I am glad to see that there are some open-minded members of this wonderful industry who have actually made it into the 1990’s, and do not remain mired in the 19th century.
“mired in the 19th century” LOL. Homosexuals have been around for thousands of years. Wrong is wrong regardless of the year. What’s next? “Mariage equallity” for goats?
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe any goats have said that they’d like to get married. So, until one stands up and demands their right to marry, I believe your argument is moot.
My young daughter wants to get married and would probably consent to it – does that mean she should be allowed should an adult propose? I think not.
The real issue that I don’t hear anyone talking about is equal protection under the law. For example, I’m required to have a driver’s license to drive a car, but I’m not required to have one to operate a horse and buggy. I have the same protection under the law as those individuals who choose to operate a horse/buggy, and they have the same opportunity to drive a vehicle if they obtain their driver’s license. We could certainly legislate that buggy operators need to be licensed, and, while there are similarities between the two, it does not necessarily mean they are the same.
Is your young daughter an adult? If yes, and she consents, then we have 2 consenting adults and they should be allowed to get married (enter into a legal contract).
March 28, 2013 at 1:42 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Once your daughter is an adult, she should be able to marry whoever she wants. This isn’t an argument about whether children (or in the post above, goats) should be allowed to get married. This is an argument about whether two loving, consenting adults should have the right to get married regardless of gender.
And, I kind of like your buggy analogy. :) So let’s apply it to the marriage argument:
Two vehicles. Although both can take you to the same place (a long, fulfilling relationship,) one will do it much faster/better than the other. While some might prefer the slower pace of the buggy, the car has more benefits – a smoother ride, air conditioning, a windshield. (tax benefits, survivorship rights, etc.)
Now, licensed drivers can drive both a car and a buggy. And they can choose which they prefer. (dating or marriage) However, no matter how badly they might want to get behind the wheel of a car, the non-licensed drivers are forbidden to get a driver’s license and are only allowed to use a buggy.
This is not separate but equal. Yes, both vehicles move similarly, and will eventually get you where you want to go, but one has significantly more benefits than the other. To only allow certain people the right to become licensed drivers, and relegate the others to a life of buggys is discriminatory.
AJAJ.. not necessarily. Ownership issues will be easier to address and the company can then issue one home policy (depending on titling)versus a home and an HO4, two separate auto policies (depending on titling) versus one, and a single umbrella. Verbiage may differ by company, but many policies define coverage for “insured and spouse”. So allowing marriage would make it easier to write business and allow for more premium discounts allowed for married couples. SO.. get a few facts before you spout off with your empty rhetoric based on your own bias.
Actually.. no that wasn’t his point nor objective. His argument is that when it comes time to do W-2’s he has to withhold more for married same-sex couples then for married straight couples. Effectively it sets a double standard on taxation.
In addition, it likely wouldn’t make premiums increase, at least on the P&C side. Most carriers of auto insurance provide a ‘married driver discount’ for married couples. And home insurance companies prefer married individuals as well.
Maybe this will open the door for Polygamy? Marry who ever we want and as many as we want! I will let you know what my wife thinks…of course she may just come home with a couple of additional husbands. Move over Beethoven!
No, it won’t because marriage will be between 2 consenting adults. Not 22. And, it won’t bring beastiality into the mix either. Again, between 2 adults. Not between 1 adult and 1 animal. It won’t state all churches have to offer the ceremonies, either. It’s about a State’s definition.
Until the proponents of (polygamy/bestiality/marriage to minors) start marching in the streets about their “rights”. Then convince Hollywood that if it is shown enough times on TV and film it would be normalized to the point of acceptance by the population.
Sin is still sin, no matter how the State defines it.
But that’s the beauty of this country. We have separation of church and state. That gives us freedom of religion, but also freedom FROM religion.
Just because your religion says something is wrong, it does not mean that the rest of us need to agree, or that we should be forced to live according to your beliefs.
Using the word marriage is the issue, and then how the definition is in the law.
First you have to note that marriage was not something that was against gays to begin with. Basically when you have kids and you live together the government gives benefits. So they “documented” it so to speak in order to give benefits. The definition as usual for a government process was bad.
Now the problem is yet again definition. If we do marriage, it will cause lawsuits. This isn’t open for debate. It has in Canada, is has in Austrailia. You really need to read news sources outside the U.S. Canada had several Catholic psychology clinics shut down for not treating gay “marriages”.
Currently, there is no law that wouldn’t overlap. This fight right now is fighting against the liberal movement to dominate the church. I have to emphasize again: The fact that you can’t do a gay marriage (according to the state) is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of the government in how they try to give benefits to married couples, and thusly make bad definitions. There are some right wingers who want to control gays. That is the minority. You would do well to look into Catholics. They vote democrat. These are people who do not support gay “marriage” in the church. I might add the old pope talked about “acceptance” all the time. So please stop labeling the church. 20% of the population is the extreme catholic, and I know the views of the majority in that group as well as protestants, methodists, etc. The majority opinion is that we need to separate church and state. Marriage bills that do not do civil unions do not separate church from state.
March 27, 2013 at 4:53 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob:
From my post below:
Regardless of what faith you subscribe to, when it comes down to it, marriage is a legal, civil contract between two people. Yes, many times, it’s done in a religious ceremony, but it can just as easily be done in a courthouse with absolutely no religious overtones. To not allow two loving, consenting adults to enter into a legal contract with each other because some faiths disagree with it goes completely against core parts of the constitution.
Honestly, I think all marriages should be just re-termed/defined as ‘civil unions.’ These ‘civil unions’ would have the same rights and benefits of current, traditional ‘marriages,’ but the religious aspect would be completely removed. People could still get ‘married’ in their churches if they wanted, but as far as the government would be concerned, they’d have a ‘civil union’ or contract. And, there is no even remotely valid reason why the government should be regulating who chooses to enter into a civil contract and live as spouses.
March 27, 2013 at 5:18 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS:
You’re still not getting it:
They give more to people in marriages, there is a reason. Can I come in and claim I have the right to say you should die? (life support). Or when it comes to inheriting your estate?
There has to be a program for partners. The church was not involved in this. The government was. At the time, culture was the reason behind marriage being a man and a woman.
Now moving forward:
Having different names doesn’t give different rights. It makes sure that lawsuits do not occur, and makes sure that things don’t overlap. Marriage consel for example. If I seek it from a catholic marriage conseling firm, and they refuse based on gender, and we clearly have discrimination laws, they can get in trouble for refusing to serve me. That’s just one example. You don’t get to force someone into a way of life.
Ideally, we would snip this out. That would however, snip out all perks. The government is making perks exist for one and not another. I as a single person am not being mistreated am I for not receiving perks? (Well…I’m not single but it’s a point).
The point here is that we are not going to give the same definition to churches as non churches. It makes no sense. Seperation of church and state right BS?
Or do you believe that at all? It’s not seperation of rights here. We are making sure they don’t go at each other’s throats. And with gay marriage, it’s the gays who will go after the church, not vice versa. If a law existed that allowed persecution of gays for giving consel to religious folk, I’m sure you wouldn’t be ok with it.
March 27, 2013 at 5:21 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I’ll shorten it up because I realize some of my post was worded poorly:
The reason for the difference in names is not difference in rights.
It is so that a gay person has no ability to sue a church for not offering them a service in regards to marriage.
It would happen. It has happened.
Civil unions is fair. List to me one way in which it is not, when it offers all the same rights?
Which I might add, it does. The only reason you as a liberal would want the word marriage is to be able to apply force to a church. There’s no other possibility.
March 27, 2013 at 10:09 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
One of the leading arguments against same-sex marriage is the religious one. That it’s a sin, and that marriage is one man-one woman by God’s design.
The problem with that argument is that fundamentally, marriage is a legal contract. While churches, temples, and mosques are able to legally marry two people, they are granted that power by the state. And considering the fact that two atheists can get married by a justice of the peace, with absolutely no religion involved, the God argument really doesn’t hold water.
This is why I said that we should reclassify all marriages as civil contracts/unions. They’d have the same rights and benefits, but the religious aspect would be removed. People can have their ‘marriages’ in their churches, but as far as the government would be concerned, they’d contracted to each other. And there is no logical reason for the government to stop two consenting adults from entering into a contract with each other.
Now, if a church doesn’t want to contract/marry a same-sex couple, they shouldn’t have to. Just as I said that religion shouldn’t be able to impose it’s views on non-believers, I don’t think non-believers should be able to force a religion to act contrary to it’s beliefs. However, there are many churches that offer same-sex marriages, so why anyone would try to force a Catholic church to marry then, when they could just go down the road to the Episcopal church is beyond me.
And civil unions as they are currently written are not fair. They’re a start, but the do not offer the same benefits as marriages. Couples in civil unions can not file jointly on federal taxes. Depending on the state, health insurance companies can choose not to extend benefits to partners. When a partner in a civil union dies, the surviving partner does not have the same right to social security benefits that a married couple does. Civil unions also don’t provide the same benefits in regards to immigration as marriage does. Marriage provides over 1000 legal protections and responsibilities from the government that civil unions don’t. (http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html & http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf)
March 28, 2013 at 8:38 am
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Thank you, BS, you said it much better than I could have.
March 29, 2013 at 2:46 pm
EBA says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Tell that to the Mormon sects that still want to practice polygamy. Why does the state force them to live according to your beliefs?
April 3, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS:
One civil union attempt does not match the others.
And I will reiterate, did you see the Washington bill before republicans took it apart? There was overlap. That is not an opinion.
The primary force against this bill is not religion. Those morons stick out like sore thumbs but sorry bud, who in the 20-40 year old age group do you see making ANY gay comments? It doesn’t happen. In Washington it’s 50/50 for / against gay marraige. Why is this number important? Again, how often do you see half the people you know saying they hate gays? It’s closer to 1/20. Especially in Washington. NO ONE insults gays here. NO ONE talks religion on this issue here. The ads talked about these issues, and we talked about the issues. The republicans talked issues NOT religion. Religion was not, is not, and never will be the primary part of this debate. You’re wrong, admit it.
The very use of marriage, or any word that churches overlap use in, cannot be done without applying force.
Are you quite aware that the democrats tried to pass a “forceable” rape bill a while back, and then we had a debate on verbiage? How is this related? Because bills are attempted to be passed in many forms before they are done right.
To imply that all civil union bills have 1000 less rights than using the word marriage is a fallacy, a lie, and is BS just like your name.
Concept still goes like this for you BS and you’re going to have to accept is:
Does the church use the word marriage? Yes.
Gays?
Yes.
Is there overlap? Yes. Gay marriage conseling, etc. You have no idea how many times gays have tried to take funding away from the catholic church for “discrimination”. It has happened, not sometimes, but EVERY time we use the word marriage.
And civil unions, can be defined in their benefits to be treated the same for benefits. It has been several times. It’s fair.
You just won’t admit that you’re basically wrong, and you’re hung up on believing you’re better than everyone else. That’s the only reason you can possibly believe you randomly just aren’t against gays, but my oh my, 50% of the population is! No. They aren’t.
April 5, 2013 at 11:02 am
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob:
OK. I’m done. I’ve tried having rational discussions with you, but you don’t seem to want to do that. I provide sources for my arguments, try to speak plainly and try not to make personal attacks. You, however do none of these. You spout off ‘facts’ that you make up, talk in circles that most times make no sense, and then get belligerent and insulting when called on it.
I’m done.
April 5, 2013 at 12:15 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS:
I don’t talk in circles.
I’ll make it short so you can understand:
In the event that a civil union law would give less righs than a marriage law, it is solely due to how it was made.
As you say a marriage law can be passed without co mingling with churches (a lie) I say that a civil union law can be passed separating the two but giving equal right (which is a bit of the flip side, but true)
Your facts were not relevant.
I get belligerant because you are a zealot in your own right. You are convinced the whole world is against this due to religion. You’re wrong about that.
The issue is the wording and how to make it. Civil union wording is superior to marriage wording.
Your source did not disprove this.
And yes, I’m sorry to be rude, but you are a piece of shit in how you make the assumption about everyone who is against gay “marriage”.
A gay person should be able to whatever they want. Barring any action that can cause force on the church.
A “marriage” law will not protect this.
Seperation of church and state. That’s all I have to say here. Civil union wording can be made to be fair. It can even be made to state that a marriage within a church would constitute a civil union. The fact that don’t understand why this is different than stating that all “marriages” include gays, is astounding.
If “all” include gays, what happens to those who don’t marry gays?
What happens to churches who don’t provide services for gay married couples? I have provided you facts there, YOU IGNORE THEM. Look up lawsuits against the catholic church regarding gay issues.
If you do a law which says civil unions get all the same “benefits” as those who are married, and that churches who choose to marry people will constitute a gay union, then you have churches who choose to marry, people who then apply with the state, and not ONE possibility of overlap.
I have spoken LEAGUES ahead of your intelligence.
Labeling all civil unions as one thing from a source is laughable. And it’s why I’m calling you an idiot.
April 5, 2013 at 12:25 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob said: “If you do a law which says civil unions get all the same “benefits” as those who are married, and that churches who choose to marry people will constitute a gay union, then you have churches who choose to marry, people who then apply with the state, and not ONE possibility of overlap.”
Wow Bob! That’s the EXACT THING I SAID A WEEK AGO!!!
Do you not read what I write, or are you just illiterate?
Go back to your bridge, troll.
April 6, 2013 at 2:05 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS:
No, it is not what you said a week ago.
Modifying a law to treat civil unions as marriage is not the same as changing the definition of marriage, and modifying discrimination laws in that law. Whenever the democrats have modified the marriage laws, they do always add discrimination laws such as similar to washington state chapter 49.60. I will reiterate: You have NOT looked this up and are labeling what the republicans are doing based on your need to feel like you are a part of a movement.
This is the law after modifications from republicans, still pretty shitty. Note that while it does state that the churches are immune, this is only if they don’t charge a fee. Let’s say part of your religious ceremony involves buying some candles, incense, ritual items for marriage. Let’s say that you want a particular priest, who has to fly down to do the marriage. Flight costs etc. Let’s say you want your wedding in Hawaii and you want YOUR priest. Again, costs to fly to hawaii. You as a result charge a small fee to cover the cost of marriage. You have charged a fee to cover the costs of marriage. Or if you have a soda machine inside the building for refreshments. You have charged a fee. These suits have come up. Lawyers have already debated this point.
(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60
12 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations,
13 facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the
14 solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
15 offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or
16 facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages,
17 privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
18 (2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide
19 accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods
20 related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
21 create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers
22 those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or
23 goods to the public in transactions governed by law against
24 discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.
You have never looked this up. You have only quoted factcheckers. You didn’t look at the law in WA. And again, there have been lawsuits on this already.
While I know you as a democrat will be outraged that the gay couple was refused the bed and breakfast reception, it was a reception as part of a wedding, and it is a church. Churches do need some sort of revenues. This one is bluntly a public service unlike what i pointed out above so it’s obvious why they were in trouble. But, Stating that you want to restrict churches from having revenues to support their church is dominating a church if that is your rebuttal, and trust me, it has been the rebuttal of people like Planet.
The law should be ammended to be like this, which washington state law already did, only they should remove the line about domestic partnerships:
RCW 26.04.260
“If two persons in Washington have a legal union, other than a marriage, that:
(1) Was validly formed in another state or jurisdiction;
(2) Provides substantially the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as a marriage; and
(3) Does not meet the definition of domestic partnership in RCW 26.60.030, *scratch this line*
then they shall be treated as having the same rights and responsibilities as married spouses in this state, unless:
(a) Such relationship is prohibited by RCW 26.04.020 (1)(a) or (2); or
(b) They become permanent residents of Washington state and do not enter into a marriage within one year after becoming permanent residents.”
I might add, this is exactly what republicans are fighting for. You’re eager for an 8 page document that specifically provides wording stating that a church cannot refuse ceremony services to gays when they charge a fee to provide those services. Even non profit companies have a cost to operate. So do churches when they have to get a guy to hawaii. And you don’t consider that force? You don’t consider a one paragraph, basically “treat this the same as marriage” bill with no bull crap worse than discrimination wording thrown in, and all the redlining inside of this bill?
It’s about efficiency and stopping lawsuits. We don’t need the potential for a lawsuit thus keeping churches on their toes. No one should be on their toes.
Now I hate to be mean again: But, did you know ANY of this wording? Or did you look at what sites said was excluded?
Easy answer: You didn’t know.
Now then: Civil union wording (as posted above) is superior to the wording passed in washington state for tangible reasons. If you cannot rebuttal that (without making an ass of yourself trying to say what marriage is without legal wording) then you’ve lost this one, and need to back off of republicans on this one.
April 6, 2013 at 2:31 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS:
Since my other post didn’t show up, probably due to the links I’ll post again:
That is not what you said a week ago. Just above you showed a link you claimed showed that civil unions gave what, 1,000 less benefits? What I just spoke of was civil union wording, regarding treating the unions as marriage, and then not changing the marriage definition.
So…Yeah.
Moving on:
HOUSE BILL 2516 gay marriage in WA state.
And then it linked chapter 49.60 RCW inside of it with new discrimination laws. This was to ensure that churches can not charge a fee or they have to perform gay marriages. This is why I said the law is not efficient. It is 8 pages. It allows for lawsuits by using the fee wording. If you want your priest to marry you in Hawaii, guess what? The church can’t charge you the cost of flying out the priest, for marriage ritual items, etc. They also can’t provide a soda machine in the reception area. See where I’m going with this? They wouldn’t add that wording if they didn’t intend to use it. Also, they are already putting up blurry lines. What if the church has a bed and breakfast? I posted the link. A place was already shut down from marriages. Apparently a church can be limited in how they get revenues to just donations. How about baking sales? Is that ok? Apparently the government wants to blur the lines. Apparently they cannot provide a bed and breakfast to ceremony attendees as a part of the services, without facing a lawsuit because they collected money to cover that cost. That’s called restricting the ceremony, and the church.
But you’re all for that apparently.
“(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60
12 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations,
13 facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the
14 solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
15 offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or
16 facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages,
17 privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
18 (2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide
19 accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods
20 related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
21 create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers
22 those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or
23 goods to the public in transactions governed by law against
24 discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.”
Now for wording regarding unions, just strike the domestic partnership, and this is the right way to do it, and it is the way republicans have been trying to do it. It’s one paragraph instead of 8 pages. This is the debate currently. And the fact that you try to label it as a religious one, without ever having compared the wording is insulting. Yes BS, I know that you haven’t read this since you quoted someone else as to what the law would do rather than quoting the law like myself. Ergo, why I am yelling at you as if you’re a bigoted fool.
”
RCW 26.04.260
Recognition of a legal union. *create a second RCW stating solely that a civil union shall be a public recognition or all the same rights and responbilities of “marriage”*
If two persons in Washington have a legal union, other than a marriage, that:
(1) Was validly formed in another state or jurisdiction; *change to state Washington state
(2) Provides substantially the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as a marriage; *reference back to civil union law, stating that it is a Church or public recognition/union*
(3) Does not meet the definition of domestic partnership in RCW 26.60.030, *strike this phrase*
then they shall be treated as having the same rights and responsibilities as married spouses in this state, unless:
(a) Such relationship is prohibited by RCW 26.04.020 (1)(a) or (2); or
(b) They become permanent residents of Washington state and do not enter into a marriage within one year after becoming permanent residents.”
And done. Civil unions would be instated as a public / church union. The legal union law already in place would reiterate they have the same benefits, but the distinction would be in that there is no added discrimination wording, and it is separate from the word itself marriage in the law.
April 6, 2013 at 2:44 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS:
So now that I have given you examples, you must surely see the concern as this type of wording is always the issue.
In the future, debate with your knowledge of the law, not someone else’s. It was painfully obvious from the get go you were not speaking from experience on the law, or any wordings, or any state’s laws currently in existence. And yet you said I would talk like an idiot essentially and didn’t know my stuff. No, I talk angrilly. I do not tolerate people like you. You walk around preaching about tolerance, while you agree to wording that dominates churches. This will sound off topic but when it wraps around you will see why I’m saying it, it is relavent to why I’m pissed at you and democrats right now. This is what polarizes and starts wars, as you democrats have a history of doing. Us republicans had to smash your butts into gear back in the day of Abe Lincoln for you to get into civil rights. Ever since then you’ve been trying to make it your thing, as you continually fail the people. Women got the right to vote from us, now they hate us. Civil rights bill of 1957, made by republicans, tell me honestly, have you even ever heard of it? You didn’t even look at the current laws on gay marriage before shooting off your mouth. The 1957 bill was blocked by democrats. More republicans voted for the 1964 bill as a percentage than democrats. And somehow, it was the “democrats” who championed women’s rights, black rights, and the conservatives are yet again being labeled as getting in the way of gay rights. No. We are against force against church. I will not allow you to control any entity, in the name of claiming to be for “rights” you hypocrite. If you’re not a hypocrite, you are worse, a drone who is failing in even doing the proper research before following an movement whose goal it is to control another entity.
“No law, currently in existence, that has regards to using the word “marriage” for gay “marriage” is worded in a way that will not affect churhces.”
100% accurate. My wording didn’t modify the word marriage. It used it. The other laws have all not only modified the word marriage, they modified discrimination laws to not only appear to give immunity, but to also take it away in the event that any fee is charged. Church force isn’t happening. If it does, and a war ensues, the blood will be on the democrat’s hands, again.
April 6, 2013 at 4:44 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ahem….
“March 27, 2013 at 4:53 pm
BS says:
Honestly, I think all marriages should be just re-termed/defined as ‘civil unions.’ These ‘civil unions’ would have the same rights and benefits of current, traditional ‘marriages,’ but the religious aspect would be completely removed. People could still get ‘married’ in their churches if they wanted, but as far as the government would be concerned, they’d have a ‘civil union’ or contract.”
I do believe I said that civil unions/contracts for all was the way to go. But thanks for confirming once again that you do not actually read posts before you start spouting off.
And yes, I did say that civil unions as they stand now, do not have equal benefits to marriages. The links I provided list the ways they differ.
Every state is different when it comes to civil unions. The laws are different in each state, and some don’t have them at all. However, all are the same in that the federal government does not provide benefits to partners in civil unions.
I’m not sure why I’m even bothering to respond to you. You’re not going to read and comprehend what I write before you plaster another wall of text full of run-on sentences and barely coherent thoughts blaming the vast liberal and gay conspiracy for for trying to dismantle the Catholic Church.
April 7, 2013 at 3:17 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS
Ahem, from post one I mentioned that changing the definition of marriage was my issue.
So you didn’t read or comprehend my posts, prick. Don’t play that game with me.
We argued, and while you “claimed” to be for civil unions, you provided a link saying they were not the same after I posted a link saying it was only fair they get “civil union” wording. Why even argue with me at all if we believe the same thing BS?
I pointed out how republicans are for civil unions, democrats for gay marriage. Ultimately the fool here is you.
I’m not going any longer on this debate.
April 7, 2013 at 3:30 am
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
BS:
Let’s go post by post:
Post one: I explained marriage, and said we needed to do civil unions.
Post two: You said you agreed (a lie, because republicans have shown they are for this, while democrats go for marriage wording) But, you also, as a bigoted person said
“To not allow two loving, consenting adults to enter into a legal contract with each other because some faiths disagree with it goes completely against core parts of the constitution.”
Now why did you say this? I specifically separated it out away from religion in my first post, that it was nothing to do with religion why state and government decided to integrate marriage. So what were you replying to? You weren’t. You were basically labeling dem dere relgious folk as dumb hicks who just want to force dem there religion onto them there gays! Woot woot! My reply was basically to get real, and told you to shut your pretntious, false, mouth.
Reply 3: “There has to be a program for partners. The church was not involved in this. The government was. At the time, culture was the reason behind marriage being a man and a woman.”
I reiterate this fact. And tell you civil unions is the way to go.
Reply 4: You agree, but again, you say God has no place. God was not in my argument. I was again stating that republicans are for civil unions, and that what is stopping gay marriage right now is not religion. The majority of what is stopping this bill is the term marriage versus civil unions, and that republicans are supporting civil unions to ensure there is no overlap, whereas democrats are insisting on gay marriage wording. All the while, people keep saying the civil union wording doesn’t go far enough, and all the while religions are being labeled, thus allowing democrats to gain popularity to pass a law like one that already went through in my state, because of people like you continually saying you agree, but it’s all the religious folk’s fault (and by default, you vote democrat on an issue that we already both agree on, because religion is in your head).
True or false: We agree, but you keep throwing this in as a religious issue, taking swings at religion, and you believe Obama would be better at this issue than republicans? Keeping in mind, Obama wants gay marriage, republicans want civil unions, the same thing you “claim” to want, but then you go off on tangents about religion every time, to an agnostic who hasn’t brought up God at all in the debate.
BS, I don’t care about any part of your post other than the constant religion bashing. Religion is not a part of this debate.
How many times do I have to say it before you accept it?
April 8, 2013 at 3:43 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
I tried responding yesterday, but IJ seems to have eaten my post…
I’m not religion bashing Bob. I’m just saying that religion should have no place in determining whether two people can get married/enter into a civil union/contract. Unfortunately, many times religion is used as a reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
You said: “The very use of marriage, or any word that churches overlap use in, cannot be done without applying force.”
I disagree. No matter how or where it’s done, marriage is a legal contract. Although many marriages are performed in religious ceremonies, many others are done by judges, justices of the peace, and Elvises in Vegas with absolutely no religion involved. Since marriages are legal contracts that can be entered into completely absent of religion, to deny same-sex couples the right to get married because a church/synagogue/mosque is against it is wrong.
You said: “The only reason you as a liberal would want the word marriage is to be able to apply force to a church. There’s no other possibility.”
First of all, the ONLY reason I want marriage equality is because I want everyone to have the same rights. I don’t think it’s fair that some people aren’t allowed to marry the person they love because that person happens to be of the same gender. My desire for equality across the board has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Church.
Secondly, I don’t want to force the Church to do anything. I don’t believe a church/synagogue/mosque should be forced to marry a same-sex couple or provide marriage counseling if it’s against their beliefs. Each of those religions is completely entitled to their beliefs, and should not be forced to act contrary to them. But at the same time, I don’t see any reason why that couple shouldn’t be able to go to the courthouse or to a church that performs same-sex marriages, and get married. To deny an entire group of people the same rights as everyone else because some idiot might “sue a church for not offering them a service in regards to marriage” is wrong.
And I will say it again… Civil unions as they stand now, are NOT equal to marriage. You provided the wording for Washington, only. However, they are different for every state, and many states don’t even have them. And those states that don’t have them, don’t recognize unions from other states. A couple can have a civil union in Illinois, but when they cross the border into Indiana, suddenly, they are just dating. And not one of the civil union laws provides the same federal benefits that marriage does. That’s NOT equal.
