Gay marriage

[Quinn]

Now, anyone want to engage in a polygamous marriage? No? Alrighty, then

 

My wife keeps telling me that she wants to get her own wife. I've told her that having a wife is not all it's cracked up to be; you're expected to listen.

 

-----

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Scott-

 

Your exercise may well prove to be enlightening, and clearly you have your own opinions on this issue. Let me ask your personal opinion on THIS: Do you agree that allowing gays to marry is the smallest possible "rewrite" of the standard "one man / one woman" western definition of marriage that is possible? All the other suggestions further on "down the slope" - polygamy, children, animals, and so forth - all involve much more radical alternations of what "we're used to" in this traditional definition.

 

After all, we are still talking about TWO ADULTS of legal concenting age, which is far easier to deal with than polygamy (imagine the mess of a 1/3 or 2/3 divorce?) and children (below age of consent to enter into legal contract) and, of course, animals which is another issue entirely.

 

Do we share common ground in this so far?

 

-MKL

[Ken H.]

Would it be legal to consummate a gay marriage in most states?

Not in all of them. Which is even more ridiculousness.

[Ken H.]

Zach Wahls, who I mentioned earlier in the thread on John Steward’s show last night, when Steward asked him what he was going to do next (after the book) replied that he was going to try to start a movement where straight committed couples would agree to sit down and have dinner with gay committed couples. Just people meeting people, nothing more, nothing less.

 

I thought the idea was brilliant.

 

[Ken H.]

Let's have some concise definitions for the term "marriage" as those who think it should be re-defined think appropriate, and provide a rationale for whatever boundary conditions you include in your definition. I think that might prove instructive.

Sure we can have a discussion on the definition of “marriage,” but it’s largely an exercise in mental masturbation. The definition of it is well defined in all societies. We’re not going to as a society change that anytime soon. The only real subject for discussion, possible area for change, is who’s allowed to enter into it.

 

 

 

And I too am still waiting for that who’s harmed (by gay marriage) list. The only single think I’ve heard in this thread so far is some loose argument that their could be a long-term increase in payout of government survivor benefits as there would be more surviving spouses over time. Something that I think is of minimal concern, but never-the-less is one legitimate argument. Where’s the 100’s of others why this is such a poor idea?

 

Okay I’ll maybe concede two; the, ‘You’ll burn in Hell’ argument for those who happen to believe in such things.

 

[moshe_levy]

And I too am still waiting for that whos harmed (by gay marriage) list. The only single think Ive heard in this thread so far is some loose argument that their could be a long-term increase in payout of government survivor benefits as there would be more surviving spouses over time. Something that I think is of minimal concern, but never-the-less is one legitimate argument.

 

Ken, I do NOT concede this as a legit argument, for the simple fact that gays pay the same taxes as heteros. And therefore, the extent to which "long term increase in payouts" occurs is the exact extent to which gays are paying in, but not getting out - in other words, getting ripped off.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

Now, anyone want to engage in a polygamous marriage? No? Alrighty, then

 

My wife keeps telling me that she wants to get her own wife. I've told her that having a wife is not all it's cracked up to be; you're expected to listen.

 

-----

 

 

[Ken H.]

And I too am still waiting for that who's harmed (by gay marriage) list. The only single think I'e heard in this thread so far is some loose argument that their could be a long-term increase in payout of government survivor benefits as there would be more surviving spouses over time. Something that I think is of minimal concern, but never-the-less is one legitimate argument.

 

Ken, I do NOT concede this as a legit argument, for the simple fact that gays pay the same taxes as heteros. And therefore, the extent to which "long term increase in payouts" occurs is the exact extent to which gays are paying in, but not getting out - in other words, getting ripped off.

 

-MKL

Well at least it was an argument beyond, "I'm against it."!

[beemerman2k]

Okay I’ll maybe concede two; the, ‘You’ll burn in Hell’ argument for those who happen to believe in such things.

