ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/17/2018 12:19 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.421 Visits   2 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
03/14/2005 10:32 PM ID: 46684 Permalink   

CA Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

 

When the California Supreme Court ruled that San Francisco gay marriage ceremonies were invalid, it asked that a lower court review the bigger picture. On Monday, that court issued its ruling: the state's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

Last year, Mayor Gavin Newsom challenged the ban by issuing 4,000 marriage licenses to gay couples. The move sparked national controversy - today voters in 11 states have supported measures to prevent such marriages, and 21 consider amendments.

California voters previously defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. The issue is expected to continue on to the state Supreme Court. "We're gratified by today's ruling," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera stated.

 
  Source: news.yahoo.com  
    WebReporter: MomentOfClarity Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  121 Comments
  
  GOOD  
 
It’s about time!
Gay marriage bands are so dumb!
The answer is so simple it’s none of your business so leave them (gays) alone!
“Oh but(t) It’s the end of the world...
OH DEAR!!!
DOOM, DOOM, DOOOOOM!!!”
 
  by: Emp3r0r     03/14/2005 10:46 PM     
  @emperor  
 
The strange thing is that the majority of voters still uphold the idea of a ban on gay marriage - it just seems the courts and politicians are bowing to pressuing from the vocal minority.

 
  by: lauriesman     03/14/2005 10:55 PM     
  @ lauriesman  
 
The strange thing is the majority of the public in 1955 (I believe it was around 70%) was against segregation of schools. But, politicians and judges "gave in" to the "vocal minority" and everything was segregated.

It's strange how history repeats itself...
 
  by: kolman36     03/14/2005 10:58 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Here's the thing that people don't quite seem to get when they bluster about "activist judges" and popular opinion: the court does not rule by popular opinion. It never has. It rules by reading and interpretting the law, founding documents, etc. The law of this land is that everyone deserves equal rights and protections under the law. Public opinion does not, and never did, figure into it.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/14/2005 11:01 PM     
  “Bowing to pressure”  
 
Or bowing to law or even intelligence or even a different set of moral values...
Oh wait your moral values are far superior...

kolman36 and MomentOfClarity
Yeah aren’t those nasty activist judges horrible!
 
  by: Emp3r0r     03/14/2005 11:16 PM     
  The link will work...  
 
Remove %20 from in front of www. I don't know why SN is adding this in there. I can't remove it.
 
  by: lurker     03/14/2005 11:36 PM     
  Regardless of Judges and @lauriesman  
 
LM I usually agree with you, whether I post to that affect or not.

This isn't about judges, it's about religion having a hold over people. The problem is, religion is not the sole provider of marriage. Since judges, and ships captains can marry you, to say that religion is a "covenant" between the couple and God is a bunch of shit. And I have to agree with Kolman I think, who said in 1955 most people thought segregation was ok. While racial prejudism is certainly more harmfuyl to a community than any other type, in my humble opinion,to deny anyonem the right to pursue happiness, as long as theya re not injuring another person, is simply un-american in any way shape or form, disguised as any religion or tradition or precedence. Yay for gays! Now if we can just get the activists to back off smoking....
 
  by: magnus   03/14/2005 11:38 PM     
  @ magnus  
 
Of course you have to agree with me - I'm right. :-D

Seriously though, I'm sick of hearing about "activist judges." That seems to be the name given to anyone who makes a decision that someone doesn't agree with.
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 12:01 AM     
  @magnus  
 
I definately agree with you on the idea of this whole thing being fueled by religion. I would like to add that since marriage is not only a religious right, but a lawful right as well, they can't do anything about it. The states have laws governing how many people a person can marry at one time (just 1). They allow people of every other religion to marry...hmmm. Disallowing gay marriage should never even be considered...it shows blatent disregard for people's rights. The only reason why anyone would want to ban gay marriage is to protect their religion...and since marriage licenses are handled by the state, the state can't do anything about it, else risk violating separation of church and state.
 
  by: TheAvenger8     03/15/2005 12:07 AM     
  @ theAvenger  
 
I just want to add that we allow atheists to marry - and atheists "go against God." So, to allow them to civilly marry, but not gays for that reason is kinda hypocritical.
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 12:23 AM     
  This won't matter U.S const admend will override  
 
The last thing the U.S. needs is more perversion and they certainly don't need someone on the bench saying it’s ok to be a sexual deviant. Boot the judge from office and restore the ban!
 
  by: Beatyoutoit   03/15/2005 01:24 AM     
  Only in California  
 
Pathetic.
 
  by: TheReporter     03/15/2005 01:48 AM     
  @TheAvenger  
 
First, gays don't have the right to marry in the first place in many states, since most state constitutions define marriage between a man and a woman. To allow gays to marry the right has to be actively granted.

Second, the separation of church and state has nothing to do with allowing, or not allowing, religion to sway the law. Banning religious convictions would prohibit people's freedom of speech, don't you think? Anyway, back on topic. The separation of church and state was put into place to stop the government from mandating any particular way people could worship God. "Religion," as it appears in the Constitution is not the pluralistic sense of "religion" where we have radically different systems of belief, "religion" referred to different factions of Christianity.

Anyhoo, personally I don't support gay marriage for the same reason I don't support people marrying their kitchen appliances, or their pets, or their kin, etc...I don't see why so many people think the racial/prejudicial comparison works in this regard, it clearly doesn't.
 
  by: foahchon.   03/15/2005 02:21 AM     
  appeal to bigotry  
 
the politicians' push for a ban on gay marriage was an appeal to the public's bigotry and closed-mindedness, disguised as an act to protect "the nation's morality". as others here have mentioned, the public used to be against abolition, interracial marriage, and desegregation of publicly operating institutions. the ban on gay marriage is just another attempt to thwart the principles the country was founded upon in the hopes of displacing them entirely. and don't give me that bullshit that the country was founded upon christian principles. washington, lincoln, jefferson, and thomas paine were all either staunch atheists or quiet secularists. if recent history provides is any clue, the gay rights movement will bear similar fruit to the previous civil rights movement, unless the christian right decides to force any more of their "faith-based" (*cough* *religious*) agenda upon the unwitting public.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 02:26 AM     
  ??  
 
"marrying their kitchen appliances, or their pets, or their kin, etc"

What does that have to do with gay marriage? Two consenting adults that love each other should be allowed to marry. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and I think the arguments against gay marriage are bigoted and lame. IMHO.
 
  by: lurker     03/15/2005 02:26 AM     
  @ beat, foah  
 
beat - Ever have oral sex? Use any sex toys? Try different positions? These are all sexual deviancy (not the norm). Should we ban these too?

Foah - It's not the same as marrying an appliance or an animal because they don't have the mental capacity to consent to the marriage. The reason that it is compared to the black civil rights movement is because there are way too many comparisons to that era from this struggle and because they are being treated as second-class citizens as blacks were - just in different ways.
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 02:27 AM     
  @ Reporter, Beatyoutoit  
 
Reporter: So, what is it that's pathetic - our legal system doing exactly what it is supposed to, or equal rights for all persons? Perhaps you'd be happier in a Middle Eastern theocracy, they seem to have similar ideas of proper governance.

Beatyoutoit: I hope you don't call yourself a Conservative. Believe it or not, and this may come as a shock, but government bans and overriding state laws by federal laws are not Conservative principles.

Hypocrisy - now that's pathetic.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/15/2005 02:27 AM     
  My take on gay marriage  
 
As a Christian, I am fully against homosexuality, ESPECIALLY marriage, however I can understand that those who are not Christian may not find this valid. So here are my problems, I will attempt to avoid "because God said so", because I know some don't accept this.

-I have a right to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and to protest pro-homosexuality.
-Homosexuals have the right to believe that homosexuality is acceptable, and to be pro-active.

I acknowledge that it is only a matter of time before it is completely legal and acceptable for homosexuals to marry. My major problems start when:

-Homosexual groups attempt to force churchs or individuals who do not support homosexuality to perform the marriage ceremony. Some groups have already stated this is the next goal after getting marriage legalized.
-Homosexual groups force EVERYONE to say that homosexuality is not wrong. I am entitled to my opinion. I am entitled to say homosexuality is wrong. Only when I become abusive with my opinion does it become "hate".
-Discriminating acts against homosexuals as "hate crimes" and raising the punishment. If someone punches another in the face, the punishment should be just as severe if the victim was gay or not.
-Where does it stop? How long before taxpayers must pay for homosexual couples to have children via scientific methods because they can't naturally reproduce?

Those would be my biggest worries. I accept that there really isn't anything I can do to stop homosexuality. What upsets me is that soon I will not even be allowed to speak my opinion about it even in a peaceful, civil manner.
 
  by: rapscaLLion   03/15/2005 02:37 AM     
  @cellardweller1  
 
Christians in general don't have any evil "agenda" that we try to force on you. Please remember that it is not we who are inconveniencing homosexuals, it is they who are inconveniencing us. We simply want to preserve marriage as it has been for thousands of years.
 
  by: rapscaLLion   03/15/2005 02:40 AM     
  re: laurisman  
 
That is the reason we have the law, to defend all regardless of number, with a logical (we hope) mind; otherwise we would return to mob rule. The constitution and it's amendments are paraded around as a beacon of freedom, yet it is interesting that in these times America is not overly concerned as to whether the current administration is violating it.

However, my concern with the US legal system is directed far more at who elects the supreme court judges. Their selection due to their obvious political bias is atrocious. An independant, nonpartisan board should be selecting these people.
 
  by: jonnienewbee   03/15/2005 02:42 AM     
  @cellardweller  
 
I don't see why you must arrogantly (and with a lesser degree of paranoia) reduce people's senses of morality to "closed-mindedness" and "bigotry," or whatever other terms are popular among campus crusaders these days. I think what you have to say about them could very easily be said about you as well, at least as far as the "bigotry" goes. After all, you do want people to mandatorily accept your definition of marriage, right? Regardless of their religious beliefs, whether they be atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians, Muslims, or Buddhists. Again, the comparison to past prejudicial popular opinion does not apply. Those beliefs were irrational and unreasonable, while not liking gay marriage is quite reasonable, even consistent with commonly-held views.

Anyway, I'm afraid, contrary to your woeful ignorance of this country's beginnings, our rights are rooted in Christian religious beliefs. Even the system of checks and balances is borrowed from I believe Isaiah. Even the Bill of Rights, which is tied in with the Constitution, says we have these "unalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator." Who do you suppose they were referring to? Washington was a Christian, as well as Jefferson (although Jefferson was quite distasteful when talking about it). Not sure about Lincoln...

Anyway, not allowing people with religious beliefs have just as much a right as you do to have their morality legislated. Unfortunately for you, we don't live in a fascist nation.
 
  by: foahchon.   03/15/2005 02:43 AM     
  @cellardweller1  
 
"washington, lincoln, jefferson, and thomas paine were all either staunch atheists or quiet secularists."

Id certainly appreciate some sources on that, as I recall, Jefferson in preticular, was very christian. He originally including much more dialogue in the preamble of the declaration of independence about God. However it was changed to something alittle more eloquent under Franklins request.
 
  by: wurm   03/15/2005 02:44 AM     
  @lurker,kolman  
 
What about kin who wish to marry? You have two consenting adults there.

What if a pet could consent? Would you sanctify person/pet marriage?

Do appliances really need to consent? Why can't a person just become happily married to their appliance? Seems a bit absurd, doesn't it? Well, that's how many people feel about gay marriage, and it's perfectly reasonable to feel that way, which is why the racial/prejudice comparisons don't work. Also, there's nothing in the Bible that can justify deeming interracial society/marriages immoral...

Anyway, the point is, marriage between a person and a pet, or an appliance, or another person of the same gender, is not natural, and that's why those types of marriages aren't already sanctified. I think changing the definition of marriage to your "consenting adults" definition would rob marriage of much of it's meaning.

Also, I know "bears are gay too," but that's not what I mean by "natural." Animals do a lot of things we don't condone.
 
  by: foahchon.   03/15/2005 02:54 AM     
  @ foahchon.  
 