As I said before, I would be perfectly happy with all marriages legally being re-classified as civil unions or contracts. They could still be marriages in the respective church/synagogue/mosque’s eyes, but on a state/federal legal level, they would just be contracts between two people. Same benefits, same rights, but legally they would be contracts. And there is no valid reason for the government to forbid two consenting adults from contracting with each other.
April 9, 2013 at 8:36 am
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
As usual BS, you said everything I wanted to say. You also articulated it very well. Much better than I could have. Thanks!
March 27, 2013 at 4:11 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Okay, Leviticus, so, no shellfish, tattoos, or football (TOUCHING or eating pork). The Bible also tells us no forutne telling, “pulling out”, fabric blends, or divorce. Can we still stone women to death in the streets as a form of punishment? Do we really want to go down this road?
Hey, remember that part of The New Testament when Jesus denounced gay marriage? Oh…wait…that’s right, He didn’t.
You always claim you are deeply involved in some church activities. Then stop trying to insult the church, and do some research.
Leviticus were more or less tribal laws. Anyone with a background in theology knows this. I don’t have to go any deeper than this, you should know better than to put out this kind of libel/slander.
Moving on:
No law, currently in existence, that has regards to using the word “marriage” for gay “marriage” is worded in a way that will not affect churhces. This is why the debate of “civil unions” became a hot issue just after Bush W’s election. There was a fight, liberals won, and then republicans more or less said they had to do the wording civil unions to avoid the possiblity of ANY over lap due to the word “marriage”.
Stop trying to rewrite history that these bills are more or less innocent bill so long as they get gay marraige to be ok. If they institute gay “marriage” in any way shape or form they are going to over lap with church marriage and that is not ok.
They get their own wording. Civil union. That’s what they should get. That’s what republicans have said since 2000. And it’s fair. That sounds like a good deal to me. They need to stop this fight of dominance over churches.
March 27, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Someone remind Bob I don’t read his comments. He doesn’t seem to hear me. Or, he glosses over this fact (perhaps others, I’m not sure, I don’t read his posts) every time I try to tell him.
March 27, 2013 at 4:54 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Captain:
Stop being ridiculous.
None of my comment was out of line. I’m not having this fight with you again and again.
March 27, 2013 at 4:56 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And actually Planet:
I never gloss over facts. I only use facts and sources.
Do you ignore the whole world around you when it doesn’t say what you want?
I mean really. You’ve got to learn how to deal with the world around you. Cover your ears and say “lalalalalala” much?
March 27, 2013 at 5:37 pm
Don't Call Me Shirley says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
In response to the “tribal laws” comment: For that matter, then, all parts of the Bible can be considered tribal laws. These books didn’t represent the entire world. They only represented what occurred in a small portion of the world. So all of the books are really just tribal folklore. People like to just pick and choose which parts to follow and which parts to ignore, as “tribal” or “metaphor”. In the past, people belived there was actually a snake that could talk. After modern society realized the absurdity of the this, the Followers changed their tune to “metaphor” (the tune is always changing). Pick and choose, re-interpret as you see fit. In fact, maybe the Bible is just “a bunch of lies, sent from the pit of Hell”.
April 3, 2013 at 6:16 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Don’t call me shirley:
I’m curious, have you taken classes on theology?
This is not me saying to listen to some parts of the bible and not others. Take some classes then come back and debate with me.
I have to say this again, because I won’t be labeled as a “christian” who just listens to “certain” sections of the bible:
I don’t actually believe in God. I call myself “agnostic” because of the fact that I can not state that I “know” god doesn’t exist.
So all ya’all who say you aren’t biased? You are. And I see right through that bull crap, mainly because I’m not.
I got between my brother and an Atheist when he was in college, the atheist quite confidently telling my brother that he was against gays, and had a closed mind because he was christian.
In this state religion is rarely takled about when you’re in a group, other than to bash the hell out of it, due largely to leftists in this state, and their obsession with having enemies, and feeling like they are an “activist” for rights and the world is just so terrible.
I make a point of balancing it.
But back on point: You don’t even know what the tribal law was in the bible.
April 3, 2013 at 6:38 pm
Bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
And some random other comments:
On Divorce, if you’re going to be a christian I’m sorry but Jesus did say “that which god joins together, let no man declare apart”. This means in god’s eyes, you’re married even if you get a divorce legally. He also says “go and sin no more” when he talks about being forgiven. The “sin no more” being the main point. If you believe in the bible, as my friend said above when he thought I was picking and choosing what to listen to, you must listen to it when it says you are not forgiven if you continue the sin. So if we follow the bible, then yes, divorce is wrong according to jesus. Though no, jesus never commented on gay marriage. Though it’s important to note that gay acts were spoken of many times, and when they were it was not like the tribal law. Food can be unclean, women unclean, etc. This was mostly hygeine. The wording used was that “god” viewed homosexuality as “abomination”. It wasn’t in there as part of tribal law.
Moving on to BS:
I touched on this a bit when I said I had to calm down an atheist who was agressing against my catholic brother (who is soft spoken, not a hard ass like me) and it happens often.
The reason I know where this law is going, is I have seen the leftist gay force. They are not soft spoken. They are not about rights.
Let me repeat that: Gay FORCE. Every, not some, but every single gay person I have ever talked with (and keep in mind this includes friends, which is the best because they don’t hide their true beliefs), when you press the issue says ultimately why would it matter if they had control over churches? They say that churches are controlling them and why shouldn’t they be allowed to have a catholic wedding option? They say that they are basically pissed that the catholic church is stuck in their laws. It’s almost like some of the gays are obsessed with the fact that the catholic church hasn’t changed that stance in 2000 years, so maybe being gay is actually bad. Why they think that is beyond me, I think they shouldn’t think that, and note that this isn’t all gays who think that last section.
It is blatantly a lie to state the goal here with the word marriage is to get equal rights. The end game is to PWN (gamer term) the christians. If you’ve ever talked with a gay person on this issue it becomes abundantly clear fast. If you’ve ever seen a christian debate on this with a gay rights activist who is him/herself gay (where the christian isn’t a loser who resorts to religious debate on the issue, I don’t like those types) it always comes back to that. Control.
When I have debated with you BS I have said nothing against gays, other than that they are pushing this in ways they should not. We could solve the whole thing by doing civil unions.
The church wouldn’t get to say who got married.
The gays wouldn’t be able to say “hey, that catholic church is giving HETEROSEXUAL marriaging counseling for low income famlies with public assistance but they are DISCRIMINATING against giving us “MARRIAGE” counseling!!! And again BS: THIS HAS HAPPENED. If it is possible at all, then we aren’t using the word marriage. I’m not giving control to the church. I’m certainly not giving it to gays against the church.
I’m in the middle, telling the two whiny babies to shut the hell up and make a deal. This is the deal.
You’re on the left antagonizing and labeling the christians. It’s not productive. At all.
And I must say yet again: I do NOT believe in God, I do NOT believe in the bible’s “stories”. You read that thing as much as me and you decide it’s just fake. The ONLY reason I say I’m not atheist is humility. I don’t know that god doesn’t exist. And it’s the same reason I am refusing to not expect the same of gays and you BS: Humility, and compromise on an appropriate law. Any law with the word marriage is not appropriate.
March 28, 2013 at 4:18 pm
GL Guru says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Help me with this sin thing. Having read the Bible there are many passages that contradict that homosexuality is a sin. Songs of Solomon have some passages that could suggest it is OK. There are others that clearly say it is an abomonation. So what is it? We all are entitled to our opinion but using the Bible as the resource to determine that is a slippery slope. If you think it is a sin, well then it is to you.
The Bible talks more about feeding the poor, helping the needy and caring for the sick than it does about a judgement on homosexuality. Much much more. So why are we getting hung up on it?
OUr constitution is clear. If this is a religious argument, then it has no place in our laws. that is the libertarian in me. Further more, we have bigger issues to work on than this one.
Last point, I do agree with media over stating the normalcy of homosexuality. It seems to be vogue. I don’t think it is normal (in a statisitcal sense not a moral sense). I am not offended by it but I think there is an agenda and there are certain stereotypes being reinforced. Having many friends who are gay, you could not pick them out in a crowd. hense I am not a fan of TV.
I am sorry to inform you that Songs of Solomon was not a male to a male or regarding homosexuality. It was male to female. What some took as “movement of bowels” was the hebrew equivalent of “my heart was stirred”.
While I am agnostic, I became agnostic after some intensive bible study.
There are no sections of the bible that condone homosexuality. Quite to the contrary if we look at Mt Vesuvius, Sodom and Gomorrah
April 2, 2013 at 9:32 am
Dave says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Planet, that’s YOUR definition of marriage. Unless you are blind you should have seen the evolution of society’s definition of marriage. Who is to say that society’s definition of marriage might not evolve yet again to include more than 2 consenting adults?
This problem could easily be solved. Get the state out of the marriage business all together. Let people do whatever they wish within their own conscious or religion or social order. Have the state remove all incentive/encouragements/penalties, etc. for being married, single, divorced etc. Let people who decide to get married write up whatever social contract they wish between themselves or not. Then we could end this debate and move onto much more important issues such as the economy, the debt, North Korea and Iran getting the bomb. Those issues are much more important and relavent to me than this issue.
It won’t evolve to polygamy because polygamy creates additional societal harms. I can explain how polygamy leads to societal harm. You can’t show me how 2 adults getting married, whether they be hetero or homosexual, further harms society more than marriage already has. Polygamy exploits men as there are bridal shortages, it enslaves women, statutory rape is involved as at least some of these girls are below the legal age, further enhances a male-privileged society, I can go on. Allowing 2 adult-consenting gays to marry does none of this. If you want polygamy, go live with Romney’s extended family in Mexico.
Not everyone belongs to a religion, conscious, or social order – separation of church and state. The couple would therefore need another venue to marry each other – aka – a courthouse. If they are going to enter into a contract, isn’t that a legal document? Therefore, doesn’t the State have to be involved? In the event of a contract dispute, the couple would need to follow state statutes, correct?
Do we have other issues in this country? Of course, but we are capable of multi-tasking. Those other issues do not negate this one. It’s still an important social issue that needs to be settled and there’s only 1 non-discriminatory way to do so. North Korea is a joke, I don’t see that issue being more important and relevant to me personally. But, you are certainly entitled to your opinion as well.
And again, you need to look into the bible as an evolving document written by men.
I assume you mean solomon. Would it surprise you to know that with the constant war and death of men in the history, there were times when there were much more men than women in society?
So let’s assume a god allows you to take on “multiple wives” so to speak. It is entirely possible, as leviticus does not speak of the duty of the wife, that in fact these were responsibilities of the husband. Take note of Abraham, a leader of many, Solomon, a leader of many, these wives may have simply been their responsibility to care for, wed for life. You may also want to note the bible states that a raped woman’s rapist is as some translate “wed” for life after the rape and was to pay the father. This was a law stating the man had to pay for the woman’s way through life because in that day and age, marriages were confirmed through hymen breakage. The raped person may have been cost a husband, and protector (which at that time a protector was 100% necessary.) so the rapist was required to pay her way through life. The punishment was death if he “divorced” (separated himself from his reponsibility of the person he raped).
You are clueless as to old testament “tribal laws” and why things worked the way they did. You have not taken classes on this.
Polygamy was condemned in the new testament, and polygamy in the old was a man being bound to caring for a multitude of women when it was required of them. The bible was written by people for people. This is why the old testament is usually disregarded, many of the sections of the old testament were basically tribal law issues. The rape one is one of them.
I was on another website and saw a reader make this comment….”what is the difference between polygamy and a man who has multiple children with multiple women?” And actually, you can marry as many times as you want. It just requires you to divorce first. Yawn…your argument is so ….. unfortunate.
My views on gay marriage have evolved over time. I held the view that marriage was between a man and woman. Period. But in an evolving society, I changed my opinion that people should be free to marry whomever they want, even if it’s the same sex. Churches are under no obligation to marry anyone that does not meet their criteria (religion, previous marriages, same sex, etc). However, government cannot grant one set of rights and privileges to one group of people and yet withhold it from another. Churches, yes; government no.
And for that reason, I believe the SCOTUS will find in favor of marriage for anyone who so desires.
I’m glad you brought up a society that is evolving. We surely are. So did Sodom and Gamoura. As we move in this country closer to their highly evolved status, so will our future. Marriage is between a man and woman. Don’t change the laws of the country, change the requirements within insurance. Taking a covenant set forth by God to be between a man and woman will create a future none are prepared for.
How will BO Care handle this. I read where it will be more expensive for men. So two men will be treated differently than two women seeking insurance. Seems like the POTUS screwed (no pun intended) them again.
Not all marriages are religious ceremonies. Many people are married by the County Judge Executive or other county official; therefore, referencing “a covenant set forth by God” is not relevant.
Just to clarify – this is in response to the comment “However, government cannot grant one set of rights and privileges to one group of people and yet withhold it from another. Churches, yes; government no.” made by Center Point.
If marriage is so important and necessary then why have the progressives/feminists spent the last 40 years denigrating it? In today’s society it is acceptable for unmarried people to cohabitate and have kids. “I don’t need a piece of paper from the gov’t to tell me what I can do!” But now, for homosexuals, marriage is vitality important. Makes one wonder what the real objective for homosexual marriage is. Btw, marriage laws are applied equally: no one is denied to marry; you just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Hello 1950’s, where have you been hiding lately?
With mom at home baking cookies after school?
Because Mom did not have her own car?
Because Mom did not have her own income?
Because Mom was pregnant?
Because Mom was barefoot?
Because Mom did what was expected of all females of that era?
This post is sexist on so many levels and paints the picture of the 1950’s completely incorrectly.
Let’s get some facts straight:
“With mom at home baking cookies after school?
If the mom was baking cookies after school that was her choice. She was not forced. Stop trying to state there was some slavery to the apron. Many women enjoyed that lifestyle, and thus chose it.
Because Mom did not have her own car? – Affordability could have something to do with this.
Because Mom did not have her own income?
Not true in all cases, and not true for the reason you believe. When mom’s didn’t have jobs it was because they wanted to be home with the kids. Which brings me to the next one:
Because Mom was pregnant? – What do you liberals have against women being pregnant?
Because Mom was barefoot? – What does this comment have to do with anything? If anything it borders racism (just in the extremity, not in the definition) in regards to opinions of women and labels. Being “barefoot” as an insult, is a label and a lie.
Because Mom did what was expected of all females of that era?
You’re either stating women were so weak they did what was expected (which is sexist) or you’re wrong and they chose to be at home because they thought it was best. Women and men made choices together. You people are trying to rewrite history. Women were happy in the 50’s. My grandmother worked I might add, so your labels are insulting. She didn’t work when she wanted to be with her kids, and she did when she finally could be away from them. Even Obama talked about his grandmother working as an accountant. The issue was affordability.
Because Mom only wanted a choice?” She has a choice. Take birth control, take precaution. You get pregnant though, protecting the kid is not going against the mom’s choice. I’m not arguing against abortion. I am arguing against your philosophical dissection.
So then all the women from the 1950’s are on those pills eh?
Then you must have missed the studies of depressed teens, on meds these days. It far outpaces the 1950’s women. You must have missed the amount of people in their prime depressed, also up.
Depression rates in the youth are up from the 1950’s through the age of the 30’s.
I have two things to state: You’re wrong here. And it’s insulting to both fathers and mothers from that time period alike whom you are insulting the women by calling them opressed, and the men for being opressive. Was your father opressive? Most men back then were good men, better than now a days.
The second: You’re facts are not researched. The fact that you just quoted with bias your depressed friends from the 70’s and 60’s shows a lot. Show me the study.
I know you haven’t done the research.
I’ll show you a study on the depression rates since the 1960’s of people through their 30’s. Sound like a plan and fair?
March 27, 2013 at 4:53 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Celitica,
We’ve had many forums where I debated you in the past.
Your numbers of likes were always inflated. Keep your obsessive fingers off the like and dislike buttons.
Sound like an honest way of doing things?
March 27, 2013 at 5:04 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Ok Celitica:
We’ll do a simple test of your wits.
“Because Mom did not have her own car?
Because Mom did not have her own income?
Because Mom was pregnant?
Because Mom was barefoot?
Because Mom did what was expected of all females of that era?
”
How did each of these change from 1950 to 1970?
You did not think this through. You threw out one liners. Please put out more thought.
They were stuck in the kitchen in the 50’s why? What law?
They were stuck making cookies? Why? What law?
They were stuck bare foot? Why? What law?
You say what was “expected” what about the fact that it was “expected” of men to provide enough income to the women who stayed home? This was a bad situation for all. Some on both sides took advantage of it. Some women stayed at home for bad reason, some men kept them at home like jerks.
That was not the norm. Most of the time it was a joint decision, as evident in the fact that moms did work in the 50’s when they wanted to. Less worked because it was easier to be a stay at home mom in the 50’s. That’s less stress, not more.
There was less stress in the home in the 50’s, not more. That’s the part of what you said that strikes tones for me. Every modern study shows that divorce rates are up, domestic violence are up, child abuse, up, child depression in bad homes, up, the homes of the 50’s were superior to now. People were happier in marriages. Ergo why they worked out more often. Ergo why the kids didn’t get depressed.
March 28, 2013 at 12:22 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
My mom was a mother in the 50s. I won’t say she was miserable, but she sure enjoyed the 70s & 80s a whole lot more! I’m serious. She talks about how much better it is for women who want a career. My mom went to college 1947-1951 and her choices for major revolved around teaching. I guess since there are several different subjects that have to be taught, she did have choices, right? yeah, you believe that I got a bridge to sell you….
March 27, 2013 at 5:41 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
>We’ve had many forums where I debated you in the past. Your numbers of likes were always inflated. Keep your obsessive fingers off the like and dislike buttons. Sound like an honest way of doing things?
Bob — you have earned each and every like and dislike on your own without more than one assist from me — so I am not inflating the numbers. Maybe it’s just you — and your keyboard. Not that it doesn’t amuse me — because it does. Kind of like turning on TVLand and watching Donna Reed or June Cleaver.
Ward,You need to talk to the Wally and the Beaver!
Which is why my likes to outlikes outrank each other on each of my posts, other than when you are in the comment section?
Which is why your comments reach 65, and mine 50 plus negative? More than the amount of people who comment (there’s about 20 max) and why outside of the posts you include yourself in, the max comments is substantially lower?
Let’s try not to hide what you do. I won’t direct your other comments, which are for a fact sexist because well, they are sexist.
April 4, 2013 at 1:40 pm
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Bob – wow, that’s some ego you’re toting. I mean, it is all about you.
April 5, 2013 at 12:05 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
JW:
Not an ego. And when we are only talking about likes dislikes with my own posts as evidence, yes.
Back of JW.
We have had these posts, any time Celitica is in the post, the likes dislikes go beyond that of any of the other pages of insurance journal. I have posted here 6 years.
No posts, none, without celitica have gone to 100 likes, other than ones she’s involved with. At which point, the people who are disliked get more dislikes the more they are liked (I tested this once, the only time I’ve liked disliked posts multiple times, all the likes were me for a conservative guy) and then all the dislikes for the liberal were me. This means ALL the 100 likes on the liberal (which only increased as I disliked celitica more, they stopped when I left it alone) and ALL the dislikes on the conservatives (which only incresaed when I liked the conservatives) were the same person. She’s the only person it could have been, and this reiterates that.
Moreover, my track record in every post not involving planet (the douche bag labeling piece of trash) is more likes than dislikes, barring Celitica being here.
It is her. It’s not a doubt.
Not an ego. I have told you in many posts you were right. No one else, let me repeat that, no one else, has done that in here.
I debate strongly. This does not mean I have more of an ego than anyone else.
March 27, 2013 at 4:06 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
“The real objective” to marriage equality? Really?
How about because they want the same rights that other people have had? That they want the same right to choose whether to cohabitate or to marry? That when their partner of 40+ years dies, they aren’t at risk of losing their home to their partner’s family? That they don’t get hit with huge capital gains taxes when they ‘inherit’ what they built with their partner? That when their partner is in the hospital, they are given the same right to be at the bed side as an opposite-sex spouse would?
How are ANY of these things bad? If it was an opposite-sex couple, the thought of denying any of these would be abhorrent. So, why deny these to a loving, devoted couple simply because they happen to be of the same sex?
What about the implication to insurance policies that extend rights and coverages to family members that were not previously extended to domestic partners?
It seems this possible inclusion to name insured is big news, at least to me.
Regardless of what faith you ascribe to, when it comes down to it, marriage is a legal, civil contract between two people. Yes, many times, it’s done in a religious ceremony, but it can just as easily be done in a courthouse with absolutely no religious overtones. To not allow two loving, consenting adults to enter into a legal contract with each other because some faiths disagree with it goes completely against core parts of the constitution.
Honestly, I think all marriages should be just re-termed/defined as ‘civil unions.’ These ‘civil unions’ would have the same rights and benefits of current, traditional ‘marriages,’ but the religious aspect would be completely removed. People could still get ‘married’ in their churches if they wanted, but as far as the government would be concerned, they’d have a ‘civil union’ or contract. And, there is no even remotely valid reason why the government should be regulating who chooses to enter into a civil contract and live as spouses.
Separation of church and state. That means freedom of and freedom FROM religion. It’s about damn time this country remembers that.
Apologies in advance for the following wall of text. I pulled this from a blog from a while back that I rather enjoyed reading.
I. The scriptural basis for the fight against gay marriage is a lie.
The supposed scriptural basis for opposing gay marriage does not, in fact, exist. Yes, there are prohibitions against homosexuality for believers, but even Paul states that the only action that should be taken against any homosexual is that, if they are a member of the church, that they should be thrown out. He clearly states that Christians have no business judging anyone outside the church.
And there is no commandment anywhere in there that “thou shalt impose thy interpretation of My will for My followers upon non-believers.” Even Paul never suggested that believers should try to force non-believers into following Christian teachings.
This argument is also a clear case of cherry-picking scripture. In the same passage in which Paul talks about homosexuality, he says that women should keep their hair long, cover their heads when praying, and should not be allowed to teach in church nor have any authority over a man. In fact, women are not even to speak in church unless they are prophesying. If a woman has a question, she should keep silent and ask her husband to explain when she gets home.
This is not merely a suggestion, either. Paul states that anyone–even an angel–who teaches anything different shall be eternally condemned. Note that this also comes shortly after the bit about not judging those outside the church.
So which is it? If homosexuals are biblically ordered to be second-class citizens, then so are women. Maybe it’s time to reconsider whether you are followers of Paul or of Jesus.
As for the Old Testament argument, it’s another case of cherry-picking to justify bigotry. Read the whole thing. I have. For one thing, it was written as law for the ancient Hebrews. For another, if you want to live by it completely, you’ll be executing a lot of your family, friends, and neighbors–possibly even being stoned yourself.
II. The “traditional marriage” argument is a lie.
The Religious Right claims that “traditional marriage” has always been between one man and one woman.
Wrong. And even if they were right, we’ve gotten rid of a lot of traditions, like slavery. I suppose we should bring back slavery because it is “traditional?” It is a much longer-running tradition than what they call traditional marriage. Various cultures around the world have had (and still have) long-running marriage traditions of polygamy, polyandry, and other forms of marriage.
Many cultures around the world have allowed for alternate forms of marriage, including same-sex marriage and various forms of group marriage. Even in the Old Testament, many of the patriarchs had more than one wife, and the only prohibition against such thing is directed toward kings, of whom it is said they should not have too many wives on the grounds that this would be a distraction.
What the Religious Right claims as traditional marriage is a recent development. The clergy didn’t even get involved in weddings until pretty late in the game, in order to legitimize financially and politically motivated unions. Marriages were financial and political arrangements in which the bride-to-be had no say. Even in the United States, marriage “for love” was not the norm until the nineteenth century. Marriages among the poor were generally “common law” in nature, while those among the upper classes were generally for financial reasons.
Dubya, has publically proclaimed that what the RR calls traditional marriage is “based on the Bible,” which is most certainly not the case–Marriage is older than the Bible. And besides, throughout most of the Bible women are the property of their fathers until they are sold to a husband, and men are allowed multiple wives and concubines. Wives are to submit totally to their husbands without question or hesitation. If a man’s brother dies and leaves a widow, the surviving brother is required to take her as a wife and have children with her.
Oh, yes… According to traditional (as in Biblical) Judeo-Christian marriage practices, it is perfectly normal and acceptable for a girl in her early teens to marry her middle-aged uncle.
III. The “destruction of the sanctity of marriage” argument is a lie.
First off, that argument doesn’t make sense to anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with logic. That’s like saying that allowing Protestants to practice their religion destroys the sanctity of Catholicism. Or that letting your neighbor eat junk food threatens your family’s health. If allowing same-sex marriage threatens your own marriage, your marriage has some serious problems, my friend.
Interestingly enough, those U.S. states that are most against same-sex marriage and scream loudest about the sanctity of marriage are, by and large, those states with the highest divorce rates.
IV. The “weakening of culture and of the family” argument is a lie.
The Religious Right has traditionally been against any science that conflicts with their preconceived notions, including, for a time, the heliocentric model of the solar system. (According to the Bible, the Sun revolves around the Earth. Of course, according to the Bible, rabbits are cud-chewing animals.)
In this case they, predictably, choose to ignore the science once again. According to the Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association (you know–the people who actually study cultures for a living), allowing for alternative forms of marriage has been found to be a stabilizing influence in every culture in which they are found.
V. The “homosexuality isn’t natural” argument is a lie.
Homosexual and bisexual behavior has been observed throughout the animal kingdom. The usual RR argument in response to this datum is, “So you’re saying we’re no better than animals!” No, I’m refuting the erroneous statement that homosexuality is not natural.
VI. “If everyone were gay, the human race would die out.”
Yes, but not everyone is. If we apply the RR’s “logic” to society at large, everyone should be required to have sex and make babies, and it is immoral to be sterile or to choose not to reproduce–just as, according to them, it is immoral to be gay. After all, if everyone were sterile or chose to not have children, the human race would die out.
VII. “The gays have an agenda.”
This one is true. The gay agenda is equality–Nothing more, and nothing less. And “separate but equal,” is not true equality now any more than it was during the black civil rights movement.
Isn’t it great we have freedom of speech and expression? The Bible does say homosexuality is unnatural. God created the anatomy of a woman to be different than the anatomy of a man, so even religion aside, this is just good common-sense logic. You are correct that “Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord”, so Christians are not to be judgemental of others. But we are really talking about politics and public policy, so the anatomy logic makes sense to me in that realm!
How can I phrase my counter argument without turning this discussion to R, or even X? Okay, I’ve got it: there’s more to life than the missionary position.
Excellent review with both clarity and logic. The CINO (Conservatives In Name Only) lost this argument years ago with the “because the Bible (which one?) ssez so.
BTW, I say CINO because William F Buckly has to be rolling in his grave with what the “conservatives” are doing these days. NO TO BIG GOVERNMENT…unless we like it then YES!