 

There are many people who fear that God will rain down fire on our country for being tolerant of the gay lifestyle, just like he did with Sodom and Gomorrah. Some in this crowd believe the Roman Empire was brought down because of it's tolerance of gays. Although Jesus himself never mentions homosexuality, yet constantly spoke about giving to the poor -- unconditionally, I might add -- people still fear homosexuality and not our tolerance of the traps of poverty.

[moshe_levy]

I don't claim to be an expert on religion, but I do not understand the rabid fascination with homosexuality that some religious people have, specifically Christians.

 

I agree with James in that I've never read anything Jesus said specifically about homosexuality. Christians seem to draw the "abomination" out of Leviticus (usually without paying as much heed to the other "abominations" listed, as we've already covered), and meanwhile the Jews themselves who authored the Old Testament are among the most ardent supporters of gay rights on earth (judging by Israel's policies and the votes of American Jews on the issue).

 

About the only consistency I see here from a religious point of view is Muslims, as the Koran specifically warns against homosexuality, and Muslim culture in turn is not very tolerant (to put it mildly) of that sexual orientation. They wrote it, and they believe in it. More than I can say for the Jewish / Christian split on this issue, from my admittedly limited understanding of biblical text.

 

-MKL

[Couchrocket]

Scott-

 

Your exercise may well prove to be enlightening, and clearly you have your own opinions on this issue. Let me ask your personal opinion on THIS: Do you agree that allowing gays to marry is the smallest possible "rewrite" of the standard "one man / one woman" western definition of marriage that is possible? All the other suggestions further on "down the slope" - polygamy, children, animals, and so forth - all involve much more radical alternations of what "we're used to" in this traditional definition.

 

After all, we are still talking about TWO ADULTS of legal concenting age, which is far easier to deal with than polygamy (imagine the mess of a 1/3 or 2/3 divorce?) and children (below age of consent to enter into legal contract) and, of course, animals which is another issue entirely.

 

Do we share common ground in this so far?

 

-MKL

 

I think you assume too much as a starting point. My project would be to define what marriage is “now” and then make adjustments. Or, if you prefer, toss out the current definition of marriage and start fresh.

 

My point is about “meanings” and “definitions” of those meanings. I think this issue is at the root of all the circular reasoning apparent in the discussion in this thread. All of us are making assertions about whether the current legal disallowing of marriage between same sex adults, as opposed to civil union, is either discriminatory (as with race discrimination) or it isn’t discriminatory. My point is that it depends on what “marriage” means. And if what marriage means needs to be changed in its essential character in order to accommodate homosexual relationship does that constitute making marriage “something else from what it was.” That’s what I think this discussion should really be about. I’m not even arguing any of the merits of what that would mean or not mean at this point, what I’m saying is that we’re all lined up “pro or con” on the subject without even having common ground on what the term means. It does have a traditional meaning based in “religion” (as you use the term), and it also has a legal meaning that was fairly consistent in most states until the very recent past, and that was largely based in the “religious tradition” definition with certain legal rights and privileges and responsibilities enumerated and that then also had the force of civil law. It is apparent that there has been a shift in the understanding of marriage and that’s why I suggest we start from scratch with our definition.

 

Therefore, your suggestions above “assume too much” in terms of what marriage “is” or is intended to “do” or “be.” So we should start at the beginning and go from there. I think you may have a good starting place, even though you’ve not offered any societal, legal, or cultural rationale to justify your position other than it being a preference. To wit: two adults of legal consenting age. I’d argue with the number limitation, but there is at least some rationale for adults of legal consenting age since we might also have as an assumption that our definition of marriage is to include legal aspects that constitute some sort of contract that establishes some sort of status in law for “marriage.” I think from that we might include, then, that marriage also implies and means that a marriage is some sort of relationship between human beings who are of legal age and able to consent to and enter into a relationship that has legal standing at the various levels of local, state, and federal law.