Well said.
 
  by: TheReporter     03/15/2005 03:07 AM     
  @Reporter  
 
Thanks. Usually I'm accused of being a closet homophobe, or a closet homosexual, or I'm compared to Hitler, because of my opinions on gay marriage. It's nice to receive a positive response for a change, I appreciate it.
 
  by: foahchon.   03/15/2005 03:24 AM     
  exactly how  
 
does gay marriage "inconvenience" you? do you suddenly find it harder to love your spouse? do you think good-hearted johnny will think twice about proposing because gay men and women can also do it? will there be a diamond shortage at the jewelery store because of it? cmon, you are not inconvenienced in any special way, shape, or form by gay marriage. i challenge the anti-gays to name ONE real way that gay marriage will have a crippling impact on hetero marriages. read the scientific (not religious) literature on gay marriage and adoption and tell me that it will have a realistically detrimental effect on our society. a study of 45 lesbian couples raising kids shows that the kids are not psychologically OR socially handicapped in any way their hetero-coupled counterparts. you can preach hellfire for allowing gay marriage, but if you can't conclusively show that it will harm society, you have no case. my point is that people are against it because their religious views cater to their closed-mindedness with regard to the subject.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 03:29 AM     
  @ rapscallion, foah  
 
Rapscal - Thank you for being respectful. I hope I can answer your fears in a way that satisfies your worries:

The majority of homosexuals do not push for, nor want, churches to be forced to preform their marriages. This is a push for the legal benefits of a civil marriage. Unfortunately, there are radical groups that may push for it, but they are a microscopic minority.

Unfortunately, there are those that attempt to abuse the law and make anything "Because I'm (insert minority status here)". There will always be those people. The discrimination laws are meant to protect people that are beaten and/or killed *strictly because* they are a minority.

Taxpayers will never have to pay for a homosexual couple's child. Ever. The politicians wouldn't allow it, judges wouldn't allow it, and the people wouldn't allow it.

foah - The reason kin aren't allowed to marry is because it creates some very, very messed up children (physically, mentally, psychologically). Homosexuals won't do that.

If an animal could consent to a marriage with a human, that would be incredible. The fact is, no animal has ever, and no animal could ever, consent to do anything. They don't have the intelligence to do that.

Why can't a person marry an appliance? BECAUSE IT CAN'T CONSENT! Does that not get through to you?

We're not talking about a "sanctified" marriage, we're talking about a legal marriage. Nobody's forcing a religion to do anything - this is all about the state.

And, if you don't mean "nature" when you say "natural," what do you mean?
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 03:40 AM     
  kolman36  
 
Well said.
 
  by: lurker     03/15/2005 03:48 AM     
  @kolman  
 
It's true that kin reproduce together results in "messed-up" children, but that's not why their marriage isn't sanctified, otherwise we'd have laws condoning their marriage but banning them from reproducing. Marriage and reproduction obviously aren't mutually-inclusive.

Anyway, as for the reply to the pet/person hypothetical question, you're obviously dodging the question. I asked, hypothetically, if animals could consent, would you support person/pet marriage? "Yes" or "no" will do. Now, come on, if you want to be logically consistent you're going to have to support person/pet marriage. Also, you have not explained why an appliance needs to consent. It's obvious why an adult would have to consent, but not an appliance. There is absolutely no reason why a person should not be allowed to marry their kitchen appliance.

Before you go replying "because a kitchen appliance can't consent" is not a valid answer. Marriage is not currently defined to include gay couples, but if it is going to be modified to do so, why can't it include people wanting to marry inanimate objects.

Anyway, we're obviously talking about something important here, otherwise there wouldn't be so much controversy/heated discussion going on over it, so I think "sanctify" is an appropriate word to use. I'm not pretending there's any religious overtones involved, and neither should you.

Lastly, by "natural" I mean, "natural and functional/healthy."
 
  by: foahchon.   03/15/2005 03:58 AM     
  natural? healthy?  
 
so you think that homosexual relationships are "unhealthy" or "unnatural"? offering prayers and worship to a god that presents no physical evidence of his existence is not "natural", in that it's not inherent in human nature. sexual orientation is partly biologically based, as they appear to be partially heritable (runs in biological families.) as for the mental health aspect, homosexuality was removed from the DSM (the handbook for the diagnosis of psychological disorders) in the 70's because it doesn't fit the pattern of a psychological disorder (doesn't inherently cause significant distress and impairment.) recreation is unnatural, but it still happens (despite the fact that certain religious types say it shouldn't.) not only is recreation unnatural, but it is considered by many to be a healthy activity. repressing/suppressing one's sexual orientation is (in my opinion) "unnatural" and "unhealthy" in that it causes lots distress which can lead to social/cognitive impairment.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 04:23 AM     
  @kolman36  
 
"The majority of homosexuals do not push for, nor want, churches to be forced to preform their marriages. This is a push for the legal benefits of a civil marriage. Unfortunately, there are radical groups that may push for it, but they are a microscopic minority."
Ya sorry, I meant to point that out as well. It's unfortunate that a few are like that, but the government is listening to minorities more than majorities these days :(

"Taxpayers will never have to pay for a homosexual couple's child. Ever. The politicians wouldn't allow it, judges wouldn't allow it, and the people wouldn't allow it."
I disagree with that... remember that not too long ago, homosexuality would not have even been mentioned. A little farther back, black people where not allowed equality with white folk. It may not happen soon, or even in our lifetime, but my bet is it will happen.

"foah - The reason kin aren't allowed to marry is because it creates some very, very messed up children (physically, mentally, psychologically). Homosexuals won't do that."
-Homosexuals can't do that :P
But ya, incest results in a child who is extremely likely to be physically or mentally messed up.

"Why can't a person marry an appliance? BECAUSE IT CAN'T CONSENT! Does that not get through to you?"
LOL. Hey, you never know, a maytag can be more reliable than some people... now if I can only get it to consent :S

"We're not talking about a "sanctified" marriage, we're talking about a legal marriage. Nobody's forcing a religion to do anything - this is all about the state."
This is true, however I don't think all the groups will stop at legalization, they WILL protest that refusal to marry a homosexual couple is discrimination. And it is, however we NEED to differentiate between discrimination for realistic reasons (male/female for washrooms for example), and for hateful reasons. I wouldn't marry a gay couple if I was in such a position, not because I hate them, but because I do not agree with homosexuality.

"And, if you don't mean "nature" when you say "natural," what do you mean?""
Er... Are you asking me? If so, I mean that a homosexual couple can't simply have sex resulting in a child...
 
  by: rapscaLLion   03/15/2005 04:28 AM     
  no one will win  
 
this is a never ending saga of he said she said crap.

Religion has had the hold on marriage as long as the 'idea' existed. Marriage is represented very differently through culture. You say people can't marry animals ?? yet only 2 weeks ago a story posted on SN stated to young children being married to animals because of there religious beliefs. So are you talking about a Christian marriage, a marriage of the state or a marriage of a different religion. In some of the Muslim beliefs you can have upto 50 wife's? again context of the religion the marriage refers too.?

The whole, marriage has been this way for 2000 years and should stay that way... they only reason is because the church will kill anyone who proclaimed to be a follower of any other religion or denied god as the creator or the Jesus was a superbeing with magical powers. If you where gay, you where evil, if you where any other race other than Caucasian you where evil, if you where female, you are evil.

The church has done everything in its power to make the world revolve around what they say to be true.. "you must have faith that the b/s i tell you is true." If you ask for proof, "but where is your faith that this is true" ???

sorry if i came across like i hate christianity. but...
 
  by: |roach|   03/15/2005 04:33 AM     
  @cellardweller1  
 
It is real simple. Homosexuality is a blight upon society and anything that is good, pure or natural. Homosexuals are nothing more than perverted individuals that lack anything close to self respect, morals or an excuse for their perverted actions. How does it hurt marriage? It hurts the world as a whole if we allow moral decay to become common place and acceptable and that includes those that are married under the eyes of god in a union of man and woman. There is no excuse for perversion and nothing but contempt from the major majority of America toward those that practice these sickening and perverted actions. In the same way prostitution is illegal so should homosexuality so we can lock up these disease spreading distorted abominations that seek only to destroy America from within.
 
  by: Beatyoutoit   03/15/2005 04:39 AM     
  gay parents  
 
if you know anyone with access to the American Psychology Society's publications (online or print), look up the studies on gay parenting. homosexual parents raise kids that are as well-adjusted, functional, and happy as straight parents. what makes a family work is not the sex of the parents or the roles they play, but the quality and warmth of their parenting. this result has been found over and over and over and over again by researchers of all disciplines. show me ONE study that demonstrates the harm of gay parents (that hasn't been widely refuted) and i'll bow down and join your crusade against gays.

oh, and do you know about artificial insemination and adoption? that's how thousands of both straight and gay couples raise happy, healthy children.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 04:40 AM     
  @roach  
 
You’re a bit warped and misguided there.

"If you where gay, you where evil, if you where any other race other than Caucasian you where evil, if you where female, you are evil."

Homosexuality is sin in the views of god. Race, color or sex on the other hand have nothing to do with sinful acts and therefore are nothing more than your way of clouding this issue.
 
  by: Beatyoutoit   03/15/2005 04:43 AM     
  @ rapscallion  
 
Everything after I mentioned foah's name was in response to what he said. It was not directed towards you.

(I have not read everyone else's response yet, that's why there's no response to you guys.)
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 04:43 AM     
  here we go again...another 1,000 post debate  
 
Haven't we seen these arguments in other threads? Isn't the whole homosexuality good or evil debate getting a little tired? Granted, as long as homophobia runs rampant I can see the need.
 
  by: JFURY     03/15/2005 04:50 AM     
  @ the rest of you  
 
I see this going in circles the rest of the time. Beatyoutoit, you're irrational. There is no debating with you. Foah, if my explanations aren't "acceptable" to you and you're just going to pose a bunch of hypothetical questions, there's no point in attempting to debate with you because I hate hypothetical questions.

Lurker, thank you. RapscalLion - thank you for being respectful and rational. I will gladly debate with you anytime and attempt to answer your questions.
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 04:53 AM     
  @beatyoutoit  
 
your whole post was in relative terms. "perverted" "good" "pure" "natural" "moral decay". you might as well say we should ban contraceptives and non-procreative sex because they go against christian morals. if you wanna live in a place where the laws are dictated by religion, Iran or Saudi Arabia would probably let you in. seeing as we live in a SECULAR nation (one where church and state are separated), your argument doesn't apply.

oh, and about the whole "well, if we allow gay people we should allow incest, prostitution, x, y, and z" you can make that argument about anything. "if we allow interracial marriage, we should allow incest and prostitution." we're not talking about incest and prostitution, we're talking about gay marriage. you can use that argument to smear anything that you categorize as "immoral." some southerners think that white people are the only "good and pure" people. speak in ABSOLUTE terms, not RELIGIOUS terms.

oh, and those that are pushing to allow gay marriage are not pedophile murderer rapist monsters. they work out of CONSCIENCE and morality (as in "you respect me, i respect you" morality). contrary to the beliefs of the christian right, christianity does not have a monopoly on morality. there have been many moral non-christians throughout history.

here's a nice religious lesson that i find particularly applicable now: one day, a greek tells a rabbi "if you can teach me the whole torah standing on one foot, you will make me a jew." the rabbi told him to stand on one foot and said "what is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. this is the whole torah. the rest is commentary. go and study"

your argument is from a religious perspective, one which many americans do not share. since we are not talking about religion, your argument doesn't hold water here. this is about secular law and equality, not religious doctrine.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 04:56 AM     
  jfury is right.... oh well  
 
“It's true that kin reproduce together results in "messed-up" children, but that's not why their marriage isn't sanctified”
Yeah because of the messed up kids...

“Do appliances really need to consent? Why can't a person just become happily married to their appliance? Seems a bit absurd, doesn't it? Well, that's how many people feel about gay marriage, and it's perfectly reasonable to feel that way, which is why the racial/prejudice comparisons don't work.”

Aawww yeah...
What affect does two people one black and one white have any affect on a “southern gentlemen”
They like you seemed to come up with allsorts of lame excuse either religious or questions of intelligence or deviance.

“Anyway, I'm afraid, contrary to your woeful ignorance of this country's beginnings, our rights are rooted in Christian religious beliefs”

It’s funny that if you look over history many “Christen influences” (like not killing people) came from far beyond the time of Christianity so don’t go there.
Ever hear of Plato or Aristotle?
In fact your religion adopted many thoughts of Aristotle.
They defined democracy, republic and civil rights long before Jesus.
And what baring does the founders religious beliefs have on anything in are time?
As I recall they owned slaves...
Many also felt woman, blacks or non-land owning whites should not have any say in governance. What good Christians!

Oh and no one dodged a question the question was moronic not hypothetical.