Then The Bible is wrong because every natural, sexual species practices homosexuality. Yes, if you want to procreate, the ol’ in-n-out logic works. But, you don’t have to procreate to love someone. Besides, we allow 90 year olds to get married, right? They aren’t procreating. I would doubt their relationship is even of a sexual nature. What about impotent men? Can they marry? Barren women? If we’re talking contract law, which we are, the 2 consenting adult rule is the only logical conclusion.
That would be any species that exists in nature and has the potential to engage in sexual activity. “Species” is in reference to the manner in which the scientific community tends to group physical life forms into apparent homogeneous categories. “is” means the present 3rd singular form of “be”.
Ah a smart ass, well for your information species in “nature” do not engage in “sexual activity” for the fun of it, it is there instinct to re-produce. What does the Bible say exactly about this that is wrong Planet? Be specific otherwise you are just throwing out wrong information.
If The Bible says homosexuality isn’t natural (per LARRRY LOGIC), then The Bible is wrong about the act of homosexuality. Proof – the act of homosexuality DOES occur in the animal kingdom amongst all sexual species. You’re telling me animals don’t ever just get their jollies off? Ever have a dog try to rub one off on your leg? I’ve seen female dogs back themselves up on various objects as well. Ever see a monkey at the zoo toss himself? I beg to differ. I’ll let you do the Google work, I don’t feel like having NSFW searches on my company’s computer.
The Bible mentions several times how homosexuality is a sin. I think it is between each individual and God how they live. All I ask is:
**do not call it marriage – in a day where everyone thinks it OK to remove Christian values from society like prayer in schools, Merry Christmas and now even the word Easter, marriage also is a Christian word. It is what God called the union between one man and one woman.
**do not allow adoption – every child needs a mother and a father just the way nature intended. Just like the girl who asked the supreme court, “which parent do I not need” the best is both.
**do not take away my right to disagree and my religious right to believe it is wrong.
I’m a Christian and I believe in the separation of church and state — as does the SCOTUS and the First Amendment. Marriage is not just a Christian word but a legal contract. Accordingly, it is up the SCOTUS to determine who can enter into these legal contracts in the U.S. If you believe in God, then it’s up to your God to determine if you’ve sinned by marrying a same sex person. I doubt any God would punish for the right to be married.
“Separation of church and state” is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
I’m coming up on 8 years of marriage, personally. For those of you keeping score, that equates to at least 6 months of wedded bliss. Affording gays the right to marry does absolutely to define or threaten my marriage. If two consenting adults care enough about each other to want to publicly and legally dedicate the rest of their lives together, who am I to stand in their way?
Kids can pray in public schools, teachers just can’t lead the prayer. Which prayer would the teacher use? Not everyone practices the same religion in this great country where you can have freedom of and from religion. You can say Merry Christmas and Easter all you want, you aren’t going to be arrested. I say both all of the time. Marriage is not a Christian word, it’s origins are 13th Century Anglo-Norman.
“The word dates to c.1300 and is from the Anglo-Norman ‘mariage’. Ultimately it is from the classical Latin verb maritare, to marry, used to refer to people, animals, and the crossing of grapes in viticulture and the nouns maritus/marita, husband/wife.”
Definition of MARRIAGE
The state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
You’re right, no parented foster children are waaaaaay better off than having loving, same-sex parents. Really? Why don’t you reach out and ask children of same-sex couples? I don’t know any that would rather live in a foster home.
There are countless single mothers out there in the animal kingdom. Should we push for more single moms amongst the homosapiens? What about those that eat their young? Or, abandon the weak ones?
You have every right to disagree and believe it is sinful. No one can take away that right. As far as I can tell, no one is trying to take that belief away from you. The DOMA trial speaks to contractual law and Constitutionality of discrimination against a select group of individuals.
Happy Easter to you! I will be celebrating with my family and hope you get to do the same.
One thing that perturbs me is that people now look at you like a bigot and a racist if you are against gay marriage.I find it preposterous that disliking and not endorsing someones sexual nature is somehow small minded. Being gay does not make you a protected class of anything, you could be born gay or not, that’s not a discussion I want to get into, but you are born white, black, make or female, Jewish or Arab. I find that preference perverse whether its born into you or not its disgusting, and against the general rules of nature. And me not liking your preference is the same as not liking you picking your nose.
Yes, being gay is just like picking one’s nose. Wow! Well, maybe, in the fact that you find both acts “icky”, perhaps. But, we do allow nose-pickers to get married. So, I guess it’s still the gay marriage we are discriminating against in this country. Thankfully, not in my State of Iowa.
Not at all against the general rules of nature. Do your own research and you’ll find out that is simply not factual. By the way, all those homosexual acts can be found in the heterosexual bedroom as well. Again, I’ll let you do your own research.
Definition of ‘bigot’ and you can decide:
“a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”
The key word there was general, there are special cases where homo sexuality is performed, but in general heterosexual nature is the norm. In fact incest is much more common than homosexuality in nature. I don’t need to do research to look down to see what I have and what its meant to do. By your definition we are all bigots, when ever we disagree. That’s just absurd. Calling someone a bigot and treating them as a racist is cruel and a bullying way to force your principles down someones throat. I don’t call anyone a name when they support gay marriage, but yet your throwing the word bigot around to describe people who don’t support. I don’t believe in god but I’ve seen so much religious bashing on this issue, that its very sad, even when religion is a protected class in this country. This country is founded on religious freedom, yet people are getting their religion trashed for not supporting something their religion tells them to be against. Have respect for people with dissimilar beliefs. Read this article, and this is how its done:
You are right, you will be labled a bigot if you disagree. That is the definition of bigot: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
Who the heck said I hated gays. I went to dinner with a lesbian couple last week who are close friends of ours. They are actually our favorite couple to go out with. Every one does things you don’t approve of, but it shouldn’t change how you feel about them. Your an idiot who regurgitates and can’t think for them self. Don’t make the assumption that people who don’t approve of gay marriage hate or are intolerant homosexuality, they just don’t approve. Get over yourself when people don’t think like you.
I was not implying you hate anyone. I just copied the definition from meriam-webster.com and pasted it to my post. I guess I should have shortened my pasted portion. Sorry.
And, by the way, nobody thinks exactly like me. I’ve learned to just let it go. Now, I’m not at all offended by what anyone else does or says, even when I disagree. Well, that’s not entirely true, I do get offended when people accuse someone of lying without proof. Eh, it is what it is.
The real problem is you (or anyone) TELLING that same sex couple they can NOT marry or that goofball he can NOT pick his nose. That crosses the line between not liking something and imposing YOUR beliefs on THEM.
Well if gay marriage is approved there should be no limits. Don’t want to be bigots against pedophiles, incest relationships, and people who “love” animals. Also people should be able to have as many wives as they please. Where is the boundary, the boundary is set by the squeakiest wheels apparently. If you are for gay marriage you should also be for no limitations of marriage. Because your same arguments hold true for pedophilia and incest.
You use that word bigot to bully and scare people into submitting to your beliefs. Stop shoving it down our throats wth such agression and personal attacks. Most people who share your beliefs start attackng peoples religion wihich actually is a protected class under law! All of us who are against gay marriage tolerate it, but feel making gay marriage legal is endorsing it. Im not endorsing something I find perverse and wrong. If you want to know what a true bigot towards homosexuality is get yourself a one way ticket to Iran and start bullying people who dont share your belief.
March 29, 2013 at 2:10 pm
BS says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
If you expect me to apologize for saying that denying rights to a group of people because you don’t agree with their preferences is bigoted, you’re going to be waiting a VERY long time.
“All of us who are against gay marriage tolerate it”
Really??? The Family Research Council tolerates it? The National Organization for Marriage tolerates it? Westboro tolerates it???? Since when?
March 28, 2013 at 2:14 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Common Sense,
I never called you a bigot. I just went to Merriam Webster to define the word. I’m not trying to cram my principles down your throat. You are certainly entitled to not like gay marriage. Where the line is drawn is when you refuse equal rights to a separate class, in this case homosexuals. You don’t have to agree with gay marriage, just be tolerant of it.
Tolerate – to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
I don’t see anywhere in that definition where you have to be in agreement with it. Simply don’t prohibit it.
I feel pretty confident that allowing gay marraige will not change my mind that pedophilia is harmful to society and wrong. Incest too is harmful to society. (someone somewhere can probably provide an example of no harm, I’m not going there) And really, beastiality? Eewwww. I’m not buying your reasoning. However, I won’t tell you not to think it.
Some Churches are allowing same sex marriage. The Episcopal Church of the United States has approved this during their last general convention. I do agree that not every Church should be forced to perform these. It is up to the religion in question. This then lets people decide which Church they attend and support. At the Episcopal Church “all are welcome to God’s table”.
March 28, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Except, of course–your statement is exactly the definition of being biased and/or bigoted.
But you don’t see it that way because you don’t want see yourself as a bad person.
But tough, guess what. Your stance is bigoted. It’s no different than discriminating against someone based on their race, religion or gender.
I’d like to know who is spending ALL their time “liking” and “disliking” these posts??? Who has that kind of time and who is so desperately wanting us to think that so many agree with same sex marriage? What a sad state of affairs.
Why do you think there can’t be this many people for marraige equality? At this time, the post with the most likes for a pro equality view has 51 likes. How many people read the IJ online? My guess more than 100, possibly more than 500. Current poling in the US shows the majority (over 50%) of respondents are FOR same sex marraiges being legal. Therefore, it is not so ridiculous to think 51 different people would agree with a post on this thread.
Its not discrimination under law. You can legally deny someone a job because they are homosexual. Now I don’t believe you should, that to me is wrong and hateful. Talk to the people of Rwanda what discrimination is, I’m sure their graves feel your 1st world problems.
Actually, common sense, denying one person a right that another person has, is discrimination.
What world do you live in where you can legally deny someone a job because they’re gay? Maybe there’s an age thing here, but in my adult professional lifetime, I haven’t even heard of that!
This is a silly debate and has a really easy answer in my own opinion.
I am relgious but I don’t understnad the strong anti-gay stance taken by many religous people on this. Yes I belive marriage is a religous testament, but I also belive that the government should have no say in the matter (separation on church and state). The government should then also not be able to bestow certain rights/benefits to some citizens and not others becuase of a reglious testament.
Therefore an easy solution is allow the government to recognize civil unions with all the benefits that come with it while not discrimnating against same sex unions. And allow religons to continue to recognize marriages as they wish.
Is there a reason this doesn’t make sense beside the untrue “lawsuits” it will cause? Anything can cause a lawsuit, doesn’t mean the plantiff will win.
I believe the issue is that in 14 previous findings, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a primary right. Therefore, it would be problimatic to allow one segment to have acces to one right while another has access to something different. The old, separate but equal argument.
All adults in our country have certain unalienable rights. The purpose of the constitution is to protect the few from the many (so the areguement of, well, the voters said… doesn’t wash when the many have an issue with the few). Anyway, change is hard. It’s ok for individuals and churches to be against change. I submit that they never have to enter into a gay marriage.
I don’t remember there ever being a day where I woke up and decided to be straight. My gay and lesbian friends and family tell me the same thing. The only difference is they grew up with such fear of telling you. They were afraid of what you would do. You are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and the rest of the community. Some of these poor souls were so afraid of what you would think, they took their own lives rather than living with the “shame” of telling you. What seems to be misunderstood by people was the decision to come out does not equal the “decision” to be gay. I have not met a single gay/Leslie who said it was a decision. Once, many years ago talking with a co-worker, she said, “why in heavens name would anyone choose to be treated so badly in society?”.
So, really, imagine it in reverse, if the way you connect with another human being was considered somehow “incorrect”.
My bottom line is the law shouldn’t be telling adults what to do. Allowing tow men or women to marry doesn’t hurt you. Not allowing them to marry does hurt them. How can anyone justify that as ok?
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.[23] – News Medical Net
I don’t really care if none, some, or all species of animals practice homosexuality or not. That isn’t material to this argument. It is SO evident that human homosexuality is natural because there are homosexuals all around us…and, well, they are human. Humans are different than every other species in that we have intellect and a sense of morality.
To me, morality means (I hate to borrow from the bible, but…) treating EVERYONE in the manner in which you’d like to be treated. We’re all human people, right?
So, gay is in all of the sexual species. Gay-bashing, however, happens only with humans. Thus, gay = natural; gay-bashing = not natural. So, naturally, one should quit his/her gay-bashing.
Your natural vs. unnatural argument is illogical. Normal vs. abnormal, however, is certainly an appropriate guideline. There are many things which are “normal” in the “natural” world that we human beings don’t “normally” do – some animals kill off the weak or leave them to die. Humans normally tend not to do this; some animals are very anti-social, loner-type animals. Humans are by nature normally very social creatures; maybe it’s normal or natural for some animals to “play tiddly-winks” (*wink wink* say no more)in front of the entire group, including youngsters. Humans don’t “normally” do this. Which is not to say that it’s mine or anyone else’s business if you like to perform deviant acts with consenting adults behind closed doors – hey, Planet, whatever floats your boat!
As we can see, there are many things which “naturally occur”, but are “not normal” to human beings. Some traits that we might consider abnormal are cute, quaint or even desirable (genius IQ, for example)and we tolerate or even encourage. Some abnormal traits are not encouraged but we tolerate, and some we just plain won’t tolerate.
Some of these we have collectively chosen to discourage by invoking fines or punishments on any who engage in them, but a great many activities, attitudes and opinions which are not “normal” to public display are nonetheless permissible in private, and are left to the individual to decide for themselves.
So human beings developed government to decide what is PUBLICLY acceptable or unacceptable behavior. What is unacceptable for the group but still permissible for the individual (gambling, for example: we might decide that it’s unacceptable for taxpayer’s money to used for gambling, but an individual should be free to gamble their own money if they wish); what is unacceptable for the individual but permissible for the group (declaring war, for example: no individual may legally declare war on our behalf, but we in the USA may collectively choose to do so by an act of Congress)
Then there is what’s unacceptable in public OR PRIVATE: murder, theft and other acts considered “criminal”.
Thousands of years of theology and religious beliefs, moral codes, social mores, science, philosophy and just plain old human trial-and-error have resulted in a fairly advanced sense of “right” and “wrong”, of “normal” and “abnormal” in our public discourse and governance.
We can therefore reasonably conclude that our PUBLIC lives; public servants; public funding, encouragement and endorsements of things, etc. should be MORE RESTRICTED than our PRIVATE lives. Private spending, private thoughts and opinions, private proclivities, etc. should naturally be LESS RESTRICTED, most of it nobody’s damn business.
Which finally leads us to the PUBLIC definition of “marriage”, which has traditionally been one man and one woman. I personally have no problem changing the definition to something like “two consenting, unrelated, adults”, but make no mistake, it’s still MAKING A PUBLIC, LEGAL DEFINITION which, by it’s very nature, is excluding whoever it doesn’t include. What about two elderly spinster sisters who live in the family home and never married?(they were my neighbors) What about the heterosexual couple who co-habitates, is committed for life, but chooses not to get married? Shouldn’t these people have the option of being treated financially, medically and, for all intents and purposes, like married couples? And if they aren’t allowed the option, is it discrimination? Is it a violation of their civil rights? Let’s not call a public legal definition of something a “right”, when it’s not (not everyone can be legally “married”) and confuse it with a private right to live the way you want, which is (anyone can privately consider themselves “married” to their dog if they like)
Maybe the real question is: why don’t we just enact a law that allows ANY TWO adult people to enter into a contract and agree to inheritance and survivorship benefits, joint taxes, medical health care proxy agreements, power of attorney agreements, etc – all the legal benefits that a married couple gets? Now maybe this should be in addition to gay marriage, I don’t know (does anyone here really care if Planette marries her maid?) It just seems like everyone’s talking about rights, when what they really mean is benefits.
JB – Jim Bob? Is that you in disguise again, Bob? “My Dear Captain Planet” – sounds a lot like you, Bob. Take off the mask or are you afraid of being shut out again?
Your words, “…but never chooses to get married.” – So, you’re saying they have a choice – interesting. Most homosexual couples don’t have a choice in this country.
“…2 unrelated adults” – again, your words. So, those “spinster sister neighbors” of yours do not qualify by that definition. No one is stopping those sisters from marrying someone else, though. Again, they choose not to get married. Most homosexuals don’t have that choice.
By the way, I fully think being gay is normal. I don’t “other” that sexual behavior. That premise fails from the get-go. The natural vs. unnatural was tongue-in-cheek, supposed to grab a chuckle or two, here. It was a play on words, too. The fact remains, gay happens in nature and in humans but gay-bashing only happens in humans.
Good thing when it comes to the Constituionality of something, that something isn’t up to a popular vote. Just because a group of people think homosexuality is “yucky” doesn’t mean homosexual couples should not be afforded equal treatment as heterosexual couples, Constitutionally speaking.
See my other post. It might explain why I have constantly cracked at you. I have no issue with gays (you have labeled me for making a rational argument only based on facts) I am not a christian (you have labeled me as a zealot far too many times) I do not believe in god (I call myself agnostic because I don’t know for sure) I NEVER debate a law that should be in place for religious reasons (you constantly try to tweak it so it looks like I am).
Planet: The reason why I tear you apart, is because like it or not, you’re piece of shit.
I’m sorry, but it’s true. Here you are telling a agnostic he’s against gays because they are yucky? Are you insane? Here you are telling a guy who said he’s ok with gays, and just wants a law that keeps religion and non-religion separated, as separation of church and state would imply? As Thomas Jefferson wrote about?
You do not know what you’re saying, who you’re saying it to, my demographic is incorrect. You enrage me because of how many times you throw in what I consider to be “racial slurs” that you apply to republicans. I am NOT one of those republicans. And Again: I don’t make religious arguments.
Bob,
Don’t you know by now I read ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you write other than, “Planet”. That’s my stopping point. All you do is call people names and swear a lot. I don’t even know if you and I see eye to eye on the gay marriage issue. Guess what? I don’t care. I couldn’t care at all what you have to think or say. There are others out here who sound like you, not sure if you’re putting on masks or not. If you are, you might get an accidental reply from me. If you want to play that game, so be it. Just know you don’t have an ounce of my respect and I’m sure that doesn’t bother you a bit. Peace!
Also, natural vs. unnatural is hardly my argument. It has been presented by the intolerant out there. I was just using their words to make a point and a joke as well.
I was simply pointing out what I believe is flawed logic, and I stand by that. You stated the whole animal species (kingdom, phylum, genus or whatever you really meant) has homosexuality and used it as the basis for justifying certain human rights, laws and rules. Good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral is NOT what I was getting at. What I WAS getting at is this: Why should sexual orientation have anything to do with any of society’s benefits or punishments? Should not two loving adult human beings, committed to each other in some permanent way, and desiring to establish a household or some other permanent bond, REGARDLESS of sexual orientation (and, as I pointed out, without any sexuality or intimacy involved at all, hence the two sisters example) have the benefits, by way of some contractual agreement, that are currently reserved for what is currently called a “married” couple? And, to quote myself: “I have no problem with changing the definition to two consenting adults”….”maybe this should be IN ADDITION [emphasis added] to gay marriage, I don’t know….” I was stating that IF we are to give preferential treatment/benefits to married couples, should not the same preferential treatment/benefits be extended to other “couples”, even IF gay? Even IF unmarried? Maybe even IF not a sexual/intimate relationship at all? Is this really an issue of contracts, estate and tax law more than one of civil rights? I was merely asking the question, not answering it, although I suppose it’s pretty clear what my opinion is on the matter, because we must all admit that the State DOES in fact have the authority to define what is meant by marriage, as that is precisely the argument put forth by pro gay marriage advocates – to amend the GOVERNMENT’S DEFINITION of marriage! Aha, an admission that the Government DOES, in fact, have the authority to define for our society what is meant by marriage! To prohibit some marriages, to regulate marriages – it therefore cannot be an unalienable right! Res Ipsa Loquitur!
I think it was also stated somewhere that marriage is primarily a function of religious belief, so could there not be a “separation of Church and State” argument as justification to keep government completely out of anything to do do with marriage? I’m not so sure, since marriage may be a secular expression, as well as a religious one, and a societal definition of marriage has been in existence probably since the first formation of society.
Then there’s another article 03/29 regarding the tax and benefit implications of marriage, and a poster [Dave] pointed out what I was hinting at, and which of course others had already thought of: get rid of any reference to, and any different treatment(good or bad), based on marital status or sexual orientation. Every one is treated as an individual, married and unmarried alike. But, this has to taken in the context of tax treatment and contract law, and would probably have nothing to do do with constitutional law, as we now must admit there will continue to be a societal definition of marriage (due to the issues of incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. brought up by others, and for the reasons outlined above) Obviously there are some folks who actually DO want to maintain distinctions, just as an excuse to foist their beliefs on others, like it or not.
Lastly, and I know some else expressed the same sentiment, but it’s worth repeating: refusing to condone is NOT synonymous with intolerance. And to say otherwise is, ironically, intolerant.
A Good Friday and Happy Easter to all!
P.S.: No Planet, I’m not JimBob, or SpongeBob, or SlingBob, or SlimJim, or any other surreal apparition – just plain ol’ JB
P.P.S.: Planet, I know there some other frequent posters too, but is this your full time job? cuz, jeez man, you seem to be everywhere, opining about everything, all the time
No, I actually can be wrong. It’s happened once before – hahaha.
In all seriousness, of course I have been wrong about many things. I can’t pretend to be as smart as Thom Hartmann. And, I don’t think my way is the only way, that’s why I invite the conversation. It’s good to have perspective as we continue to evolve as a society. I don’t have to agree with your perspective and you don’t have to agree with mine, but let’s have a discussion and see if there is a way to merge the perspectives and progress. I can admit to having strong opinions. I don’t believe that makes me much different than most of those who blog out here, though.
Which President Obama are you referring to? The one who is a dictator and rules with an iron fist or the one that has no spine and is an empty suit? The Muslim or the radical Christian? The puppet or the puppeteer?
What’s next? Legalizing polgamy? Maybe I need four wives. One to stay home and have babies and raise kids, one to go out and work and make big money, one rally hot looking one to show off to my friends, and one to get the best medical benefits for all of us. Where and when does it stop? This issue if we legalize it will open up the floodgates for all types of variables to what dictates a legal marriage!
Greg –
Marriage is defined as between 2 consenting adults. That takes care of your polygamy concerns. But, if you want to have your 4 wives, Romney’s extended family has a place down in Mexico where you can go and marry to your heart’s desire.
To play devil’s addvocate a bit, why not legalize polgamy? What would you having four wives bother anyone else at all? I certainly would not care. To condem what a person wants to do with their relationships by saying it will lead to them taking advantage of a government system doesn’t make sense. The government system is the problem not the people using it.
I think the issue at hand is about deciding if ALL PEOPLE fall into the definition of marriage (as has been affirmed as a fundimental right by SCOTUS 14 times).
I do not believe that the arguement is about broadening the definition of marriage, rather the question of is it OK for some people to access that right while others cannot.
So devils advocate…. whatever. The whole crazy slippery slope arguement is a distraction.
I personally, dont want anyone addressing if one or another type of discrimination perpetuates social harm. That sounds like to much government in my life. Let me figure out who I want to marry.
I completely agree, and I don’t see where are disagreement is bedises my use of polgamy as a “distraction.” What I posted was not a distraction itself but a response to the polgamy distraction being brought up prior to my post “What’s next? Legalizing polgamy?.” They were using the all too often employed reductio ad absurdum arguement and so I just went along with it. But almost every arguement being used against same sex marriage seems to just be a distraction (i.e. people bringing beastiality into the discussion).
I also believe that the definition of “marriage” is up to one personal beliefs and the government has no say in the matter (less govt as I infered you desire), which is the point I was making with defending polgamy. For govt purposes (I still question if they are even are legitmate purposes) a non-discriminatory civil union would be more than sufficient.
Because polygamy does societal harm. Trafficing and abusing young women, exploiting young men (due to bridal shortages), forced marriages, more or less statutory rape (these girls are getting married as early as 12 years old), the list continues beyond these dysfunctions. These types of societies trap their girls and women. Gay marriage does not do any of this.
These views do not represent that of our company nor myself as an indvidual. American Family stands for just that , the traditional and god ordained American Family. He created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Take up your arguement with him David.
So–to follow your line of thinking (as skewed as it appears)
Since God made Adam, and then God made Eve from Adam’s rib–
Isn’t that a bit masturbatory?
And apart from that–then do you also follow the line of thinking that because Eve was made from Adam (yeah, hurts my head too…) that women are somehow intrinsicly inferior to men, because they were made second-hand?
Homosexuality is wrong. Period. Flame me all you want, but a sin is a sin is a sin.
CP – You stated there are no issues with gay marriage. Really? The homosexuals I know break up just as often as married couples. What happens when children are involved (adopted etc.)? Are we going to then have divorce (family) courts specifially for the homosexual groups?
Neglect God’s word all you wish, but this nation is going the way of Sodom & Gommorah.
Jon, if you scoff at the old testament treatment of homosexuality, then maybe you should read Romans 1:26-32. Not only homosexuality is condemned but so is fornication, covetousness,envy, murder,debate etc. No one wants to call sin sin any more. Too sad that you don’t look at the entire word of God. You pick out what suits your fancy. God doesn’t change. The Law of Moses is no longer followed, but you would be hard put to PROVE that same sex marriage is supported in the New Testament. God wiped Sodom and Gomorrah off the face of the earth and the reason is very plain. How do you ignore that fact? I know it’s not popular to talk about sin these days, but we are warned that in the last days (NOW), that evil would be called good and good would be called evil. that pretty much describes the attitudes of most people, even those who call themselves Christian. I’m not judging anyone, the Word of God judges. We can leave that up to him.
I’m sorry, are you talking about the book that was written by men, not God; that was collated and debated on what would actually be included in said book (which happened in the 5th Century AD); and differs in content and translation from demonination to denomination?
What about all the translation issues?
I was actually not “scoffing” at my request for scripture references. Every hardcore bigot refers to the bible as a defense that being gay is a sin, but never bothers to actually back up their assertation with anything defensible.
And the “cherry pickers” out there who are the worst are pretty much the bible-banging bigots who will loudly decry something they hate, but ignore all the other questionable practices that are supported and/or endorsed by the bible. (Polygamy, anyone?)
But I will SCOFF loudly, and often, whenever anyone proclaims these are the biblical “End Times.”
That’s been proclaimed since shortly after Christ’s death, going on 2000 years ago.
The problem with you quoting scripture as an example of why homosexuality is wrong, is that not everyone follows or believes in what the bible says. There are many, many religions in this world, and just as many holy books. As Spencer Tracy said in ‘Inherit the Wind,’ “It’s a good book, but it’s not the only book.”
If your religion says homosexuality is an abomination and that same-sex marriage should not be permitted, then that’s perfectly fine. Don’t fall in love with and get married to someone of the same sex, and your God should be very happy with you.
But, your religion should not be able to dictate how other people who don’t believe in a God who would create people one way, and then damn them for loving the way He designed them to, should live.
The problem, of course, is that all the “Sin” cryers out there are blindly assuming that their religion is the only one, true religion.
