The victims of DOMA

[Jolena]

I think the main reason gays want the right to legally marry is because they want the same priviledges afforded to heterosexual married couples. IE. Tax breaks, insurance, retirement, etc. And yeah, I said I wouldn't post but the sensible people are back out again so I'm okay now haha.

[HarmNone]

I think the fact that marriage is both a traditional concept and a legal concept is what's bolluxing up the works. If it weren't for the legal aspects, those who aren't particularly concerned with the traditional values associated with marriage wouldn't really care. However, because the government has it's fingers in the pie, without marriage couples are denied certain things that are available to those who are married...things like tax breaks, insurance coverage for dependents, and the like. That's where the problem comes in.

[Warriorbird]

America's about freedom, Siefer. Sorry you don't get that.

[Blazing247]

I have an idea. Let's all turn gay tomorrow, and this will be a non-issue. We can have gay marriages all around. Of course, it will be the end of the human race, so what does it matter.

Sarcasm aside, nobody has commented on the need for a gay marriage. Is it for financial reasons, love, or just for the hell of it? I fully support the right for a gay couple to be legally united, but I don't think it should be called marriage, and I don't think they should reap financial benefits.

[Warriorbird]

Why shouldn't they? They could be out doing all sorts've unhealthy things... just the same as unmarried straight people. Alternately, one should be able to give one's inheritance to the person one chooses to.

[HarmNone]

Why should they not get the same financial benefits heterosexual couples get?

[Blazing247]

<Alternately, one should be able to give one's inheritance to the person one chooses to.>

Since when is a will dictated by sexual orientation? I wasn't aware that gay people weren't allowed to choose a beneficiary in their will. I apologize.

Because they wouldn't be married.

This thread is running around in circles. At least I get my post count up.

- Arkans

[Jolena]

We did give reasons that gays would like to be legally married, Blazing. And as others have said, why should they not be afforded the same benefits as heterosexual married couples?

[Blazing247]

<Why should they not get the same financial benefits heterosexual couples get?>

Why should they? Why shouldn't my three roommates and I? We live together, and hell, we're pretty damn close. Where do you draw the line? Either the gay population wants marriage rights as a way to show their love for eachother, or they want it for financial reasons. Getting married for financial reasons is a pretty crappy reason, IMHO.

All I know is that at least when I wake up tomorrow, gays still won't be able to get married. At least with that I can retire for the night in peace.

- Arkans

[Warriorbird]

Are you and your roomates planning to live together for the next 50 years? Did it not occurr to you that they want it for... more than one reason? Hell, a lot of the gay people who want to get married seem to BE Republicans. Money seems to matter a lot to conservatives...

Money matters a lot to both parties. This is why Kerry is bathing in special interest group money as much as Bush is.

- Arkans

[CrystalTears]

Well then take away the financial gains of being married from the straight couples and then we can call it even. I mean it's all about the love and the sanctity of marriage with the church, right? Why get benefits from it? <smirks>

[Back]

What about platonic life partners? Is that ok?

[Blazing247]

Ah well, no point in arguing further. I do not support gay marriage, and that's about that. I don't make the laws in this country, so my opinion is just that- an opinion. I'm the type of person that feels this country was far better off 50 years ago than it is today, but I realize I'm a dying breed. Everyone in this country feels entitled to everything, and that's a pretty telling indicator.

[Warriorbird]

You still won't be able to drag liberals out in the streets to be shot however, Arkans. And those darn non white people will be all up and helping our country to exist, much to Siefer's chagrin. Do you want to be in his category?

[Warriorbird]

So... lacking everything else, you fall back on wishing we were in the past, Blazing.

[Blazing247]

I'm sorry, what was I lacking?

I love it. Now I want liberals to be shot. I hate this left wing tactic so much.

Hey, if you want me to be that way, sure, that's what I want. I also hate every single minority of you want me to. People need to calm the fuck down when it comes to shit like that. It's gotten so out of hand that I was accused of being a Nazi just because I said I was working with "honest hard working white folks".

Sickening. This is why I'll never support the left, Kerry, Hillary, or any other of those people. Four more years.

- Arkans

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
Sarcasm aside, nobody has commented on the need for a gay marriage. Is it for financial reasons, love, or just for the hell of it? I fully support the right for a gay couple to be legally united, but I don't think it should be called marriage, and I don't think they should reap financial benefits.

I'll assume this is an honest question and answer in kind.

There are over one thousand things that getting married automatically provides as soon as you say that "I do". Yes, many of them are financial and unless you and your roommates love each other and plan to spend the next fifty years being together, then your analogy is flawed.

However, aside from the financial aspects, there are many others. To name a couple:

1) Same sex partners are not considered next of kin and can be kept from visiting their spouse in the hospital.

2) Same sex partners could be raising a child for ten years. But if the biological parent dies, that person's blood relatives or even the state could remove the child from his other parent because they weren't married.

That's just two out of one thousand and forty nine.

Raven

[Blazing247]

Also, I never said I wished we were in the past. I think there are many values that we have lost over the years that make us less of a nation. Family values, work ethic, fidelity, etc. You are welcome to write me off as old fashioned, if it makes you feel better.

[CrystalTears]

I'm not voting for Kerry, by the way. I'm just standing my grounds on issues I believe in and this is one of them.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Backlash
What about platonic life partners? Is that ok?

Yes. It should be as far as I'm concerned.

I think 50 years was much like today, but problems were less public. It does look like a cleaner time, though.

- Arkans

[Blazing247]

<1) Same sex partners are not considered next of kin and can be kept from visiting their spouse in the hospital.

2) Same sex partners could be raising a child for ten years. But if the biological parent dies, that person's blood relatives or even the state could remove the child from his other parent because they weren't married.

