Gay marriage

[Quinn]

North Carolina has a "marriage amendment" to define marriage as between one man and one woman coming up for voting and I got to wondering about the whole issue.

 

What are the rational (non-religious) reasons for or against gay marriages? All I can think of are changes in Social Security survivor benefits, inheritence, potential alimony and child support cases, tax breaks, and group Health Insurance. Are there others?

 

Also, are there any arguments in favor of gay marriages that wouldn't apply as well to incest, polygamy, or a "marriage of convience"?

 

------

[beemerman2k]

I'm going to bed. Hope to see y'all in the morning, y'know, still talking to each other and still being friends and all

[Mrs. Caddis]

Things like being at the bedside in a hospital room and making those decisions that a spouse would make.

[Dennis Andress]

The whole gay lesbian thing, well let's just say I'm not yet comfortable with it.

 

But, if two people build a life together, sharing income to make a house into a home, then when one of them passes away the survivor should be able to continue living in their home. Nope. As things are now, the law in most states recognizes the parents and siblings of the deceased, not the partner.

 

Looked at that way gay marriage seems reasonable.

 

 

[Matts_12GS]

The whole gay lesbian thing, well let's just say I'm not yet comfortable with it.

 

But, if two people build a life together, sharing income to make a house into a home, then when one of them passes away the survivor should be able to continue living in their home. Nope. As things are now, the law in most states recognizes the parents and siblings of the deceased, not the partner.

 

Looked at that way gay marriage seems reasonable.

 

 

That's pretty much been my dilemma with this issue as well.

[Paul Mihalka]

I think the main problem with gay marriage is that it is called "marriage". Marriage is a institution with a deep religious background. Mostly performed by a priest, pastor, or other religious authority. The union of two people of the same sex should be called just that, a Civil Union. It should be legally registered by a non-religious authority like a judge, notary public, whatever. The two parties of this union should have the same civil rights of a married couple, related to taxes, ownership, survivor rights, critical decisions, divorce. To me marriage is religious act of promised partnership between a man and a woman. Civil Union is not. Let's apply separation of religion and government to this act.

[beemerman2k]

I think the main problem with gay marriage is that it is called "marriage". Marriage is a institution with a deep religious background. Mostly performed by a priest, pastor, or other religious authority. The union of two people of the same sex should be called just that, a Civil Union. It should be legally registered by a non-religious authority like a judge, notary public, whatever. The two parties of this union should have the same civil rights of a married couple, related to taxes, ownership, survivor rights, critical decisions, divorce. To me marriage is religious act of promised partnership between a man and a woman. Civil Union is not. Let's apply separation of religion and government to this act.

 

 

What about religions/churches that do marry same sex couples? It's a marriage from their perspective. In general I see your point, but in the real world it would cause problems still.

[moshe_levy]

We see there are social and economic aspects to this issue.

 

Economically, even those who are not "comfortable" with gay relationships seem to concede that it makes no sense to punish said couples for no apparent reason.

 

Socially there seems to be unease, mainly due to religious and not rational reasons. In such cases, I always look to history. What does history teach us about this issue?

 

Well, as it happens, a great deal. The parallel with the African American experience, for example. Many states banned blacks from reading or getting an education during slavery and its aftermath (for decades afterward, in fact). Then a justification used for why blacks are "inferior" was they they are "stupid." Here, the same. We are told from a religious perspective that gays are immoral and promiscuous, so when they attempt to demonstrate monogomous long-term commitment, the state tells them they cannot. A further parallel - we tell them they can have the "separate but equal" civil union. In short, we've learned nothing from our past mistakes, and gays make a nice, convenient whipping boy during election season, don't they?

 

You want to me a pro-gay marriage person? Talk to a divorced person. Doesn't matter what their political stripe is. We know what ruins marriage is divorce, not other marriages, and heterosexuals have a VERY healthy divorce rate. The 5 minute celeb marriages are sanctioned by the state and some religious figure, but two gay people who have been together for 25 years is not sanctioned? Marriages of convenience OK for heteros, but marriages of true commitment are not OK for gays? Does this make any sense? Can this be justified on reasonable grounds? No standards on one side, and a wall on the other? Is that what your religion teaches you?

 

For the record re religion, the line which supposedly brands homosexuality as an "abomination" comes from the Old Testament. From the JEWISH bible. And today, Israel is probably the most pro-gay country in the world, even hosting the "Gay Olympics" recently. Jews, more than any other demographic, and regardless of party affiliation, solidly vote FOR gay marriage amendments. Why? We Jews, for the most part, learned LONG ago not to take the Bible literally, but to draw lessons from it figuratively. I can tell you as a Hebrew speaker, you would be downright shocked if you saw how even the translation of our Bible to english language skewed certain meanings terribly. This is one of those times, and it's why we (the ones who created the Bible which is now referenced by everyone except us in this issue) never envoke it outside of fundamentalist relgious circles. Doesn't that tell you something about the so-called "religious" reasons to deny others their civil rights?

 

Hell, the rabbi who married me and my Catholic wife also married homosexuals. So does the priest who works with him. There are plenty of religious practicioners who are sickened by the blantant hypocrisy of the issue.