For me it’s very simple I don’t care what gays do... it has no effect on me what so ever!
And it’s none of my or anyone else’s business what they do!
If you whish to deny there entry to your church fine.
It’s YOUR religion... not mine!
Do not make choices for others based on YOUR conclusions!
 
  by: emp3r0r     03/15/2005 05:00 AM     
  @Beatyoutoit  
 
I am sorry but my writing skills are far below average, and i am still young and am trying very very hard to learn as much history as i can.

The way i was trying to portray my opinion was that, marriage is a religious statement and has nothing to do with the state. Marriage is and always will be about what religion you are.

In the context of how i was stating it, i meant it to be 2000 years ago, where the church took control of the religious groups of the areas of the time, converted the beliefs symbols and rituals to be there own.

If you practised anything other than the religion of that of the newly modified church you would be slaughtered and this did mostly included about 5 million odd women who where considered very very evil for being 'witches' which included female wearing the pointed pagan hat, collecting herbs, being a prostitute or having sex/conceiving in any other way than under the eyes of god in a valid marriage.

The state might one day have the power of marriage, but then what is it. nothing.... a marriage these days is a bonding of two beeings under the eyes of god.

anything else isn't marriage, it is a comitment.
 
  by: |roach|   03/15/2005 05:04 AM     
  @everyone  
 
In response to claims about Christians... many things have been done in the name of Christianity. This includes the crusades, witch hunts, etc. But please realize, that many (granted not all) of those things took place in times when today's Catholicism was known as Christianity. Catholicism and Christianity are two very different things. Of course this doesn't apply to all cases, and I realize it must seem very inconvenient for me to say anyone who does bad things isn't a true Christian, but I'm not. I'm saying that the ideals of Christianity do not condone the evil things that have been done. It is impossible for humans to be perfect though.

JFURY.... are you saying that anyone who does not agree with homosexuality is homophobic? Because that truly is not the case. I am not afraid of them, I don't have misconceptions about them, I even know some homosexuals. I simply do not believe that their sexual preference is right. And I don't have to.
 
  by: rapscaLLion   03/15/2005 05:08 AM     
  @roach  
 
For the most part I agree with you. Granted, the governments of various countries have instituted certain partnerships, ie-common law, etc. Marriage started out as a Christian ritual, but has since been hijacked. I don't think we have any hope of saving its traditional definition :(
 
  by: rapscaLLion   03/15/2005 05:10 AM     
  @ rapscal  
 
No, he wasn't talking about you. He was talking about the many truly homophobic that post on this site. Hang around a few more days and I'm sure you'll see them.
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 05:12 AM     
  the real  
 
issue here is not religon, or homophobia or the such. there was a vote amont the residents of CA about gay marriage, and the majority were against it, therefore the law was not changed. then came along the mayor of s.f. and decided who cares about the rules, or what the voters wanted, ill do what i want to do, then he got in trouble, the ban was replaced, and now they are trying to recind that. and since i dont live in CA, i dont care one ay or the other.
 
  by: ganjaman22     03/15/2005 05:24 AM     
  Oh ok then :)  
 
My bad :)
 
  by: rapscaLLion   03/15/2005 05:25 AM     
  @cellardweller1  
 
"your whole post was in relative terms. "perverted" "good" "pure" "natural" "moral decay". you might as well say we should ban contraceptives and non-procreative sex because they go against christian morals. if you wanna live in a place where the laws are dictated by religion, Iran or Saudi Arabia would probably let you in. seeing as we live in a SECULAR nation (one where church and state are separated), your argument doesn't apply."

My argument very much applies and is far more relevant than your constant attempt to cloud the issue with lies, half truths and distortions of the truth of the matter at hand. Your attempt to dismiss my points without any direct facts or anything close to relevant rebuttal to the meat of my comments is further proof you lack a foundation to base your argument on. This makes your view weak at best and simply pathetic. Do try and address the issues at hand and the views instead of trying to appear intelligent since you expose yourself as less than a thinking man. I never once said anything about Christianity and only fight for family values and good moral judgements and the advancement of man without the perversion those like yourself seek to weave into the fabric of the world by means of sexual perversions and mistruths, lies and to put it simply an attempt to make evil good and good evil…

"some southerners think that white people are the only "good and pure" people. speak in ABSOLUTE terms, not RELIGIOUS terms."

Some southerners? So along with warped views you’re a bigot too that stereo types entire geographical regions of the U.S.? What a sad small mind to believe such stupidity.




Some southerners? So along with warped views you’re a bigot too that stereo types entire geographical regions of the U.S.? What a sad small mind to believe such stupidity.

Some southerners think that white people are the only "good and pure" people. speak in ABSOLUTE terms, not RELIGIOUS terms.

Once again, I wrote in terms of family values and good moral ethics not religion. You seem to be the only one using those terms. Do try harder to stay on the course of the subject here and not meandering off into your crusade for antichristian views.


It seems your views are what I already know them to be, unfounded, unsubstantiated and misguided. The simple fact is, America as a whole doesn’t want homosexual’s contaminating the country with sexual deviancy and those that do need an awakening to the truth of what morals really are.
 
  by: Beatyoutoit   03/15/2005 05:32 AM     
  huh?  
 
"you might as well say we should ban contraceptives and non-procreative sex because they go against christian morals"

How is that against Christian morals (and by Christian morals I mean the bible...)
 
  by: rapscaLLion   03/15/2005 06:03 AM     
  @raspca  
 
That was cellardweller1s attempt to cloud the issue. Ignore it. He lacks any moral ground to stand on.
 
  by: Beatyoutoit   03/15/2005 06:06 AM     
  @ rapscal, beatyoutoit, cellardweller  
 
cellardwellar meant Catholic values. Catholics are supposed to follow those "rules." Beatyoutoit, maybe you should stop attempting to insult people.
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 06:10 AM     
  @gangja, others  
 
Gangja: Exactly! My point wasn't about activist judges, it was about politicians who bow to the vocal minority either out of fear or to build their voter base.

It's a simple fact that many peoples true attitudes about homosexuality are masked by political correctness. They cannot speak freely, because to say anything against 'gays' makes them subject to allegations of homophobia, ignorance, being bigots and discrimination. Freedom of speech is a myth where homosexuality is concerned.

There is a lot of confusion about homosexual issues, with people mixing together the issues of sexual intercourse, marriage, and the raising of families - in truth, each of these needs to be considered seperately.

Before I begin to comment on each of these, I would like to make it clear that I have only been christian for just on 5 years now, and before that had no exposure to either a religious upbringing or environment. The thoughts I am going to put to you have always been my beliefs, and have nothing to do with religious indoctrination of any kind - so forget the 'christian bigot' attacks.

The idea of homosexual sex fills me, and has always filled me, with disgust. Homosexuals are not alone in this remarkable power. Those who have sex with animals, scat, and water sports have the same effect. Each of these has always been profoundly unnatural to me.

Homosexuals view their particular perversion as harmless. That because the people involved are capable of consent, that its okay. I want to ask those of you who see nothing wrong with homosexuality: How does the idea of a one person taking a dump in another person's mouth, or smearing them with excretia make you feel? I'm going to bet that most of you would be disgusted by it. Why? This is how I feel about homosexuality - I'm not afraid of it, so don't give me that "homophobe" guff, it simply disgusts me, it always has. Regardless of your impulses, some things are not meant to be done - harmless or not. Before you ask, yes thousands of people practice scat, pornographic material on it is readily available. Same for 'watersports'. I have never heard of a person becomming ill from it though - so don't bother saying "homosexuality doesnt harm the practitioners".

Now to marriage. Marriage is both religious and secular. I do not believe that homosexuals, or any other form of social relationship that is not strictly one man and one woman should be allowed to marry. This pertains to the religious part - in which marriage is the divine union of two into one, the joining of man and woman into a single unit. I honestly believe in the concept of soul mates - that there is one person who is our opposite half. I believe it is possible to love other people, but this one person stands out above all others.

In relation to the secular part of marriage - the legal rights and benefits associated with marriage were created to ensure the success of the family unit. This is the sole reason for their existance, and leads straight into the issue of raising families.

There is a singular difference between a heterosexual couple obtaining a child by IVF, and a homosexual couple doing so: In a heterosexual couple, the child is still genetically related to both parents, in a homosexual couple, it is related to only one. This is a small point given that we have step fathers, step mothers, and adopted children. However it is a point worth making. I honestly beleive that two men, or two women can raise a child to be stable, and well adjusted. Do I believe they need to be married to do so? No. Obviously if they are going to raise a family, and be legally entitled to do so, they have a right to the same rights and benefits necessary to sustain and protect the family unit. I think this goes without saying, but marriage? No. I believe that a single father, or single mother should be able to get the same benefits and rights. In fact, I believe that every person who wishes to raise a child - their own or adopted - should have access to the same rights and benefits.

These rights and benefits should be disassociated from the concept of union or marriage, perhaps tied instead to the idea of a family license. The right to have a family (one or more child dependants, of whom the parent or parents are the legal guardians). All couples or single men or women could then apply for this license, undergo psychological evaluation, and be given the rights and benefits pertaining to raising a family.

I do not, and will not ever see the need for gays to be married.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/15/2005 06:23 AM     
  my 2 cents  
 
I didn't have a chance to read everything so hopefully I don't repeat others. I don't see why civil unions can't recognize gay marriages. Most gay couples that want marriages just want to have their union be legal and get the same rights and benefits as straight couples. It doesn't have to be religious but if they can find a church that will do it then that is up to that church. As said before athiests can marry and if it is under God then there is something wrong.. Also I just have to say that not everything in the Bible will fit the laws we have today. One good example is with incest. There must have been a lot of it going on with Adam and Eve's children..

Also the reference to banning birth control was to Catholicism. I'm not sure what the take is about it from other religions' beliefs.
 
  by: treyjazz   03/15/2005 06:34 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
well said. couldnt have done better myself. i am not scared of homosexuality, i simply find it totally disgusting.
 
  by: ganjaman22     03/15/2005 06:37 AM     
  @Beatyoutoit  
 
CD lacks moral ground to stand on?! You do realize that a council of priests is not deciding this issue, right? Moral ground has nothing to do with it. A judge has legal ground to act on it, so he can. CD has intellectual ground on which to debate the matter, and you do not (at least, you've established none so far). You seek to discredit others based on nothing more than your own condemnation, and being as you are some anonymous person, no one really cares about that. Any person reading this thread can see that you're nothing more than the kind of raving bigot (yes, the word by definition fits, so I'll use it gladly) that people like rapscaLLion needs to carefully differentiate himself from to make a point. You accuse others of not presenting facts and disregarding your argument without merit? This is the peak of irony - your argument had no facts, and thusly, no merit.

I'm sure you'll scream bloody murder now about how you're being persecuted for your morals and values, and that's entirely your right. Anyone who matters can already see what I'm saying. Those who don't share your boat. Listing off your prejudices without so much as a shred of explanation does not make a point, nor does insulting others and ignoring what they said to rant further. The amusement gleaned from such posts only lasts so long, then they grow tedious.
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/15/2005 06:47 AM     
  @ lauriesman  
 
Wow, I actually read all that. Usually I drift off into space when a post is that long. Anyway, I'm first going to refute some of your points and then try to get some clarifications on some others, so bear with me.

I'd actually be surprised if the idea of 2 men having sex did NOT disgust you. Disgusts me too, but I don't think that has anything to do with this discussion, so I don't really see the need for you to bring it up.

Homosexuals don't become ill because they had gay sex - they become ill because they had sex. They suffer from the same STD's as straight people.

Yeah, everyone has a soul mate. Why can't that soulmate be of the same sex?

Wow, not as many disputed points as I thought. Now, some clarifications...

-What the hell's a watersport?

-So, are you in favor of equal rights for gays/gay families? Most of the rights? While it would be a great idea to abolish marriage from the state completely, both you and I can agree that it is probably not going to happen.

Thank you for not insulting the intelligence of others and lowering yourself to those levels, as some have chosen to do.
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 06:47 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Sex and revulsion: Simply because you consider something repulsive does not harm you. Try not thinking about it, for example. I, for one, am amazed at how obsessed certain people are with being shocked and offended by the imagined sex lives of others. I really don't care if someone wants to involve their excrement in their coupling - no one's going to come to my house and demand that I do it, so it's nothing to me at all. As for their health, that's also their business, and none of mine. I don't claim such transparent benevolence, though.

