| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2005 03:37:22 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
BTW I'm glad someone pointed out that "abusing children" and "drunk driving" weren't lifestyle choices. |
You're somewhat correct. What has been, and will increasingly be, asserted is that "abusing children" (pedophelia - admittedly only one form of child abuse) and "drunk driving" (as an indicator of a prediliction for substance abuse) are not lifestyle choices, but instead are both genetic predispositions - just as it is asserted with homosexuality. "You're born that way." So, if we should be allowed to do anything and everything we're "born" with a desire for, what moral ground will you have for saying that a pedopheliac is wrong for abusing a child? They're just doing what they were born to do. Because they are "harming" someone else? Who are you to decide that, especially if it is "loving" and "concensual"? And then, when the psychiatric community begins to assert that there is no long term emotional damage to children abused in "loving" relationships with adults, what will be your moral measure of whether its wrong or not? Just because it is? Just because that's what you believe? I'm pretty sure NAMBLA will disagree with your "opinion" - after all, they were just "born that way", it wasn't their choice.
Society must make a choice where it will draw the line. As a member or society (no matter how badly many here wish to marginalize me and those who agree with me through name-calling and derision), I'm fighting to draw it here. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:39:22 PM · #102 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
ok well didnt say i was gay, but since i think your narrow minded and YES i HAVE gay friends...you can close the door, lock it, and stick the key up.... |
Yee-HAW! You always have been a fiesty one. ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:42:17 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Pretty simple. And pretty sad, when you think about all the time, money, and energy that's been spent on this debate. Considering the fact that IF these unions were allowed, no one would be physically harmed, no governments would collapse, no neighboring communities would be "threatened", we could have spent this money on armor for our young men and women already in harms way, on our levees in Lousiana, our tired, hungry, poor, and unemployed.
Sorry, to be a wet dishrag, but that's kinda how I feel about it. Yeah, I want the right to marry whomever I please. But, dammit is the "religious right" so scared of what they don't understand that they can't see the forest for the trees? I mean really, come' on people! There are bigger fish to fry. |
So why do the proponents of same-sex marriage keep raising the issue??? Leave things as they are, and move on to more important issues. I mean really, come' on people! There are bigger fish to fry. (Well, unless your a member of PETA - then you probably don't approve of fying fish. But you know what we mean.) :) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:45:54 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
... |
Most of your points are valid. Let me ask this, because I am not certain, aren't civil unions already recognized for gay people here in the USA? Aren't employers (some anyway) already recognizing "significant others" for benefits? I'm asking in all sincerity.
Have a civil union...fine by me. Just don't confuse the issue and call it a "Marriage". The old-fashioned conservative in me has a problem with that. Can't be any more honest...
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:46:15 PM · #105 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
My opinion is I believe strongly in a marriage being that of a man and woman - period. |
You with little close mind. Naive mind! It is not such thing, man and woman. It is man and man or woman and woman, it okay. Where is written that it not right? Maybe in your head only maybe? Where written the rule? What rule tell me I must marrie man? Is there a book to say rule????
I have girlfriend. When I love her I marrie her. So? I think love is more main point in such things! |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:48:05 PM · #106 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Right! (not politically!)
Can I please sort out a few points before I scream!
I may be confused because of the difference in law in USA & UK and they makes me feel I am talking in circles!
1. Is there a civil service ( ie non-religious) in the USA?
2. Does a religious wedding require legal documentation before it is legal in the USA?
3. Therefore is a marriage not recognised if it is purely religious without legal documentation?
Marriage - union in presence of God between man & woman in religious circles.
Marriage - contract between two people( presently man & woman) in government/legal circles
But if a man & woman who are not religious wish to go through the civil service and not the religious one they can? Am I right so far?
The reason homosexual marriages are thought of as wrong is for moral religious reasons.
So why should they be banned in both legal AND religious circles?
If you follow my logic and disagree please put me right because I cannot see why there is this problem!
P |
In the USA, there are both "legal" and "religious" ceremonies for marriage. However, for a couple to be "officially" married, the legal matters (i.e., contract) must be completed successfully. Couples may elect to only perform one of the two, but often times the religious denomination will require that the "legal" portion be completed in conjunction with the "religious" one. This includes blood tests, family history, etc.
I certainly understand your confusion - it confuses the hell out of me too. I don't understand why certain religious fanatics feel compelled to impose religious doctrine on the clinical, legal doctrine of the marital contract granted by the state. (But that's what we're arguing here...) I'm sure I'll get lambasted for that statement too - lol.