 

I'll be honest with you - the sight of two guys making out is not pleasant to me to watch. But if they get married, does it affect me negatively one iota? Hell no. That is the standard. It does NOT affect me negatively, one bit, and it doesn't affect you either. Historically, most times such a reasonable argument is presented, it carries the day, eventually. And the same will happen here, and ultimately we will look back and shake our heads at our collective stupidity, just like we do with other stains on our country's history. We're Americans - it takes us awhile to come out of stupor. As Churchill said, paraphrased, "America can always be counted on to do the right thing - once all other options run out."

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

 

For the record re religion, the line which supposedly brands homosexuality as an "abomination" comes from the Old Testament. From the JEWISH bible. And today, Israel is probably the most pro-gay country in the world, even hosting the "Gay Olympics" recently. Jews, more than any other demographic, and regardless of party affiliation, solidly vote FOR gay marriage amendments. Why? We Jews, for the most part, learned LONG ago not to take the Bible literally, but to draw lessons from it figuratively. I can tell you as a Hebrew speaker, you would be downright shocked if you saw how even the translation of our Bible to english language skewed certain meanings terribly. This is one of those times, and it's why we (the ones who created the Bible which is now referenced by everyone except us in this issue) never envoke it outside of fundamentalist relgious circles. Doesn't that tell you something about the so-called "religious" reasons to deny others their civil rights?

 

-MKL

 

So what does the Bible really say about homosexuality?

[Roadwolf]

Moshe, well said...

 

I might add that I have always used this argument to those that condemn the homosexual "lifestyle." Usually it is said after some comment is made about it being a choice to be gay...

 

"When did you make the choice to be heterosexual. You see an attractive woman and your pulse rate quickens and your mind goes elsewhere.... so when did you make that choice to be straight?"

 

Usually that shuts them up pretty quick as the point is made without much of a comeback from them.

 

I agree with you and others who have said that in a generation or two, we will, as a society, will look foolish, as we have discriminated against a sizable portion of our country by relegating them to second class citizens.

 

And marriage has evolved into a cultural institution... the majority of marriages performed today I would suspect have been stripped out of any religious meaning. If you got married and saw it as a religious ceremony, great for you. But others get married without any connection to a faith or creed. Marriage is an institution that most (but not all) spouses attain for. To deny them that opportunity because of your preconceived notions of what is right for them or what marriage means to you is just plain wrong.

[upflying]

As long as two people love each other, I'm ok with it.

[beemerman2k]

What if God decides to destroy us like he did to Sodom and Gomorrah?

[Roadwolf]

Hopefully you forgot to put a smiley face on the end of that statement.

[pbharvey]

As long as two people love each other, I'm ok with it.

 

Suppose three people love each other?

[Mike]

What if God decides to destroy us like he did to Sodom and Gomorrah?

 

She's already let the neighborhood go downhill, so I don't see that this is likely to be the final straw . . . .

 

This is one of those topics about which my thinking has changed over time, perhaps because of the number of gay men and women in my life . . . great friends who are wonderful people. For the most part, they just came out of the factory with slightly different chromosomal equipment.

 

Believing that a certain percentage of the population is destined to be gay and unlikely to be able to enter into a life-long heterosexual marriage that is fulfilling, the question is where that leaves them. Gay couples have been around for a long, long time, but these relationships have largely existed without the legal bonds that accompany marriage. Issues of inheritance become muddied, even when property is acquired through joint efforts. Employment benefits, like health insurance, are unreachable. And, perhaps most sadly, when the time comes for the most difficult episodes in life--illness, hospitalization, health care decisions, even the decision whether to end artificial hydration, nutrition and cardio-pulmonary assistance--the life partner may be frozen out.

 

It seems to me that, regardless of how comfortable or ill at ease we are with homosexuality, there are both personal and social benefits to giving legal standing to these relationships, whether you call it a civil union or a marriage.

 

As to the semantic question--what you call it--the whole thing is a bit muddled by the fact that the government long ago got involved in granting legal status to an institution of the church. It used to make me uncomfortable to think about gay people being "married," as opposed to joined in civil union. But, since we've long been granting the status of "married" regardless of whether there is any religious connotation (as it should be under our form of government), then it seems that the distinction between marriage and civil union becomes of importance only if we value semantics over substance.

[moshe_levy]

James, I assume you were playing devil's advocate, as it Mr. Harvey. The answer is, in this case, very simple: ALL of these arguments - IDENTICAL arguments - were used during Jim Crow segregation to argue against black and white intermarriage. Biblical references, bestiality, polygamy, and all the rest. ALL the same. EXACTLY the same!

 

So rather than ask these questions (you forgot bestiality when you mentioned polygamy) ask yourself this: Why is this any different than Jim Crow?

 

We've been through this before. We admit we were wrong then, by and large, as a nation. And yet, here we are again, doing the same exact thing. Again.

 

You want to talk about a plank in the black eye? Did you know that during the recently-fought Prop 8 in California (the state initiative re gay marriage) that religious black folk were the most solid demographic to vote against allowing gays to marry. More solid than registered party members of the party which you'd expect to oppose....

