The victims of DOMA

[Ravenstorm]

For Love Or Country
by Libby Post

They met. They fell in love. The fact that one was a U.S. citizen and the other was not made no difference. They were both here in the United States. They moved in together-sharing a mortgage and finances, caring for one another and becoming a loved member of the other’s family. Now they want to get married.

If they were straight, they could. But, they’re not, so they can’t.

Greg Meissner and his Taiwanese partner, Shan, are gay men. They’ve built a life together that is a model of love and commitment. Shan taught Greg to speak Mandarin so Greg could communicate with his in-laws. Greg’s family has embraced Shan as a son-in-law, brother-in-law and uncle. It’s perfect. Well, almost perfect.

Once again, our inability to marry, to have total legal recognition of our relationships as lesbian and gay couples, is getting in the way. Since Greg and Shan can’t get married, Greg can’t sponsor Shan for American citizenship-unlike their heterosexual counterparts. With his work visa running out, Shan must leave the country even after working and paying taxes here for the last five years.

Will this loving couple be torn apart? Will they have a tearful separation at the airport? Will they have an international commuter relationship? No.

Instead of leaving each other, they are leaving the country. Greg will leave his position as an assistant principal in the San Jose, CA school district and they will both venture northeast to Toronto, Canada where they can marry and both attain citizenship. Where’s the justice in that?

And at what cost? They must sell their home and buy a new one. They must leave their jobs and find new ones. They must leave their friends and build a new circle of support. They must uproot their lives and plant themselves in a new country-all just so that they can stay together and continue to love and care for each other.

Greg’s mother, Kathleen, is an old friend of mine. In a note to me about this situation she wrote “Greg is being forced to choose between his relationship and his citizenship. Needless to say, he has made his choice but it is unfair at best.”

Is it fair to ask a committed, loving couple to choose between love or country? We don’t ask straight couples to do this. Why should lesbian or gay couples have to?

Simple. Our government’s immigration laws actively discriminate against us.

According to the Lesbian and Gay Immigration Rights Task Force based in New York City with chapters throughout the country, our nation’s immigration policy is predominantly based on the principle of family unification. This allows U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to sponsor their spouses (and other family members) for immigration purposes.

But since same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents are not considered "spouses," we are routinely excluded from family-based immigration rights. Thousands of lesbian and gay bi-national couples, like Greg and Shan, are kept apart, torn apart, forced to live in fear of being separated or, as they have done, choose between love and country.

The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, added insult to injury. DOMA guarantees that for federal purposes including immigration, marriage is defined as a union between a man and woman. So even if Greg and Shan had gone to Vermont for a civil union or actually gotten married in Massachusetts or Washington State, it wouldn’t matter. Greg would still not be able to sponsor Shan for citizenship. And, for those gay or lesbian couples who have legally married in other countries like The Netherlands, don’t expect to be a part of those huddled masses welcomed to our country by Lady Liberty. They cannot immigrate together to the U.S. even when one of the spouses is an American citizen.

Once again the United States is in the minority in the western world when dealing with lesbian and gay issues. Fifteen of our international friends and allies recognize same-sex couples for the purposes of immigration. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom have no problem letting one of their citizens sponsor their lesbian or gay partner for citizenship.

Once again, we’re behind the curve. The same thing can be said for gays serving in the military. Most of the western world doesn’t have a problem with it. But, we do.

Our immigration laws also bar people who are HIV+ from entering the country and gaining permanent legal resident status. How bizarre is that? While the Americans with Disabilities Act bans discrimination against U.S. Citizens living with HIV or AIDS, the government discriminates against HIV+ people who want to immigrate here. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the compassion? Thankfully, if you are a legal permanent resident and find out you’re HIV+, the government won’t deport you.

Now, Greg and Shan could try to find a friendly lesbian who would marry Shan-or, a friendly straight woman for that matter. But, these types of marriages of convenience are lavender flags for the INS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Not only do these marriages create tremendous hardship for all involved, they can also lead to prosecution by the INS where the accomplice, partner and immigrant-in this case, the friendly woman, Greg and Shan-could all face jail terms and hefty fines and then Shan would be deported.

Unfair at best, Greg and Shan have made a choice they shouldn’t be forced to make. They are leaving the United States so that they can stay together. For them, love triumphs all-even citizenship and love of country. But, where is the fairness in that?

[HarmNone]

Ish, Raven. That is truly sad. My heart goes out to Greg, Shan and their families. Once again, our never-say-die Victorian moral code has brought misery to the undeserving.

At least, these two men have their love for each other, and can take that with them to Canada to begin their new lives. They also have the love of their families and friends here to support them while they start again.

Kudos to Canada for an enlightened and compassionate view of what a marriage committment really is. Our country could benefit by recognizing that no government can, or should try to, regulate who a person loves, or with whom a person might choose to spend his/her life.

HarmNone wishes Greg, Shan and all involved the very best

[Hulkein]

It's not like America pulled a fast one on them. These are the laws and have been like that prior to the asian coming to America.

Tough luck, have fun in Canada.

[Jolena]

Yet one more example of how Government has too much control over our lives. I wish them the best.

[eeky]

the government discriminates against HIV+ people who want to immigrate here. Where is the fairness in that?

Damn right, I pay enough in taxes to support illegal aliens getting free medical and education all the while hospitals and schools are closing because they cannot afford to stay open....

[Jolena]

:lol: Nice Raven.

As a matter of fact, I too oppose DOMA for many reasons. I have personal reasons due to a member of my immediate family being homosexual (Well was, he's passed away now). The fact of the matter is, no matter how you look at it, it's mixing government with religion. Which, as I was always tought, is something that American's in general are against.

I have found though, that more and more the government regulates the more personal and intimate aspects of our lives such as this case. It saddens me to be honest. There is no reason whatsoever in my mind why a gay couple should not be afforded the same liberties and considerations that a heterosexual couple can.

Regardless of your stance on this issue Raven, although I assume you are sympothizing with the couple mentioned, I do applaud 'putting a face' to these issues as you are 100% correct, it isn't just about policy and government, it is about people. Very real people with lives, emotions, dreams and thoughts.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Jolena]

[SpunGirl]

I think that's really sad. Immigrants like Shan are the kind our country WANTS - hardworking, tax-paying, contributing to society in a positive manner. Turning them away is ridiculous.

I wanted to tell you, Ravenstorm, that the story about the lesbian couple getting married that you (I think ti was you) posted a few months back was really touching. My mom has a huge problem with same-sex marriage, and I sent that story to her, and she replied, "thanks for giving me a human-interest perspective on this, it gave me something to think about," or something along those lines.