That's just two out of one thousand and forty nine. >

And as I stated previously, I FULLY support that aspect of a gay union. I DO think you should have those rights. Getting a tax break, however, is not high on my give a shit list for pissing on the sanctity of marriage.

[Warriorbird]

Don't whine, Arkans. You spout all kinds of crap about "liberal this" and "liberal that" and then try to take the high road? Maybe if you actually engaged in civil political discourse you wouldn't be in a discussion like this.

To be honest, I find Kerry only slightly less reprehensible than Bush. Doesn't stop me from calling it like I see it regarding civil rights.

I say liberal this liberal that, but never do I go around saying "Oh, you want to shoot all conservatives" or "You must hate all white males", now do I? Don't give me that shit.

- Arkans

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
Family values, work ethic, fidelity, etc.

Newsflash: gay couples are just as big proponents of family values and fidelity as you are. That's why they want to get married. Otherwise they'd be sleeping around with every other person they see instead of trying to legally commit to each other.

Raven

[Warriorbird]

Eh, Blazing. I just don't think you'll find much of family values from a politician. Wasn't that one of Newt Gingrich's favorite issues? My cousin was the Republican Speak of the House of Delegates in Virginia. Had a lot of seniority. Got thrown out for harassing a secretary and then getting blackmailed.

That's the result of a lot of repressed messed up sexuality. These folks just want to get married. Let em.

[CrystalTears]

You realize, of course, that this debate is mostly because those against it don't want gay marriages to be called marriages. They'll accept any other description for it like civil union, it's marriage they won't allow because they're linking it with their religious perspectives.

So is it that? That you don't want it called a "marriage"? You'd be okay with it if they called it a civil union or something? It's the marriage that bothers you. The word, not the action, the benefits, the love interests... a word.

[eeky]

Are you and your roomates planning to live together for the next 50 years?

50 years in a gay relationship = about 10 years hetro time

I sometimes visit my mother from time to time. It's good to keep in touch with family.

She works at the Department of Public Health here in Boston. Seeing as though that's a state job, there are gays a plenty there. She tells me they even say gay men are promiscuous (sp?). Does that account for all gay men? Nah, but you don't see straight guys openly admitting such things in such a high rate.

- Arkans

[Warriorbird]

No. But you'll constantly toss stuff around that has little or no attachment to reality . The red star hat thing was a pretty classic example.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Warriorbird]

[Back]

Originally posted by Blazing247
And as I stated previously, I FULLY support that aspect of a gay union. I DO think you should have those rights. Getting a tax break, however, is not high on my give a shit list for pissing on the sanctity of marriage.

So your main point is money. Is this about who gets a tax break or what?

You trully need help if you think I was actually serious with the hat thing.

- Arkans

[CrystalTears]

Stereotypes. Straight men who fool around are studs. Gay men who fool around are promiscuous. Why? Because there are still people who are uncomfortable with the concept.

[Warriorbird]

And you truly need help if you think that line back there was serious. I was just making a point about who I think the opponents of gay marriage were setting themselves with.

The problem is, I have a hard time believing that. It's not the first time the rascist/fascist like behavior card was thrown at my conservative views, expecially when I did nothing to provoke something like that.

- Arkans

[Warriorbird]

Eh. You do go around doing that whole I wanna be a repressive Communist shtick. Not serious or no... that kinda opens you up to it.

I grew up 30 minutes away from Lynchburg, VA as a kid... Jerry Falwell central. I think a whole lot more of the name-tossing gets tossed from the conservative side of the arena. With that said, I did get called some fairly nasty things when I didn't vote for Gore by some members of my family.

[Blazing247]

<Newsflash: gay couples are just as big proponents of family values and fidelity as you are.>

I think you are confused. I wasn't stating that gay couples don't have the values that I listed, I was stating that society as a WHOLE has strayed from the core values of early America.


<So is it that? That you don't want it called a "marriage"? You'd be okay with it if they called it a civil union or something? It's the marriage that bothers you. The word, not the action, the benefits, the love interests... a word.>

If it were called a gay union, I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it. As I stated previously, I do have problems with gay couples reaping financial benefits, because when does the buck stop? There are reasons that a married man and woman get financial breaks, separate of a marriage. Children come to mind.

<50 years in a gay relationship = about 10 years hetro time>

Are you shitting me? Most of the gay men I've met are full out sluts. My old boss is breaking up with his life partner because, after they agreed they would swing, his partner wasn't satisfied with that and cheated with an outside person. Don't give me this shit about how gay couples are any more faithful or love each other any more than straight couples.

[Blazing247]

<So your main point is money. Is this about who gets a tax break or what?>

Backlash, I disagree with you on just about everything we post about. Let's leave it at that. You are a different breed of person than I am, and that's cool, but if you think my main point is about money you are just skimming the post and aren't worth responding to.

[CrystalTears]

Straight people can be just as scrupulous as gay people, so to say gays are worse is just as much of a fallacy.

Gay couples have children too. Ah so them bringing up children in this world offends you as well. So now it's reaping the same advantages of straight couples in general.

Like I said, take away the financial benefits from the straight couples and we'll all be even, since the sanctity of the marriage is all that matters, they don't need the help of the government for their love.

[HarmNone]

To me, it seems it's a matter of whether or not one judges homosexuals to be immoral. People who think they are immoral seem to feel that, because of their immorality, they should not receive the same benefits that accrue to people who meet certain pre-decided standards of morality, as laid out by the Christian religion, primarily.

I don't look at homosexuality like that. I see it as just another varient in the myriad variations of humanity. I do not judge homosexuals from a moral standpoint. What is right for me is not, obviously, right for them. To me, they are simply people whose sexual orientation differs from mine. I can't see that as being a reason to deprive them of any of the basic rights granted to us, as citizens of this country, including the right of marriage.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Arkans
She works at the Department of Public Health here in Boston. Seeing as though that's a state job, there are gays a plenty there. She tells me they even say gay men are promiscuous (sp?). Does that account for all gay men? Nah, but you don't see straight guys openly admitting such things in such a high rate.