 

Funny how history's forgotten, and how we're unfortunately doomed to repeat it.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

Oh, one more thing. A political argument, for sure. Ever notice how the folks who tell us that states' right trump federal rights, that the federal government is the root of all evil, that individuals should have the right to do as they please without interference from government, etc. etc.

 

Ever notice how when it comes to this issue, where states are deciding what is best for them, where individuals are asking for the same freedoms as everyone else (since they pay the same taxes as everyone else!) that all of a sudden, we need the federal government to step in and pass an amendment expressly forbidding the states and individuals from having the freedom to decide for themselves what works best for them?

 

Funny how that works - isn't it?

 

-MKL

[Peter Parts]

I hope the moderators won't jump on me (again), but this is the most sophisticated and civil discussion of a hot topic I've seen here and maybe in any social medium. Thanks for wise posts.

 

I think what is needed to get the many riddles of gay marriage sorted out are the following.

 

First of all, governments have no business meddling in religious affairs like marriage or sanctioning them. Leave marriage as a religious choice and leave the civil and business aspects of unions to government.

 

Second, in the present day, wonky for governments to reward married people over single people and possibly give tax prizes for having kids. Couples (or maybe three-somes, etc.) who can not now marry are right to complain they are excluded from certain benefits and privileges awarded only to married people.

 

In Ontario, if you live together two years you are deemed married. Not "sort of" but for real, at least in most governmental respects. That makes behavior (or rather, behaviour) the key and makes a lot of sense.

 

BTW, in Quebec, a woman who marries has to ask the courts to allow her to change her name to her husband's... and, I guess, vice versa.

 

I wish more Americans would visit Toronto so they could see how the most mixed and immigrant city in the world is also notably peaceful, clean, prosperous, and orderly. We are past the 50% tipping point in two respects: the majority of Torontonians do not have English as their first language and the majority of couples are from different ethnic or racial origins. Kind of like the old joke about men from [certain] groups not liking to marry women from their group... and vice versa. Sound yummy?

 

Ben

dual citizen

[pbharvey]

James, I assume you were playing devil's advocate, as it Mr. Harvey. The answer is, in this case, very simple: ALL of these arguments - IDENTICAL arguments - were used during Jim Crow segregation to argue against black and white intermarriage. Biblical references, bestiality, polygamy, and all the rest. ALL the same. EXACTLY the same!

 

So rather than ask these questions (you forgot bestiality when you mentioned polygamy) ask yourself this: Why is this any different than Jim Crow?

 

We've been through this before. We admit we were wrong then, by and large, as a nation. And yet, here we are again, doing the same exact thing. Again.

 

You want to talk about a plank in the black eye? Did you know that during the recently-fought Prop 8 in California (the state initiative re gay marriage) that religious black folk were the most solid demographic to vote against allowing gays to marry. More solid than registered party members of the party which you'd expect to oppose....

 

Funny how history's forgotten, and how we're unfortunately doomed to repeat it.

 

-MKL

 

Moshe, I was sincere. What about three people? [ancient Hebrews had more than one wife] That's a far cry from bestiality. And tell us, what is that you've found in the Hebrew scriptures that condones homosexuality? Seriously, I'd like to know.

 

 

[Quinn]

So far, all I'm getting is that the only reasons against allowing gay marriages are religious prejudice. Hard to believe you can stir up so much of the population against something based on bigoted feelings. Are there really no rational, pragmatic reasons?

 

I don't know, but I feel like I'm being herded down a path without all the information. Kinda like fighting the Civil War based on slavery without knowing the economic and Constitutional reasons as well.

 

----

 

 

[Peter Parts]

So far, all I'm getting is that the only reasons against allowing gay marriages are religious prejudice. snip

 

 

In a nearby thread, a wise person posted a chart showing US gun murder rates and how they are all out of line with comparable countries. Might have surprised some.

 

I think some would be surprised to see a comparable chart for "religious fervor" with the US high on the list and comparable countries far down. With crackpots in Florida announcing Koran burnings in their church yards and presidential politicians competing for piety priority, you gotta wonder if all the extremists are in the Taliban.

 

Ben

[beemerman2k]

Busted! Yes, i was stirring up trouble

 

I am aware of this position taken up by black people in California, and i am both shocked and ashamed.

 

I am all for a church or a religion having their own independent views, but those views should only apply to their members, not to those who are not a part of that faith. Churches are independent from secular society, and secular society ought to be independent from church. So if the question is, "what are the rights if gay Americans?". My answer is that they are exactly the same as that if everyone else in America. If the question is, "what are the rights of gay Americans within a religious institution, my answer us, "thats between that religious institution and gay Americans".

[Dave McReynolds]

I can't see any substantial difference between gay marriage and polygamous marriages, or other forms of marriage that would raise people's hackles even more. Heck, gay marriage raises people's hackles, so that's just another similarity, not a distinguishing point. I'm not against gay marriage; I just like to follow things to their logical conclusion.

[moshe_levy]

James, I assume you were playing devil's advocate, as it Mr. Harvey. The answer is, in this case, very simple: ALL of these arguments - IDENTICAL arguments - were used during Jim Crow segregation to argue against black and white intermarriage. Biblical references, bestiality, polygamy, and all the rest. ALL the same. EXACTLY the same!

