The state of California continues to debate the legality of gay marriage based on an unconstitutional proposition passed late last year as a ballot referendum. Often promoted as ‘will of the people’, ‘public opinion’, ‘public referendum’ or whatever moniker the proponents (mostly for religious reasons) like to attach to the piece of legislation., the bill is now being debated in the courts.
Hundreds turn out for Cal. Supreme Court hearing on Prop 8.jpg)
If viewed through a sort of ‘religious filter’, opposition to gay marriage can be understood … if pertaining to ones personal choices. Extending these beliefs to affect all citizenry in the community or even the entire state is unconstitutional. Affording a freedom or a liberty (we will not call it a right because it is at essence a privilege), to a ‘majority’ of the community while excluding a minority from the same entitlement is at essence discrimination. The argument against extending these freedoms to everyone can be framed as an adherence to ‘traditional definition’, but this justification does not exhibit validity. Definitions can, and in fact, have been changed as society has moved past bigotry. If we stop and examine this discrimination in the light of reason we see that there exists no valid justification to deny a privilege to minority because one does not agree with the lifestyle. A personal religious belief does not become the community’s belief solely because a majority follows the doctrine. Surely the Christian would balk at having Muslim tenets imposed upon them if that religion were to gain a majority status in the United States.
Bigotry is bigotry is bigotry, no matter how it is wrapped in appeals to tradition or slippery-slope arguments, a majority vote on legislation can still be bigoted and discriminatory. Many times, judges who rule a popular vote referendum like Proposition 8 as unconstitutional are called activist and accused of legislating from the bench. This is more obfuscation of the truth of the matter which is, the judges are merely striking down legislation that should have never been enacted in the first place.
From the article:
“The rights of voters should be protected, no matter what. I’m a religious person. This would destroy my religion if they made this legal.”
An inflammatory statement from someone who clearly does not understand the protections in the Constitution that safeguard the rights (equal and fair treatment) of the few from the will of the many (discriminatory voter referendums). Our system of checks and balances are at work when a court overturns legislation which is unconstitutional, no matter how much support it garnered from the electorate. There is not a threat to the person’s religion, religion is a personal matter between yourself and whatever god/gods you worship. An individual with a partner preference not in line with a particular theology’s tenets will not destroy the religion and I implore anyone who can provide such evidence (quantitative and verifiable, not hearsay), to please step forward.
In the end, though the proposition passed with a simple voter majority neither validates the constitutionality of the legislation, nor does it become any less bigoted.
Marriage is an institution between a MAN and a WOMAN. SORRRY
Why does it need to be that way?
Because the word “Marriage” has been around for centuries, and it has a specific meaning.
I have no problem with gays & lesbians cohabiting and having some sort of legal civil union with all of the rights of marriage. But they can;t call it “marriage.” THAT word is taken.
Simply a fact.
marriage has been aroudn for centuries but that specific meaning has changed thru time. once upon a time, marriage was a tool for political gain. that is no longer the driving force behind these unions. this is just another “redefinition” according to our beliefs.
You need to do a little research…because it is not “simply a fact”. Marriage actually started in the Greek/Roman civilizations long before the big three religions (Chirstian, Jewish, and Muslim.) Marriage was a union between two people, including homosexuals, for the purpose of protecting property and inheritance. The big three religions stole/borrowed the word and created a definition that benefits their purpose.
Now there is the simple fact.
Well, we need to be careful. Neither Old or New Testament define marriage as between one man and one woman. Polygamy is actually described quite frequently in scripture.
OMG, is that the truth. I do not want to hold up the Bible as an example of marriage to anyone. Jacob and Leah and Rachel and Bilhah and Zilpah? Makes “Big Love” look pretty tame by comparison.
Actually, the greek and roman empires appeared after the history of the Jews. Look it up buddy. Fact? I’d laugh if I didn’t think it was so sad.
So you agree that changing the definition of the term for one’s own purposes constitutes stealing.
If you do a little research on the origin of many words that people use everyday you’ll see that the definitions have almost always changed or been modified. Marriage is but a word like the word gay, which didn’t use to mean what it does today. Its funny how in so many cases related to our society people let ignorance and not facts guide their thinking.
OK, so answer the question I posed earlier that everybody seems to ignore…if you claim it changes, back it up already!
I see several people quoting that Greeks and Romans defined marriage as being between 2 people and that homosexual marriage was common…but as a student of history, I don’t remember ever seeing that in any of the studies that I have done. Homosexuality WAS rampant, but it was not accepted as marriage.
In my study of history, 1989 was the first time that ANY country has allowed CIVIL UNIONS (nothing religious here) between same sex couples.
If you dispute this, please provide sources, not just heated feelings.
In some RELIGIONS marriage is between a man and woman, and they can keep that tenant if they wish. But in other religions, that union can be between two consenting ADULTS, male or female. As the post states, there is no harm towards religion by legally honoring a gay marriage. There are plenty of people who’s religious beliefs state they can’t consume alcohol, but that doesnt mean alcohol is illegal, or that its necessary to deny alcohol to those who dont follow religious tenants that say you should abstain.
Dumbass. Marriage is a legal ceremony with legal benefits. Religion should have nothing to do with it.
If someone wants to argue religion, then call it a civil union and just let the people live their lives married to whoever they want to. Why are people so ignorant and try to refuse to let other have happiness, just because they dont agree with it.
I see it as the opposite. Marriage is a religious ceremony. As such the government should have nothing to do with it. Separation of church and state and whatnot. If someone wants to get married under whatever religious banner, let them. The government should but out. If for some reason they feel they see fit to give some incentives or disincentives to long term relations whether gay, straight, monogamous, or polygamous, let them, but that does not constitute a marriage.
Yes but unfortunately marriage is *NOT* just a religious institution, it *does* carry benefits to long term partners that are ‘married’. You’re simply messing with semantics at this point because from what I’ve seen opponents of gay marriage don’t actually care if its not called marriage, they just don’t want two dudes legally joined together because they disapprove. It is possible for a man and woman to go to a courthouse and get married, no religion involved. I, as an atheist, can go marry a woman; how is that any better for your wonderful religious argument? Or is the plan to ban anyone who isn’t christian from getting married next? Why can’t gay people get married in a non-religious sense and get the same rights and privileges under law? If your church disagrees with it then your church doesn’t have to hold gay marriages and WOW your religion isn’t being messed with, what a concept. The main point is that marriage is currently a part of non-christian religions and a union recognized by the United States government that carries certain benefits to the two partners. If two people decide to spend their lives together, why can’t they get the same tax treatment, same visitation rights, same last-will and testament treatment, etc etc under law? A law allowing gay marriage is for marriages legally recognized by the government, not demanding that every church/religion allow these unions. I’d say call it civil unions but that is just stupid. Its marriage.
Hate to be the bearer of bad news but ‘marriage’ while it certainly has roots in several religions is no longer confined to being simply a religious institution, it is a state institution that confers certain rights on those recognized as married. It is unfair to say two gay people can’t be married ‘because your religion disagrees’, next you’ll be saying atheists can’t get married, gay or not, because its a ‘religious union’ followed by any other minority religion in the country that isn’t christian, because its a ‘religious union’. But no, lets continue to only see the part of the issue we want to see and make everyone live in our own image!
Yes J9, “what a concept” as you put it. However, it would not work and I’ll tell you why. Remember Boston Catholic Charities that was forced to close it’s doors a while back? They were one of the largest adoption agencies in the country but since they were a religious organization they chose to not allow adoptions to gay couples. As soon as the state ruled that it was unconstitutional to not allow gay couples to adopt they were forced to close their doors. Your idea that “if a church doesn’t want to hold gay marriages then it doesn’t have to” would not work. Boston Catholic charieties was forced to close because once the state ruled refusal of adoption to gays as unconstitutional, the church could no longer obtain a state license to the adoption agency as they did not comply with the state. The same thing would happen with marriage you can be certain. We have a flawed society and until we can get church and state fully seperated once and for all there is NO way we are going to all be happy. Someone will always have rights and privileges at the expense of others. Everyone deserves their rights but right now there is no possibility of us all ever having them.
This argument doesn’t hold up either. With the current state of marriage a church/religious official can deny the ceremony. If I really wanted to get married in a catholic church by a priest, if the priest wanted to say no he could. There are no laws in existence that force churches to marry everyone. That is part of the separation of church and state. If a same sex couple can find a church that will marry them the it should be allowed, otherwise they should have the same options that straight couples do, a court. Let same sex couples get married, every couple regardless of sexual orientation, color, height, weight, nationality, etc deserves the same privileges of marriage regardless of what ceremony they took part in.
If that’s the case, then Boston Catholic Charities was receiving government funding, so it was in fact unconstitutional. In the case of marriage, however, there isn’t any government funding at all. Boston Catholic Charities may have been religious in nature, but it wasn’t a CHURCH. Were it a church, they wouldn’t have been forced to do anything. They also wouldn’t have been forced to do anything if they hadn’t been receiving government funding. There is no constitutional reason to disallow gays to marry under the law, so long as churches aren’t forced to marry them against their will. Separation of church and state is a very easy thing to accomplish so long as the churches will comply. As far as I can tell, the government is doing their part, so why don’t you and your churches start making it happen too?
good point Chris, I stand corrected. I suppose the government is trying to do their part in this matter. Church and state really do have to be seperate. I just hope someday we can find a way to make this work for us all. Unfortunately in the end this is a democracy and people are going to vote on issues based on what they feel is right, and a large part of that has to do with their religion. Everyone has a right to vote how they desire so I don’t think anyone is in the wrong for voting yes or no on prop 8. The biggest problem is it shouldn’t have been a proposition in the first place. No religious issue should be voted on for a constitutional ammendment. If we’re going to vote on a definition of marriage we may as well vote on what God to believe in. It’s absurd and it just shouldn’t happen. The ammendment should just be eliminated based on the fact it shouldn’t have been voted on in the first place.
Boston Catholic Charities may not offer adoption services, but they do offer post adoption counseling. But maybe you should call them and check to be sure. Or visit their website at http://www.ccab.org
I’m always reading that Boston Catholic Charities was “forced to close their doors”. I’m sure that would be news to the people who answer the phone at Boston Catholic Charities.
Just another bit of conservative urban legend, based on mis-information and rumor.
Ciao, Kent GAY-EX-MORMON in the Utah wilderness
The adoption agency took money from the state and therefore is subject to the state’s laws concerning discrimination. It is discrimination to ban a couple from adopting a child based on their sexual lifestyle.
If the church was solely funded by private individuals and organizations, they could, in fact continue to refuse adoptions for same sex households. But, again, they are funded (at least in part) by the state.
The point you bring up has nothing to do with gay marriage-it’s about discrimination.
Nice try atheist but the issue is still religious under the constitution. Separation of Church and State is paramount. While I can’t tell you how to believe, and believe me I don’t care, the State can’t tell either one of us. Granted Marriage for decades was one man, one woman, no problem. It wasn’t until recently that society allowed a different interpretation. That being two distinct different kind of unions.
The issue isn’t Marriage, but should same sex unions be given the same rights under Law. Marriage is religious and has no bearing. This is a rights issue, plain and simple.
Are you serious? Before making what you assume to be a “historically correct” statement please do the research. Marriage did not start as one man and one woman. Marriage has its origin as a man obtaining property, the woman, from her father and in many cultures the number of women a man would obtain was related to his wealth. Like always, religion in its various states set out to control its masses and set rules for how marriage would be recognized.
Please research your “facts.” I don’t ask people to justify their faith, but they should be able to justify their beliefs.
I’m very surprised at the misunderstanding most people have about this issue. The fact is that same sex couples in California already have the same rights as married couples under a civil union.
The issue at hand is a definition of a word…not a matter of discrimination in rights. Don’t forget, on a national level the Federal government has already defined marriage between man and a women under DOMA (look it up!)
Think about what this redefinition would do to public schools. What would teachers teach the children marriage is?
I feel everyone has the right to live the way they want to. Prop 8 is not bigoted. It’s a moral issue: redefinition will confuse the moral sense that Christian parents try to instill in their children.
I love seeing these arguements:
“Think of the Children!!” How fallacious can you get?
First: Civil Unions (in California or any other state) ensure about 3000 rights and priveledges for the couple. Marraige provides over 6000. Double standard much? Remind anyone of a recent Civil Rights movement?
As to DOMA: it is in the process of being torn down. Not only by “activists” but by the current Executive and Legeslative branches of our government.
What would teachers teach? Um… nothing new. It would still be dependent on State Curriculum, and Local curriculum. Don’t worry… teachers can teach someone to be gay or straight.
Who cares what moral sense a Christian Parent tries to instill in their child? Religious indoctrination is nothing but Child Abuse. Redefining something that has been redefined multiple times will have the same effect it has always had. Very little to the society as a whole…
Its funny how those trying to standup for their morals trample others.
Civil unions in any state in which they exist fall short of the number of rights associated with civil marriage. As of now civil marriage (give or take differences between states) constitutes roughly 1400 rights. Civil unions and domestic partnerships come nowhere near that number. Instead they offer sometimes only about 300 rights, some more.
Also, your arguments about the definition of marriage changing are eerily similar to those made when interracial marriage was the hot-button issue. Opponents argued that it was against religion, it would be a slippery slope leading to polygamy and bestiality, that it would affect others rights and marriages. But, as we can see, this is, in fact, not the case.
“Prop 8 is not bigoted. It’s a moral issue:redefinition will confuse the moral sense that Christian parents try to instill in their children.” -What is taught in the home cannot be justified as legislation for a country. My mom taught me not to talk with my mouthful, but there’s nothing in the Constitution about that. My mom/Christianity also taught me that it was wrong to take a life-yet we still have the death penalty.
I offer those examples up for you to please consider. There are considerable flaws in your logic.
Perhaps government should recognize civil unions between consenting competent adults.
In other words, support gay straight or incestuous unions.
Just a sec. What about us straight singles? We object to married persons recieving favourable treatment by government. What about our minority rights?
Why limit it to competent adults; you are trampling on the rights of the children and the incompetent!!! Are you saying it isn’t moral for two incompetent people to have equal rights?
Hello,
The institution was started by religious people. Its the Law that should remove itself from the issue. God puts people together based on his plan. The law makes sure people don’t abuse other in the process.Same sex marriage? They miss the point. Its not about who you like (love) its about a society and and order.
Marriage is an institution between a (WO)MAN and a (WO)MAN. SORRY
There, fixed that for you.
clever.
Since when?
Hi God! Why’d you make gays if you only wanted man-woman unions?
He didn’t make gays. It is a choice.
HAHAHA Anotherperson i hope your just being a smart ass cuz anyone that believes its a choice is probably working at a mcdonalds (or in a church) because there is no way they have a high school diploma
There has been zero, nada, science to prove otherwise, and that despite the poor science looking for a biological cause.
It would be a comfort to many if it could be proven, but there has been nothing remotely close to a genetic example. Even then it would just be a deviant evolutionary mistake.
Weeeell…. Since geese (and many other animals without cultures or advanced mental capabilities) have members that show homosexual behaviors, it does kind of follow that homosexuality exists in and results from nature. Or are geese routinely making these lifestyle choices?
And, so, it’s God if it’s something you agree with, but it’s “a deviant evolutionary mistake” if you don’t?
And, even outside of that; you’re saying that ten percent of the population just makes a choice to expose themselves to intense bigotry and discrimination, and is capable of, through sheer force of will, rerouting their sexual impulses to match this choice?
Occam’s razor, a concept I hope you’re somewhat familiar with, says that you might want to reevaluate your stance, buddy.
@ Dave M: Interesting comparisons from the animal kingdom. I’d agree there are plenty of people around who seem to have the intelligence of geese, and are therefore unable to realize any potential they might have for free will.