Marriage: As soon as the government began performing independent marriage ceremonies, the religion argument became moot save for in churches, and that is not the issue. In secular terms, the benefits of marriage were created to foster family units, units which homosexuals are equally capable of creating. If you want to push for marriage benefits to only be bestowed upon a couple when they have a child, fine. I know a number of heterosexuals married just for such convenient benefits. That, however, is not how the law works now, and that's what we're speaking of modifying. As the law stands, one kind of person/people can get benefits that others can not. This is prejudicial, unconstitutional, and frankly, un-American, no matter how many ways one shimmies around the issue.
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/15/2005 07:01 AM     
  @kolman  
 
Watersports is much like scat, only involving urine instead of faeces.

I'd like to also point out that incidents of anal cancer is on the rise, primarily in men, and has been linked though somewhat tenuously to anal intercourse. Something to do with the location of the prostate or some such, I think.

There is a difference between kindred spirit and soul mate. By definition, really, a soul mate is the opposite gender. A kindred spirit can be either.

Equal rights for gays in what way? I do not believe they should be able to marry, but there are thousands of other ways to declare life long devotion to each other. Heck, they could become blood brothers or sisters if they wanted.

Legal rights as pertaining to gay families... like I said, this is an issue that should not be decided on the basis of sexuality, but on the people involved, the suitablity of the person(s) for raising a family. In such a way, gay families is a misnomer, there are no gay families, only families. By calling them gay families, we recreate the distinction that I personally believe should not exist.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/15/2005 07:03 AM     
  @moment of clarity  
 
You missed every single point in my post.

I say, if we are going to change the constitution or law, then lets do it right this time, rather than patch it and repatch it. I say seperate the legal rights and benefits from marriage, or union. Allow all people the right to apply for a family license, and to be evaluated on their suitability for raising a child. I dont think this has anything to do with sexuality, and should not be confused with it.

The right to a family, and the right to bond for life are two distinct issues. Peoples sexuality is their own business, and should not be confused with these.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/15/2005 07:10 AM     
  what kinda marriage?  
 
gay couples want a legal marriage license with all the tangible and intangible benefits it incurs. you can define your own religious marriage as something separate from the kind of marriage that gay couples get, but that doesn't change the fact that legally, the two marriages would be identical. you can build any wall you want to between yourself and gay married couples, but, legally, your marriages would be the same. i'm probably going to get married later on, and it will be to a woman, but it will mean dick all to me if a gay couple did the same thing. you say it's not necessary for gay couples to get married to raise a family, but if you want the legal benefits that marriage conveys (inheritance/bedside rights, joint tax filing, etc.), it becomes VERY necessary for them to get married. marriage is not just a religious or symbolic ritual; it's a legal affirmation of the legitimacy of the relationship between two people and confers special rights and responsibilities based on that legitimacy.

oh, and when i talk about "christians," i don't mean just catholics, otherwise i'd specify catholics (i'm a recovering catholic.) i mean conservative christians, including (but not limited to) born-agains, jehovah's witnesses, baptists, lutherans, and anglicans. sure, catholics come readily to mind, because the catholic church has historically been the most punitive church, but i mean christians in general because of the common threads of belief and polemical condemnation of homosexuality that most christian churches share. christian organizations have been the most vocal opponents of gay marriage, and christian beliefs incite the most disgust and hatred towards homosexuals. judging from my experience, religious beliefs (particularly christian beliefs) justify the disgust and condemnation towards gays that so many feel, so people that would otherwise not mind take up the torch on this witch-hunt. thus, the dogmatic adherence to belief that is so charecteristic of christianity fuels the need to discriminate against gays.

but some of you may have a point that i seem to be harping on ALL christians. i applaud the christians that accept gays among their fold as one of their own and sanctify their marriages, as they act out of love for their fellow christians rather than dogmatically justified bigotry. some people become priests because it's a good outlet for their compassion and a good way of reaching out to their community. some (like Fred Phelps, the priest that wanted to raise a statue commemorating the murder of a gay teenager) let their beliefs justify their closed-mindedness and poison the minds of their congregation with hatred for the "wicked." they act as if everyone that acts in a non-christian way does so because of a desire to pervert the land and subvert goodness. they think that they have a monopoly on morality, and that those that don't agree with them are poisoned by the wicked permissive liberal society and need to be "led back into the fold." it would be sadly amusing to watch these people rant and rave if they weren't stirring up the shit so much. i consider it a MORAL DUTY to set the opposite example by treating people with tolerance and compassion and accepting the plurality of belief that is so fundamentally American. i don't think these people should be silenced; rather, i think they should be allowed to argue their point and let their opponents argue against them so the people can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.

so, in summary, dogmatically justified bigotry and closed-mindedness drive most peoples' "distaste" for gays, while (actual, not superficial) acceptance of gays is fostered by an understanding of plurality, an exercise of compassion, or maybe, just maybe, minding your own goddamn business and not attempting to subvert other people's right to self-determination
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 07:52 AM     
  @ lauriesman  
 
Alright, just a yes or no answer will do fine: Do you believe that families consisting of two adults of the same gender (homosexual partners) with children should have all of the rights that are enjoyed by families consisting of two adults of the opposite gender (heterosexual partners) with children?
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 07:55 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Excuse me?

Every single point...then why do I see nothing on the sex and harm issue...you don't seem to have a clarification there of what I "missed." You took a decent amount of space talking about this, and yet, have nothing to say when I address it, save that I missed the point. I call bull, and I think you don't have a response.

As with marriage, you gave a nod to religion, and I felt it pertinent to point out why it was irrelevant. As for your larger, convoluted secular point, perhaps the reason I missed it is because you pranced such a wide circle around the final point. How did genetic relation figure into it? You said it was was "a point worth making" that it was a difference, but you fail to say why. Furthermore, it seems an integral part of your point that all the rights we're discussing here have to do with raising children (maybe some confusion came from that). They do not - the right to visit a spouse in the hospital, for example. Other rights, such as inheritance if a spouse dies, can be laid out in contract, but the contract is weaker to such things as intervention by the rest of the family than a marriage contract. As far as a family license, I think we both know that such a thing will not happen soon, and as such, your idea of not supporting gay marriage in favor of a larger revamping (if that is, indeed, what you were trying to get at) seems a bit like not turning iron into steel because you want to turn it into gold.

I'm not sure if you read the rest of my post or just the first few lines, but you'll note I agreed with you. As such, it's pretty much right there that no, I did not miss the point. In retrospect, however, I do find it lacking.
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/15/2005 07:56 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
if by your posts you're saying that marriage and raising a family are two separate things, with both being INDEPENDENT of sexual orientation, then i agree with you totally. sexual orientation shouldn't preclude any legal rights or responsibilities involving either domain. hetero couples should have the same rights, responsibilities, and priveleges by law as gay couples. psychological studies of gay families w/ kids show no adverse effects of growing up with two same-sex parents.

having to get psychological certification to raise a family has a bunch of issues in itself, though. while it would help cut down on drunk-ass abusive parents or any other clearly unfit parents, it would require very precise, culturally-neutral wording so as not to discriminate based on ethnicity, sexual orientation, personal belief, or any other factors not pertaining to fitness as a parent.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 08:03 AM     
  @kolman  
 
Short Answer: Yes

Long Answer: I already answered that. Do they need to be married to do so? NO.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/15/2005 08:04 AM     
  @cedar  
 
I agree, it would take time, and careful consideration, and a process that fully involves the democratic nature of the nation.

Does it mean we shouldn't do it, because it will be hard? We are already considering amending the constitution, if we are going to go to that length, then we should perforce do it 'right' not a band-aid effort.

For the record, a single man, who wants, and is capable of raising a son or daughter, should have the same benefits and rights as a couple. Contemporary society has seen many children raised in single parent families just fine - and many that aren't. The point being that suitability, not sexual orientation or married/single should be used to define who can and can't raise a child.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/15/2005 08:07 AM     
  you don't NEED to be married  
 
to raise kids. i'm pretty sure lots of kids are raised by close but unmarried parents. if you think it's necessary for heterosexual couples to be married to raise kids, it's no more or less necessary for gay couples to be married. like i ranted earlier, gay parents raising kids deserve the same legal protections and priveleges as heterosexual parents, and there's no reason that they're any less necessary or deserved.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 08:10 AM     
  @moment  
 
The point regarding genetic relation has to do with pre-established ideas that genetic relations are stronger than familial ones. I neither support nor reject these ideas, however it is a point worth raising in considering the issue fully, and not just a small set of carefully constructed points.

I'm sorry, but if you are going change the constitution, the legal basis under which all laws are founded, then you should do it right, not just slap a bandaid ammendment over the issue and hope its goes away.

For the non-religous, sex and marriage generally have nothing to do with each other. Therefore, sex and harm is a moot point when it comes to marriage. This is why I raised the point that I am not a homophobe, and that nothing I was about to say related in anyway to the digust the act of homosexual sex engenders in me. I feel the same disgust for many other sexual proclivities, but none of them have a bearing on my views about marriage and parenting.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/15/2005 08:14 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
in those terms, i agree with you. suitability is the final word in parenting, not sexual orientation or marital status. but 2 parents tend to be better than one (if you believe psych studies. single-parent households tend to have many more problems than their two-parent counterparts), and being married gives a legitimacy and sanction from the government to parenthood. it provides tax benefits for married couples and grants them certain rights that affirms their bond between one another and with their children. thus, it provides tangible and intangible benefits to ALL couples that are willing to commit to one another under the law. i think that if these benefits are of importance to heterosexual couples, then they are of equal importance to homosexual couples. these benefits are deserved by both if they are deserved by either one. i'm not saying that any individual or religion need approve; i simply think that they are entitled to equal protection and priveleges under the law.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 08:20 AM     
  @cedar  
 
Exactly! Why should any person who is capable of raising a child to be stable, and well adjusted be denied the right to do so? And if we are going to grant them that right, that doesn't it behove us to protect that family unit as much as we protect others?

This has nothing to do with sexuality! It has to do with the ability to raise a well adjusted child.

We have every kind of family unit possible already existing - extended, nuclear, single fathers, single mothers, uncles raising their nephews, grandmothers raising their grandsons, grandfathers and granddaughters. We have adoptive parenting and millions of children in orphanages needing loving homes to be raised in. Why should any of these be denied the legal rights and benefits in raising children?
 
  by: lauriesman     03/15/2005 08:24 AM     
  coo  
 
alright, so apparently i've misjudged some conservative christians. you've put your personal preferences aside, and not let them color your view of what's in the best interest of society. let the religions define marriage however they wish, let everyone live by their own standards and moral code, and let everyone who is willing and suitable raise our kids. gay adoption is a great solution to the problem of orphaned children. let the chumps delude themselves into insisting that their moral code be everyone's. hell, this is probably a first on the internet: two people on the opposite sides of a belief spectrum coming to a civil agreement.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/15/2005 08:32 AM     
  @cellardweller,momentofclarity,kolman  
 
cellar - Actually, cellar, there are physical receptors in the brain that facilitate the worship/acknowledgement of a supernatural Creator, so, it's completely natural. Despite what you may like to think, religious beliefs are not the product of any sort of neurosis. Many have suggested that those receptors fool people into thinking something is "up there," but it's also been argued that if those receptors didn't exist, and something really is "up there," we'd have no way of knowing it.

But anyway, I know homosexuality is neurological, moreso than it is a neutral decision, and that suppressing those inclinations can lead to a lot of mental/emotional stress, just like suppressing any inclination, even abusive or homocidal inclinations, can lead to stress. I'm not suggesting homosexuals do that at all. I believe that it is a mental disease though. It's true that the APA doesn't recognize it as such, but the decision to do so came only after gays stormed their conferences and made threats in the 70's (I have sources, I am not pulling this out of my nether regions).

momentofclarity - Would you happen to have a fan of the band Death?

kolman - Sorry you hate hypothetical questions, but I can't think of any other way to make my point. I did not arbitrarily reject your answers, they just had no logical backing/consistency as far as I could tell. I know you define marriage as "being between two consenting adults," but marriage is not "between two consenting adults," it's "between a man and a woman." I'm just looking for reasoning as to why your definition is better than (your definition + including kin + including people who want to marry their appliances). You want your definition to be the one to be more inclusive, so why continue to exclude the others?
 
  by: foahchon.   03/15/2005 02:41 PM     
  @foahchon  
 
I know of no band named Death...would that be hardcore, goth, or metal?