 

So rather than ask these questions (you forgot bestiality when you mentioned polygamy) ask yourself this: Why is this any different than Jim Crow?

 

We've been through this before. We admit we were wrong then, by and large, as a nation. And yet, here we are again, doing the same exact thing. Again.

 

You want to talk about a plank in the black eye? Did you know that during the recently-fought Prop 8 in California (the state initiative re gay marriage) that religious black folk were the most solid demographic to vote against allowing gays to marry. More solid than registered party members of the party which you'd expect to oppose....

 

Funny how history's forgotten, and how we're unfortunately doomed to repeat it.

 

-MKL

 

Moshe, I was sincere. What about three people? [ancient Hebrews had more than one wife] That's a far cry from bestiality. And tell us, what is that you've found in the Hebrew scriptures that condones homosexuality? Seriously, I'd like to know.

 

 

OK, if you're sincere.

 

With regard to 3 people, it's irrelevant. It's a "slippery slope" argument and red herring. Nobody is talking about polygamy at this stage, are they? So what does it have to do with this, other than the usual "slippery slope" - and voters of your ideology will soon be asked to stand behind a man whose religion specifically condones (or condoned) polygamy. Will they do it? So I guess we'll find out how the country feels about that soon enough.

 

Re the Old Testament I have not found anything that CONDONES homosexuality. I never said anything CONDONED it. I said that book is used as the justification for much of the anti-gay fervor today. That is the JEWISH bible. Jews wrote it. And today, more than any other voting block in this country, we vote for the full civil rights of gay Americans. And today, in the sea of backwards religious fanaticism that is the Middle East, it is Israel that allows full right to gay citizens, including hosting many gay events and parades. That's in a country that has a strong religious voice as part of its parliament.

 

My point is, the authors of the book cited as the basis for this discrimination are telling the readers, "THAT'S NOT HOW YOU READ THIS BOOK." They say this not in words, but in action. How they vote, and how they act.

 

-MKL

[Mike]

So far, all I'm getting is that the only reasons against allowing gay marriages are religious prejudice. Hard to believe you can stir up so much of the population against something based on bigoted feelings. Are there really no rational, pragmatic reasons?

 

I don't know, but I feel like I'm being herded down a path without all the information. Kinda like fighting the Civil War based on slavery without knowing the economic and Constitutional reasons as well.

 

----

 

 

First, regardless of how certain among us may feel, there are strong strictures against homosexuality in many religions and many believe it reflects a chosen path of immorality.

 

Those who oppose gay marriage tend to believe that permitting it further diminishes the sanctity of traditional marriage, an institution that's been suffering of late. They also argue that the assumptions accompanying state-sanctioned state marriage of gay individuals--especially the notion that the partner of an employee would be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual partners--adds to the financial burdens of employers. This, it is argued, may be an affront to the religious beliefs of employers. Also--and I don't think the amount of money involved is inconsiderable--if gay marriages are accorded full equality, a whole range of government entitlements traditionally accorded only to husbands and wives--think, for instance, Social Security survivor benefits--would be payable to one's gay partner in marriage.

 

I think, in fairness to those of the opposing viewpoint, one has to concede that if full equality under the law is recognized for gay marriage, the financial repercussions could be very substantial.

[Les is more]

And we get to vote on this because....?

 

Basic rights of citizenship.

[pbharvey]

James, I assume you were playing devil's advocate, as it Mr. Harvey. The answer is, in this case, very simple: ALL of these arguments - IDENTICAL arguments - were used during Jim Crow segregation to argue against black and white intermarriage. Biblical references, bestiality, polygamy, and all the rest. ALL the same. EXACTLY the same!

 

So rather than ask these questions (you forgot bestiality when you mentioned polygamy) ask yourself this: Why is this any different than Jim Crow?

 

We've been through this before. We admit we were wrong then, by and large, as a nation. And yet, here we are again, doing the same exact thing. Again.

 

You want to talk about a plank in the black eye? Did you know that during the recently-fought Prop 8 in California (the state initiative re gay marriage) that religious black folk were the most solid demographic to vote against allowing gays to marry. More solid than registered party members of the party which you'd expect to oppose....

 

Funny how history's forgotten, and how we're unfortunately doomed to repeat it.

 

-MKL

 

Moshe, I was sincere. What about three people? [ancient Hebrews had more than one wife] That's a far cry from bestiality. And tell us, what is that you've found in the Hebrew scriptures that condones homosexuality? Seriously, I'd like to know.

 

 

OK, if you're sincere.

 

With regard to 3 people, it's irrelevant. It's a "slippery slope" argument and red herring. Nobody is talking about polygamy at this stage, are they? So what does it have to do with this, other than the usual "slippery slope" - and voters of your ideology will soon be asked to stand behind a man whose religion specifically condones (or condoned) polygamy. Will they do it? So I guess we'll find out how the country feels about that soon enough.