Are you insinuating homosexuals are as intelligent as geese? Take your homophobia somewhere else, hoss. First off, this is pretty ironic because you’re suggesting that sentient creatures can have the same intelligence quotia as non-sentient creatures. That beings who are able to say “I am” could possibly be as intelligent as beings who could not fathom such a thing. Geese cannot decide their behavior because they don’t control their behavior in the way we do – they are guided by nothing but instinct and experience. Sex just happens to fall into the instinctive category – which is why intelligence doesn’t have a single thing to do with the matter.
You may need proof that homosexuality is not a choice – which I’m sure you don’t avidly search for – but homosexuals don’t. And they’re the ones experiencing it day to day. Of course it’s just so convenient for a person like yourself to deny someone else’s rights via your armchair.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to think that a man or woman would risk being cast out of the family, discriminated against in public, and many other undesirable things – just to excercise some choice that isn’t even that desirable in itself. There is no definite proof for either side of the argument, but using the scientific method (otherwise known as “reason”), you should be able to come to the conclusion of what is most LIKELY. Instead of just being biased and then making up reasons later, you should learn to be a decent and rational human being by actually THINKING before you decide.
First of all: do you ever have serious considerations toward fucking someone of the same sex? If you are a man, do you feel sometimes like you want to have a cock inside of you? Do you sometimes just look at a man and think how much you want to see him totally naked? Or if you’re a woman, do you sometimes feel like you just want to be inside another woman? Do you wish you had a penis? Do you hate your body because of what you are? One of those situations, given you are heterosexual, should have mildly disgusted you.
Why? Why? Let’s use our thinkers. It has nothing to do with intelligence. That much is obvious. It’s primal. It is against our nature as heterosexuals. We, very naturally, all have an aversion to these types of things. Straight women are sometimes more open to the idea of lesbian-esque relations, but mostly just to impress/please men. If you’re a straight guy, and you look at a very attractive woman who’s in a bathing suit and still dripping wet, you wish she was naked and in your bed. You do not feel the same toward a man. Vice-versa for straight women.
Given it isn’t an intelligence issue (have you seen fundamentalist rednecks before?) – which is highly egotistical of yourself to assert – it would have to mean that you’re actually saying that a homosexual man is the same as you are. You’re trying to suggest that a gay man is just you, having made some unfortunate choices. Can you imagine that? Assuming you’re a guy, putting on a shirt and tight jeans for a night out in hopes that you might bring a guy home tonight? Is that something you could ever see yourself doing? No? Of course not. It’s not something you can actually CHOOSE to enjoy. The funny thing is – for you to be fair in your judgement call that it is a choice – you would have to try it out yourself first. You are living proof that it isn’t a choice, because (assuming you’re a guy) you know you could never choose to allow a man to put his penis inside you. It is the same with homosexuals. I’ve asked a homosexual guy what he thought about vagina and he just said one word – “gross”. He showed an expression of disgust, as if to say ‘why in the world would I ever want to do that?’.
Evidence is not substantial enough to be conslusive, but there is enough to assume the likelihood. You just want to comfortably ignore that fact because it doesn’t affect you, right?
Lets put a spin on this. Some people are attracted to men some people are attracted to women. That’s the way it is. The ‘Choice’ is who you choose to be your partner. You can’t deny that, whether you have sex or abstain and/or with whom, is a choice that somebody actively makes. That is a choice cut and dry where as the attraction may or may not be.
Action doesn’t define homosexuality. Of course, you can fuck a guy. Doesn’t make you gay. You can be raped by a person of the same sex. Again, doesn’t make you gay.
Just a quick note – look up homosexuality in animals on Google – you will find A LOT of homosexuality in nature and scientific studies of this – so maybe you should do your research before you claim there is no proof. If it’s in nature how is it unnatural?
Some people wish they weren’t gay and struggle with it all their lives. But this in itself doesn’t mean it is not a choice. Some people with they weren’t cigarette smokers and struggle with it all their lives. Yet clearly, cigarette smoking is a choice.
Some churches have camps for homosexuals and ex-homosexuals where something similar to deprogramming is offered.
The bottom line: many former homosexuals have chosen to go straight, and have truly done so.
So, let me get this straight (pun intended):
Your argument is that A)Same-sex intercourse is equivalent to a chemically addictive substance.
B)(De)programming camps are offered, and some people, in the face of intense social and, in these cases, institutionalized pressure, change their behavior. With, you’re not adding but I will, an incredibly high “relapse” rate, and often using tactics pulled right out of brainwashing manuals.
Keeping in mind this; that, in order for this to be deprogramming, the subject must have been programmed in the first place. So, you’re claiming that our current society is actively pushing people toward homosexuality. Well, call me utterly skeptical of your logical abilities, but since society as a whole tends to range from tolerant at best to actively hostile in the main, I’d need some pretty compelling evidence to back that up.
Homosexuality crops up across every human society. It’s pretty consistently distributed; it averages about 10% everywhere, with errors easily within what could be accounted for by differing levels of safety in the society; i.e. the numbers are slightly higher where being gay doesn’t get you killed, slightly lower where it does.
Any kind of sex can be addictive. Try it sometime, and you’ll discover it is far more gratifying than any cigarette will ever be.
People get addicted to specific sexual behaviors and often become unable to even get aroused in the absence of at least the fantasy of their chosen specialty. There are all kinds of deviances to which people become addicted. There are pain freaks, exhibitionists, voyeurs, and all kinds of fetishes far too numerous to list. Homosexuality can be learned and unlearned, like anything else.
Physical addiction isn’t the same as mental addiction. Sex cannot be physically addictive, because it isn’t a chemical substance your cells react negatively to when withdrawn from. It isn’t something your brain tells you is as necessary as oxygen. You would have to equate homosexuality as being like smoking pot or eating fatty food. That kind of “addictive” choice. I CAN imagine – if homosexuality were a physical addiction – that argument making sense. Physical addictions can be very hard to quit. Mental addictions – like eating KFC or smoking pot – aren’t nearly that difficult to quit. Not at all. And they don’t have physiological withdrawal symptoms. Given, sex is much more stimulating than both of those things, but that doesn’t even come close to explaining why somebody would choose a same-sex partner.
But I would just like to know – have you ever been homosexual? Have you ever chosen to do anything considered remotely homosexual? Given it’s highly doubtful your reprogramming camps do anything at all but try to socially pressure truly homosexual people into changing their behavior, why can’t you just admit the obvious? Homosexual behavior is totally against your will.
As a straight man, you can learn to enjoy anal sex as there are pleasure receptors in the anus – but you cannot learn to enjoy sex with a man. You will always be attracted to women.
“Pain freaks” learn to associate sexual pleasure with physical pain. The reason we can do this is because a very large part of sex is just the sensation of touch. And we all associate physical pain with touch to a degree; that’s inevitable because to be physically hurt you must first be touched. To state it more specifically, the feeling of simple touch always precedes and mixes with pain. You feel a knife pressing up against the skin of your arm, and before you know it the blade has cut through to the bone; you can feel the metal sinking in and making the inside of your flesh cold. The knife is pulled out and you are brought to the hospital in a car. On the way, oxygen and other gasses constantly brush up against the wound. When you get to the hospital, your arm is anesthetised with a needle. Ad nauseum. And in a pavlovian manner, we can very easily learn to associate the pleasure (associated with touch) with pain.
Why this contrasts from homosexuality: attraction to the same sex, at base, isn’t a physical, auditory, or even visual stimulus – it is completely mental. There is no pavlovian training for things not having to do with the five senses. “But,” you say, “you must see, smell, and/or touch a person to be attracted to them.” Yes, these are prerequisites, but you can’t make a person gay to the sound of a bell the same way you can make a dog salivate. This is because homosexuality is an orientation, not a behavior (sex) or autonomous response (salivation). Try to explain, for me, how exactly you would “train” somebody – with Skinner or Pavlovian method – to be gay. How could you train yourself? Are you willing to try?
Exhibitionists are simply thrill-seekers. It’s not some perverted TYPE of sex. It’s just trying to up the ante on adrenaline by combining sex with being naked in public – two things which can both be very adrenaline-intoxicating.
Why this contrasts from homosexuality: getting it up the ass from a guy while you’re doing a girl would be the equivalent in regards to your theory. Sounds exhilerating, right?
I think it’s hilarious you actually mentioned “voyeurs” in your list of perversions. Everybody’s a voyeur, in that we all enjoy watching sex – some people just enjoy it so much they seek it out. Well, pretty much every guy does it if you think about it. Watching porn is essentually voyeurism.
Why this contrasts from homosexuality: it’s just… not anywhere near being the same thing. Voyeurism is simply masturbation. You could be a straight voyeur or a gay voyeur. Homosexuals are a sub-category of voyeurism.
Why “fetishes” in general are not the same as sexuality: because no matter what fetish you have, you do it with the gender you’re attracted to. Homosexuality operates outside fetish.
“Homosexuality can be learned and unlearned”
Speaking from experience, I’m assuming?
I can tell you that these “camps” are nothing but propaganda.
There “successes” are temporary at best, psychologically damaging, and suicide inducing at worst.
It has nothing to do with “free will”.
Can you will your eyes color to change. Can you will yourself 6 inches taller.
Do you honestly believe that you could, yourself, choose to be gay by pure force of your will, or be programmed to be gay??
Yes I am very straight, but I honestly believe that I could become gay if I wanted to.
OK go ahead you could never become gay and say hey im done being gay im gonna turn back straight. it’s thoughts like these that infuriate me i am 100% straight there is no possible way i could become gay at all.
That’s a lie you’re telling yourself just to justify your position. If you’re so sure, do it. Try to enjoy it. We’re waiting.
“But I don’t want to.”
Exactly.
It’s not a lie, I am being 100% sincere. You may call me misinformed, but don’t be calling me a liar.
Here’s how a truly straight person would go about becoming truly gay.
First, be celibate for a while, probably a month would be enough, so that just about anything would turn you on. Then start looking at gay porn, and ONLY permit yourself to be physically gratified during gay thoughts and fantasies. It wouldn’t take long, just a few weeks of this and it’d get pretty darned easy. After a few months your thought patterns and behavior patterns would be substantially changing. Even the voice inflections would begin to change.
After a couple of years, it’d feel like you’d always been gay, and it’d seem strange to think that you had ever been straight.
Anyone can reprogram their gender orientation like this, in either direction.
The brain has tremendous plasticity.
And of course, you come to these conclusions without any real basis. You’ve carved out a theory – all that’s left is testing said theory. That’s actually a really important step.
name 5. i’ll wait.
Not my job to entertain you…
Then there’s your “choice”-choosing to go against what is inside you to be. Why do you think it’s similar to “deprogramming”?
Also, there are abundant statistics on suicide rates, depression rates, “re-conversion” rates, etc. among ex-gays and ex ex-gays. You might want to look into some of those.
If someone were hearing an inner voice telling them to be gay, I hardly think they’d be seeking help from straights and recovered gays to suppress that inner voice. Rather, they’d be among the folks who are totally happy with being gay.
At what age did you decide not to be gay (or straight)? Because, if you can answer ‘I was never gay’, then it was not a choice.
Like nearly all people, my own development passed through the standard stages. It’s been a while since I took psych, but I can recall them from my own life. There’s Freud’s “oral stage”, “anal stage” etc. and yes, there was a homosexual stage which was followed (before puberty) by a heterosexual stage.
There’s always a subtle choice, every day and at all times, to stay where you are and as you are, or to move on to new things.
Those who are gay and are happy about it, well that’s just fine with me. I don’t consider it inherently evil. I could care less what two consenting adults do. I respect a sense of adventure.
But for those people who are gay, who don’t know how they got that way AND don’t want to be that way, I’d like them to know it is not necessarily a life sentence. Help may be available. The largest sex organ is the brain after all, and we can have a tremendous influence on how that gets wired and rewired.
The very fact that someone can feel trapped by their sexuality is proof enough that we are not our sexuality. Rather, our sexuality belongs to us, and as such, not only our fetishes our very orientation is potentially under our conscious control.
Any chance you’ll stop stroking your ego long enough to address the matter at hand “Marriage”. We all get the point that your a flipping expert on human sexuality. Thank you.
100% chance. Sorry for any of my contribution to topic drift. I’ll now STFU. Cheers.
Says who?
marriage is an institution between a MAN and LOTS OF WOMEN. SORRY- you will not destroy my old-testament-based religion with your “monogamous” fanaticism.
Not necessarily “LOTS” of women. It’s just a matter of how much you can afford.
tl;dr Christian is okay with polygynous polygamy.
Says you.
Says who? You are still confined by old ideals. Everyone has a right to love anyone he or she wishes. I’m Catholic and married (to a man) but have no problem with others who wish to marry those they love. Get over it people. Be a little more tolerant and open minded. How does gay marriage directly affect YOU?
Quoted: Affording a freedom or a liberty (we will not call it a right because it is at essence a privilege), to a ‘majority’ of the community while excluding a minority from the same entitlement is at essence discrimination. <—- INVALID ARGUMENT…
The entitlement is not withheld. Homosexuals have the same ‘liberty’ to marry an opposite-sex partner as do heterosexuals. What is withheld is withheld from ALL: The ‘liberty’ to marry a same-sex partner.
If a heterosexual man wanted to marry a man, he wouldn’t be allowed.
Here’s the thing. I am a religious person, but others are not. I can’t expect them to be accountable to the same standards I hold myself to. It’s just unreasonable, unless it falls under a matter of law. Now, marriage is not a civil right protected by the government, not even for heterosexuals. Government should get out of the way.
I have no problem with gays who can find a minister to marry them or if gay couples want to call their relationships “marriage.” You can call it a lollipop, it doesn’t matter to me. However, you cannot have the government tell me that I have to agree with it.
If you want to know more, read my open letter to the Christian community concerning this subject.
http://rustypang.blogspot.com/2009/04/why-classic-liberal-wants-to-help-gays.html
In a nutshell, we need to have civil contracts which grants all the same legal rights to any two consenting adults who want to file for one. It will be treated like a business partnership with all the rights, responsibilities and treatment.
The word “marrage” is only a word. Now to say that marrage is a Christian word and that we should use the deadly force of government to keep it Christian, this is in essence to propose that we kill in the name of God.
Keep in mind it was government that killed God on the cross. And that since the cross, “The whole world is under control of the evil one… The power of death and deadly force — that is the devil.” 1 Jo 1:9, Heb 12
I disagree with the thought that homosexual unions in anyway should be treated differently than that of the a straight couple in the eyes of the court. My only quarrel is with the word marriage. Growing up christian that word became a word meant to describe the blessed union of a man and a woman. I dont full heatedly know what i feel as far as what God blesses and whether there is a difference in his eyes. I will never look down on a homosexual couple or treat them differently. I hope god blesses every couple that truthfully loves each other. With all that said the word marriage in my eyes is sacred and that is what i want to keep
Guess what? Growing up as an atheist “marriage” was sacred to me too. In a “gee it’s something that should be between two people who love each other way”. So keep YOUR marriage however you bloody want but if someone wants to MARRY their same-sex partner they should be able to.
Marriage IS NOT and SHOULD NOT be a heteronormative institution. In fact, truthfully, to make marriage a heteronormative instution devalues straight marriages by suggesting that instead of being “sacred” they’re simply a societal standard.
Hey Daisy, let’s think a moment about your reply. Your tolerance only includes people who agree with you and therefore is not tolerance per se. Tolerance can only be with someone with which you disagree. Do you see my point? That’s it, nothing else, small, baby steps.
So why do gays have to call it “marriage” then?
If they were really proud of their diversity, couldn’t they simply choose another term? That would be so much easier for everybody.
Trying to hijack the existing term marriage seems to me counterproductive to their cause. Unless of course, hijacking the word “marriage” to gain leverage and thereby engineer some kind of societal change is their ulterior motive.
Right now I can say I’m married, and that implies a straight union. I like it that way. If the word “marriage” loses some of its meaning, then how am I to describe my relationship? Would I have to start saying I am “traditionally married?” What a waste of time and effort on everybody’s part that would be.