I am so tired of religious ninnys, Christian churches included, thinking they somehow "own" marriage. People were uniting together as partners long before Christ started bumbling around Jerusalem. Each culture has its own rites, and when two people want to make a lifelong comittment to each other, they can follow any rite and/or path they choose - or make their own.

I got a tremendous amount of shit from my family for having a non-religious wedding ceremony that was a) short and b) focused mainly on the uniting of two people in comittment to each OTHER (not any deity) and the uniting of two families. Anyway, I just got way off topic, but the whole thing drives me berserk.

Thanks for posting that, Raven.

-K

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by SpunGirl]

[eeky]

yeah I know but it's the only thing I found interesting in it

[HarmNone]

Wow, Spun. It's good to hear that reading the article about the lesbian couple made someone who was against same-sex marriage realize that she hadn't really thought the whole thing through. That gives hope that the future will bring more people to think about things a little bit more deeply before they decide on what's right for others. :)

HarmNone

[HarmNone]

Since I've already noted that HIV+ people have nothing to do with this topic, I'm going to delete all posts from this thread that refer to it. I will also delete any following posts that refer to it.

HarmNone

[Jolena]

Well on that theory, you would have to say that anyone who has a communicable disease are a health risk and therefore should be deported or not allowed into the country. :thumbsdown:

[Jolena]

Hate to butt heads with you HN, however..

<<Our immigration laws also bar people who are HIV+ from entering the country and gaining permanent legal resident status. How bizarre is that? While the Americans with Disabilities Act bans discrimination against U.S. Citizens living with HIV or AIDS, the government discriminates against HIV+ people who want to immigrate here. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the compassion? Thankfully, if you are a legal permanent resident and find out you’re HIV+, the government won’t deport you. >>

Seems to be part of the discussion does it not?

[MrThorbizzle]

Uh, HarmNone, she mentions it in the original post...how is it not related?

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Well on that theory, you would have to say that anyone who has a communicable disease are a health risk and therefore should be deported or not allowed into the country.>>

That's what happens.

Delete away.

[Jolena]

I should have known you would agree Bob.. I should have known.

[Siefer]

Fuck them. Gays has no place in America. When did it suddenly become "cool" to be gay?

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by HarmNone]

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Wow, Spun. It's good to hear that reading the article about the lesbian couple made someone who was against same-sex marriage realize that she hadn't really thought the whole thing through. That gives hope that the future will bring more people to think about things a little bit more deeply before they decide on what's right for others. :)

HarmNone

My mom and I have had a lot of intense discussions over it. She told me she was against same-sex couples adopting children because of "the kind of lifestyle" they lead. I told her she shouldn't buy into the hypersexual gay party myth, but she didn't agree.

The weird thing about my mom is that she's a very caring and compassionate person. When we talk about the death penalty, which I am totally for, she calls ME insensitive and uncaring. I think her problem is that she wants to be PC about things like homosexuality, but she just has some really deep-rooted discomfort with it.

Come to think of it, we disagree on just about everything, but that's a whole other topic.

-K

[SpunGirl]

Plz ban Siefer for that shit. I'm not going to quote it.

-K

[eeky]

umm delete the post since it makes reference to it to then

[HarmNone]

Eeep! My bad, guys. I had overlooked the mention of HIV in the original post. I'm sooo sorry! :(

HarmNone, the very, very bad

[Jolena]

How can you ban him for expressing an opinion that is vulgar and against what most of us feel? I mean, yeah it's horrid but is it banworthy?

On that same not, Sief you are incredibly ignorant.

[HarmNone]

I'm going to put your posts back. They'll be under my name, but at least they won't be gone. Again, my apologies for overlooking the obvious. :blush:

posted on 9-11-2004 at 20:20 Post ID: 236613 by eeky

the government discriminates against HIV+ people who want to immigrate here. Where is the fairness in that?

Damn right, I pay enough in taxes to support illegal aliens getting free medical and education all the while hospitals and schools are closing because they cannot afford to stay open....


posted on 9-11-2004 at 20:49 Post ID: 236644 by eeky

yeah I know but it's the only thing I found interesting in it


posted on 9-11-2004 at 20:51 Post ID: 236646 by MrThorbizzle

HIV+ people are a public health risk.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by HarmNone]

[SpunGirl]

I do believe it's against TOS to say the things he did, for a few reasons. I'm sure someone else will take care of it if that's correct. If not, Siefer sucks just as much now as he always has.

-K

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I should have known you would agree Bob.. I should have known.>>

What the fuck? People aren't allowed to enter this country if they are a health risk. I didn't suggest it.

<<How can you ban him for expressing an opinion that is vulgar and against what most of us feel? I mean, yeah it's horrid but is it banworthy?>>

Ask Kranar, it's very banworthy.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Jolena
...although I assume you are sympothizing with the couple mentioned, I do applaud 'putting a face' to these issues as you are 100% correct, it isn't just about policy and government, it is about people. Very real people with lives, emotions, dreams and thoughts.

I do indeed sympathize with them. Having to choose love over the love of your country is a horrible choice for anyone to make.


Originally posted by SpunGirl
I wanted to tell you, Ravenstorm, that the story about the lesbian couple getting married that you (I think ti was you) posted a few months back was really touching. My mom has a huge problem with same-sex marriage, and I sent that story to her, and she replied, "thanks for giving me a human-interest perspective on this, it gave me something to think about," or something along those lines.

Yes, that was me. And yes, that's exactly why I posted this. Send her this one as well. It's so easy to judge issues in the abstract. This is right, this is wrong. They don't need to really think about the outcome.

But when they're presented with real people who are suffering because of it, then they begin to realize this isn't just an abstract issue.

Raven

Boo fucking whoo. Let's join the gay pity train! They're not allowed to get married here and want to go to Canada so bad? Fine, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. We arn't suddenly going to stop functioning as a nation just because they're gone. Pity stories like these make me want to find every other and send them to gay ol' Canada.

- Arkans

[Jolena]

What I think you fail to see Arkans is that this isn't just about gays and their rights, it's about a much larger picture. The fact that the government is involved in a lot of our personal lives and that it affects people in a very real way.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Arkans
Boo fucking whoo. Let's join the gay pity train! They're not allowed to get married here and want to go to Canada so bad? Fine, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. We arn't suddenly going to stop functioning as a nation just because they're gone. Pity stories like these make me want to find every other and send them to gay ol' Canada.

- Arkans

Did you even read the story? They don't "want" to go to Canada, they HAVE to go there (or somewhere they can marry) if they want to keep their relationship intact.

Same-sex marrige is not about religion or what other people think of homosexuality. It has nothing to do with it. It's about people who are homosexual having the same legal rights as people who are not. Period.

