screeched at about this, nobody has come to me with a rational reason saying "If we let homosexuals marry, X will happen. When X happens, our society will suffer."

What I have seen is ignorant speculation which flies in the face of the experience of nations which have already done what we ask to do. Viewing homosexual couples in the same light as heterosexual couples (under law, we're not talking about personal morality, religion, or anything like that. Those things are up to you to decide) has not had any detrimental effect in any of the countries which have thus far began recognizing them. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

We should be looking at these progressive nations which are making vast improvements in equal rights and emulating them. Are we not a nation that seeks to be inclusive of all people? Did this country not go through nearly a century of bitter race tension only to have the trend reversed by a radical movement?

I believe we are losing this due to the religiosity of our current leaders. Progress is being erased in the name of morality and sanctity. In other words, progress is being erased in the name of things the government has no business speaking too. This bothers me. It should bother you.

If it doesn't, I can only conclude that you don't care about America, or freedom.

[Zero]

Fade,

Have you ever, to your knowledge, destroyed a society by being homosexual? Have you corrupted civilization by your monogamous relationship with another homosexual? Most, importantly, have you ever forced heterosexuals to accept your homosexual lifestyle(possibly at gunpoint)?

[Fade]

Originally posted by Zero
Fade,

Have you ever, to your knowledge, destroyed a society by being homosexual? Have you corrupted civilization by your monogamous relationship with another homosexual? Most, importantly, have you ever forced heterosexuals to accept your homosexual lifestyle(possibly at gunpoint)?


Well there was that time I killed Jesus...

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
No, I don't know, but I am sure you would love to tell me, right?

Simply for being who they are....

Who would define that? The individual?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fade



Well there was that time I killed Jesus... Yeah, but he always comes back before he starts smelling too bad, so that doesn't count.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


Simply for being who they are....

Who would define that? The individual? Why don't you tell me?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Fade

I think you miss the point. The current capricious nature of our laws tends towards grave injustices. There should be no application of law that does *not* ask the question "What harm are we preventing?"


Who would determine whether harm is being prevented?

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Why don't you tell me?
Because it was your suggestion.

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian

Because it was your suggestion. Well, you suggested that it would make the law subjective...tell me how.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Well, you suggested that it would make the law subjective...tell me how.

"Grrrrr...Laws that specifically limit the rights of groups of people, not because of something illegal they did, but simply for being who they are, are discriminatory laws, and should be repealed."


Well the best one to define "simply who they are" would be the individual no? Which would then determine what laws could be made correct?

Let's say a serial killer believes he/she is just "simply being who they are".

[Zero]

Originally posted by frisian


"Grrrrr...Laws that specifically limit the rights of groups of people, not because of something illegal they did, but simply for being who they are, are discriminatory laws, and should be repealed."


Well the best one to define "simply who they are" would be the individual no? Which would then determine what laws could be made correct?

Let's say a serial killer believes he/she is just "simply being who they are". Did you not notice the part when I mentioned illegal acts? Homosexuality is not an illegal act, therefore laws restricting the rights of homosexuals are discriminatory.

[Fade]

Originally posted by frisian


Who would determine whether harm is being prevented?

In the USA Congress passes laws. The court system may declare a law to be unconstitutional should that law be challenged before them.

Also, common sense is something you should look into.

Edit-

It's fairly obvious to me that you're playing the devils advocate at this point. Do you have any cogent arguments to present or should I stop viewing this thread?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fade


Edit-

It's fairly obvious to me that you're playing the devils advocate at this point. Do you have any cogent arguments to present or should I stop viewing this thread? I got the same impression...and I am probably just as sick of it as you are.;)

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by frisian
Let's say a serial killer believes he/she is just "simply being who they are". Are you being intentionally obtuse?

A serial killer has, by definition, taken the life of others; he has inflicted irreparable harm.

If no harm can be determined with regard to the actions of others, the proper course of action is to take a position of neutrality, otherwise known as minding your own business.

[shecky]

Originally posted by frisian

Let's say a serial killer believes he/she is just "simply being who they are".

Perhaps a law that protects the sanctity of marriage by restricting the unions of serial killers is called for. :rolleyes:

[frisian]

Originally posted by shecky


Perhaps a law that protects the sanctity of marriage by restricting the unions of serial killers is called for. :rolleyes:

Why would you suggest such?

I never suggested that homosexuals could ruin the santicty of marriage.

:p

[frisian]

Originally posted by Zero
Did you not notice the part when I mentioned illegal acts? Homosexuality is not an illegal act, therefore laws restricting the rights of homosexuals are discriminatory.

Ah I see. Ok, so the majority via the legislative process could declare that homosexuality is an illegal act or that exercising ones religion.

Note I agreed the way the law is currently defined is indeed vague and makes it discriminatory.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by Fade

I have chosen to bond to a single person, and only a single person. I have chosen not to stray in that relationship at all. I have chosen to love that person for the rest of my life. I have held this relationship in the way that many heterosexuals never do. I have not cheated, I have not abused my partner, I have not done any of the nasty things that some do.
The question that started this thread (What is the sanctity of marraige? for those who've forgotten) could have no better answer than this.

[Fade]

Originally posted by frisian


Why would you suggest such?

I never suggested that homosexuals could ruin the santicty of marriage.

:p

So what is your purpose in this thread?

[wolfgirl]

I've been away for a while, so first let me say "Hi, all!"

I must confess that I haven't had time to read all of the posts in this thread, so please forgive me if this has already been brought up.