The phrase “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. Come up with some other term such as “civil union,” secure your legal rights, and get this whole stupid argument over with.
Ever heard of Jim Crow laws? Separate but equal? This is the same situation. If homosexual’s can’t get “married” but only “unioned” or whatever word you think works best, then you are creating a situation where the two are -not- equal. There’s a reason we learn history: so we don’t repeat the same mistakes.
What would two terms for the same concept accomplish in this situation anyway? Allow you to maintain your “moral high-ground” and bigotry? And to suggest that you would have to clarify the meaning of your marriage is rather ridiculous. Relationship is a general term that has a lot of ambiguity, but if you state you are in a relationship with someone, the meaning is usually clear. Think before you speak.
Comparing this to Jim Crow laws is outrageous! Maybe if gay kids had to treat out of different water fountains or attend different schools.
According to your logic, we shouldn’t define race, culture, or creed. No one should be allowed to be unique or have their own feelings and thought. Everyone on earth can just wear gray and all be named Tom.
Both boys and girls should be called Girls because they have “separate” titles and because it’s not fair that they have different titles and definitions.
Not outrageous at all. So what gay’s currently don’t have to go to their own schools or drink out of a different drinking fountain than whites. Examples are just that… examples. The essence of the example is quite clear. Separate will never be equal.
As to your second paragraph… Isn’t that a nice Slippery Slope your falling down?
“Marriage” isn’t a christian word, nor is it exclusively a Christian union. The Christians did not make it up. The Jews did not make it up. The Hindus did not make it up. “Marriage” simply means pairing – as it has throughout time in its many forms of pronunciation. The Christian definition (and what you seem to think is THE definition) is a pairing of a man and woman. And of course definitions are defined by the public so if you say it enough, it’s going to become the main local social definition. “Marriage” – I forget what they called it – for the Greeks (long before Christianity) meant a pairing of two people. It goes back further than that, of course. Back throughout time and it has changed definition many times depending on who was defining it.
I think your Christianity has bastardized my understanding of marriage as being between two people. How does that sit with you?
Regardless, a big reason for homosexuals wanting to be married is for tax breaks. And right now there is no equality in that aspect. A man and woman have to pay less taxes than a woman and woman. And it’s absolutely retarded that you’re trying to defend a word for its meaning. That you’d feel alienated if your understanding of the word changed – like that hurts you somehow. That that hurts your relationship. I’ll have you know that words change and you can’t stop that. Marriage meant something completely different thousands of years ago – in its many forms across the world – and it will mean something different in the future. It does NOT belong to Christianity. Let go you insensitive prick. It doesn’t belong to you or your perverted idea of your own religion. By the way did you know Jesus never condemned homosexuality? Funny thing, that.
Jesus stated he did not come to abolish the old Law but to uphold it. The old Law was straight from God and condemned homosexuality. So, since Jesus upheld the Law, Jesus also hated homosexuality. Since Jesus claimed to be God, Jesus wrote the old Law. Get your facts straight. and stop twisitng truth around. Jesus (God the son) stated he did not come to condemn but to save that which was lost. God the Father condemned homosexuality because it was a perversion of his creation. Instead of writing “…Jesus never condemned homosexuality” you should have written “Jesus never condemned homosexuals.” Get your facts straight and stop twisitng truth around. Once and for all this is what God in the Bible states: that he loves all people because he created them in his image (not literal image for those who have never studied the Bible) but he hates sin (which is doing that which God hates). And despite what the incompetent journalists (who have never studied the Bible either and always twists the truth) state about homosexual behavior being ok with God, the Bible states the opposite.
Oh yes, there is no genetic code that programs homosexuality into a human being. There is no genetic on/off switch for homosexuality. The human genome has already been unraveled and mapped out. For the last time there is no genetic code for homosexuality. What does that mean? It means people are not born homosexuals. Don’t tell me to do research to verify my facts when you should be the one doing research to verify your facts. All those people making claims about people being born homosexual cannot come up with solid facts to substantiate their claims. Homosexuality is a behavior that is developed over time through social, environmental, and personal factors AND ultimately reinforced by untold numbers of personal choices. Just like human beings are not born as murderers, neither are they born as homosexuals. A murderer makes personal choices to kill someone, so a homosexual makes a personal choice to reject attraction to the opposite sex.
Dear Truth be Told,
Yes, the Human Genome has been mapped, but it will take years of research to understand all of it’s complex functions.
At this point, it cannot be proven, from the knowledge we have about the Human Genome, that there is not a genetic factor that makes one Homosexual.
Sounds like you may have been mis-informed by your pastor.
KL ( Gay, Ex-Mormon, in the Utah wilderness )
Your understanding of biology and genetics, as well as your belief that we know what every genetic marker on our genome does, shows you need to take a college level biology course.
What? What scientific journals do you read?
Nice. Well put.
ruggy — wow, you are holding on for dear life, aren’t you?! you just can’t let go and it’s pretty amusing. your arguments would be a lot stronger if there were some fact or, at the very least, some distance from your personal feelings. your personal feelings are not an accurate test for reality — it might be time to learn that.
your comment about choosing a different word as a means of expressing diversity is interesting. you imply that you are troubled by the use of the word — and the following paragraph (where you refer to “hijacking” the term) only serves to reinforce that you have a problem with someone using your word. really? are you going to be that petty?
i’m guessing, from your paragraph about how, when you say you’re married, that that “implies a straight union” that you are deeply afraid of being called out for the homosexual you probably are. “traditionally married” or not, nobody gets so dramatic over a word unless there’s some real fear there. don’t worry, i’m gay but i won’t marry you. i know it wouldn’t be traditional.
finally, your final paragraph stating “the phrase ‘gay marriage’ is an oxymoron is just simply ridiculous. perhaps you didn’t major in english but you certainly could use a dictionary or online phrasebook before you whip out the fifty cent words. an oxymoron is a phrase that conjoins contradictory terms — such as “deafening silence.” “gay marriage” may not make sense to you, but that makes you ignorant, not the phrase oxymoronic.
now — back to what seems to be the heart of the matter. you have a problem with the terminology — so you change your word and maybe homosexuals will change theirs. if you want to argue you had it first and want to keep it, that’s fine — we’ll take back the art, fashion, literature, culture, movies, music, food, style, restaurants, bookstores, hotels, neighbordhoods, bars, clubs and trends we had first.
You have misunderstood me to an extent that I would not have imagined possible. But thanks for reading.
I love my best friend. Can I marry him? What about my mom? My sister? My entire family? How would you have marriage defined? Should the government just rubber-stamp any and all human relationships and then confer special benefits to each? The slope is slippery for a reason…
I don’t see why people are so hung up about how prop. 8 affects their definition of marriage. Darren, whether or not gays get married has nothing to do with you or your definition. Gay marriage does not change your definition of marriage unless you let it be changed. Marriage is sacred in your eyes, right? Then keep it sacred in your eyes. Don’t let gay marriage change that.
It annoys me to no end when others involve themselves in matters that have nothing to do with them. You might not think this way Darren, but many who are not gay feel that prop. 8 affects them directly. It seems as if those who want to stick to the definition of a traditional marriage (What is a “traditional marriage anyway? Weren’t couples not of the same ethnicity not allowed to get married not so long ago?) feel the need to stick their nose into something that does not affect them directly. Gay marriage has nothing to do with straight marriage. Gay marriage does not invalidate straight marriage.
“It annoys me to no end when others involve themselves in matters that have nothing to do with them.”
If you change the definition of Marriage it has a definite reflection on my world view. If the government that I pay taxes to says it will not make choices based on which religion is better than others, makes said choice then the government has lied.
Marriage should be left to religion. If the Methodists want to marry gays but the Baptists don’t then the government should get the F— out of the way. That is the America, don’t like it? Move along.
The idea that Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) created “marriage” is hilarious. Where did you get this idea?
This argument is very simple, and for some reason people make it complicated.
Marriage is a religious institution. Not just a Christian institution, but a Hindu, Shinto, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish and even a Wiccan institution.
People are guaranteed freedom of religion in this country when they become a citizen, by naturalization or birth.
The government should have no say in who can get married, they should just issue the paperwork.
Many of the religions previously mentioned do not require the marriage ceremony to be between a Male and a Female and they should be allowed, just as Christians are, to marry who they want.
To say that you oppose it because you are Christian is perfectly fine. You are supposed to because that is your belief. But I don’t see any messages from you complaining that Hindu’s do not believe in your god, and that they should not be able to worship their god because it is not your god.
That is pretty much what you are saying .
Until that last sentence or so I was completely with you. Then you went wakka wakka.
I could not have said it better!! Thank you.
please. just die. =)
so i don’t agree with you, and that makes me a bad person?
you don’t know me.
How very christian
Nice reply, so like you. That’s why we all have anonymous names, because of losers like you. Dumb ass
Gay marriages destroy the American family.
So do bombs. And prostitutes. And Americans.
this is worst than when obama compared “sharing his milk and lunch with his friends in elementary” to counteract claims that he was a socialist. lmao
you cant compare these things. :/
“Gay marriages destroy the American family.”
I’ve always wanted to laugh in the face of somebody who actually said that word for word. I wish I could with you. I really do.
Elaborate, please. Where does the destruction take place? In your own words. This will be fun.
Divorce destroys the American family. Divorce has been destroying the American family way before the topic of gay marriage/civil unions was a blimp on the radar.
I agree – homosexual parenting deprives any children of a true mother or father figure.
So do single parent households. Let’s just take away kids from any home without both a mother and father figure. Obviously taking a single mother’s kids and putting them in an orphanage is a much better idea for everyone involved. Fuck homo’s for wanting to give a lonely kid a family and a home. Kid’s are so much better in government care.
Seriously people, think before you speak.
So will you be rallying against the single parents anytime soon?
It’s always fun at this junction because you – the illogical person – have to jump on one bandwagon you really don’t agree with simply to justify your opinion – ultimately leading you down the depressing road of defending a position you don’t support, or admit to a part of your argument being wrong. It’s like a game!
If single parents started trying to redefine themselves as being “married” then yes, I’d defend the traditional definition of the word “marriage” in that case as well.
According to much research carried out over the decades, gay marraige does deprive children of a proper family environment where they can grow into healthy adults. While it is also true that single parent families and divorce also deprive children of a healthy life, we are talking about gay marriage, not divorce or single parenting. Things do need to be done about single parenting and divorce (and things are being done to correct these problems). Likewise things also need to be done about the damage caused by homosexual parents. Tony, orphanages are not all run by government. Mostly they are run by non-profit organizations. Yes orphanages are not the best place for children to grow up. That’s why orphanges actively look for proper parents to raise a child. They don’t try to hold on to them Tony. Please, think a little. And if you are so against government taking children away from damaging families then maybe the government should leave abused children to slowly die at the hands of their abusive parents. Good going there Tony.
And Trace. Please apply Tony’s last line to yourself too. Ask any single parent and they will admit that they wish they had a spouse to be with them in raising the child(ren). I have a friend who was a single parent. She was hard working and raised her son all by herself. It was one of the toughest times of her life. Would she have done it with a spouse? You bet. Her first spouse left her not of her fault. I have a friend who grew up without a father. There’s a hole in his heart because of that and being a man and a father will be a problem for him down the road. There are numerous single teen moms who have a child because of their own irresponsibility and foolishness. There are single parents who should not raise a child and there are single parents who should. You don’t rally against them. You try your best to help them despite their poor choices or misfortunes.
Science has shown that a man and a woman are equally and necessarily important in their contributions to a developing child. You take one out of the equation and the child will grow up deficient. There lies a problem with homosexual families. Same goes for single parent families and divorce.
Truth Be Told,
Exactly what “Science” are you talking about, that shows children without both parents are “deficient”?
Also, what is your definition of “deficient”?
KL
I haven’t read any of the proofs or studies you’re (not) citing. I remember one girl coming out and saying she really disliked having grown up with same-sex parents, but I’ve seen far more success stories.
I grew up distant from my father and that’s fine with me. He was an okay guy but we never really connected, and I don’t feel like I “have a hole in my heart”. If there is any sort of deficiency there, it’s weak and easily repairable at worst.
And even so, I believe that growing up with two same-sex parents isn’t nearly the same. A good part of the reason single parents wish they had a significant other to raise their child is because they feel like they need help. They feel burdened with doing everything by themselves – teaching behaviors and disciplining and financing. None of those are problems with any type of two-person marriage.
So says the master of all human knowledge. Ruggy you are one funny dud.
hehehe — you disgust me. grow a set and defend your argument or shut the hell up. vomiting that b.s. around is what is “destroying the american family.”
and fyi — you fail to acknowledge what it does to an american family when two people get married, have kids and get divorced. nice american family you have there.
Do you have the same attitude towards endangered species legislation? Should it come down to personal choice? Or does someone’s feelings about a furry animal effect my right to log my property?
Do you feel the same way about pedophilia? Or does the fact that most people, including myself, feel that there is a line between appropriate and inappropriate come into play in your beliefs in that area?
If someone has a belief that a behavior is wrong, should they not seek to discourage it, or at a minimum to seek not to have the behavior put on a pedestal?
I have a feeling that your moral superiority comes from the “other side” being those “religious” people. The “other side” is always someone with a reason for their beliefs when it comes to any issue and there are far more issues that are matters of faith (and not necessarily the official religions kind) than there are issues that are matter of pure reason and science.
I am actually an atheist, go figure.
Marcus, I think you should read your reply out loud to yourself. You are more conservative than most Republicans.
I’m not against gays, i actually have a couple gay male and gay female friends, i just don’t think you guys should be able to marry, aren’t i adorable? 3:
troll is trolling.
It seems that one possible logical solution (though not desired or intended by those whose religious beliefs compelled them to support Prop. 8), would be that the government should get out of the marriage business.
The “traditional” definition of marriage argument, is inevitably backed up using religion based criteria and dogma.
The government should only be in the business of recognizing civil unions, gay or straight. If a couple feels the need of “religious” validation of a union (which they wish to name “marriage”), they can visit their amenable pastor, rabbi, imam, cult leader, et al.
For the government to recognize “marriage”, as Prop. 8 proponents wish it to only be recognized, amounts to an establishment of religion.
Let everyone get their Civil Union license and be united at the registrar’s office, and let them have whatever “private” religiously defined ceremony they wish, afterward.
KL ( a gay, ex-mormon, in the Utah wilderness. )
Perhaps government should recognize civil unions between consenting competent adults.
In other words, support gay straight or incestuous unions.
What about union between a human and an animal?
An animal does not have the same rights as a person and therefore cannot consent.
It’s not exactly government am I correct? It is the vote of the people right? So if the majority doesn’t agree with and want gay marriage in this country then so be it.
Exactly.
Which I have no problem with.
In fact it seems to me that if we are to disregard marriage’s religious ties, then we have to look at the reasons for which the state may have to support marriage as an institution.
Possible answers:
1) relieve the state the burden of child care as marriages often lead to families which care for children (though not always).
2) relieve the state of the burden of distributing responsibilites of debt and inheirtance at the death of a married individual since marriage partner is default.
3) support publicly desired institution between two consenting individuals that serves no particular state purpose. Why should we limit this to non related individuals or non homosexuals.
If we take the last stance, we should recognize incestuous marriage (which again I have no problem with).
If you don’t think there is a reason for the state to support such an institution, then we should abolish any such unions entirely.
First logical comment i have seen that offers a solution I think we could all live with.
IB ( straight, current-mormon, in the Utah wilderness)
Perfect!
As the world has changed so should our philosophical response. The Government should get out of the Marriage Business. All unions should be Civil and any religious belief system that wants should be allowed to marry. How can you disagree with that?
Well, what would constitute a “Civil Union”?
Would that only be limited to 2 people? What are the terms that constitute a civil union? Do all the partners have to live together? Would love be a prerequisite? Age Minimums? Age Limits?