Neural receptors: Simply because a receptor lights up does not mean one can draw a conclusion on why. We do not know what much of the brain does, so saying definitively that a receptor serves a specific function is folly. I would like to see wources to this data, as this is my field. What I can say based on what you've said is that there are many other factors to take into consideration...I personally note that a moment of spirituality, or a feeling to deep connectedness, seems quite similar to the connectedness one can feel with one's ingroup. Of course, one is often amongst one's ingroup (i.e the congregation) when these feelings occur, but even away from them, doing somethin which reminds one of that setting (i.e. praying) can certainly trigger such feelings. In short, one must consider all the variables, especially the ones which tangibly exist.

Homosexuality as a mental disease: Simply, you're wrong. A mental disease causes impairment of one's cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and homosexuality does none of this, save for if it is repressed. Thusly, it is not a mental disease. No one stormed any conference or made threats - please cite your sources to this effect. A man in the field came out as a homosexual in a speech at that conference, leading to theories being reconsidered. There is no vast conspiracy. The 1974 statement from the APA reads: Whereas, homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, or general social or vocational capabilities, therefore be it resolved that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) deplores all public and private discrimination against homosexuals in such areas as employment, housing, public accommodation, and licensing, and declares that no burden or proof of such judgment, capacity, or reliability shall be placed upon homosexuals greater than that imposed on other persons. Further the [APA] supports and urges the enactment of civil legislation at the local, state, and federal level that would offer homosexual citizens the same protection now guaranteed to others on the basis of race, creed, color, etc. Further the [APA] supports and urges the repeal of all discriminatory legislation singling out homosexual acts by consenting adults in private.
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/15/2005 07:31 PM     
  @ moment  
 
Thank you.
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 07:42 PM     
  Ok....  
 
Just for the record, a woman past middle age runs the same risks of having a child with deformities etc as incestual couple.

"beat - Ever have oral sex...."

I know almost anyone with a healthy sex life participates in these acts. But say you're a lesbian. Arent these your only choices seeing as how you lack the anatomy to copulate? And I know of a few states where anal sex is illegal. So that takes care of the homosexual male side of the arguement.

I have a cousin that is gay. I know its not his fault that he's homosexual. I know that if he had a choice, he wouldnt be. He's even had sex with women, but he finds it repulsive. I don't condone his lifestyle, and he doesnt talk about it with me. I dont love him any less because of who he chooses to date, he's my cousin for heavens sake. I was raised that homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of GOD. But I was also raised that you're to "Love thy neighbor." I really dont know how I feel about gay's marrying. I havent thought it through enough on my own to know what I think. I was taught it's wrong, but I want to be able to come to my own conclusion as to why before I post anymore. Lord knows I don't want to be labeled a "crazy Christian."
 
  by: tsawyers   03/15/2005 09:46 PM     
  @ tsawyers  
 
So, you know that he's gay, you know that he can't change the fact that he's gay, you know that he's repulsed at the idea of having sex with women - yet, you don't "condone his lifestyle"? What the hell do you want him to do? "It's simple - don't have sex." I really hope that's not your answer.
 
  by: kolman36     03/15/2005 09:55 PM     
  I guess  
 
I didn't make myself clear. I apologize.

I just meant that I don't like the way he lives. I wouldnt dare tell him who he can and cannot date, its simply not my place to do so. We know where each other stand on the issue and theres no point in arguing about it at every visit. It's nothing more than wasted breath. So we just dont talk about it. Its not worth it. Im not the close-minded witch like you so obviously made me out to be. Im at a point in my life where I'm questioning my choices in religion. If I change my mind and decide that how he lives isin't so bad after all, at least I'll be a big enough person to say so and apologize to him for the past.
 
  by: tsawyers   03/15/2005 10:23 PM     
  @tsawyers  
 
I'm not sure that kolman36 intended villify you so much as to ask you just where your stance leaves you as far as what you think your cousin ought to do. If you disapprove of something, it would seem only logical that there must be an alternative path that you would approve of. This would seem to have been the question - since you know that he can't help who he is, what would you have him do instead?
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/15/2005 11:29 PM     
  got long thread?  
 
i fully believe that gay people have a RIGHT to the civil benefits of marriage (implied inheritance from partner, cheaper insurance, etc)

but i am very opposed to gay marriage (and gay adoption for that matter)

I am not religious in any way, infact i think it is religion that is unhealthy and unnatural.

BUT marriage is a sacred union of a man a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman.

I think they should have a "civil union" as a marriage replacement - it would give the same civil rights to people that are going to be together anyway, but it would also keep the churches focussed on important issues like banning birth control (come to think about it, that is probably why they are anti-gay, inbuilt birth control)

if the reason that gay people wanted to get married is civil rights surely a civil union would do that. unless they are Helen Degenerate and just sticking it to the man

as for marrying an appliance, could never happen as they can't say "i do"
 
  by: variable   03/16/2005 12:56 AM     
  enough about god  
 
i know homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of god, but that's not a factor that anyone that truly believes in american-style government would consider. a good american would suspend their disgust and religious inclinations and look at the matter objectively, independent of personal factors.

the judge made his decision based on the fact that civil unions, but no marriage is too reminiscent of Separate But Equal, (brown vs. board of education.) A separate, government endorsed program providing theoretically equal services is known as SEGREGATION, which was ruled as unconstitutional.

the fact of the matter is that there is no secular, objective reason to specifically ban gay marriage. you can make religious objections to it, but those can't be basis of legal action. you can say you disapprove of it, but many other people approve of it, and your reasons for disapproval (personal disgust/discomfort w/ it) simply don't justify a codified, enforced law forbidding gay marriage.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/16/2005 01:22 AM     
  @ moment, tsawyers, variable  
 
Tsawyers - Yeah, what moment said.
Moment - Thank you
Variable - That's a common misconception. Civil unions are not equal to marriages. It's been well documented that civil unions deny rights that people who are married recieve. If there were an alternative, certainly that would be fine. But, as of right now, there is no equal alternative.
 
  by: kolman36     03/16/2005 01:43 AM     
  @kolman  
 
sorry for the misunderstanding

by civil union i meant a whole NEW 'marriage substitute' i wasnt aware that there was a half assed version already called civil union.

lets call it the 'variable's alternative to civil union which is an alternative to marriage with all legal rights associated but for gay people union thing'
 
  by: variable   03/16/2005 02:02 AM     
  @ variable  
 
Haha, okay. That would be fine, though I doubt it will ever happen.
 
  by: kolman36     03/16/2005 02:45 AM     
  @variable  
 
Compaining for birth control.

So when was the last time up adopted a crackwhores throw away baby???

Or when was the last time you even considered adopting the soul you just saved. this baby is born into a world which now in turn will have no love, no joy for life or have loving parents that even care about it.

Thats is moral and sound judgement if i have ever seen it.

better to be alive and have no choice in the family you are born into, and they way they bring you up than ever exsiting right ????
 
  by: |roach|   03/16/2005 02:54 AM     
  I still think  
 
that too many people are focusing specifically on the rights of gay people. That is narrow minded.

This really isn't about gay people at all, it is about any person who chooses to live their life in a way that is dissimilar to the established tradition of man and wife.

I honestly think that what needs to happen, is for a formal study to be made of the different rights and benefits of marriage. Then these should be seperated into distinct areas, and the right way t o address each area fairly be decided on it, refined, and only then considered to for passing into law.

The fact is that gays should not need to be married. If they need to be married in order to obtain the rights and benefits of raising a family, and path of inheritance, then it is time that those issues were addressed. Simply saying "Let Gays Marry" is not - for the millions of people who believe in the sanctity of marriage - an acceptable solution.

It is time to stop putting the horse before the cart - fix the parts that are broken, IMPROVE the system, don't just slap a bandaid on it.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/16/2005 03:35 AM     
  @ roach and lauriesman  
 
roach, please take a moment to remove your head from your arse. i NEVER said i was against birth control, i said the church was - i also made a specific point that i belive church = stupid.

personally i am pro choice, always have been. but thanks for misreading something, wetting yourself and then going on all sorts of dumb tangents.

laurie, the reason i think they need marriage is i heard of something that happened here in Australia. some gay couple of like 10 years, one of them died of cancer or something and the other had to watch as the family that hated their (dead) sons lifestyle choices, took all his stuff and sold it. if they were married, the survivor would get everything. i dont think they should get "married" but they should be accepted that they are in a serious relationship which has civil rights
 
  by: variable   03/16/2005 03:47 AM     
  lauriesman  
 
You want to preserve the sanctity of marriage? Start by protesting in Las Vegas...
 
  by: kolman36     03/16/2005 07:56 AM     
  @variable,kolman  
 
Variable: He should have had a will explicitly laying how his estate should be divided. Everyone should. This is no differnet to the difficulty faced by an adopted child should blood children challenge their rights.

Kolman: Many Las Vegas weddings survive the test of time, and many's the couple in love that have eloped to marry there. How does that deny the sanctity of marriage?
 
  by: lauriesman     03/16/2005 04:20 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Contracts can be fought, and when someone is not recognized as family in an inheritance case, they have significantly less legal power. That is not right, and that they cannot get that legal power is unconstitutional. They shouldn't have to go out of their way in the first place. Frankly, the system is not so broken as to need the revisions you suggest. As I've pointed out, the rights of marriage are not limited to child bearing. What you suggest is not even on the table as an option, and so opposing gay marriage in the hope of seeing such changes enacted seems like saying you'll oppose it until you seem pigs fly (for the sake of the example, assume pigs flying would help the situation).

As far as Vegas weddings, the divorce rate in America is over 50% now, and I find it very, very hard to believe that the figure is lower in a place where a man in an Elvis suit will marry walk-ins (somehow not a perversion of the sanctity of marriage). To believe so seems to be little but rationalization on your part, unless you have a few figures to disprove what seems to me to be common sense.

There is an elephant in the corner of the room, but those drapes have to go, eh?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/16/2005 07:09 PM     
  Hold the phone a second  
 
You think an Elvis impersonator who performs wedding ceremonies is bad? What about people that get (of all things) "Vampires" to perform the ceremony? A wedding is a celebration of sorts. Why should a bride be limited as to whom marries her as long as that person is qualified to do so? I was married on October 31st. What do you have to say about that? I was also married in a courthouse, and according to the Catholic church, seeing as how I wasnt married by a priest, Im not really married. I have a marriage license, and a wedding ring. All of those things are just that...things. What matters is that in the eyes of GOD, my husband and I are man and wife. I know that in my heart. Why should it matter if you say your vows in front of Elvis? Or Dracula for that matter, as long as he or she is qualified for the job. The divorce rate has nothing to do with these things. Its about the compatibility and the love of the couple. If you dont have a solid foundation, the house falls down. Marriage has no meaning to alot of people anymore because its becoming more and more common to divorce.

"Oh, you dont like the drapes? Screw you, I want a divorce." Of course, it wont be over the drapes, but Im using that as an example of how lightly people take their vows.

"For better or for worse, till death do us part."
What part of that don't people understand? For heavens sake, its not a dress rehersal, its real life. Nobody said marriage was easy. Its certainly not, but its not so hard that you cant work through some peoblems. In some cases, I can understand though. Abuse, adultery and things like that. But just because you dont like the person anymore? Oh grow up!
 
  by: tsawyers   03/16/2005 09:11 PM     
  @tsawyers  
 
The point on Elvis-conducted Vegas weddings was not over the unique nature of the ceremony, but the frivolous and ill-considered nature of some who use them for their convenience. In MY opinion, people (whoever they happen to be) can have whatever ceremony they like. But to others who seem to want to establish terms, yet seem to turn a blind eye to weddings between idiots while yelling about weddings between loving people, there is a different standard. For them, it is hypocrisy to ignore such things while they express such "grave and sincere" concern over the state of marriage.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/16/2005 09:56 PM     
  @mom of clarity  
 
However, as has been pointed out, many relationships of some worth are solidified in what we might consider cheap or twadry elvis chappels. Some are even formed by picking up a marriage license with no ceremony at all. The reasons are many and varied. This in no way diminishes the fact that marriage is an act before God, and a spiritual union between a man and a woman. Elvis Costello or Elvis Presley presiding is irrelevant.

I'm not even clear on what you hoped to accomplish by bringing it up.

Unlike people like you, who would settle for some gum and gaffa tape to hold the siding on the walls, I actually believe in fixing the problem with nails, screws and wood-glue. Attitudes like yours are exactly why "it will never happen".
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 12:53 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Are you deliberately missing the point because it doesn't suit yours?

I'm sorry, you can't tell me that some guy who walks into a Vegas wedding chapel with someone he barely knows to get hitched is making a lifetime commitment before God. You certainly aren't going to convince me that the act of getting married is somehow inherently beautiful and beyond reproach. Your assertions that "many" lasting relationships are formed this way mean very, very little to me. It's nonsensical, and you have no figures to back it up, no matter how strongly you assert it. Of course there are some that last, but I guarantee it's less than those in other areas of the country, shameful as those are anyway.