(When, in fact, there are so many differentiations of Christianity that you can’t really call it the “same” religion anymore…)
April 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Perplexed,
Now is the last days? I get it, April Fool’s. That’s pretty good.
uct – I’ll hear your comment. So, gay marriage presents the same issues as hetero marriage. Okay, I’ll give you that. What’s your point? So, should we outlaw all marriage then, since hetero marriage ends in divorce roughly 50% of the time? As far as the kids are concerned, custody battles would mirror that of a hetero couple. Each side makes a case for custody rights. Divorce would be divorce, don’t need a special court. That’s as crazy to me as separate drinking fountains.
With the seperation of church and state, don’t I get to decide if what I’m doing is a sin?
Even if what these more conservative folks are saying is 100% true, with seperation of church and state, please help me understand why you think its ok for the state to run my life in the ways of your church.
What if someone were fighting for muslim rules of governance. Don’t you see the similarity with those contries (that we go to war with over how they treat people….).
We dicriminate against actions all the time (e.g., smoking). Jesus specifically denounced pornea in Mark 7. Nature denounces it every time a practitioner comes down with a STD. Insurance actuaries should consider the matter objectively (i.e., not with the eyes of Hollywood and others who reject and actively work to destroy traditional morality).
Wow, the comments here clearly show that we are living in an OBAMAnation.
Jesus specifically condemns pornea in Mark 7. He forgives sinners but tells them to go and sin no more. Hollywood, the mouthpiece of the evil one, has convinced the lemmings among us (who spend more time watching TV than thinking/reading) that evil is good. But depraved thoughts lead to sinful acts, which lead to bad habits, which lead to degenerate character. And charcter determines destiny. DO NOT TEACH YOUR CHILDREN THAT EVIL IS GOOD!
If you are an atheist (or think you are, because we all worship something—consider what you think about to lull yourself to sleep), then I will point to the natural harm that degenrate practices cause: STD, depression, and lack of progeny. Actuaries (who are not under the spell of Hollywood) will confirm that we discriminate against behavior all the time (e.g., smoking). AIDS has cost millions of lives and billions of dollars. For what? Depraved, sado-masochistic “pleasure”?
No worries, I won’t teach my daughter and child to be that evil is good. I will be teaching them not to discriminate against someone for any reason including sexual orientation. Erase the hate!
Al,
If you want to gruff your billy goat during your free time, that is entirely up to you. But, he can’t consent, therefore enter into a legal contract, so unfortunately or fortunately (however you choose to view your thought experiment), you cannot marry him. Beastiality was against the law in Jesus’ time, He didn’t need to address it. Or, from your rationale, Jesus never said anything about it so He’s all for it, right? In which case, what are you saying about Jesus? You said it, not me. Whereas, I am certainly suggesting Jesus didn’t have any concerns about homosexual activity. So, I am calling Jesus, oh I don’t know, a humanitarian.
This beastiality argument may just be the most irrelavant argument I’ve heard. No ability to reason or consent, therefore, no legal contract exists. No marriage. Next.
It’s the same “logic” you employed. Homozexuality was certainly a crime in Jesus’ day, its repugnant sinfulness reaffirmed by the apostles, and your suggestion that Jesus was ok with it is offensive in the extreme.
Beastiality and homosexuality are condemned in the same passage in Leviticus BTW, and trotting out the “do you eat pork” canard you simply prove your ignorance of basic Christian theology: the ceremonial law passed away due to the work of Christ in fulfilling the Law of Moses, but the moral precepts precede Moses and remain in full force and effect.
Anyone who advocates illicit sex is sinning against God, and apologists for homosexuality are particularly offensive to the thrice holy God.
Well Al and Don’Bob’, aren’t you the omnisicient ones? Yes, same logic only I’m intimating Jesus loved homosexuals the same way He loved heterosexuals the same way He loved those who didn’t even want to have sex with anyone. In the purest form, a humanitarian. What He wouldn’t stand for is your hate and discrimination of a fellow man/woman. But, you are entitled to think what you want. You just can’t force your beliefs on others in this great country.
Yes, I’ve read Leviticus and if you see my posts above, you’ll see I addressed it days ago. God doesn’t care about gays, God wants humans to love each other. Love is the answer to life and you are attempting to deny it because you think it’s “icky”. By the way, not only could you not eat pork in Leviticus, you couldn’t touch it. So, I guess we should outlaw football.
If you want the law of the land to be based upon your specific religion, you are living in the wrong country, as stated by the founding fathers.
I AM BOB. Not Al. I have NEVER said someone should all live according to one code. I have said I am ok with Gays. I am not ok with ANY law allowing for a conflict between religion and gays or gays and religion.
I should also note as stated in another post, which is why I went for your throat the moment you labeled me a zealot, and which is why I will do so again now that you imply I am against gays: I AM A NON BELIEVER WHO ONLY CALLS MYSELF AN AGNOSTIC AS I DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN THERE IS NO GOD.
You punk ass piece of trash. I have tolerated you labeling who I listen to (not fox) what my religion is (not christian) why I’m against gay “marriage” (nothing to do with being against males being with males, or it being gross or bad) LONG ENOUGH.
Stop your extreme bigotry. Immediately.
Now I did direct what the bible says about homosexuality, only in respect of you being a piece of trash hypocrite. A religious man trashing religion, but of course he’s above the law of his own religion, and knows better than most of the land about how laws should be put in place so that gays don’t control religion. And anyone who fears that comingling, is of course a pious man, or against gays.
Ya know, Bob, it would be a lot easier to read your posts if you drop the cuss words.
In a previous post, I think (because I got confused) you said the gay marriage debate is NOT about religion. If it’s not about religion, then why is anyone against marriage equality?
Now, in the above post, I’m further confused about your argument. You said “I have tolerated you labeling who I listen to (not fox) what my religion is (not christian) why I’m against gay “marriage” (nothing to do with being against males being with males, or it being gross or bad) LONG ENOUGH.” So, why is marriage equality wrong?
jw –
I’m just curious, who did Bob say was labeling him? If it’s me, he’s mistaken. I haven’t responded to a word that guy has written in months. Unless, of course, he IS Don Roberto. Then, yes, I guess I responded to him. But, I didn’t say anything about Fox News to Don Roberto (I called him Don ‘Bob’ for short). I did speak to Christianity only to the extent that I would challenge that Jesus Christ is too much of a humanitarian to waste His time with selecting which humans He should treat as equals to others. He loved all of humankind the same. What was that about casting stones again? I look at these conservative arguments and see them bleeding from shards of glass. Like John McClain’s feet in “Die Hard”. Appropriately, the conservative argument then goes on to say, “Glass? Glass? Who gives a ____ about glass?”
April 9, 2013 at 8:53 am
jw says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Captain, I’m not sure who has maligned bob’s good name.
I also agree that Jesus treated everyone the same. He ate with the sinners because they needed him. I have a magnet my middle child gave me that says: “Get Real. Like Jesus Would Ever Own A Gun & Vote Republican.”
April 9, 2013 at 9:03 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
That magnet is spot-on! Now, Supply-Side Jesus would own a gun and vote Republican. That seems to be the Jesus most conservatives believe in:
I see. So, you live according to Leviticus. That’s fascinating.
“You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.” – Leviticus 19:27
– I assume you have a full beard, and have never cut your hair?
“You shall not eat of their flesh (pigs) nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.” – Leviticus 11:8
– Never eat bacon, right?
“You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.” – Leviticus 19:28
– And you’re tattoo/earring free?
“You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.” – Leviticus 19:19
– Never wear polyester or mixed blend fabrics?
“But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.” – Leviticus 11:10
– And no shrimp? Lobster?
“For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” – Leviticus 20:9
– Since you’re on here taking, I’ll assume you’ve never said anything negative about your parents. Good for you!
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have– you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.” – Leviticus 25:44
– How much did you pay for your last slave? I know women tend to be cheaper than men, right? 30 shekels as opposed to 50. What a deal!
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” – Leviticus 20:10
– How often do you put adulterers to death? Do you do it as you come across them, or do you just stock up and do it once a month?
Cherry picking and choosing to believe only the passages that support your bigotry, just reinforces the notion that you are anti-homosexuality because YOU find it icky – not because God actually deems it wrong.
For those on the Santorum beastiality kick, answer me this: you HAVE to have sex with either someone of the same sex or a donkey, which piece of ass are you going to choose?
I find it really interesting that none of the folks who answer in a bigoted way address my point….
The SCOTUS has defined marriage as a fundimental RIGHT (unlike smoking, driving and drinking). Therefore, the point is, given the 14th amendment provides that ALL people are equal under the LAW, why should one group of people be treated differently.
There are some excellent arguements above which tell me why YOUR CHURCH may not want to enter these folks into “holy matrimony”. However, not one single case has been made for why we should not provide that ALL PEOPLE have EQUAL access to ALL rights..
What if we decided that people with children shouldn’t own guns? How would that go over?
really?,
It’s because they don’t have an answer. I’m still waiting for one non-religious reason why we shouldn’t have marriage equality, too. Excellent point above!
Marriage was originally created to register a union so that CHILDREN could be taxed. Check Roman tax history. So historically, an engagement or commitment ceremony was all that occurred. Marriage was only a trivial government requirement, where people were taxed by headcount. No need for homosexuals to register as they could not produce children and would not produce tax revenue.
Gay union CANNOT produce a child, and therefore by historical definition is not marriage but a union, such as any couple can have, and thereby already have equality under the law with union agreements.
Marriage benefits are designed to give an advantage for the purpose of producing a taxpayer…so gay unions don’t really need to go there.
Then, why do we allow 90 year old heteros to marry each other? Or, what about impotent men, infertile men/women? Besides, gays can be parents through adoption, for example. Also, a gay couple may choose for one of the partners to have a sexual union with someone just for the sake of producing a child. This is one example of surrogacy and there is also in vitro surrogacy. Try again.
It is not the historical reference though. You completely missed my point…todays morals and views of half the people do not reflect the historial viewpoint of marriage. DEAL WITH IT or move some place that reflects your viewpoints instead of forcing everyone to your view. America is a great place where you can be a communist loving liberal and live on the east coast or Hollywood or move to Texas, where people believe in God and morals. It would be a shame if everyone were forced to live by only YOUR viewpoint.
Equal rights for all means exactly that. I’m not forcing anyone to get gay married. Therefore, they do not live gay married. We don’t live in Roman times, thank goodness. Much has evolved since then and thankfully so has humankind. So, what may have been true at one time historically is no longer relevant. Hence, the children argument is moot and just another distraction. Besides, I showed you how gays can have children.
By no means am I a communist. I believe in capitalism. Communism has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality. Marriage equality has everything to do with The Golden Rule. I don’t care if you believe in a god or not. Even the atheists I know live by that rule. DEAL WITH IT (your words, not mine) and let’s be open to all viewpoints. I’ll respect any church’s decision to not offer marriage ceremonies to gay couples. Your church doesn’t have to marry gays and you don’t have to marry one either. Just don’t treat people differently because you find them or their behavior gross or even, yes, immoral (this is subjective, try to remain objective). Did you know all of those acts you think are disgusting also happen in the hetero bedroom? Heteros can get married and you aren’t concerned with what they do behind closed doors. Like someone said above, it’s not all about the missionary position.
Insurance DataArchitect – You still didn’t answer my question.
If SCOTUS said marriage a right 14 times (I do not believe they were referencing roman constitutionality, rather US), and the 14th amendment says ALL People are equal, then tell me how today, in the USA, you are defending one group not having access to that right?
How’s that for a run on sentance!
The children, morals, sin arguements are all distractions… We have seperation of church and state, none of that should matter.
Not my intention to “troll” your post at all. I thought you were answering me, as the Roman comment was just below my prior comment. So, what are the rules on this board as far as what we can and can’t respond to without being a “troll”?
HAVE YOU PEOPLE LOST YOUR MINDS? Civil union sre the way to go on this. Homosexuality is not only a sin it is amental health issue inregard to the orientation and how it is not the most perfect way to raise a child. It is a disease control issue it is a procreation issue in terms of having the next generation. Gays already have the right to marry it is traditional marrige. Legal benefits are there for civil unions. Are we going to redinfine something that has worked well for thousands of years? Are we going to do something so evil that it could cause a civil war Are we going to open up pandoras box to 3 people getting married or ten or 20 or some nut getting married to his dog or car? YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY!
Ladies and gentlemen,
Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is alive and well and has now entered the forum. Oh, I mean, “William”.
Yes, Fred, homosexuals are the crazy ones. Uh-huh, yeah, right. All of your rants have been disproven in the commentary above. It would do you well to read all of the posts. Here’s another idea, talk to a gay person. You might find they are just as human as you are and not at at “mental”. Talk to some children who have been raised by a gay couple as well. In every sense of the word, you sir are demonstrating characteristics of a ‘bigot’. Get your god out of The State. They are to be separate.
Actually, the spittle-flying crazy-eyed insanity seems to be pouring forth from your rant, not the fact that marriage equality is important to all human beings.
And, homosexuality is not a mental disorder, you incompetent. The original DSM-1 in 1952 labelled it as such, but then again, back then if you weren’t white, you were also considered racially inferior.
Why do I get the inclination that 60 years ago you’d be burning crosses?
“Ladies and gentlemen, Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is alive and well and has now entered the forum. Oh, I mean, “William”.”
Did Fred Phelps write this opinion?
Polygamy “…is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world.” 136 U.S. 1, LATE CORPORATION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS et al. v. UNITED STATES, May 19, 1890.
I’m sure that court would have said the same thing about homosex marriage. Shrilly calling people bigots because they resist change to the basic building blocks of our culture is evidence of your ignorance of human nature and anti-normalcy bias.
Hmm, but they didn’t say the same thing about gay marriage. You’re comparing apples to polygamy. Polygamy and gay marriage are separate issues, quit trying to equate the two. I’ve already pointed out the main differences and I assume you aren’t ignorant so you know better. I didn’t call him a bigot, I said he is demonstrating the characteristics of a bigot. Just so we can be on the same page, here is the definition again:
bigot – “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Basic building blocks of our culture? Of your culture, perhaps. Certianly not my culture. I don’t live in a culture of hate. What isn’t “normal” about being gay? Love is love. Thank goodness we don’t rule by what’s “normal” to you and other closed-minded individuals. Otherwise, we’d still be discriminating against minorities, slavery would still exist, women would be suppressed, we’d still be torturing the mentally ill, and we’d wouldn’t have the advancements that aid those who are physically handicapped. As far as your resistence of change comment, I’ll remind you of the change dragon, as was written by US General Charles Krulak:
“You can ignore it and when you turn your back on it, it eats you. You can try to control it but sooner or later it will wear you down and then it eats you. Or, you can ride it, adapt, anticipate, grow, and prosper with change.”
I’ll call him a bigot. It’s exactly what his is, as evidenced by his ranting.
It’s the insane rantings of people like him who try to compare marriage equality between two human beings with polygamy, marrying a human and animal (or inanimate object, etc) that really make me worry that they might breed and pass on this craziness to the next generation.
really? says: “The SCOTUS has defined marriage as a fundimental RIGHT (unlike smoking, driving and drinking). Therefore, the point is, given the 14th amendment provides that ALL people are equal under the LAW, why should one group of people be treated differently.”
The SCOTUS has never defined marriage as between two men or two women or three men and two women. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Your post illustrates how the point is not rights, but the definition of marriage, which is the real issue, not “marriage equality.”
If for 2% of the population we redefine marriage for 100% of the population, then that’s not equality: the 2% will have gained a right that *I do not have* – the right to redefine marriage for the United States. They will not then be equal, but superior.
Al – what is that drivel you just posted? It makes no sense. This issue is getting so tiresome. Why can’t gay people have the right to be as miserable as heterosexual people and get married? Just kidding. What difference does it make to your life? Live and let live and get on with it.
Hi Libby,
Good to see you back. Also, good to have another voice of reason back. You should take time to read all of these postings, even the hidden ones. It’s quite evident most have accepted the fact gays are human and fall in love, too. But, there are those out here, like Marcus Bachmann, who want to keep trying to pray away the gay. Those are the people I pray for. Funny how every argument against gay marriage, and I mean all of them, sound exactly like the arguments against interracial marriage. Actually, it’s not funny. It’s sad.
Hi Captain. It’s nice to be back. I have read all the posts and some of them are just astounding in their ignorance and bigotry. I, too, will pray for the wayward ones that seem to forget that Jesus (and the “Bible”) taught love, tolerance, and acceptance. To all mankind. Not just the few that have annointed themselves the chosen ones. You’re right, none of it is very funny.
I’m curious….. Since I’m in the 98% (althoug I question where you get that number), I can’t see how my marriage of 21 years will be impacted by your marriage or anyones marriage. My definition stays the same. Two consenting adults, have built a life together.
Sorry – stepped away without finishing my question….
How are marriages for the 98% impacted? Are you afraid that people who are currently in straight marriages may jump ship?
You know, that actually happens all the time today… because of sociotial pressure, people have historically tried to bury who they are so deeply, that they get married and even have kids and then finally give up and tell the truth. So, it is possible that legalizing marriage for all people could destigmatize “gay”. it is imaginable that some people who are living straight, could give up the lies…
It appears this story has finally run its course. Given all of the feedback above, it’s obvious marriage equality wins…overwhelmingly. Those in the conservative minortiy (in regards to this issue) may someday see the err of their ways. If not them, certainly their children and grandchildren will. This is the civil rights issue of today. Thankfully, gone are the days when someone can say something is, “gay”, “queer”, or “total fag” without the stigmatism of it sounding like he or she is using the ‘N’ word. Unless, of course, he or she is inside a circle who finds such behavior acceptable. Like, for example, The Westboro Baptist Church. I’d like to close by taking to Libby’s point above, “live and let live” and changing just a couple vowels. Love and let love.
Hello Captain Planet, Libby, et al,
We don’t always agree on the politics, but to the “Live and let live” philosophy I say Amen! And the change to “Love and let love” just beautiful!
Amen, Libby! People should be allowed to be as weird and abnormal as they like (as long as they they don’t try to ram it down MY throat, or wherever – lol!) Same-sex marriage is not “normal”, but so what?
Abnormal does not mean good or bad, it just means….not “normal”. And, those who criticize and/or label others as “bigoted” or “hateful” or some other such pejorative term for simply pointing out that something is abnormal or weird are, well… themselves bigoted and intolerant of others.
Some hypothetical examples of what foolish PC-ness run amok looks like:
JB: Hey Dimtwit, that guy over there looks pretty weird, huh?
DIMTWIT: Oh JB, that’s hateful and bigoted! Where did you learn that, Faux-Reilly bad bad bad TV news?
JB: Hey, Dimtwit, that lady is abnormally tall, isn’t she?
DIMTWIT: Oh JB, that’s hateful and bigoted! Where did you learn that, Faux-Reilly bad bad bad TV news?
JB: Hey, Dimtwit, look at those two [any two people] over there engaging in openly voyeuristic behavior! You don’t normally see that too often, now do you? They should cover it up, man, ‘cuz there’re kids running around here and I think it’s lewd and abnormal and probably illegal, too!
DIMTWIT: Oh JB, that’s hateful and bigoted! Where did you learn that, Faux-Reilly bad bad bad TV news?
JB: Hey Dimtwit if a guy has an operation to become a woman, then marries a woman, is he/she now a lesbian? Or a transgendered closet heterosexual? Hmmm, kinda weird and abnormal, I’d say…
DIMTWIT: Oh JB, thats’s hateful and bigoted! Where did you learn that, Faux-Reilly bad bad bad TV news?
JB: Hey Dimtwit relax, I’m just observing the world and making comments…….but, if you think that makes me a lying super-hannitized neo-con foxed-up intolerant hateful bigot, welllllll, I’ve got some really rare, expensive bricks to sell you…..
Hi insurance is fun!,
Not sure where you got your definition, but here it is from a real dictionary:
nor’mal, a. [L. normalis, from norma, a carpenter’s square, a rule]
1. conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern; especially, corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; standard; regular.
2. in biology, (a) not immunized or otherwise exposed to an infectious agent; as a normal animal; (b) happening naturally
3. in chemistry…..
4. in economics…..
5. in mathematics…..
6. in psychology, average in intelligence or emotional stability.
nor’mal, n. 1. anything normal.
2. the usual state, amount, degree, etc.; especially, the median or average
3. a normal school.
4. in mathematics….
So yeah, I guess I’m pretty normal, although not by your definition. And if you don’t think you are, then you’re probably not. Very nice. No biggie either way. Seems like you’ve got to get over your phobias, though. Too many people with too many phobias. Damn shame.
Just a question, which definition of “normal” are you using?
Definition of NORMAL
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3: occurring naturally
4a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : sane
Do you mean not “typical” because it’s not exhibiting the group characteristics of heterosexuals, who are a majority group? You can have your own opinion, of course. I’m not trying to take that away from you, just trying to understand what you mean by “normal”. My opinion is, I believe homosexuality is perfectly normal. It is sane and free from mental disorder. It relates to or is characterized by (at least) average intelligence and development. There aren’t any rules or principles in this country forbidding homosexuality. It is a standard and a regular pattern seen across not only every facet of this society, but all societies, huamn and animal. Maybe you just mean it’s not what a majority of people are. I would agree with that. We shouldn’t restrict rights to those that are not what a majority of people are, though. And, it seems like you are on board with that, right?
Hello Captain Planet,
Probably 2a & 2b – perhaps typical and atypical would have been a better choice. But what I’m really getting at is that you can’t logically fault someone for either fondness or aversion to the typical or atypical, normal or abnormal, it being for the most part a matter of opinion. I admit that my normal might not be your normal, but we should still get along. So, in response to your second to last sentence and last question: right!
I think the problem with using “normal/abnormal” and “typical/atypical” is that these words imply “right or wrong.” The best term to use is “minority” since the majority of humans are heterosexual. The funny thing is, it is possible (but not probable) that there are enough LGBT people in the closet to make LGBT the majority.
I’ve known David Kosar since we were boys growing up in Missouri-I guess going on 40 years now.
I’m proud to call him my friend and I’m also proud that he is standing up for what is right. For a long time gays and lesbians felt and I think still feel that they couldn’t be honest with employers and co-workers in our business about their orientation and I’ve seen more than one person try and pretend to be straight when clearly they weren’t. I also think that some have been denied promotions over the course of time as our business tends to treat non conformity poorly.
A mans beliefs are his own and I’m happy that David has pursued his path towards being happy.
Good luck
There was a time when the religious right could bully us around. Thankfully, those days appear to be starting to drift behind us. Honestly, I understand and agree with their desires for a morality-based society. What I don’t want is for anyone’s religious beliefs to govern mine…or yours, or for anyone’s definition of “moral” to determine what mine might be. To bring made up “facts”, a dictionary, or a bible into the argument is just plain silly.
Aren’t “morals” primarily religion-based? I don’t know what a morality-based society means, but somehow I think it’s going to involve someone telling me what is right (moral) and wrong (immoral) and I don’t like that. We have laws in this country to tell what is right and wrong. Other than that, morals should be left up to the individual (and his or her God if he has one). Agree?
Moralilty is just as much based on inter-societal function and group dynamics as it is based in religion.
Each plays its part in the formation of a group consensual ‘morality.’
Of course, that doesn’t mean that everyone in a group with a differing religion has the same ‘morality.’ They just tend to form a sort of venn diagram of shared consensual morals.
I am glad to see that there are some open-minded members of this wonderful industry who have actually made it into the 1990’s, and do not remain mired in the 19th century.
“mired in the 19th century” LOL. Homosexuals have been around for thousands of years. Wrong is wrong regardless of the year. What’s next? “Mariage equallity” for goats?
I could be wrong, but I don’t believe any goats have said that they’d like to get married. So, until one stands up and demands their right to marry, I believe your argument is moot.
My young daughter wants to get married and would probably consent to it – does that mean she should be allowed should an adult propose? I think not.
The real issue that I don’t hear anyone talking about is equal protection under the law. For example, I’m required to have a driver’s license to drive a car, but I’m not required to have one to operate a horse and buggy. I have the same protection under the law as those individuals who choose to operate a horse/buggy, and they have the same opportunity to drive a vehicle if they obtain their driver’s license. We could certainly legislate that buggy operators need to be licensed, and, while there are similarities between the two, it does not necessarily mean they are the same.
Is your young daughter an adult? If yes, and she consents, then we have 2 consenting adults and they should be allowed to get married (enter into a legal contract).
Once your daughter is an adult, she should be able to marry whoever she wants. This isn’t an argument about whether children (or in the post above, goats) should be allowed to get married. This is an argument about whether two loving, consenting adults should have the right to get married regardless of gender.
And, I kind of like your buggy analogy. :) So let’s apply it to the marriage argument:
– Un-licensed drivers = same sex couples
– Buggy = dating/civil unions/domestic partnerships
– Licensed drivers = straight couples
– Car = marriage
Two vehicles. Although both can take you to the same place (a long, fulfilling relationship,) one will do it much faster/better than the other. While some might prefer the slower pace of the buggy, the car has more benefits – a smoother ride, air conditioning, a windshield. (tax benefits, survivorship rights, etc.)
Now, licensed drivers can drive both a car and a buggy. And they can choose which they prefer. (dating or marriage) However, no matter how badly they might want to get behind the wheel of a car, the non-licensed drivers are forbidden to get a driver’s license and are only allowed to use a buggy.
This is not separate but equal. Yes, both vehicles move similarly, and will eventually get you where you want to go, but one has significantly more benefits than the other. To only allow certain people the right to become licensed drivers, and relegate the others to a life of buggys is discriminatory.
…and idiotic
I would never marry a goat. My sheep would be jealous and it would be polygamy.
of course they have…but the hatred didn’t surface until the 19th and 20th centuries.
…oh, and the “goats” thing – hysterical. IT almost made me change my mind from open to narrow.
an insurance agent in favor of something that will make ins premiums and therefore his comm increase. there’s a new one.
Acutally in many cases it reduces the premium as the customer get’s the married rate and thus there is less commission.
AJAJ.. not necessarily. Ownership issues will be easier to address and the company can then issue one home policy (depending on titling)versus a home and an HO4, two separate auto policies (depending on titling) versus one, and a single umbrella. Verbiage may differ by company, but many policies define coverage for “insured and spouse”. So allowing marriage would make it easier to write business and allow for more premium discounts allowed for married couples. SO.. get a few facts before you spout off with your empty rhetoric based on your own bias.
Actually.. no that wasn’t his point nor objective. His argument is that when it comes time to do W-2’s he has to withhold more for married same-sex couples then for married straight couples. Effectively it sets a double standard on taxation.
In addition, it likely wouldn’t make premiums increase, at least on the P&C side. Most carriers of auto insurance provide a ‘married driver discount’ for married couples. And home insurance companies prefer married individuals as well.
David, I am absolutely honored to know you and am proud that you are serving a higher purpose here to ensure equality amongst everyone.
Agree w/AJAJ – wrong is wrong and this is wrong on so many levels.
Start naming the levels, then. Let’s have the conversation.
