Gay marriage

[pbharvey]

Not necessarily, no.

 

But his statement on its own just isn't universally true. It's true, for example, if the person is the lone "voice of reason against the howling mob." (Neil Peart's words, not mine). It's not true, for example, if the person is the lone howling loon going against the grain of reason, fact, and basic fairness.

 

Certainly as you see the opposition to homosexuals in this country is not limited to one lone howling loon. So going against the grain doesn't mean much, whether it's an anti-gay protestor in San Francisco or a pro-gay rally in North Carolina. The grain is very regional, obviously.

 

The issue here is law, and whether it applies equally to all tax-paying law-abiding citizens, or not.

 

-MKL

 

As demonstrated here, one man's voice of reason is another man's howling loon.

 

Some people think a woman has a right to end her own child's life before she gives birth to it. Some people find this perfectly reasonable. After all, why suffer the inconvenience of an unplanned pregnancy? I mean its the woman's right, its her body, her life - good grief what the heck is wrong with letting her decide what's best? Other people may find the idea of surgically removing an 8 month old child from its mother's womb just because the woman expresses her right to do so, horrifying and uncivilized. One could mount a substantial argument based on reason, fact, and fairness that this view is the one of reason and the opposing view is loony.

 

And so it goes with opinions. We can stack up any number of supporting "facts" on our own view gun control, abortion, gay marriage, etc.

 

Its a shame though that the discussion has broken down into name calling and labels of bigotry.

 

Those of you who want everyone to have the right to marry, extend that right to everyone without prejudice. Gay marriage isn't about gay rights, its about human rights, right?

[moshe_levy]

As demonstrated here, one man's voice of reason is another man's howling loon.

 

No, not really. We have pretty clearly established, in these now 16 pages, that there is absolutely no reason on one side of this argument. No reason whatsoever, in even the loosest definition of the word "reason." It is simply a regressive social attitude which, by the admission of the proponents of it themselves, is doomed within a generation. Reason is NEVER doomed within a generation - outdated bigotry is.

 

Now James played devil's advocate and asked to "think things through" for an even longer period of time. I agree, a headlong rush into anything is the wrong move. But is this a headlong rush? Much like any argument, there are two sides which will knee jerk to one direction or another regardless of facts or reason. Gays? BAD! or... Gays? GOOD. No matter what you say, ideology and dogmatic thinking will keep these two sides apart. And so we look to the independent thinker - the critical reasoner - and he / she will be the ones to sway the outcome. How do we recognize this critical thinker?

 

Go back to post #1 here. Quinn demonstated this quality in spades. He asked if there are any REASONABLE or FACTUAL reasons to deny a segment of the population their civil rights. He was open to hearing suggestions. Presumably this meant he was open to being swayed, and that he is not locked into any position regardless of what he hears. This is the hallmark of the type of person whose opinion will eventually be "more equal" than others, because he is actually thinking with an open mind, not mindlessly regurgitating his ideological standpoint.

 

And, not to belabor this point yet again, in 16 pages we have NOT seen reason, or fact. We have seen, in order of frequency:

 

1) Religious protest

2) Slippery Slope

3) Red Herring

 

Now the critical thinker sees the smoke and mirrors, so his brain next moves to history. What has happened in the past when we stepped on others' throats for relgious protest, slippery slope, and red herring? We HAVE done it, many times. In EACH time, what was the end result? Is there ONE time - just ONCE - that we kept our foot on their throats after examining the national soul, and all said together, "What a GREAT decision, to keep those people DOWN?" Or do we look back in national shame and embarrassment? Indians? Blacks? Women? When was it RIGHT, to keep others down? When the tap dancing is over, the answer is so painfully obvious.

 

Hence, viewed in this context, you see why people are impatient when the same tired old 100% bullshit arguments are trotted out yet again to keep the new "Scapegoat Du Jour" under the boot. We've been down this road before, and we know the ending already. So why keep repeating the same stupid mistakes? Why not learn from them? And add to that, it is downright insulting to pretend that we are reinventing the wheel on this issue. Our Canadian members have chimed in - I dare say, if others from other countries that have enacted this policy chime in, we will hear the same as the Canadians. They have blazed the trail - we're only following. And NONE of the doom and gloom came true. NONE.

 

So "let's think a little longer" is a cop-out, an excuse to keep discrimination alive despite all the reasonable, factual, moral, legal, and historical lessons to the contrary. How stupid can we be, and for how long?

 

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing — after they’ve tried everything else." - Winston Churchill

 

-MKL

 

 

[Roadwolf]

Gay marriage isn't about gay rights, its about human rights, right?

 

If only the sarcasm could be stripped away here... then this would indeed be the revelation of the entire thread.

[pbharvey]

Gay marriage isn't about gay rights, its about human rights, right?

 

If only the sarcasm could be stripped away here... then this would indeed be the revelation of the entire thread.

 

No sarcasm on my end. I'm trying to reveal the prejudice expressed towards homosexuals in this thread. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples yet those in a loving, committed multiple spouse relationship are denied those rights. Oh, they're just a tiny minority no one could possible care about those people besides what woman in her right mind would go along with something like that?

 

If you truly believe marraige is a right, it needs to be extended to anyone who wants to partake.