Quite frankly, you're not turning the table on me to try to make me look as if I'm the intolerant one not approving of an alternative minister - who performs it is not the point, let's see if you can grasp it the third time around. The point is that walk-in weddings are performed for any drunken moron who wants one and people have very, very little to say about it. Yet, they form legal defense funds to prevent two loving, committed individuals from marrying. Hypocisy.

As for your plan, allow me to be blunt, as subtle niceties seem to have not carried by true sentiment. It's a ridiculous pipe dream at best, and a diversion at worst. If you're not just using it to put off granting equal benefits and legitimately believe in it, then push for it in the long run - extending civil rights to those who deserve them now in no way hinders tweaking the system as you suggest later. Why? Because no matter who is getting married at the time, you'll need to tweak it for everyone anyway. Because your plan, not even an issue on the table now, does not conflict with the actual issue at hand, I'm more than a little skeptical of your motives (if not your sincerity) in insisting that it needs to be done now.

Would you try to soup up a mechanically unsound car? No, you fix the problems first, then your make your improvements.
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/17/2005 03:15 AM     
  The second one of these in the last few months  
 
And still a complete copy of that magazine (can't remember which one) which in the 60's (i think) showed a puppy on the front and said "buy this magazine, or we'll shoot this puppy"

Anyone who actually sends money to this person needs a reality check. Nobody deserves to earn thousands of bucks for threatening the life of an animal...
 
  by: fredfredrickson   03/17/2005 03:21 AM     
  @ frefredrickson  
 
that is so the wrong thread

yet still one of the most insightful and intelligent posts made on this one

go figure
 
  by: variable   03/17/2005 03:33 AM     
  LOL  
 
I agree with variable. Very deep indeed. Reminds me of the pictures circling the net 'everytime you buy a ps2 a kitten dies'.
 
  by: treyjazz   03/17/2005 04:22 AM     
  Good mis-direction...LOL......n/t  
 
 
  by: lurker     03/17/2005 04:30 AM     
  @mom  
 
You have your view, and I have mine. I don't particular swallow the 'most marriages performed in las vegas chapels are drunk and insincere' - that the kind of movie bred stereotypical thinking that convinces people that most gays are great interior designers.

As to your mechanic analogy - slapping gaffa tape around the exhaust to hold it on, and painting over the rust does not qualify as 'fixing' the vehicle. You fix the problems by addressing the root cause of each of the car's faults.

You can question my motives all you like, that is quite irrelevant. Just remember that the idea of slaves being free was once just a pipe-dream too. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 05:39 AM     
  Oh and  
 
Yes, the current plan DOES conflict.

The gay rights movement is sabotaging their own best interests by forcing the issue of constitutional ammendment. Can't you see that when people vote on this, the majority are going to vote against giving gays the right to marry - and that this is going to be encoded into the constitution? You can't un-ammend the constitution, you can only add sub-paragraphs and new ammendments. In their demands for the right to marry, homosexuals are forcing the hand of those of us who wish to protect the institution of marriage from becomming further debased and degraded than it already is.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 05:43 AM     
  actually, you can  
 
you can un-amend the constitution. remember prohibition? when a bunch of good-hearted christians got together to defeat the demon rum? and it backfired, and established a huge black market and spawned organized crime? the constitution was amended, and then un-amended. the constitution is difficult to amend, and even more difficult to un-amend, but it's still doable.

as i said earlier, gay couples don't need government-recognized marriages any less than straight couples. no one's gonna want to overhaul the whole system over what is, in that regard, such a minor issue. all they have to do is cross out the part that defines marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, and it's all gravy. no complex re-working of the law, none of the problems that would inevitably result from it.

some people (i'm not necessarily implying you, lauriesman) think that we would have to bend over backwards to accomodate gay marriage. it's a pretty simple thing, folks. you leave it up to the churches to allow them to marry religiously, some chapels will specifically advertise that they're pro-gay-marriage, and the marriage industry gets a nice boost. kids get adopted or artificially (or naturally) inseminated into the mommas, and everyone lives happily ever after. married straight couples stay married and don't notice any difference in their lives.
 
  by: cellardweller1   03/17/2005 06:26 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Let's just say that you have your illusions and I have mine...and leave it without another word at that, for the sake of civility.

You can reframe the issue however you like, the fact of the matter is that your plan does nothing for the issue at hand, which is discrimination by sexual orientation, not the state of marriage. If this were over the slavery issue, your idea would be akin to telling the slaves, "Well, I guess that maybe you ought to be free, but this nation of ours has a lot of problems, so I think that we ought to wait to free you until after we've modernized the South, settled the West, and cleaned up the North." I'm giving you a lot of credit there, since freeing the slaves would have conflicted with such a plan. Giving homosexuals equal rights and benefits causes no such conflict, unless of course you blame the victims for speaking up, which seems to be your additional point. Make no mistake, I do not share your view that the civil rights of real people ought to take a backseat to "preserving" an institution that has, in reality, persisted IN CHANGING FORMS for millenia.

In short, people before idealistic illusions - make your dreams a reality when it doesn't disadvantage others.
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/17/2005 08:14 AM     
  @moment of clarity  
 
Nice try to hyperbolise my point.

Let me lay it out nice and clean for you. Neither I , nor anyone else I personally know, want gays to be able to marry. Yes, my reasons are religious. Guess what, I also don't think they should be able to take mass/communion. When I say 'Gay', I mean practicing homosexuals. Again, the reasons are religious. These are religous institutions, the entire grounding is religion, without religion, there is actually no need to get married at all.

So, why should I, or any other Christian or Catholic, allow the blatant perversion of our beliefs and practices to suit the agenda of people who continue to engage in acts that are an abomination to God?

If GAYS want the right's associated with families, inheritance, and the like - let them campaign for those rights. I'll support them whole heartedly, but I will not support the perversion of something that is personally important to me.

Let them get handfasted, sign contracts, or whatever else they want. Let them campaign for that.

You seem to think its a trivial change, a simple thing and so easy to do - what you - and others who do not understand christians and/or christianity - do not get is that this is not a simple change for us.

Of course it seems simple to you, you aren't the one being asked to compromise on the sanctity of the holy spirit.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 09:05 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Ah, so you've tired of trying to hide your religous bigotry behind secular facades. Now you're making more sense, but then, genuine, heartfelt arguments often do. To make the claim in the face of countless legal and financial benefits which hinge on a contract specifically titled "marriage" that there is no reason to marry outside of religion is, quite frankly, belligerent ignorance. No one involved in the civil rights aspect of this issue cares a lick about religious institutions accepting anything...but still the irrational salad-bar Christian insists on making it his business. I love how your argument has collapsed into, "I and my Christian friends don't like this or these people, so we're going to oppose it!" Oh, you don't want them taking mass? What does that have to do with anything, and do you really think that ANYONE cares? Here, let me put it in caps for you:

THE ONLY WAY THIS INVOLVES ANY CHURCH IS BECAUSE THEY POKE THEIR NOSES INTO IT.

This is an issue of civil rights and equal treatment for persons in this country. No one is demanding a damned thing of churches, it'd be nice if they'd reciprocate and mind their own damned business. As I stated much earlier, churches lost the monopoly over marriage as soon as justices of the peace began conducting the ceremonies. Civil marriage is not a religious institution, and to try to reframe it as such is both stupid and futile. No one who is informed on the dimensions of this issue will buy it. For those who will, you're preaching to the choir. I don't believe for a second that you'd support such rights for homosexuals on other terms, because the institutions are already quite obviously separate to any rational person. So, are you irrational or lying?

I in no way hyperbolized your point - it was stupid and I pointed out why (and now we see what your real objection is, though it's equally foolish). As for not understanding Christians, you can stop playing the misunderstood martyr game anytime. I grew up Christian, studied it extensively, and alongside that, studied the psychology of prejudice, mostly to understand how such a beautiful religion could lead to such hateful people. As I see it, in a religion with a message of love and tolerance, beliefs such as yours are the perversion.
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/17/2005 10:38 AM     
  By the way...  
 
Oh, why not hit the "Gays should not take communion" issue, irrelevant as it is. Communion...otherwise referred to as the Lord's supper...the same Lord who is touted as having the grace to have made a point to EAT WITH SINNERS. How funny that, now, so-called "Christians" would bar such people from His table. I doubt I need to say any more on this.
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/17/2005 10:51 AM     
  @mom  
 
No you still don't get it. If all this was about was obtaining the legal rights and benefits, without interfering with marriage, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact, as you should be able to tell from my previous posts, I would fully support it. However, you are messing with something that is an integral part of christian belief.

Of course you don't get this, and of course, in your eyes, it is perfectly fine to screw with christian beliefs to suit someone elses agenda.

Now for however long this issue remains bound up in marriage, that his how long I, and the millions of christians that oppose this, will continue to make our stand.

Now if you, and the gays you so earnestly support, should happen to focus on the real issues, and decide to fix the problems that are at the root of this conflict, then everyone will be happy.

You can call me a bigot if you wish, if it makes you feel better, however the only thing I have against gays is when they try to tamper with things that I hold dear.

You can continue to along your band-aid approach, and ignore the real issues if you wish. It won't fix anything, eventually the issue will just crop up again, and again - or the consitution will be amended in such a way as gays cannot legally be married (as it has been in other states already). Go ahead though, keep forcing the issue, the end result is going to be messy - and probably lead to violent and harsh feelings on both sides of the fence for many years to come.

Here's my suggestion to you, WRITE to your local member, your local gay rights organisations, and whoever else you think should be advised. Start the process that I suggested, and you will see just how many people are willing to work towards a mutually acceptable solution, when it doesn't mean the perversion and degredation of something they hold sacred.

To paraphrase a quote: The person who says it can't be done should get out of the road of the person doing it.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 03:20 PM     
  @mom  
 
Only an person ignorant of christian faith could make that statement.

Communion is not just taking supper with the lord - it is sharing in his blood and body, the acceptance of his sacrifice, and the acknowledgement of his divinity. We are commanded by God to be right with him (meaning, to have no issues between us and him) before we partake. By the very definition, a homosexual has issues between them and God: an utter disobedience to his law, and in general a complete lack of repetance and desire to reform.

In such a state, taking communion would simply be consuming some bread/wafer and a thimble of wine, as well as being an insult to God, and a further act of disobedience.

Do you know why it is called communion? It is because of the intimacy and closeness with God that it brings, through the prayer that preceeds it, the sincere acknowledgement that accompanies it, and the worship and praise that follows it.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 03:28 PM     
  ok, my turn... bigots beware  
 
this is simply a issue of religious insecurity... that is my conclusion... i'm sick and tired of ignorant and arrogant chirstians telling people how they can and can't live.

let me break it down... most of you here know me... what am i?

i'm and modern satanist (not a devil-worshipper... if you don't know what this implies think of it as self-worship) and above that i'm an atheist...

and i will tell you now that a day will come when i will marry (i'm a straight male by the way for those that don't know) and i can promise you this there will be no religious connotations... it will be strictly the laws tid bits... my vows and my partners vows...

i will not tolerate religion forced upon me... infact its a good way to provoke a fight with me (verbally and in some cases phsyically).

i will not be married in a mainstream church (or any church affiliated with the jewish/christian/catholic/islamic religion)... under any circumstance.

if i'm ever in a court of law for and other reason i will not swear on the holy bible... it has no binding on me in any shape or form.

although for the most part i do agree with one thing lauriesman said (and this is starting to scare me...lol) that being the most inportant thing about parenting is suitablity... and religion has no bearing on that.

also heres a historical fact that no-one her that i seen mentioned and that christianity DID NOT invent marriage... its been in existance much longer... whether of not if was between a man and a woman... 2 women or 2 men is irrelavent... you don't hold a monoply on it... if you think you do this is what you should do...

1. pull your head out of your ass

2. stand up straight... with your head up your ass for so long your back must hurt alot... hell i've got too much spine to stick my head in the remote vacinity of my ass.

when your spine is faith/religion your spine is lacking

3. open your eyes... you may not have seen real world in a long time... or for some people ever.

some you you think its unnatural for gays to be gay... i say its unnatural to be this ignorant and arrogant... or maybei for that backwards maybe its unnatural to be reasonable, to be rational, to be equal, and wise.

i have no problem with people that are in a religion i am inconvienced when they dog there religion on me and other for that matter.