Maybe this will open the door for Polygamy? Marry who ever we want and as many as we want! I will let you know what my wife thinks…of course she may just come home with a couple of additional husbands. Move over Beethoven!
No, it won’t because marriage will be between 2 consenting adults. Not 22. And, it won’t bring beastiality into the mix either. Again, between 2 adults. Not between 1 adult and 1 animal. It won’t state all churches have to offer the ceremonies, either. It’s about a State’s definition.
Until the proponents of (polygamy/bestiality/marriage to minors) start marching in the streets about their “rights”. Then convince Hollywood that if it is shown enough times on TV and film it would be normalized to the point of acceptance by the population.
Sin is still sin, no matter how the State defines it.
But that’s the beauty of this country. We have separation of church and state. That gives us freedom of religion, but also freedom FROM religion.
Just because your religion says something is wrong, it does not mean that the rest of us need to agree, or that we should be forced to live according to your beliefs.
BS:
See my comment to planet.
Using the word marriage is the issue, and then how the definition is in the law.
First you have to note that marriage was not something that was against gays to begin with. Basically when you have kids and you live together the government gives benefits. So they “documented” it so to speak in order to give benefits. The definition as usual for a government process was bad.
Now the problem is yet again definition. If we do marriage, it will cause lawsuits. This isn’t open for debate. It has in Canada, is has in Austrailia. You really need to read news sources outside the U.S. Canada had several Catholic psychology clinics shut down for not treating gay “marriages”.
Currently, there is no law that wouldn’t overlap. This fight right now is fighting against the liberal movement to dominate the church. I have to emphasize again: The fact that you can’t do a gay marriage (according to the state) is not the fault of religion. It is the fault of the government in how they try to give benefits to married couples, and thusly make bad definitions. There are some right wingers who want to control gays. That is the minority. You would do well to look into Catholics. They vote democrat. These are people who do not support gay “marriage” in the church. I might add the old pope talked about “acceptance” all the time. So please stop labeling the church. 20% of the population is the extreme catholic, and I know the views of the majority in that group as well as protestants, methodists, etc. The majority opinion is that we need to separate church and state. Marriage bills that do not do civil unions do not separate church from state.
Bob:
From my post below:
Regardless of what faith you subscribe to, when it comes down to it, marriage is a legal, civil contract between two people. Yes, many times, it’s done in a religious ceremony, but it can just as easily be done in a courthouse with absolutely no religious overtones. To not allow two loving, consenting adults to enter into a legal contract with each other because some faiths disagree with it goes completely against core parts of the constitution.
Honestly, I think all marriages should be just re-termed/defined as ‘civil unions.’ These ‘civil unions’ would have the same rights and benefits of current, traditional ‘marriages,’ but the religious aspect would be completely removed. People could still get ‘married’ in their churches if they wanted, but as far as the government would be concerned, they’d have a ‘civil union’ or contract. And, there is no even remotely valid reason why the government should be regulating who chooses to enter into a civil contract and live as spouses.
BS:
You’re still not getting it:
They give more to people in marriages, there is a reason. Can I come in and claim I have the right to say you should die? (life support). Or when it comes to inheriting your estate?
There has to be a program for partners. The church was not involved in this. The government was. At the time, culture was the reason behind marriage being a man and a woman.
Now moving forward:
Having different names doesn’t give different rights. It makes sure that lawsuits do not occur, and makes sure that things don’t overlap. Marriage consel for example. If I seek it from a catholic marriage conseling firm, and they refuse based on gender, and we clearly have discrimination laws, they can get in trouble for refusing to serve me. That’s just one example. You don’t get to force someone into a way of life.
Ideally, we would snip this out. That would however, snip out all perks. The government is making perks exist for one and not another. I as a single person am not being mistreated am I for not receiving perks? (Well…I’m not single but it’s a point).
The point here is that we are not going to give the same definition to churches as non churches. It makes no sense. Seperation of church and state right BS?
Or do you believe that at all? It’s not seperation of rights here. We are making sure they don’t go at each other’s throats. And with gay marriage, it’s the gays who will go after the church, not vice versa. If a law existed that allowed persecution of gays for giving consel to religious folk, I’m sure you wouldn’t be ok with it.
I’ll shorten it up because I realize some of my post was worded poorly:
The reason for the difference in names is not difference in rights.
It is so that a gay person has no ability to sue a church for not offering them a service in regards to marriage.
It would happen. It has happened.
Civil unions is fair. List to me one way in which it is not, when it offers all the same rights?
Which I might add, it does. The only reason you as a liberal would want the word marriage is to be able to apply force to a church. There’s no other possibility.
One of the leading arguments against same-sex marriage is the religious one. That it’s a sin, and that marriage is one man-one woman by God’s design.
The problem with that argument is that fundamentally, marriage is a legal contract. While churches, temples, and mosques are able to legally marry two people, they are granted that power by the state. And considering the fact that two atheists can get married by a justice of the peace, with absolutely no religion involved, the God argument really doesn’t hold water.
This is why I said that we should reclassify all marriages as civil contracts/unions. They’d have the same rights and benefits, but the religious aspect would be removed. People can have their ‘marriages’ in their churches, but as far as the government would be concerned, they’d contracted to each other. And there is no logical reason for the government to stop two consenting adults from entering into a contract with each other.
Now, if a church doesn’t want to contract/marry a same-sex couple, they shouldn’t have to. Just as I said that religion shouldn’t be able to impose it’s views on non-believers, I don’t think non-believers should be able to force a religion to act contrary to it’s beliefs. However, there are many churches that offer same-sex marriages, so why anyone would try to force a Catholic church to marry then, when they could just go down the road to the Episcopal church is beyond me.
And civil unions as they are currently written are not fair. They’re a start, but the do not offer the same benefits as marriages. Couples in civil unions can not file jointly on federal taxes. Depending on the state, health insurance companies can choose not to extend benefits to partners. When a partner in a civil union dies, the surviving partner does not have the same right to social security benefits that a married couple does. Civil unions also don’t provide the same benefits in regards to immigration as marriage does. Marriage provides over 1000 legal protections and responsibilities from the government that civil unions don’t. (http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html & http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/publications/cu-vs-marriage.pdf)
Thank you, BS, you said it much better than I could have.
Tell that to the Mormon sects that still want to practice polygamy. Why does the state force them to live according to your beliefs?
BS:
One civil union attempt does not match the others.
And I will reiterate, did you see the Washington bill before republicans took it apart? There was overlap. That is not an opinion.
The primary force against this bill is not religion. Those morons stick out like sore thumbs but sorry bud, who in the 20-40 year old age group do you see making ANY gay comments? It doesn’t happen. In Washington it’s 50/50 for / against gay marraige. Why is this number important? Again, how often do you see half the people you know saying they hate gays? It’s closer to 1/20. Especially in Washington. NO ONE insults gays here. NO ONE talks religion on this issue here. The ads talked about these issues, and we talked about the issues. The republicans talked issues NOT religion. Religion was not, is not, and never will be the primary part of this debate. You’re wrong, admit it.
The very use of marriage, or any word that churches overlap use in, cannot be done without applying force.
Are you quite aware that the democrats tried to pass a “forceable” rape bill a while back, and then we had a debate on verbiage? How is this related? Because bills are attempted to be passed in many forms before they are done right.
To imply that all civil union bills have 1000 less rights than using the word marriage is a fallacy, a lie, and is BS just like your name.
Concept still goes like this for you BS and you’re going to have to accept is:
Does the church use the word marriage? Yes.
Gays?
Yes.
Is there overlap? Yes. Gay marriage conseling, etc. You have no idea how many times gays have tried to take funding away from the catholic church for “discrimination”. It has happened, not sometimes, but EVERY time we use the word marriage.
And civil unions, can be defined in their benefits to be treated the same for benefits. It has been several times. It’s fair.
You just won’t admit that you’re basically wrong, and you’re hung up on believing you’re better than everyone else. That’s the only reason you can possibly believe you randomly just aren’t against gays, but my oh my, 50% of the population is! No. They aren’t.
Bob:
OK. I’m done. I’ve tried having rational discussions with you, but you don’t seem to want to do that. I provide sources for my arguments, try to speak plainly and try not to make personal attacks. You, however do none of these. You spout off ‘facts’ that you make up, talk in circles that most times make no sense, and then get belligerent and insulting when called on it.
I’m done.
BS:
I don’t talk in circles.
I’ll make it short so you can understand:
In the event that a civil union law would give less righs than a marriage law, it is solely due to how it was made.
As you say a marriage law can be passed without co mingling with churches (a lie) I say that a civil union law can be passed separating the two but giving equal right (which is a bit of the flip side, but true)
Your facts were not relevant.
I get belligerant because you are a zealot in your own right. You are convinced the whole world is against this due to religion. You’re wrong about that.
The issue is the wording and how to make it. Civil union wording is superior to marriage wording.
Your source did not disprove this.
And yes, I’m sorry to be rude, but you are a piece of shit in how you make the assumption about everyone who is against gay “marriage”.
A gay person should be able to whatever they want. Barring any action that can cause force on the church.
A “marriage” law will not protect this.
Seperation of church and state. That’s all I have to say here. Civil union wording can be made to be fair. It can even be made to state that a marriage within a church would constitute a civil union. The fact that don’t understand why this is different than stating that all “marriages” include gays, is astounding.
If “all” include gays, what happens to those who don’t marry gays?
What happens to churches who don’t provide services for gay married couples? I have provided you facts there, YOU IGNORE THEM. Look up lawsuits against the catholic church regarding gay issues.
If you do a law which says civil unions get all the same “benefits” as those who are married, and that churches who choose to marry people will constitute a gay union, then you have churches who choose to marry, people who then apply with the state, and not ONE possibility of overlap.
I have spoken LEAGUES ahead of your intelligence.
Labeling all civil unions as one thing from a source is laughable. And it’s why I’m calling you an idiot.
Bob said: “If you do a law which says civil unions get all the same “benefits” as those who are married, and that churches who choose to marry people will constitute a gay union, then you have churches who choose to marry, people who then apply with the state, and not ONE possibility of overlap.”
Wow Bob! That’s the EXACT THING I SAID A WEEK AGO!!!
Do you not read what I write, or are you just illiterate?
Go back to your bridge, troll.
BS:
No, it is not what you said a week ago.
Modifying a law to treat civil unions as marriage is not the same as changing the definition of marriage, and modifying discrimination laws in that law. Whenever the democrats have modified the marriage laws, they do always add discrimination laws such as similar to washington state chapter 49.60. I will reiterate: You have NOT looked this up and are labeling what the republicans are doing based on your need to feel like you are a part of a movement.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2011-12/Pdf/Bills/House%20Bills/2516.pdf
This is the law after modifications from republicans, still pretty shitty. Note that while it does state that the churches are immune, this is only if they don’t charge a fee. Let’s say part of your religious ceremony involves buying some candles, incense, ritual items for marriage. Let’s say that you want a particular priest, who has to fly down to do the marriage. Flight costs etc. Let’s say you want your wedding in Hawaii and you want YOUR priest. Again, costs to fly to hawaii. You as a result charge a small fee to cover the cost of marriage. You have charged a fee to cover the costs of marriage. Or if you have a soda machine inside the building for refreshments. You have charged a fee. These suits have come up. Lawyers have already debated this point.
(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60
12 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations,
13 facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the
14 solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
15 offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or
16 facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages,
17 privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
18 (2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide
19 accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods
20 related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
21 create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers
22 those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or
23 goods to the public in transactions governed by law against
24 discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.
You have never looked this up. You have only quoted factcheckers. You didn’t look at the law in WA. And again, there have been lawsuits on this already.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/5901/Gay-Lawsuits-Target-Bed-and-Breakfasts-Churches-Nationwide.aspx
While I know you as a democrat will be outraged that the gay couple was refused the bed and breakfast reception, it was a reception as part of a wedding, and it is a church. Churches do need some sort of revenues. This one is bluntly a public service unlike what i pointed out above so it’s obvious why they were in trouble. But, Stating that you want to restrict churches from having revenues to support their church is dominating a church if that is your rebuttal, and trust me, it has been the rebuttal of people like Planet.
The law should be ammended to be like this, which washington state law already did, only they should remove the line about domestic partnerships:
RCW 26.04.260
“If two persons in Washington have a legal union, other than a marriage, that:
(1) Was validly formed in another state or jurisdiction;
(2) Provides substantially the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as a marriage; and
(3) Does not meet the definition of domestic partnership in RCW 26.60.030, *scratch this line*
then they shall be treated as having the same rights and responsibilities as married spouses in this state, unless:
(a) Such relationship is prohibited by RCW 26.04.020 (1)(a) or (2); or
(b) They become permanent residents of Washington state and do not enter into a marriage within one year after becoming permanent residents.”
I might add, this is exactly what republicans are fighting for. You’re eager for an 8 page document that specifically provides wording stating that a church cannot refuse ceremony services to gays when they charge a fee to provide those services. Even non profit companies have a cost to operate. So do churches when they have to get a guy to hawaii. And you don’t consider that force? You don’t consider a one paragraph, basically “treat this the same as marriage” bill with no bull crap worse than discrimination wording thrown in, and all the redlining inside of this bill?
It’s about efficiency and stopping lawsuits. We don’t need the potential for a lawsuit thus keeping churches on their toes. No one should be on their toes.
Now I hate to be mean again: But, did you know ANY of this wording? Or did you look at what sites said was excluded?
Easy answer: You didn’t know.
Now then: Civil union wording (as posted above) is superior to the wording passed in washington state for tangible reasons. If you cannot rebuttal that (without making an ass of yourself trying to say what marriage is without legal wording) then you’ve lost this one, and need to back off of republicans on this one.
BS:
Since my other post didn’t show up, probably due to the links I’ll post again:
That is not what you said a week ago. Just above you showed a link you claimed showed that civil unions gave what, 1,000 less benefits? What I just spoke of was civil union wording, regarding treating the unions as marriage, and then not changing the marriage definition.
So…Yeah.
Moving on:
HOUSE BILL 2516 gay marriage in WA state.
And then it linked chapter 49.60 RCW inside of it with new discrimination laws. This was to ensure that churches can not charge a fee or they have to perform gay marriages. This is why I said the law is not efficient. It is 8 pages. It allows for lawsuits by using the fee wording. If you want your priest to marry you in Hawaii, guess what? The church can’t charge you the cost of flying out the priest, for marriage ritual items, etc. They also can’t provide a soda machine in the reception area. See where I’m going with this? They wouldn’t add that wording if they didn’t intend to use it. Also, they are already putting up blurry lines. What if the church has a bed and breakfast? I posted the link. A place was already shut down from marriages. Apparently a church can be limited in how they get revenues to just donations. How about baking sales? Is that ok? Apparently the government wants to blur the lines. Apparently they cannot provide a bed and breakfast to ceremony attendees as a part of the services, without facing a lawsuit because they collected money to cover that cost. That’s called restricting the ceremony, and the church.
But you’re all for that apparently.
“(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60
12 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations,
13 facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the
14 solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization
15 offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or
16 facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages,
17 privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale.
18 (2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide
19 accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods
20 related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not
21 create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers
22 those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or
23 goods to the public in transactions governed by law against
24 discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW.”
Now for wording regarding unions, just strike the domestic partnership, and this is the right way to do it, and it is the way republicans have been trying to do it. It’s one paragraph instead of 8 pages. This is the debate currently. And the fact that you try to label it as a religious one, without ever having compared the wording is insulting. Yes BS, I know that you haven’t read this since you quoted someone else as to what the law would do rather than quoting the law like myself. Ergo, why I am yelling at you as if you’re a bigoted fool.
”
RCW 26.04.260
Recognition of a legal union. *create a second RCW stating solely that a civil union shall be a public recognition or all the same rights and responbilities of “marriage”*
If two persons in Washington have a legal union, other than a marriage, that:
(1) Was validly formed in another state or jurisdiction; *change to state Washington state
(2) Provides substantially the same rights, benefits, and responsibilities as a marriage; *reference back to civil union law, stating that it is a Church or public recognition/union*
(3) Does not meet the definition of domestic partnership in RCW 26.60.030, *strike this phrase*
then they shall be treated as having the same rights and responsibilities as married spouses in this state, unless:
(a) Such relationship is prohibited by RCW 26.04.020 (1)(a) or (2); or
(b) They become permanent residents of Washington state and do not enter into a marriage within one year after becoming permanent residents.”
And done. Civil unions would be instated as a public / church union. The legal union law already in place would reiterate they have the same benefits, but the distinction would be in that there is no added discrimination wording, and it is separate from the word itself marriage in the law.
BS:
So now that I have given you examples, you must surely see the concern as this type of wording is always the issue.
In the future, debate with your knowledge of the law, not someone else’s. It was painfully obvious from the get go you were not speaking from experience on the law, or any wordings, or any state’s laws currently in existence. And yet you said I would talk like an idiot essentially and didn’t know my stuff. No, I talk angrilly. I do not tolerate people like you. You walk around preaching about tolerance, while you agree to wording that dominates churches. This will sound off topic but when it wraps around you will see why I’m saying it, it is relavent to why I’m pissed at you and democrats right now. This is what polarizes and starts wars, as you democrats have a history of doing. Us republicans had to smash your butts into gear back in the day of Abe Lincoln for you to get into civil rights. Ever since then you’ve been trying to make it your thing, as you continually fail the people. Women got the right to vote from us, now they hate us. Civil rights bill of 1957, made by republicans, tell me honestly, have you even ever heard of it? You didn’t even look at the current laws on gay marriage before shooting off your mouth. The 1957 bill was blocked by democrats. More republicans voted for the 1964 bill as a percentage than democrats. And somehow, it was the “democrats” who championed women’s rights, black rights, and the conservatives are yet again being labeled as getting in the way of gay rights. No. We are against force against church. I will not allow you to control any entity, in the name of claiming to be for “rights” you hypocrite. If you’re not a hypocrite, you are worse, a drone who is failing in even doing the proper research before following an movement whose goal it is to control another entity.
“No law, currently in existence, that has regards to using the word “marriage” for gay “marriage” is worded in a way that will not affect churhces.”
100% accurate. My wording didn’t modify the word marriage. It used it. The other laws have all not only modified the word marriage, they modified discrimination laws to not only appear to give immunity, but to also take it away in the event that any fee is charged. Church force isn’t happening. If it does, and a war ensues, the blood will be on the democrat’s hands, again.
Ahem….
“March 27, 2013 at 4:53 pm
BS says:
Honestly, I think all marriages should be just re-termed/defined as ‘civil unions.’ These ‘civil unions’ would have the same rights and benefits of current, traditional ‘marriages,’ but the religious aspect would be completely removed. People could still get ‘married’ in their churches if they wanted, but as far as the government would be concerned, they’d have a ‘civil union’ or contract.”
I do believe I said that civil unions/contracts for all was the way to go. But thanks for confirming once again that you do not actually read posts before you start spouting off.
And yes, I did say that civil unions as they stand now, do not have equal benefits to marriages. The links I provided list the ways they differ.
Every state is different when it comes to civil unions. The laws are different in each state, and some don’t have them at all. However, all are the same in that the federal government does not provide benefits to partners in civil unions.
I’m not sure why I’m even bothering to respond to you. You’re not going to read and comprehend what I write before you plaster another wall of text full of run-on sentences and barely coherent thoughts blaming the vast liberal and gay conspiracy for for trying to dismantle the Catholic Church.
BS
Ahem, from post one I mentioned that changing the definition of marriage was my issue.
So you didn’t read or comprehend my posts, prick. Don’t play that game with me.
We argued, and while you “claimed” to be for civil unions, you provided a link saying they were not the same after I posted a link saying it was only fair they get “civil union” wording. Why even argue with me at all if we believe the same thing BS?
I pointed out how republicans are for civil unions, democrats for gay marriage. Ultimately the fool here is you.
I’m not going any longer on this debate.
BS:
Let’s go post by post:
Post one: I explained marriage, and said we needed to do civil unions.
Post two: You said you agreed (a lie, because republicans have shown they are for this, while democrats go for marriage wording) But, you also, as a bigoted person said
“To not allow two loving, consenting adults to enter into a legal contract with each other because some faiths disagree with it goes completely against core parts of the constitution.”
Now why did you say this? I specifically separated it out away from religion in my first post, that it was nothing to do with religion why state and government decided to integrate marriage. So what were you replying to? You weren’t. You were basically labeling dem dere relgious folk as dumb hicks who just want to force dem there religion onto them there gays! Woot woot! My reply was basically to get real, and told you to shut your pretntious, false, mouth.
Reply 3: “There has to be a program for partners. The church was not involved in this. The government was. At the time, culture was the reason behind marriage being a man and a woman.”
I reiterate this fact. And tell you civil unions is the way to go.
Reply 4: You agree, but again, you say God has no place. God was not in my argument. I was again stating that republicans are for civil unions, and that what is stopping gay marriage right now is not religion. The majority of what is stopping this bill is the term marriage versus civil unions, and that republicans are supporting civil unions to ensure there is no overlap, whereas democrats are insisting on gay marriage wording. All the while, people keep saying the civil union wording doesn’t go far enough, and all the while religions are being labeled, thus allowing democrats to gain popularity to pass a law like one that already went through in my state, because of people like you continually saying you agree, but it’s all the religious folk’s fault (and by default, you vote democrat on an issue that we already both agree on, because religion is in your head).
True or false: We agree, but you keep throwing this in as a religious issue, taking swings at religion, and you believe Obama would be better at this issue than republicans? Keeping in mind, Obama wants gay marriage, republicans want civil unions, the same thing you “claim” to want, but then you go off on tangents about religion every time, to an agnostic who hasn’t brought up God at all in the debate.
BS, I don’t care about any part of your post other than the constant religion bashing. Religion is not a part of this debate.
How many times do I have to say it before you accept it?
I tried responding yesterday, but IJ seems to have eaten my post…
I’m not religion bashing Bob. I’m just saying that religion should have no place in determining whether two people can get married/enter into a civil union/contract. Unfortunately, many times religion is used as a reason to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
You said: “The very use of marriage, or any word that churches overlap use in, cannot be done without applying force.”
I disagree. No matter how or where it’s done, marriage is a legal contract. Although many marriages are performed in religious ceremonies, many others are done by judges, justices of the peace, and Elvises in Vegas with absolutely no religion involved. Since marriages are legal contracts that can be entered into completely absent of religion, to deny same-sex couples the right to get married because a church/synagogue/mosque is against it is wrong.
You said: “The only reason you as a liberal would want the word marriage is to be able to apply force to a church. There’s no other possibility.”
First of all, the ONLY reason I want marriage equality is because I want everyone to have the same rights. I don’t think it’s fair that some people aren’t allowed to marry the person they love because that person happens to be of the same gender. My desire for equality across the board has absolutely NOTHING to do with the Church.
Secondly, I don’t want to force the Church to do anything. I don’t believe a church/synagogue/mosque should be forced to marry a same-sex couple or provide marriage counseling if it’s against their beliefs. Each of those religions is completely entitled to their beliefs, and should not be forced to act contrary to them. But at the same time, I don’t see any reason why that couple shouldn’t be able to go to the courthouse or to a church that performs same-sex marriages, and get married. To deny an entire group of people the same rights as everyone else because some idiot might “sue a church for not offering them a service in regards to marriage” is wrong.
And I will say it again… Civil unions as they stand now, are NOT equal to marriage. You provided the wording for Washington, only. However, they are different for every state, and many states don’t even have them. And those states that don’t have them, don’t recognize unions from other states. A couple can have a civil union in Illinois, but when they cross the border into Indiana, suddenly, they are just dating. And not one of the civil union laws provides the same federal benefits that marriage does. That’s NOT equal.
As I said before, I would be perfectly happy with all marriages legally being re-classified as civil unions or contracts. They could still be marriages in the respective church/synagogue/mosque’s eyes, but on a state/federal legal level, they would just be contracts between two people. Same benefits, same rights, but legally they would be contracts. And there is no valid reason for the government to forbid two consenting adults from contracting with each other.
As usual BS, you said everything I wanted to say. You also articulated it very well. Much better than I could have. Thanks!
Okay, Leviticus, so, no shellfish, tattoos, or football (TOUCHING or eating pork). The Bible also tells us no forutne telling, “pulling out”, fabric blends, or divorce. Can we still stone women to death in the streets as a form of punishment? Do we really want to go down this road?
Hey, remember that part of The New Testament when Jesus denounced gay marriage? Oh…wait…that’s right, He didn’t.
And you, you need to study the bible.
You always claim you are deeply involved in some church activities. Then stop trying to insult the church, and do some research.
Leviticus were more or less tribal laws. Anyone with a background in theology knows this. I don’t have to go any deeper than this, you should know better than to put out this kind of libel/slander.
Moving on:
No law, currently in existence, that has regards to using the word “marriage” for gay “marriage” is worded in a way that will not affect churhces. This is why the debate of “civil unions” became a hot issue just after Bush W’s election. There was a fight, liberals won, and then republicans more or less said they had to do the wording civil unions to avoid the possiblity of ANY over lap due to the word “marriage”.
Stop trying to rewrite history that these bills are more or less innocent bill so long as they get gay marraige to be ok. If they institute gay “marriage” in any way shape or form they are going to over lap with church marriage and that is not ok.
They get their own wording. Civil union. That’s what they should get. That’s what republicans have said since 2000. And it’s fair. That sounds like a good deal to me. They need to stop this fight of dominance over churches.
Someone remind Bob I don’t read his comments. He doesn’t seem to hear me. Or, he glosses over this fact (perhaps others, I’m not sure, I don’t read his posts) every time I try to tell him.
Captain:
Stop being ridiculous.
None of my comment was out of line. I’m not having this fight with you again and again.
And actually Planet:
I never gloss over facts. I only use facts and sources.
Do you ignore the whole world around you when it doesn’t say what you want?
I mean really. You’ve got to learn how to deal with the world around you. Cover your ears and say “lalalalalala” much?
In response to the “tribal laws” comment: For that matter, then, all parts of the Bible can be considered tribal laws. These books didn’t represent the entire world. They only represented what occurred in a small portion of the world. So all of the books are really just tribal folklore. People like to just pick and choose which parts to follow and which parts to ignore, as “tribal” or “metaphor”. In the past, people belived there was actually a snake that could talk. After modern society realized the absurdity of the this, the Followers changed their tune to “metaphor” (the tune is always changing). Pick and choose, re-interpret as you see fit. In fact, maybe the Bible is just “a bunch of lies, sent from the pit of Hell”.
Don’t call me shirley:
I’m curious, have you taken classes on theology?
This is not me saying to listen to some parts of the bible and not others. Take some classes then come back and debate with me.
I have to say this again, because I won’t be labeled as a “christian” who just listens to “certain” sections of the bible:
I don’t actually believe in God. I call myself “agnostic” because of the fact that I can not state that I “know” god doesn’t exist.
So all ya’all who say you aren’t biased? You are. And I see right through that bull crap, mainly because I’m not.