 

...or maybe you don't think marriage is a right. Maybe you think its only reserved for those who meet your criteria.

[moshe_levy]

Arguing a point based 100% on red herring is simply not an honest path to reaching conclusion. Why are you afraid to confront the topic of THIS thread, which is GAY marriage? Not polygamy. Not children. Not animals. Nothing else - GAY marriage. Argue why you feel it's wrong based on reason, logic, fact, or history. Why is it that you cannot address THIS issue directly? Hmmmm.....

 

It is very telling, and yet another example of why as I have been saying, one side of this argument has no fact, reason, or history behind it. Just fear based on stereotype which, if you bother to look elsewhere, is totally 100% unfounded - and this is key, because your entire argument is based on a fear that the world will end and we will all slide into moral decay if this civil right is allowed. And yet, when tried, that hasn't happened.

 

Your argument is the same as saying "What if the sun rises in the WEST tomorrow?" It's nice for some abstract philosophy 101 class, but it has no place in a serious discussion because science and history have already settled this topic.

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

On the other hand, pbharvey seems to not only agree that homosexuals ought to be able to marry, but polygamous marriages ought to be allowed as well.

 

I say, "no problem", to that. But talk about the need to anticipate unintended consequences! Our institutions (laws, courts, child support services, schools, etc) are not set up with this in mind, so we really need to think this through.

 

But I would guess that pbharvey has finally come around to the pro-Gay marriage side of things

[Dave McReynolds]

I'm curious about what you hope to gain by calling someone else's question "irrelevant?". Certainly the person who asked it doesn't consider it irrelevant, or he wouldn't have asked it. People who already are in favor of gay marriage won't be affected by your answer. Do you think there might be someone on the fence line out there who will say, "whew! I was worried about that polygamy issue, but now that I know it's 'irrelevant' I'm ready to get on board the gay marriage train!"

[Roadwolf]

No sarcasm on my end. I'm trying to reveal the prejudice expressed towards homosexuals in this thread. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry and enjoy the same rights as heterosexual couples yet those in a loving, committed multiple spouse relationship are denied those rights. Oh, they're just a tiny minority no one could possible care about those people besides what woman in her right mind would go along with something like that?

 

If you truly believe marraige is a right, it needs to be extended to anyone who wants to partake.

 

...or maybe you don't think marriage is a right. Maybe you think its only reserved for those who meet your criteria.

 

Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous posts, because it was certainly inferred... I don't have a problem with extending rights to non-traditional views of marriages... but I believe that your bringing it up is a red herring to show the slippery slope argument. The other arrangements will sort themselves out once we get past the hard and fast, carved in stone view of what a marriage is as defined by conservative religious ideologues. Their definition is outdated, discriminatory and harmful to swaths of groups in the U.S. Once that has been put aside, then other "forms" of unions can be dealt with, of which, by and large, is the LGBT community.

 

So, to answer your question, I do believe marriage is a right... to all. Do you?

[Fubar]

What are the rational (non-religious) reasons ...... against gay marriages?

There aren't any.

[beemerman2k]

I absolutely see marriage as a right. Put another way, there isnt a government or a power on earth that should have the authority to deny the right to marry.

 

It all comes back to "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you".

 

You want to descecrate your right to marry? Deny others that same right.

 

That's how I see things anyhow. The problem is that not everyone agrees with me. So I need to listen to counterpoint, which is easy to do given that all we have here are opinions; the law makers aren't going to consult this thread as they consider this matter, so the fight here is essentially of no consequence. And then, after I have listened and considered the merits of the counter points, maybe I can successfully address them, or at least better understand the issues with respect to the opposition.

 

That's the beauty of the debates we engage in, they make for wonderful mind expanding opportunities

[moshe_levy]

I'm curious about what you hope to gain by calling someone else's question "irrelevant?". Certainly the person who asked it doesn't consider it irrelevant, or he wouldn't have asked it.

 

The person who asks it may not consider it irrelevant, but his feelings alone do not automatically make it relevant. What is relevant here is that we're talking about gay marriage, and the retort has to do with anything but gay marriage. We've heard polygamy, children, animals, etc. So no, it's not relevant. How about we start arguing over whether a BMW is more comfortable than a Moto-Guzzi, and I ask a question about the weather. I may feel it's relevant to the discussion, but unless the weather affects the central question of BMW vs. Guzzi, it in fact is not relevant.

 

The central question here revolves around gay people getting married. Until the opposition to that idea can formulate ONE single rational, factual, logical, reasonable, or historical context in which to frame their argument, we will continue to get:

 

1) Religious Interpretation

2) Slippery Slope

3) Red Herring

 

Because reason, fact, logic, and history is on the side I am arguing, I challenge anyone on the other side to make an argument devoid of religious interpretation, slippery slope, or red herring. So far, 16 pages, and no takers... Says a great deal about the mushy foundation of the arguments they're putting forth, which once again, by their own admission, can't stand the test of time by even one generation from now. How sad, to be married to such a nonsensical point of view!

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

What are the rational (non-religious) reasons ...... against gay marriages?

There aren't any.

 

I would have to agree with your response.

 

Objections to gay marriage on rational grounds would have to pose such questions as:

 

How does gay marriage effect survival of species, or on a more local level, survival of our culture, society or country?