In regard to whether or not the movement against gay marriage is mostly religious, I refer you to last week's State of the Union address. I haven't heard anyone else bring this up, but I thought it was quite telling. The Resident said something like, "The same moral tradition that tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman also tells us that all people are equal under God." What "moral tradition" tells us we're all equal under God? Why, it's not a moral tradition at all, but religion. Once again, equating religion and morality. It's obvious that "moral tradition" was used as a code word for religion, and that should be worrying to us. Religion has no place in determining what our laws should be. If it is religion that is telling him that marriage is between a man and a woman, then his church can say they won't marry gay people, but the government has no right to say so.

I myself cannot comprehend how gay marriage is a threat to "the sanctity of marriage," anyway. I have been married for over 23 years and the thought of gay people getting married has had absolutely no influence whatsoever on my marriage. It would be no more or less strong if they let gay people get married. Nor can I believe that others would be less likely to get married if gay people could do so.

There is no reasonable excuse for shutting gay people out of the benefits of marriage. If they are equal, they must be truly equal, not "separate but equal" by being allowed to have "civil unions." The only reason anyone really has against gay marriage is because the Bible says it's wrong. There is no rational, logical reason.

wolfie

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by frisian
Let's say a serial killer believes he/she is just "simply being who they are".

This stupid argument gets brought up every damn time people talk about gay rights. Someone will invariably say, "Well, should we let pedophiles do whatever they want, just because that's how they were born?"

Pedophiles - and serial killers - harm others by their actions. Gays don't. Is that so hard to comprehend???

[Zero]

Originally posted by wolfgirl


This stupid argument gets brought up every damn time people talk about gay rights. Someone will invariably say, "Well, should we let pedophiles do whatever they want, just because that's how they were born?"

Pedophiles - and serial killers - harm others by their actions. Gays don't. Is that so hard to comprehend??? Yes, it IS hard to comprehend...homosexuality is an ABOMINATION UNTO THE LORD!!(or some such retarded nonsense)

[frisian]

Originally posted by wolfgirl


This stupid argument gets brought up every damn time people talk about gay rights. Someone will invariably say, "Well, should we let pedophiles do whatever they want, just because that's how they were born?"

Pedophiles - and serial killers - harm others by their actions. Gays don't. Is that so hard to comprehend???

hmmm, perhaps I don't understand the act itself. Sounds painful.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Fade


So what is your purpose in this thread?

To understand others thoughts and how they reach conclusions.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by frisian


hmmm, perhaps I don't understand the act itself. Sounds painful.

This is silly and quite beyond the scope of this forum. Gay sex is the same mechanicaly as hetero sex, just the lubrication may be artificial.

[hammegk]

You mean with lubrication and after one ingests enough alcohol & other drugs that a forearm up to the elbow is AoK? Whatever.

There, that was "silly".

[Fade]

Originally posted by frisian


hmmm, perhaps I don't understand the act itself. Sounds painful.

What act? Do you mean anal sex?

Posted by Dancing David
This is silly and quite beyond the scope of this forum. Gay sex is the same mechanicaly as hetero sex, just the lubrication may be artificial.

Not exactly. It takes a little more work.

But, many hetero males and females engage in the act, and not all homosexual males do. Homosexuals have to "make do" with what we have.

[Upchurch]

Where in the world did all this straw come from?
Originally posted by hammegk
You mean with lubrication and after one ingests enough alcohol & other drugs that a forearm up to the elbow is AoK? oooh.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
oooh.
More grease?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk

More grease? Not that I'm not flattered and all, hammegk, but I'm happily married. You'll have to find someone else to have your fun with.

[frisian]

Originally posted by Fade


What act? Do you mean anal sex?



Not exactly. It takes a little more work.

But, many hetero males and females engage in the act, and not all homosexual males do. Homosexuals have to "make do" with what we have.

Thanks for the insight as I was geuinely curious.

[Fade]

Originally posted by frisian


Thanks for the insight as I was geuinely curious.

Not really something brought up in polite conversation. Though, I'd imagine the resulting expressions would be comical if one were to begin speaking about it.

I am sure there are resources describing general sexual antics of all sorts of people in graphic detail.

Anyway, the rule of thumb I use is "If it's painful, you're not doing it correctly."

[frisian]

Originally posted by Fade


Not really something brought up in polite conversation. Though, I'd imagine the resulting expressions would be comical if one were to begin speaking about it.

I am sure there are resources describing general sexual antics of all sorts of people in graphic detail.

Anyway, the rule of thumb I use is "If it's painful, you're not doing it correctly."

Aye, never found a message board yet that I would deem inherently polite. I suppose I was thinking, when in Rome...

Sure, I am sure some resources are more valid than others as well.

I am certain some would disagree about the pain factor, but that is hypothetical.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk
You mean with lubrication and after one ingests enough alcohol & other drugs that a forearm up to the elbow is AoK? Whatever.

There, that was "silly".

That would be assuming that fisting is a unique prectise of homosexuals. While it is definitly on my 'ooky' list of things I wouldn't do, it is not a practise unique to homosexuals.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Fade

But, many hetero males and females engage in the act, and not all homosexual males do. Homosexuals have to "make do" with what we have.

I realise that, which was my point, most sex involves a lot of hugging and kissing as well. And mechanicaly most of the acts are the same as they are for the opposite sex relations. Except heteero can't 'dock' with thier g-friend the way they would with thier bi buddy.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Not that I'm not flattered and all ...
Don't be.

Back on the sanctity issue -- which I contend has much to do with sexual mores -- at what age should children be privy to our latest comments on those mores, as they might apply to homosexual marriage.