 

So, so far I think the only parameters we have are:

• Marriage is some sort of relationship that has standing in law

• The relationship is limited to human beings

• The participants need to be of legal consenting age in the eyes of the law

 

So, what would you add? If you’re going to talk about numbers you need some basis for limiting the number other than your preference.

I suggest that other requisite parameters are best “driven” by the “sort of relationship” marriage is to be. In order to have rights, privileges, and responsibilities under law, I think we need to describe and put boundary conditions on the nature of the relationship we’re talking about. What would you suggest?

 

[beemerman2k]

I think it's only feasible to define marriage from a legal, governmental point of view. Honestly, I am very surprised to see people protest that society is "redefining" marriage! If marriage is truly from God, then it is impossible to refine it. Is God going to say, "awww, but I wanted it to be something else, now I am forced to honor your new fangled definition of marriage.". Or, as the biblical passage says:

 

What God has joined together, let no man put asunder

 

People behave as though the way "God joins together" is through the legal acknowledgment of the State--To me, this is proposterous! Either you do it "Gods way", and therefore have a marriage acknowledged by God, or you don't and you don't. Put another way, what the State and/or the law of the land recognizes as a marriage has absolutely nothing to do with what God acknowledges as a marriage!

 

God has made his plan for marriage relatively clear, what is being debated here is what shall we, as representatives of the State, suggest as marriage whether it complies with Gods idea of a marriage or not, that's the question before us. God has made many things clear that as a secular society we choose to ignore, some of which Moshe has already enumerated, so it is here, too. Marriage has a role in our society that extends far beyond the world of religion; it has legal implications that apply whether you are religious or not.

 

So, I have already suggested we use contract law as a jumping off point, so here is my question: is it possible, purely from a contractual point of view, to effectively construct a marriage without actually going through any sort of ceremony that ack kedges you as married? For instance, let's say a gay couple in Texas wants to get married. Since that will never happen in Texas, regardless of what Washinton decrees :smirk:, can they construct a legal contract that bequeathes their assets to each other in case of death, grant each other the power of attorney in case of illness or accident -- effectively grant themselves all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage without being recognized by the State as being married? Sure, there are some things they cannot do, like share govt benefits (Veterans, SS benefits, tax deductions, etc), but that aside, can a gay or even a polygamous group legally write up for themselves a de-facto marriage?

[pbharvey]

Gay marriage isn't about rights, its about acceptance.

[Mike]

So, I have already suggested we use contract law as a jumping off point, so here is my question: is it possible, purely from a contractual point of view, to effectively construct a marriage without actually going through any sort of ceremony that ack kedges you as married? For instance, let's say a gay couple in Texas wants to get married. Since that will never happen in Texas, regardless of what Washinton decrees :smirk:, can they construct a legal contract that bequeathes their assets to each other in case of death, grant each other the power of attorney in case of illness or accident -- effectively grant themselves all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage without being recognized by the State as being married? Sure, there are some things they cannot do, like share govt benefits (Veterans, SS benefits, tax deductions, etc), but that aside, can a gay or even a polygamous group legally write up for themselves a de-facto marriage?

 

It is possible to do many of those things through legal documents. In fact, even in the case of a state-recognized marriage, it's still a good idea--in fact, often mandatory--to have a power of attorney, an advance medical directive, or the like to accomplish some of what you contemplate. The problem is that many people simply don't do these things, or once they draft a will or other legal document, tend to file it and leave it as is for years.

 

As an example of how that might affect someone, if you or I were to draft a will bequeathing our possessions to, say, Fernando, then later marry our wives (lovely women, both of them), the law would recognize our wives as having primacy with regard to our estate. If, on the other hand, you and I were gay and decided to "marry" one another without state sanction, we would have to draft new wills to change our bequest. The presumption of the law affording protection to one's legally-recognized spouse, even in the face of a premarital will, does not protect a gay couple, except where the state has recognized a civil union or marriage.