Why should the state even have to recognize Civil Unions? For the state to recognize anything means that what’s being recognized is set-apart and ’special’/different. And the moment it does that, means that someone or some group is excluded.
guys, calm down.
i have my beliefs, you have yours.
who’s more wrong, me for expressing mine? or you for trying to push yours onto mine or criticizing my beliefs?
hehehe, I don’t even know what side you are arguing. It doesn’t matter. As long as you do not force your belief upon me then I am tolerant of your view. The problem is when someone pushes there view will claiming that I am not tolerant of their view because I will not agree with them 100%. I think they should look tolerant up in the dictionary.
Why be so species-ist? Marriage between human and anything might just as reasonably be considered. Likewise why stop with groups of 2 people only?
Of course if you believe the institution has to do with the propagation of life (remember, one of the oldest grounds for divorce is barrenness), the traditional definition makes much sense. Human children are difficult for one person to raise alone. (Indeed, one reason we live as long as we do is thought to be so that as grandparents we can assist in child raising.) While it is true that not all marriages are accompanied by children, many are and the social consequences of recognizing the dependency biology forces on us are helpful and understandable. Extending that support to cases where procreation is impossible seems arbitrary, and the initial questions are hard to exclude if you disregard these considerations.
The question of between human and anything can be considered independent of those considerations. Namely that Non-human organisms do not have the ability to sign and uphold their end of a legal marriage contract.
I agree with you about marriage between 3 individuals.
According to the common understanding of marriage it is the social status where a man and a woman unite in a stable arrangement for the purpose of having young ones and providing them a safe and healthy environment for growth. For the purpose of developing the community and the benefit of the society. Marriage bonds are followed by rights of inheritance and ownership to continue insuring the safe development of the community through protecting the rights of individuals.
Gay marriages are completely a disfiguration of the original concept of marriage. It is based neither on nature nor on common sense. A gay bond should be considered under any form of bond but marriage, it could be inheritance wills or partnership bonds but it’s truly meaningless to name is “marriage” it is simply a form of fornication and should not be treated as decent marriage bonds between the ways of nature between women and men.
Due to the artificiality that the modern communities are developing, many natural things have been deemed optional, but in time humanity will understand that all these abnormalities will only contribute to its down fall on the long term.
Finally I do advise readers to think as human beings before counting themselves as minorities. Doing what’s best for generations is more important than short term personal desires.
WTF?? Seriously? When was the last time a man and a woman decided to get married for their future children or for bettering society?? Marriage is a selfish institution, which is why you don’t want these “crazy unnatural” type folks to have it too.
First of all, you’re speaking in antiquated terms about protecting the flock—a paradigm that fizzled with feudal society.
Secondly, even if you were right, this certainly doesn’t fit my experience of the world. My parents didn’t get married to provide a healthy environment for me and my sister (they got divorced shortly thereafter). My mom’s parents did the same. Half of my friends’ parents had messy divorces. If what you’re saying is true, and marriage/society is set up to protect the offspring, then there should be serious consequences for divorce. It’s not “who gets the house?” it’s “what do the children get?” And what, are we going to institute punishments for the hundreds of thousands of married couples who never have children?
And that’s not even touching on the number of parents who desert their kids. (Fuckers)
Lastly, you’re not actually making that argument anyways! You’re using it as an excuse to attach your own value judgment to the two. You’re subjectively weighing traditional marriage vs. homosexual marriage, calling the latter simply “fornication” and “indecent.”
Homosexuality may not make “sense” if you look at it from an evolutionary viewpoint, but that would require you to first believe in evolution (gasp!). But frankly nothing makes sense in our society anymore now that we heat food in a microwave rather than hunt for it. If genuine love can develop between two people—regardless of their gender—why deny them anything?
Apparently you didn’t get the point of my discussion, I will not reply to either the insults of the profane language you used against me personally cause our persons is not the point of discussion here.
Instincts in any creature is a guide, they are delicately sensitive to time and the chemistry of the surrounding environment. Due to the accelerating development of civilizations and the rapid demand of a higher performance from human beings that has exceeded their human abilities and energies, a negative side started to appear including psychological diseases, physical disorders and social incapability. Those negative sides had to be treated in a way or another, and since the civilization’s machine is yet still pushed to work even faster, human beings are trying to adapt, Those adaptations included unattached habitation, caffeine abuse, drug abuse, workaholism, …etc. Those had a terrible effect on the social structure to include short term relationships, unstable marriages, absent parents, psychologically imbalanced offsprings and that is the main reason for a deeply illusive perspective. Loss of identity, blacked out instincts and a hurting psyche is why a lot of those disorders developed including same sex affection.
To clear up this point, The is nothing wrong with same sex relationships as long as it doesn’t develop to be a sexual affection. If it develops to that extent then there is a distorted libido developing and desires psychological and social attention.
As for instincts I do not need to explain, Look at the animals and you will learn, even fish that trans-gender they biologically do so to compensate for the lack of their opposite sex for the sake of breeding not fun. Lions would tend their cubs for a long time, Monkeys take care of their tribes.
Simply, you feel hunger cause your body needs food for its nourishment and recover, Your biological hour tells you when to sleep, Your nose can tell you a lot about danger and in-sanitation through smell. I think if people truly observe nature for a while we will be able to restore something that humanity has lost in it’s vain pursuit of immortality and godhood.
Now for the law makers in all civilizations, what are they supposed to consider? How do you want them to legalize their orders? Shouldn’t laws be written according to what’s natural and true? Or should it be written to allow bribery, corruption and deceit? We all agree and unite against corruption because corruption works for the benefit of the few on the expense of the majority. I think that explains it all.
Dud whatever your smoking or drinking put it down and go to an AA meeting. Your ideas and reasoning are all over the place. Have you seriously read what you wrote?. What a moron.
On the other hand please keep talking because people like you make it easier to argue for same sex marriages.
it’s not about pushing beliefs on one another, its about maintaining the foundation of what our country was founded upon, the belief that everyone is entitled to freedom and equal rights. yes, everyone has the right to fight to what they believe in, but the fact is that maintaining equality is paramount to enforcing the will of the majority. imagine how our country would be different if the majority always had the final say. blacks wouldn’t have civil rights, women wouldn’t be able to vote, native americans would have nothing etc. in the end we’re all brothers and sisters, yeah we all have varying beliefs but denying a people a privilege that heterosexual people enjoy is based off nothing more than prejudice. hehehe please explain to me your reasoning….
level
I will not explain hehehe’s reasoning, but I can tell you a bit about “equality”.
Equality, while a beautiful ideal, is non descriptive. Are you speaking of equality of result? of opportunity? some balance of the two?
Further we need to clarify what “right” is it you are considering and after that examine to see if this is a right and if everyone deserves it.
In fact, each person has an equal right to marry. Namely, that they have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender.
If instead you think the “right” to which everyone is entitled should be “the right to marry the person whom you love.” Now if you will also consent to incestuous marriage, then perhaps you are at least consistent.
Write both into a bill and I will vote for it.
I don’t care about homosexual relations. I don’t believe anyone intentionally “chooses” to be gay. I don’t care if its called “civil unions” or even “same-sex married” or whatever. Fellow citizens’ romantic activities are none of my business.
I JUST DO NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT.
If you want to be married, fine, but same-sex marriages (jointly filed) should not get tax breaks/credits from the money I pay in taxes to the federal government.
Using your reasoning….likewise homosexuals should not pay for heterosexual romantic activities. So heterosexual marriages should not get tax breaks either.
Except that all homosexuals owe their very lives to heterosexual unions.
Actually, i’m homosexual and i’m the result of invitro fertilization and only have a mother
so your argument is invalid
SERIOUSLY? Wow. So much for my “All” statement.
So I’m curious, do you think your lack of a father figure might have had anything to do with your orientation?
Oooo harsh.
But heres another question: Is it because you’re actually a closet homosexual who finds the fact that you ARE a closet homosexual so disgusting (Mainly due to religion being shoved down your throat by your religiously fanatical supercilious parents)that you are so hostile towards homosexuality?
In short, no. I’m actually not hostile toward gays/ lesbians/ TG/TS or anything similar UNTIL they start trying to change the definition of marriage. Then I get a little worked up.
But the real question is where did your mother or your fertilizing father come from? Ruggy’s statement is true.
hmm — this is very interesting and not something i’ve heard before — a totally different spin. do you mind paying for straight marriages?
what artificiality is their in someone loving someone else?
Do you even know what real love is? The Greeks also list out five different types of love. What kind of love are you talking about? Lust is not love.
Its about the children and the ideals of marriage. That’s not exclusively religious. Marriage is not only about the legal benefits, the public ceremony of declaring love of 2 people, not only about 2 people living together in love for life. Spanning beyond religion and bigotry, its about the children and what THEY deserve, not us in our selfishness. All children have a biological mother and father. Just like the ideals of America, the ideal of the human family is that each child will live with its biological mother and father in a close, loving relationship. Thats the goal and every child deserves it.
The ideal of America is freedom and equality and the ideals of marriage are Dad, Mom, children. Doesn’t mean gays aren’t equal citizens, doesn’t mean they don’t love each other, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve legal benefits. It just means ITS NOT THE SAME. Period. No prejudice or hate in that statement.
Ultimately, if things work naturally, the fruit of love between 2 people produces offspring of that love. That’s the ideal, that lineage. Its no secret to anyone that gays do not have that.
That’s what everyone is trying to say but they cannot communicate it effectively.
So, by this horrible reasoning, should infertile couples be allowed to marry?
If procreation is the only purpose of marriage then with your stance your answer must be “no” and thereby you must support testing of all couples for fertility before wedlock.
To play devil’s advocate, one can argue that it is an invasion of privacy to ask for fertility tests for every individual prior to marriage. Because that is not allowed we must operate by the best measures we have, namely gender.
It’s quite clear that a couple of the same gender have literally zero chance of procreation, whereas a heterosexual couple has a chance.
and if two extremely ugly people walk in, and it’s not obvious what their gender is, is it an invasion of privacy to ask their gender?
So Chris…what gender are you?
Aren’t we in the middle of annihilating our natural resources due to intense over population? Why do we need more kids anyway?
whose are these ideals? yeah gay individuals cannot reproduce, but that doesnt mean they couldnt effectively love a child as unconditionally or fully as a heterosexual couple could. there is a myriad of couples out their with children, straight and gay. if the ideals of marriage are strictly biological, what about adoption or IVP? ideals aren’t law, they ideas which one bases action off of. there’s a multitude of ideals out therre, not just the ONE you think america was founded on.
The whole of the argument from opponents in regard to this being discriminatory is ridiculous. Nobody says that we want to take rights away from gays. We do not wish to afford them more rights than they already have. They have the exact same right and we do not wish to give people more privileges with broadening the scope of marriage. A gay man has the same right as I had when I married my wife. (not comparing the two acts, just the judgment) We allow everybody over 21 to drink alcohol (discriminate against children), but we do not allow anyone to be drunk in public or drive. We chose not to broaden the scope of alcohol laws to please drunks.
religion and financial burden will be the end of us. let it be known that self sacrifice died out with chivalry and 80’s hair metal
Chivalry never died out, it just got obfuscated by selfish people.
No, there are strict laws about alcohol because it is a harmful intoxicant. These points are totally unrelated.
lol so you people that are against same sex marriage what in your little brains are you thinking i guess you haven’t completley “evolved” yet (o right religon doesnt believe in that so thats wrong as well). do you honestly believe in your hearts that hey those 2 gay guys down the street, that are getting married, are really going to hurt your horrible failing marriages? open your eyes and stop bringing this to religon.. just a few decades ago a black and a white couldnt get married its in the same boat it is a hate crime against a certain lifestyle choice..
Maybe one day this awesome country will have something inputed into the constitution that will seperate church and state.
to me marriage is a joined faith, not in religion, not in courts, and certainly not in tax status; a joined faith between two people. as such, i do not believe in any religion or government that has the right to tell some one they are wrong.
no more then i have the right to tell some one else they are not allowed to be joined in marriaged, regardless of how many people may agree with me.
i’m a straight man, i’m uncomfortable around men who are not straight. the only time it becomes a issue is when it is flaunted needlessly and i feel like i’m being forced to accept it. (note, i do not care for any public displays of affection, hetero or homo)
added to that, i do not believe any one can be critized for their beliefs so long as more then 100 people around the world hold the same. less then 100 and your weird, less then 50 and your flat out crazy.
thank you for your time, and thank you for reading about how i feel; feel free to disagree with me, like i care.
i really like your response. i think you get at exactly what the issue is — that a union, regardless of what it’s called, is about two people joining together in the faith of that union. who can actually say that union should not or can not exist? it’s all made up anyway!
and you point out something very interesting — reality is often created by agreement. 500 years ago, the world was flat — and that was the current reality — because there was agreement that was true. i think this topic is so hotly debated because there aren’t two sides — there isn’t an agree/disagree set-up and until there is, we’ll probably be fighting about what’s true.
I know this is a bit of a digression, but 500 years ago it was fairly common knowledge that the Earth was round. It’s a recurring misconception.
Since marriage is a religious act, then why are its rights protected under federal or state law to begin with? Yeah, it’s great that we have to recognize religious institutions, but that doesn’t mean they deserve more rights than others.
Forget about bigotry for a moment and let’s look at legality because there are a lot of words like “rights” and “constitutionality” being thrown around here. TECHNICALLY speaking, there are no unequal rights in this situation for a couple of reasons. One, every man has the privilege of marrying a woman and vice versa. A gay man may marry a woman and a straight man may not marry another man. The exact same provisions are being applied to everyone and in that case there are no unequal rights. A claim that there are unequal rights in this situation implies that the constitution must specifically address the issue of biology and gender, which it does not. As far as whether there are even rights to be addressed here at all, marriage in any form, constitutionally speaking, is not, nor has it ever been a “right.” In order for a measure to be unconstitutional, it must actually go against something in the constitution. Proposition 8 does not. Lastly, nobody thinks that the allowance of homosexual marriages to exist will destroy their religion. This claim represents the negligence of the author to properly understand the opposing argument. Those worried about the “destruction” of their religion point to attempted movements in the past to force churches to perform homosexual unions. The homosexual community must realize that if the government does decide to recognize gay marriages, the government has no right to force religious institutions to perform them. In fact, marriage, for most of its history, has been either a religious institution, or a tool for political alliance. Since there is no need to use it for political alliance anymore, it is ridiculous for the government to be involved at all. Rather than giving tax breaks to married couples only, why not give tax breaks to any group of people who officially pool their resources and just leave the whole issue of “marriage” up to churches. Gays can get married in the ones that are “progressive” enough to allow it.
Why give tax breaks at all.
The “ideal” of marriage is children living with their biological father and mother. Yes indeed.
How rare is that? Very. I think it is unfortunate.
The religious definition of marriage, is very broken. All one has to do is look at one’s neighbors and friends, or fellow members of one’s religious congregation of preference.
How many children are in need of adoption? How many children are living on the street, in every nation?
“Marriage” hasn’t saved children. Love saves children. Stability in home life ( with only a mom, or a mom and a dad, or two mommies ) saves children.
How many young people today want nothing to do with marriage, as a result of their own horrific “ideal” home-life experiences?
Allowing gay marriage won’t harm the “institution” of marriage. Any harm has already been done by those who considered it “sacred” all these years.
“Lineage” can be through adoption, and surrogate parenthood. Many gay and lesbian people have children.
Allowing gay marriage, would help support families. It would create additional homes where a child could experience unconditional love, stability, and support.
KL ( in the Utah wilderness )
Here’s something worth reading…with an OPEN mind.
one of the most heartbreaking letters about gay marriage ever written.
first the letter from the disapproving relative…
http://www.hodulik.com/2008/12/16/a-letter-from-a-cousin/#more-120
and then the response letter from the newlywed…
http://www.hodulik.com/2008/12/16/my-response-to-my-cousin/#more-124
Me.. The response letter was nothing more than putting God is his own box. The world wants a God who will let them live life for all its sinful joys and reap no repercussions. The “God is love” argument is over played. God can still love homosexual but at the same time frown on the sin.