As another aside, regarding laws and morals. IIRC it was Justice Holmes who noted that "law" has nothing to do with "morals". Law is a promise by society, that if an individual does a specific act, is caught, and found guilty, society will punish him as that Law prescibes.

Legality or illegality of specific behaviors (note: behavior, not intent) is not a moral issue.

[Fade]

Back on the sanctity issue -- which I contend has much to do with sexual mores -- at what age should children be privy to our latest comments on those mores, as they might apply to homosexual marriage.

I am not understanding your point. What does the education of children have to do with marriage, and more specifically, gay marriage? I'm tempted to believe you are saying "won't you PLEASE think of the children??????????????" but I'm not sure!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk

Don't be.

Back on the sanctity issue -- which I contend has much to do with sexual mores -- at what age should children be privy to our latest comments on those mores, as they might apply to homosexual marriage.

Cuts both ways, at which age should a child be told that thier neighbors are going to hell because they aren't Xians?
The homosexual parents I know engage in the same converstaions that my wife and I engage in in front of our child.
When you say sexual mores , do you mean discussion of the right to be a homosexual?
That is what I would assume, my son and daughter know that my brother and best friend are gay, he was my daughter's 'uncle Riley' in most of her childhood. My wife and I have discussed the fact that we do not approve of prejudice based upon stereo types , and that our son should judge people by the content of thier actions.
And so we condemn discrimination, including discrimination against homosesxuals.
We still indoctrinate our son on the same issues that most parents would, that sex is a very serious issue, that it is not a toy, etc.. He just turned ten so the talk has not gotten to some of the more serious topics.
It would help when you mention talking about sexual mores, which part of the mores you are discussing?


As another aside, regarding laws and morals. IIRC it was Justice Holmes who noted that "law" has nothing to do with "morals". Law is a promise by society, that if an individual does a specific act, is caught, and found guilty, society will punish him as that Law prescibes.

Legality or illegality of specific behaviors (note: behavior, not intent) is not a moral issue.

And the legality of those issues is based upon the concept of 'harm' to the victim or the social structure.
I still contend that you would need to demostrate what 'harm' is being done when homosexuals are allowed 'civil union' and adoption.
Where is the proof, this is a sceptics forum, of this harm?

I find it reprehensible that little children do tell my son that he will go to hell if he doesn't go to church.

Should we outlaw churches?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
Don't be.Awww.... Someone is grumpy...
Back on the sanctity issue -- which I contend has much to do with sexual mores -- at what age should children be privy to our latest comments on those mores, as they might apply to homosexual marriage. As has been pointed out, the age at which children are exposed to sexual issues isn't dependent on the type of sexuality (i.e. either homo- or hetero-) as much as it is dependent on the mental and physical development level of the child. Some children need to be exposed to this information sooner than others because children develop at different rates.

I think most US schools provide some level of sex ed around fifth and/or sixth grade. That's approximately ages 11 through 13, which just at or just before the onset of puberty, which I feel is a very appropriate time for such information. As for teaching the moral implications (depending on your value set), I don't think it's necessary nor possible for the school to teach. Learning the dangers of disease and early pregnancy should be enough to promote safe behavior and leave the field open for the child's family or religous institution to fill in the moral gaps.
As another aside, regarding laws and morals. IIRC it was Justice Holmes who noted that "law" has nothing to do with "morals". Law is a promise by society, that if an individual does a specific act, is caught, and found guilty, society will punish him as that Law prescibes. This just go to further the point that there should not be a constitutional amendment or even a law outlawing gay marriage on the grounds that it is immoral or that it violates the sanctity (i.e. holiness) of marriage.

[wolfgirl]

I think that my original post got lost in all of the often sophomoric chatter about lubrication and fists and such. I think that my point about W's speech is important and am curious how others feel about it.

Originally posted by wolfgirl
In regard to whether or not the movement against gay marriage is mostly religious, I refer you to last week's State of the Union address. I haven't heard anyone else bring this up, but I thought it was quite telling. The Resident said something like, "The same moral tradition that tells us that marriage is between a man and a woman also tells us that all people are equal under God." What "moral tradition" tells us we're all equal under God? Why, it's not a moral tradition at all, but religion. Once again, equating religion and morality. It's obvious that "moral tradition" was used as a code word for religion, and that should be worrying to us. Religion has no place in determining what our laws should be. If it is religion that is telling him that marriage is between a man and a woman, then his church can say they won't marry gay people, but the government has no right to say so.

I myself cannot comprehend how gay marriage is a threat to "the sanctity of marriage," anyway. I have been married for over 23 years and the thought of gay people getting married has had absolutely no influence whatsoever on my marriage. It would be no more or less strong if they let gay people get married. Nor can I believe that others would be less likely to get married if gay people could do so.

There is no reasonable excuse for shutting gay people out of the benefits of marriage. If they are equal, they must be truly equal, not "separate but equal" by being allowed to have "civil unions." The only reason anyone really has against gay marriage is because the Bible says it's wrong. There is no rational, logical reason.

[Upchurch]

Sorry, wg.
Originally posted by wolfgirl
In regard to whether or not the movement against gay marriage is mostly religious, I refer you to last week's State of the Union address. {snip} ..., but the government has no right to say so.Couldn't agree more. The Resident's (lol, that's a good one) policy towards gay marriage is, of couse, what prompted me to start this thread in the first place.
I myself cannot comprehend how gay marriage is a threat to "the sanctity of marriage," anyway. My favorite counter-argument, these days is that divorce is a much worse threat to the sanctity of marriage, but there is no constitutional amendment to outlaw it.
If they are equal, they must be truly equal, not "separate but equal" by being allowed to have "civil unions." Interestingly, many gay men that I know would be happy with civil unions, probably because it is so much better than what they are currently afforded. Still, I wonder how long it will take after having taken that step it will take them to wanting it recognized as a marriage in the fullest sense of the word?