Because she sees more gays than straights? I find this very hard to believe. I would believe it more if she said she "notices" more gays than straights.

The second part is what makes the statement irrelevant. Gays men are labeled as more promiscuous than straight men for one reason, sex. Men, by nature, are very promiscuous. A gay man is no more promiscuous than a straight man. When you group a bunch of gay men together that find each other attractive, sex is going to happen. When you group straight men with women and every man and woman find the other attractive, sex does not always happen.

Women have a separate set of rules than men. Therefore it is more of an effort for a man to get sex from a woman than it is for a gay man to get sex from another gay man. Gay men, for the most part, see eye to eye. They both know and are able to handle the "it's just sex" aspect. Women want more than sex as a general rule of thumb.

Straight men are not going to openly admit to other women that they sleep around, it lessens their chances of sex with them. Gay men tend to be more honest about it.

Your statement is irrelevant.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Women have a separate set of rules than men. Therefore it is more of an effort for a man to get sex from a woman than it is for a gay man to get sex from another gay man. Gay men, for the most part, see eye to eye. They both know and are able to handle the "it's just sex" aspect. Women want more than sex as a general rule of thumb.

Well, actually... While it's not exactly wrong, I think that needs some elaboration. This is all based on my experience of course and from people I've spoken with.

I think it's safe to say that guys are horny and want sex. Often. This is especially true of young men. Getting laid is frequently their avocation and they work harder at it than they do at their college courses. What their sexual preference is is irrelevant. It applies to both gays and straights.

Also true is that sex can be (though not always is) much simpler to get because we are indeed on the same wavelength. A simple 'want to fuck?' can be very effective without all the dancing around the issue that is typically (or stereotypically) associated with getting a woman into bed.

Further, there's also the aspect of rebelling against the society that's oppressing them. By sleeping around, they're proving a point to the world at large: that they refuse to follow 'the rules' of the prudes who are trying to keep them down. Much like every teenager rebels against their parent.

However, here comes the however. However, just like for straight guys, that can be a phase they grow out of. Some don't. Just like you have straight 'playas' trying to get as much tail as they can, there are gay guys who do the same.

While others do settle down and want something more than just sex. There are communities on LJ where you'll find these gay kids angsting over not being able to find a guy to be in a relationship with. Or their boyfriend cheated on them and they are so hurt and don't know whether to try to forgive him or dump him. Or they're angry that someone never calls them after they slept together a few times.

People are people. Gay or straight, you'll find the same kind everywhere. Some are promiscuous and polyamorous. Some want nothing more than to be in a long term, committed relationship. Age plays a factor as does maturity. And personality of course.

It's late and I'm losing my train of thought so I'll just stop here even though I think I didn't quite make my point. If someone figures out what it was, feel free to say so :)

Raven

[eeky]

Lol whatever.. Gay guys are more permiscuous. Go ask one, I have no doubt they'd be happy to tell ya. I'm not gonna take what you wrote apart but just think about about it...

[Nieninque]

Bob and Hulkein really did need to pay more attention in health education :rolleyes:

Seifer, it is no more cool to be gay that it is cool to be straight. People just are.

Homophobes and bigots are the problem rather than people who fall outside of their definition of "normal"

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by eeky
Lol whatever.. Gay guys are more permiscuous. Go ask one, I have no doubt they'd be happy to tell ya. I'm not gonna take what you wrote apart but just think about about it...

No they are not. Gay men are men. MEN are, not all, are promiscuous.

Gay men don't have the hurdle of gender to leap over. Straight men do.

A straight man tries to get laid as much as any gay man. Notice the key word in there ... man. It's just the observation of the gay man being more successful at the quest than the straight man.

[eeky]

Actually key word is try and they succeed more often, thus more permiscuous

[Slider]

I think this issue is one of the toughest ones facing our country today, and will probably cause more hate and discontent than just about anything i can think of.

In truth, I find myself torn over it as well. On the one hand, i was raised in a very traditional, Christian family, both of my parents are Christians as is every other member of my family and i still have many of those values, and yes Christianity does teach that Homosexuality is immoral. Of course, they aren't the only ones, so do many other religions. So yes, i do have that baggage as part of my upbringing.

On the other hand, I have more than a few freinds that are homosexual, who are being hurt by this, and yes, I do feel badly for them. Do I wish they could get married, legally, in this country? Yup, sure do. Would it make one bit of difference in my life if they where married? Nope, not one damn bit. Hows that for one of those "old fashioned hide-bound conservative reactionaries"?

Now, that being said, and notice, I am FOR this not against it, do I want the Gov't deciding what defines "marriage" Uhmm..le'me think....HELL FUCKING NO!!! Whew...okay you ask, why not? Well, it's because truth be told, I don't think that the Federal Gov't has any right whatsoever to be making that decision. Strangely enough, most of you who are arguing in favor of this seem to agree with that statement as well, you have repeatedly said that it should not be the gov't's right to deny these benefits to gay couples, correct? Do I think that it should be up to the individual States to pass laws according to the consensus of people in their states? Yup, most definatly, go for it, have fun. But the Federal Gov't? Not on your life. These idiots can't balance a check book and you want them deciding every last little thing as too who can do what in this country? Uh uh..no way.

Now, just for fun, lets open up the other reason this is a very heated debate. Let's be real here folks, this really boils down to religion. Period. And not just Christianity either, but yes, mostly that because this country was after all settled by (gasp) white Christian people. (Well, first it was settled by my people, then you white folk conquered our asses, but that's another topic). Now for some reason most Liberals seem to veiw anything said by anyone who is Christian as being WRONG. Period, no questions asked, those people are stone age savages who should all be locked up for being nuts, right? I mean, c'mon...they preach at you, they try to press their opinion on you, they say "You can't do that, it's Immoral" right? Many Liberals when they think of Christianity immediatly think The Moral Majority or something like this. Now, i have a question for the Liberals out there...what exactly is it about Christian values that bothers you so much? What is it about someone saying "I believe" that makes you decide that that person is nuts? Yes, there are Christians that are a bit...ohh...extreme shall we say, but cannot the same be said for many Liberals? Or for any other "Cause" truth be told?