 

So, as you suggest, you can avail yourself of a lot of the legal benefits of marriage through the execution of legal documents, but you cannot fully duplicate those benefits. In addition, where statutes generally make some favorable assumptions to benefit a surviving spouse in a way that can overcome previous legal documents, those statutes don't apply to a non-recognized domestic partner.

[beemerman2k]

Thank you, Mike, for that illuminating insight.

 

I would simply like to clarify that Mike was simply stating a hypothetical, "what if", and that he and I have no plans or intentions of getting married anytime soon

[moshe_levy]

Gay marriage isn't about rights, its about acceptance.

 

Wrong. Flat out wrong. Law 101 defines rights as fundamental regulations which define what is allowed of people or owed to people.

 

When the State tells a certain segment of the population that it is not allowed to get married, and that what is owed those taxpaying citizens is, as a result, less, it is denying those people their rights.

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

PS Scott, will try to answer you a little later. Busy day at work.

 

-MKL

[Mike]

Thank you, Mike, for that illuminating insight.

 

I would simply like to clarify that Mike was simply stating a hypothetical, "what if", and that he and I have no plans or intentions of getting married anytime soon

 

Yes, while I find James to be a great guy, our relationship has not developed to the point where I feel compelled to leave my wife of 35 years.

 

But, he's a heck of a guy. If I ever turn gay, he would be exactly the sort of man . . . .

 

[beemerman2k]

[pbharvey]

 

When the State tells a certain segment of the population that it is not allowed to get married, and that what is owed those taxpaying citizens is, as a result, less, it is denying those people their rights.

 

-MKL

 

Which segment of the population are you referring to? The polygamists, the homosexuals, or first cousins (the sterile ones of course)?

 

 

[Whip]

Ya learn something new every day.

 

 

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

As soon as I saw that Whip posted here I knew there was trouble :smirk:

[Whip]

I am just glad y'all found a way to lighten up this thread.

 

Ya can't always leave it up to me.

 

[Nice n Easy Rider]

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"?

 

------

Just to be clear (and sorry if someone has already made this point but I'm been off the net for the last two weeks):

The North Carolina amendment to its constitution would not only ban gay marriages but would also make illegal gay civil unions and would disallow gay partners from legally being entitled to receive any benefits from their partners. IMHO, this amendment is not only against gay marriage but is against gays in general.

 

Businesses, especially global ones, have opposed the amendment because they fear it will make employees reluctant to move here and economic development folks fear that businesses will be unwilling to relocate here. The last poll had support FOR the amendment at 54%.

[moshe_levy]

 

When the State tells a certain segment of the population that it is not allowed to get married, and that what is owed those taxpaying citizens is, as a result, less, it is denying those people their rights.

 

-MKL

 

Which segment of the population are you referring to? The polygamists, the homosexuals, or first cousins (the sterile ones of course)?

 

 

I'm referring to the homosexuals, who are denied their rights for no apparent legal reason. Polygamy is illegal. So is incest. Homosexuality is not, and therefore their rights are being denied. This is not a very difficult concept to grasp, unless in your mind you are equating homosexuality with polygamy and incest in one big cesspool, which apparently is the underlying "reasoning" behind your argument.

 

We're talking about rights. And about legislation. So your example is not valid, in any sense. You're talking your version of morality, not rights and legalese.

 

-MKL

 

 

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm referring to the homosexuals, who are denied their rights for no apparent legal reason. Polygamy is illegal. So is incest. Homosexuality is not, and therefore their rights are being denied. This is not a very difficult concept to grasp, unless in your mind you are equating homosexuality with polygamy and incest in one big cesspool, which apparently is the underlying "reasoning" behind your argument.

 

Aren't you mixing apples and oranges? Polygamy is illegal and homosexual marriage is illegal. So far as I know, group sex is not illegal and homosexuality is not illegal.