Actually blame it on money, government, and insurance companies. Prior to what we see as marriage today, even Christian marriage, there was nothing required as far as registering, or having a priest, or legal representative around in order to bind the marriage. In the beginning it was simply an agreement between two people. But nowadays it’s gone beyond that, it really comes down to receiving benefits and tax breaks. If that’s the case, then the government should legalize civil unions so ALL couples can receive the same benefits and breaks as every other married couple.
I’m a Christian, I have gay friends, I love them as much as I love anyone else. They know I don’t approve but it’s not my place to judge them. They know I will vote against anything that goes against my beliefs and they respect that, just as I respect them. But as human beings they have the right to “government” benefits and breaks just like my wife and I. I liken it to unemployment or welfare or medicare. Whether gay, straight, black, white, etc. we are ALL entitled to those “government” benefits. Government and insurance benefits have NOTHING to do with religion.
So forget marriage, let everyone that doesn’t agree with “religious marriage” be able to have a civil union that affords them the right to insurance benefits, tax breaks, etc. And everyone is happy.
Why should the government force an insurance company to change its policies. I am sure that some companies offer benefits to civil unions, while some don’t offer benefits to marriages. If you aren’t happy with your insurance switch insurance companies, or switch jobs if you get your insurance through work.
I seems to me that this whole argument intermixes two distinct sets of issues and becomes impossible to resolve since we don’t agree on the assumptions. For example, you could easily say that “marriage” is a religious term and should not be controlled by the state – except – that, as used in this country, “marriage” confers a specific collection of legal privileges and responsibilities. So “marriage” is not JUST a religious issue. I suspect that many of the advocates of “gay marriage” are at least as much interested in the legal privileges as the religious ceremony. I’d guess that many of those opposed to “gay marriage” would not object to “civil union” exactly because that does not immediately confer all the privileges and legal benefits of “marriage”. In fact, I’m fairly sure that most of the opponents would readily agree to a proposal to craft a “civil union” bill that specifically enumerates the benefits, privileges and responsibilities of such a union – and then lets the voters decide, in a democratic fashion, whether to grant those benefits to a certain group of people, i.e. gays couples. The question then leaves the realm of religious controversy and becomes one of identifying a certain collection of legal benefits and the appropriate characteristics of the benefited group, e.g., should the group be prohibited from deducting real estate taxes from their income tax if their joint income exceeds $750,000?? I, for one, object to the idea of automatically granting all the legal benefits of “marriage” which have been decided upon by the majority over the centuries for the specific class of “legally joined heterosexual couples” to any group that just demands it all. I think we, through our elected representatives, should identify the specific benefits grated that specific group.
I don’t get the impression that it’s the word marriage that the gay community is trying to achieve, but the legal rights it offers. On the same note most religious people don’t seem to have problems with them having the legal rights, just having it associated with the word they seem to hold so dear.
Couldn’t the government simply remove the term “marriage” from their vocabulary, change it to “civil/legal union”, and require all couples seeking legal benefits, be them gay or straight, go through this system? That way the institutions can keep their silly word, but everyone goes through the same government system for the same rights as a union.
To be honest I never understood the religious community’s resistance to this whole issue. I’m Roman Catholic, go to church every week. On the other end, my best friend is a lesbian, and I firmly believe and understand that it is in no way a choice for her. People claim that “marriage” is sacred. What is? The religious marriage? That’s fine, gay couples aren’t asking to be married in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
So what is it? Just the word? It’s a WORD. Not to mention, it’s an ENGLISH word. The bible wasn’t written in English, it was translated. God/Jesus didn’t talk about marriage, they talked about γάμος or hasene (depending on which original Testament you’re reading). If you want a word to defend go with one of those, not the one created hundreds of years later in a language derived from the barbaric tribes of northern Europe. Yes, I’m arguing semantics, but isn’t that exactly what the religious community is DOING with this topic? Arguing marriage (religious) with marriage (legal)?
Jesus did talk about marriage…someone’s been sleeping in church services…
Marriage has historically been NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS!!! The whole idea of marriage recognition and licenses was created when states wanted to forbid interracial marriage. Anything the government touches it destroys, we need to tell the government to let go of this one and the people can recognize marriage as they see fit.
That idea won’t fly because MARRIAGE IS THE GOVERNMENT’S BUSINESS. There are clear legal benefits to being married. To abolish marriage legally would anger/harm more people than allowing marriage between two men or two women.
Leaving marriage to religion is a nice idea, but it’s not realistic at all in the current situation.
The idea of Marriage, being a religious concept before it was a legal concept – is forever going to be tied to reigion. Get used to it, get over it, find another way.
How about removing the word from the law entierly? No Marriage for anyone, Civil Unions for all – now Marriage is just a ceremony – like when a Jewish boy comes of age.
Seems like the perfect compromise to me – i don’t see what everybody’s problem is.
I agree, but that won’t happen in America because it would make far too much sense.
Specifically I think it’s likely that gays want to use the term “marriage” precisely because it has always referred to straight unions. I think we are truly seeing a semantic attack on the culture that straights enjoy.
There is no “semantic attack”. Marriage is the legal term. They want the legal rights.
If that were the case, we’d see gays adopting each other.
Who gives a flying eff if a gay couple calls it marriage is this the 3rd grade is it finders keepers? Grow up. Does it still count as marriage when Elvis marries you or do only straight couples get to have that “holy ceremony”
To Ruggy:
When did the subject change from “Marriage” to “Being Gay is a Choice”? Thought this was about Prop. 8.
BYU got out of the “Aversion Therapy” business long ago. They found it didn’t work, and did psychological harm.
The Catholic church’s “Courage” group, thinks that if you just play more basketball, and go to confession that everything will be just like an episode of “Ozzie and Harriet”, or “Leave it to Beaver”. (Pun intended.)
The only success stories that these “conversion” therapy groups have are people that are able to completely suppress themselves temporarily. Then comes the inevitable breakdown.
Check out how many gays have realized that these programs were nothing more than brainwashing, and reinforcing self-hatred from a bigoted “Christian” world view, obsessed with controlling the sex lives of everyone around them.
These programs are pure propaganda, and most people realize it and “escape” from their “Christian” re-programers.
Sexuality is not a choice. I wasted years of energy trying to “fix” my sexuality, when I could have accepted my gayness, and used that energy to create a better world, and a better life.
People who force others into any of these “reprogramming” groups are culpable for the psychological damage, and suicides of their gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.
KL (GAY, EX-MORMON, IN THE UTAH WILDERNESS)
Regarding it being a choice or not, I was responding to an earlier post… but I have quite a bit to say on that topic.
Yes, deprogramming can be dangerous, and I’m not here to advocate it. But it is important to understand the reality of it, since it sometimes works and has helped empower some people to actually make what really is a choice.
There are also camps and support groups for alcoholism, pornography addiction, and so on. There are high rates of recidivism in all of these things. But people attend them because they want help, and some people truly are helped.
Sorry Ruggy,
I will leave you to your “personal”, albeit delusional belief that Homosexuality is a choice.
The only “choice” involved is to love yourself as you are, or hate yourself and head to “re-education” camp.
The “Homosexuality is a Choice” fantasy, will one day be looked back on as a bizarre idea, promoted by defunct evangelical christian cults.
KL (Gay, Ex-Mormon, in the Utah Wilderness)
If homosexuality is not a choice then what is it? Because it certainly is not inate as proven by science.
Science has not proven that homosexuality is not innate.
Where do you claim to be getting this “scientific” information from?
Your statements are not in the least credible.
KL (Gay, Ex-Mormon, in the Utah wilderness )
but neither are yours
You need to watch out with phrases like “proven by science.” There is no consensus as to how sexual orientation develops (see the american psychological association or the american psychiatric association for citations). You can’t just claim something is a fact if it is not. You may choose to believe that gay people choose to be gay. You may choose to believe that all homosexuals who say otherwise are either lying or confused. You MAY NOT claim that it is proven by science when that is not true. That is what is known as a lie.
Logical arguments were never your forte. You try to use the success of support groups for conditions known to be harmful to one’s health to support your claim that a, as you call it, “lifestyle choice” can be overcome with a similar method. Homosexuality is not in anyway related to alcoholism or pornography addiction. The latter are maladies that people unwittingly get caught up in. Homosexuality on the other hand is not treated. The DSM no longer recognizes it as even a disease. There is nothing to cure or fix and thus “deprogramming” is tantamount to brainwashing.
“The latter are maladies that people unwittingly get caught up in”??? Unwittingly??? Alcoholics became alcoholics by choice. Every action is a choice regardless of hard tough that choice is to make. Addictions cannot be blamed on anything or anyone else than the addict’s own choices. Blaming others for the ocnsequences of one’s own actions is called irresponsibility.
“The DSM no longer recognizes it as even a disease.”
That is a verifiable fact. Know what else? They classify alcoholism as a disease. Nobody wakes up one morning and says, “Ya know what? Today is the day I become an alcoholic! Watch out, world!” You can’t just give up drinking when you’ve been swallowing 40oz of whiskey every day, and that’s because you’d die (or come very close). Blaming people for their addictions is something called social irresponsibility.
ruggy — can you name 1 instance where “deprogramming” has worked permanently and not caused any harm whatsoever?
I’ve been using the word loosely, and it seems this is a loaded term for some people. I essentially deprogram myself quite often, in little ways, whenever I see that I’ve gotten caught up in something destructive and have a sincere desire to be free of it.
I’m no angel. I’ve dabbled in enough unhealthy things and pulled myself back out of them enough times that my opinions on the extent to which we can choose what we are, do have a foundation in experience.
What I’ve been referring to with camps and support groups is completely voluntary and consensual. It is not the deprogramming we usually think of, but rather “something akin to deprogramming” as I originally stated.
There is plenty of coercion and encouragement and even confrontation, but never any force or kidnapping or anything like that. Nobody intends to hurt anybody.
Anyway, since you ask for examples, you should look at this study which shows that homosexual recovery rates can be greater than the recovery rates for drug addiction and alcoholism.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2008/01/study-homosexual-recovery-rate-better.html
Quote:
“The results were impressive: 38 percent of the participants in the Exodus program had either embraced “chastity with a reduction in prominence of homosexual desire” or experienced “a diminishing of homosexual attraction and an increase in heterosexual attraction with a resulting satisfactory heterosexual adjustment.” According to press reports, another 29 percent had had only partial success in leaving the homosexual lifestyle but were committed to continuing their efforts.”
“Compare the success rates of recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. Some studies indicate the success rate is less than 25% at a year and less than 10% at 5 years. I’d say [the] Exodus [program] is having pretty good success.”
Ruggy,
Quoting statistics from the Exodus movement, is like getting statistics on the “Glorious Triumphs of Chairman Mao”, from the Chinese Communist Party.
Biased? Yes indeed!
Suppporting only the christian evangelical world view? Yes indeed!
Reality is much different. Groups like Exodus, Evergreen, Courage, are all about coercion, pier pressure, fear of self, brainwashing, the list goes on.
These groups leave plenty of devastation in their wake. Their “collateral damage” is human lives and minds, damaged, or destroyed. KL(Gay, Ex-Mormon)
Take it for what it is. They do mention numbers.
Actually, the ocean is all about pier pressure.
Rimshot!
Calling a Christian world view bigoted is incorrect. First off a Christian world view shows uses God’s values rather than the persons values and makes bigoted an incorrect choice. Also a Christian world view separates the act and the person ie a Christian may hate homosexuality but not the homosexual, further invalidating the use of bigoted. In fact the Christian world view would have pity for the homosexual once again invalidating the use of bigoted.
The definition of ‘bigot’ is a person intolerant of other ideas, opinions or people without reasonable explanation. Religion is not a reasonable explanation as it provides no evidence to support the intolerance. By default most religious adherents are bigots of some kind or another.
Pity, when juxtaposed against the root of it (arrogance), is a form of bigotry.
I have never heard the definition include the reasonable explanation clause where do you get the definition from? Also it has reasonable from a Christian world view to hate a sin that God hates. I would say that most people are bigots of some kind or another, but the Christian world view makes it impossible to be a bigot, as you are not using your own values but the value of another which even using your definition is true, since they are using another ideas.
You are right – you are not a bigot. You are a sheep. Congratulations.
I assume that you are trying to call names and such, but a sheep is a common Christian metaphor for the Christian world view. You are the sheep to God’s shepherd, lost sheep etc. I am curious what in your world view would make calling someone a sheep seem like an insult?
I am curious what makes you think it was an insult?
Statement. Congratulations. Tends to be a sarcastic comment. If it was not, then I accept your congratulations, thank you.
the only people that should care are the lawyers. prenups and divorces will be their bread and butter. to the guy above me agreed. seriously name them all unions and make the religious part the ceremony. if gays and lesbians want to be legally bound to be unhappy so be it.
Has anyone even mentioned the absurdly high divorce rate and infidelity rate of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals?
numbers, or shut up.
Agree.
“Study by Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) showed that 82% of gay male couples reported having nonmonogamous relationships, while lesbian couples reported 28%. Rates among older women tripled from 5% in 1991 to 15% in 2006; rates among men rose from 20% to 28%. About 20% of younger men and 15% of younger women say they cheated, up from about 15% and 12%, respectively. [13] Infidelity studies show that extramarital sex occurs in up to 25% of heterosexual marriages in the USA, according to Adrian low, a Michigan State University professor who is a marriage and family therapist. [14]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infidelity
Not that I will ever change anyone’s view point since we all have out POV and we are all here arguing our points. What I must ask everyone who is saying that this is a religous matter. Being an atheist I dont understand and im not here to pass judgement I would just like to be educated on why it actually matters to anyone who states that “god” said that its not right or “god” says its between a man and a woman. If you really believe that “god” would have such hateful views on a large percentage of the population that is BORN gay why would you even want to follow that person.
What i have even more trouble with is why people even get angry on such a trivial issue. We have such a larger problem in america our economy sucks we are blowing BILLIONS of dollars in a war that will go no where. Men, Women, straight, and GAY are fighting for our freedom overseas and instead on focusing on that were focusing on what a fictional character in a story book supposedly said 3000 years ago? And how does that even sound rational. Before you throw stones and yell. just ask yourself this what if you couldnt marry your loved one because the bible 3000 years ago in a time where we had no constition or laws or a governing body? Take a step back think of how much pain this is causing someone i have friends that are gay have been together 20 years and have 0 rights they are in love but someone who gets married in vegas drunk off there ass has 100% of the rights every other straight couple gets?
This issue should not be about religon it should be about what is right we are supposedly the greatest country on this earth and yet Canada allows gay marriage are they falling apart at the seams Europe allows gay marriage how is there dollar doing? We need to start picking fights worth fighting not fights that have 0 effect on our daily lives.
The dollar is doing quite well comparatively to other major currencies. The dollar is gaining popularity due to the projections of the US coming out of the rescission before most of the world.
The term “marriage” as a concept is a perception by the individual. I am a straight guy and agnostic and my perception of marriage is public recognition of two peoples love and agreement to “cleave to no other”. Whether I get married in a church for the “traditional” image you see on TV (regardless that I’m not Christen) or do it in a courthouse in front of a judge, I will still call it marriage. I for one don’t care for the term “civil union” and would not use it. It has a far too sterile connotation and just doesn’t accurately represent depth of meaning and love that “marriage” represents. If gay people want to “marry”, I say let them. Screw the term “civil union”. Language has the ability to redefine its self, and has throughout time. “Cool” used to describe temperature, now it has taken on other meanings. The word Marriage can do the same. Maybe one day “civil unions” will attain the same depth of meaning as marriage, but until that day, you won’t see me using it.