I got between my brother and an Atheist when he was in college, the atheist quite confidently telling my brother that he was against gays, and had a closed mind because he was christian.
In this state religion is rarely takled about when you’re in a group, other than to bash the hell out of it, due largely to leftists in this state, and their obsession with having enemies, and feeling like they are an “activist” for rights and the world is just so terrible.
I make a point of balancing it.
But back on point: You don’t even know what the tribal law was in the bible.
And some random other comments:
On Divorce, if you’re going to be a christian I’m sorry but Jesus did say “that which god joins together, let no man declare apart”. This means in god’s eyes, you’re married even if you get a divorce legally. He also says “go and sin no more” when he talks about being forgiven. The “sin no more” being the main point. If you believe in the bible, as my friend said above when he thought I was picking and choosing what to listen to, you must listen to it when it says you are not forgiven if you continue the sin. So if we follow the bible, then yes, divorce is wrong according to jesus. Though no, jesus never commented on gay marriage. Though it’s important to note that gay acts were spoken of many times, and when they were it was not like the tribal law. Food can be unclean, women unclean, etc. This was mostly hygeine. The wording used was that “god” viewed homosexuality as “abomination”. It wasn’t in there as part of tribal law.
Moving on to BS:
I touched on this a bit when I said I had to calm down an atheist who was agressing against my catholic brother (who is soft spoken, not a hard ass like me) and it happens often.
The reason I know where this law is going, is I have seen the leftist gay force. They are not soft spoken. They are not about rights.
Let me repeat that: Gay FORCE. Every, not some, but every single gay person I have ever talked with (and keep in mind this includes friends, which is the best because they don’t hide their true beliefs), when you press the issue says ultimately why would it matter if they had control over churches? They say that churches are controlling them and why shouldn’t they be allowed to have a catholic wedding option? They say that they are basically pissed that the catholic church is stuck in their laws. It’s almost like some of the gays are obsessed with the fact that the catholic church hasn’t changed that stance in 2000 years, so maybe being gay is actually bad. Why they think that is beyond me, I think they shouldn’t think that, and note that this isn’t all gays who think that last section.
It is blatantly a lie to state the goal here with the word marriage is to get equal rights. The end game is to PWN (gamer term) the christians. If you’ve ever talked with a gay person on this issue it becomes abundantly clear fast. If you’ve ever seen a christian debate on this with a gay rights activist who is him/herself gay (where the christian isn’t a loser who resorts to religious debate on the issue, I don’t like those types) it always comes back to that. Control.
When I have debated with you BS I have said nothing against gays, other than that they are pushing this in ways they should not. We could solve the whole thing by doing civil unions.
The church wouldn’t get to say who got married.
The gays wouldn’t be able to say “hey, that catholic church is giving HETEROSEXUAL marriaging counseling for low income famlies with public assistance but they are DISCRIMINATING against giving us “MARRIAGE” counseling!!! And again BS: THIS HAS HAPPENED. If it is possible at all, then we aren’t using the word marriage. I’m not giving control to the church. I’m certainly not giving it to gays against the church.
I’m in the middle, telling the two whiny babies to shut the hell up and make a deal. This is the deal.
You’re on the left antagonizing and labeling the christians. It’s not productive. At all.
And I must say yet again: I do NOT believe in God, I do NOT believe in the bible’s “stories”. You read that thing as much as me and you decide it’s just fake. The ONLY reason I say I’m not atheist is humility. I don’t know that god doesn’t exist. And it’s the same reason I am refusing to not expect the same of gays and you BS: Humility, and compromise on an appropriate law. Any law with the word marriage is not appropriate.
Help me with this sin thing. Having read the Bible there are many passages that contradict that homosexuality is a sin. Songs of Solomon have some passages that could suggest it is OK. There are others that clearly say it is an abomonation. So what is it? We all are entitled to our opinion but using the Bible as the resource to determine that is a slippery slope. If you think it is a sin, well then it is to you.
The Bible talks more about feeding the poor, helping the needy and caring for the sick than it does about a judgement on homosexuality. Much much more. So why are we getting hung up on it?
OUr constitution is clear. If this is a religious argument, then it has no place in our laws. that is the libertarian in me. Further more, we have bigger issues to work on than this one.
Last point, I do agree with media over stating the normalcy of homosexuality. It seems to be vogue. I don’t think it is normal (in a statisitcal sense not a moral sense). I am not offended by it but I think there is an agenda and there are certain stereotypes being reinforced. Having many friends who are gay, you could not pick them out in a crowd. hense I am not a fan of TV.
Well said.
Which sections imply that it is ok?
I missed your reference.
I am sorry to inform you that Songs of Solomon was not a male to a male or regarding homosexuality. It was male to female. What some took as “movement of bowels” was the hebrew equivalent of “my heart was stirred”.
While I am agnostic, I became agnostic after some intensive bible study.
There are no sections of the bible that condone homosexuality. Quite to the contrary if we look at Mt Vesuvius, Sodom and Gomorrah
Planet, that’s YOUR definition of marriage. Unless you are blind you should have seen the evolution of society’s definition of marriage. Who is to say that society’s definition of marriage might not evolve yet again to include more than 2 consenting adults?
This problem could easily be solved. Get the state out of the marriage business all together. Let people do whatever they wish within their own conscious or religion or social order. Have the state remove all incentive/encouragements/penalties, etc. for being married, single, divorced etc. Let people who decide to get married write up whatever social contract they wish between themselves or not. Then we could end this debate and move onto much more important issues such as the economy, the debt, North Korea and Iran getting the bomb. Those issues are much more important and relavent to me than this issue.
It won’t evolve to polygamy because polygamy creates additional societal harms. I can explain how polygamy leads to societal harm. You can’t show me how 2 adults getting married, whether they be hetero or homosexual, further harms society more than marriage already has. Polygamy exploits men as there are bridal shortages, it enslaves women, statutory rape is involved as at least some of these girls are below the legal age, further enhances a male-privileged society, I can go on. Allowing 2 adult-consenting gays to marry does none of this. If you want polygamy, go live with Romney’s extended family in Mexico.
Not everyone belongs to a religion, conscious, or social order – separation of church and state. The couple would therefore need another venue to marry each other – aka – a courthouse. If they are going to enter into a contract, isn’t that a legal document? Therefore, doesn’t the State have to be involved? In the event of a contract dispute, the couple would need to follow state statutes, correct?
Do we have other issues in this country? Of course, but we are capable of multi-tasking. Those other issues do not negate this one. It’s still an important social issue that needs to be settled and there’s only 1 non-discriminatory way to do so. North Korea is a joke, I don’t see that issue being more important and relevant to me personally. But, you are certainly entitled to your opinion as well.
You don’t think AIDS is a harm? Chronic hemorrhoids?
Don Roberto,
Is that actually you, Fred Phelps?
Wow, that’s pretty ridiculous hyperbole.
So, would you be surprised to know that the bible had no problem with polygamy?
Jon,
Wrong. All of the new testament is against this.
And again, you need to look into the bible as an evolving document written by men.
I assume you mean solomon. Would it surprise you to know that with the constant war and death of men in the history, there were times when there were much more men than women in society?
So let’s assume a god allows you to take on “multiple wives” so to speak. It is entirely possible, as leviticus does not speak of the duty of the wife, that in fact these were responsibilities of the husband. Take note of Abraham, a leader of many, Solomon, a leader of many, these wives may have simply been their responsibility to care for, wed for life. You may also want to note the bible states that a raped woman’s rapist is as some translate “wed” for life after the rape and was to pay the father. This was a law stating the man had to pay for the woman’s way through life because in that day and age, marriages were confirmed through hymen breakage. The raped person may have been cost a husband, and protector (which at that time a protector was 100% necessary.) so the rapist was required to pay her way through life. The punishment was death if he “divorced” (separated himself from his reponsibility of the person he raped).
You are clueless as to old testament “tribal laws” and why things worked the way they did. You have not taken classes on this.
Polygamy was condemned in the new testament, and polygamy in the old was a man being bound to caring for a multitude of women when it was required of them. The bible was written by people for people. This is why the old testament is usually disregarded, many of the sections of the old testament were basically tribal law issues. The rape one is one of them.
I was on another website and saw a reader make this comment….”what is the difference between polygamy and a man who has multiple children with multiple women?” And actually, you can marry as many times as you want. It just requires you to divorce first. Yawn…your argument is so ….. unfortunate.
Sean Hannity to oppose this insurance agent, as well as all those companies listed, in 3..2…
I’ve never understood how someone else’s marriage, anyone else’s, defines mine. Ridiculous discrimination going on with DOMA.
My views on gay marriage have evolved over time. I held the view that marriage was between a man and woman. Period. But in an evolving society, I changed my opinion that people should be free to marry whomever they want, even if it’s the same sex. Churches are under no obligation to marry anyone that does not meet their criteria (religion, previous marriages, same sex, etc). However, government cannot grant one set of rights and privileges to one group of people and yet withhold it from another. Churches, yes; government no.
And for that reason, I believe the SCOTUS will find in favor of marriage for anyone who so desires.
I’m glad you brought up a society that is evolving. We surely are. So did Sodom and Gamoura. As we move in this country closer to their highly evolved status, so will our future. Marriage is between a man and woman. Don’t change the laws of the country, change the requirements within insurance. Taking a covenant set forth by God to be between a man and woman will create a future none are prepared for.
How will BO Care handle this. I read where it will be more expensive for men. So two men will be treated differently than two women seeking insurance. Seems like the POTUS screwed (no pun intended) them again.
Not all marriages are religious ceremonies. Many people are married by the County Judge Executive or other county official; therefore, referencing “a covenant set forth by God” is not relevant.
Both of my marriages were at a court house with a JOP…so you see…I haven’t sssssssssssinned. yet. :)
Sure they can – just look at how the amish get around compared to people who drive vehicles.
Just to clarify – this is in response to the comment “However, government cannot grant one set of rights and privileges to one group of people and yet withhold it from another. Churches, yes; government no.” made by Center Point.
If marriage is so important and necessary then why have the progressives/feminists spent the last 40 years denigrating it? In today’s society it is acceptable for unmarried people to cohabitate and have kids. “I don’t need a piece of paper from the gov’t to tell me what I can do!” But now, for homosexuals, marriage is vitality important. Makes one wonder what the real objective for homosexual marriage is. Btw, marriage laws are applied equally: no one is denied to marry; you just have to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Hello 1950’s, where have you been hiding lately?
With mom at home baking cookies after school?
Because Mom did not have her own car?
Because Mom did not have her own income?
Because Mom was pregnant?
Because Mom was barefoot?
Because Mom did what was expected of all females of that era?
Because Mom only wanted a choice?
Celitica,
This post is sexist on so many levels and paints the picture of the 1950’s completely incorrectly.
Let’s get some facts straight:
“With mom at home baking cookies after school?
If the mom was baking cookies after school that was her choice. She was not forced. Stop trying to state there was some slavery to the apron. Many women enjoyed that lifestyle, and thus chose it.
Because Mom did not have her own car? – Affordability could have something to do with this.
Because Mom did not have her own income?
Not true in all cases, and not true for the reason you believe. When mom’s didn’t have jobs it was because they wanted to be home with the kids. Which brings me to the next one:
Because Mom was pregnant? – What do you liberals have against women being pregnant?
Because Mom was barefoot? – What does this comment have to do with anything? If anything it borders racism (just in the extremity, not in the definition) in regards to opinions of women and labels. Being “barefoot” as an insult, is a label and a lie.
Because Mom did what was expected of all females of that era?
You’re either stating women were so weak they did what was expected (which is sexist) or you’re wrong and they chose to be at home because they thought it was best. Women and men made choices together. You people are trying to rewrite history. Women were happy in the 50’s. My grandmother worked I might add, so your labels are insulting. She didn’t work when she wanted to be with her kids, and she did when she finally could be away from them. Even Obama talked about his grandmother working as an accountant. The issue was affordability.
Because Mom only wanted a choice?” She has a choice. Take birth control, take precaution. You get pregnant though, protecting the kid is not going against the mom’s choice. I’m not arguing against abortion. I am arguing against your philosophical dissection.
Dear Bob:
Your remark…”Women were happy in the 50′s” leads me to ask: were you a woman in the 50’s?
The moms I know from the 50’s were on antidepressants by the 60’s, wondering “what the hell happened to my life?”
Women from the 1970s on? Not so much. Why? Because they had choices, Bob, they had choices.
Celitica,
So then all the women from the 1950’s are on those pills eh?
Then you must have missed the studies of depressed teens, on meds these days. It far outpaces the 1950’s women. You must have missed the amount of people in their prime depressed, also up.
Depression rates in the youth are up from the 1950’s through the age of the 30’s.
I have two things to state: You’re wrong here. And it’s insulting to both fathers and mothers from that time period alike whom you are insulting the women by calling them opressed, and the men for being opressive. Was your father opressive? Most men back then were good men, better than now a days.
The second: You’re facts are not researched. The fact that you just quoted with bias your depressed friends from the 70’s and 60’s shows a lot. Show me the study.
I know you haven’t done the research.
I’ll show you a study on the depression rates since the 1960’s of people through their 30’s. Sound like a plan and fair?
Celitica,
We’ve had many forums where I debated you in the past.
Your numbers of likes were always inflated. Keep your obsessive fingers off the like and dislike buttons.
Sound like an honest way of doing things?
Ok Celitica:
We’ll do a simple test of your wits.
“Because Mom did not have her own car?
Because Mom did not have her own income?
Because Mom was pregnant?
Because Mom was barefoot?
Because Mom did what was expected of all females of that era?
”
How did each of these change from 1950 to 1970?
You did not think this through. You threw out one liners. Please put out more thought.
They were stuck in the kitchen in the 50’s why? What law?
They were stuck making cookies? Why? What law?
They were stuck bare foot? Why? What law?
You say what was “expected” what about the fact that it was “expected” of men to provide enough income to the women who stayed home? This was a bad situation for all. Some on both sides took advantage of it. Some women stayed at home for bad reason, some men kept them at home like jerks.
That was not the norm. Most of the time it was a joint decision, as evident in the fact that moms did work in the 50’s when they wanted to. Less worked because it was easier to be a stay at home mom in the 50’s. That’s less stress, not more.
There was less stress in the home in the 50’s, not more. That’s the part of what you said that strikes tones for me. Every modern study shows that divorce rates are up, domestic violence are up, child abuse, up, child depression in bad homes, up, the homes of the 50’s were superior to now. People were happier in marriages. Ergo why they worked out more often. Ergo why the kids didn’t get depressed.
My mom was a mother in the 50s. I won’t say she was miserable, but she sure enjoyed the 70s & 80s a whole lot more! I’m serious. She talks about how much better it is for women who want a career. My mom went to college 1947-1951 and her choices for major revolved around teaching. I guess since there are several different subjects that have to be taught, she did have choices, right? yeah, you believe that I got a bridge to sell you….
>We’ve had many forums where I debated you in the past. Your numbers of likes were always inflated. Keep your obsessive fingers off the like and dislike buttons. Sound like an honest way of doing things?
Bob — you have earned each and every like and dislike on your own without more than one assist from me — so I am not inflating the numbers. Maybe it’s just you — and your keyboard. Not that it doesn’t amuse me — because it does. Kind of like turning on TVLand and watching Donna Reed or June Cleaver.
Ward,You need to talk to the Wally and the Beaver!
Which is why my likes to outlikes outrank each other on each of my posts, other than when you are in the comment section?
Which is why your comments reach 65, and mine 50 plus negative? More than the amount of people who comment (there’s about 20 max) and why outside of the posts you include yourself in, the max comments is substantially lower?
Let’s try not to hide what you do. I won’t direct your other comments, which are for a fact sexist because well, they are sexist.
Bob – wow, that’s some ego you’re toting. I mean, it is all about you.
JW:
Not an ego. And when we are only talking about likes dislikes with my own posts as evidence, yes.
Back of JW.
We have had these posts, any time Celitica is in the post, the likes dislikes go beyond that of any of the other pages of insurance journal. I have posted here 6 years.
No posts, none, without celitica have gone to 100 likes, other than ones she’s involved with. At which point, the people who are disliked get more dislikes the more they are liked (I tested this once, the only time I’ve liked disliked posts multiple times, all the likes were me for a conservative guy) and then all the dislikes for the liberal were me. This means ALL the 100 likes on the liberal (which only increased as I disliked celitica more, they stopped when I left it alone) and ALL the dislikes on the conservatives (which only incresaed when I liked the conservatives) were the same person. She’s the only person it could have been, and this reiterates that.
Moreover, my track record in every post not involving planet (the douche bag labeling piece of trash) is more likes than dislikes, barring Celitica being here.
It is her. It’s not a doubt.
Not an ego. I have told you in many posts you were right. No one else, let me repeat that, no one else, has done that in here.
I debate strongly. This does not mean I have more of an ego than anyone else.
“The real objective” to marriage equality? Really?
How about because they want the same rights that other people have had? That they want the same right to choose whether to cohabitate or to marry? That when their partner of 40+ years dies, they aren’t at risk of losing their home to their partner’s family? That they don’t get hit with huge capital gains taxes when they ‘inherit’ what they built with their partner? That when their partner is in the hospital, they are given the same right to be at the bed side as an opposite-sex spouse would?
How are ANY of these things bad? If it was an opposite-sex couple, the thought of denying any of these would be abhorrent. So, why deny these to a loving, devoted couple simply because they happen to be of the same sex?
The following link leads to an older article from the Washington Post but it’s an interesting read. http://www.peaceredding.org/An%20Elastic%20Institution.htm
And another comment from the same era
http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm
Thanks for the links. Great article.
Hmmmmm…..I wonder if Insurance Journal posted this as a means to get a debate going – as way for them to gauge their stance on the subject?
While a serious matter, it’s hardly insurance news; i.e. if the individual WASN’T an insurance agent, I doubt they’d even posting it.
What about the implication to insurance policies that extend rights and coverages to family members that were not previously extended to domestic partners?
It seems this possible inclusion to name insured is big news, at least to me.
Why is this crap even here on IJ? I come here to read about insurance and NOT Johnny making out with Johnny. What is this now? NBC?
Would this have been posted had the agent’s opinion and brief been on the other side?
That’s a good question. Maybe, since IJ apparently has a large pro equality following and the article would still generate discussion.
Regardless of what faith you ascribe to, when it comes down to it, marriage is a legal, civil contract between two people. Yes, many times, it’s done in a religious ceremony, but it can just as easily be done in a courthouse with absolutely no religious overtones. To not allow two loving, consenting adults to enter into a legal contract with each other because some faiths disagree with it goes completely against core parts of the constitution.
Honestly, I think all marriages should be just re-termed/defined as ‘civil unions.’ These ‘civil unions’ would have the same rights and benefits of current, traditional ‘marriages,’ but the religious aspect would be completely removed. People could still get ‘married’ in their churches if they wanted, but as far as the government would be concerned, they’d have a ‘civil union’ or contract. And, there is no even remotely valid reason why the government should be regulating who chooses to enter into a civil contract and live as spouses.
Separation of church and state. That means freedom of and freedom FROM religion. It’s about damn time this country remembers that.
*subscribe to
Apologies in advance for the following wall of text. I pulled this from a blog from a while back that I rather enjoyed reading.
I. The scriptural basis for the fight against gay marriage is a lie.
The supposed scriptural basis for opposing gay marriage does not, in fact, exist. Yes, there are prohibitions against homosexuality for believers, but even Paul states that the only action that should be taken against any homosexual is that, if they are a member of the church, that they should be thrown out. He clearly states that Christians have no business judging anyone outside the church.
And there is no commandment anywhere in there that “thou shalt impose thy interpretation of My will for My followers upon non-believers.” Even Paul never suggested that believers should try to force non-believers into following Christian teachings.
This argument is also a clear case of cherry-picking scripture. In the same passage in which Paul talks about homosexuality, he says that women should keep their hair long, cover their heads when praying, and should not be allowed to teach in church nor have any authority over a man. In fact, women are not even to speak in church unless they are prophesying. If a woman has a question, she should keep silent and ask her husband to explain when she gets home.
This is not merely a suggestion, either. Paul states that anyone–even an angel–who teaches anything different shall be eternally condemned. Note that this also comes shortly after the bit about not judging those outside the church.
So which is it? If homosexuals are biblically ordered to be second-class citizens, then so are women. Maybe it’s time to reconsider whether you are followers of Paul or of Jesus.
As for the Old Testament argument, it’s another case of cherry-picking to justify bigotry. Read the whole thing. I have. For one thing, it was written as law for the ancient Hebrews. For another, if you want to live by it completely, you’ll be executing a lot of your family, friends, and neighbors–possibly even being stoned yourself.
II. The “traditional marriage” argument is a lie.
The Religious Right claims that “traditional marriage” has always been between one man and one woman.
Wrong. And even if they were right, we’ve gotten rid of a lot of traditions, like slavery. I suppose we should bring back slavery because it is “traditional?” It is a much longer-running tradition than what they call traditional marriage. Various cultures around the world have had (and still have) long-running marriage traditions of polygamy, polyandry, and other forms of marriage.
Many cultures around the world have allowed for alternate forms of marriage, including same-sex marriage and various forms of group marriage. Even in the Old Testament, many of the patriarchs had more than one wife, and the only prohibition against such thing is directed toward kings, of whom it is said they should not have too many wives on the grounds that this would be a distraction.
What the Religious Right claims as traditional marriage is a recent development. The clergy didn’t even get involved in weddings until pretty late in the game, in order to legitimize financially and politically motivated unions. Marriages were financial and political arrangements in which the bride-to-be had no say. Even in the United States, marriage “for love” was not the norm until the nineteenth century. Marriages among the poor were generally “common law” in nature, while those among the upper classes were generally for financial reasons.
Dubya, has publically proclaimed that what the RR calls traditional marriage is “based on the Bible,” which is most certainly not the case–Marriage is older than the Bible. And besides, throughout most of the Bible women are the property of their fathers until they are sold to a husband, and men are allowed multiple wives and concubines. Wives are to submit totally to their husbands without question or hesitation. If a man’s brother dies and leaves a widow, the surviving brother is required to take her as a wife and have children with her.
Oh, yes… According to traditional (as in Biblical) Judeo-Christian marriage practices, it is perfectly normal and acceptable for a girl in her early teens to marry her middle-aged uncle.
III. The “destruction of the sanctity of marriage” argument is a lie.
First off, that argument doesn’t make sense to anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with logic. That’s like saying that allowing Protestants to practice their religion destroys the sanctity of Catholicism. Or that letting your neighbor eat junk food threatens your family’s health. If allowing same-sex marriage threatens your own marriage, your marriage has some serious problems, my friend.
Interestingly enough, those U.S. states that are most against same-sex marriage and scream loudest about the sanctity of marriage are, by and large, those states with the highest divorce rates.
IV. The “weakening of culture and of the family” argument is a lie.
The Religious Right has traditionally been against any science that conflicts with their preconceived notions, including, for a time, the heliocentric model of the solar system. (According to the Bible, the Sun revolves around the Earth. Of course, according to the Bible, rabbits are cud-chewing animals.)
In this case they, predictably, choose to ignore the science once again. According to the Statement on Marriage and the Family from the American Anthropological Association (you know–the people who actually study cultures for a living), allowing for alternative forms of marriage has been found to be a stabilizing influence in every culture in which they are found.
V. The “homosexuality isn’t natural” argument is a lie.
Homosexual and bisexual behavior has been observed throughout the animal kingdom. The usual RR argument in response to this datum is, “So you’re saying we’re no better than animals!” No, I’m refuting the erroneous statement that homosexuality is not natural.
VI. “If everyone were gay, the human race would die out.”
Yes, but not everyone is. If we apply the RR’s “logic” to society at large, everyone should be required to have sex and make babies, and it is immoral to be sterile or to choose not to reproduce–just as, according to them, it is immoral to be gay. After all, if everyone were sterile or chose to not have children, the human race would die out.
VII. “The gays have an agenda.”
This one is true. The gay agenda is equality–Nothing more, and nothing less. And “separate but equal,” is not true equality now any more than it was during the black civil rights movement.
Isn’t it great we have freedom of speech and expression? The Bible does say homosexuality is unnatural. God created the anatomy of a woman to be different than the anatomy of a man, so even religion aside, this is just good common-sense logic. You are correct that “Judgment is mine, sayeth the Lord”, so Christians are not to be judgemental of others. But we are really talking about politics and public policy, so the anatomy logic makes sense to me in that realm!
How can I phrase my counter argument without turning this discussion to R, or even X? Okay, I’ve got it: there’s more to life than the missionary position.
Excellent review with both clarity and logic. The CINO (Conservatives In Name Only) lost this argument years ago with the “because the Bible (which one?) ssez so.
BTW, I say CINO because William F Buckly has to be rolling in his grave with what the “conservatives” are doing these days. NO TO BIG GOVERNMENT…unless we like it then YES!
Then The Bible is wrong because every natural, sexual species practices homosexuality. Yes, if you want to procreate, the ol’ in-n-out logic works. But, you don’t have to procreate to love someone. Besides, we allow 90 year olds to get married, right? They aren’t procreating. I would doubt their relationship is even of a sexual nature. What about impotent men? Can they marry? Barren women? If we’re talking contract law, which we are, the 2 consenting adult rule is the only logical conclusion.
To Planet
Explain to me what a Natural, Sexual Species is? LOL
That would be any species that exists in nature and has the potential to engage in sexual activity. “Species” is in reference to the manner in which the scientific community tends to group physical life forms into apparent homogeneous categories. “is” means the present 3rd singular form of “be”.
You are awesome, Don’t Call Me Shirley!
LOL
Ah a smart ass, well for your information species in “nature” do not engage in “sexual activity” for the fun of it, it is there instinct to re-produce. What does the Bible say exactly about this that is wrong Planet? Be specific otherwise you are just throwing out wrong information.
Pot, Kettle re: just “throwing out” facts?
http://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1145&Itemid=281
Shows that almost no species engages in sexual intercourse for the specific intent of conception.
Nice try, though.
If The Bible says homosexuality isn’t natural (per LARRRY LOGIC), then The Bible is wrong about the act of homosexuality. Proof – the act of homosexuality DOES occur in the animal kingdom amongst all sexual species. You’re telling me animals don’t ever just get their jollies off? Ever have a dog try to rub one off on your leg? I’ve seen female dogs back themselves up on various objects as well. Ever see a monkey at the zoo toss himself? I beg to differ. I’ll let you do the Google work, I don’t feel like having NSFW searches on my company’s computer.
Then don’t be christian.
If you’re going to call yourself a christian and then hate it so strongly, don’t be it.
The Bible mentions several times how homosexuality is a sin. I think it is between each individual and God how they live. All I ask is:
**do not call it marriage – in a day where everyone thinks it OK to remove Christian values from society like prayer in schools, Merry Christmas and now even the word Easter, marriage also is a Christian word. It is what God called the union between one man and one woman.