[Dancing David]

Wolf girl, the president is adding something to the religion that is not there! I would think that he would have a hard time defending the notion that religion supports the 'equal under god' stance.

The founders of our nation were pios people, they are the ones who enshrined the notions of liberty and equality under our laws. It may have been inspired by religion but it was meant to counter the obviosly bigotted and devisive nature of religion.

If all people are equal under god, it makes me think of a gay man I meant who ws a devout Catholic, when I said I was suprised he said that "God made me the way that I am and people who don't like it should take it up with god."

I have seen no evidence that exposure to homosexuality as a sexual norm does anything to increase the rates of homosexuality. Even when it meant the death penalty in Mao's China people were still homosexual.

[Regnad Kcin]

I see that hammegk has abandoned the discussion. Ah well.

[hammegk]

So many threads, so little time.

[/hijack]

How can an atheist even comprehend what sanctity implies?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
How can an atheist even comprehend what sanctity implies? Nice avoidance ya got there.

Anyway, one can comprehend what unicorns and leprichans are without believing in them. One can understand what utilitarianism implies without believing in it. It's not hard.

What's your point?

edited to add: Does faith somehow give one special insight or knowledge?

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk
So many threads, so little time.

[/hijack]

How can an atheist even comprehend what sanctity implies? That is actually a good point...and since America has a secular government, it certainly isn't up to a court to defend 'sanctity', now is it?

[hammegk]

Ask a swede; they saw some linkage that escapes you.

http://pub.tv2.no/nettavisen/english/article177749.ece

In contrast with most other countries, animal sex is not illegal in Sweden. It was decriminalized in 1944 in connection with the decriminalization of homosexual sex.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by hammegk
Ask a swede; they saw some linkage that escapes you. Or they didn't think through the issue of "consent" when they passed those decrimialized those acts.

[Upchurch]

Okay, I forgot about this thread.

Quite a bit has happened since we left it. While I think the Mayor of San Francisco is wrong by illegeally handing out marriage licenses, I appriciate the sentiment. No matter how one feels about a law, unless someone's life is at stake, disobedeance (sp?) is not the correct way to have an unjust law changed.

Or maybe it is. I mean, civil disobedeance was a powerful tool for Martin Luthor King, jr. and Gandi. I dunno.

[Zero]

I'm not sure how I feel about this...mostly negative, I guess. SF is breaking the law, and I can't support that aspect, as noble as the intention might possibly be.

[Upchurch]

I should avoid posting when I'm dead tired.

Anyway, with a full night's sleep behind me, I still think SF's mayor is doing the wrong thing. I hope all those folks getting the marriage licenses realize there is only a slim chance that they're marriage will be upheld. In that sense, I can't respect the mayor for playing with people's emotions like this.

That being said, I am glad that this issue is being pushed by both sides. That means that the issue is going to be pushed a head much faster and, hopefully, will be resolved much sooner than it would have been otherwise.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
There is a lot of talk about protecting the sanctity of marriage, but what does that mean? (Obviously, I'm going at this within the context of gay marriage) So, what makes marriage holy or sacred? Based on the general themes of most religions, one would think that it is things like love, devotion, and commitment that are the key factors in the holiness of marriage. Only the Catholic Church puts "producing offspring" as the primary reason for marriage.

I think it works from the ground up here. In other words, organization doesn't happen from top to bottom, but bottom to top.

Civilization exists to allow families to exist. Procreation and stability and security are the essential necessities of civilization. Marriage is the vehicle for these things, so even in the most secular way of thinking, if ANYTHING is holy and sacred, that thing is marriage.

Love and devotion and commitment can be applied to friends, even acquaintances.

Holiness implies God's grace. The sacramental understanding of marriage means that God wants marriages.

All of this has been codified throughout human history.

Why, then, do we propose a constitutional amendment to prevent gay couples from promoting and sharing in the sanctity of marriage, but we do nothing to make divorce illegal, which is the antithesis to everything marriage stands for in any religion?

I think the main reason is to stop the courts from legislating. Gay couples (in most states) are not allowed to be married.

I have greater problems with divorce than I do with gay marriage. Even if gays say they are married, that statement would never mean anything to me, whether the marriage was legal or not. Divorce, however, is out of control, and I don't think it should be made illegal, but I do think no-fault divorce demands examination that it won't be getting anytime soon, if ever.

-Elliot

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by elliotfc
Civilization exists to allow families to exist. Procreation and stability and security are the essential necessities of civilization. Marriage is the vehicle for these things, so even in the most secular way of thinking, if ANYTHING is holy and sacred, that thing is marriage.Actually, civilization exists to promote the welfare of our species. Our traditional neuclear family unit is only one of many possible social structures. Others would include things like tribes or clans, where it isn't necessarily what we would consider the immediate family who are responsible for raising the children.

No, if anything is truly holy or sacred it isn't marriage, but rather that activity that for which our culture has marriage: the raising and guiding of children. If producing children alone were the sole source of holiness in marriage that would sugges that God only cares about quantity, not quality. We cannot think that God is only interested in numbers. The world is already dangerously overpopulated as it is and we are in danger of breeding ourselves into extinction as it is. How could God want that?