Hope this at least clears some of the mud. Plenty of it has been slung from both sides - kinda like the elections these days... Nothing is pretty or happy or remotely positive anymore. It's all about who can make people hate, fear, and oppose the other party.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:48:49 PM · #107 |
So in reverse, since you have a hard time seeing my position, aren't you closed minded? We are all entitled to our opinions...
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
My opinion is I believe strongly in a marriage being that of a man and woman - period. |
You with little close mind. Naive mind! It is not such thing, man and woman. It is man and man or woman and woman, it okay. Where is written that it not right? Maybe in your head only maybe? Where written the rule? What rule tell me I must marrie man? Is there a book to say rule????
I have girlfriend. When I love her I marrie her. So? I think love is more main point in such things! |
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:49:29 PM · #108 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Pretty simple. And pretty sad, when you think about all the time, money, and energy that's been spent on this debate. Considering the fact that IF these unions were allowed, no one would be physically harmed, no governments would collapse, no neighboring communities would be "threatened", we could have spent this money on armor for our young men and women already in harms way, on our levees in Lousiana, our tired, hungry, poor, and unemployed.
Sorry, to be a wet dishrag, but that's kinda how I feel about it. Yeah, I want the right to marry whomever I please. But, dammit is the "religious right" so scared of what they don't understand that they can't see the forest for the trees? I mean really, come' on people! There are bigger fish to fry. |
So why do the proponents of same-sex marriage keep raising the issue??? Leave things as they are, and move on to more important issues. I mean really, come' on people! There are bigger fish to fry. (Well, unless your a member of PETA - then you probably don't approve of fying fish. But you know what we mean.) :) |
Simple... Because religious right-wing activists want to take rights AWAY from people. It's not that we're fighting to GET rights... It's that we're fighting to KEEP them. It becomes a matter of survival and justice - not luxury.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 15:50:54. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:50:12 PM · #109 |
"rather than worrying about someone else̢۪s business"
It does affect their business. And anyone who thinks otherwise does not read the newspaper.
When entities like churches get sued for not hiring homosexuals which go against their beliefs. Than they get sued for not giving benefits to those homosexuals who they were forced to hire. It AFFECTS THEM!!!!
When they are trying to teach their children one understanding and then they have that changed...it affects them.
The real problem is this is a seperation of church & state matter. And neither side (religious nor homosexual) are willing to compromise. The religious want to maintain the status quo, which restricts the homosexuals. The homosexuals want equal benefits. And many on both sides simply want to rub victory into each other's face.
So look at the facts:
What is being prevented:
a) the receipt of benefits, joint househould filing, taxes, inheritance, etc. ALL of these are civil/legal matters.
b) alternative religious relationships (polygamy, 1-yr unions, etc.)
What is NOT being prevented:
a) Nothing is preventing two homosexuals from loving each other. I hear this all the time. Marriage != love.
b) Nothing is preventing two homosexuals from living together.
The truth of the matter is that this is one of seperation of church & state.
I. Marriage is a religious/spiritual act. Done, in accordance with whatever denomination of faith you hold too. (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Pagan, etc.) And likewise, should only be recognized in like faiths. (Currently, we by law do not allow Muslims and Mormons to practice their religion - we forbid polygamy. Why? Is not that establishment of religion? isn't that a violation of the constitution?
And frankly, if you don't have a religion and don't believe there is a spiritual aspect to our beings. What point does marriage have? You either love someone and co-habitate or not...
II. Second, is the legal/civil aspect (taxes, inheritance, benefits, ownership, etc.) Now for centuries we've associated these to marriage. It was convenient to do so - it now is not. These should be seperated off and should be civil based only. A couple should have to incorporate and form a legal entity just like any other joint entity. And why should we limit it to two people. (I find it extremely hypocritical of people to support homosexual marriage but oppose polygamy...why?) So civil incorporations should be allowed for 1 man + 1 woman, 2 men, 2 women, 1 man + 4 women, 1 woman + 3 men. In fact, why should love have anything to do with it? Why can't two elderly sisters who have a plutonic relationship and live together in the same home be able to file for an joint-incorporated household?
---
This is truly the only fair and just and constitutional choice. All others will tromp on one group or another's rights. Anything else will "restrict" or "force" to accept. And to any christian who disagrees I quote to you the following Scripture... "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". And to any homosexual or support who is unwilling to accept the above measures. Realize then that you simply want to thumb your views in front of your opponent with no rational. And yes, if a couple who have a religious ceremony want the legal benefits. They will have to file for a civil incorporation in addition to their religious union.