[pbharvey]

 

Polygamy may be illegal as far as having multiple wifes but is it illegal for a man to have more than one live-in girlfriend? Perfectly legal yet you want to deny his right to marry.

[Bruce (Bedford)]

...or as cursed becuase of Noah's curse in his son Ham.

 

Or some would have it Ham was the white one!!!

As I said the Bible is not a simple book but it can be read by simpletons!

Bruce

[beemerman2k]

...or as cursed becuase of Noah's curse in his son Ham.

 

Or some would have it Ham was the white one!!!

As I said the Bible is not a simple book but it can be read by simpletons!

Bruce

 

No doubt some might interpret it that way as well.

 

I think the idea is that Ham is cursed by Noah, and Hams descendants end up populating Africa and the non-Jewish Middle East (according to biblical lore, I personally highly doubt the historical accuracy of this material). Therefore, the thinking goes, all of Hams descendants share in his curse, nevermind that chapters like Exekiel 18 clearly state that God does not work this way.

 

According to this same material, Noah's son Japheth's descendants populate Europe and Asia, for what it's worth.

 

By the way, the reason I believe this material is in the bible in the first place is to establish why, several books later, Joshua will lead Israel to conquer the land of Canaan, who himself (Canaan,that is) was a descendant of Ham.

[pbharvey]

Noah cursed Canaan, Ham's son, not Ham.

 

Ironic this comes up in this thread as some scholars believe what Ham did to Noah was homosexual in nature.

 

Nothing new under the sun and all that...

 

[beemerman2k]

Noah cursed Canaan, Ham's son, not Ham.

 

Ironic this comes up in this thread as some scholars believe what Ham did to Noah was homosexual in nature.

 

Nothing new under the sun and all that...

 

Yes, you are correct. It's been a while since I last read that passage.

 

If Adam and Eve were at one time, the only humans on the planet, then incest was the only way humans could "go forth and be fruitful", right? All these early stories present problems for the reader to have to think about.

[pbharvey]

There's a lot of weird sex stuff in the Bible. The "don't try this at home" list spelled out in the Levitical law tells you it was an issue even way back then.

[SANTA]

Noah cursed Canaan, Ham's son, not Ham.

 

Ironic this comes up in this thread as some scholars believe what Ham did to Noah was homosexual in nature.

 

Nothing new under the sun and all that...

 

okay but lets understand the text correctly

 

And Noah began to be a farmer, and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk, and became uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders, and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. So Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done to him. Then he said: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants he shall be to his brethren." And he said: "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem, and may Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem; and may Canaan be his servant."

 

Much of the explanation may be found in the meaning of the Hebrew phrase, 'to look upon his/her nakedness.' Look up Leviticus 18:6-18 and 20:17. uncovering the nakedness was a nice way of say having a sexual encounter with the persons spouse whether a near relative or more removed relative, taking this then suggests Ham took advantage of his mother while his father was drunk and then tried to get his brothers to do the same... Noah couldn't curse his own son so he cursed his grandson...

 

the outcome of that curse i don't so clearly understand

[pbharvey]

I agree that the incident with his mother is the most probable. There are others who believe differently though.

[Couchrocket]

Gay marriage isn't about rights, its about acceptance.

 

 

I'll ask a question with the context of James' post to which you responded above in mind.

 

Acceptance of what?

[pbharvey]

Gay marriage isn't about rights, its about acceptance.

 

 

I'll ask a question with the context of James' post to which you responded above in mind.

 

Acceptance of what?

 

In my opinion, acceptance of their lifestyle as normal and mainstream. Many of the rights people are harping about can be obtained through the current legal system. I think its more about making a bunch of noise to validate themselves.

[Roadwolf]

Many of the rights people are harping about can be obtained through the current legal system. I think its more about making a bunch of noise to validate themselves.

 

You know, when I read stuff like this, it just makes me sad for the near future. Eventually, most people will come recognize the folly of these kind of statements.