Then we have the Conservative (that would be me). That fellow who still thinks the wheel is a dangerously new invention that's sure to never catch on. We are the ones who look back at the past fondly and say "It was so much better back then". Well, ok, maybe so, maybe not. But we do tend to be a wee bit, well..old fashioned about things. And for most of us, any change is a VERY BAD THING. And most of us define new as "it came out when Grandpappy was a kid". Don't expect us to embrace every new-fangled notion that springs to someones mind, cause it ain't a gonna happen.

So, yup, this is a tough one for this Nation, and yes, it is gonna cause a lot of hate and discontent. Will it get settled, yes it will. Will everyone be happy with that settlement. Hell no. Will we go on and survive this? Yup, we will. And we'' learn from it, and apply that lesson to our Country, and be made stronger by it. Wich is what i do love about this Country. Our strength is not in our unity folks, but in our diversity.

[Warriorbird]

All the hate that's often associated with the misplaced application of them. The denial of humanity of anyone who doesn't blindly follow the Christian "way." which isn't even all that literal of an interpretation of the Bible, many times.

I think Christianity has some beautiful and some morally very logical aspects. If that's all we got I might believe myself. Sadly, it isn't.

The moral railing against homosexuality isn't even as clear as it is often made out to be.

Hell, how many Christians really follow Leviticus restrictions? Or sacrifice things? Not a damn lot.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Warriorbird]

[Slider]

Heh, not to get TOO far off-topic, but I agree with you Warriorbird (gasp). Motly because many so called "Traditional Christian Values" are nothing of the sort. They are Puritan values, wich is a whole 'nother ball of wax. And a nasty one to boot. These folks got kicked out of England, and Denmark for a very good reason. They where FRIGGIN' NUTS!!! Among other things they beleived that Man was infallible, without sin, perfect, etc. (Bullshit yes, i know. Ever meet a "pure" teenage boy"?) Woman on the other hand were vile, sinfull creatures that needed to have the "sin" beaten out of them on a reguler basis (ie. every time they showed anything but total subservience). But somehow or another these whack-jobs extreme veiws got passed on as tradditional Christianity, wich it most certainly is not!

Take sex for instance. In the Bible, sex is something to be enjoyed with your spuse, a joining of the flesh and spirit. Don't beleive me, go read the Song of Solomon reall quick, then come back, I'll wait. The Puritans on th other hand thought that it lowered Man to the level of a beast, and thus should only be done for procreation, and certainly not out of anything like desire or love for your spouse, or enjoyement, or that you should ever even see your wife naked. From this also sprang the whole idea of the "virgin bride". Back in Biblical times, polygamy was practiced as a survival measure. You had to have a big family with lots of kids because many of them would die before every reaching adulthood. The land they lived in was harsh, there was no such thing as hospitals, a broken leg could quite literally mean death. You had to be sure that your wife was capable of having children, before you married her. After all, there was no divorce, and if she could not have children she became a drain on precious resources instead of a benefit.

Too many of our values are not based on what is in the Bible, but on what is told us by other people is in the Bible, or are passed down as "Tradition".

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
It does not say what gender his wife shall be.But that's where the cultural context of Jesus kicks in: it was understood back then what wife entailed.
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
But obviously, it's not the only acceptable form of marriage otherwise there wouldn't be even more references to one man and two wives. A good point, however, polygamy is restricted to the Old Testament. And we already know that acceptable practices in the OT (i.e. divorce) are no longer acceptable by Jesus.
Originally posted by CrystalTears
but if my friends Ravenstorm and Snapp won't be welcomed into the kingdom of God because of who they loved while living on this Earth, I don't want to go either!I don't know how we went from a definition of marriage to allowing people into Heaven, but ok.
Well then take away the financial gains of being married from the straight couples and then we can call it even. What's odd is the tone of that post suggests I don't want that. :?:
So is it that? That you don't want it called a "marriage"? You'd be okay with it if they called it a civil union or something? It's the marriage that bothers you. The word, not the action, the benefits, the love interests... a word.A clever ploy. However, you can't have it both ways. If the wordage is insignificant, then gay folks shouldn't care what it's called. If it is significant, then people against it have solid footing.
Originally posted by Slider
yes Christianity does teach that Homosexuality is immoral. No it doesn't. Some Christians teach that homosexuality is immoral. Christ did no such thing.

Also, I think you're mixing up "Puritan" with "Pilgrim", Slider. Pilgrims were kicked out, Puritans left of their own volition and a large group of them went back to England later. As for "After all, there was no divorce", you need to read a little more carefully, because Moses allowed divorce.

I don't get the people who play the "Leviticus" card. Jesus constantly broke dietary and cleanliness restrictions.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by CrystalTears
but if my friends Ravenstorm and Snapp won't be welcomed into the kingdom of God because of who they loved while living on this Earth, I don't want to go either!I don't know how we went from a definition of marriage to allowing people into Heaven, but ok.

And you needed to quote this, why? It was in reference to something that I quoted that had to do with the commentary that homosexuals won't be allowed in the Kingdom of heaven. Thanks for pulling out the one line to make it irrevant. It was with the rest of the post.


Well then take away the financial gains of being married from the straight couples and then we can call it even.

What's odd is the tone of that post suggests I don't want that. :?:

So you'd want to see financial benefits taken away from straight married couples as well? Okay, at least that's honest.