-K

lolz

Since I my heart isn't crying out for these two gays that definatly means I'm ignorant. I'm going to go grab the shotgun off the rack of my pickup so I can polish it in a school zone or something.

- Arkans

[Ravenstorm]

Yes, the article did mention HIV+ immigrants. To be perfectly honest, I'm not so sure I disagree with that. Does immigration law keep out other diseases that aren't infectious? (Which is not the same as comunicable.) On the other hand, HIV is not a death sentence. People can and do live productive, fulfilling lives for decades now. Being HIV+ does not mean you can't make a fine citizen. So I'm a bit torn on that particular issue.

As for Seifer, he's one of those people I mentioned in my response to Leloo. Responding to him is a bigger waste of time than driving a nail into my eye is. One day, someone is just going to shoot him and he'll end up buried in an anonymous grave because no one gives a damn about him. Arkans is a close second.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

Why yes, the government does affect people. That is why they are the government. I don't like the law that says I can't kill someone without penalty, but I'm not going to another country about it.

[eeky]

Why go to Canada, the guys partner is from China? Go there if they want to be together.
I like how it's ok to agree with being gay and gay rights but it's not ok to express you opinion against it. Personally I could care less if someone is gay or not. If I like someone I like someone whatever their orientation but if you can express your opinion for somthing then others should have their right to express against it.

Raven, plz whipe the drool off your face. I understand retards have little control over this, but it's starting to get gross.

Sorry I don't share your "feel good compassion" bullshit attitude, but let's see what side decided to throw around insults first.

Man, I can't wait until I help re-elect Bush, just so I can come to these boards and U2U "FUCKING PWNED!!111" to you like 600 times. Have a good day.

- Arkans

[Bobmuhthol]

<<On the other hand, HIV is not a death sentence.>>

This makes me wish I paid attention in health class. It was something along the lines of, "If you have AIDS, you're going to die from AIDS." Excluding unnatural deaths, of course.

[Ravenstorm]

Being HIV+ does not mean you have AIDS, Bob.

Raven

[Jolena]

HIV is not AIDS. It's kind of like a prerequisite to AIDS, more then anything.

[Hulkein]

...

If you have HIV, you will eventually have AIDs, you will then die.

The eventually isn't a very long time unless you are Magic Johnson or someone else who can afford the thousands of dollars on medicinal cocktails.

[Jolena]

There is no rule that says you WILL GET AIDS if you have HIV. That's ridiculous. You're more likely to get AIDS, that doesn't mean you WILL get it. Sheesh.

[Hulkein]

No, of course not. As long as you die from something else in under a few years, you're fine.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Being HIV+ does not mean you have AIDS, Bob.>>

You will.

<<HIV is not AIDS.>>

Yeah, they have different acronyms.

<<It's kind of like a prerequisite to AIDS, more then anything.>>

That implies that you won't have and die of AIDS. False.

<<If you have HIV, you will eventually have AIDs, you will then die.>>

Thank you.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<There is no rule that says you WILL GET AIDS if you have HIV. That's ridiculous. You're more likely to get AIDS, that doesn't mean you WILL get it. Sheesh.>>

There is exactly that rule.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by eeky
Why go to Canada, the guys partner is from China? Go there if they want to be together.
I like how it's ok to agree with being gay and gay rights but it's not ok to express you opinion against it. Personally I could care less if someone is gay or not. If I like someone I like someone whatever their orientation but if you can express your opinion for somthing then others should have their right to express against it.

For one thing, it's probably a lot less expensive to move to Canada than it is to move to China. Also, the lifestyle in Canada doesn't differ as much from that of the US as does the lifestyle in China.

I don't see anybody saying it's not okay to disagree with being gay. There are those who don't think as you do, but that doesn't mean you're not entitled to your opinion, or that you don't have a right to express it.

HarmNone

Yeah, this is smart liberral thinking.

Let's let people with HIV into the country. Sorry, but these people do pose a threat. No, we shouldn't deport everyone with HIV in the US, but to bring in more people is like saying, "HAHAHA WE HATE U MEDICAL SYSTEM TIME TO OVERBURDEN U MORE SO U CAN SUK LIKE CANADAS!11"

- Arkans

[SpunGirl]

People are allowed to express their opinions against gay marriage and homosexuality in general, sure. But other people are also allowed to express their opinions that those people are being ignorant.

As far as I know, what you're not allowed to do is post nasty death wishes and things of that nature (on these boards) directed at someone because of their sexual orientation, race, et cetera.

Of course, you can say all the homophobic and racist shit you want on Klaive's. I'm sure he'll be glad to have you.

-K

Damnit, I thought this was a thread about Soma... :no:

[DeV]

Thanks for posting this story Raven.

[HarmNone]

Stay on topic or shut up, Stanley.

HarmNone

Originally posted by HarmNone
Stay on topic or shut up, Stanley.

HarmNone

Ow.

Um, shutting up.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
No, of course not. As long as you die from something else in under a few years, you're fine.

Wrong again. Have you ever considered researching a subject before displaying your ignorance?

Some people do develop AIDS as little as three years after becoming HIV+. Others have a good dozen years. Some still don't have AIDS after fifteen. And to address another of your incorrect statements, many - perhaps most - AIDS medications are covered by insurance and you don't need to be rich. Also, and I'm sure you and others hate it, they're also covered by public assistance.

Harmnone probably knows more about that than I do and can most likely correct me if I'm mistaken about that particular point.

Raven

This line of thought is priceless.

Well, they MIGHT NOT get AIDs. Let 'em all in so they can run wild! My response? FUCK THAT.

- Arkans

[Bobmuhthol]

How long it takes is inconsequential.

It will happen.

[HarmNone]

You are correct, Raven. Additionally, there are those who sero-convert to HIV negative. Not everyone who is HIV positive will die of AIDS.

HarmNone

I think the extent to which individuals are placing importance upon the issue of gay marriage is of utmost idiocy.

[DeV]

:yeahthat:

I agree, gay people just need to stop bitching and STFU about it.

- Arkans

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Hulkein
No, of course not. As long as you die from something else in under a few years, you're fine.

Wrong again. Have you ever considered researching a subject before displaying your ignorance?

Some people do develop AIDS as little as three years after becoming HIV+. Others have a good dozen years. Some still don't have AIDS after fifteen. And to address another of your incorrect statements, many - perhaps most - AIDS medications are covered by insurance and you don't need to be rich. Also, and I'm sure you and others hate it, they're also covered by public assistance.

Harmnone probably knows more about that than I do and can most likely correct me if I'm mistaken about that particular point.

Raven

Raven, it was said as a joke.

How about addressing Jolena's ignorance by saying that it doesn't always progress into AIDs? Or do you only do that to people who disagree with you politically?