Consider the large amount of orphaned children and children in foster care in the world who are not getting the guidence they truly need. Consider further an influx of stable married couples who are unable to have children of their own, but want to raise children. Can you not think of a better fit, considering the fact that the childrens' own parents are unable to care for them themselves?

A homosexual couple is just as capable of performing the most sacrid action of marriage, the raising of children, as a heterosexual couple is. How can we not allow them to do so?

I take it you are religious. Have you ever considered that homosexuality is God's way of taking care of all his children?

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
The world is already dangerously overpopulated as it is and we are in danger of breeding ourselves into extinction as it is.Evidence, please?

The rate of world population growth has slowed considerably, and the fertility rate has dropped even in developing countries (in some cases below replacement levels, similar to many if not the majority of industrialized countries). The UN keeps revising its population growth projections ever-downward, and my impression is that the doom-and-gloom overpopulation scenarios of the '60s and '70s no longer enjoy much currency among experts. The real population-related problem in the future - which will hit sometime in the next generation or so - will be caused by declining birth rates.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Ah, but now the experts are concerned about declining birth rates, so it follows that overpopulation will once again become a problem!

It's too dangerous to give much weight to the opinions of the "experts" when they're lacking in expertise. In any case, six billion humans is clearly too many, at least the way they're living right now.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Evidence, please? huh. You're right. (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html) The rate has slowed quite a bit from it's maximum of 2.19% growth in 1962-1963 to the value of 1.13% in 2003. That doesn't really take away from the fact that the world population has almost tripled in the last 50 years, does it?

2,680,544,579 people in 1953.
6,302,486,693 people in 2003.

Regardless, that was a minor part of my argument. I'm comfortable conceeding that point of it.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Actually, civilization exists to promote the welfare of our species. Our traditional neuclear family unit is only one of many possible social structures. Others would include things like tribes or clans, where it isn't necessarily what we would consider the immediate family who are responsible for raising the children.

Except you forget that all tribal/clan based cultures have incorporated man-woman marriage, invariably. The main difference is that at times polygamy was promoted as well.

No, if anything is truly holy or sacred it isn't marriage, but rather that activity that for which our culture has marriage: the raising and guiding of children.

I respect your sentiment here completely.

The raising and guiding of children has never been a sacrament, and has never been solely relegated to husband-wife. In fact, many times the state/military/relatives were given the responsibility. It isn't so sacred that the people who create them have universally raised them.

Of course you can't even raise and guide what doesn't exist, so reproduction has to have primacy.

If producing children alone were the sole source of holiness in marriage that would sugges that God only cares about quantity, not quality.

I totally agree and so does the Pope,just check out his theology of the body, or read Love and Responsibility.

We cannot think that God is only interested in numbers. The world is already dangerously overpopulated as it is and we are in danger of breeding ourselves into extinction as it is. How could God want that?

I've studied this closely for years. Every survey I've ever seen puts a population cap at between 9 and 12 billion which will be reached by 2100 (approximately), followed by decreasing world population.

People who think that the world is dangerously overpopulated act accordingly, and let's examine Western Europe to see the fruits of this way of thinking. Thankfully we have illegal immigration, and Latinos reproduce more than whites, so we'll be OK here in the US. Not a stereotype but a fact.

Consider the large amount of orphaned children and children in foster care in the world who are not getting the guidence they truly need. Consider further an influx of stable married couples who are unable to have children of their own, but want to raise children. Can you not think of a better fit, considering the fact that the childrens' own parents are unable to care for them themselves?

You have to seperate adoption from foster care. Adoption waiting lists are huge (really they are, just do a little research). Sadly parents do not want problem adolescents. They want babies. They don't even mind babies who are relatively unhealthy.

Homosexuals already can adopt.

Are you saying that if homosexuals could marry this will be better society? To have married couples raise children? Then you will be offending the unmarried couples who raise children.

A homosexual couple is just as capable of performing the most sacrid action of marriage, the raising of children, as a heterosexual couple is. How can we not allow them to do so?

Many homosexuals already raise children.

I disagree with you, I believe the most sacred action of marriage is creation of children.

I take it you are religious. Have you ever considered that homosexuality is God's way of taking care of all his children?

Not seriously. I see homosexuality like I see blindness or any congenital reality. It is not a damnable condition, yet action must conform to a standard.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Evidence, please?

The rate of world population growth has slowed considerably, and the fertility rate has dropped even in developing countries (in some cases below replacement levels, similar to many if not the majority of industrialized countries). The UN keeps revising its population growth projections ever-downward, and my impression is that the doom-and-gloom overpopulation scenarios of the '60s and '70s no longer enjoy much currency among experts. The real population-related problem in the future - which will hit sometime in the next generation or so - will be caused by declining birth rates.

Exactly. Exactly. Exactly.

Western Europe can not find the men to keep it's militaries going. The labor crisis in Europe is real and growing. Retirements are already being limited. Negative population growth is the reality, and we can observe the fruits of the worldview that has fostered it.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Ah, but now the experts are concerned about declining birth rates, so it follows that overpopulation will once again become a problem!

It's too dangerous to give much weight to the opinions of the "experts" when they're lacking in expertise. In any case, six billion humans is clearly too many, at least the way they're living right now.

Clearly?

And where exactly do you get your expertise?

Listen, you want to believe that 6 billion humans is too much, that's fine, but don't slam other people who have an alternate opinion. What's with the dogma?