So is it that? That you don't want it called a "marriage"? You'd be okay with it if they called it a civil union or something? It's the marriage that bothers you. The word, not the action, the benefits, the love interests... a word.
A clever ploy. However, you can't have it both ways. If the wordage is insignificant, then gay folks shouldn't care what it's called. If it is significant, then people against it have solid footing.

It's not a ploy. Unfortunately the marriage law that we are advocating to change has the same word as the religious marriage that people are opposed to. If people stop thinking of it in Christian terms but in legal terms, then this wouldn't be an issue. To say that it's not a religious or personal issue is just lying to themselves.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
If people stop thinking of it in Christian terms but in legal terms, then this wouldn't be an issue.

Yes, it would be. In state after state, Republicans have proposed legislation that not only prohibits same-sex marriage but also civil unions, domestic partnerships, and any type of arrangement that would confer any of the legal privileges and protections of marriage on unmarried people.

They don't merely want to 'reserve' the term marriage for themselves. They want to make sure no same-sex relationship is possible from a purely civil perspective as well. That goes way beyond 'saving' any religious definition of marriage.

Raven]

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by HarmNone
It does not say what gender his wife shall be.But that's where the cultural context of Jesus kicks in: it was understood back then what wife entailed

Umm, of course it was understood what marriage entailed. Problem is, we don't know exactly what was understood. Because it is not addressed directly in the Bible (which is our historical source in this conversation), we have no way of knowing, for sure, whether the word "wife" mandated a gender, or not.

[Blazing247]

<Because it is not addressed directly in the Bible (which is our historical source in this conversation), we have no way of knowing, for sure, whether the word "wife" mandated a gender, or not. >

HN, you are intelligent- surely you realize that's a stretch. If that's the extent of the "proof", I'd be embarassed to use it to support my argument.

[HarmNone]

The thing is, Blazing, I'm not trying to prove anything, so I offer no "proof". We can't offer proof of what happened, or what was believed, in those times. We can assume, based on historical precedent. We cannot, however, prove anything. :)

HarmNone...that was her point

[Blazing247]

< We can assume, based on historical precedent. We cannot, however, prove anything. >

And if we cannot rely on historical text and precedent, then I guess we don't know anything beyond what we've seen with our own eyes.

[HarmNone]

We can develop our own beliefs, Blazing. We can decide what we believe to have been true. We cannot, however, tell other people, with absolute certainty, that their beliefs are wrong. We must accept that there will be those who disagree with the conclusions we draw. They will have drawn different conclusions. That's all I'm saying.

HarmNone

[Caiylania]

There is no way in hell I am reading all 17 of these pages.

So all I have to say regarding original post is:
I feel badly for those men, and others like them who are being forced to leave all they know in order to be with one another.

I am sure all arguments are being put forth in both directions, and I don't plan on reading this thread anymore. My head hurts enough as it is. Thus, I only say.... my two cents quickly.

I believe gay people should be given all rights, privaleges, and concessions that straight people have. It is ridiculous to say their love for one another is less than that of a man and woman just because of religion. And if it is being argued that it has nothing to do with religion, that is even worse.

Man --> woman =baby. Plenty of marriages have no children. So who cares? Not like the world isn't plenty populated.

People who are homophobic IMO = scared of something they don't understand.

What do humans do to things they are scared of? On average, humans seem to seek and destroy. Look what was done to anyone who didn't agree with the masses? When Christianity was a minority--> fed to lions. When American Indians were the misunderstood --> killed at Governments expense. When people don't act the same or go against ingrained morales --> forbid, expunge, exclude.

All because some people refuse to walk in another's shoes.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
It was in reference to something that I quoted that had to do with the commentary that homosexuals won't be allowed in the Kingdom of heaven.I didn't realize you had brought extraneous information into the discussion, no. I'm sorry.
It's not a ploy.Fair enough.
Unfortunately the marriage law that we are advocating to change has the same word as the religious marriage that people are opposed to. That is unfortunate.

Harmnone, if you want to be technical, there's no way of knowing anything for sure, ever. However, I would assume we could have a rational discussion with a set of commonly understood postulates; call it history, science, common sense, or whatever you want. The very basis of language is for a collection of sounds to have a specific meaning. If you're going to suggest "wife" had any connotation but "female", you might as well suggest that "Jesus" could have meant "an oak tree" or "male" meant "asparagus".

[Mistomeer]

I'm not reading this whole thread, but that story did suck.

I don't understand why the story got so involved about their life. I could write it in a few sentences.

Two men fall in love and they knew that they couldn't marry and as a result the foreign man couldn't become a citizen. Now they're moving to Canada. Some dumbass feels the need to write a shitty article in an attempt to get sympathy for them. Boo fucking hoo.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by HarmNone
We cannot, however, tell other people, with absolute certainty, that their beliefs are wrong.
HarmNone


Some beliefs are wrong.
There are absolutes.

[HarmNone]

>>Harmnone, if you want to be technical, there's no way of knowing anything for sure, ever. However, I would assume we could have a rational discussion with a set of commonly understood postulates; call it history, science, common sense, or whatever you want. The very basis of language is for a collection of sounds to have a specific meaning. If you're going to suggest "wife" had any connotation but "female", you might as well suggest that "Jesus" could have meant "an oak tree" or "male" meant "asparagus".<<

Heh. You still don't get the concept, Latrinsorm. I'm not suggesting that "wife" had any connotation but "female". I'm not suggesting anything at all. I don't.....the FREAK.....know!

HarmNone...not afraid to admit she does not know

[Ravenstorm]

The berdache: an example of a male 'wife' in some American Indian marriages.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

Intelligence is wasted if it's not used.

[Caiylania]

Since Mistomeer missed it.....


Originally posted by Caiylania
There is no way in hell I am reading all 17 of these pages.