<<Also, and I'm sure you and others hate it, they're also covered by public assistance.>>

Also, why the fuck would I care if people get assistance for having AIDs? Pretty ignorant of you to assume that because I am against gay marriage I think a gay person (or anyone with aids) should have to suffer.



Originally posted by HarmNone
You are correct, Raven. Additionally, there are those who sero-convert to HIV negative. Not everyone who is HIV positive will die of AIDS.

HarmNone

What is the chance of this happening?

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Hulkein]

[DeV]

I think its the other way around in this case. People like you need to STFU so that gay people can move towards progress and stop having their way of life hindered by ignorant laws.

Actually, it's the gays that keep on whining about this. Believe me, I'd love nothing better to happen then have this arguement die.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

I don't know the percentages with regard to sero-conversion off the top of my head, Hulkein. I do know that it is more common in infants born HIV positive, but that it also happens in adults. My research materials on this are, unfortunately, in my office at the moment. :(

HarmNone

[Hulkein]

It's ignorant of me to not know that .001% of people with HIV won't get AIDs, yet Raven is an open minded person while presuming that I would be annoyed that people who are sick get assistance with it.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Hulkein]

[Snapp]

Actually, it's the gays that keep on whining about this. Believe me, I'd love nothing better to happen then have this arguement die.

It can die when gays get the same rights.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Snapp]

[eeky]

Yeah they don't die to aids it's the secondary infections that kill people because they are immunocompromised.

[Bobmuhthol]

I'm underage and I want the same rights you big guys get! WAAH WAAH WAAH!

Guess what?!?!? Not happening.

Fine by me, so stop saying that this subject should not be that big of a deal when you arn't willing for it to die.

KEEP MARRIAGE TRADITIONAL!

- Arkans

[DeV]

Thank God for that.

However, we are adults and I want the same rights as a hetero couple.
You read one story and everyone is accused of complaining. That's the problem. Not nearly enough gays are complaining.

Yeah, let's shove a minority opinion down an institutions throats that has been working fine for thousands of years.

- Arkans

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by HarmNone
You are correct, Raven. Additionally, there are those who sero-convert to HIV negative. Not everyone who is HIV positive will die of AIDS.

Thank you. Though just as a note, I'm in no way suggesting HIV isn't a serious health threat. It is. And too many people are starting to believe that it isn't any longer and are becoming careless about practicing safe sex. But it is not the automatic death sentence that it used to be. And those who have it are in no way an automatic drain on or threat to society.



Originally posted by Hulkein
Raven, it was said as a joke.

How about addressing Jolena's ignorance by saying that it doesn't always progress into AIDs? Or do you only do that to people who disagree with you politically?

Also, why the fuck would I care if people get assistance for having AIDs? Pretty ignorant of you to assume that because I am against gay marriage I think a gay person (or anyone with aids) should have to suffer.

If it was a joke then I apologize. It came right on top of a similar comment which was not one.

As for correcting Jolena, she doesn't need correcting because she is not incorrect: it doesn't always progress into AIDS. It can be kept under control and the number isn't infinitismal. Whether those who are pushing the 'record' of not developing AIDS will eventually get it or not is unknown. Though I also didn't know that some eventually become HIV- again to that makes it certain that it's not an automatic death sentence.

Nor did I intend to imply that you would want someone to suffer. However, welfare paying for 'lazy people' is a near constant complaint on these boards in every political debate. Your tax dollars having to pay for the medication of 'lazy, sick people' who don't have insurance would, I assumed, fall under that as well. If that's a wrong assumption then you have another apology. You personally that is. I'm absolutely certain that's correct where some others are concerned.

Raven

[Hulkein]

Alright no problem...

I realize the medicine is effective and I am not against the development of further medicine at all to treat AIDs.

My point was that HIV left untreated will always progress into AIDs. I think/thought that was correct, isn't it?

[Blazing247]

I hate seeing this kind of bullshit. Laws are laws, folks. If I went to Sri Lanka and spraypainted a public building, you better believe I'd expect to be caned per their law. I wouldn't sit there and bitch, saying how Sri Lanka needs to change their fucking laws on account of me. It's not like anyone surprised these guys with this law. As Bob said, go north if you don't like it here. I have no problem with homosexuality, but I see no reason to change the laws to recognize them as a legal union. I wanna see a redneck proclaim love for his goat, and see the homosexual population argue why he can't be married to it. Love is love, right?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
My point was that HIV left untreated will always progress into AIDs. I think/thought that was correct, isn't it?

Left untreated? I wouldn't argue with that.

Though we have come off topic a bit. That mention of HIV was one small paragraph and really incidental to the rest of the article. Nor is it even really a gay issue as the majority of people in the world with HIV or AIDS are quite straight.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Nor is it even really a gay issue as the majority of people in the world with HIV or AIDS are quite straight.>>

Did you ask them all?

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Hulkein
My point was that HIV left untreated will always progress into AIDs. I think/thought that was correct, isn't it?

No this is not correct. An HIV infected person will not always develop AIDS. A person can live their entire life as a carrier and never show an immuno-dysfunction. There are hundreds, if not thousands of carriers (some who have been positive for possibly as long as 20 years) who for reasons of unique or irregular immuno-response will probably die of causes other than AIDS.

HIV does not equate to AIDS each and every time. The outcome of AIDS is the most probable, but not definite.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Blazing247
I hate seeing this kind of bullshit. Laws are laws, folks. If I went to Sri Lanka and spraypainted a public building, you better believe I'd expect to be caned per their law. I wouldn't sit there and bitch, saying how Sri Lanka needs to change their fucking laws on account of me. It's not like anyone surprised these guys with this law. As Bob said, go north if you don't like it here. I have no problem with homosexuality, but I see no reason to change the laws to recognize them as a legal union. I wanna see a redneck proclaim love for his goat, and see the homosexual population argue why he can't be married to it. Love is love, right?

Comparing homosexual couples wanting to have recognized marriages to vandalism and bestiality makes no sense whatsoever. As has been argued before, homosexual couples are two consenting adults. I don't see how they can be compared at all.

If you have "no problems with homosexuality," what's the problem with them getting equal rights?

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Alright no problem...

I realize the medicine is effective and I am not against the development of further medicine at all to treat AIDs.

My point was that HIV left untreated will always progress into AIDs. I think/thought that was correct, isn't it?

There is doubt among a good portion of the scientific community that HIV, left untreated, ALWAYS progresses into AIDS, Hulkein. There is no definite proof either way, unfortunately. There are, however, cases of individuals who have been known to be HIV positive for twenty years and have yet to develop AIDS.

Hopefully, with further research, answers will be found that will bring about a cure.

HarmNone

[Blazing247]

<An HIV infected person will not always develop AIDS.>

Yup. Magic Johnson. Nuff said.