 

Re the Old Testament I have not found anything that CONDONES homosexuality. I never said anything CONDONED it. I said that book is used as the justification for much of the anti-gay fervor today. That is the JEWISH bible. Jews wrote it. And today, more than any other voting block in this country, we vote for the full civil rights of gay Americans. And today, in the sea of backwards religious fanaticism that is the Middle East, it is Israel that allows full right to gay citizens, including hosting many gay events and parades. That's in a country that has a strong religious voice as part of its parliament.

 

My point is, the authors of the book cited as the basis for this discrimination are telling the readers, "THAT'S NOT HOW YOU READ THIS BOOK." They say this not in words, but in action. How they vote, and how they act.

 

-MKL

 

Thank you.

 

Three people wanting to marry is relevant in the same way two homosexuals wanting to marry is relevant, they are both outside the norm of marriage yet they both want to be sanctioned as "married."

 

 

I understand your view of the scriptures as a guide rather than a rule book and I understand your view that your religious leaders have said its OK, so to the masses its OK. I disagree with your views but that's just how us right wing Bible Thumpers roll.

 

 

I'm still unclear on this statement though

I can tell you as a Hebrew speaker, you would be downright shocked if you saw how even the translation of our Bible to english language skewed certain meanings terribly. This is one of those times, and it's why we (the ones who created the Bible which is now referenced by everyone except us in this issue) never envoke it outside of fundamentalist relgious circles.

 

What is it in the translation from Hebrew to English that changed the meaning of Leviticus 18:22? Are the surrounding incest and bestiality scriptures valid or have their meanings been mistranslated as well? Seriously.

[Gregori]

I'm sorry, but I have to say that the proposed ban on gay marriage is utter and total BS.

If there's a religious argument against it - then fine, let the 'church' who feels offended not recognize that marriage.

But marriage has become for all intents and purposes a civil matter. If any pair of consenting adults wish to get married, that is their right. For the government to take that right away is absolutely wrong.

 

There are pairings that are viewed by the narrow-minded as 'wrong' while legally completely valid.

An old man and young woman. (Or even worse, the other way around!)

Mixed race couples get grief from bigots all the time.

Handicapped/healthy couples are likewise subject to discrimination.

Inter-faith marriages, not as bad as they used to be, but still frowned on in many places.

 

I know happy, loving couples in all of these categories. And as long as their commitment to one another is true, I see no reason why the general public should condemn those relationships. Likewise with same-sex couples - it's nobody's damn business but the two in the relationship. If people have made a life-time commitment to one another, it doesn't (shouldn't) make any difference in the eyes of the law their age, race, religion, national origin, handicapped status, or sexual orientation.

 

The real answer, if you want to "apply separation of religion and government to this act," is to make ALL marriage a religious ceremony without civil recognition, and vice-versa. Frankly, I'd submit that it's simpler to recognize that marriage is something that practically ALL people (religious or not) subscribe to, and not try to impose constraints about who can or can't get married, based on the principles of one brand of religion.

 

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Another opinion...

 

Why Gay Marriage Doesn't Make Sense - an Isn't Fair

[Quinn]

And we get to vote on this because....?

 

Basic rights of citizenship.

 

Thank you very much for that, Leslie. I agree that the tyranny of the majority shouldn't enter into a civil rights issue. If it's the right thing to do, then it's the right thing to do. But I did think it funny that he thought it was okay for the majority to vote on making one per cent of the population pay more tax than everyone else. Seems like anytime we can separate out a segment of society we create discrimination.

 

-----

 

 

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

...if gay marriages are accorded full equality, a whole range of government entitlements traditionally accorded only to husbands and wives--think, for instance, Social Security survivor benefits--would be payable to one's gay partner in marriage.

 

This seems a specious argument (though I realize you're not particularly laying claim to it). If gays were all magically transformed into straights and then turned around and got married to opposite-sex partners, the financial outlay would be the same, and nobody would object. But because we're talking about gay marriage, this argument somehow holds water? :confused:

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

There are pairings that are viewed by the narrow-minded as 'wrong' while legally completely valid.

...

Handicapped/healthy couples are likewise subject to discrimination.

 

At the risk of a hijack...

 

I'm struggling to get my head around this one. What is the rationale behind the discrimination? Do opponents hold that handicapped people should only marry other handicapped people, or that they should not get married at all?

 

 

[CoarsegoldKid]

My wife and I were not hitched in a church with a religious bent. Everyone calls it married.

Now if a religious group wants to condemn non-hetro or plural marriage I'm okay with that. I don't have to join. Their God can sort it out later.

Our government is now over mixed culture or mixed race marriage so why not with gay or plural marriage. Giving a legal right to hetrocouples only is not equal rights.

[Ken H.]

Oh, waaaay too much work to get done today for me to dive into THIS issue!

[pbharvey]

My wife and I were not hitched in a church with a religious bent. Everyone calls it married.

 

In my state, the County issues a marriage license signed by the officiating minister, priest, rabbi, or judge. Its the county paperwork that declares it a "marriage." The ceremony, is just that, a ceremony.

 

I'd be surprised if many, or perhaps most, of the rights homosexuals are seeking in a state sanctioned marriage couldn't be obtained with a proper legal document outside the contract of marriage. My feeling is that the push is more about mainstream acceptance than legal rights.