So all I have to say regarding original post is:
I feel badly for those men, and others like them who are being forced to leave all they know in order to be with one another.

I am sure all arguments are being put forth in both directions, and I don't plan on reading this thread anymore. My head hurts enough as it is. Thus, I only say.... my two cents quickly.

I believe gay people should be given all rights, privaleges, and concessions that straight people have. It is ridiculous to say their love for one another is less than that of a man and woman just because of religion. And if it is being argued that it has nothing to do with religion, that is even worse.

Man --> woman =baby. Plenty of marriages have no children. So who cares? Not like the world isn't plenty populated.

People who are homophobic IMO = scared of something they don't understand.

What do humans do to things they are scared of? On average, humans seem to seek and destroy. Look what was done to anyone who didn't agree with the masses? When Christianity was a minority--> fed to lions. When American Indians were the misunderstood --> killed at Governments expense. When people don't act the same or go against ingrained morales --> forbid, expunge, exclude.

All because some people refuse to walk in another's shoes.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<So who cares? Not like the world isn't plenty populated.>>

Of course not. France and Germany are most definitely not giving extra funds to people who have more children because of their lack of population. I think what you meant to say is, "Not like America isn't plenty populated." Then you'd have a point.

[Caiylania]

True enough. Overall point being that there are what... 6+ billion people in the world? So letting gay people be together can help with population control. If you want to be heartless about it.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Caiylania
Since Mistomeer missed it.....



Your view is quite narrow-minded.
You assume that just because someone doesn't agree with the author of the article that they're homophobic. I just have no sympathy for people who know the rules going into something, then get upset about the rules later on. It's really that simple with me.
And for the record, I support civil unions for anyone.

[Caiylania]

Anyway. I have better things to do. I said what I have to say.

People will believe what they believe. Right or wrong. Have a good night all.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<So letting gay people be together can help with population control.>>

No it can't. There's no possibility of a gay couple having a child whether they're married or not. They can be together. They can't be married. Same number of people.

What really helps control the population is all the gay couples that go to Canada. Power to them for helping us out.

Damn, this topic went up in posts even more. Can't we just agree that gay people getting married is a horrible idea?

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<So letting gay people be together can help with population control.>>

No it can't. There's no possibility of a gay couple having a child whether they're married or not.
False.

[Snapp]

Whether or not you believe it's a "bad idea" or not, it's happening. Funny enough, in your state Arkans. ;)

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<So letting gay people be together can help with population control.>>

No it can't. There's no possibility of a gay couple having a child whether they're married or not.
False.

True. A man and a woman can have a child. Two men or two women can raise that child, but can't actually have their own.

[Mistomeer]

I support Civil Unions for anyone that wants it. There's no reason why benefits shouldn't extend to a significant other. I don't support Gay Marriage as Marriage is an institution of the Church and the Church is under no obligation to marry anyone they don't want to, no matter what lawmakers say. Seperation of Church and State.

[GSLeloo]

I think homosexuals should be allowed to have a union of some sort to allow them to have the same legal rights. That's where the problem is that you only get these LEGAL rights when you're married. It's sort of stupid because again it's making an apparently religious thing effect legal issues.

But if I am with someone for thirty years I should be able to be with them in the hospital if they're sick and it's family only, I should have the right to say no they don't want life support if it comes down to it, I should have the right to live in the house that I have lived in for thirty years with this person and not have to worry that I'll have to fight for it.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Mistomeer
I support Civil Unions for anyone that wants it. There's no reason why benefits shouldn't extend to a significant other. I don't support Gay Marriage as Marriage is an institution of the Church and the Church is under no obligation to marry anyone they don't want to, no matter what lawmakers say. Seperation of Church and State.

I have yet to see anyone say that churches should be forced to marry gays. Gay couples just want the same legal rights as hetero couples.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Mistomeer

Originally posted by DarkelfVold

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<So letting gay people be together can help with population control.>>

No it can't. There's no possibility of a gay couple having a child whether they're married or not.
False.

True. A man and a woman can have a child. Two men or two women can raise that child, but can't actually have their own. Obviously. Anyone who wishes to reproduce can, gay or straight. That's the beauty of it.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Mistomeer
I support Civil Unions for anyone that wants it. There's no reason why benefits shouldn't extend to a significant other. I don't support Gay Marriage as Marriage is an institution of the Church and the Church is under no obligation to marry anyone they don't want to, no matter what lawmakers say. Seperation of Church and State.

Damn it went away.

In that case the government will need to reinvent the law to give civil union all the financial and so forth benefits of being joined, and use marriage to ONLY depict a religious union.

However you DO have to admit that not being for gay marriages is due strictly to it being against your religious and personal views, nothing more.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
I think homosexuals should be allowed to have a union of some sort to allow them to have the same legal rights. That's where the problem is that you only get these LEGAL rights when you're married. It's sort of stupid because again it's making an apparently religious thing effect legal issues.

But if I am with someone for thirty years I should be able to be with them in the hospital if they're sick and it's family only, I should have the right to say no they don't want life support if it comes down to it, I should have the right to live in the house that I have lived in for thirty years with this person and not have to worry that I'll have to fight for it.

I agree, but I'm an ass, and a donkey, etc so my opnion doesn't matter. Also, I didn't agree with the article so I'm homophobic as well. I just dont' think that Marriage is something that should extend to homosexuals. Thus, Civil Unions. I think anyone who is with someone for a long period of time and has shown that level of committment is entitled to benefits such as tax breaks, insurance, etc. And that's not just about homosexuals. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that have lived together for years that don't get those benefits just because they're not married.

Originally posted by Snapp
Whether or not you believe it's a "bad idea" or not, it's happening. Funny enough, in your state Arkans. ;)

Ugh, terrible isn't it?