[Tsa`ah]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<Nor is it even really a gay issue as the majority of people in the world with HIV or AIDS are quite straight.>>

Did you ask them all?

Did you?

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

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
An HIV infected person will not always develop AIDS. A person can live their entire life as a carrier and never show an immuno-dysfunction. There are hundreds, if not thousands of carriers (some who have been positive for possibly as long as 20 years) who for reasons of unique or irregular immuno-response will probably die of causes other than AIDS.

I stand corrected.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Did you?>>

No, and that's why I'm not saying they are.

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

[Hulkein]

While I don't disagree with Blazing, I do think the slippery slope argument is a more valid one. First, the beastiality. What is beastiality exactly? It is just a definition, just as marriage is a definition of a man and a women. I think any dog owner will admit that they feel that their dog actually loves them and that you love it. There is love, isn't that the only requirement you say there should be? Love between two partners?


As for the slippery slope argument... 30 years ago no one even mentioned gay marriage. Fast forward a third of a lifetime and gay marriages are being done in some states. Let's suppose we allowed gay marriage today. That means that a man has the option to marry a woman OR a man. I do not see how someone can say with a true sincerity that it is out of the question that in another thirty years a bi-sexual person will not be arguing that they should be able to marry both a man AND a woman. It is love, it is consentual, it is their right!

Now I'll admit the human dog one isn't a very good argument at all, though it is somewhat viable.

The polygamy one may be a stretch to some of you, but let me ask you this. What the hell do you think your great grandparent would have said if someone suggested that in 50 years gay marriages will be occuring. I have a feeling it'd be a lot more harsh than 'that is a stretch.'

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Hulkein]

[Blazing247]

<Comparing homosexual couples wanting to have recognized marriages to vandalism and bestiality makes no sense whatsoever. As has been argued before, homosexual couples are two consenting adults. I don't see how they can be compared at all.

If you have "no problems with homosexuality," what's the problem with them getting equal rights?>

The comparison wasn't meant to be a true analogy. The point was, it is ridiculous to change the laws to cater to every portion of the population. It's okay if you want to do something counter to centuries of established tradition, just don't expect the law to be changed to cater to your deviant necessity.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by eeky
Yeah they don't die to aids it's the secondary infections that kill people because they are immunocompromised.

True. These people die of things like Pneumocystis Carinii pneumonia, Kaposi's Sarcoma, or Mycobacterium Avium Complex; diseases that are rarely, if ever, seen in the rest of the population.

HarmNone

[Jolena]

I'm pretty sure they are taking great care to create accurate statistics regarding the sexual habits of those infected with HIV and therefore there is most likely something to support Tsa'ah's statement.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Jolena]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
The point was, it is ridiculous to change the laws to cater to every portion of the population.

Bet someone made that same exact argument about Brown vs the Board of Education. Damn those activist judges.

Raven

[Jolena]

The beauty of human nature is it's always evolving. We don't have to stick to old traditional ways of life and are equipped with the minds to think outside of the box. We can't expect society to remain the same as it was 50 years ago. It's not going to happen. Things WILL change.

[Blazing247]

Way to spin that around and make it a black thing, Raven. That argument should be right up there with mentioning Hitler in a thread.

I don't think change is bad. I don't think homosexuality is bad. I fully agree with giving limited benefits for homosexual unions. I disagree that they should be allowed a traditional marriage. Disagree if you must, but don't put spin on my statements.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Blazing247
The point was, it is ridiculous to change the laws to cater to every portion of the population.

Bet someone made that same exact argument about Brown vs the Board of Education. Damn those activist judges.

Raven We can't forget interracial marriage either.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Jolena
The beauty of human nature is it's always evolving. We don't have to stick to old traditional ways of life and are equipped with the minds to think outside of the box. We can't expect society to remain the same as it was 50 years ago. It's not going to happen. Things WILL change.

Change, yes. Advancing? No.

Polygamy isn't an innovative principle.

Edited to add the quote since there were a few quick posts before mine.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Hulkein]

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Blazing247

I fully agree with giving limited benefits for homosexual unions. I disagree that they should be allowed a traditional marriage.

Just curious, why? How will it negatively affect you if gays are able to have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples? I'm not talking religious aspect of it, that's up to the churches and individuals.

[Jolena]

My feeling is this, Hulkein. Does same sex marriages when it's all said and done affect YOUR life in particular to the point of making it less enjoyable? You can't stop them from being together in your face. You can't stop them from having a relationship. And if they were to be married legally with the same benefits as the heterosexual couples who are married, what will be the effects on YOU personally? Will it change your life?

[Jolena]

Damn Snapp! haha, I was just one second behind you on that one.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Blazing247
I disagree that they should be allowed a traditional marriage.

According to whose traditions? There is more to marriage than the Christian definition of it. There is a legal definition of it as well that comes with specific priviledges and responsibilities.

That's what we're debating. Legal definitions. Two people filing jointly, co-owning property, all of that stuff. Religion has NOTHING to do with it.

-K

[Blazing247]

It won't affect me. I didn't realize that was the basis of the creation and amendment of laws, however. In that case, there are a few things I'd like changed that won't affect you in the slightest.

[Blazing247]

<According to whose traditions?>


Gee, I dunno, maybe CENTURIES OF MARRIAGE IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY IN THE WORLD?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Blazing247
Disagree if you must, but don't put spin on my statements.

You're the one who said laws shouldn't be changed. Laws get changed all the timeand, in a country where freedom and civil rights are important, laws that protect the minorities are often passed even if the majority don't agree with it. Because it's the right things to do. The only spin on your words was your own statement.

Raven

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Ravenstorm]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<There is a legal definition of it>>

Yeah, and it's legally a man and a woman.

[Jolena]

I think that too many people are concerned about whether or not a same sex marriage takes place. Honestly, although I would not marry more then one person and have a polygmous (sp?) marriage, I don't have an issue with others doing so. Again, it's all about whether or not it will affect me as a person. I mean, if kids are allowed to bring guns into school then yes it affects me. If my children are made to pray to Jesus every morning before school then yes, it affects me. If people are allowed to tote guns around and kill whomever they wish then YES that affects me. You get my meaning I'm sure. Same sex marriages or even polygmous (sp?) marriages will NOT affect me.

[SpunGirl]

Again, which tradition? If you're going to include every country in the world, that's a lot of traditions.

Guess what. I got married last year. There was no mention of anything religion-related in the marriage ceremony. Zip. My cousin, when she got married, had a 2 1/2 hour High Holy Mass (which was a big snooze, btw). In the eyes of the government, I am JUST AS MARRIED and am entitled to the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as she is hahahahahahaha.