-Elliot

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by elliotfc

Western Europe can not find the men to keep it's militaries going. The labor crisis in Europe is real and growing. Retirements are already being limited. Negative population growth is the reality, and we can observe the fruits of the worldview that has fostered it.How terribly Euro-centric. What are conditions like in Asia? South America? Africa?

[Zero]

For some reason, I am reminded of that wacko Pat Buchanan book about the loss of a white majority in Europe, as though that were some great loss.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by elliotfc

I disagree with you, I believe the most sacred action of marriage is creation of children. My fault for trying to argue the point on the grounds of faith or, rather, your faith.

Funny thing is, there are lots of faiths. Some lesbian aquantences of mine got married in a Jewish ceremony late last year. The church I attend allows gays to be married in the sanctuary. None of it legally recognized, of course.

Any law passed banning homosexual marriage will eventually be overturned as a violation of the First Amendment. Such a law directly prohibits the free exercise of some religions. Whereas the opposite, allowing homosexual marriage, does not force any religion to recognize such a relationship. It may take months, years, or decades, but eventually gays will have the full advantages of citizenship in this country. It happened for African-Americans and it'll happen for gays.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Upchurch
...I still think SF's mayor is doing the wrong thing. I hope all those folks getting the marriage licenses realize there is only a slim chance that they're marriage will be upheld. In that sense, I can't respect the mayor for playing with people's emotions like this.Orignally posted by Zero
I'm not sure how I feel about this...mostly negative, I guess. SF is breaking the law, and I can't support that aspect, as noble as the intention might possibly be.Couldn't have said it better myself.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
How terribly Euro-centric. What are conditions like in Asia? South America? Africa?

The conditions in those continents vary.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Zero
For some reason, I am reminded of that wacko Pat Buchanan book about the loss of a white majority in Europe, as though that were some great loss.

Zero an excellent excellent post, nice one.

You'd think the arch-Catholic Buchanan would be happy about all the Catholics pouring into America.

It's funny (or not funny)...the Death of the West has some great stuff in it...but the conclusions that guy reaches...it's like I am following the data (and you can't argue the data) and I'm just amazed that such an intelligent person (and everybody says he is intelligent, especially his ideological enemies) could arrive at the conclusions he does.

With Buchanan I either agree 100%, or disagree 100%. He's a nutter, but a brilliant guy. A shame.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
My fault for trying to argue the point on the grounds of faith or, rather, your faith.

Funny thing is, there are lots of faiths. Some lesbian aquantences of mine got married in a Jewish ceremony late last year. The church I attend allows gays to be married in the sanctuary. None of it legally recognized, of course.

Right. Eventually they will be legally recognized. I say by...2035. Just a guess.

Any law passed banning homosexual marriage will eventually be overturned as a violation of the First Amendment.

I agree, it's just a matter of time. As of now it's a states right thing, and that won't last.

Such a law directly prohibits the free exercise of some religions.

No, a religion can declare homosexuals to be married in the context of their religion, that happens all the time. They aren't legally recognized, but such marriages are not illegal. I used to be a catering manager and there were a few of those I witnessed in Ann Arbor. They were called marriages, they were allowed to occur, and they weren't legally recognized.

Whereas the opposite, allowing homosexual marriage, does not force any religion to recognize such a relationship. It may take months, years, or decades, but eventually gays will have the full advantages of citizenship in this country. It happened for African-Americans and it'll happen for gays.

You are exactly right. Homosexual marriages will eventually be allowed and many people won't recognize them, in the religious sense.

I do have a problem with your analogy. Marriages have been occurring in Africa for thousands and thousands of years, between men and women of course. No where on earth (until the past 30 years or so) have two members of the same sex been allowed to marry. In other words, some rights have been limited to human beings in this country (suffrage) that could have been had elsewhere on the planet. Same-sex marriage is a phenomenon that is totally unique to human history, it's a novel idea, never been tried before, totally contemporary. Put whatever value judgment on that, it's an individual's call.

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Any law passed banning homosexual marriage will eventually be overturned as a violation of the First Amendment. Such a law directly prohibits the free exercise of some religions. Whereas the opposite, allowing homosexual marriage, does not force any religion to recognize such a relationship.If the government forced religions to recognize or not to recognize certain marriages, that would violate the First Amendment. But laws banning homosexual marriages prevent just the government - not religions - from recognizing such marriages. Where's the First Amendment problem with that?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
If the government forced religions to recognize or not to recognize certain marriages, that would violate the First Amendment. True. No one is suggesting that they attempt to do so.

I'm not sure that the First Amendment would actually be violated in your second scenario. Equal Protection would be, however.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
If the government forced religions to recognize or not to recognize certain marriages, that would violate the First Amendment. But laws banning homosexual marriages prevent just the government - not religions - from recognizing such marriages. Where's the First Amendment problem with that? No, you have it backwards.

If governement is going to recognize a religious institution like marriage, it cannot dictate to religions what marriage is and what marriage is not.

For example, the government can not give recognize and give privilage Christian defined marriages but not recoginize or give privilages to Unitarian defined marriages that don't happen coincide with the Christian definition. That is putting the definitions of a single, or select group of, religions and placing others in a second-class status.

Government should either get out of the marriage business altogether or open up the definition to be applicable to all religious equally. By opening up the definition to be applicable to all religous definitions of marriage, it is up to the individual religon which definition it's members may partake in.

As it currently stands, no one is forcing Christian churches to accept gay marriages. However, they are forcing other churches to not accept gay marriages as "real".