KL Bravo on trying to educate these people but some minds can’t be changed south park a few years ago did a show on these exact camps.The real important question here is why should anyone care what we do in our personal lives gay or not? Is it illegal to be gay? Granted its a “sin” but so is drinking alcohol and having premaridal sex. The religous like to pick and choose what they would like to follow. They just have there pitchforks out on this “gay hate” atm. People are born with this and being gay is a huge burden on some who’s family’s dont support them or we have people like that push propositions like prop 8. Can’t we see that being gay in this day and time is hard enough why do people keep on having to make it even more difficult.
ever noticed how a penis and vagina fit together?…oops, maybe some of you don’t-so sorry for asking.
…Seems to me thats what God intended. I mean the pieces fit, you do the math.
People can be gay and live together-whatever…but marriage is for a man and a woman
i didn’t notice that, thanks for pointing out what i might have missed in 6th grade.
i have noticed that my mouth and penises fit together. is my mouth actually a vagina? or did god intend it that way?!
and guess what? when gay people live together, they fuck. they probably fuck a LOT. and it all fits together!
WOW!!!!!
Your power of observation is outstanding. Check this out, my penis is conical in shape and my anus is circular. They must fit together; in fact they seem to fit together better than the oblong vagina and penis. So according to my own observations, anal sex is the most correct form of sex. Furthermore, it appears to me that a tongue sideways precisely fits the oblong shape of the vagina, and that the tip of the tongue is much more adept at stimulating the clitoris than the tip of the penis. So again, through the power of observation I have deduced that the proper use of the vagina is to lick it.
So i guess by my “math” that would be 2 to 1, my lead.
Religion poisons everything, and hijacks peoples brains. It is such a great feeling to be able to assess good and right, for its own names sake – by appeal to conscience, empathy, cause-effect and consequence (not eternal damnation and religious scare tactics, but community and humanity)
I am all for equal rights, and though not gay, support same sex marriage. Well done for all who use moral agency and not contaminated, virus infected religious or other prejudiced dogma.
I am curious where your ideas of a ‘moral agency’ come from. Do you simply applaud people who agree with you? Do your morals come from societal acceptance (if so at least in Cali, society has shown up against same sex marriage)?
Although I cannot speak for anilsalick, I can say that my ‘moral agency’ comes from rational thought. I employ critical thinking skills when considering issues and listen carefully to all sides before forming my own opinion. There are a few people, Chris, who do not need to be told what to think. They are capable of thinking for themselves.
So you would support only people who agree with your opinions are moral? Are people who haven’t arrived at the same conclusion immoral? Do you dismiss the idea of morality all together? I am interested in your thought process here. For example how can you be sure that you have listened to ‘all sides’. That sounds either incredibly time consuming, completely subjective or a lie. Also I am wondering where you critical thinking skills came from, did someone tell you the process of critical thinking (well that can’t be it because then you wouldn’t be capable of thinking for yourself) so you must of be born with some innate ability to critical think (but if that is the case why doesn’t everyone come to the same conclusions?) Please shed some light on this for me.
HAHAHA @imabulldog. and its for thoughts and ideals like yours we still dont have stem cell research funding and we are soo far behind other countries in our way of life. Question for ya “god” also created a mouth for food but we still stick our things in there or allow things to be stuck in there as well…
The government gives benefits to married couples because marriage between a man and a woman is beneficial to the population. It helps prevent the spread of STDS, it helps people buy more property, and it helps by growing the population.
Civil unions gives gays all the rights of a straight couple. They are going after the word marriage to insult religious groups. They are trying force their perverted lifestyle on the rest of the country, and we simply don’t like it. If a ban on gay marriage is passed in California it seems like you guys, and gals need to clean up your act. The people have the right to change the constitution and that doesn’t simply get thrown away because you dont like it. Thats democracy!
Also don’t even start comparing your “struggle” to the civil rights movements they are nothing alike. Your not forced into separate bathrooms, or schools, and going to that extreme makes you look foolish.
Have you ever heard of the term “separate but equal?” Do you know anything about that term, applied to every day lives, working? I don’t.
Civil unions represent “separate but equal.” Anyone who has studied civil rights (be them those of women, African Americans, the elderly, or the religious) should know that even the sense or knowledge of a difference can lead to discrimination.
Also, the marriage of gays and lesbians benefits society just as much as heterosexual marriages do. They’d pay the exact same taxes. And just because a man and a woman get married doesn’t mean their STDs will magically disappear. Gay people can adopt children and give them loving, nurturing homes. And have you ever thought that maybe if two men want to get married, it’s just because they love each other and want to follow socially accepted traditions for showing it to the world? Honestly, I think gays and lesbians couldn’t care less about angering the religious. They’re too wrapped up in their own love lives to think anything of it. Marriage is a social contract, not religious in any way.
And, as far as the economy goes, gay marriage could be very beneficial. Gay people have been wanting to get married for a long time. Think of the expenses associated with weddings. With wedding gifts. Cake decorators. Interior decorators. A venue. The honeymoon!
Also, there’s nothing about homosexuality that is in any way perverted. That is a purely religious view and should not be expressed by the government. That’s like saying that being a woman is perverted, or having a certain heritage is perverted. People are born to be the way they are, and if you believe in God you should know that. The Bible states that God loves everyone just for who they are. Did you suddenly turn straight all of a sudden?
Can’t we all just get along?
Like I always say, what ever floats your boat. So long as your not harming anyone else.
Tolerance. Look it up. We could all use it a bit more often.
Except zombies….those have to die on site or they will bite you.
Will you be tolerant of others intolerance?
I’ll tolerate someone’s intolerance of zombies, that’s for damn sure.
The way I see, there are two options here: The Federal Government can either force everyone to file their taxes as single, and get rid of the myriad benefits that obtaining a marriage license, which, by the way, is a legal federal government document filed with your state and or county courthouse, and therefore is considered a legal binding contract; or morph the marriage license into something more gender-neutral, with the stipulation that the two individuals signing it be human and alive(throwing that in there for the folks that are afraid of people marrying livestock, pets, inanimate objects, etc), call it a certificate of cohabitation/civil union, and make it all nice and legal, which is really and truly what homosexuals want in this country; equal rights for all under the constitution. “Marriage” is a religious ceremony, and therefore violates the separation of church and state, which we homosexuals are trying to point out to the general population. Yes, the USA was founded as a Christian nation. We get that. But remember also, that some of the first folks here, besides the Native Americans, were folks escaping religious persecution. Go ahead, Google it, it’s true! The founding fathers knew what they were doing when they worded our constitution they way they did. They thought long and hard before putting pen to paper. Allowing equal protection and rights under the law for all is exactly what the founding fathers would have wanted.
It’s not about denying the rights of religious people. It’s only about simply INSISTING that they extend the same rights to YOU that you do to them!
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW!
The best argument here is exactly that: anything that denies equal protection under the law is unconstitutional!
A true conservative is someone who believes in the smallest amount of government that is practical!
A true conservative would not oppose, for example gay marriage, because the government is not able to show a clear-cut harm to overall society!
A true conservative is someone who believes in freedom of religion, but realizes that includes freedom to be an agnostic, or an atheist, and never allows freedom of religion to become an excuse for hostility toward any one religion( See also: Liberals on Christianity, or so-called conservatives on Islam)
The true conservative realizes that some speech is going to offend some people, but realizes that any limitation on freedom of speech is a greater evil than offense to a small percentage of the total population!
A true conservative understands that it is a lesser evil to let a guilty person go free than to jail an innocent person!
A true conservative believes that traditions do exist because of a once-valid reason, and that the reason could still be valid, but that those traditions always need to be re-examined in light of new technology!
A true conservative focuses on the practical, believing that, while change is inevitable, we must have a valid reason for dropping the customs and values on which we are built!
A true conservative understands innately that there are no easy answers, it’s all about smart decisions!
A true conservative rejects iconoclasm, realizing that everything that exists, does so because there was already something else there! Progress is always built on what already exists!
For these reasons, I can say I’m proud to be a conservative!
Well spoken, Glen. If only all conservatives were as enlightened as you are, this country would be a much better place.
On a side note, if gay marriage “supposedly is harmful to the raising of children”, i ask this: Which is more harmful? A Same sex marriage(civil union, or whatever you prefer to call it) where there is love, understanding and nurturing, or a heterosexual marriage where the parents are abusive (either verbally, physically or sexually)?
You think homosexuals don’t fight and all heterosexuals do? I have gay friends and they fight all the time.
For some reason, this reminded me of Anton LaVey’s Satanic Laws (or whatever they’re called). It’s just that they’re statements saying “A true…” and ending with an exclamation mark. It just struck me as hilarious.
But, as for what you said, I can easily agree. Modern-day conservatives are so often thought of as crazy, fundamental Christians who still want to burn witches and gays. I guess, for whatever reason, that’s because most of them are drooling, hypocritical, Fox News and Jerry Falwell minions, but I’m really, REALLY glad to hear that there are other ways of being conservative. As a left-winger (if that’s what I am to go by), conservatives are always portrayed that way. Thank you for being the exception to the rule.
Homos have a sickness much like anger or any other personality disorder. It can be cured, but shouldn’t be coddled. You would accept someone being psychotic as normal would you? I certainly am not going to support someone wanting to be a homo, they need treatment, not acceptance.
a very angry part of me wants to go off on you.
another part of me recognizes that you are extremely ignorant and probably pretty scared. please get yourself some help; it’s horrible to live your whole life without a clue.
here’s my opinion:
First off I’m a non-denominational Christian, but that does not alter my reasoning. Here we go:
Although the US is a free country, it was founded on a Christian basis. Simple as that. So obviously there IS a religious filter – and seeing that that filter gave us the rights that we all now enjoy, you need to learn some damn respect for it.
I would suggest that before you spout “facts” that you think are historically accurate,you should do a little research into them.
Try doing a google search on the founding father’s religious beliefs, i think you’ll be surprised.
http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/thinkersonreligion/id9.html
CJT, as you can see from the charts on this page, MANY of the founding fathers were Christians. http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Yeah, you know the Constitution? Guarantees freedom of religion. That’s one of the first things, I’m pretty sure. Oh, look at that, first amendment. Huh. Wouldn’t have missed that if I read it. Pretty closely associated with the seperation of church and state… now who was that by… oh yeah, Thomas Jefferson. One of those founding father guys you were talking about! Isn’t that a funny coincidence? He was the 3rd President of some Union of States in North America. Now if only I could remember it’s name… Right, right, The US. You could have just stopped after “it’s a free country,” you wouldn’t look so dumb.
And Tim I’m hangin right there with you on that statement.
Marriage ceremonies may be religious but everything else comes from the state. Your marriage certificate comes from the state. Where is your mean and weak god in divorce court? Don’t tell me what your god thinks about divorce when at least half of everyone in your church is a divorcee.
Jesus didn’t condemn, he blessed, even when people were not pious. He spent his time with whores and tax collectors (extortionists). And he did not condemn.
Gays deserver equal rights under the STATE law. This means mutual health insurance, the right to legal support in the Emergency room, and YES, the right to suffer through a divorce.
Marriage is a contract in the eyes of the law.
Too bad some people’s god is a mean, lost soul who fries people in hell. These are your rules, YOUR fry in hell. My god has more intelligence and mercy.
First things first,
The concept of being gay; I remember when it meant happy. I know that sex being a minor activity should not have as much attention as it’s getting. However since it is, we have to deal with it. I think many people use marriage as justification to control, manipulate and have a unlawful relations legally. The abuses done to this institution has come full circle. As if we haven’t learned from Rome. Homosexuality creates its own hell! If people want to be together do it but don’t manipulate people to believe that what you are doing is so right. We respect your choice and you have to respect ours. If you want to do your thing, do your thing but don’t make us become legislators of morality. When you do that the can of worms is just too large. Soon, we will have a list of sex acts within the marriage that are outlawed. Then, who can be with who. I don’t know; where I’m from being the alternative is a good thing. Only the participants can define it. You create a law, the government gives it a definition and once you do you can’t change it. That’s how the government is.
There is a difference between gay rights and equal rights. Gay rights are those specifically focused on our gay citizens. Equal rights means that each person in our state has consistent access to the freedoms afforded in the constitution. One may substitute Latino, Asian, disabled, or elderly for the word gay in these situations.
What I believe we are talking about is equal right for all our citizens to the basic human need to marry and create the family of our choice, sanctioned by the State of California. Anything less is certainly discrimination.
I honestly believe that “God” should come down and do his little rapture thing and take all these morons away then the rest of the world can move on with out the super religous bigots we have. The funny thing is people say gay marriage and “gay” didnt exist until recently ill bet you 50 bucks jesus prolly boinked joseph after he boinked mary magdalen.
O and by rapture i mean a retarded seeking missle cuz if there is a god or flying spaghetti monster or w/e people believe in that will help them sleep at night i highly doubt he she or it cares about “marriage”
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones
kudos for this post — and the flying spaghetti monster name-check!
FTW! Just because you wouldn’t get married to someone of your own sex because of religious beliefs doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t be able to. It’s a First Amendment thing, to me. “Traditional” marriage here means “Christian” marriage, which, if imposed on everybody, is discriminatory and is an establishment of religion in the government.
And what if my religion dictated that heterosexuality was sinful? Obviously my religion wouldn’t be “destroyed” or “torn down” by heterosexual marriage.
-Erik
You are an American…we have a government based on voting and majority wins.
So……
A vote was held, gay marriage was not upheld in California. The “people” spoke up on this topic and the majority won. Whether you like the decision or not, the system done what it was suppose to do.
So, if you feel that you were taken advantage of or that some “right” was taken away from you, maybe you need to look into changing the system.
This is America, system wins like always. The system done what it was suppose to do. Create laws based on majority.
Lets not forget that this is also California. If any state in America would have laughed at this, it would have been California. They did not laugh at it, they took it serious. Therefore you have the US government working as intended.
The people have spoken, and guess what…you did not win this time. Get over yourselves or go somewhere else, but guess what most civilized cultures frown on this.
So, instead of trying to change America, try to change the world and quit acting like its Christians being bigoted. Christians have beliefs just as you do. You see Christians as being bigoted because they do not support your homosexual civil unions. Christians see you as being intolerable because all you do is go around and speak about how bigoted the Christians are. Kettle? Black? I think so.
So, your problem should not reside with Christians, because they are following their beliefs. Maybe you should take up your issues with governments and the civilized world who all share this so called “bigoted” belief.
Call your relationships “civilized unions” and leave marriage for a man and a woman. Do not take something like this and change the definition because it would appeal to you.
Plain and simple, the US system worked as intended. You get civil unions and marriage is left alone. I would consider that a win because guess what…you get everything that a marriage gets but its stated by a different word, sorry.
See, this is what happens when we cease to teach civics in schools. People eventually have zero comprehension of how government works.
Yes, the proposition passed by simple majority of people voting. A proposition can be passed that is unconstitutional and it is up to the courts to decide the legality of the legislation. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future, that is how the system of checks and balances operates. Because a majority approved the measure does not make it any less discriminatory. Effectively, the legislation is affording privileges (tax status, estate rights and others by recognizing hetero marriages) to heterosexual couples it is not affording to other couples who are citizens with essentially the right under the Constitution to be treated with equality. This makes the measure unconstitutional.
It does not matter if 95% of the people voted in favor of the ban it is still not in line with the document that prescribes the rights afforded to citizens. If such a ban existed regarding Christians marrying other Christians, it would be just as illegal and just as subject to overturn as any other legislation that is unconstitutional.
Marriage is, by definition, a relationship between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is a perversion of what sex ought to be. Because sex too is by definition to be between one man and one woman…that’s why we all only have one set of genitalia.
Think folks, sex can only happen between a man and a woman. Anytime anyone has sex someone plays the role of the man and someone plays the role of the woman. That’s why homosexuality is perverse. Men should not be playing the role of women and vice versa. And, hate to be so blunt, but here it is: your anus is not genitalia.