 

How does gay marriage effect public health?

 

How does gay marriage effect crime?

 

And other questions of that nature. Mine are simply examples of how questions could be posed that would address the question posed by the original post on a rational basis.

 

I really can't come up with any reasons why gay marriage would have a negative effect on any of the issues I raise. One might argue that gay marriage does nothing to further survival of our species, but one could counter that the biggest threat to survival of our species is our own proliferation, and gay marriage certainly doesn't add to that. One might argue that gay marriage might set a precident that would spawn spurious causes where other groups claim that their civil rights have been violated, but I am willing to deal with whatever other causes might arise on their own merits.

 

I'm sure that most who are opposed to gay marriage would freely admit that their opposition is based on either moral or religious grounds, which is why arguments on rational grounds have not been forthcoming. People who are against gay marriage believe that gay marriage would just be another spoke in the wheel rolling us down the hill of societal decay. Many people on either side of the argument would agree that Western civilization is in a decline, and draw parallels to the Roman Empire. Everyone has their pet theory as to why that is happening. No one would deny that our moral values are different than they were in times when Western civilization in general, and the US in particular, was on the ascendancy. Some people feel that the changes in our moral values are incidental to our decline; others feel that they are a primary causative factor. Yet others no doubt feel that while a lot of our moral values have deteriorated, some changes in our moral values have been positive, and would point to gay marriage as an example of a change that runs counter to the overall trend.

 

I don't believe that many of us would like to completely divorce morality from our legal system, even though "don't legislate morality," is a common mantra. Morality is the foundation of our legal system, predating written laws, and I don't believe it would be possible to eliminate it entirely, even if everyone agreed to the concept.

 

Supporters of gay marriage include those who believe gay marriage would be a benefit to society, and those who may have their doubts about that, but believe the question should be withdrawn from the legal arena (I include myself in this category). The opposition to gay marriage includes those who believe there would be no benefit to society in expanding the definition of marriage beyond "one man, one woman," and those who believe that homosexuality is immoral and like some other moral issues, such as prostitution, should continue to be prohibited by law. I see people of good faith on both sides of the issue, and believe the best solution for our society is to allow a consensus to emerge.

[ratfink]

Thing that really bugs me about this discussion are the allusions to bestiality and polygamy. They are inflammatory, ignorant and just down right wrong. The bestiality thing is dehumanizing and that's how an insecure underachiever in Germany got his start on the road to power.

 

If sheep herders chase ewes then that is a straight problem.

 

Polygamy is rampant in states that have a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Utah and Arizona. They simply have no will to enforce the law unless a case gets nationwide attention. The only possible connection to gays is if the lonely sister-wives start hitting each other while hubby is obssesed with his new 14 year old bride.

 

Gay people face an internal struggle that most other minorities do not. Am I OK? Do I have a choice? Will my parents disown me? will my church ex-communicate me? If they decide to come out they do it knowing that they face opposition and sometimes unknown cosequences. They shouldn't be compared to the ugly behavior of people they have no connection to. To me such comparisons are offensive and inflammatory and I don't even have dog in the hunt.

To a gay person they must be horribly demeaning.

[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"?

 

------

 

 

 

Well, after 32 pages of responses, I think I've now arrived at a more rational, informed opinion. Shame I only get one vote, isn't it?

 

First point for me was that definations change with times. We, the People now includes Blacks and Women; their time for recognition finally came after grabbing society by the ears and getting their attention. Did they always have the right? Yes, but it wasn't legally recognized. Gays have done their homework and are now accepted as a facet of We the People by the rest of the club. The government should also be color, sex, and sexual orientation blind whenever possible. I don't even think it should recognize political parties. Off subject, but illegal immigrants are another group trying to get in the We the People clubhouse now.

 

Next point is that marriage is, as far as goverment is concerned, a legal contract. Two people that meet certain conditions enter into a specific type of partnership that grants specific benefits and responsibilities. Incesties, polygamists, etc. don't meet those conditions as things are written now. Gays do if we get the man/woman thing out of the way. And I think society should be ready to do just that. If sex is not relevent for jobs, pay, etc. then it shouldn't be for a marriage contract.

 

Last point. As for legal consequences, it doesn't matter. If it's the right thing to do, then it's the right thing to do.

 

 

-------

 

 

[moshe_levy]

An excellent summary. One hopes as the public at large considers the arguments made by both sides of this issue, that they too will arrive at the same rational conclusions you did.

 

-MKL

[SANTA]

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"?

 

------

 

 

 

Well, after 32 pages of responses, I think I've now arrived at a more rational, informed opinion. Shame I only get one vote, isn't it?

 

First point for me was that definations change with times. We, the People now includes Blacks and Women; their time for recognition finally came after grabbing society by the ears and getting their attention. Did they always have the right? Yes, but it wasn't legally recognized. Gays have done their homework and are now accepted as a facet of We the People by the rest of the club. The government should also be color, sex, and sexual orientation blind whenever possible. I don't even think it should recognize political parties. Off subject, but illegal immigrants are another group trying to get in the We the People clubhouse now.