**do not allow adoption – every child needs a mother and a father just the way nature intended. Just like the girl who asked the supreme court, “which parent do I not need” the best is both.
**do not take away my right to disagree and my religious right to believe it is wrong.
I’m a Christian and I believe in the separation of church and state — as does the SCOTUS and the First Amendment. Marriage is not just a Christian word but a legal contract. Accordingly, it is up the SCOTUS to determine who can enter into these legal contracts in the U.S. If you believe in God, then it’s up to your God to determine if you’ve sinned by marrying a same sex person. I doubt any God would punish for the right to be married.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
“Separation of church and state” is a phrase used by Thomas Jefferson and others expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The phrase has since been repeatedly cited by the Supreme Court of the United States.
I’m coming up on 8 years of marriage, personally. For those of you keeping score, that equates to at least 6 months of wedded bliss. Affording gays the right to marry does absolutely to define or threaten my marriage. If two consenting adults care enough about each other to want to publicly and legally dedicate the rest of their lives together, who am I to stand in their way?
Kids can pray in public schools, teachers just can’t lead the prayer. Which prayer would the teacher use? Not everyone practices the same religion in this great country where you can have freedom of and from religion. You can say Merry Christmas and Easter all you want, you aren’t going to be arrested. I say both all of the time. Marriage is not a Christian word, it’s origins are 13th Century Anglo-Norman.
“The word dates to c.1300 and is from the Anglo-Norman ‘mariage’. Ultimately it is from the classical Latin verb maritare, to marry, used to refer to people, animals, and the crossing of grapes in viticulture and the nouns maritus/marita, husband/wife.”
Definition of MARRIAGE
The state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Interesting and short article:
http://www.examiner.com/article/on-the-origins-of-marriage
You’re right, no parented foster children are waaaaaay better off than having loving, same-sex parents. Really? Why don’t you reach out and ask children of same-sex couples? I don’t know any that would rather live in a foster home.
There are countless single mothers out there in the animal kingdom. Should we push for more single moms amongst the homosapiens? What about those that eat their young? Or, abandon the weak ones?
You have every right to disagree and believe it is sinful. No one can take away that right. As far as I can tell, no one is trying to take that belief away from you. The DOMA trial speaks to contractual law and Constitutionality of discrimination against a select group of individuals.
Happy Easter to you! I will be celebrating with my family and hope you get to do the same.
Nice to see this.. there are good people in this world afterall..!! :)
One thing that perturbs me is that people now look at you like a bigot and a racist if you are against gay marriage.I find it preposterous that disliking and not endorsing someones sexual nature is somehow small minded. Being gay does not make you a protected class of anything, you could be born gay or not, that’s not a discussion I want to get into, but you are born white, black, make or female, Jewish or Arab. I find that preference perverse whether its born into you or not its disgusting, and against the general rules of nature. And me not liking your preference is the same as not liking you picking your nose.
Yes, being gay is just like picking one’s nose. Wow! Well, maybe, in the fact that you find both acts “icky”, perhaps. But, we do allow nose-pickers to get married. So, I guess it’s still the gay marriage we are discriminating against in this country. Thankfully, not in my State of Iowa.
Not at all against the general rules of nature. Do your own research and you’ll find out that is simply not factual. By the way, all those homosexual acts can be found in the heterosexual bedroom as well. Again, I’ll let you do your own research.
Definition of ‘bigot’ and you can decide:
“a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”
The key word there was general, there are special cases where homo sexuality is performed, but in general heterosexual nature is the norm. In fact incest is much more common than homosexuality in nature. I don’t need to do research to look down to see what I have and what its meant to do. By your definition we are all bigots, when ever we disagree. That’s just absurd. Calling someone a bigot and treating them as a racist is cruel and a bullying way to force your principles down someones throat. I don’t call anyone a name when they support gay marriage, but yet your throwing the word bigot around to describe people who don’t support. I don’t believe in god but I’ve seen so much religious bashing on this issue, that its very sad, even when religion is a protected class in this country. This country is founded on religious freedom, yet people are getting their religion trashed for not supporting something their religion tells them to be against. Have respect for people with dissimilar beliefs. Read this article, and this is how its done:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shane-l-windmeyer/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a_b_2564379.html
It’s not bullying to label a bigot a bigot.
It’s not racism to be discrminatory against gays and gay marriage rights.
Try to at least be somewhat coherent in your bigoted arguments.
You are right, you will be labled a bigot if you disagree. That is the definition of bigot: “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
Who the heck said I hated gays. I went to dinner with a lesbian couple last week who are close friends of ours. They are actually our favorite couple to go out with. Every one does things you don’t approve of, but it shouldn’t change how you feel about them. Your an idiot who regurgitates and can’t think for them self. Don’t make the assumption that people who don’t approve of gay marriage hate or are intolerant homosexuality, they just don’t approve. Get over yourself when people don’t think like you.
I was not implying you hate anyone. I just copied the definition from meriam-webster.com and pasted it to my post. I guess I should have shortened my pasted portion. Sorry.
And, by the way, nobody thinks exactly like me. I’ve learned to just let it go. Now, I’m not at all offended by what anyone else does or says, even when I disagree. Well, that’s not entirely true, I do get offended when people accuse someone of lying without proof. Eh, it is what it is.
Your own words: “I find that preference perverse whether its born into you or not its disgusting, and against the general rules of nature.”
So, how can you be close friends with people you find perverse and disgusting?
The real problem is you (or anyone) TELLING that same sex couple they can NOT marry or that goofball he can NOT pick his nose. That crosses the line between not liking something and imposing YOUR beliefs on THEM.
Well if gay marriage is approved there should be no limits. Don’t want to be bigots against pedophiles, incest relationships, and people who “love” animals. Also people should be able to have as many wives as they please. Where is the boundary, the boundary is set by the squeakiest wheels apparently. If you are for gay marriage you should also be for no limitations of marriage. Because your same arguments hold true for pedophilia and incest.
Same sex marriage involves two consenting adults. Let me say that again.
Two. Consenting. Adults.
Pedophiles, most incest, and bestiality do not involve two consenting adults. And to compare homosexuality to them is disgusting and yes, bigoted.
Excatly,
You use that word bigot to bully and scare people into submitting to your beliefs. Stop shoving it down our throats wth such agression and personal attacks. Most people who share your beliefs start attackng peoples religion wihich actually is a protected class under law! All of us who are against gay marriage tolerate it, but feel making gay marriage legal is endorsing it. Im not endorsing something I find perverse and wrong. If you want to know what a true bigot towards homosexuality is get yourself a one way ticket to Iran and start bullying people who dont share your belief.
If you expect me to apologize for saying that denying rights to a group of people because you don’t agree with their preferences is bigoted, you’re going to be waiting a VERY long time.
“All of us who are against gay marriage tolerate it”
Really??? The Family Research Council tolerates it? The National Organization for Marriage tolerates it? Westboro tolerates it???? Since when?
Common Sense,
I never called you a bigot. I just went to Merriam Webster to define the word. I’m not trying to cram my principles down your throat. You are certainly entitled to not like gay marriage. Where the line is drawn is when you refuse equal rights to a separate class, in this case homosexuals. You don’t have to agree with gay marriage, just be tolerant of it.
Tolerate – to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction
I don’t see anywhere in that definition where you have to be in agreement with it. Simply don’t prohibit it.
I feel pretty confident that allowing gay marraige will not change my mind that pedophilia is harmful to society and wrong. Incest too is harmful to society. (someone somewhere can probably provide an example of no harm, I’m not going there) And really, beastiality? Eewwww. I’m not buying your reasoning. However, I won’t tell you not to think it.
Pedophilia and incest are criminal acts. Being gay is not.
Here’s a challenge – can you give this audience 1 non-religious reason why gays shouldn’t be allowed to marry?
Some Churches are allowing same sex marriage. The Episcopal Church of the United States has approved this during their last general convention. I do agree that not every Church should be forced to perform these. It is up to the religion in question. This then lets people decide which Church they attend and support. At the Episcopal Church “all are welcome to God’s table”.
Except, of course–your statement is exactly the definition of being biased and/or bigoted.
But you don’t see it that way because you don’t want see yourself as a bad person.
But tough, guess what. Your stance is bigoted. It’s no different than discriminating against someone based on their race, religion or gender.
I’d like to know who is spending ALL their time “liking” and “disliking” these posts??? Who has that kind of time and who is so desperately wanting us to think that so many agree with same sex marriage? What a sad state of affairs.
The same people who have time to create a post. Like you.
Why do you think there can’t be this many people for marraige equality? At this time, the post with the most likes for a pro equality view has 51 likes. How many people read the IJ online? My guess more than 100, possibly more than 500. Current poling in the US shows the majority (over 50%) of respondents are FOR same sex marraiges being legal. Therefore, it is not so ridiculous to think 51 different people would agree with a post on this thread.
Here’s the thing…..
No one wants to limit your ability to be a bigot. YOU get to be as bigoted as you want. WE as a society…not so much.
The constitution grants us ALL equal protection under the law.
THE LAW not the church, not under god…. THE LAW.
I just don’t even get how anyone with any intelect can wrap their heads around why THE LAW should discriminate against any citizen.
Personally, I wouldn’t belong to a church who thought discrimination was OK, but THE LAW gives any church whatever option they want.
Its not discrimination under law. You can legally deny someone a job because they are homosexual. Now I don’t believe you should, that to me is wrong and hateful. Talk to the people of Rwanda what discrimination is, I’m sure their graves feel your 1st world problems.
Actually, common sense, denying one person a right that another person has, is discrimination.
What world do you live in where you can legally deny someone a job because they’re gay? Maybe there’s an age thing here, but in my adult professional lifetime, I haven’t even heard of that!
Sexual orientation/gender identity has been added as a protected class in most jurisdictions. If it is legal where you live, I would be surprised.
Except, you know…that the EEOC disagrees with you.
http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm
This is a silly debate and has a really easy answer in my own opinion.
I am relgious but I don’t understnad the strong anti-gay stance taken by many religous people on this. Yes I belive marriage is a religous testament, but I also belive that the government should have no say in the matter (separation on church and state). The government should then also not be able to bestow certain rights/benefits to some citizens and not others becuase of a reglious testament.
Therefore an easy solution is allow the government to recognize civil unions with all the benefits that come with it while not discrimnating against same sex unions. And allow religons to continue to recognize marriages as they wish.
Is there a reason this doesn’t make sense beside the untrue “lawsuits” it will cause? Anything can cause a lawsuit, doesn’t mean the plantiff will win.
I believe the issue is that in 14 previous findings, the Supreme Court has defined marriage as a primary right. Therefore, it would be problimatic to allow one segment to have acces to one right while another has access to something different. The old, separate but equal argument.
All adults in our country have certain unalienable rights. The purpose of the constitution is to protect the few from the many (so the areguement of, well, the voters said… doesn’t wash when the many have an issue with the few). Anyway, change is hard. It’s ok for individuals and churches to be against change. I submit that they never have to enter into a gay marriage.
I don’t remember there ever being a day where I woke up and decided to be straight. My gay and lesbian friends and family tell me the same thing. The only difference is they grew up with such fear of telling you. They were afraid of what you would do. You are mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and the rest of the community. Some of these poor souls were so afraid of what you would think, they took their own lives rather than living with the “shame” of telling you. What seems to be misunderstood by people was the decision to come out does not equal the “decision” to be gay. I have not met a single gay/Leslie who said it was a decision. Once, many years ago talking with a co-worker, she said, “why in heavens name would anyone choose to be treated so badly in society?”.
So, really, imagine it in reverse, if the way you connect with another human being was considered somehow “incorrect”.
My bottom line is the law shouldn’t be telling adults what to do. Allowing tow men or women to marry doesn’t hurt you. Not allowing them to marry does hurt them. How can anyone justify that as ok?
Please forgive the auto correct typos. I meant:
“gay/Leslie” lesbian
“tow men or women ” two men or women
I’m not against same sex marriage, I’m against people stating that “every natural, sexual species practices homosexuality”. That is not a fact.
I don’t disagree at all. Only because I don’t know the answer :-)
Personally, I think that arguement as well as the arguements about incest, beastiality…… are all just distractions.
What difference does it make if there are gay geese….
Do we United States citizens stand for discrimination? I like to ask, “what side of history do you want to tell your grandkids you were on?”.
History has not ever looked favorably upon those who fought to discriminate.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5550488/Homosexual-behaviour-widespread-in-animals-according-to-new-study.html
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2006/10/23/20718.aspx
No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, with the exception of species that never have sex at all, such as sea urchins and aphis. Moreover, a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue.[23] – News Medical Net
I don’t really care if none, some, or all species of animals practice homosexuality or not. That isn’t material to this argument. It is SO evident that human homosexuality is natural because there are homosexuals all around us…and, well, they are human. Humans are different than every other species in that we have intellect and a sense of morality.
To me, morality means (I hate to borrow from the bible, but…) treating EVERYONE in the manner in which you’d like to be treated. We’re all human people, right?
SCOTUS rules: “yeah, sure, OK, why the hell not?”
So, gay is in all of the sexual species. Gay-bashing, however, happens only with humans. Thus, gay = natural; gay-bashing = not natural. So, naturally, one should quit his/her gay-bashing.
105 comments in 2 days – wow.
My Dear Captain Planet,
Your natural vs. unnatural argument is illogical. Normal vs. abnormal, however, is certainly an appropriate guideline. There are many things which are “normal” in the “natural” world that we human beings don’t “normally” do – some animals kill off the weak or leave them to die. Humans normally tend not to do this; some animals are very anti-social, loner-type animals. Humans are by nature normally very social creatures; maybe it’s normal or natural for some animals to “play tiddly-winks” (*wink wink* say no more)in front of the entire group, including youngsters. Humans don’t “normally” do this. Which is not to say that it’s mine or anyone else’s business if you like to perform deviant acts with consenting adults behind closed doors – hey, Planet, whatever floats your boat!
As we can see, there are many things which “naturally occur”, but are “not normal” to human beings. Some traits that we might consider abnormal are cute, quaint or even desirable (genius IQ, for example)and we tolerate or even encourage. Some abnormal traits are not encouraged but we tolerate, and some we just plain won’t tolerate.
Some of these we have collectively chosen to discourage by invoking fines or punishments on any who engage in them, but a great many activities, attitudes and opinions which are not “normal” to public display are nonetheless permissible in private, and are left to the individual to decide for themselves.
So human beings developed government to decide what is PUBLICLY acceptable or unacceptable behavior. What is unacceptable for the group but still permissible for the individual (gambling, for example: we might decide that it’s unacceptable for taxpayer’s money to used for gambling, but an individual should be free to gamble their own money if they wish); what is unacceptable for the individual but permissible for the group (declaring war, for example: no individual may legally declare war on our behalf, but we in the USA may collectively choose to do so by an act of Congress)
Then there is what’s unacceptable in public OR PRIVATE: murder, theft and other acts considered “criminal”.
Thousands of years of theology and religious beliefs, moral codes, social mores, science, philosophy and just plain old human trial-and-error have resulted in a fairly advanced sense of “right” and “wrong”, of “normal” and “abnormal” in our public discourse and governance.
We can therefore reasonably conclude that our PUBLIC lives; public servants; public funding, encouragement and endorsements of things, etc. should be MORE RESTRICTED than our PRIVATE lives. Private spending, private thoughts and opinions, private proclivities, etc. should naturally be LESS RESTRICTED, most of it nobody’s damn business.
Which finally leads us to the PUBLIC definition of “marriage”, which has traditionally been one man and one woman. I personally have no problem changing the definition to something like “two consenting, unrelated, adults”, but make no mistake, it’s still MAKING A PUBLIC, LEGAL DEFINITION which, by it’s very nature, is excluding whoever it doesn’t include. What about two elderly spinster sisters who live in the family home and never married?(they were my neighbors) What about the heterosexual couple who co-habitates, is committed for life, but chooses not to get married? Shouldn’t these people have the option of being treated financially, medically and, for all intents and purposes, like married couples? And if they aren’t allowed the option, is it discrimination? Is it a violation of their civil rights? Let’s not call a public legal definition of something a “right”, when it’s not (not everyone can be legally “married”) and confuse it with a private right to live the way you want, which is (anyone can privately consider themselves “married” to their dog if they like)
Maybe the real question is: why don’t we just enact a law that allows ANY TWO adult people to enter into a contract and agree to inheritance and survivorship benefits, joint taxes, medical health care proxy agreements, power of attorney agreements, etc – all the legal benefits that a married couple gets? Now maybe this should be in addition to gay marriage, I don’t know (does anyone here really care if Planette marries her maid?) It just seems like everyone’s talking about rights, when what they really mean is benefits.
JB – Jim Bob? Is that you in disguise again, Bob? “My Dear Captain Planet” – sounds a lot like you, Bob. Take off the mask or are you afraid of being shut out again?
Your words, “…but never chooses to get married.” – So, you’re saying they have a choice – interesting. Most homosexual couples don’t have a choice in this country.
“…2 unrelated adults” – again, your words. So, those “spinster sister neighbors” of yours do not qualify by that definition. No one is stopping those sisters from marrying someone else, though. Again, they choose not to get married. Most homosexuals don’t have that choice.
By the way, I fully think being gay is normal. I don’t “other” that sexual behavior. That premise fails from the get-go. The natural vs. unnatural was tongue-in-cheek, supposed to grab a chuckle or two, here. It was a play on words, too. The fact remains, gay happens in nature and in humans but gay-bashing only happens in humans.
Good thing when it comes to the Constituionality of something, that something isn’t up to a popular vote. Just because a group of people think homosexuality is “yucky” doesn’t mean homosexual couples should not be afforded equal treatment as heterosexual couples, Constitutionally speaking.
Have a good weekend, “JB”?
Planet:
I’m not “afraid” of being shut out. You’re the one afraid of me.
I reply to you. And stop saying other people are me who are clearly not.
It’s tiring having to find it and then point it out.
Planet:
Second comment:
See my other post. It might explain why I have constantly cracked at you. I have no issue with gays (you have labeled me for making a rational argument only based on facts) I am not a christian (you have labeled me as a zealot far too many times) I do not believe in god (I call myself agnostic because I don’t know for sure) I NEVER debate a law that should be in place for religious reasons (you constantly try to tweak it so it looks like I am).
Planet: The reason why I tear you apart, is because like it or not, you’re piece of shit.
I’m sorry, but it’s true. Here you are telling a agnostic he’s against gays because they are yucky? Are you insane? Here you are telling a guy who said he’s ok with gays, and just wants a law that keeps religion and non-religion separated, as separation of church and state would imply? As Thomas Jefferson wrote about?
You do not know what you’re saying, who you’re saying it to, my demographic is incorrect. You enrage me because of how many times you throw in what I consider to be “racial slurs” that you apply to republicans. I am NOT one of those republicans. And Again: I don’t make religious arguments.
EVER.
Let me say that again:
EVER.
Bob,
Don’t you know by now I read ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you write other than, “Planet”. That’s my stopping point. All you do is call people names and swear a lot. I don’t even know if you and I see eye to eye on the gay marriage issue. Guess what? I don’t care. I couldn’t care at all what you have to think or say. There are others out here who sound like you, not sure if you’re putting on masks or not. If you are, you might get an accidental reply from me. If you want to play that game, so be it. Just know you don’t have an ounce of my respect and I’m sure that doesn’t bother you a bit. Peace!
Planet:
Due to you being a piece of trash on the respect part.
You think awful highly of yourself. All I did was explain what you did that caused our conflict. And yes, it was you buddy.
Tell me, as a child did you plug your ears to the world around you when you saw what you didn’t like, didn’t agree with?
Liberals don’t do that. What state are you from?
Also, natural vs. unnatural is hardly my argument. It has been presented by the intolerant out there. I was just using their words to make a point and a joke as well.
Mr/Ms Planet
I was simply pointing out what I believe is flawed logic, and I stand by that. You stated the whole animal species (kingdom, phylum, genus or whatever you really meant) has homosexuality and used it as the basis for justifying certain human rights, laws and rules. Good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral is NOT what I was getting at. What I WAS getting at is this: Why should sexual orientation have anything to do with any of society’s benefits or punishments? Should not two loving adult human beings, committed to each other in some permanent way, and desiring to establish a household or some other permanent bond, REGARDLESS of sexual orientation (and, as I pointed out, without any sexuality or intimacy involved at all, hence the two sisters example) have the benefits, by way of some contractual agreement, that are currently reserved for what is currently called a “married” couple? And, to quote myself: “I have no problem with changing the definition to two consenting adults”….”maybe this should be IN ADDITION [emphasis added] to gay marriage, I don’t know….” I was stating that IF we are to give preferential treatment/benefits to married couples, should not the same preferential treatment/benefits be extended to other “couples”, even IF gay? Even IF unmarried? Maybe even IF not a sexual/intimate relationship at all? Is this really an issue of contracts, estate and tax law more than one of civil rights? I was merely asking the question, not answering it, although I suppose it’s pretty clear what my opinion is on the matter, because we must all admit that the State DOES in fact have the authority to define what is meant by marriage, as that is precisely the argument put forth by pro gay marriage advocates – to amend the GOVERNMENT’S DEFINITION of marriage! Aha, an admission that the Government DOES, in fact, have the authority to define for our society what is meant by marriage! To prohibit some marriages, to regulate marriages – it therefore cannot be an unalienable right! Res Ipsa Loquitur!
I think it was also stated somewhere that marriage is primarily a function of religious belief, so could there not be a “separation of Church and State” argument as justification to keep government completely out of anything to do do with marriage? I’m not so sure, since marriage may be a secular expression, as well as a religious one, and a societal definition of marriage has been in existence probably since the first formation of society.
Then there’s another article 03/29 regarding the tax and benefit implications of marriage, and a poster [Dave] pointed out what I was hinting at, and which of course others had already thought of: get rid of any reference to, and any different treatment(good or bad), based on marital status or sexual orientation. Every one is treated as an individual, married and unmarried alike. But, this has to taken in the context of tax treatment and contract law, and would probably have nothing to do do with constitutional law, as we now must admit there will continue to be a societal definition of marriage (due to the issues of incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc. brought up by others, and for the reasons outlined above) Obviously there are some folks who actually DO want to maintain distinctions, just as an excuse to foist their beliefs on others, like it or not.
Lastly, and I know some else expressed the same sentiment, but it’s worth repeating: refusing to condone is NOT synonymous with intolerance. And to say otherwise is, ironically, intolerant.
A Good Friday and Happy Easter to all!
P.S.: No Planet, I’m not JimBob, or SpongeBob, or SlingBob, or SlimJim, or any other surreal apparition – just plain ol’ JB
P.P.S.: Planet, I know there some other frequent posters too, but is this your full time job? cuz, jeez man, you seem to be everywhere, opining about everything, all the time
Yeah Planet reminds me of Obama, he knows everything about all things and thinks his way is the only way.
No, I actually can be wrong. It’s happened once before – hahaha.
In all seriousness, of course I have been wrong about many things. I can’t pretend to be as smart as Thom Hartmann. And, I don’t think my way is the only way, that’s why I invite the conversation. It’s good to have perspective as we continue to evolve as a society. I don’t have to agree with your perspective and you don’t have to agree with mine, but let’s have a discussion and see if there is a way to merge the perspectives and progress. I can admit to having strong opinions. I don’t believe that makes me much different than most of those who blog out here, though.
Which President Obama are you referring to? The one who is a dictator and rules with an iron fist or the one that has no spine and is an empty suit? The Muslim or the radical Christian? The puppet or the puppeteer?
What’s next? Legalizing polgamy? Maybe I need four wives. One to stay home and have babies and raise kids, one to go out and work and make big money, one rally hot looking one to show off to my friends, and one to get the best medical benefits for all of us. Where and when does it stop? This issue if we legalize it will open up the floodgates for all types of variables to what dictates a legal marriage!
Greg –
Marriage is defined as between 2 consenting adults. That takes care of your polygamy concerns. But, if you want to have your 4 wives, Romney’s extended family has a place down in Mexico where you can go and marry to your heart’s desire.
To play devil’s addvocate a bit, why not legalize polgamy? What would you having four wives bother anyone else at all? I certainly would not care. To condem what a person wants to do with their relationships by saying it will lead to them taking advantage of a government system doesn’t make sense. The government system is the problem not the people using it.
I think the issue at hand is about deciding if ALL PEOPLE fall into the definition of marriage (as has been affirmed as a fundimental right by SCOTUS 14 times).
I do not believe that the arguement is about broadening the definition of marriage, rather the question of is it OK for some people to access that right while others cannot.
So devils advocate…. whatever. The whole crazy slippery slope arguement is a distraction.
I personally, dont want anyone addressing if one or another type of discrimination perpetuates social harm. That sounds like to much government in my life. Let me figure out who I want to marry.
I completely agree, and I don’t see where are disagreement is bedises my use of polgamy as a “distraction.” What I posted was not a distraction itself but a response to the polgamy distraction being brought up prior to my post “What’s next? Legalizing polgamy?.” They were using the all too often employed reductio ad absurdum arguement and so I just went along with it. But almost every arguement being used against same sex marriage seems to just be a distraction (i.e. people bringing beastiality into the discussion).
I also believe that the definition of “marriage” is up to one personal beliefs and the government has no say in the matter (less govt as I infered you desire), which is the point I was making with defending polgamy. For govt purposes (I still question if they are even are legitmate purposes) a non-discriminatory civil union would be more than sufficient.
Because polygamy does societal harm. Trafficing and abusing young women, exploiting young men (due to bridal shortages), forced marriages, more or less statutory rape (these girls are getting married as early as 12 years old), the list continues beyond these dysfunctions. These types of societies trap their girls and women. Gay marriage does not do any of this.
These views do not represent that of our company nor myself as an indvidual. American Family stands for just that , the traditional and god ordained American Family. He created Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. Take up your arguement with him David.
So–to follow your line of thinking (as skewed as it appears)
Since God made Adam, and then God made Eve from Adam’s rib–
Isn’t that a bit masturbatory?
And apart from that–then do you also follow the line of thinking that because Eve was made from Adam (yeah, hurts my head too…) that women are somehow intrinsicly inferior to men, because they were made second-hand?
Homosexuality is wrong. Period. Flame me all you want, but a sin is a sin is a sin.
CP – You stated there are no issues with gay marriage. Really? The homosexuals I know break up just as often as married couples. What happens when children are involved (adopted etc.)? Are we going to then have divorce (family) courts specifially for the homosexual groups?
Neglect God’s word all you wish, but this nation is going the way of Sodom & Gommorah.
Really?
Tell you what, show me where, exactly where, the bible says that being gay is a sin.
Show me where it shows up in the Commandments.
Show me where Jesus speaks about it.
Do you do anything on the Sabbath, UCT? ANYTHING???
If so, sin sin sin sin…go stone yourself. It’s there in the bible.