[Matts_12GS]

Whilst quoting scripture, why don't we look at Matthew 7:1-6 and leave judgement to those more capable than us?

 

We don't have to like it, but it's not really our gig to make judgements about it. Don't like a person's looks/race/actions/mannerisms? Move to where "those people" aren't. Or, learn to deal with it. At least as long as they are not impacting your rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or you theirs)...

 

Just saying.

[beemerman2k]

I think all this open mindedness is wonderful.

 

After all, think of all the children out there waiting to be adopted and raised in a loving home. Who cares if they are raised by two fathers OR two mothers?

 

Awww, isnt that sweet, your child just came home from school to tell you he saw his teacher, Mr Jones, and his husband kiss before school started today, and then asked you why Mr Jones has a husband?

 

And the babysitter just showed the kids pictures from her high school prom where she, an her girlfriend, had a night of true love and romance they'll never forget. Just like the Cinderella story, but kinda different.

 

Speaking of adoptions, the State always needs loving households willing to house foster children. Now, these kids, some who were removed from their religious, heterosexual homes for various reasons, can now be housed in loving homosexual homes instead of housed in some sort of a detention facility -- all without the knowledge and/or consent of the birth parents.

 

I think its wonderful that our children will be raised in such loving environments.

 

How are we doing so far? Still open minded, right?

[moshe_levy]

I think, in fairness to those of the opposing viewpoint, one has to concede that if full equality under the law is recognized for gay marriage, the financial repercussions could be very substantial.

 

Perhaps unknowingly, you have now raised a very powerful argument in favor of gay marriage, namely equality under the law. It is impossible to square the spirit of our Constitution with the notion that certain citizens pay the same exact amount of taxes as everyone else, and yet are not entitled to the same exact financial rights as everyone else.

 

If I pay into a system same as my countrymen, you're damn right I expect to get every single red cent in benefits THEY'RE entitled to for paying into the same system. The exceptions to this are based on progressive taxation, not based on who you have sex with or what color or religion you are.

 

And so, to come full circle, the extent to which the financial repercussions "could be very substantial" is the exact extent to which the gay population is getting ripped off, paying into and not taking out of - is it not?

 

-MKL

[Mike]

...if gay marriages are accorded full equality, a whole range of government entitlements traditionally accorded only to husbands and wives--think, for instance, Social Security survivor benefits--would be payable to one's gay partner in marriage.

 

This seems a specious argument (though I realize you're not particularly laying claim to it). If gays were all magically transformed into straights and then turned around and got married to opposite-sex partners, the financial outlay would be the same, and nobody would object. But because we're talking about gay marriage, this argument somehow holds water? :confused:

 

I don't buy the argument that I presented, but it's frequently made. I'm sure that some economic analyses have been done, but I'm too lazy to look for them. I tend to think that the financial stability offered by granting equality probably confers substantial social benefits that should be considered if one is predisposed to answering these questions primarily on the basis of economics

[moshe_levy]

James, this argument is often raised by people who have never visited a state home for children. If they visited, they wouldn't utter a peep. The loving heterosexual homes these kids are pulled from are usually ripe with sexual or physical abuse, which is why those kids were taken in the first place.

 

My wife, a pediatric RN in New Jersey, comes home with common stories of toddlers who have been raped by their fathers or beaten within an inch of their lives by drunken or high mothers - on those occassions the kids are killed first, the state then pulls these kids from these "loving heterosexual homes" and puts them in state care. The state care is about what you'd expect from a governmental agency. Any bells going off?

 

So if a well to do, educated, committed, and loving gay couple want to adopt a kid that is sitting in squalor in some state run dump with no hope in sight, do you really think it makes sense NOT to let them do it? Being in a glorified prison (which is what those state homes look like) is better?

 

Nonsense. It is yet another example of the boogeyman of today being villified, while the REALITY (which sucks any way you look at it for these kids) is ignored.

 

-MKL

[Gregori]

There are pairings that are viewed by the narrow-minded as 'wrong' while legally completely valid.

...

Handicapped/healthy couples are likewise subject to discrimination.

 

At the risk of a hijack...

 

I'm struggling to get my head around this one. What is the rationale behind the discrimination? Do opponents hold that handicapped people should only marry other handicapped people, or that they should not get married at all?

 

I'm not sure _I_ can understand it either, having never experienced it first-hand. But I've been told by both members of the couples in question that they do experience it. (One of whom was one of my best friends in high school, who has had Muscular Dystrophy his whole life.)

It seems to be more a case of people thinking the healthy partner could have/should have picked a healthy mate, rather than thinking the handicapped person should have done anything different.

I'm told it's something along the lines of - "It's okay if both partners are healthy when married, and one later falls ill or is injured - but why would you CHOOSE a mate who wasn't 'whole' to start with?"

 

[moshe_levy]

What is it in the translation from Hebrew to English that changed the meaning of Leviticus 18:22? Are the surrounding incest and bestiality scriptures valid or have their meanings been mistranslated as well? Seriously.

 

A great deal of scholarly text exists on this subject which is well more in depth than can be covered here in snippets. The Hewbrew word for "abomination" (to'ebah) has several meanings. "Improper ritual," and even "foreign cult."