 

Next point is that marriage is, as far as goverment is concerned, a legal contract. Two people that meet certain conditions enter into a specific type of partnership that grants specific benefits and responsibilities. Incesties, polygamists, etc. don't meet those conditions as things are written now. Gays do if we get the man/woman thing out of the way. And I think society should be ready to do just that. If sex is not relevent for jobs, pay, etc. then it shouldn't be for a marriage contract.

 

Last point. As for legal consequences, it doesn't matter. If it's the right thing to do, then it's the right thing to do.

 

 

-------

 

 

sorry can't agree with your nice 2 step formulation

 

in your previous post you refuse to accept possible religious basis, slippery slope or red herrings...

 

red herrings aside

 

marriage by definition (now here comes the religion part) is accepted by many cultures and ethnicitys as being between an man and a woman. God ordained it that way. you can refuse to acknowledge that, won't change his position. i gather that many now chose to oppose this religious position do so because they have refused to acknowledge the presence of a Supreme God. I can't change anyones opinion, so just stating mine.

 

now as to slippery slope, society is build on the family, as the family go (fails) so does the society, just look around you and tell me that all is well in America. two moms or two dads, don't make a better place to grow up than a complete home with a mom and a dad, two same sex partners do not present real family values, which will have further consequences down the road.

 

the bible clearly states God's view of the situation, i will not add anything further to it

 

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

marriage by definition (now here comes the religion part) is accepted by many cultures and ethnicitys as being between an man and a woman. God ordained it that way. you can refuse to acknowledge that, won't change his position. i gather that many now chose to oppose this religious position do so because they have refused to acknowledge the presence of a Supreme God. I can't change anyones opinion, so just stating mine.

 

Owing to the principle of separation of church and state, we can't readily enact laws that rely entirely on religious precepts for support. You may be morally opposed to gay marriage just as some folks are morally opposed to stores being open on Sunday, but under the existing US constitution, if you want to officially outlaw gay marriage, you'll have to find a non-religious justification.

 

two moms or two dads, don't make a better place to grow up than a complete home with a mom and a dad...

 

...Nor do they make a worse place.

 

...two same sex partners do not present real family values, which will have further consequences down the road.

 

For the sake of the discussion, can you clarify what those real family values are?

 

[moshe_levy]

O/P specifically asked for "non-religious" reasons, and he got his answer - none exist. Nobody's going to change anybody's mind once that line in the sand is drawn, because reason no longer applies.

 

-MKL

[pbharvey]

Thing that really bugs me about this discussion are the allusions to bestiality and polygamy. They are inflammatory, ignorant and just down right wrong. The bestiality thing is dehumanizing and that's how an insecure underachiever in Germany got his start on the road to power.

 

If sheep herders chase ewes then that is a straight problem.

 

Polygamy is rampant in states that have a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Utah and Arizona. They simply have no will to enforce the law unless a case gets nationwide attention. The only possible connection to gays is if the lonely sister-wives start hitting each other while hubby is obssesed with his new 14 year old bride.

Gay people face an internal struggle that most other minorities do not. Am I OK? Do I have a choice? Will my parents disown me? will my church ex-communicate me? If they decide to come out they do it knowing that they face opposition and sometimes unknown cosequences. They shouldn't be compared to the ugly behavior of people they have no connection to. To me such comparisons are offensive and inflammatory and I don't even have dog in the hunt.

To a gay person they must be horribly demeaning.

 

 

I'm not sure I follow you here. How can you discriminate against a man and two women who all sincerely love each other and want the benefit of marriage? To you it may be vile and perverted but they should have the same freedom and rights as all the other "we the people" after all they are tax-paying, law abiding citizens. I'm so tired of all the redneckish polygamaphobic poly-bashing.

 

....the animal lovers though - that's a horse of a different color.

 

[Quinn]

sorry can't agree with your nice 2 step formulation

 

in your previous post you refuse to accept possible religious basis, slippery slope or red herrings...

 

red herrings aside

 

marriage by definition (now here comes the religion part) is accepted by many cultures and ethnicitys as being between an man and a woman. God ordained it that way. you can refuse to acknowledge that, won't change his position. i gather that many now chose to oppose this religious position do so because they have refused to acknowledge the presence of a Supreme God. I can't change anyones opinion, so just stating mine.

 

now as to slippery slope, society is build on the family, as the family go (fails) so does the society, just look around you and tell me that all is well in America. two moms or two dads, don't make a better place to grow up than a complete home with a mom and a dad, two same sex partners do not present real family values, which will have further consequences down the road.

 

the bible clearly states God's view of the situation, i will not add anything further to it

 

 

I, in turn, can't agree with your two point rebuttel.

 

Sounds like you're having trouble with the idea of a government marriage vs. a religious marriage. Gays can already get married, somebody somewhere will do it for them; what they want is government recognition and the things that go with that. Probably if they'd chosen to call it something other than marriage, it would be more acceptable to you.

 

Now, down your slippery slope with Ward and June Cleaver. That Mom and Pop ship sailed a long time ago and it ain't coming back to port. Single parent households and working Moms were rare when I was growing up. Free love and uppitty women changed that sixty years ago. There is a new reality that has become too prevalent for "don't ask, don't tell" to work. There are same sex married couples raising children. What they want is legal recognition. I'm sure mixed marriages fought the same battle.