Jon, if you scoff at the old testament treatment of homosexuality, then maybe you should read Romans 1:26-32. Not only homosexuality is condemned but so is fornication, covetousness,envy, murder,debate etc. No one wants to call sin sin any more. Too sad that you don’t look at the entire word of God. You pick out what suits your fancy. God doesn’t change. The Law of Moses is no longer followed, but you would be hard put to PROVE that same sex marriage is supported in the New Testament. God wiped Sodom and Gomorrah off the face of the earth and the reason is very plain. How do you ignore that fact? I know it’s not popular to talk about sin these days, but we are warned that in the last days (NOW), that evil would be called good and good would be called evil. that pretty much describes the attitudes of most people, even those who call themselves Christian. I’m not judging anyone, the Word of God judges. We can leave that up to him.
I’m sorry, are you talking about the book that was written by men, not God; that was collated and debated on what would actually be included in said book (which happened in the 5th Century AD); and differs in content and translation from demonination to denomination?
What about all the translation issues?
I was actually not “scoffing” at my request for scripture references. Every hardcore bigot refers to the bible as a defense that being gay is a sin, but never bothers to actually back up their assertation with anything defensible.
And the “cherry pickers” out there who are the worst are pretty much the bible-banging bigots who will loudly decry something they hate, but ignore all the other questionable practices that are supported and/or endorsed by the bible. (Polygamy, anyone?)
But I will SCOFF loudly, and often, whenever anyone proclaims these are the biblical “End Times.”
That’s been proclaimed since shortly after Christ’s death, going on 2000 years ago.
That’s a long time for the End Times…
The problem with you quoting scripture as an example of why homosexuality is wrong, is that not everyone follows or believes in what the bible says. There are many, many religions in this world, and just as many holy books. As Spencer Tracy said in ‘Inherit the Wind,’ “It’s a good book, but it’s not the only book.”
If your religion says homosexuality is an abomination and that same-sex marriage should not be permitted, then that’s perfectly fine. Don’t fall in love with and get married to someone of the same sex, and your God should be very happy with you.
But, your religion should not be able to dictate how other people who don’t believe in a God who would create people one way, and then damn them for loving the way He designed them to, should live.
The problem, of course, is that all the “Sin” cryers out there are blindly assuming that their religion is the only one, true religion.
(When, in fact, there are so many differentiations of Christianity that you can’t really call it the “same” religion anymore…)
Perplexed,
Now is the last days? I get it, April Fool’s. That’s pretty good.
uct – I’ll hear your comment. So, gay marriage presents the same issues as hetero marriage. Okay, I’ll give you that. What’s your point? So, should we outlaw all marriage then, since hetero marriage ends in divorce roughly 50% of the time? As far as the kids are concerned, custody battles would mirror that of a hetero couple. Each side makes a case for custody rights. Divorce would be divorce, don’t need a special court. That’s as crazy to me as separate drinking fountains.
A sin is a sin is a sin…..
With the seperation of church and state, don’t I get to decide if what I’m doing is a sin?
Even if what these more conservative folks are saying is 100% true, with seperation of church and state, please help me understand why you think its ok for the state to run my life in the ways of your church.
What if someone were fighting for muslim rules of governance. Don’t you see the similarity with those contries (that we go to war with over how they treat people….).
CaptPlanet: “Hey, remember that part of The New Testament when Jesus denounced gay marriage? Oh…wait…that’s right, He didn’t.”
Jesus didn’t denounce bestiality either genius. What’s that prove, that you’re good to go with your pet duck?
We dicriminate against actions all the time (e.g., smoking). Jesus specifically denounced pornea in Mark 7. Nature denounces it every time a practitioner comes down with a STD. Insurance actuaries should consider the matter objectively (i.e., not with the eyes of Hollywood and others who reject and actively work to destroy traditional morality).
Wow, the comments here clearly show that we are living in an OBAMAnation.
Jesus specifically condemns pornea in Mark 7. He forgives sinners but tells them to go and sin no more. Hollywood, the mouthpiece of the evil one, has convinced the lemmings among us (who spend more time watching TV than thinking/reading) that evil is good. But depraved thoughts lead to sinful acts, which lead to bad habits, which lead to degenerate character. And charcter determines destiny. DO NOT TEACH YOUR CHILDREN THAT EVIL IS GOOD!
If you are an atheist (or think you are, because we all worship something—consider what you think about to lull yourself to sleep), then I will point to the natural harm that degenrate practices cause: STD, depression, and lack of progeny. Actuaries (who are not under the spell of Hollywood) will confirm that we discriminate against behavior all the time (e.g., smoking). AIDS has cost millions of lives and billions of dollars. For what? Depraved, sado-masochistic “pleasure”?
No worries, I won’t teach my daughter and child to be that evil is good. I will be teaching them not to discriminate against someone for any reason including sexual orientation. Erase the hate!
Al,
If you want to gruff your billy goat during your free time, that is entirely up to you. But, he can’t consent, therefore enter into a legal contract, so unfortunately or fortunately (however you choose to view your thought experiment), you cannot marry him. Beastiality was against the law in Jesus’ time, He didn’t need to address it. Or, from your rationale, Jesus never said anything about it so He’s all for it, right? In which case, what are you saying about Jesus? You said it, not me. Whereas, I am certainly suggesting Jesus didn’t have any concerns about homosexual activity. So, I am calling Jesus, oh I don’t know, a humanitarian.
This beastiality argument may just be the most irrelavant argument I’ve heard. No ability to reason or consent, therefore, no legal contract exists. No marriage. Next.
It’s the same “logic” you employed. Homozexuality was certainly a crime in Jesus’ day, its repugnant sinfulness reaffirmed by the apostles, and your suggestion that Jesus was ok with it is offensive in the extreme.
Beastiality and homosexuality are condemned in the same passage in Leviticus BTW, and trotting out the “do you eat pork” canard you simply prove your ignorance of basic Christian theology: the ceremonial law passed away due to the work of Christ in fulfilling the Law of Moses, but the moral precepts precede Moses and remain in full force and effect.
Anyone who advocates illicit sex is sinning against God, and apologists for homosexuality are particularly offensive to the thrice holy God.
Well Al and Don’Bob’, aren’t you the omnisicient ones? Yes, same logic only I’m intimating Jesus loved homosexuals the same way He loved heterosexuals the same way He loved those who didn’t even want to have sex with anyone. In the purest form, a humanitarian. What He wouldn’t stand for is your hate and discrimination of a fellow man/woman. But, you are entitled to think what you want. You just can’t force your beliefs on others in this great country.
Yes, I’ve read Leviticus and if you see my posts above, you’ll see I addressed it days ago. God doesn’t care about gays, God wants humans to love each other. Love is the answer to life and you are attempting to deny it because you think it’s “icky”. By the way, not only could you not eat pork in Leviticus, you couldn’t touch it. So, I guess we should outlaw football.
If you want the law of the land to be based upon your specific religion, you are living in the wrong country, as stated by the founding fathers.
Planet:
Since you’re a dumbass, let me put this bluntly:
I AM BOB. Not Al. I have NEVER said someone should all live according to one code. I have said I am ok with Gays. I am not ok with ANY law allowing for a conflict between religion and gays or gays and religion.
I should also note as stated in another post, which is why I went for your throat the moment you labeled me a zealot, and which is why I will do so again now that you imply I am against gays: I AM A NON BELIEVER WHO ONLY CALLS MYSELF AN AGNOSTIC AS I DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN THERE IS NO GOD.
You punk ass piece of trash. I have tolerated you labeling who I listen to (not fox) what my religion is (not christian) why I’m against gay “marriage” (nothing to do with being against males being with males, or it being gross or bad) LONG ENOUGH.
Stop your extreme bigotry. Immediately.
Now I did direct what the bible says about homosexuality, only in respect of you being a piece of trash hypocrite. A religious man trashing religion, but of course he’s above the law of his own religion, and knows better than most of the land about how laws should be put in place so that gays don’t control religion. And anyone who fears that comingling, is of course a pious man, or against gays.
Grow, the hell, up, you piece of shit.
Ya know, Bob, it would be a lot easier to read your posts if you drop the cuss words.
In a previous post, I think (because I got confused) you said the gay marriage debate is NOT about religion. If it’s not about religion, then why is anyone against marriage equality?
Now, in the above post, I’m further confused about your argument. You said “I have tolerated you labeling who I listen to (not fox) what my religion is (not christian) why I’m against gay “marriage” (nothing to do with being against males being with males, or it being gross or bad) LONG ENOUGH.” So, why is marriage equality wrong?
jw –
I’m just curious, who did Bob say was labeling him? If it’s me, he’s mistaken. I haven’t responded to a word that guy has written in months. Unless, of course, he IS Don Roberto. Then, yes, I guess I responded to him. But, I didn’t say anything about Fox News to Don Roberto (I called him Don ‘Bob’ for short). I did speak to Christianity only to the extent that I would challenge that Jesus Christ is too much of a humanitarian to waste His time with selecting which humans He should treat as equals to others. He loved all of humankind the same. What was that about casting stones again? I look at these conservative arguments and see them bleeding from shards of glass. Like John McClain’s feet in “Die Hard”. Appropriately, the conservative argument then goes on to say, “Glass? Glass? Who gives a ____ about glass?”
Captain, I’m not sure who has maligned bob’s good name.
I also agree that Jesus treated everyone the same. He ate with the sinners because they needed him. I have a magnet my middle child gave me that says: “Get Real. Like Jesus Would Ever Own A Gun & Vote Republican.”
That magnet is spot-on! Now, Supply-Side Jesus would own a gun and vote Republican. That seems to be the Jesus most conservatives believe in:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M
I see. So, you live according to Leviticus. That’s fascinating.
“You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.” – Leviticus 19:27
– I assume you have a full beard, and have never cut your hair?
“You shall not eat of their flesh (pigs) nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you.” – Leviticus 11:8
– Never eat bacon, right?
“You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the Lord.” – Leviticus 19:28
– And you’re tattoo/earring free?
“You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.” – Leviticus 19:19
– Never wear polyester or mixed blend fabrics?
“But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.” – Leviticus 11:10
– And no shrimp? Lobster?
“For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” – Leviticus 20:9
– Since you’re on here taking, I’ll assume you’ve never said anything negative about your parents. Good for you!
“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have– you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.” – Leviticus 25:44
– How much did you pay for your last slave? I know women tend to be cheaper than men, right? 30 shekels as opposed to 50. What a deal!
“And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” – Leviticus 20:10
– How often do you put adulterers to death? Do you do it as you come across them, or do you just stock up and do it once a month?
Cherry picking and choosing to believe only the passages that support your bigotry, just reinforces the notion that you are anti-homosexuality because YOU find it icky – not because God actually deems it wrong.
Excellent!
And, Chik-fil-a, doesn’t this same book forbid eating cheese and meat together?
For those on the Santorum beastiality kick, answer me this: you HAVE to have sex with either someone of the same sex or a donkey, which piece of ass are you going to choose?
I find it really interesting that none of the folks who answer in a bigoted way address my point….
The SCOTUS has defined marriage as a fundimental RIGHT (unlike smoking, driving and drinking). Therefore, the point is, given the 14th amendment provides that ALL people are equal under the LAW, why should one group of people be treated differently.
There are some excellent arguements above which tell me why YOUR CHURCH may not want to enter these folks into “holy matrimony”. However, not one single case has been made for why we should not provide that ALL PEOPLE have EQUAL access to ALL rights..
What if we decided that people with children shouldn’t own guns? How would that go over?
really?,
It’s because they don’t have an answer. I’m still waiting for one non-religious reason why we shouldn’t have marriage equality, too. Excellent point above!
So…
Marriage was originally created to register a union so that CHILDREN could be taxed. Check Roman tax history. So historically, an engagement or commitment ceremony was all that occurred. Marriage was only a trivial government requirement, where people were taxed by headcount. No need for homosexuals to register as they could not produce children and would not produce tax revenue.
Gay union CANNOT produce a child, and therefore by historical definition is not marriage but a union, such as any couple can have, and thereby already have equality under the law with union agreements.
Marriage benefits are designed to give an advantage for the purpose of producing a taxpayer…so gay unions don’t really need to go there.
So..marriage didn’t exist before Rome?
And how does that apply to, say…Asia? Since Rome never influenced them.
Try to at least substantiate your claims with actual supports rather than unfounded declarative statements.
Then, why do we allow 90 year old heteros to marry each other? Or, what about impotent men, infertile men/women? Besides, gays can be parents through adoption, for example. Also, a gay couple may choose for one of the partners to have a sexual union with someone just for the sake of producing a child. This is one example of surrogacy and there is also in vitro surrogacy. Try again.
It is not the historical reference though. You completely missed my point…todays morals and views of half the people do not reflect the historial viewpoint of marriage. DEAL WITH IT or move some place that reflects your viewpoints instead of forcing everyone to your view. America is a great place where you can be a communist loving liberal and live on the east coast or Hollywood or move to Texas, where people believe in God and morals. It would be a shame if everyone were forced to live by only YOUR viewpoint.
Equal rights for all means exactly that. I’m not forcing anyone to get gay married. Therefore, they do not live gay married. We don’t live in Roman times, thank goodness. Much has evolved since then and thankfully so has humankind. So, what may have been true at one time historically is no longer relevant. Hence, the children argument is moot and just another distraction. Besides, I showed you how gays can have children.
By no means am I a communist. I believe in capitalism. Communism has absolutely nothing to do with marriage equality. Marriage equality has everything to do with The Golden Rule. I don’t care if you believe in a god or not. Even the atheists I know live by that rule. DEAL WITH IT (your words, not mine) and let’s be open to all viewpoints. I’ll respect any church’s decision to not offer marriage ceremonies to gay couples. Your church doesn’t have to marry gays and you don’t have to marry one either. Just don’t treat people differently because you find them or their behavior gross or even, yes, immoral (this is subjective, try to remain objective). Did you know all of those acts you think are disgusting also happen in the hetero bedroom? Heteros can get married and you aren’t concerned with what they do behind closed doors. Like someone said above, it’s not all about the missionary position.
Insurance DataArchitect – You still didn’t answer my question.
If SCOTUS said marriage a right 14 times (I do not believe they were referencing roman constitutionality, rather US), and the 14th amendment says ALL People are equal, then tell me how today, in the USA, you are defending one group not having access to that right?
How’s that for a run on sentance!
The children, morals, sin arguements are all distractions… We have seperation of church and state, none of that should matter.
I wasn’t trying to answer your question…you just trolled my post.
Not my intention to “troll” your post at all. I thought you were answering me, as the Roman comment was just below my prior comment. So, what are the rules on this board as far as what we can and can’t respond to without being a “troll”?
HAVE YOU PEOPLE LOST YOUR MINDS? Civil union sre the way to go on this. Homosexuality is not only a sin it is amental health issue inregard to the orientation and how it is not the most perfect way to raise a child. It is a disease control issue it is a procreation issue in terms of having the next generation. Gays already have the right to marry it is traditional marrige. Legal benefits are there for civil unions. Are we going to redinfine something that has worked well for thousands of years? Are we going to do something so evil that it could cause a civil war Are we going to open up pandoras box to 3 people getting married or ten or 20 or some nut getting married to his dog or car? YOU PEOPLE ARE CRAZY!
Ladies and gentlemen,
Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is alive and well and has now entered the forum. Oh, I mean, “William”.
Yes, Fred, homosexuals are the crazy ones. Uh-huh, yeah, right. All of your rants have been disproven in the commentary above. It would do you well to read all of the posts. Here’s another idea, talk to a gay person. You might find they are just as human as you are and not at at “mental”. Talk to some children who have been raised by a gay couple as well. In every sense of the word, you sir are demonstrating characteristics of a ‘bigot’. Get your god out of The State. They are to be separate.
Actually, the spittle-flying crazy-eyed insanity seems to be pouring forth from your rant, not the fact that marriage equality is important to all human beings.
And, homosexuality is not a mental disorder, you incompetent. The original DSM-1 in 1952 labelled it as such, but then again, back then if you weren’t white, you were also considered racially inferior.
Why do I get the inclination that 60 years ago you’d be burning crosses?
Captain Planet says:
“Ladies and gentlemen, Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church is alive and well and has now entered the forum. Oh, I mean, “William”.”
Did Fred Phelps write this opinion?
Polygamy “…is contrary to the spirit of Christianity, and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world.” 136 U.S. 1, LATE CORPORATION OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS et al. v. UNITED STATES, May 19, 1890.
I’m sure that court would have said the same thing about homosex marriage. Shrilly calling people bigots because they resist change to the basic building blocks of our culture is evidence of your ignorance of human nature and anti-normalcy bias.
what is the “anti-normalcy bias”?
Hmm, but they didn’t say the same thing about gay marriage. You’re comparing apples to polygamy. Polygamy and gay marriage are separate issues, quit trying to equate the two. I’ve already pointed out the main differences and I assume you aren’t ignorant so you know better. I didn’t call him a bigot, I said he is demonstrating the characteristics of a bigot. Just so we can be on the same page, here is the definition again:
bigot – “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Basic building blocks of our culture? Of your culture, perhaps. Certianly not my culture. I don’t live in a culture of hate. What isn’t “normal” about being gay? Love is love. Thank goodness we don’t rule by what’s “normal” to you and other closed-minded individuals. Otherwise, we’d still be discriminating against minorities, slavery would still exist, women would be suppressed, we’d still be torturing the mentally ill, and we’d wouldn’t have the advancements that aid those who are physically handicapped. As far as your resistence of change comment, I’ll remind you of the change dragon, as was written by US General Charles Krulak:
“You can ignore it and when you turn your back on it, it eats you. You can try to control it but sooner or later it will wear you down and then it eats you. Or, you can ride it, adapt, anticipate, grow, and prosper with change.”
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA441963
I’ll call him a bigot. It’s exactly what his is, as evidenced by his ranting.
It’s the insane rantings of people like him who try to compare marriage equality between two human beings with polygamy, marrying a human and animal (or inanimate object, etc) that really make me worry that they might breed and pass on this craziness to the next generation.
really? says: “The SCOTUS has defined marriage as a fundimental RIGHT (unlike smoking, driving and drinking). Therefore, the point is, given the 14th amendment provides that ALL people are equal under the LAW, why should one group of people be treated differently.”
The SCOTUS has never defined marriage as between two men or two women or three men and two women. Marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. Your post illustrates how the point is not rights, but the definition of marriage, which is the real issue, not “marriage equality.”
If for 2% of the population we redefine marriage for 100% of the population, then that’s not equality: the 2% will have gained a right that *I do not have* – the right to redefine marriage for the United States. They will not then be equal, but superior.
Al – what is that drivel you just posted? It makes no sense. This issue is getting so tiresome. Why can’t gay people have the right to be as miserable as heterosexual people and get married? Just kidding. What difference does it make to your life? Live and let live and get on with it.
Hi Libby,
Good to see you back. Also, good to have another voice of reason back. You should take time to read all of these postings, even the hidden ones. It’s quite evident most have accepted the fact gays are human and fall in love, too. But, there are those out here, like Marcus Bachmann, who want to keep trying to pray away the gay. Those are the people I pray for. Funny how every argument against gay marriage, and I mean all of them, sound exactly like the arguments against interracial marriage. Actually, it’s not funny. It’s sad.
Hi Captain. It’s nice to be back. I have read all the posts and some of them are just astounding in their ignorance and bigotry. I, too, will pray for the wayward ones that seem to forget that Jesus (and the “Bible”) taught love, tolerance, and acceptance. To all mankind. Not just the few that have annointed themselves the chosen ones. You’re right, none of it is very funny.
I’m curious….. Since I’m in the 98% (althoug I question where you get that number), I can’t see how my marriage of 21 years will be impacted by your marriage or anyones marriage. My definition stays the same. Two consenting adults, have built a life together.
Sorry – stepped away without finishing my question….
How are marriages for the 98% impacted? Are you afraid that people who are currently in straight marriages may jump ship?
You know, that actually happens all the time today… because of sociotial pressure, people have historically tried to bury who they are so deeply, that they get married and even have kids and then finally give up and tell the truth. So, it is possible that legalizing marriage for all people could destigmatize “gay”. it is imaginable that some people who are living straight, could give up the lies…
Stop the lying! Stop the hating! Live and let live people!
It appears this story has finally run its course. Given all of the feedback above, it’s obvious marriage equality wins…overwhelmingly. Those in the conservative minortiy (in regards to this issue) may someday see the err of their ways. If not them, certainly their children and grandchildren will. This is the civil rights issue of today. Thankfully, gone are the days when someone can say something is, “gay”, “queer”, or “total fag” without the stigmatism of it sounding like he or she is using the ‘N’ word. Unless, of course, he or she is inside a circle who finds such behavior acceptable. Like, for example, The Westboro Baptist Church. I’d like to close by taking to Libby’s point above, “live and let live” and changing just a couple vowels. Love and let love.
Hello Captain Planet, Libby, et al,
We don’t always agree on the politics, but to the “Live and let live” philosophy I say Amen! And the change to “Love and let love” just beautiful!
Yes, we don’t always see eye-to-eye, but we had the conversation and we arrived somewhere. Thanks for your discourse, JB.
Amen, Libby! People should be allowed to be as weird and abnormal as they like (as long as they they don’t try to ram it down MY throat, or wherever – lol!) Same-sex marriage is not “normal”, but so what?
Abnormal does not mean good or bad, it just means….not “normal”. And, those who criticize and/or label others as “bigoted” or “hateful” or some other such pejorative term for simply pointing out that something is abnormal or weird are, well… themselves bigoted and intolerant of others.
Some hypothetical examples of what foolish PC-ness run amok looks like:
JB: Hey Dimtwit, that guy over there looks pretty weird, huh?
DIMTWIT: Oh JB, that’s hateful and bigoted! Where did you learn that, Faux-Reilly bad bad bad TV news?
JB: Hey, Dimtwit, that lady is abnormally tall, isn’t she?
DIMTWIT: Oh JB, that’s hateful and bigoted! Where did you learn that, Faux-Reilly bad bad bad TV news?
JB: Hey, Dimtwit, look at those two [any two people] over there engaging in openly voyeuristic behavior! You don’t normally see that too often, now do you? They should cover it up, man, ‘cuz there’re kids running around here and I think it’s lewd and abnormal and probably illegal, too!
DIMTWIT: Oh JB, that’s hateful and bigoted! Where did you learn that, Faux-Reilly bad bad bad TV news?
JB: Hey Dimtwit if a guy has an operation to become a woman, then marries a woman, is he/she now a lesbian? Or a transgendered closet heterosexual? Hmmm, kinda weird and abnormal, I’d say…
DIMTWIT: Oh JB, thats’s hateful and bigoted! Where did you learn that, Faux-Reilly bad bad bad TV news?
JB: Hey Dimtwit relax, I’m just observing the world and making comments…….but, if you think that makes me a lying super-hannitized neo-con foxed-up intolerant hateful bigot, welllllll, I’ve got some really rare, expensive bricks to sell you…..
Yes, as we all know, Websters defines “normal” as: white, Christian, 5 foot nine, 175 pounds, blue shirt, size 10 feet, hazel eyes, right-handed, boxers, clean-shaven, ditto-headed, Toyota driving, 24 ounce Coke drinking, gun owning, non-gay, red meat eating, etc, etc, etc
They’re not homophobic, but they have friends that are.
Thank gosh, I’m not normal…and, I guess, neither are my gay friends. Are you normal?
Hi insurance is fun!,
Not sure where you got your definition, but here it is from a real dictionary:
nor’mal, a. [L. normalis, from norma, a carpenter’s square, a rule]
1. conforming with or constituting an accepted standard, model, or pattern; especially, corresponding to the median or average of a large group in type, appearance, achievement, function, development, etc.; natural; standard; regular.
2. in biology, (a) not immunized or otherwise exposed to an infectious agent; as a normal animal; (b) happening naturally
3. in chemistry…..
4. in economics…..
5. in mathematics…..
6. in psychology, average in intelligence or emotional stability.
nor’mal, n. 1. anything normal.
2. the usual state, amount, degree, etc.; especially, the median or average
3. a normal school.
4. in mathematics….
So yeah, I guess I’m pretty normal, although not by your definition. And if you don’t think you are, then you’re probably not. Very nice. No biggie either way. Seems like you’ve got to get over your phobias, though. Too many people with too many phobias. Damn shame.
Just a question, which definition of “normal” are you using?
Definition of NORMAL
1: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3: occurring naturally
4a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development b : free from mental disorder : sane
Do you mean not “typical” because it’s not exhibiting the group characteristics of heterosexuals, who are a majority group? You can have your own opinion, of course. I’m not trying to take that away from you, just trying to understand what you mean by “normal”. My opinion is, I believe homosexuality is perfectly normal. It is sane and free from mental disorder. It relates to or is characterized by (at least) average intelligence and development. There aren’t any rules or principles in this country forbidding homosexuality. It is a standard and a regular pattern seen across not only every facet of this society, but all societies, huamn and animal. Maybe you just mean it’s not what a majority of people are. I would agree with that. We shouldn’t restrict rights to those that are not what a majority of people are, though. And, it seems like you are on board with that, right?
Hello Captain Planet,
Probably 2a & 2b – perhaps typical and atypical would have been a better choice. But what I’m really getting at is that you can’t logically fault someone for either fondness or aversion to the typical or atypical, normal or abnormal, it being for the most part a matter of opinion. I admit that my normal might not be your normal, but we should still get along. So, in response to your second to last sentence and last question: right!
I think the problem with using “normal/abnormal” and “typical/atypical” is that these words imply “right or wrong.” The best term to use is “minority” since the majority of humans are heterosexual. The funny thing is, it is possible (but not probable) that there are enough LGBT people in the closet to make LGBT the majority.
I’ve known David Kosar since we were boys growing up in Missouri-I guess going on 40 years now.
I’m proud to call him my friend and I’m also proud that he is standing up for what is right. For a long time gays and lesbians felt and I think still feel that they couldn’t be honest with employers and co-workers in our business about their orientation and I’ve seen more than one person try and pretend to be straight when clearly they weren’t. I also think that some have been denied promotions over the course of time as our business tends to treat non conformity poorly.
A mans beliefs are his own and I’m happy that David has pursued his path towards being happy.
Good luck
There was a time when the religious right could bully us around. Thankfully, those days appear to be starting to drift behind us. Honestly, I understand and agree with their desires for a morality-based society. What I don’t want is for anyone’s religious beliefs to govern mine…or yours, or for anyone’s definition of “moral” to determine what mine might be. To bring made up “facts”, a dictionary, or a bible into the argument is just plain silly.
Aren’t “morals” primarily religion-based? I don’t know what a morality-based society means, but somehow I think it’s going to involve someone telling me what is right (moral) and wrong (immoral) and I don’t like that. We have laws in this country to tell what is right and wrong. Other than that, morals should be left up to the individual (and his or her God if he has one). Agree?
Moralilty is just as much based on inter-societal function and group dynamics as it is based in religion.
Each plays its part in the formation of a group consensual ‘morality.’
Of course, that doesn’t mean that everyone in a group with a differing religion has the same ‘morality.’ They just tend to form a sort of venn diagram of shared consensual morals.
You won’t get an argument from me, Libby. I concur.