I am inconvienced when driving down the road and seeing signs that say "god loves you" (i seen one last night.. you don't want to know the thoughts that came to mind when i see that).

I am inconvienced when tv is interupted to anything religious... or political for that matter... if i wanted one or the other there are channel aside for specifically one or the other.

I am esspecially inconvienced when relious people come to my doorstep... not to mention irratated by them.

they don't seriously want my opinion... they're just there to waste my time... so in turn i waste theirs... i'll hold them up as long as i can... i had to teenage guys...in their older teenage years come to my doorstep pimping their religion... pushing isn't even the word... if you call a drug dealer a pusher... a bible salemen is surely a pimp... i kept them on my doorstep for over 30 minutes debating their religion... they couldn't even touch mine... i made it known right off the bat what i was... and i make no bones about it... and i'm proud to be what i am... next day (this was a few years back) i'm riding my bike down the street and i see them and say nothing... they obviously remembered me and yelled out in a volume that could be heard for atleast a block clearly "GOD HATER"... what do you think i did... with my size i could've easy turned my bike around and beat both of them into the ground... and i wouldn't have regreted it either... but no i just laughed and turn the block to go home...

point being what caused them to do it... do they hate me... maybe... did they disagree with me... obviously... difference being the way i handled it.

if they or anyone wants to sell me religion... or worse yet pimp it off like a street whore... they yes i'll tell them where they can stick that book... and if they give me one... i'll make no bones about telling them what i did with that last one.

i'm sure you can use your imaginations for that one... although unless i've already told you, you'll certianly be off by atleast the end-location...lol

now this rant of mine has surely drifted... but when writing from your raw thoughts this tends to happen.

so allow to to reiterate my points... all this shit (and it really is shit... a whole load of it at that) isn't about the sanctity of marriage, because if it would the gay's would be a far less problem than divorce... why don't you ban divorce...

btw, i know the differience between divorce and annulment.

but if oyu ban divorce what might happen... murdering your spouse.. cause you know "till' death do us part" which might as well say "if you kill your spo
 
  by: HAVOC666     03/17/2005 06:31 PM     
  part 2  
 
but if you ban divorce what might happen... murdering your spouse.. cause you know "till' death do us part" which might as well say "if you kill your spouse you can re-marry"...

now i'm not saying it will happen (widespread)... though i'm certian it has happened though. however its far more logical than gays marrying leading to incest marriage and marrying appliances... that is simply mindless religous rhetoric... and the authors of such posts should seriously re-think their ignorance... as that is one obvious thing they are lacking...

while were at it lets revoke all marriages until the american population as a whole until they can come to an agreement as a whole on marriage that everyone can benifit from not just people that happen to be straight...

but then again that would involve equality... and thats something that both religion and government have no intrest in or desire to achieve.
 
  by: HAVOC666     03/17/2005 06:33 PM     
  @Lauriesman  
 
I'll hit the Communion thing first, as an appetizer. First of all, obviously you've ascertained that I feel that you're ignorant of your own faith, and let me make it clear that I that you've only gone on to verify that to me. Here's a clue for you, reach down from your moral high horse to grasp it: Everyone is a sinner, all equal before God. That was one of the points Christ went to great lengths to make - or did you miss why he didn't let them stone that prostitute? Everyone approaches the table of God in such a state. Unless a homosexual happens to be having sex with another during his prayer for forgiveness, he is just as absolved as the adulterer a row down who has also just asked for forgiveness. Let's not even get into that harlot down the row who dared to wear a blouse of mixed fabrics to the service. The salad-bar Christians have decided that certain sins still indelibly mark a person, so why muddy that with what Christ actually taught? Yu've got your dogma to keep you cozy. Regarding the spirit of the ceremony, once again I point out how the disparity between what Christ did and what his "followers" did is utterly laughable.

My claim that you are ignorant of your faith has nothing to do with your superb ability to parrot literal interpretations. Even in the early centuries of Christianity, its philosophers condemned such non-thought as the religion of children. True commitment to a religion is actually thinking about it, its creeds, and messages. Christ taught none of what you try to pass off as Christianity, and would weep at the places his name is being taken by such "Christians."
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/17/2005 07:00 PM     
  @L, Issue at hand  
 
Clearly, I am not the one mising the point, because it IS all about legal rights and benefits. Government marriage is integral to Christian beliefs? Could you cite a passage for me from the Bible which mentions government marriages? I must have missed that one, because I've not seen it. Somehow, you've got it in your head that any marriage is somehow a Christian marriage, which is simply false, and laughably so. If you and "millions of Christians" (though, fortunately, not all) are too damned stupid to figure out that a marriage performed by the government with no religious official presiding has no Christian ties, then there is very little point debating the matter. I could be doing better things, like going to 711 and finding a perfect dozen.

I do see the root of this problem now - Christians who can't even comprehend where their religion ends and our society, government, and legal system begin. This is not an issue of what's wrong with marriage, as you so feverishly work to reframe it, but that we live in a country that professes to extend equal rights to all people, and a disparity between that and reality has been found. Even from a Christian perspective - what Christ taught, you know, that you treat others as you would like to be treated - this is intolerable. Civil unions, a marriage alternative similar to what you suggest, have been suggested many times over the last few years, and I've seen the response - those same Christians still find a way to be offended; in that case, because of people wanting "fake/sham/mock marriages." Thusly, I put little stock in your idea, because it does nothing to get people the benefits they're being denied, benefits you seem utterly determined to ignore so you can continue to think this is somehow about what your church does. These people have shown that they wil not accept even this alternative, and as someone else has pointed out, it's inferior anyway, so one may as well directly fix the problem.

While you're at it, show me where Jesus advocates codifying your beliefs in government law, such as with an amendment. They can go ahead and pass one if they like...amendments have been overwritten in the past, and I have little doubt that it will happen again. It's an issue of ignorance, and as Havok666 points out, of insecurity - religious, sexual, and moral. Time heals all these things. Just as when those damned activist judges extended full rights to blacks, those fearful of change will make a fuss regardless, and the issue will later be looked on with shame years later. Of course, the discrimination is right and proper this time...just as it was when it was the blacks, the Catholics, and so forth before that.

I'll end here before I descend into further misanthropy.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/17/2005 07:33 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
While that was an enjoyable anecdotal rant of irrelevancy, it really doesn't change anything.

Simply put, how you feel really has nothing to do with how I or anyone else feels.

Religious insecurity? Not really, more like sticking to your principles and beliefs.

I'm not going to go into them any more fully here, because I am sure I would simply be wasting my time. Suffice to say, that I do not believe that homosexuals should be able to marry.

To throw this in an entirely different tangent, how do yo feel about D/s Master/slave relationships?
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 09:44 PM     
  @mom1  
 
"I'll hit the Communion thing first, as an appetizer. First of all, obviously you've ascertained that I feel that you're ignorant of your own faith, and let me make it clear that I that you've only gone on to verify that to me. "

Actually, I'm well aware of my own faith. You know..it being what _I_ believe and all.

"Here's a clue for you, reach down from your moral high horse to grasp it: Everyone is a sinner, all equal before God."

Definitely, and I have never disputed this.

"That was one of the points Christ went to great lengths to make - or did you miss why he didn't let them stone that prostitute? Everyone approaches the table of God in such a state."

Yes they do, hence the prayer that proceeds communion - which is an acknowledgement of sin, a sincere desire for forgiveness, and a turning back to the Lord.

"Unless a homosexual happens to be having sex with another during his prayer for forgiveness, he is just as absolved as the adulterer a row down who has also just asked for forgiveness. Let's not even get into that harlot down the row who dared to wear a blouse of mixed fabrics to the service. "

He would be, if he were equally sincere. God has little care for what you confess with the mouth, if it isn't in your heart. A prayer for forgiveness has no effect if you don't earnestly desire it. You cannot be forgiven for something you do not regret and repent. The rest of this is exaspering reference to the fundementalist dogma that I neither hold to, nor accept.

"The salad-bar Christians have decided that certain sins still indelibly mark a person, so why muddy that with what Christ actually taught? Yu've got your dogma to keep you cozy."

If you actually read all of what I said, and considered what it means to be right with God, you would understand why homosexuals in general would get no benefit from communion, and why it would be an affront to God for them to take it. Kind of like saying "So sorry your Son died to save my life" and then urinating on his grave.

"Regarding the spirit of the ceremony, once again I point out how the disparity between what Christ did and what his "followers" did is utterly laughable."

In fact, it is firmly established in the bible that noone who is not right with God should take communion. This doesn't just apply to homosexuals but to anyone who has unresolved sin between them and God.

"My claim that you are ignorant of your faith has nothing to do with your superb ability to parrot literal interpretations. Even in the early centuries of Christianity, its philosophers condemned such non-thought as the religion of children. True commitment to a religion is actually thinking about it, its creeds, and messages. Christ taught none of what you try to pass off as Christianity, and would weep at the places his name is being taken by such "Christians.""

In short, little more than an arrogant and condescending upbraiding by someone who has no problem generalising the belief of christians, and insulting them without really trying to understand. Shame on you.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 09:56 PM     
  @lauries  
 
if both people in B&D/S&M relationships are both consenting adults more power to them... and what they or anyone does behind their doors with their partners isn't yours, mine or anyone elses places to be concerned about...

you be happy in your sex life and let them do the same...

i have no more a problem with 2 guys or 2 women going at it than i do with a straight couple down the street... hell if its 2 women all the better.

i personally don't give a rats ass if they are into watersports or scat either...

i don't care if your into it for that matter...

i don't care if theres a concented gangbang in the house next door or not... do you?

why should you?

is your sex-life that boring?

your life that dull?

nothing better to do?

2 adults marrying to me is 2 adults marrying

if it were a 60 year old and a 15 year old... thats one thing...

if its even a 30 year old and a 13 year old (refer to above)...

buts its not its 2 consenting adults...

your married are you, you ability to concent to marriage is equal to theirs... no greater than no less than...

the only difference lays between your ears.

what you think, what you've been told

what about what they think, what about what they feel...

this isn't about your happiness its about theirs...

the only way this effects you is also between your ears

if it effects you any other way than you may want to seek professional help... of course you wont... the problem can't possible be you... it must be them...

and if you think i believe that i've obviously given you too much credit in the ways of mental capacity...

and i think if thats true and you are married i think the state should revoke your marriage for not having adequete mental capacity.



btw, i hope you can sift through the half joking parts (yes there is seriousness in them) and the whole-serious parts.
 
  by: HAVOC666     03/17/2005 10:06 PM     
  @mom2  
 
Again, you obfuscate the issue. Yes, there is a huge difference between religous spiritual union and a civil union. I've never said otherwise - however this distinction is not totally clear in either constitution or the laws of the land. I've proposed from the very first a clearer seperation, and recodifying of these laws to address this. I want to allow anyone who has a valid right, to be given the rights that they need and deserve vis-a-vis children, inheritance, etc. I want a single man to be able to adopt, and in that adoption obtain the full legal rights of a father, I want two people to be able to be united by handfasting, or the gaulish '1 year` system, and obtain all the rights that relate. Patching the system so that one small demographic can have their way is not addressing the issue. It fixes nothing, this issue will come up again and again. Polygamy for example.

Why should a person be required to be married to be able to raise children at all? What does it have to do with the price of fish in denmark on a hot day? It used to be that marriage gauranteed a stable family unit - with the rising rate of divorce, this is less and less so as time goes by. A person should not need to be married to raise a family, with the full legal rights and benefits associated with that.

You continue to dismiss this as a pipe-dream, and yet it is the only real way to fix what is broken.

Now, I don't believe gays should be married, religiously and personally, if thats bigotry - tough, deal with it. I don't see why christians as a whole should have to allow the perversion of the marriage isntituion to suit the sexual proclivities of anyone else, when with a little effort and perserverance, an enduring and worthwhile solution could be forged.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 10:09 PM     
  @Lauriesman  
 
Heh, who are you trying to fool, implying that all Christians share the same beliefs? I've made it quite clear the kind of "Christians" I'm criticizing, those being the ones who follow dogma and prejudices which have no basis in the teachings of Christ. We need more real Christians in the world. So once again, stop the martyrdom bit, unless you need to put it in print to cushion yourself from something you don't want to hear. When I say, "your faith," I mean Christianity as Christ taught, not specifically what you believe. Obviously you know what you specifically believe, and I've already pointed out the disparity between the two.