It’s easy enough a child could understand it. Why won’t you?
I said it before and I’ll say it again…. have you actually read what you wrote. You really are a moron. Have you lead some shelted life as part of a cult. Comments like yours are the reason our society is so divided on this issue. You fail to have even a minute understanding of how society has changed. I feel sorry for you, NOT.
You need to look up the definition of sex right now. If you have gotten a blowjob/handjob, eaten out/fingered your girlfriend and/or done her up the bum, that girl is in no way still a virgin. At all. You can give me her number though. Also, some people do have 2 sets of genitalia. That’s a fact.
I have been taught since very young that the word ‘marriage’ means ‘the state of union of two PARTIES’. That’s what it means. Sorry people.
Just b/c you were taught something when you were younger doesn’t make it fact. So “That’s what it means. Sorry people.” doesn’t mean anything.
Two different definitions for you:
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
A business transaction contains “parties” not when dealing with marriage of two people.
Yes, you are right, something learnt before doesn’t make it a fact. But what YOU learnt before about this topic doesn’t make it fact, either. Also, “parties” is not confined to business transactions. You take a very, very fixed line of looking at things.
Quite simply, my belief and opinion is that it’s wrong. When is the last time you saw two male lions in wild getting it on? Yeah, never. It goes against nature. If it is natural why wasn’t EVE created as a MAN? Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve. Pairs of opposite sex animals being saved on the Ark?
Pleas bring proven fact into the statement not adam and eve or a 80 year old man bringing millions of species onto a little boat this is a grown up conversation not one that requires the talk of fairy tales. AND!!!! Look up your facts about lions in the wild before you bring that in here as well it may not be natural to you or your hate filled religon (read your own bible before saying its not full of hate)
OOOO and here 2 male lions fucking.
How about you prove that being gay is real and deserving of rights first? Oh…right…about that.
Then we can get into the chicken or the egg. It’s not my religion that hates you, it’s the comments you just spewed out that make people hate you. What kind of person of any character uses language like yours? Swearing is for the ignorant and uneducated. See what I did there? I’m pushing buttons…just like my last post. If you believe creation is a fairy tale, great. You’re doomed anyway, I wasn’t making statements of fact I was poking fun at how ridiculous this issue has become.
Furthermore, lions…in the wild…not caged up in a zoo. For what I just saw, no penetration and seemingly bored male lions doesn’t make for “gay lions.” YouTube, really? That’s your source for fact?
Reading the bible isn’t going to save you, misinterpreting it isn’t going to serve you well either.
RC your crazy…. keep talking and show everyone how much of a moron you are. You talk in circles yet say nothing. We can all see that your trying to sound intelligent but intelligent you are not. You see what I just did, its also called pushing buttons. Did you even vote on this issue ????… now thats a good question.
Here’s the thing either the act of having same sex sex makes you gay, which means you could classify the lions as gay, but would also mean homosexuality is a choice, because you can choose to not have sex, or it doesn’t in which case you are just sharing animal porn.
There are so many comments posted here that are based on a book that was written a long time ago and has little basis for scientific fact {insert comments/disputes about creationism vs evolution here}. I’m not suggesting the book has no value, I’m suggesting that it can’t possibly have all the answers for an evolving world.
I can’t believe that a society from a couple of millennium ago had the chops to figure out what we need today or that it would get everything right – even with help from God. That would be like our society today writing a book on what the people of this world should uphold in 2000 years from now. How could we really know? Why would we even bother?
Homosexuality is not going away. It’s been around as long as history. It’s time to embrace and move on. Isn’t there better things to worry about like how to stop global warming, provide clean water for everyone, easy access to medical facilities and on and on and on.
God isn’t going to fix these things. There is no hope or prayer that will cause a miracle to happen. We need to fix them ourselves.
And if any same sex married couple wants to help make it happen, well, Hallelujah! Make it so. And then we may even have a world with people in 2000 years.
Marriage license laws should be abolished. A state issued license sanctified by a state licensed pastor, total corruption of both church and state. Issue a marriage certificate to anyone including gays, and a divorce without a court hearing upon request of either party. And a trial by jury for any dispute over kids or wealth.
Boy, I see several people quoting that Greeks and Romans defined marriage as being between 2 people and that homosexual marriage was common…but as a student of history, I don’t remember ever seeing that in any of the studies that I have done. Homosexuality WAS rampant, but it was not accepted as marriage.
In my study of history, 1989 was the first time that ANY country has allowed CIVIL UNIONS (nothing religious here) between same sex couples.
If you dispute this, please provide sources, not just heated feelings.
to classify a group of people based on a sexual urge does not make any sense at all.. what about pedphiles, beastality? based on your classification of homosexuals as a ‘class’ or ‘race’ they should deserve the same ‘civil’ rights….
and pedphiles we all agree don’t even deserve to live for their crimes based on their sexual urges… just because a person has a sexual urge does not mean in any way they deserve the right to legally act on that urge… as far as homosexuals go, they can do as they please… they have just the right to marry according to the law as anyone else… their sexual urges in no way justifies them as deserving of rights… this isn’t no Martin Luther King thing… this is a bunch of people who want to force their values in the faces of America… they are trying to prove the impossible… that somehow they are ‘normal’ despite their sexual urge…
Pedophiles are rapists by definition. Homosexuals are not. A child cannot fully consent to sex and it is damaging for them to be molested. Slight margin for error aside (a rapist and fraud can be of any orientation), a homosexual does not lure another man to a secluded area to rape him and then return to his life and wife. A homosexual courtship is the same as a heterosexual one. Two consenting adults fall in love and want to spend their lives together and enjoy the benefits. Just because they’re both the same gender and have sex doesn’t make it immoral.
Only a Christian biget and hyprocate would claim that the deadly force of government should be used to control morality. “Jesus said: Do not use force to overcome evil…turn the other cheek.” Matthew 5:38
and marriage laws have to have the approval by a judge and the judge vests that power to the one performing the ceremony… and that’s in every religion
Your naive and superficial understanding of law I’m embarrassed to read. No law passed by legislature has to be approved by a judge, and a judge or a pastor may sanctify the ceremony.
If you ask me the intelligent ruling class is funding both parties in this moral battle. Being a creature of the state, my idea of nothing to do.
This article should read:
The gay definition of marriage does not have rights
Marriage is between a man and a woman, that’s what marriage is.
If gays want to change that, they are entitled to ask permission. If the majority wants to keep the current definition of marriage then they have no choice but to accept the will of the people.
Gays should also stop discriminating against those who want to preserve marriage as it is because discrimination is wrong.
I think if a non-religious definition is entertained, then a religious one should be also, and they be given equal consideration.
But, I see no advantage to entertaining a movement whose sole objective is to destroy the concept of marriage, and influence children toward promiscuity.
How does it influence children towards promiscuity? Gay kids are lucky to find another gay kid within 20 miles of them who’d admit to it. When I was a teenager, it was those sexy Catholic schoolgirl uniforms that made me promiscuous. If you mean the sanctity of marriage, I always figured if I didn’t like my wife I could just get a divorce. I mean, if 50% of people are doing it, can’t be that bad. Maybe we should just ban divorce to keep our kids celibate. Makes sense on some planet.
The bible also states you should be stoned to death if as a woman on your wedding bed you are not a virgin.
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her … and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel’s father shall say … these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. … But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21
Isnt it funny how people pick and choose what they would like to believe in the bible. Stop bringing religon into this HATE filled discussion just admit that you dont like gays and move on there not going around pushing anything on you wouldnt it be funny if the tables were turned and us “normal” people couldnt get married stop your bitching and move. Don’t you people have like Klan meetings or Cult i mean church services to attend to.
Your superficial and nieve understanding of the Judo-Christian Bible I’m imbarrested to read.
Does not God the Son have a right to abolish force as a means to overcome evil?
Is not a marriage license, or marriage cerimony, to be found nowhere in Scripture?
Surely, for it is written, “Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he made love to Rebekah, and she then became his wife.”
Divorce court is the golden cup descrived in Revelation.
“And the woman was dressed in clothes purple in color and blood red, also gilded with gold, pure gold and stones priceless, and pearls, and holding a container of pure gold in her hand. She being filled to capacity with the ultimate corruption of all, absolutely the worst kind of harm done to children and families, with sex in exchange for a property settlement being it.
And on the forehead of her a description was written, a mystery:
‘Babylon the great! The mother of those who give sex for a profit, and of the eternally corrupt things on earth.’
And seeing the woman delirious from the blood of the harmless, and from the blood of the ones who establish the truth of Jesus, then I was dumfounded, by the knowledge of her being awesome grand.” Revelation 17:4
John your pretty good at reciting verses but have you put as much study or research into the same sex marriage issue. I mean the actual laws of the State of California, I bet you haven’t. Do you dare claim to be a spokesman for God or have the ability to interpret the bible for him, I think not. Yet you have no problem reciting verses. What would you say about this issue if God came and spoke to you. What if he told you the interpretation you hold dear to your heart was wrong. What then????
Once again, I shake my head in bafflement and sadness.
Regardless of the reason (e.g. their gods, their mistaken belief that it’s a choice, their personal homophobia) “I don’t like it, so no one should be allowed to do it.” is how it seems to play out.
In this thread of comments, I see bestiality and incest mentioned. Surely no one truly approves of sex between NON-consenting individuals. (Animals cannot give consent.)
It’s sad that there are so many closed-minded individuals determined that rights should be denied to others.
I saw one comment basically saying that “Prop 8 passed, so we win.” Can you hear my eyes roll? If something is unconstitutional, it isn’t supposed to matter how many people want to “win”, it’s whether or not the constitution is being followed.
What if a proposition passed saying that no one with brown eyes could get married?
Think about it.
Susan I feel your pain. Its sad to see so many people that are misinformed and narrow minded in our society. People need to think back and do a little research to understand that not so long ago a white couldnt marry a black or hispanic. Just beacuse a law was passed doesn’t make it a good law. Laws change, people change and society has changed. Those that change with it can adapt and prosper, those that dont simply fade away and become irrelevant.
First off, it seems to me that people are forgetting about the sole argument that gays propose: we should be allowed to marry as homosexuals under the law just as heterosexuals do. why then, may i ask, do homsexuals feel the need to point at the church and the religious people and yell “bigotry”?? if homosexuals want to yell seperation of church and state then please tell them to look in a mirror! they are squabbling for the same rights under the law that heterosexuals do yet cry out no fair when the heterosexuals say gay marriage is not true marriage even if it does happen by religious means. marriage has been traditionally stated as a religious joining of two persons by faith. so if this happens in a church who cares? homosexuals should come to realize that once they get thier right to marry, nothing will change. gays and straights will still be pointing fingers at each other.
Secondly, i would like to point out that homosexuality IS a choice and IS NOT natural. this is primarily because bisexuals throw a wrench into the gay argument of being born gay. if you are born gay or straight and had no choice then HOW did bisexuals come about? at some point in thier lives they had to make a CHOICE to be both heterosexual and homosexual. so does this qualify them as naturally born bisexuals? NO! people who argue about genetics and homosexuality obviously dont know anything about gentics. biggest point there is that gays and lesbians cannot reproduce naturally with thier partners so how can they pass on genes to a child? secondly it is impossible for a genome to posses a homosexual gene due to the fact stated above. there is simply no physical or chemical way to pass on homosexuality. also homosexuality is not natural due to the physical aspects of the female and male bodies. it is an abomination of nature’s way of reproduction to be gay or lesbian. although the acts of gays may seem justifiable, they arent. for one if the human population was gay, we would die out. secondly, animals who participate in gay behavior do not posses the mental capacity to comprehend their acts. male turkeys will fornicate themselves with,on,or without anything. do you think this is because the turkey is just looking for a sexual release? NO! it just simply cant comprehend its own horomones and physical functions. plus if we compare ourselves to animals claiming that since they are gay then humans can be gay to due to “nature” then is it also acceptable to eat each other? is it acceptable to claw at each others throats for survival? of course not. we are civilized.
Finally, i feel tha homosexuals do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals ONLY because being gay IS a choice. there is no benifits gays can recieve that others, including gays themselves, already have. gays dont deserve what they are asking for because they are taking a social stand and making a lifestyle. just because a gangster is opressed because of his poor choices and wrong doings does not mean he deserves the same rights as a person who upholds the law. if gays were allowed to marry it is logical to say that convicts should be allowed to walk free. these opinions i have put out are entirely subject to the worlds criticism and i encourage comments from people becuase i am still curious about this contriversial issue and wish to hear your feedback. i have given my opinion. now i want yours.
Your numerous points which you so clearly point out are actually pretty funny. I think even a moron can understand why the fingers are being pointed. Who do you think paid for almost all of the funding for Prop 8. The finger needs to be pointed at the churches, they deserve it. Also did you go to a Christian school or college, because your logic for homosexuality being a choice is so moronic and uterly rediculous its just plain sad. Its time for you to wake up and stop being so narrow minded.
can you explain why my choice for defining homosexuality is moronic and rediculous? i just want your own logic on homosexuality. thats all. and no i went to a university for college.
1. Bisexuality IS their orientation. Yes, it’s complicated. It’s not black or white, right or left. There are many variations. Get used to a lot of that.
2. You know nothing of genetics. If my brother was gay and didn’t have a child in a sham marriage, if I had kids they could be gay because we both come from the same gene pool. That is just one example of how genes work.
3. Homosexuality hasn’t been proven to be genetic anyway.
4. No one who goes to a university calls it a college or vice versa. Both sets of people can spell properly.
5. You are stupid and a liar.
The first mistake is to start out with the idea that the opposition to gay marriage is a matter of personal choice and that all religious beliefs fail to be able to be translated into a pluralistic context. Marriage is not in fact defined by the state. Marriage is a pre-existing social institution that has been up till now recognized by the state. It was families coming together that formed the state and should the state fail, families will still exist. And families here are groups bound through pro-creation. Marriage then is simply beyond the defining ability of the state in so far as the state cannot grant it in terms of a natural right, in the same way that the state does not grant the right to free speech.
So since marriage up till now has been recognized by the state and not defined by it, the question is how much power should the state have? The state is taking power to itself that it has never had before, which is also something to consider.
The essence of discrimination is defined by you in far too broad of terms. We recognize the right of non-pedophiles to adopt children but exclude pedophiles from the right to adopt children and many other rights. We also exclude polygamy, polyandry and incestial marriage. Your definition would entail designating those restrictions as discrimination as well, which they are obviously not. In the case of say racial discrimination that was based on factors that made no difference to the common and public good. Skin pigmentation is genetic and socially benign. How people behave, what they prefer to do sexually and how to raise children are not strictly speaking genetic or necessarily benign with reference to the common and public good. So comparing the two is comparing apples and oranges.
Besides, heterosexuals provide something for the common good that homosexuals of themselves can’t provide. They provide future taxpayers, future soldier, and future workers. To those who provide the benefits, should go the benefits.
It is true that definitions have changed, but not always for the better. That of itself isn’t an argument for changing this one. And besides, you haven’t in fact demonstrated that to exclude some groups from state recognized marriage is a form of bigotry. Why think that this change is for the better, specifically if it effects less than 2% of the population? And there might be a valid reason to deny a civil right to a minority if we don’t agree with their lifestyle. How about an incestial lifestyle or ne of pedophilia? We deny civil rights and go further and deny that people have natural rights in all sorts of cases.
Tossing around the word bigotry isn’t the same thing as an argument. Are you a bigot against incestial marriage? Physcian, heal thyself.
you misunterstood my meaning of defining the effects of discrimination versus choosing a lifestyle. you are correct in saying that there are certain choices that people choose that cannot be deemed scially unacceptable due to the numbers that commit to that particular lifestyle. but throughout history when a form of behavior has come into question as scoially, humanly or ethically correct, there has been movement to change the rules and laws regarding that lifestyle. also restriction doesnt equal discrimination. so just because we call homosexual action into question does not mean we are discriminating against homosexuals, we are merely attempting to reconstruct the laws and regulations surrounding them just as we do with the rest of society.