 

So, please step back and consider. Lots of religions think gay marriage is a sin, but some don't. The government isn't in the religion business; it's in the contract business. So, if you admit that gays are real people and not some sort of lower semi-human group, then they have a right to have their marriages (domestic partnerships or other verbal gymnastics) recognized by law.

 

During my lifetime, I'm certain one day that someone with say, "Hey look, Paul and John are getting married next week." I'm also sure that someone else will respond, "Yeah, but it ain't a Baptist marriage."

 

------

 

 

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

One Biblical story that I find to be refreshing is the story of Abraham's encounter with God over the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. We often read the story and walk away thinking, "gee, God really hates gay people. He even destroyed two cities because of them. We had better oppose those gays or God might destroy this city or country."

 

What I love about this story, however, is Abraham's attitude toward the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah: not only does Abraham NOT approve of Gods decision to destroy those cities, he negotiates on behalf of the people there. Why didn't Abraham cower in fear or relish the destruction of those evil homosexuals? Why did Abraham dare to voice his opposition to Gods plan? Why did Abraham even risk his own life to save Lot, his family, and anyone else he could?

 

One word: integrity.

 

Abraham was a man of conscience, and ultimately his conscience had to be addressed, no matter how great and mighty and angry and scary and all powerful this God might be. Abraham did not agree with God and dammit, he dared to take a firm stand on his principles.

 

This is exactly how I feel with respect to religion, God, wrath, destruction, and whatever. It may be that America is "falling into moral decay" (I laugh when people say this; the way women and minorities were treated back in the good old days apparently doesn't count as "moral decay"). But the vast majority of Americans have written upon their hearts a desire to see all people treated with respect, and granted equal freedoms and dignity as any other. So strongly do Americans feel this way, that not even a big giant mean and scary all powerful God in heaven with a collection of lighting bolts and thunder drums or tornado and earthquake machines is going to quell the desire for Americans to see all people treated equally.

 

I do not believe the point of Genesis 19 is Gods disdain for homosexuals, but even if it is, my heart and my conscience and my standards demand that all people are to be treated equally. If God decides not to honor their marriage, that's on him, I will honor their marriage. Like Abraham, I disagree and I am not going to cower in fear and promote something that violates every sense of decency in me out of FEAR of the wrath of a "loving Savior".

 

I intend to act on what I know to be right, not on what any other entity--a sacred book or hearsay as to how God feels about the matter--dictate my actions. And if this loving Savior decides to destroy me as a result? I die in the peace of knowing I was true to myself. I consider the wisest words ever written to be:

 

To thine own self be true

[Ken H.]

I do agree that religion has a lot to do with the public's general opposition to homosexuals, but sometimes it's more of a latent side effect as opposed to an all out barrier. What I mean is this: opening the door to gay marriage is an awfully big door on the country; it can have a significant impact on the culture of America. I'm not arguing against gay marriage, my point is only that I can see why some might oppose it for reasons other than bigotry.

Bigotry upheld under the guise of religious beliefs is still bigotry.

 

With any action, there are always going to be unintended consequences. Not that there is ever a justifiable reason to deny anyone their civil rights, ever, but it wouldn't hurt us too much to think through the implications of the change.

Of course. But the real issue is do the advantages outweigh the unintended negative ones? And remember, the law of unintended consequences works both ways, negative and positive ones.

 

Put another way, if the change leads to a net negative impact on the Gay community, was it really progress?

Hasn’t happened anywhere else on the planet. USAmericans aren’t THAT unique in your love lives!

 

[Bruce (Bedford)]

I did say that I do take the Bible to be the inspired word of God didn't I?, and I think I said it could be read by simpletons too?, well IMHO to separate God's hatred of homosexuality from God's overall hatred of sin (falling short of God's standards), is too simple by far.

Gluttony, like it or not, is just as abhorrent to God as is sexual promiscuity or theft. So says the Bible.

Because of this God in his mercy provided a remedy... a 'loving savior' as Beemerman put it.

So as a christian man I might as well treat homosexual men and lesbian women with respect and dignity because in God's sight it seems I am no better and possibly worse!

With regards to God loving who he wishes and hating who he wishes well that's his choice, all I can say that I'm glad he loves me and a host of other 'sinners' be they speeders or murderers.

Until God chooses to wrap everything up WE have a world to run, not just a USA, and we need to run it with respect and justice - hints of which are contained in most religious writings and some declarations of Independence!

Being true to ones-self is OK but it does not go far enough at all.

Bruce

[Ken H.]

society is build on the family, as the family go (fails) so does the society, just look around you and tell me that all is well in America. two moms or two dads, don't make a better place to grow up than a complete home with a mom and a dad, two same sex partners do not present real family values, which will have further consequences down the road.

 

the bible clearly states God's view of the situation, i will not add anything further to it

Once again I refer to excellent work by Zach Wahls on just this subject. There is no data what-so-ever to support a decline in ‘family values” in same sex parented families. It just plain doesn’t exist, zero, nada, zilch, nothing.

 

ISFA the religious/immoral argument/position; of course anyone is free to have that opinion and argue against gay marriage from there. If someone wants to argue, ‘but, but, but you’ll go to hell’, well, then at least their being honest about their reasoning. But do so knowing full well the social arguments fall flat.