[Upchurch]

I was listening to the radio, and I kept hearing the phrase "changing the definition of the word 'marriage'." I thought to myself, what is the definition of marriage (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage)?1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross> It seems to me that gay marriage doesn't really change the definition of the word "marriage" at all.

[Fade]

http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried&img=1

Don't all these happy people realize they're destroying society?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Fade
http://ephemera.org/sets/?album=justlymarried&img=1

Don't all these happy people realize they're destroying society? I was wondering what that feeling was...I thought it was just gas(had a couple of sausages for lunch), but it turns out that feeling was society being destroyed!!!!!!

Oh well, I didn't have much use for it anyways...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Fade

Don't all these happy people realize they're destroying society?


As individual, happy, people no.

Over the longer term and in agregate neither of us know the answer. And that is the problem. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it when you do not know what unintended consequences may accrue.

Some members of the US judiciary have been intelligent and cautious enough to note the Constitution is not a suicide pact, yet change for the sake of change seems to be order of the day, often using and some say abusing Constitutional grounds.

What do you foresee when Executive & Legislative both tell Judiciary they've overstepped any rational bounds, and ignore "rulings"? Not possible you say?

[Zero]

You'll have to do better than that, hammegk. What could be the consequence of giving legal standings to relationships that will exist either way? And as far as your "what if" about the other two branches attacking the judiciary for doing their job...if the executive and legislative branches want to destroy our society and system of governement in the name of bigotry, who shall we blame for it?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
Some members of the US judiciary have been intelligent and cautious enough to note the Constitution is not a suicide pact, yet change for the sake of change seems to be order of the day, often using and some say abusing Constitutional grounds. Yes it is.

If we're supposed to value the basic freedoms and responsibilities outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights enough to be willing to die for them (which is quite the traditional position), then it would follow that we should wish to follow them to the death.

Y'know, "give me liberty or give me death", and all that jazz. The Declaration of Independence was a suicide pact to the degree that everyone signing it knew that if they lost to the English, that signature would be more than enough evidence to convinct them of treason, a crime which carried the sentence of death.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Zero
You'll have to do better than that, hammegk. What could be the consequence of giving legal standings to relationships that will exist either way?
I repeat that I don't know. What I do contend is that overt licit (& moral) acts are not the same as covert illegal (ok, I'll say immoral) acts.


And as far as your "what if" about the other two branches attacking the judiciary for doing their job...if the executive and legislative branches want to destroy our society and system of governement in the name of bigotry, who shall we blame for it?
Which group is heading towards constitutional crisis fastest, should such ever occur? Those who wish to legalize and legislate sexual behaviors, or those who prefer no change without good reason?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by hammegk



As individual, happy, people no.

Over the longer term and in agregate neither of us know the answer. And that is the problem. Basically, if it ain't broke, don't fix it when you do not know what unintended consequences may accrue.

Tell that to Jim Crow!

It is not the unintended consequences you are worried about, care to enumerate them?


Some members of the US judiciary have been intelligent and cautious enough to note the Constitution is not a suicide pact, yet change for the sake of change seems to be order of the day, often using and some say abusing Constitutional grounds.

It is not change for the sake of change hamme, it is change to say that equal rights are equals rights.

Change for the sake of change is something like redecorating the White House. For centuries there have been homosexual couples in the US, peaceful and law abiding (except for the sodomy laws) , good neighbors and good citizens. They are asking that they be able to join together in a state of *matrimony* because that is the way the law is defined. If we dis establish marriage, that would help. But no one can or will force you or your children to be gay.


What do you foresee when Executive & Legislative both tell Judiciary they've overstepped any rational bounds, and ignore "rulings"? Not possible you say?

That is the Judiciary's unique status in our system, there are checks in place, the Prex is considering the Contitutional Amendment. They can always ask a higher court to tell the lower court to do whatever.

Funny how this isn't before the SCOTUS yet, it will be.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Yes it is.


You miss my point. The meaning was that there is no reason to move towards self-destruction as we try to adhere to the constitutional first principles, in treatment of internal change or external enemies.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by hammegk
You miss my point. The meaning was that there is no reason to move towards self-destruction as we try to adhere to the constitutional first principles, in treatment of internal change or external enemies. If that is what the first principles require... that is indeed what we should be moving towards.

If you're not willing to die for those principles, why would you be willing to die to defend them? If you're willing to die to defend them, why not die for them?

[Zero]

Originally posted by hammegk

I repeat that I don't know. What I do contend is that overt licit (& moral) acts are not the same as covert illegal (ok, I'll say immoral) acts.


Which group is heading towards constitutional crisis fastest, should such ever occur? Those who wish to legalize and legislate sexual behaviors, or those who prefer no change without good reason? I have no idea what you are talking about? Homosexuality is legal, as is homosexual sex and cohabitation. And, of course, the moral issue is for people to decide for themselves, not for the government to decide for them.

BTW, it is your side who wants to play favorites and legislate sexuality.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
If that is what the first principles require... that is indeed what we should be moving towards.

If you're not willing to die for those principles, why would you be willing to die to defend them? If you're willing to die to defend them, why not die for them?

I have no idea what this has to do with any of my statements.

As I said you have not understood my meaning. I tried to clarify, that didn't work, what don't you understand in my remark? Could you pose a question? Or forgeddaboudit. Your choice.

Same basic thoughts to Zero ... he's lost me as to where any of his last comments have relevance to the discussion I thought we were in.

[Zero]

Well, hammie...you were talking about covert and illegal acts...which covert and illegal acts were you refering to?