 

The SAME word - to'ebah - is also used to describe:

 

1) Heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),

2) Harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),

3) Eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),

4) Cross-breeding livestock (19:19),

5) Sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),

6) Shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),

7) Tattoos (19:28),

8) Charging of interest on a loan (25:37),

 

 

Oh, and also "wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials". Kinda like your motorcycle gear!

 

Interstingly, the early theologans who translated the Old Testament to English made some of these "sins" a bigger deal than others. And context is lost, and so is original meaning.

 

Today, all of us do some, if not all, of the acts above, without a second thought. Yet the same word is used to prohibit them in the Old Testament. Why?

 

We Jews are taught that the Bible is poetry. Its beauty is in the fact that it is so open to interpretation, and one could spend a lifetime pondering one or two sentences in it, and STILL have questions at the end. This is the opposite of the anti-intellectual, dogmatic, and opportunistic religious "leaders" today who pull one sentence from our bible, out of context, and use it to oppress others. It is not what we as a people want others to quote our Bible for. This is not cheap talk - this is how we vote, and when we have our own place in the world (Israel) how we act with regard to this issue.

 

By the way.. Even the Hewbrew word for "young woman" can mean "young woman" or "virgin" (this is a subject of controversy, say, re Book of Isaiah, and obviously elsewhere). Ask anyone you know who speaks a foreign langauge just how much is lost in translation. The answer will ALWAYS be "a great deal." It pays to remember that when you read our Bible in English.

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

What is it in the translation from Hebrew to English that changed the meaning of Leviticus 18:22? Are the surrounding incest and bestiality scriptures valid or have their meanings been mistranslated as well? Seriously.

 

A great deal of scholarly text exists on this subject which is well more in depth than can be covered here in snippets. The Hewbrew word for "abomination" (to'ebah) has several meanings. "Improper ritual," and even "foreign cult."

 

The SAME word - to'ebah - is also used to describe:

 

1) Heterosexual intercourse when a woman has her period (Leviticus 18:19),

2) Harvesting the corners of a field (19:9),

3) Eating fruit from a young tree (19:23),

4) Cross-breeding livestock (19:19),

5) Sowing a field with mixed seed (19:19),

6) Shaving or getting a hair cut (19:27),

7) Tattoos (19:28),

8) Charging of interest on a loan (25:37),

 

 

Oh, and also "wearing of clothes made from a blend of textile materials". Kinda like your motorcycle gear!

 

Interstingly, the early theologans who translated the Old Testament to English made some of these "sins" a bigger deal than others. And context is lost, and so is original meaning.

 

Today, all of us do some, if not all, of the acts above, without a second thought. Yet the same word is used to prohibit them in the Old Testament. Why?

 

We Jews are taught that the Bible is poetry. Its beauty is in the fact that it is so open to interpretation, and one could spend a lifetime pondering one or two sentences in it, and STILL have questions at the end. This is the opposite of the anti-intellectual, dogmatic, and opportunistic religious "leaders" today who pull one sentence from our bible, out of context, and use it to oppress others. It is not what we as a people want others to quote our Bible for. This is not cheap talk - this is how we vote, and when we have our own place in the world (Israel) how we act with regard to this issue.

 

By the way.. Even the Hewbrew word for "young woman" can mean "young woman" or "virgin" (this is a subject of controversy, say, re Book of Isaiah, and obviously elsewhere). Ask anyone you know who speaks a foreign langauge just how much is lost in translation. The answer will ALWAYS be "a great deal." It pays to remember that when you read our Bible in English.

 

-MKL

 

Thanks, I get that.

This is probably better discussed over a cup of coffee but here goes anyway:

 

My larger point was that homosexuality is listed among other types of sexual activity that is frowned upon:

 

Leviticus 18

Unlawful Sexual Relations

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘I am the LORD your God. 3 You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. 4 You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the LORD your God. 5 Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the LORD.

 

6 “‘No one is to approach any close relative to have sexual relations. I am the LORD.

 

7 “‘Do not dishonor your father by having sexual relations with your mother. She is your mother; do not have relations with her.

 

8 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s wife; that would dishonor your father.

 

9 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father’s daughter or your mother’s daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

 

10 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter; that would dishonor you.

 

11 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife, born to your father; she is your sister.

 

12 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your father’s sister; she is your father’s close relative.

 

13 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your mother’s sister, because she is your mother’s close relative.

 

14 “‘Do not dishonor your father’s brother by approaching his wife to have sexual relations; she is your aunt.

 

15 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your daughter-in-law. She is your son’s wife; do not have relations with her.

 

16 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your brother’s wife; that would dishonor your brother.

 

17 “‘Do not have sexual relations with both a woman and her daughter. Do not have sexual relations with either her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter; they are her close relatives. That is wickedness.

 

18 “‘Do not take your wife’s sister as a rival wife and have sexual relations with her while your wife is living.

 

19 “‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

 

20 “‘Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.

 

21 “‘Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.

 

22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

 

23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.

 

24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26 But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27 for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.

 

29 “‘Everyone who does any of these detestable things—such persons must be cut off from their people. 30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the LORD your God.’”