 

What, pray tell, does the current legal system provide for relief when a basic human right that you enjoy, I am sure, is denied to a minority that you disapprove of. They petition the current legal system to have equal access to the benefits of marriage, job security, a place to live, but all that can be (and is) denied to them because of a vocal (and thankfully ever-decreasing with each passing year) majority of people say they don't like the homosexual "lifestyle". Last time I checked, human rights were not up for a vote. You don't have the either the right nor the privilege to step between two committed people who love each other and want to commit to each other under the banner of a recognized marriage/union/whatever. Pretty clear to me, as it is the rest of the civilized world. Or would you prefer that they just go underground, as they have always done since time began?

 

And as to the comment of making a bunch of noise to be seen and heard, to puff themselves up... Hey, if you were being relegated to second class citizens in several key areas of public life, well, then you would be pissed too.

 

Jeez this stuff makes me... well, what's the use? Calling it a night.

[notacop]

RoadWolf, Zow you sound like me. All the Nattering Naybobs please sit down and button it!

[beemerman2k]

RoadWolf, Zow you sound like me. All the Nattering Naybobs please sit down and button it!

 

Forgive me, notacop, but I am going to take the liberty of translating your post lest it be viewed as something either offensive, or as a way to discourage open and contrarian views. ALL views are welcome in these discussions, and I would add that the contrarian views are particularly important to us because they cause us to reassess our own position on the matter.

 

So, I take it all you are really trying to say is: "I disagree with certain viewpoints in this thread"

 

OK, notacop, you disagree. Care to share with us your own views? Although anything you say may be scrutinized and criticized, just like everyone else's views are, you will certainly be adding to the richness of the discussion here

[ratfink]

Or would you prefer that they just go underground, as they have always done since time began?

 

Interesting phenomenon among gay-bashers. I'll call it Ted Haggard syndrome. Publicly defend a one man one woman veiw of marriage and legislate it onto the hapless others but then go out secretly and boink the boys.

 

Ted found out quickly that his followers don't really practice forgiveness very well either.

 

Or should I call it Larry Craig syndrome?

[moshe_levy]

I call it "The Inverse Law Of Outspoken Sexuality," essentially saying that the more a public figures speaks out against homosexuality, the higher the chances that, in time, he will be caught doing far worse. Bonus points if the public figure is religious, in which case the really freaky stuff will come out - just give it time. The list of such morons is endless. Haggard is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

Wow, those who are opposed to same-sex marriage are gay-bashing homophobes, or better yet, closet homosexuals? How about we discuss this like adults even though we disagree?

[moshe_levy]

Wow, those who are opposed to same-sex marriage are gay-bashing homophobes, or better yet, closet homosexuals?

 

Actually, on the public stage, the answer is often "YES." So why can we not discuss this FACT like adults, and what the underlying reasons are. The Ted Haggard scandal from 2006, as you surely recall, was where the founder of the National Association of Evangelicals and one of the most vicious anti-gay voices out there was found paying male prostitutes to "do his thang," which also included snorting crystal meth.

 

That same year, of course, we had Mark Foley, Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, caught coming on strong to young male congressional pages.

 

Why, only a year later, we had Larry Craig, didn't we? The Senator who voted against adding sexual orientation to federal hate crime law, and of course also supported various efforts against gay marriage - who of course was caught soliciting gay sex from an undercover cop in an airport bathroom.

 

And what about Bob Allen, from the Florida legislature, where he lead the fight to ensure gays were banned from adopting children? Caught soliciting gay sex from an undercover cop in a public park in 2007.

 

In 2010 we had prominent anti-gay activist (and co-founder of the "Family Research Council") George Rekers, who was caught in 2010 with a male escort rented from Rentboy.com.