This is about equal treatment under the LAW, not equal treatment under tradition or religion.

-K

[DeV]

Originally posted by Blazing247
It won't affect me. I didn't realize that was the basis of the creation and amendment of laws, however. In that case, there are a few things I'd like changed that won't affect you in the slightest. Human rights affect everyone to some degree.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<There is a legal definition of it>>

Yeah, and it's legally a man and a woman.

And I think that's wrong.

There was a time when a legal voting citizen was only a white male. That changed, too. Imagine that.

-K

[Hulkein]

How about you name traditions where gay marriage is commonplace, Spun. It is a much shorter list. Let us then see how many of those traditions were in place in America when it was founded by the fathers.

And wtf mass is 2 and 1/2 hours? I've been to Catholic and Greek weddings and never have they been close to that long. That would suck.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<I think that too many people are concerned about whether or not a same sex marriage takes place.>>

Yeah, there are way too many people that want it to happen. It's not changing, and that settles that.

<<Honestly, although I would not marry more then one person and have a polygmous (sp?) marriage, I don't have an issue with others doing so.>>

Lawmakers do.

<<Again, it's all about whether or not it will affect me as a person.>>

Well as long as you care only about yourself and not the good of the country, your opinion is most certainly not taken into consideration on the matter.

<<I mean, if kids are allowed to bring guns into school then yes it affects me.>>

How? You're not getting shot.

<<If people are allowed to tote guns around and kill whomever they wish then YES that affects me.>>

Again, you're not dying over it.

<<Same sex marriages or even polygmous (sp?) marriages will NOT affect me.>>

They affect you just as much as a mass murderer.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<In the eyes of the government, I am JUST AS MARRIED and am entitled to the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as she is hahahahahahaha.>>

Correct. Because, in the United States, a man/woman couple has a choice of a religious or civil ceremony. Gays don't hahahahahahaha.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Hulkein
How about you name traditions where gay marriage is commonplace, Spun.

Tradition is irrelevant. How long something has been around means nothing. Slavery has been around as long as or probably longer than marriage. Does that mean we should bring it back? Interracial marriage is only recently become legal after centuries of being frowned on except when it was against the law. Should we outlaw it?

Raven

[SpunGirl]

I don't know, Hulkein. It was kneel, sit down, stand up, kneel, stand up, kneel, sit down... people were talking in Latin, my father was having Catholic school flashbacks, and I was confused as hell. I assume by the end of it they were married.

And you're right, there's not a lot of "traditional" precedent for same-sex marriage. But when women got the right to vote, there wasn't a lot of precedent for that, either. The point is that things change, attitudes change, and our government was founded on the principles that everyone would be treated equally. Same-sex couples should be legally treated the same as hetero couples. There's no reason not to allow that.

-K

And shouldn't.

- Arkans


BTW: If anything, Christian tradition should be the "general" tradition we use if we're going to be start throwing around religion. Guess what? NO FOUNDING FATHERS WERE MUSLIMS.

[Jolena]

Not true Bob, I have children in public schools so yes it would affect me.

Secondly, how is the good of the nation affected by same sex marriages? I am REALLY interested in reading your opinion on that.

Originally posted by Jolena
Not true Bob, I have children in public schools so yes it would affect me.

Secondly, how is the good of the nation affected by same sex marriages? I am REALLY interested in reading your opinion on that.

It already promoted lawlessness. Remember those illegal marriage liscences? Thanks to the Gay State.

- Arkans

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<In the eyes of the government, I am JUST AS MARRIED and am entitled to the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as she is hahahahahahaha.>>

Correct. Because, in the United States, a man/woman couple has a choice of a religious or civil ceremony. Gays don't hahahahahahaha.

And yet, can you explain why they shouldn't have the right?

-K

[Jolena]

WTF..you make NO sense Arkans.

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Tradition is irrelevant. How long something has been around means nothing. Slavery has been around as long as or probably longer than marriage. Does that mean we should bring it back? Interracial marriage is only recently become legal after centuries of being frowned on except when it was against the law. Should we outlaw it?

Raven

I respect traditions that do not harm others.

If civil-unions are given out, it is win-win.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Arkans


BTW: If anything, Christian tradition should be the "general" tradition we use if we're going to be start throwing around religion. Guess what? NO FOUNDING FATHERS WERE MUSLIMS.

Guess what? Religion hasn't got shit to do with this. It's about equal rights for everyone under the law of the country. Period.

-K

Jolena, you are FUCKING WRONG.

- Arkans

[Blazing247]

<Tradition is irrelevant. How long something has been around means nothing. Slavery has been around as long as or probably longer than marriage. Does that mean we should bring it back? Interracial marriage is only recently become legal after centuries of being frowned on except when it was against the law. Should we outlaw it? >

Raven, please support your argument without regressing into the slavery argument. They are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES.

[SpunGirl]

Arkans, you have just proven that you can't handle a heated debate without calling someone "FUCKING WRONG" because you can't think of any other ways to make your point. Thanks for giving me another reason to ignore your posts.

-K

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Not true Bob, I have children in public schools so yes it would affect me.>>

If they don't die, it is true. Someone having a gun doesn't change your life. Someone firing it at you does. There's a very big difference.

<<Secondly, how is the good of the nation affected by same sex marriages?>>

Because the nation will lose my vote in the Good Election if gays get full marriage benefits. Besides, you said that anything that doesn't affect you, you don't care about. That doesn't apply only to marriage.

Hate to say it, Spungirl, but a lot of people against gay marriage are against it based on their values. Guess where the majority of people's values come from? That's right, some sort of religious influence, even if people arn't all that religious. Saying that religion has no bearing is kind of folly.

- Arkans

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Blazing247


Raven, please support your argument without regressing into the slavery argument. They are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES.

No they're not. Slavery was about allowing a person, a human being, the same civil rights as another human being. So is same-sex marriage. Dur.

-K

Hey Spungirl,

I was replying to Jolena saying, "I make no sense." Thanks for proving to me that you have no comprehension skills.

- Arkans

[Jolena]

Actually it's not all that different. We are addressing whether or not traditions should change and how every person should or should not be treated equally. Slavery is just one example. Spun mentioned the right to vote as another. They aren't that different from what is going on now.

[HarmNone]

What vote, Bob? You're 14. You can't vote. You can opine, but you can't vote.

[Hulkein]

Under that argument that everyone should have the same benefits as everyone else I should be accepted for African American scholarships and women's scholarship funds.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And yet, can you explain why they shouldn't have the right?>>

I don't want them to, that's why. You say slavery is the same as this.. well, slavery still exists in the world, even in the United States. That must mean we should keep things the way they are.