 

Yes I know its in English and no doubt there is more to understand than meets the eye but I'm not so sure one can separate homosexual sex from incestuous or other forbidden sex and remain within the spirit of the law.

 

I'm not here to pound anyone over the head with the Bible but I do think you have misrepresented the intent of this particular section of scripture. I do appreciate this discussion though.

[beemerman2k]

Regardless, this is for the churches and synagogues to figure out. This should have no bearing on those who are not members of these religions.

[Peter Parts]

MKL -

 

Tatoos prohibited by God! I didn't know that.

 

Also, isn't there something or other in one of the two (slightly different) versions of the 10 Commandments in the Bible where God asks you not to make graven images? How come some churches are full of graven images?

 

Where did we gain a day so that the Sabbath moved from Saturday to Sunday? Or maybe we lost 6 days. Not sure. I guess only the Seventh Day Adventists got it right.

 

Where are the folks who REALLY believe the whole Bible and not just the passages they agree with? Or conversely, take it all as inspired words, subject to changing times.

 

Ben

no shotnayz on me

[pbharvey]

Where are the folks who REALLY believe the whole Bible and not just the passages they agree with?

 

[moshe_levy]

Regardless, this is for the churches and synagogues to figure out. This should have no bearing on those who are not members of these religions.

 

Precisely, exactly, absolutely, 100% correct. In fact Quinn was asking for reasonable explanations based on fact as to why gay marriage is opposed, and to Quinn I will say this: Don't hold your breath. Instead you will get religious dogma. Always taken out of context, always picked and chosen but not swallowed whole. I am a Jewish guy. Were I to follow Leviticus:

 

1) A child is to be killed if he/she curses their parent (Leviticus 20:9)

2) All persons guilty of adultery to be killed (20:10)

3) A person who takes the Lord's name in vain is to be killed (24:16)

 

You ever see any Rabbis advocating this? Ever see anyone who isn't in a mental asylum in Israel seriously advocating this? No, of course not. It is to be taken FIGURATIVELY, not LITERALLY, unless you are ready to commit your life to a Taliban-like existence. It is sickening to me to imagine the extent that this crazy viewpoint exists in this country, as Ben has noted it does, but all sorts of creatures crawl out from under rocks during election year. Hopefully they will slither back underground in the next couple of months when the circus is over.

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

I think the main problem with gay marriage is that it is called "marriage". Marriage is a institution with a deep religious background. Mostly performed by a priest, pastor, or other religious authority. The union of two people of the same sex should be called just that, a Civil Union. It should be legally registered by a non-religious authority like a judge, notary public, whatever. The two parties of this union should have the same civil rights of a married couple, related to taxes, ownership, survivor rights, critical decisions, divorce. To me marriage is religious act of promised partnership between a man and a woman. Civil Union is not. Let's apply separation of religion and government to this act.

While philosophically I agree with you Paul, the problem is that unless we separate the two for all unions, the Gay community is always going to feel, and rightly so, that their unions are not quite on the same footing, have the same respect that straight unions do. They ask the valid question why should we have to jump though hoops that straight couples do not have to? But I can’t see how you’re ever going to get there with government and religion so tightly intertwined (and becoming more so) in the USA.

 

ISFA the pending law in NC and other state’s similar, it’s just plain homophobia plain and simple. The ‘I’m so insecure in my relationship and who I am that I feel threatened by someone else’s’ relationship’ talking. Something which has no basis in fact what so ever.

 

That and government sticking its head in the bedroom where it has no business being. What smaller government? Cut the bedroom patrol budget.

 

There are no rational reasons to oppose Gay marriage. It has been a fact of life in Canada and many other westernized countries for many years now. It’s a non-issue. None of the many ‘paths to destruction’ warned by the vocal opposition have come to pass. Nothing. Nowhere. It’s just another day. No worse than before. This is another example of the USA needs to get out more. Look around at the rest of the world and see what actually works.

 

Legislators who think they’re the self-appointed moral lords over all of us. Pffffth... I’ve go no use for any of them.

 

[moshe_levy]

Damn Canadians... What do they know.. -MKL

[DaveTheAffable]

..The loving heterosexual homes these kids are pulled from are usually ripe with sexual or physical abuse, which is why those kids were taken in the first place.

 

My wife, a pediatric RN in New Jersey, comes home with common stories of toddlers who have been raped by their fathers or beaten within an inch of their lives by drunken or high mothers - on those occassions the kids are killed first, the state then pulls these kids from these "loving heterosexual homes" and puts them in state care. The state care is about what you'd expect from a governmental agency. Any bells going off?-MKL

 

Bells as to your audacity. You are amazing. How can you refer to a loving home, as a place where rapes and murder occur?

 

Loving Aetheist? Loving Jew? Loving Catholic? Loving disabled person?

 

Ohh... that's right. In recent weeks we swap:

 

moral code/religion/integrity/charachter/union/marriage/right/wrong blah, blah, blah.

 

It all goes back to what a few of you said in a previous thread... As long as everybody does what's right in their own mind, all is good. Live and let live. No standards, no code, no religion, no ethics. Let's all just get along.

 

 

 

You are baiting people. Might as well have made it a racial issue.