Wake up! It is all about the money. A male and a female who happen to be disabled cannot even marry without a financial penalty. Forcing one to be dependent upon the other depending on who worked the most quarters. Is that religious zealots demanding that two people stay married, regardless of the circumstances. Or demanding that all disabled stay in some form of forced poverty. Or causing the elderly to spend the end of their lives in moral turmoil attacked by their religious friends? It is all about the money! Wake up! Rules for everything. Did you know insurance companies have the right to tell all ages married or not how often they may have sex by only paying for minimal amounts of viagra every 70 to 100 days they may have 15 to 30 pills. And that disfunction is spread evenly among males and females at all ages, it is just a secret! So are these the same ones who state sex is only for procreation where is the line? I am confused as the rules get deep. I gotta find some boots. I know I read the same bibles they have. Jesus said it is all about the money and tore up the temple! Don’t get balistic here but I have heard all the issues from the pulpits and it is not love and tolerance! It is God’s place to do any changing He wants done. Who do we think we are spouting all these rules to force or enforce change! It appears the restraining of marriage altogether may be the underlings at work! Wake UP! It’s all about the money!
WOW BGH. Struck a chord with this one. I haven’t been able to follow the entire stream of dialogue, nor do I feel up for the task.
My hope is that the discussion has been more about hearing arguments and discussing differences than a NEED TO BE RIGHT!
I’ll try to get on the train when it leaves the station next time.
Matt
Christian2.0
At what point do you become the bigot?
* You have the benefit of entering into only one state approved contract with only one other human of the opposite sex that you are not closely related to.
* You have the benefit of entering into only one state approved contract with only one other human of any sex that you are not closely related to.
* You have the benefit of entering into only one state approved contract with only one other human.
* You have the benefit of entering into only one state approved contract with one or more humans.
* You have the benefit of entering into one or more state approved contracts with one or more humans.
* You have the benefit of entering into one or more state approved contracts with one or living creatures.
If you’re going to use that word, at least be willing to own up to any bigotry of your own.
From the sound of it, you must “become the bigot” when you awake in the morning.
Merriam-Webster:
You become the bigot when you actively seek to deny rights and privileges to a group of people for no inherent reason other than your distaste for their lifestyle, appearance or creed.
Working from the definition given of bigot, a lot of people qualify.
Christians fall into this category, but there are people of other faiths or of no faith that are obstinate in the defense of their own views and opinions. There is also hatred dished out from all of our kitchens.
How do we eliminate that?
Granted, that it is true a lot of people qualify under that moniker and while it would be nice to try and tackle them all, the bigotry being discussed is in regards to homosexuals and those who actively seek to discourage affording them the same privileges the heterosexual community enjoy.
We can get into a long discussion on methods to reduce the amount of bigotry in society across a broad spectrum but this post was not really about that.
P.S. Matt, I have not forgotten about writing something up as we discussed, I am in the process of doing so and have a rough draft. (Just letting you know I am not blowing it off).
I figured you were working on it. I know how it goes trying to multitask. Take your time, it’ll be done when its done.
Ah good morning, it seems I have “become the bigot” for yet another day.
But seriously, throwing that word around again while ignoring my point strongly suggests you’re not really interested in worthwhile discussion. But I hope you are actually interested in reasonable rhetoric, so people should like to hear at what point in that list you would “actively seek to deny rights and privileges to a group of people for no inherent reason other than your distaste for their lifestyle, appearance or creed.”
If you are so completely set against any bigotry regarding marriage, then you shouldn’t have a problem with any of the arrangements in my list. To be otherwise would be disingenuous and shows you just use this popular hate word for flaming. I know it’s a popular thing to do these days, but please do try to rise above the madness.
There are laws in effect that establish legal age of consent. As far as I am concerned at the legal age of consent two parties involved may marry, so as long both parties are ‘consenting’.
Animals may not consent. Children may not consent.
I inherently do not have much issue with polygamy, but as it is, there are laws preventing its practice. As well as incest.
The problem is you are passive aggressively asserting that there is a slippery slope where none exists. Would you have mad the same argument 100 years ago regarding interracial marriage?
Two consenting adults are able to enter into binding contracts with one another regardless of sex or sexual orientation, and that is the essence of state recognized marriage. It is a contract to qualify couples for a recognized tax status and a sharing of wealth.
So, let me ask you now (no dodging), how far would take banning the marriage privileges?
* You refuse the benefit of entering into a state approved contract with another human of a different race.
* You refuse the benefit of entering into only one state approved contract with another human of different religion and /or race.
* You refuse the benefit of entering into only one state approved contract with another human if they are of different class status, religion and/or race.
* You refuse the benefit of entering into only one state approved contract with another human if they are a human of different eye color, class status, religion and/or race.
* You refuse the benefit of entering into only one state approved contract with another human if they are of different IQ by 10pts, eye color, class status, religion and/or race.
* You refuse the benefit of entering into a state approved contract with any human unless state arranged and approved.
Really polygamy and same sex marriage go hand in hand in terms of the state’s right to define and restrict marriages. Why can they limit the amount of people enter into marriages or the amount of marriages one can enter into, but not limit the sexes of the people enter into marriage the same way they limit the ages of the people, or the family relationship status? The fact is we have already given the state the right to define the context of marriage, you can’t logically argue the state has no right to define marriage without defending polygamy, incest marriages, child involved marriages etc.
This artical is so wrong it’s not even funny.
Plain and simple marriage is and always was religious institution. I really don’t even ever understand why any atheist would want to be married because marriage is a covenant between Man Women and God. If your gay and need a certificate saying you love each other don’t ask God who strictly forbids your love (in any religion Ii can think of) to be a part of it.
This is not an issue of being married in a church under the eyes of god. This is about the legal benefits only available to those who are married and the rights of individuals to be treated equally. Have you not been reading the threads posted here?
My 2 Cents: The word “marriage” needs to be decoupled from religion or the laws of the land have to stop referring to “married” couples when creating laws.
Clearly laws based on “marriage” (as it’s currently used) can’t coexist with a society that wants more liberal interpretation. Therefore, give the word “Marriage” to the church and rewrite the laws to never reference “marriage” and only reference “Legal Partnership” or similar.
The word Marriage would then be diluted to being nothing more then a religious label and “Legal Partnership” would then carry all the benefits currently only afforded to those that are married today.
True, but that doesn’t mean someone couldn’t gain certain state approved privileges with an animal. Theoretically it’s possible (and even likely has happened) that someone would not want to testify against an animal he or she cares about (I would like to think in a strictly platonic sense, but who’s to say really?).
I feel 18 is a decent age to legally determine adult/minor status, but it’s fairly arbitrary. I am likely a bigot to some minor with a sound mind for supporting that assumption.
Of course, but the laws about polygamy are arbitrary. Those that put them on the books would likely be considered bigoted to someone. Incest is a valid health concern, but does not say anything about close relatives joining into a state approved contract to get various benefits. The fact they can’t is also without much valid merit, and there sure are a lot of people today that could be called bigoted about it.
Thank you for the clarification. You likely stated as such in other posts which I really should have taken some time to search for. Given your position, I assume there are several disenfranchised people that would greatly appreciate your support to stop those bigots who are against them getting married.
If I was of the same state of mind as I am now, yes.
The question of what is the ‘essence of state recognized marriage’ is an interesting thought which I’ll have to ponder. I assume GLBT couples are interested in more that just the two benefits you mention, but that’s just my nitpicking. In any case, I have little problem with sharing those two benefits to anyone that is interested in them.
Other than the last one, I would not refuse a state approved contract granting some 1,400 legal rights, typically composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits, to individuals because they have any of those attributes. If you were asking in the last point if I would refuse those benefits to anyone who followed the law of the land to obtain them, then I would have to answer with a definite maybe.
The point of my comments was not about the slippery slope (but given how much you’ve likely heard it, I can understand why you might think so). No, if the laws change so gender is no longer considered for these state approved contracts, then I very seriously doubt it will change any more for quite some time. This is a terribly sad fact for anyone who is not bigoted about marriage in any way.
My comment was to question how aware you are of the ramifications of using the word “bigot.”
Your article culminates to calling out bigots trying to justify their position. You don’t just show how they are treating members of another group with intolerance. You call them, and the legislation they support, bigoted. 6 times. Then you topped it off with a Digg summary containing the word (which I assume you submitted).
I hope I’ve made my point that use of that word while harboring intolerance to any other ‘marriage’ arrangement seriously undermines the validity of your position (a certain kettle and pot come to mind). To make such a bold post about bigotry without even addressing your own does your readers a terrible disservice.
But if misuse of the word simply made one look foolish, then I wouldn’t bother commenting. And if so many people weren’t also using it so flippantly and irresponsibly, I wouldn’t have cared. But people don’t seem to bother refraining from the word. I could swear they are even actively searching for reasons to use it. There’s a good chance your post would never have made it on the Digg front page had you not used the word at all.
Do you realize how ugly and powerful that word is? If it was not such a loaded word that destroyed reasonable discussion, I wouldn’t have such an issue with it. But it is. A well supported point can be completely ignored with a simple reply of that word. No one wants or likes to be a bigot. It evokes defensiveness. It discourages understanding.
How much damage has already been done by overuse of this word? How much more will be done? Is poisoning the field of discussion really worth the use of it? You spouting off the word “bigotry” without qualifying it encourages others to do the same. How many people are now going to use that word without considering how damaging it is to meaningful discussion?
If you’re going to use the word bigotry, use it wisely, and with upfront honesty. I would hope you, and everyone who understands this would not only stop its destructive use, but also encourage others to do the same.
The number of times I’ve used the ugly word in this comment alone disturbs me, but I hope it makes the point crystal clear.
Now having said that, I can recognize and appreciate why you might be driven to using that word. A brief browsing the various comments show plenty of people that say the same tired words. I’m well aware that religionists are often terribly slow at updating their rhetoric to actually make sense. Two of my three major gripes around gay marriage rhetoric are that “bigot” is used irresponsibly, and that most Christians either need to put the time into understanding the arguments on the table, or STFU.
I apologize that this clarity couldn’t have been in my first comment. It takes me a long time to sort thoughts and feelings into constructive communication. Thank you for your patience and taking the time to respond.
While balking at the use of the word ‘bigot’ it was not used to be inflammatory or inspire Digg front pagedness. The use of the adjective was to describe the mindset I feel is informing much of the action and campaign tactics against same sex marriage.
I do not care if someone is a bigot, as you have pointed out, many of us are in some way, shape or form. Your private life is yours to enjoy internal prejudice as you wish. I do care when bigotry is used to inform and inspire a pursuit of legislation or other methodologies that would inflict that bigotry upon other members of society who do not hold the same worldview. It was not used as a STFU argument, it was a description of the point of origin where I feel much anti-gay support comes from.
The article pointed out why I think this is inherently ‘wrong’. Steve and Sam residing in the same community and ‘married’, (a state recognized contract that affords the same sharing of benefits and legal rights), have no noticeable effect on the marriage of Ken and Barbie who hold a more religious meaning to their union yet enjoy the same sharing of benefits and legal rights of the state recognized contract. It is a bigotry that attempts to deny the same privilege regardless of consenting partner choice.
There are many ’straight’ couples that I feel should not marry in my community, even our nation, (Madonna and Anyone, My Boss and whomever he is choosing for his third wife, and numerous others) but I am not using that prejudgment and bigotry to actively pursue avenues to deny these people that privilege.
Thanks for the conversation.
prop. 8 is unlawful because the claims in favor of it have no evidence. the ban on gay marriage DID go through due process of law via a vote in the claifornian senate with a vote of 51% in favor of banning gay marriage. end of story, prop. 8 has no leg to stand on and there is no reason to be sore over losing an argument. sometimes you win sometimes you lose. please dont complain when you lose. it makes everyone hate you.
Don’t forget the example of if Ken and Barbie were dating, and Sam wanted to steal Ken away from her and (if the stars align) marry him. Well Sam doesn’t have that right anymore. If Barbie voted yes on Prop 8, she would be bigoted toward Sam because she just refused him rights that she currently holds. Although it would come at a price to her, because she would also lose the right to marry Christie. But that was her choice, albeit a difficult one.
In fact, it wasn’t straight people denying the rights of gay people. Homosexual people have had the same rights as heterosexual people all along. All men, regardless of sexual preference, may marry a women. All women, regardless of sexual preference, may marry a man. It’s the bigoted men that prevented a women to also compete for the women, and the bigoted women that prevented a man to compete for to a man.
I think I have found your real target to accuse of bigotry my good fellow.
Now, I want to step back from that passive aggressive description and genuinely request what the counter-argument is to this position. I assume there is such, but have yet to hear it anywhere.
Ah, possibly related is the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
I enjoyed your arguments. It can be very informative to look through an objective lense. I just like picking on the trolls, but you – you’ve got some serious rhetorical style.
To make long story short, this country was founded upon the ’separation of church and state,’ which means one cannot use religious ideals to discriminate against a certain group of people. Our western history is filled with bloodbath and violence because of religious differences and by now, in 2009, we MUST understand that we cannot use religion to make others conform to our beliefs. I’m a Catholic by birth and embrace my God wholeheartedly. But I don’t agree with anything or anyone using religion as an excuse to make other’s lives miserable.
If you think marriage is an institution formed between a man and woman, fine, believe it all you want, but don’t try to impose that upon other people to take away what is their right. Every single human being in this world has a right to love whoever they want. Get over it America. Great article, btw.
I’ve heard enough of the arguments and counterarguments here already. I’ve only one thing to add to the discourse: there are practical, pragmatic reasons in favour of establishing gay marriages even if merely from the standpoint of property laws.
Please don’t cause unnecessary and avoidable hardship on others. Have a bit of Christian/Islamic/Judaic/Buddhist/Taoist/Zen/whatever charity. If the existence of gays and gay marriages is going to imperil your religious practices (in whatever or whichever religion it might be), then you really need to reassess your involvement in your religion.
(Hint to the unwashed: You’re weak in your religion if something puny like this could cause such a massive upset in you.)
To make this stand on ‘tradition’ is foolhardy.
Anyone familiar with anti-miscegenation laws? They existed for centuries, forbidding people of different races to marry. They certainly had a great deal of tradition behind them, and they were (quite properly) struck down as being unconstitutional.
If you give a right, you must give it to everyone. And yes, marriage is a right – the courts have defined it as such.
We have struck down terrible ‘traditions’ many times – slavery, segregation, keeping women out of schools and professional organizations. I can only hope that justice actually prevails here.
If giving people equal rights before the law will destroy your religious beliefs, then perhaps you need to do some self-examination. Do your religious beliefs say that disabled persons shouldn’t be equal? That people of different races shouldn’t be equal? That men and women shouldn’t be equal?
If it does, then I am genuinely sorry for you, because a closed mind cannot learn, and you believe that discrimination is right.
Many people say that to uphold this law is not to take rights away from gays and lesbians, but to refuse to extend rights to them. Well, that’s the same argument people made against the Voting Rights Acts (which guaranteed that race could not be used to prevent voting), against allowing women to go to colleges, against freeing slaves, and against desegregation. Do you like the company that puts you in?
How can that quote be construed as inflammatory. What is inflammatory about it? Something is very wrong when a simple non judgemental opinion is labeled inflammatory simply because it varies from the writer’s opinion.
Those who oppose gays and want to use the deadly force of government make a great mistake for, “Jesus said, ‘Do not use force to overcome evil. If they strike you on the right cheek turn to them the other also.’”
And gays make an equal mistake wanting to please our self-absorbed majority by bring their marriage under the jurisdiction of deadly and ungodly divorce court.
Keep in mind that not one marriage ceremony can be found in Scripture. For the definition of a marriage ceremony is, “Isaac took Rebekah into his mothers tent and he made love to her, and she then became his wife.”