5
   

Gay Marriage

 
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 02:58 pm
BillW wrote:
...there is an attempt in America today to redefine marriage as being religious. To me it matters not, the law should only recognize a civil union. ... It should be protected by law when it is decided that it should be a bonded relationship.

I agree completely. (I admit to snipping a few words with which I did not, but hey, I'm trying to find agreement where and when I can here!)

Now, let's sit back and watch for the other signs of the coming apocolypse! :wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 04:49 pm
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/steve_bell/2004/02/26/bell512.jpg
© Steve Bell 2004
guardian.co.uk
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 05:48 pm
Walter, Very good cartoon! LOL
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 06:19 pm
.

McG's suggestion makes complete sense to anyone seeking true justice for all Americans.

The problem is, McG, people who hate and condemn gay people do NOT want a just solution. And people who, because of lack of understanding and because of cultural bias, are uncomfortable with homosexuality, though not necessarily bigots, are being frightened and misled by exremists.

We need leaders who can rise above the fray and insist on the ideals of freedom and inclusiveness that America has always represented. Lincoln ...... Kennedy (Robert).......... MLK, Jr. ......... Not seeing anyone like that around anymore.

...... sigh.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 06:58 pm
Warm wedding wishes to Rosie O'Donnell.

The members of the press corps are slow, but eventually they start figuring things out. And, they've finally figured out the question which will be asked of nearly every Democrat between now and November: "What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?"

John Edwards got a version of it yesterday:

Quote:
Speaking to reporters yesterday afternoon, Edwards explained that he personally opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, and believes each state should set its own marriage policy.

When asked why civil unions could not simply be called marriages, Edwards said, "My answer is the same."

Asked why states, not the federal government, should decide policy, he replied, "Because it's something I think should be decided by the states."

And when asked to explain his personal opposition to gay marriage, he snapped, "I'm done with that question."


I knew this would happen. Confused

This distinction was always a sham, because it's a distinction without a difference. Unless the Democratic candidates can articulate what the difference is, it's a losing strategy. And until they can articulate the difference, the press will keep asking.

Bottom line: being against gay marriage hurts Kerry and Edwards and helps Bush.

angie's right; unless some influential Democrat stops consulting the polls and starts consulting his conscience, leaping to his feet and declaring "I'm FOR gay marriage!" (s)he run the risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders with his/her hypocrisy.

Most of us who are ABB will look the other way, but it would certainly be nice to see someone stand up for the right principle...

One last thing: the Georgia legislature defeated -- by three votes -- the DOMA amendment today. That's good news. Cool
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 07:02 pm
PDid, What do we do now? I hate voting for bigots.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 07:20 pm
Pdiddle, it's late (by my standards) but I do want to see the Dem debate. Naive question ABB and DOMA? What do those initials mean? Thanks.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 07:32 pm
PDiddie wrote:
Warm wedding wishes to Rosie O'Donnell.

The members of the press corps are slow, but eventually they start figuring things out. And, they've finally figured out the question which will be asked of nearly every Democrat between now and November: "What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage?"

John Edwards got a version of it yesterday:

Quote:
Speaking to reporters yesterday afternoon, Edwards explained that he personally opposes gay marriage but supports civil unions, and believes each state should set its own marriage policy.


When asked why civil unions could not simply be called marriages, Edwards said, "My answer is the same."

Asked why states, not the federal government, should decide policy, he replied, "Because it's something I think should be decided by the states."

And when asked to explain his personal opposition to gay marriage, he snapped, "I'm done with that question."


I knew this would happen. Confused

This distinction was always a sham, because it's a distinction without a difference. Unless the Democratic candidates can articulate what the difference is, it's a losing strategy. And until they can articulate the difference, the press will keep asking.

Bottom line: being against gay marriage hurts Kerry and Edwards and helps Bush.

angie's right; unless some influential Democrat stops consulting the polls and starts consulting his conscience, leaping to his feet and declaring "I'm FOR gay marriage!" (s)he run the risk of being beaten about the head and shoulders with his/her hypocrisy.

Most of us who are ABB will look the other way, but it would certainly be nice to see someone stand up for the right principle...

One last thing: the Georgia legislature defeated -- by three votes -- the DOMA amendment today. That's good news. Cool


It isn't hard to define, ask the majority of people and they'll tell you marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

No one is being denied marriage if you're wanting to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I think most people are fine with the civil union term or whatever the gay communitee wants to call it, but why try to redefine a century's old institution which has been the basis for stabilization of cultures.

It's too bad that it's been a forced issue and laws are being broken in one way, but that's the point of it and hopefully it will be resolved soon. The solution needs to be found quickly before the issue gets even more blown out of proportion. I don't see that happening without both side giving a little.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 07:40 pm
Brand X's quote, "why try to redefine a century's old institution which has been the basis for stabilization of cultures." Has it been the basis for the stabilization of marriage? It won't be the first time a commonly used word in the past can take on a new meaning. That's the right thing to do. Don't try to defend it on the basis of some ideal that doesn't exist that also ends up being discriminatory.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 07:43 pm
Sure it it possible to change the meaning of it, but in my view that's the hard way to go and that is what I'm getting at.