[Wrath of the Swarm]

You have suggested that "the Constitution is not a suicide pact"; however, when we make certain assumptions about the importance of the principles enshrined in the Constitution, we are quickly forced to the conclusion that it most certainly is a suicide pact.

Moreover, you are explicitly making assumptions about the opposing sides in the homosexual marriage debate that I don't think you can justify.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I was listening to the radio, and I kept hearing the phrase "changing the definition of the word 'marriage'." I thought to myself, what is the definition of marriage (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=marriage)?It seems to me that gay marriage doesn't really change the definition of the word "marriage" at all.

Upchurch, the same sex bit is a recent revision that can not be found in any dictionary entry 10 years before.

It also left out the bit about king/queen in pinochle.

What you provided is a recent expanded definition, politcally corrected for public consumption. And eventually it will correspond to civic reality in the US no doubt.

-Elliot

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
No, you have it backwards.

If governement is going to recognize a religious institution like marriage, it cannot dictate to religions what marriage is and what marriage is not.But the government is only considering marriage in its civil dimension - or, if you like, the marriage that the government is considering is a civil institution, not a religious one.
Originally posted by Upchurch
For example, the government can not give recognize and give privilage Christian defined marriages but not recoginize or give privilages to Unitarian defined marriages that don't happen coincide with the Christian definition. That is putting the definitions of a single, or select group of, religions and placing others in a second-class status.Generally speaking, the government does not recognize Christian marriages, Unitarian marriages or any other religious marriage as such. The only marriages the government "privileges" are the ones that correspond to the requirements of the civil marriage laws. One religious wedding might fit the bill; another might not, but the law doesn't care which religion is which. Whether Jewish, Unitarian, or Muslim marriages resemble Christian marriages isn't really the point; what's relevant is whether any of them manage to harmonize with the definition of a civil marriage.
Originally posted by Upchurch
Government should either get out of the marriage business altogether or open up the definition to be applicable to all religious equally. By opening up the definition to be applicable to all religous definitions of marriage, it is up to the individual religon which definition it's members may partake in.

Religious marriages, one supposes, are part of the business of religion. Civil marriages are definitely part of the business of government. Even when they appear to coincide (such as when a representative of a religion solemnizes the marriage and signs the civil license), they are really two different phenomena. What religious reason could there be for the government to exit a perfectly secular line of business, such as regulating civil marriages? Civil marriage laws are already religiously neutral in their purpose and intent. It's a fairly basic legal principle that the fact that laws may happen to harmonize with the tenets of certain religions doesn't offend the Constitution.
Originally posted by Upchurch
As it currently stands, no one is forcing Christian churches to accept gay marriages. However, they are forcing other churches to not accept gay marriages as "real". I daresay for most religious believers - people who believe that marriage has a religious or spiritual dimension - it's the religious marriage that's the "real" one anyway and not the civil marriage. Imagine you're the pastor at the Church of XYZ. Does the fact that the government won't issue a civil marriage license to a gay couple force you to do anything or not to do anything in terms of your religion? You can still pronounce your magic words over the couple and it will be as "real" to you as any other religious marriage.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
But the government is only considering marriage in its civil dimension - or, if you like, the marriage that the government is considering is a civil institution, not a religious one. From a purely civil basis, then, how can the government rationalize providing privilages to one set of it's citizens and not to another?
Consitutional Amendment XIV, Section 1:

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

It seems to me that banning gay marriage would be abridging a privilege of a certain class of U.S. citizens. Except in the case of a Constitutional amendment to that end, any law doing such would be illegal, assuming I'm reading the amendment correctly.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Upchurch
From a purely civil basis, then, how can the government rationalize providing privilages to one set of it's citizens and not to another?

...

It seems to me that banning gay marriage would be abridging a privilege of a certain class of U.S. citizens. Except in the case of a Constitutional amendment to that end, any law doing such would be illegal, assuming I'm reading the amendment correctly. I understand your point, although one has to locate a source for the privilege in the first place.

In fact, the government awards different privileges to different citizens all the time; if the government weren't allowed to discriminate at all among its citizens based on their circumstances, it would be very difficult to enact effective social policies. For example, citizens with full-time jobs don't have the privilege of collecting unemployment benefits; citizens without disabilities don't have the privilege of parking in the best parking spaces. In most cases there's a defensible reason for according different treatment.

I guess the real issue is: from a purely legal point of view, do the marriage laws really treat different citizens differently? And if they do, is it justifiable?

With respect to the first question, I suppose there are arguments on both side, depending on how you frame the test. For example, there's an obvious sense in which typical marriage laws technically treat everyone the same: both gay and straight citizens have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex (and many gay folks have chosen to exercise this right, usually with unhappy results), and neither a gay citizen nor a straight citizen currently has the right to marry a person of the same sex. The government never inquires into a marriage license applicant's sexual orientation. This analysis might strike some as foolish (because few people would want to enter into a marriage that was not consistent with their sexual orientation), but it actually is legally relevant. This type of law is called "facially neutral".

Now, on the other side, it can be argued that facially neutral laws may have, in reality, a disparate impact on a certain class of citizens (here, gay folks). This is true of many facially neutral laws; I'm reminded of Anatole France's famous observation that "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." But is the relevant classification (whether gayness or poverty) one that is entitled to special protection under the law, such as racial background? That's an important consideration.

As for the second question, many people believe that there aren't any valid reasons for according different treatment to ordinary couples and same-sex couples. Most people seem to believe that there are. This is the sort of thing that generally is left to the wisdom of the legislature, though. Ultimately, I think there's nothing in the federal Constitution that either prohibits same-sex marriages or protects them.