- Arkans

BTW: I took a political test and found out that I'm a lot like Tony Blair.. OMFG IM NOT A NAZI

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Obviously. Anyone who wishes to reproduce can, gay or straight. That's the beauty of it.>>

So if I get a ho pregnant, and then marry some dude, it's his kid?

NO SORRY THAT'S WRONG.

Man, in my High School if there was a kid with two fathers he'd get the shit kicked out of him every day.

- Arkans

[GSLeloo]

I'm not in any way religious so I don't care if it's a marriage or a civil union, neither really mean religion for me personally.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by GSLeloo]

[Edited on 9-13-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by CrystalTears

Originally posted by Mistomeer
I support Civil Unions for anyone that wants it. There's no reason why benefits shouldn't extend to a significant other. I don't support Gay Marriage as Marriage is an institution of the Church and the Church is under no obligation to marry anyone they don't want to, no matter what lawmakers say. Seperation of Church and State.

Damn it went away.

In that case the government will need to reinvent the law to give civil union all the financial and so forth benefits of being joined, and use marriage to ONLY depict a religious union.

However you DO have to admit that not being for gay marriages is due strictly to it being against your religious and personal views, nothing more.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

I agree that benefits need to be extended.
It's against my political views. I believe that marriage is an institution of the Chruch and the State has no right to tell them anything.

Being against gay marriage has nothing to do with my religious outlook on life.

- Arkans

[Bobmuhthol]

<<However you DO have to admit that not being for gay marriages is due strictly to it being against your religious and personal views, nothing more.>>

It's completely against my personal views, just like you're only for gay marriages because of your personal views.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<However you DO have to admit that not being for gay marriages is due strictly to it being against your religious and personal views, nothing more.>>

It's completely against my personal views, just like you're only for gay marriages because of your personal views.

I'm for gay marriages because I believe in equality for all people. I'm straight so this issue doesn't affect me personally. A union between two people is just that.. a union... and I feel that judging people based on who they wish to share their life with is very narrow-minded.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Obviously. Anyone who wishes to reproduce can, gay or straight. That's the beauty of it.>>

So if I get a ho pregnant, and then marry some dude, it's his kid?

NO SORRY THAT'S WRONG. Re-read my sentence. I said nothing about getting married, or marriage at all. It was a simple statement of truth. Marriage aside, because my argument is that anyone who desires can have a child (gay or straight). How they decide to work out the intricate details are beside the point when marriage comes into play. It is then a personal matter unless the courts are involved.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I'm for gay marriages because I believe in equality for all people. I'm straight so this issue doesn't affect me personally. A union between two people is just that.. a union... and I feel that judging people based on who they wish to share their life with is very narrow-minded.>>

Yes, and this is your personal view. You want it because you think it's a good idea. I don't because I think it's a bad idea. It's as simple as that.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Marriage aside, because my argument is that anyone who desires can have a child (gay or straight).>>

But a gay couple can't have a child together, which was the original point.

[CrystalTears]

I've been stating the good in allowing gay marriages. What's the bad in it? If you say that it's your personal view that it's a bad idea, tell me why it's bad other than saying because you feel it's wrong. What's wrong with two people of any gender getting married? Tell me the cons to such an agreement. Seriously.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Marriage aside, because my argument is that anyone who desires can have a child (gay or straight).>>

But a gay couple can't have a child together, which was the original point. Why would you need to make a point that is already a given. NO DURRRRRRR!!!!!11111

Because it's been proven in countries like Sweden (Or Norway, one of the Viking countries) that they allowed gay marriage and straight marriage rates and birthrates are down.

- Arkans

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Why would you need to make a point that is already a given. NO DURRRRRRR!!!!!11111>>

Because Caiylania said that allowing gays to marry controls the population when it doesn't. Everyone being able to reproduce is already a given.

[Edited on 9-13-2004 by Tsa`ah]

[GSLeloo]

I thought they just didn't get married in Sweden....

[Jolena]

I'm confused what that has to do with the issue at hand, Arkans. Are you saying that because they allowed Gay marriages, straight marriages/reproduction rates are down? In other words, that the drop in those are due to gay marriages? If not, please explain because I honestly didn't see the point.

[CrystalTears]

Straight marriage rates have been going down for years and it has nothing to do with gay marriages. It has everything to do with people giving up and quitting because easy roads have been made for them to do so.

You'll also have to show me that proof that gay marriages were a direct affect on straight marriages.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Bobmuhthol]

I won't be getting married in any state that allows gay marriage. There's a direct effect and proof of it.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Mistomeer
I just dont' think that Marriage is something that should extend to homosexuals. Thus, Civil Unions. I think anyone who is with someone for a long period of time and has shown that level of committment is entitled to benefits such as tax breaks, insurance, etc. And that's not just about homosexuals. There are plenty of heterosexual couples that have lived together for years that don't get those benefits just because they're not married.

I'm sure most homosexual couples would be happy to have a civil union available to them. Churches should not be forced, by law, to marry these couples if it is against their beliefs. However, if a church is willing to marry a homosexual couple, I see no reason why that couple could not say their vows in that church.

HarmNone

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I won't be getting married in any state that allows gay marriage. There's a direct effect and proof of it.

You can't get married at all. Mistomeer says "Marriage" is a religious thing, and you are Athiest.

[CrystalTears]

Thanks for answering my question. :rolleyes:

[HarmNone]

Bob is also 14 years old. He's not going to be getting married anytime soon, I'd imagine. Therefore, where or to whom Bob would get married is a moot point, to say the least.

HarmNone

[Bobmuhthol]

<<You can't get married at all. Mistomeer says "Marriage" is a religious thing, and you are Athiest.>>

Ever hear of converting?

<<Therefore, where or to whom Bob would get married is a moot point, to say the least.>>

Incorrect. According to Ravenstorm, gays will be getting married all over the place in the near future, which is around the same time I'd be getting married. Except I won't if what he says is true.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Bobmuhthol]

[CrystalTears]

Heh, by the time he gets married, gay marriages may be legal in all states.