 

Glen Murphy ring a bell? Preacher Paul Barnes? Christian leader George Alan Rekers? Famous televangelist Albert Odulele? Eddie Long? If not, look 'em up. Have fun at this! It really is fun to watch the preachers talk one game to their sheep and do another behind closed doors.

 

I mean, do you REALLY want me to list ALL the hypocrites one by one? Do you have time to read novel? Because that's how long it would be - just in the past 10 years alone.

 

Always remember, when it comes to this issue, those that "dath protest TOO much." Normal, well adjusted people don't care too much what other people do in their bedrooms, so long as nobody's hurt in the process. Those that DO protest, are often well involved in the very thing they protest against - except for with hookers and underage boys, instead of regular gay relationships!

 

-MKL

[moshe_levy]

To the mods / James - a question was asked. It is impossible to answer Mr. Harvery's question without naming names, and positions, to prove the point. This was not intended as a political post - just names, positions, and scandals. There are many more.

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

Always remember, when it comes to this issue, those that "dath protest TOO much." Normal, well adjusted people don't care too much what other people do in their bedrooms, so long as nobody's hurt in the process. Those that DO protest, are often well involved in the very thing they protest against -except for with hookers and underage boys, instead of regular gay relationships!

 

Ok, thanks for that.

 

You're probably aware that some people sincerely love and appreciate people yet disagree with their actions. You're probably also aware that some people could care less if others have any type of sexual relationship they desire yet still believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. Many regular people think this way, and they're not all rightwing nut jobs.

 

Admin Edit: Content removed for being completely inappropriate.

[moshe_levy]

Many regular people think this way, and they're not all rightwing nut jobs.

 

Perhaps many "regular" people think this way, but enough of the self-proclaimed leaders of the "defense of marriage" movement ARE hypocrites, to the point where when someone's on the public stage howling about the supposed immorality of gay people, any person with a scintilla of historical context asks himself, "OK, what's HE up to behind the scenes??" You guys bring up Jesse and Al constantly over on the Trayvon thread - doesn't the same apply to preachers and politicians looking to make hay at gay expense?

 

Quinn asked for legal reasons why people oppose gay marriage. He wasn't offered any. He asked for reason, and for fact. He wasn't offered any of that, either. He was given a nice dose of biblical references. And I suppose that's where all of this comes from. After 13 pages, I guess he can judge - as we call can - what this vitriol and hatred of our fellow citizens is based on. Don't tap dance around it - be honest with your feelings and what's behind proposes legislation as "Nice 'N Easy Rider" posted above in NC. Be honest.

 

And those of us who value reason and fact, and see history sadly repeating itself in this case as yet again, another minority in this "land of freedom and the individual" is persecuted for no valid reason beyond a backwards interpretation of a Bible that isn't even yours to begin with.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

. You're probably also aware that some people could care less if others have any type of sexual relationship they desire yet still believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. Many regular people think this way, and they're not all rightwing nut jobs.

 

So what defines "man" and "woman"? Is it the gender identified on their birth certificate or does it involve certain societal milestones?

 

What if a person is born with a physical anomaly or a warrior that is altered due to war wounds. What about a person that just does not identify mentally with the gender designated by a doctor at birth?

 

Do you have to have a Bar Mitzvah to be a man? A quinceañera to be woman?

[Dave McReynolds]

Wow, those who are opposed to same-sex marriage are gay-bashing homophobes, or better yet, closet homosexuals?

 

Actually, on the public stage, the answer is often "YES." So why can we not discuss this FACT like adults, and what the underlying reasons are. The Ted Haggard scandal from 2006, as you surely recall, was where the founder of the National Association of Evangelicals and one of the most vicious anti-gay voices out there was found paying male prostitutes to "do his thang," which also included snorting crystal meth.

 

That same year, of course, we had Mark Foley, Chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, caught coming on strong to young male congressional pages.

 

Why, only a year later, we had Larry Craig, didn't we? The Senator who voted against adding sexual orientation to federal hate crime law, and of course also supported various efforts against gay marriage - who of course was caught soliciting gay sex from an undercover cop in an airport bathroom.