Didn't even black community leaders (which liberals have a fucking hard on for) even come out and say that their issues shouldn't be compared with gay marriage?

- Arkans

[Jolena]

And yes, Bob it does directly affect me. Let me break it down for you in terms you can understand. IF A CHILD IS ALLOWED TO BRING GUNS TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL THEN THAT CHILD HAS THE POTENTIAL TO HURT SOMEONE WHICH COULD AFFECT MY CHILD EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, AND EVEN PHYSICALLY IF THEY HAPPEN TO SHOOT MY CHILD. AS LONG AS THE POSSIBILITY IS THERE, YES IT AFFECTS ME. Thx.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And yes, Bob it does directly affect me. Let me break it down for you in terms you can understand. IF A CHILD IS ALLOWED TO BRING GUNS TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL THEN THAT CHILD HAS THE POTENTIAL TO HURT SOMEONE WHICH COULD AFFECT MY CHILD EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY, AND EVEN PHYSICALLY IF THEY HAPPEN TO SHOOT MY CHILD. AS LONG AS THE POSSIBILITY IS THERE, YES IT AFFECTS ME. Thx.>>

Okay, let me respond to this with something you might be able to understand.

People don't die because someone owns a gun.

[Blazing247]

Are you honestly equating gay marriage to slavery? That is such a ridiculous statement that I don't even know how to respond to it.

Damn, with all the potential in the world, life must be tough! There is the potential that a meteor can smash you in the face and just PWN the dogshit out of you. I'd stay inside.

- Arkans

I DO NOT ADVOCATE FOR GUNS IN SCHOOL. Before some fucking hippy jumps on me.

[CrystalTears]

Some people aren't even old enough to vote or get married to begin with, so I REALLY don't see what they're upset about . It won't affect them for ages and by then perhaps people will have a tad more tolerance about another change in society. No one said it has to be done overnight but it needs to gradually change.

[Back]

Gays are harmless. Any problem you have with homosexuals is your problem, not theirs.

Fighting for marraige rights is a little over the top though. Lets get the civil union thing down, not just for homosexuals, but for all long term life partners. Getting married is only an age old tradition witnessed by God. Get your civil union then find a priest who will marry you.

[Jolena]

And let me return the favor by saying that is NOT what I was talking about and you know it. You have a nasty habit of twisting things around, don't you.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Arkans
Didn't even black community leaders (which liberals have a fucking hard on for) even come out and say that their issues shouldn't be compared with gay marriage?

- Arkans They are really really fucking stupid also. Those same churches thrive on gay membership even though the gays do a great job of not outing themselves. It was a ridiculous ploy on their part. Everyone knows the deal.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Hulkein
Under that argument that everyone should have the same benefits as everyone else I should be accepted for African American scholarships and women's scholarship funds.

Ah-hah, I said everyone should have the same civil rights as everyone else. If someone wants to make a private scholarship fund for only African-Americans, only women, or only red-headed computer geeks with one foot, that is their business.

As far as government-funded funds, I believe they should be given out to the most deserving, regardless of sex, race, etc. So yes.

-K

Everyone does? I wouldn't go as far as saying that. I, for one, find equating slavery to gay marriage a REALLY REALLY BAD THING. <-- How's THAT for having a good vocabulary?

- Arkans

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<And yet, can you explain why they shouldn't have the right?>>

I don't want them to, that's why. You say slavery is the same as this.. well, slavery still exists in the world, even in the United States. That must mean we should keep things the way they are.

I'm talking about the US, not the rest of the world. And last time I checked it was not legal in the United States for one human being to own another one. It was done away with a long time ago.

-K

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And let me return the favor by saying that is NOT what I was talking about and you know it. You have a nasty habit of twisting things around, don't you.>>

You most definitely were talking about potential. That is likely attributed to you saying, "THAT CHILD HAS THE POTENTIAL TO HURT SOMEONE." Meteors have a potential to hit you in the face. I didn't die when someone near me had a gun, and I haven't been hit by a meteor yet.

[Ravenstorm]

Exactly. If 'tradition' is an argument that something should be, then it is applicable to all so-called traditions.


Originally posted by Arkans
Didn't even black community leaders (which liberals have a fucking hard on for) even come out and say that their issues shouldn't be compared with gay marriage?

Only some of them have said that. Southern Baptists to a great degree. others disagree. And Dr. King's widow also has said it is equivalent and is a full suporter.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<<And last time I checked it was not legal in the United States for one human being to own another one.>>

Murder isn't legal, but do you think that stops people?

[HarmNone]

Not to mention, Spun, that what Bob wants does not decide the course of history. ;)

[Bobmuhthol]

I seem to be right so far.

[Ravenstorm]

By the way, no one has answered the interracial marriage point. Has it been conveniently ignored because no one can argue against the parallels?

Raven

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
<<And last time I checked it was not legal in the United States for one human being to own another one.>>

Murder isn't legal, but do you think that stops people?

What does that have to do with anything? We're discussing something that is currently not in the laws that some people feel SHOULD be. Again, it is about one human ADULT having the same civil rights as another human ADULT. Not murder, guns, or religion.

-K

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
I seem to be right so far.

According to you. According to me, you're dead wrong so far.

So, now we have different black community leaders saying different things. Are some more right than others? Do some have more weight with words than others? It all comes down to that. Slavery was horrible. It destroyed basic human rights, gay marriage isn't about that. This is why I think you can't compare the two.

- Arkans

According to me, he is correct. Then again, he does agree with me.

- Arkans

[CrystalTears]

I think the point was the those who aren't adults should STFU.

[SpunGirl]

Arkans, what are "basic human rights" to you?

-K

[HarmNone]

The argument to allow gay marriage is directly addressing human rights. Gays are human.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<According to you. According to me, you're dead wrong so far.>>

Really? Damn, I could have sworn gays were still losing at marriage.



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

The Bill of Rights covers it nicely, if you ask me. Marriage is more of a privilege/luxury to me.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I think the point was the those who aren't adults should STFU.

Excellent point, CT. The opinions of little boys on happenings in the adult world, especially happenings that involve voting, marriage, and other things not applying to said little boys, are immaterial, eh? They offer a bit of humor, but that's about it.

[SpunGirl]

Marriage is a legal undertaking. It should be available to everyone who is a citizen. Period.

-K

[Jolena]

I apologize to everyone then. My only reasoning for bringing up guns was to make a point that gay marriages becoming legal would not bring harm to anyone, whereas other laws are in place in order to prevent harm from taking place. I won't mention it again. Although in all fairness I had no intentions on bringing it up anymore until the snot-nosed know-it-all kid started in on me.

You're right, because of his age, Bob definatly can't have a valid opinion.

BTW: I know, Spun, it's not law that I was talking about at the moment, it was basic human rights.