- The Saj
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 15:59:54. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:53:30 PM · #110 |
| I like your separation Saj... I know we don't agree often on political issues, but I think we could find some common ground here. :-) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:54:34 PM · #111 |
Yes. Especially the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by that Christian Jihadist, Bill Clinton. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:56:18 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So in reverse, since you have a hard time seeing my position, aren't you closed minded? We are all entitled to our opinions...
Originally posted by senoj:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
My opinion is I believe strongly in a marriage being that of a man and woman - period. |
You with little close mind. Naive mind! It is not such thing, man and woman. It is man and man or woman and woman, it okay. Where is written that it not right? Maybe in your head only maybe? Where written the rule? What rule tell me I must marrie man? Is there a book to say rule????
I have girlfriend. When I love her I marrie her. So? I think love is more main point in such things! |
|
Why my mind closed? My mind very open! If man love man and woman love woman, that is okay. What is closed? |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:57:59 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
We are all entitled to our opinions... |
Unless prohibited by Constitutional amendment...
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 16:02:26. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 03:58:00 PM · #114 |
One question
Why the heck does it matter to the Church/ religious leaders/religious followers, if two non- religious homosexuals decide to go through a civil ceremony that is called matrimony?
Is it just the m. word? If all civil marriages were called " civil weddings" and all religious ones were called "marriages" woukd that be OK? I'm sure the gay community would settle for a slight name change as long as they had the same rights as heterosexual counples being wedded/married.
P
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:00:40 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by senoj:
We are all entitled to our opinions... |
Unless prohibited by Constitutional amendment... |
I do not say this! Not my line. But I believe it. And what is constitutional amendment??? |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:03:20 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
Originally posted by srdanz:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
...This argument wouldn't even exist with out religion and religion wouldn't exist without a God and the Bible. |
I take exception to this statement: Christianity and monotheism are not the first nor the last religion in this world. So, please do not tie the two together. |
I said God and the Bible, not Christianity. Yes, to get this overwith, my argument is based totally off the FACTS given to us by the Word of God, the Bible. |
There is a lot of history in the bible, but it is also filled with the beliefs and writings of men. I couldn't very well use Shakespeare or the daVinci Code to argue a point now could I? Provide sound arguments without the use of Christian dogma. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:03:21 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by senoj:
I do not say this! Not my line. |
Oops! I know. I just made a mistake when editing the quote. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:04:47 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by senoj:
Where is written that it not right? Maybe in your head only maybe? Where written the rule? What rule tell me I must marrie man? Is there a book to say rule???? |
I believe they call the book The Bible. Wherein it is written....
I haven't read it but I hear it's a "good book"... ;) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:05:01 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
One question
Why the heck does it matter to the Church/ religious leaders/religious followers, if two non- religious homosexuals decide to go through a civil ceremony that is called matrimony?
Is it just the m. word? If all civil marriages were called " civil weddings" and all religious ones were called "marriages" woukd that be OK? I'm sure the gay community would settle for a slight name change as long as they had the same rights as heterosexual counples being wedded/married.
P |
Exactly! I really think that a lot of it does come down to semantics... I honestly don't care what it's called, as long as I have the same rights that my mother or father has when it comes to their relationship. It's that simple. And like you, I don't understand why any church or its membership feels so threatened by that prospect. Call it "BOB" if you like - fine with me. :-) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:05:56 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
..."You're born that way." So, if we should be allowed to do anything and everything we're "born" with a desire for, what moral ground will you have for saying that a pedopheliac is wrong for abusing a child? They're just doing what they were born to do. Because they are "harming" someone else? Who are you to decide that, especially if it is "loving" and "concensual"? ... |
This really isn't the argument here. No child, lawfully or logically, can enter a consensual relationship.
But it is clear you want to legislate against harmless acts and continue to deny individuals equal rights under the law.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:08:24 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Yes. Especially the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by that Christian Jihadist, Bill Clinton. |
I never called anyone a Christian Jihadist. The fact that you append that to my comment providing a link to information is extremely offensive to me!
If you want to talk about the history presented in that link in an intelligent way, please do. If you want to cite a historical instance to defend your point of view, go right ahead. Let's keep this discussion above board.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:09:04 PM · #122 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Rather, the laws of the land, from then until now, have banned same-sex marriage (as well as many other "rights" that have been cooked up in recent times), and until recently were never considered a violation of the rights put forth in the bill of rights. If you want to stand on the founding principles, then you have to show some evidence that those who set forth those principles would support the idea of same-sex marriage. To the contrary, they created the laws that banned it.