 

 

BTW, in Wahls' book he used the 10 characteristics of a Boy Scout's honor as his definition of "family values.” Of course a list could always be debated, but not a bad starting point.

 

[ratfink]

Thing that really bugs me about this discussion are the allusions to bestiality and polygamy. They are inflammatory, ignorant and just down right wrong. The bestiality thing is dehumanizing and that's how an insecure underachiever in Germany got his start on the road to power.

 

If sheep herders chase ewes then that is a straight problem.

 

Polygamy is rampant in states that have a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Utah and Arizona. They simply have no will to enforce the law unless a case gets nationwide attention. The only possible connection to gays is if the lonely sister-wives start hitting each other while hubby is obssesed with his new 14 year old bride.

Gay people face an internal struggle that most other minorities do not. Am I OK? Do I have a choice? Will my parents disown me? will my church ex-communicate me? If they decide to come out they do it knowing that they face opposition and sometimes unknown cosequences. They shouldn't be compared to the ugly behavior of people they have no connection to. To me such comparisons are offensive and inflammatory and I don't even have dog in the hunt.

To a gay person they must be horribly demeaning.

 

 

I'm not sure I follow you here. How can you discriminate against a man and two women who all sincerely love each other and want the benefit of marriage? To you it may be vile and perverted but they should have the same freedom and rights as all the other "we the people" after all they are tax-paying, law abiding citizens. I'm so tired of all the redneckish polygamaphobic poly-bashing.

 

....the animal lovers though - that's a horse of a different color.

 

When marriage falls apart it is up to the family courts to sort things out. Alimony, child support, custody, etc. etc. We have a system in place that more or less works for monogomous marriage. It's difficult and often unjust but we rely on it. Polygamous marriage dissolutions would be impossible.

 

Polygamy is just an unworkable albatross. It's a hetero albatross and to some degree a religious albatross. There is no good reason to hang this albatross around the neck of gay folks, unless one just wants to vilify them.

 

I heard gentlemen prefer palominos.

[BadAdam]

Damn. You folks sure get worked up over this.

[Smoky]

Yup, we get worked up!

But I'm sure glad to be affiliated with a group that can debate such an issue, in such a civilized manner.

This has been a real education.

 

Thanks all!

[beemerman2k]

Yup, we get worked up!

But I'm sure glad to be affiliated with a group that can debate such an issue, in such a civilized manner.

This has been a real education.

 

Thanks all!

 

I feel the same way.

 

I have been around long enough to remember when board members weren't nearly as mature as this group demonstrates itself as being. In fact, when this thread was created I feared we were finally going to fall over the proverbial cliff of good board etiquette. Instead we enjoyed a brisk, challenging, sometimes passionate debate. But at the end of it all, I can say with all sincereity that everyone involved has more of my personal respect now than when we started.

 

We have great members on this forum, and threads like this testify to that fact

[Scribner]

Yup, we get worked up!

But I'm sure glad to be affiliated with a group that can debate such an issue, in such a civilized manner.

This has been a real education.

 

Thanks all!

 

I feel the same way.

 

I have been around long enough to remember when board members weren't nearly as mature as this group demonstrates itself as being. In fact, when this thread was created I feared we were finally going to fall over the proverbial cliff of good board etiquette. Instead we enjoyed a brisk, challenging, sometimes passionate debate. But at the end of it all, I can say with all sincereity that everyone involved has more of my personal respect now than when we started.

 

We have great members on this forum, and threads like this testify to that fact

 

I agree, if I ever find myself during a cold rainy night on the side of the road with a dead bike (which means I'm probably on the Kawasaki:-)), the folks on this board are the kind of people I want on my side!!

[Matts_12GS]

snip....

I agree, if I ever find myself during a cold rainy night on the side of the road with a dead bike (which means I'm probably on the Kawasaki:-)), the folks on this board are the kind of people I want on my side!!

 

The only fight then would be who gets to help you first...

[beemerman2k]

Anyone know the outcome of todays North Carolina marriage amendment vote?

[moshe_levy]

Polls close at 7:30pm, about 10 minutes from now. We should know in a few hours. But it doesn't seem likely that reason will prevail, sadly.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

Maybe I miseed it earlier in our discussion but according to the Huffington Post, Amendment 1 will ban not only Gay Marriage but Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships as well.

[ratfink]

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT (Vote For 1) Vote Type Summary Contest Detail Map

0 of 100 Counties Reporting

Percent Votes

For 51.61% 100,117

Against 48.39% 93,887

194,004

 

Early result from NC elections website.

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Maybe I miseed it earlier in our discussion but according to the Huffington Post, Amendment 1 will ban not only Gay Marriage but Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships as well.

 

This is correct. They're hanging a big neon NOT WELCOME sign on their state, presumably to keep the big bad gays out, and in the meanwhile it will play hell with some straight arrangements as well - including child support obligations and such for straight civil unions and shack ups. Smart. Real smart.

 

-MKL

[Whip]

Anyone know the outcome of todays North Carolina marriage amendment vote?

 

 

It doesn't look good, but I think voting is the right way to handle this issue.

 

Both sides need to continue to make their case and eventually it will all work out.

 

 

 

 

[moshe_levy]

It doesn't look good, but I think voting is the right way to handle this issue.