[HarmNone]

Heh. Some people will come up with almost anything, just to have something to say.

Who cares what you think, Bob? You're a kid. Your opinion is really not an issue to adults, and it is adults we are talking about (One might wish it was adults we were talking to.). While you might hold an opinion, and obviously do, it is not relevant until you are old enough to be faced with the need to make a decision regarding this issue.

HarmNone

[CrystalTears]

He's allowed to have an opinion, he just hasn't learned how to share it without being nasty in the process.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I'm not suggesting anything at all.:head explodes:
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
The berdache: an example of a male 'wife' in some American Indian marriages.Sweet. I assume this factoid is relevant somehow?
Originally posted by Leloo
everyone was just talking about what they believed without getting insulting.
Originally posted by Harmnone
Who cares what you think, Bob? You're a kid.You had to go and jinx it, didn't you Leloo. :(

It never ceases to amaze me how intelligent people think equality and justice are the same thing.

Someone give me a synopsis of what happened here?

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by RangerD1
Someone give me a synopsis of what happened here? Raven posted a story about gay guys that had to leave America if they wanted to stay together. A few people shed a tear, a few people ... were less empathetic. Someone gave a messed up interpretation of Christianity, I tried to correct them, Harmnone went all Zen on me, and the remaining 98% of the posts are insults.

Also, Bob made me feel good about myself.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Also, Bob made me feel good about myself.

That's the secret of Jerry Springer's success.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

No, I meant when he said he wanted to grow up to be like me.

[Tsa`ah]

As most of you can tell, this thread is about 7 pages shorter now.

Keep your insults and derailments to yourself.

I'll not be sending any U2Us out. If you notice something you posted is not there, it has been deleted for one of the aforementioned reasons, or being in response to a post that was deleted for one of the aforementioned reasons.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
For the Biblical marriage definition:
But Jesus told them, "Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate." Mark 10:5-9

Here's some reading for you. Read Deuteronomy. Pay attention to 13 and 17. Read Daniel and pay attention to 7:8. 22-50, 11:36-39.

I like quotes myself.

Elohym is not a man, who can lie, nor the son of man, who relents... He has not beheld iniquity in Jacob, nor has He seen perverseness in Israel - Numbers 23:19

I, only I am Hashem, and besides Me there is no savior. - Isaiah 43:11

I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god.? Is there a god besides Me? There is no rock; I do not know any - Isaiah 44:6

The point? We're not all Christians and you can't point to what Christ said and expect that to be proof. For every verse you can find to support the divinity of Christ, I can also find one that disputes that very same Divinity. Even if he did say it, my scriptures point out that his voice was meaningless.

Personal beliefs are just that, personal. They should have no bearing on the person next to you. They should have no bearing on society. Yet the law, based on some abstract and perverse knowledge of some faith, still dictates what some people can and can not do.

It has been said prior to this and I will say it again. The church and religious beliefs have no place in a society as diverse as ours. Preach to your family, instill your values based on belief in your children, keep them out of mine and anyone else’s that do not want them as they are not welcome.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Blazing247
Here's what puzzles me. You claim that tradition shouldn't play a role in marriage. If not tradition, what IS marriage? Why do gay couples want it so badly, if not for the tradition behind it?

You can't have it both ways. Marriage is either a meaningless union between two parties, or it's a traditional bonding between a man and a woman. If you disregard the traditional aspect of marriage, then it is cheapened down to nothing more than the act of putting a piece of metal on another person. Therefore the whole "it doesn't matter if it's tradition because it should evolve as society evolves" argument is flawed.

Actually, that is extremely flawed logic.

It is both ways now. There are marriages of convenience that occur in courthouses and churches on a daily basis. We can sit here and point out instances of either type that happen in the heterosexual world.

Tradition has been pretty meaningless since arranged marriages of tribes and blue blooded royalty. That to became a tradition, yet the marriage was not one of consent between the two getting married. It goes back even further. What tradition do you want?

Tradition is dangerous. Doing something one way because it has always been that way?

How about doing it because you want to do it.

The laws of this country, even the constitution, were created in such a way to enable change. That is what we are going through now. Tradition however is less flexible and anyone who adheres so strictly to tradition needs to do some research into said traditions to find out why they are followed.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

.....And we already know that acceptable practices in the OT (i.e. divorce) are no longer acceptable by Jesus.....

Sorry, Latrinsorm, but this is almost funny. I'm just now catching up on the pages of this that I missed, but I had to respond here.

The US government should not concern themselves with what Jesus would or would not find acceptable. That includes the Christian definition of marriage, the legality of divorce, or attitudes concerning homosexuality.

This country is made up of hundreds of faiths, and thousands of splinters of those. If you want everything run according to certain religious teachings, you'd be better off living in Saudi Arabia.

-K

[Edited on 9-13-2004 by SpunGirl]

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Snapp


You can't get married at all. Mistomeer says "Marriage" is a religious thing, and you are Athiest.

This is funny. I am married. Legally. And there was no mention of any kind of God, Christ, or any other such religious stuff during my wedding.

I'm not going to go back and find where Mistomeer said this, so I'll just say nyah nyah nyah.

-K

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
We're not all Christians and you can't point to what Christ said and expect that to be proof. Tsa`ah, buddy, I'll argue Jesus' divinity with you all you want. But if you look back, I ONLY started up the Bible part when people said the Christian definition of marriage had no Biblical basis. It has nothing to do with what I feel the government should do. Context, man, context. :)

Same goes for you Spun. I'm not (not in this topic, anyway) saying "This is what Jesus said, do it." I'm saying "This is what Jesus said, therefore that's what Christianity says."

[Warriorbird]

Christianity being nebulous interpretations of the Bible through several translations and Puritianical belief and the hands of other people of course.