The quicker solution seems to be to arrive at a new term for a new kind of marriage and get it over with.
0 Replies
 
theollady
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 08:09 pm
blatham

Quote:
ci

I despise this crowd as deeply as I despise the Taliban. Most egregious and despicable is not what they believe, but rather, how they have come to believe it.

One can come into possession of an idea as a consequence, say, of the culture one is raised within. We are all subject to such socialized values and theories. But there is a personality type which is so needful of authoritative direction, and so frightened of thinking for themselves or of being outside of the lockstep march of their group, that they relinquish their intellectual autonomy and provide fodder for the really ugly things that happen in the world. These are the fellows and ladies who lynched blacks, or who pilot a plane into a building, or who stone women to death, or who take baseball bats to gay men.

They are pretty easy to spot. They don't much like learning or education, because alternate ideas risk upsetting their simple formulas. Their rhetoric is filled with cliches, which saves them all the trouble of real independent study, and which allows them to terminate their worrisome or conflicting thoughts. They divide the world into us/them, and they have a special affinity for putting the 'evil' label on other members of their communities.






The quote above, from early in this topic, leaves space for thinking that every studious Christian, who believes the Savior Jesus Christ, came to save us from our sins---- are the ones who batter, bomb, hate and betray. This seems to be intended to belittle the intelligence of "born again believers". And is also untrue.
From this and other topics, where persons believe they have the truth from the core of their human minds, and use terms like "HATE", "despise" and other forms of dislike and vehemence toward believers in Christ and His teaching-- I have developed a realization, I do not belong in conversations here.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:25 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
ABB and DOMA? What do those initials mean? Thanks.


ABB = Anybody But Bush

DOMA = Defense of Marriage Amendment (the legislation calling for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage)

Brand, I think you misunderstood the point.

By way of explanation, I will put the question to you: what do you perceive is the difference between a marriage and a civil union?

(As in, "I'm against gay marriage but for civil unions"?)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:50 pm
Who would have thought, but Dr.Schlessinger has the answer to this and other bible teachings.
*****************

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to
people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an
observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to
Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by an east coast
resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly state it to be an abomination. End of debate. I
do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other
specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They
claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus
21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can
you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends
to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all
the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.
20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident
you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is
eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:51 pm
Quote:
I think most people are fine with the civil union term or whatever the gay communitee wants to call it, but why try to redefine a century's old institution which has been the basis for stabilization of cultures.

brand

What on earth does 'redefine' mean? You're smarter than to parrot this line. And 'centuries'? Is it? Universally? And how is 'redefining' different here than 'redefining' back when a white couldn't wed a negro?

I'll write a post on this tomorrow, but the 'redefining' idea is the key talking point by those pushing this bill (that and 'activist judges'. But it is actually, if you look at it closely, quite meaningless.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:54 pm
PDiddie wrote:
realjohnboy wrote:
ABB and DOMA? What do those initials mean? Thanks.


ABB = Anybody But Bush

DOMA = Defense of Marriage Amendment (the legislation calling for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage)

Brand, I think you misunderstood the point.

By way of explanation, I will put the question to you: what do you perceive is the difference between a marriage and a civil union?

(As in, "I'm against gay marriage but for civil unions"?)


Not against gay marriage but my perception is:
Marriage=hetero union

I may be irrational on this I don't know, my instinct is to leave 'marriage' the way it is and come up with something else agreeable to the gay communitee. Eventhough a civil union is a civil union under any name, it is going to be a battle to get the majority of people to accept it.

I also think it's just as hokey to allow states to decide on it because people want to be free to live where they wish and still be married if they cross some state line.

Pass an amendment if necessary to put the people that hold the term 'marriage' as meaning hetero union at ease, and make gay marriage legal in every state.

The only reason it isn't just that simple is it's inherently going to be a political football.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:56 pm
Brand X, You mean to say that interracial marriage wasn't a political football?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 09:56 pm
I wonder why they didn't come up with another name for interracial marriage?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 10:01 pm
hmmmm....still man and woman.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 10:16 pm
angie wrote:
The problem is, McG, people who hate and condemn gay people do NOT want a just solution. And people who, because of lack of understanding and because of cultural bias, are uncomfortable with homosexuality, though not necessarily bigots, are being frightened and misled by exremists.

Well put. The good news is that we really only need to sit back and let liberty breathe a bit. We're getting there. Hell, I work for a large company that has offered benefits to same-gender partners for years. This train has been on its way for some time now. Seems kind of funny to see people getting all pent up as we--as a society--try to work out which platform it's going to pull up to.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Thu 26 Feb, 2004 10:33 pm
Homosexual unions are as fraught as heterosexual ones, at the bottom line it is about learning to love and care for some-one, and that should last forever - I'd say all the opponents think about is gay sex, which like the hetero kind is not the be-all and end-all of a marriage.

However, if you really wanted to destroy the 'holy' institution of marriage the quickest way to do it would be to order compulsory DNA testing of all children born just to 'confirm' that they are really the result of sexual relations within a marriage. When enough 'fathers' discover that:
a. they ain't, or
b. they are, but it's not their actual marriage
the fabric of society will have broken down to the point where we won't actually give a stuff about whether homosexuals can get married. They'll just envy relationships that are pregnancy-free.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Gay Marriage
  3. » Page 21
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/01/2024 at 07:23:47