 

 

Mmmm, yes, voting the is the right way to handle it. Majority rules. Except if we flip that around, and YOUR civil rights as plainly stated under law were being denied and then subject to a vote, I wonder if your opinion would change. I wonder if some states would still have those separate fountains and bathrooms, ban intermarriage, and so on. Hell, Georgia and Miss still hold segregated high school proms! (Yes. Google it.) After all, majority rules. Mob rules! Law? Only when it's convenient.

 

We either abide by equality under the law, or we don't. It's LAW, not a popularity contest.

 

-MKL

[ratfink]

Jim + Jane; introducing Mr. and Mrs. Crow. There goes the neighborhood.

[Dave McReynolds]

Aren't you jumping the gun a little on this? If it had already been determined that gay marriage was a civil right, then they wouldn't be having the election in NC. If it's ultimately determined NOT to be a civil right, won't you be going right back to that "mob" and trying to convince them otherwise in some subsequent election? If they vote in your favor then, will they still be a "mob?"

[Whip]

I understand your point, but (IMHO) unless you win the hearts and minds on an issue like this you will further divide the country.

 

 

The country is not ready yet, but it will happen in our lifetime.

 

Ten years ago you could not of convinced me we would have a black pres.

 

Time changes everything.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Aren't you jumping the gun a little on this? If it had already been determined that gay marriage was a civil right, then they wouldn't be having the election in NC. If it's ultimately determined NOT to be a civil right, won't you be going right back to that "mob" and trying to convince them otherwise in some subsequent election? If they vote in your favor then, will they still be a "mob?"

 

Dave, civil rights are not a popularity contest. They are a matter of law - that is the foundation of the Civil Rights movement. Not one state free and the other with separate but equal bullshit. States jumping the gun on this issue are going to lose in the courtroom, as they have been, like dominos. It's only a matter of time.

 

Whip is 100% correct in that this is really a generational issue, and the average voter turning up in NC according to the NY Times is 57. Younger voters overhwhelmingly favor civil rights, and older ones don't. As has been discussed earlier, by the admission of the anti-gay crowd, their view is doomed within a generation. As I said earlier, reason and fact don't go out of style. Outdated bigotry does because precisely because there is no reason, fact, logic, or history to support it. It's supported by intertia and ignorance, two powerful but not omnipotent forces.

 

The fools who support this amendment already admit as a given that this is a view that will not pass the test of time - but they want to stick it to minorities while they still have the chance to do it! That should tell you everything you need to know. It's sickening, low, and backwards. Would I try to appeal to this anti-gay "mob?" Hell, no. I would never try to appeal to an ignorant, backward fool using reason, fact, logic, and history, and the ignorant backward fool doesn't care about those things anyway. Their time will come. Each passing day brings them farther and farther from influence. Good riddance.

 

-MKL

 

 

[moshe_levy]

Well, the numbers are in: 61/39 in favor of the amendment which bans not only gay marriage, but also civil unions as well. The 29th state with such a provision in its constitution.

 

Remember these moments. Your kids and grandkids will ask you about them someday, and ask you if you were part of the problem, or part of the solution.

 

-MKL

[Dave McReynolds]

Yes civil rights are a matter of law, and the Supreme Court of the US has the final say in that. It's not a foregone conclusion that it will rule that gay marriage is a civil right.... And if it doesn't, you may well be back trying to convince the "mob" to support your position. Better be nice to them!

[pbharvey]

Well, the numbers are in: 61/39 in favor of the amendment which bans not only gay marriage, but also civil unions as well. The 29th state with such a provision in its constitution.

 

Remember these moments. Your kids and grandkids will ask you about them someday, and ask you if you were part of the problem, or part of the solution.

 

-MKL

 

I'll be proud to tell them that I was part of the solution.

[moshe_levy]

Better be nice to them!

 

Next time the state puts its boot on your throat, or your son's, or neighbor's or your friend's, I'll remind you to "be nice." Don't get mad! Don't fight back. Even if you know they're wrong, and even if THEY admit they're wrong. "Be nice."

 

-MKL

[beemerman2k]

The fools who support this amendment already admit as a given that this is a view that will not pass the test of time - but they want to stick it to minorities while they still have the chance to do it! That should tell you everything you need to know. It's sickening, low, and backwards. Would I try to appeal to this anti-gay "mob?" Hell, no. I would never try to appeal to an ignorant, backward fool using reason, fact, logic, and history, and the ignorant backward fool doesn't care about those things anyway. Their time will come. Each passing day brings them farther and farther from influence. Good riddance.

 

-MKL

 

Given that there have been comparisons between the struggle of our Gay brothers and sisters with that of blacks in America, allow me to make a wee comment on your sentiments, Moshe. What I fear about the attitude you express is that you may well "throw out the baby with the bath water" so to speak.

 

One thing I noticed King always and often did was that he referred to the segregationists who opposed him as "our sick, white brothers and sisters". In other words, he felt they were sick with hatred in their hearts, absolutely. Nonetheless, he also considered them to be his brothers and sisters, and therefore he was not interested in seeing them destroyed or even in the least bit harmed. He only sought enlightenment and reconciliation.