 

And what about Bob Allen, from the Florida legislature, where he lead the fight to ensure gays were banned from adopting children? Caught soliciting gay sex from an undercover cop in a public park in 2007.

 

In 2010 we had prominent anti-gay activist (and co-founder of the "Family Research Council") George Rekers, who was caught in 2010 with a male escort rented from Rentboy.com.

 

Glen Murphy ring a bell? Preacher Paul Barnes? Christian leader George Alan Rekers? Famous televangelist Albert Odulele? Eddie Long? If not, look 'em up. Have fun at this! It really is fun to watch the preachers talk one game to their sheep and do another behind closed doors.

 

I mean, do you REALLY want me to list ALL the hypocrites one by one? Do you have time to read novel? Because that's how long it would be - just in the past 10 years alone.

 

Always remember, when it comes to this issue, those that "dath protest TOO much." Normal, well adjusted people don't care too much what other people do in their bedrooms, so long as nobody's hurt in the process. Those that DO protest, are often well involved in the very thing they protest against - except for with hookers and underage boys, instead of regular gay relationships!

 

-MKL

 

I know your intent in all these examples was to point out that on many occasions, those who protested against homosexual causes turned out to be homosexuals themselves. In some cases, not just homosexuals, but pedophiles. Do you really think these are good examples to use in support of your cause? Couldn't they just as easily be used as examples that many homosexuals are hypocritical enough to turn against their own (or any) cause to further their own personal objective for power? Then you have to counter that by coming up with statistics that show that really, not that many homosexuals are psychopathic lyers, and besides, there are lots of heterosexuals who would be just as apt to cut their mother's throat to get ahead. Somewhere in there I think your message gets lost, and it would probably be better to stay away from the negative examples.

 

The real message is that power attracts psychopathic personality types, and mixed in with the people who really want to make a meaningful contribution to society (whatever end of the spectrum their message is coming from) are a greater than normal percentage of people it wouldn't be a good idea to turn your back on.

[Ken H.]

Those that DO protest, are often well involved in the very thing they protest against - except for with hookers and underage boys, instead of regular gay relationships!

Oh, yeah. When ever we (Donna and I) see somebody ratching up the anti-gay rhetoric (there has been two rather new predominant ones of late) we just say, 'Well, I wonder how long it will be before he (and it is almost always a male) get’s out’ed/busted?'

 

If it wasn’t for all the damage they do in the process, it would almost be be laughably predicatable.

[pbharvey]

. You're probably also aware that some people could care less if others have any type of sexual relationship they desire yet still believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. Many regular people think this way, and they're not all rightwing nut jobs.

 

So what defines "man" and "woman"? Is it the gender identified on their birth certificate or does it involve certain societal milestones?

 

What if a person is born with a physical anomaly or a warrior that is altered due to war wounds. What about a person that just does not identify mentally with the gender designated by a doctor at birth?

 

Do you have to have a Bar Mitzvah to be a man? A quinceañera to be woman?

 

That's interesting you brought that up. Last night my oldest son and I were having that discussion. He's taking a sociology class as a college elective and he's writing a paper on "nature vs. nurture". His text for the class was the book about two twins where one of them had a very, very bad circumcision and the doctor ended up performing a sex change operation on the child - a horribly tragic story. The boy was raised as a girl yet still acted like a boy (aggressive, played with boy toys, sat with his legs apart, etc.) Eventually he got another sex change operation to return to a male. We had a very interesting conversation about homosexuality, gender identity and hermaphrodites.

 

Can a hermaphrodite be a homosexual? Can they be a heterosexual?

 

We also talked about homosexuality (or maybe better stated, apparent homosexual acts) occurring in the animal kingdom and what to make of it.

 

I bet soon, public restrooms will no longer be gender specific for the very reasons you state.