For one thing, a homosexual can genuinely ask forgivenss - just showing up to such a church shows that they must have some desire to repent. Since churches don't bar the known alcoholic, the rumored adulterer, or the man who is known to work on Sunday following the sermon, it is hypocritical to ban homosexuals. Christ taught that all are welcome, he didn't add that everyone ought to be screened or barred from His table. Then, of course, there's the fact that, once again, not everyone believes the same thing. Since there are such differences between sects, it is perfectly reasonable that a Christian can not believe homosexuality a sin - the passages which actually condemn it, none spoken by Christ himself, are few and their validity/applicability contentious. Such people, then, would be quite right in approaching for communion, and would feel that they derive a benefit. Obviously, though, such pesons ought to find a church which suits them. That you call it an affront to God is funny, since you don't seem so terribly concerned with those other known, repeated sinners. My reference to the woman in mixed fibers is quite valid, the most often referenced passage (you did so yourself above) appears along with such archaic prohibitions. Yet, some Christians decide that particular passage is valid...how odd. You claim not to hold to such dogma, yet you are explicitly founding your beliefs on a neighboring passage.

I'll have to cut this short, as I have to be elsewhere.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/17/2005 10:21 PM     
  @havoc  
 
"if both people in B&D/S&M relationships are both consenting adults more power to them... and what they or anyone does behind their doors with their partners isn't yours, mine or anyone elses places to be concerned about..."

Many D/s practitioners would enjoy the freedom to practice their beliefs where-ever they want.

"You be happy in your sex life and let them do the same..."

D/s is not soley about sex, its a 24/7 lifestyle for its believers.

"i have no more a problem with 2 guys or 2 women going at it than i do with a straight couple down the street... hell if its 2 women all the better."

Really irrelevant, i hope you know that.

"i personally don't give a rats ass if they are into watersports or scat either..."

Nor do I, other than that the idea disgusts me, and is not a foundation for changing the law to suit their desires.

"i don't care if your into it for that matter..."

I'm not, but I am aware of it. I gave my reasons for bringing it up in earlier posts.

"i don't care if theres a concented gangbang in the house next door or not... do you?"

Only noise factor. Obviously I care on a human level that they may be harming their own lives and live to regret the decisions they make - but it is their life.

"why should you?"

Why should I what?

"is your sex-life that boring?"

Frustrating at times, but that is neither here nor there. I don't intrude on peoples sex lives, vicariously or othewise. That doesn't mean I'm just going to say "oh hey, whatever you want, we'll just change the law - no problem". I'm not an anarchist.

"your life that dull?"

Hardly dull.

"nothing better to do?"

Lots better to do, but it's good to take a break now and then.

"2 adults marrying to me is 2 adults marrying"

Good for you. Why do you say "2" though. Why not more? Why adults?

"if it were a 60 year old and a 15 year old... thats one thing..."

Why - many 15 year olds are mature enough to make life decisions. It's also possible to married at 14 with your parent's permission. Archaic law, but it's there.

"if its even a 30 year old and a 13 year old (refer to above)..."

If the 13 year old was fully developed, and emotionally mature - would you still have a problem?

"buts its not its 2 consenting adults..."

Again... why 2?

"your married are you, you ability to concent to marriage is equal to theirs... no greater than no less than..."

Marriage for me is not simply a declaration of life long partnership. I also happen to believe that divorce should be a last resort, adn that you shouldn't marry if you aren't 100% sure that this is the person you want to spend eternity with.

"the only difference lays between your ears."

True, and in the heart. So why are we considering patching the system to address just one thing, when we should be fixing the system to work for all cases, and fairly across the board? Is it because we are lazy, that it's easier, or is it because gays are the hot topic, and we only really care about them?

"what you think, what you've been told"

Rambling...

"what about what they think, what about what they feel..."

What has this to do with anything? If a man thinks its okay to love a 12 year old girl and marry her - you wouldn't support it, so obviously feelings and impulses aren't the be-all and end-all.

"this isn't about your happiness its about theirs..."

They don't need to be married to be happy. Why do they need a piece of paper to tell them they are together for life - or until it becomes inconvenient - to be happy? There are untold other ways of making such a declaration. Why does marriage have anything to do with sex anyway?

"the only way this effects you is also between your ears"

Also in my heart, but hey, that's a whole nother truckload.

"if it effects you any other way than you may want to seek professional help... of course you wont... the problem can't possible be you... it must be them..."

Of course it's my fault - i'm not the one engaging in abnormal acts, and giving in to unwholesome desires. If I were, then it couldn't possibly be my fault.

"and if you think i believe that i've obviously given you too much credit in the ways of mental capacity..."

You;re still rambling.

"and i think if thats true and you are married i think the state should revoke your marriage for not having adequete mental capacity."

Oh come now, you're either tired or high. Focus.

"btw, i hope you can sift through the half joking parts (yes there is seriousness in them) and the whole-serious parts"

I'm not even going to try.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 10:31 PM     
  reply  
 
"For one thing, a homosexual can genuinely ask forgivenss - just showing up to such a church shows that they must have some desire to repent."

No it doesn't. Showing up at church shows nothing other than that you showed up at church.

"Since churches don't bar the known alcoholic, the rumored adulterer, or the man who is known to work on Sunday following the sermon, it is hypocritical to ban homosexuals."

Not really. As I've said before, its not the attitude its the act. A person can be gay and be right with God - they just have to have the strength and convinction not to practice buggery.

However, I would have no problem with an individual who knows that homosexuality is wrong, and is trying to free themselves from its control, coming in and taking communion.

What I don't want is gay pride activists - the ones who attmpted to sue a church for not permitting them to take communion - trying to hijack or subvert communion for their own agenda.

" Christ taught that all are welcome, he didn't add that everyone ought to be screened or barred from His table. Then, of course, there's the fact that, once again, not everyone believes the same thing. Since there are such differences between sects, it is perfectly reasonable that a Christian can not believe homosexuality a sin - the passages which actually condemn it, none spoken by Christ himself, are few and their validity/applicability contentious. Such people, then, would be quite right in approaching for communion, and would feel that they derive a benefit. Obviously, though, such pesons ought to find a church which suits them. That you call it an affront to God is funny, since you don't seem so terribly concerned with those other known, repeated sinners."

I actually haven't said anything about them. This is a mis-direction as these other hypothetical but no doubt existant sinners are not the topic of this conversation.

" My reference to the woman in mixed fibers is quite valid, the most often referenced passage (you did so yourself above) appears along with such archaic prohibitions."

Homosexuality is an abomination. Seafood without scales shall be a destable thing to you. You don't see the difference here? Of course not. This is one of those points thats been thoroughly refuted by christians and yet continues to be brought up, very tired, very old, and no less persuasive.

"Yet, some Christians decide that particular passage is valid...how odd. You claim not to hold to such dogma, yet you are explicitly founding your beliefs on a neighboring passage."

In every version of the Bible I have read, from KJV to NLT, it is right there. Homosexuality is an abomination. This isn't a case of believing what this or that church says. It's a case of it being explicitly, and unambigously stated in the bible itself.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/17/2005 10:54 PM     
  @lauriesman  
 
You obviously find homosexuality an "abomination"
So, do you consider "seafood without scales shall" to "be a destable thing"?
Would you eat it?
 
  by: ec5618   03/17/2005 11:49 PM     
  @Lauriesman  
 
I repeat, the only obscuring of the issue is on your part. You insisted previously that all marriages were somehow Christian marriages, and so Christians are obliged to stop change to the institution. Here, you acknowledge the difference, and now the matter can be discussed rationally. The difference is quite clear: if your marriage is performed by an agent of the state, it is not a religious ceremony. That seems pretty simple to me, and a change to state weddings has no effect on church weddings.

Once again, I state that I don't care what a private church does, I only care when people try to bring their religious reasons into debate over separate, totally secular civil marriages and who should be included in those. Once again, I point out that allowing gays to marry is not a hindrence to what you propose. In fact, it necessitates no real change to the current system, save that more people will be eligible. Thusly, without using yet another metaphor that you will disagree with, I state again - your either/or approach to reform is impractical and unnecessary, and allows for the continuation of the current discrimination. You have yet to show just why your plan must make gays endure the current inequality, without delving into religious beliefs or citing a primitive prejudicial backlash (blaming the victims).
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/18/2005 12:55 AM     
  @L, side issue  
 
No, you're not going to sidestep the point - churches let known repeat sinners to the table all the time, yet you seek to bar one type. All sinners are equal. The church does not screen, and thusly it is inconsistent with the teachings of Christ to do so. It is not up to a person to decide what is in a parishioner's heart, that is between them and God. As for these phantom "activists," cite a source or don't bother bringing them up. I've not heard of it, and I won't assume that if it happened at all it's anything but a rare case. I realise that activist intrusion is a very effective spectre for the clergy and AM pundits to mention, but I want something a little more substantial. Only a fool would bother with a Church intolerant of their lifestyle.

My point in citing persons who don't believe it a sin is twofold: to further illustrate the divisions in Christian thought and to show just how tenuous the basis of this whole powderkeg issue is. You write off the neighboring Leviticus passages with a comment that would make it seem common sense, but it's not to someone who sees it just as frivolous as any other the other prohibitions. You've done nothing to "thoroughly refute" this, so why don't you get started if it's so easy. Besides this, theories abound that the passage is simply either a woeful mistranslation or taken out of context. Some say if is specific to the era, referring to pagan temple prostitutes who were often male. Others going the mistranslation route say that a more accurate translation is, "A man shall not lie as a woman," referring to resting upon the bed women were to use when menstruating which would make them unclean (which seems to fit a bit better with the other hygeine-based laws there). At any rate, my point is that it's a passage chosen for its convenience to those who wish to discriminate, a highly questionable Old Testament throwback completely out of place in the message of Christ. That I even mention is in the same sentence as the message of Christ seems somehow perverse, since he had nothing to say about it. Funny, since it's such an obvious "abomination."
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     03/18/2005 01:25 AM     
  @moment  
 
http://www.shortnews.com/...

Not the first, nor the only time.

As I said, repeated sinners - even homosexuals - would be welcome, if they come for forgiveness and sincerely repent their ways. In the case of homosexuals proudly displaying their sexual status, there is obviously no repentance.

Homosexuality is mentioned in more than just Leviticus, it appears throughout the bible as something that is anithema to God. The reason I mention Leviticus is because it is the easiest to call to mind. The only debate about Leviticus is by those who are earnest to try adn twist its meaning to something that suits them - most (if not all) of which has been debunked or refuted years ago. People will still insist Jesus was gay, did drugs, and had sex with Mary Magdalene, but in the end it doesn't matter.

The point stands, no issue was side-stepped.
 
  by: lauriesman     03/18/2005 02:43 AM     
  @lauriesman  
 
Yes, once again, you are obscuring the issue - not all homosexuals approach the table wearing their sexuality on their sleeves. Your example shows the level to which these things become exaggerated in your mind. There's no legal challenges mentioned anywhere there, so your claim that anyone is suing for churches to bend to their will is false. It seems that all that these people were doing was exposing the church's un-Christian prejudices, and I could see how that would make some very uncomfortable. This case is not widespread, and serves only to allow you a quick way out of addressing my point.

Why don't you show me where in the Bible, besides the Old Testament, where this condemnation appears? There are, as I recall, only rare mentions by Paul, who was known to be the most conservative of the apostles and finds no support in anything Christ himself said. I point out again, this is the same Christ who ate in person with known and unrepentant sinners, yet they can't be served at his table today (well, just certain ones, the others are okay). Once again, it brings so much more clarity to the matter when you consider the religion of Christ versus those about Christ, or by differentiating those who ponder their religion's message as opposed literal interpretations of error-ridden, archaic texts.

And actually, it if very much an open issue amongst those who study the Bible how these passages actually translated and the context they existed in when they were written. It may be convenient for you to write them off, but it does little to make the actual study of these things any less valid.
 
  by: momentofclarity     03/20/2005 06:07 AM     
  hey!  
 
I didnt care to read all the arguing, heres my point:

If you got a problem with homosexuality because your stupid religion tells you what to think, and that its wrong, well poor little being maybe one day you will open your eyes and see that not everybody live their lives like yours and just because they are not the majority doesnt mean they can't have the same rights as we do.
I don't understand people who are so close minded about homosexuality...how does it affects your lives? Im sure 3/4 of you guys never talked to a gay or something cause you'd realise they arent there to jump on you and rape you or something...anyways

its pretty hard to express myself in english...not my birth language
 
  by: Pas Content   03/20/2005 07:19 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com