 

What King, and countless others like him realized was this: although some of these Americans were, as King would put it, "wrong on the race question", he felt they were ever so right on so many other issues. The baby of America's values were fought for, some at the cost of their lives, by these very people. The safety and the abundant resources that are available to us all are provided to us by these very people. The future of America is being guarded by these very people. Therefore, King sought to free them, and the country in general, of the bathwater of ignorance, prejudice, and fear, but at the same time to protect the baby of liberty, freedom, and prosperity producing citizens. In short, race question aside, King had a great deal of respect for those who would otherwise oppose him simply because of the accumulative effect they had on the maintenance of this great nation.

 

In my view, those who oppose Gay Marriage are misguided, and filled with fear and superstition. This fear is leading them to do something that is very un-American. But they are otherwise, guarding our families and teaching our young and fighting on the fronts and manufacturing our goods and services and providing the nation with a safe platform from which we can exercise our first amendment rights to free speech -- even if the speech is something protectors of this right don't want to hear. So let us only wish for enlightenment and reconciliation and understanding.

 

They are, after all, still our brothers and sisters

[ratfink]

If you're engaging in the polygamy thing, you may have to recite the story several times.

[Dave McReynolds]

Well said, James!

[Nice n Easy Rider]

Well, the numbers are in: 61/39 in favor of the amendment which bans not only gay marriage, but also civil unions as well. The 29th state with such a provision in its constitution.

 

Remember these moments. Your kids and grandkids will ask you about them someday, and ask you if you were part of the problem, or part of the solution.

 

-MKL

It's a sad day for many of us North Carolinians but there is a small amount of comfort in knowing that at least my county opposed the amendment by 79/21 percent. Of course, some of you might remember that when North Carolina was debating funding for a state zoo, Jesse Helms suggested that they didn't need a zoo - all they had to do was put a fence around Chapel Hill. So Chapel Hill has often traveled a different path than other areas in the state.

[moshe_levy]

In my view, those who oppose Gay Marriage are misguided, and filled with fear and superstition. This fear is leading them to do something that is very un-American. But they are otherwise, guarding our families and teaching our young and fighting on the fronts and manufacturing our goods and services and providing the nation with a safe platform from which we can exercise our first amendment rights to free speech -- even if the speech is something protectors of this right don't want to hear. So let us only wish for enlightenment and reconciliation and understanding.

 

James, I cannot pretend to have even a fraction of the patience and forgiveness practiced by Dr. King. Ever since I first read about him (my third grade class reading presentation was on him - I still remember that book report!) I have always been impressed by that level of understanding. There is definitely something to what you say, but I believe there is also something to what I say too. A little Malcolm mixed in, if you will.

 

Haven't we learned anything from our experience with Dr. King? Look at it this way: Almost 50 years after we hear "I Have A Dream," is there any part we would disagree with today? Pirsig taught us, to paraphrase Levi's, that "Quality never goes out of style." King's message of equality, true to the stated philosophy this country is founded on (note: stated, not always practiced) is quality. It is still just as true today, as it ever was. It will, in fact, forever be true. The proof? We look back, and say "How could anyone disagree with that?" as a nation. Now and hopefully forever. King shined a mirror on what was, and asked what was if it was what should be. And he moved us in that direction.

 

Do we remember the speeches from the opposition? Do we remember their values? Have they held up? Obviously not. Inertia and fear and ignorance never can defeat reason, fact, logic, fairness, and quality in the long term. Never. The proof? Nobody but the kooks and crazies looks back with fondness at anything the opposition did, whether it was speeches or blowing up churches or lynching or killing and maiming. It was wrong. All of it was wrong. And as a nation, we all say that together.

 

So I say this: If we are fools enough not to have learned from the past, we deserve what we get. If we were to learn from Dr. King, we would be applying these timeless principles to everyone everywhere, not just to black people in 1963. He addressed ALL of us, ALL the time, not just blacks in 1963. And you know this, when you listen to this speech, and that is exactly why the lesson still rings true today, and always will. Quality is timeless.

 

What supposedly separates humans from "lower animals" is cumulative learning. The ability to build upon history and improve. If we do not do that, we are going on instinct alone, doomed to flatline at a base level. The bear in the woods today is just as stupid as his grandfather was. No difference. All inertia and base level instinct. My daddy hated (___________) so I must hate (__________) so I will teach my kids to hate (_____________). Backwards and stupid for 3 generations and counting. I do not throw these people per se "out with the bathwater," but I certainly do not think this generational pattern is anything worth defending, nor will it survive in the numbers it enjoys today for much longer. It is worth attacking decisively, and destroying, so we can move past the cheap, disgusting habit of finding scapegoats for our own problems.

 

Because when you say these people "teach our young," what are they teaching, exactly? My group over yours? When you say they are fighting on the front line - for what, exactly? Justice for all except (_________)? Is that what this country was founded on? All of this is dishonest and won't hold up except in an echo chamber with no dissent. It is intellectually bankrupt.

 

In short I'd say with each passing generation we fail to heed the lessons of the past, we get a little more polarized, and more time, energy, blood, and treasure is wasted coming to the same conclusions our parents (well, some of them!) figured out long ago. If I could ask Dr. King a question today, it would be, "At what point does your patience for the same old BS opposition run out?"

 

-MKL