More to the point, they primarily left the issue up to the states. And the states are taking matters into their own hands. As the founding prinicples of this country would have it. Go Texas. :) |
I could be wrong, but I think you're incorrect about the states explicitly banning same-sex marriage from the time of the founding of this nation. Some states are now doing just that (affirmatively banning it), but this is a recent political development.
Originally posted by muckpond:
so, coming back to my original point, what gives people the right to start legislating their belief systems in our democratic system that is supposed to be open to people of all beliefs and religions. |
Originally posted by ScottK:
The very constitution you lean on gives us that right. Everyone votes their belief system. What else would you vote to support than something you believe? Would you vote against same-sex marriage if you support it? Of course not. |
True as far as it goes, but the states' rights argument was also used by some not too long ago to justify keeping in place Jim Crow laws, and before that was used to justify slavery in some states. So what? Does that make what you're justifying right?
Originally posted by ScottK:
The double standard comes when your belief is based on anything remotely connected with God or a religious viewpoint. Then your belief is invalid and you're not allowed to follow your beliefs in voting. |
Disagree. Religious belief can be used for good or ill. Many abolitionists were opposed to slavery based on their religious beliefs. There are many on the left whose stand on political issues is grounded in religious belief. So just because someone disagrees with your particular (intolerant) brand of religion and/or politics doesn't make them a bigot, and doesn't make them necessarily anti-religious.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:09:09 PM · #123 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
One question
Why the heck does it matter to the Church/ religious leaders/religious followers, if two non- religious homosexuals decide to go through a civil ceremony that is called matrimony?
|
The issue is that there needs to be a way to distinguish between the two..."spiritual unions" & "civil unions". As such the terms "marriage/matrimony/etc" are currently directly tied to the spiritual aspect and has been since before the United States foundation, and then some.
Originally posted by Riponlady:
I'm sure the gay community would settle for a slight name change as long as they had the same rights as heterosexual counples being wedded/married. |
This is an issue you have to bring up with the homosexual community. Because if what you say is true. Than they should simply pursue "civil unions" & "civil incorporations" and not try to push on the marriage.
Then they can "legally": commit to one another, receive civil benefits, and even get married in a religious denomination that condones homosexual relationships.
And eventually, after a couple generations, when society has gotten used to the concept of two distinct unions. One spiritual (and recognized only within what ever religion you choose to follow) and one civil (being a legal/business agreement of incorporation). Then marriage might be used for both. But will be described as civil or spiritual. And many will choose to have both.
Furthermore, a muslim man will be able to have his four wives and not be restricted by judeo-christian mores.
It's really the most fair option... *shrug*...probably the only fair option. But it requires compromise from boths sides.
(And yes, I do believe it to be a just option...as neither homosexuals nor religious seem much inclined to set their "pride" aside and accept it. Cause it's a no-win scenario. Neither side gets to stand and thumb their noses with victory.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 16:10:42. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:09:58 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Things I'm thankful for:
The freedom to practice my own religious and political beliefs as I see fit.
The ability to post my opinions in an open public forum such as this.
The luxury of reading other people's opinions freely and without censorship.
The option of deciding for myself what beliefs and tenets I'd like to live my life by. |
Amen, for both you and I.
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Things I'd like to have:
The freedom to hold my partner's hand in public without the fear of being beaten to death by a gaybasher. |
This is already a criminal act (the "beating to death", not the "holding of hands") even if they aren't a gaybasher. And in most locales, it would be doubly a crime if they are a gaybasher, though I don't really see why that is.
Originally posted by SJCarter:
The authority to see my partner in the hospital and make medical decisions on his behalf if he were to become gravely ill. |
I believe a good lawyer can handle that for you. Probably even a bad lawyer. Maybe even any of several legal software packages, available at your local software retailer for under $50.
Originally posted by SJCarter:
The recognition that my love and life relationship is just as valid as my mother & father's. |
If you want validation from me, sorry, I can't do that. Its not as valid as your mother and father's relationship. But I'm sure that you have a loving, supportive circle of friends that will provide that validation for you.
Originally posted by SJCarter:
Protection from discrimination based upon my sexual identity. (equal treatment under the law) |
You are treated as equal as all men: you can't marry another man, and neither can the rest of us.
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I personally don't think that those things are too much to ask. |
And you have most of them already. What a wonderful country. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 04:11:18 PM · #125 |
|