- Arkans

[CrystalTears]

So only men and women as a couple are allowed to have a luxury? Gay couples don't have the right to share their love in this free country because you don't want them to have the same rights as straight couples?

You're correct CT, I don't want them to be able to be married.

- Arkans

[DeV]

I'll take getting pussy every night as opposed to having the marriage laws changed just for now.

However, this is a debate that will not go away, ever. Not until this form of legal discrimination is done away with.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Really? Damn, I could have sworn gays were still losing at marriage.

*laughs* Damn Bob, you're funny. Losing? It's legal in Massachussets. It's probably going to be legal in Oregon or Washington, maybe both. Probably California and New York in the relatively near future. Almost the entirety of Canada has it now. It's going before the European courts.

Losing? Ten years ago no one would have dreamed we'd be at this point. I'm just pissed it's taking so long and so many families are suffering because of it. Loke those who need to leave the US in order to be together. Or the children who can't have two parents because they can't get married. Or the senior citizens who end up on welfare because they can't get surviving spouse benefits even though they spent fifty years with their partner.

It doesn't help those who need it now but hell, we're winning this battle even if it takes another generation.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

So you're bringing your feelings into something that doesn't affect you directly other than insulting you on a personal level, right?

What the fuck happened to "all men are created equal"? As long as everyone has the same belief, apparently.

[SpunGirl]

Originally posted by Arkans
You're right, because of his age, Bob definatly can't have a valid opinion.

BTW: I know, Spun, it's not law that I was talking about at the moment, it was basic human rights.

- Arkans

I thought the point of the Bill of Rights was to give everyone equal treatment under this government.

For that reason, women are allowed to vote.

For that reason, one human is not allowed to "own" another.

For that reason, you are not allowed to have an "only blacks allowed" or "only whites allowed" rule.

For that reason, affirmative action is shit.

For that reason, gay couples should be allowed the same legal union as hetero couples.

-K

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by SpunGirl]

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Almost the entirety of Canada has it now. It's going before the European courts.>>

So if something is legal in Afghanistan, it applies here? Nope. That argument is completely invalid.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Bobmuhthol]

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

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
You're correct CT, I don't want them to be able to be married.

- Arkans

Can you accept that I, a heterosexual female, and others like me DO want to see them be able to get married. If you can accept that, can you also accept that our votes count just as much as yours do?

Everyone here is bringing their "own feelings" into this. If you want gay marriage you want it, if you don't you don't. All men *ARE* created equal. We all have equal rights to marry right now. Gay men can marry women. No one's stopping them.

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
It doesn't help those who need it now but hell, we're winning this battle even if it takes another generation.

Raven Exactly.

[CrystalTears]

Hold on a second. So people would actually prefer that gay people marry someone straight, and live a lie, just to appease the sensitive people who don't them to marry who they love?

In the words of Bernie Mack, "This is some bullshit."

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[HarmNone]

The very fact that they are gay stops them, Arkans. It would be hypocritical in the extreme for a gay man to marry a woman. That's why they want to be allowed to legally marry the person of their choice.

I can accept that and I hope you can accept that my vote means just as much as yours. I can also accept that if we had a popular vote in the USA and the majority of people voted FOR gay marriage and it passed, that it would be a good thing. Of course, gays don't want that because they most likely wouldn't win that one.

- Arkans

Doesn't matter HN, they still have the same rights. Thus, all men ARE created equally here.

- Arkans

Doesn't mean people prefer them to marry straight people. No one said that. I'm just saying they have the same rights. They can marry the opposite sex just like anyone else.

- Arkans

[CrystalTears]

Right. A marriage of convenience for you to ease your mind, not a marriage of convenience for them. What is the point of having a marriage if you can't marry the person of your own choosing? Is it so bad to let them have what they want?

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Arkans
Slavery was horrible. It destroyed basic human rights, gay marriage isn't about that. This is why I think you can't compare the two.

I'm not comparing the two. I'm illustrating exactly why the argument of tradition is ridiculous.



Originally posted by Arkans
Of course, gays don't want that because they most likely wouldn't win that one.

Just like integration wouldn't have passed had it been left up to a popular vote. have those blacks in my children's school? Hell no.

So I'll repeat, should we make it illegal again for interracial couples to marry? It goes against tradition and it wasn't something the majority of people would have voted for.

Raven

[HarmNone]

I accept that each person's vote carries equal weight, Arkans. This issue is being addressed in several states as we speak. Hopefully, from my point of view, equality under the law will prevail.

Being gay does not stop you from marrying a person from the opposite sex. Being gay does make you, in all probability, chose not to marry the opposite sex.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
Doesn't matter HN, they still have the same rights. Thus, all men ARE created equally here.

- Arkans

Not really, Arkans. As I see it, by your logic a scenario could be made in which a man is in love with a dark-haired woman, but is required to marry a light-haired woman because that is the tradition. He can marry, but he cannot marry the woman he wishes to marry. It's the same thing as saying a gay man has the same rights as anyone else, but he must marry a woman instead of the man he loves.

If there was a tradition about hair color, sure, but there isn't. It's the same as saying, "Well, by your logic, everyone should be able to get married to whatever they prefer, so a guy CAN marry his dog."

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Personally, if a guy wants to marry his dog, it's fine with me. :shrug:

[Bobmuhthol]

<<As I see it, by your logic a scenario could be made in which a man is in love with a dark-haired woman, but is required to marry a light-haired woman because that is the tradition. He can marry, but he cannot marry the woman he wishes to marry.>>

If all men must marry light-haired women, what's the problem? They all have the same rights.

[Jolena]

I think the most amusing thing I've noted throughout this whole long thread has been that not one time have any of the people opposing gay marriages given a reason aside from "It's against tradition!" or "I just don't want it!". I'd really like to see something to the reasons aside from that. Surely with such strong convictions against this becoming legal, you have more reasons then just those mentioned.

When marrying animals becomes legal I start an open rebellion.

- Arkans

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Snapp
As has been argued before, homosexual couples are two consenting adults. I don't see how they can be compared at all.I don't see how this two consenting adults crap is at all valid, unless you campaigned to get Kevorkian out of jail.
Originally posted by Jolenaoes same sex marriages when it's all said and done affect YOUR life in particular to the point of making it less enjoyable?Somebody setting fire to an Alaskan hospital doesn't affect me either.
Originally posted by Hulkein
And wtf mass is 2 and 1/2 hours? My money's on Protestant. "High Holy" is a good tip-off of Protestant wannabe Catholic stuff, from what I remember.
Originally posted by Spungirl
Slavery was about allowing a person, a human being, the same civil rights as another human being.I thought it was about getting the cheapest labor possible. :?:
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
no one has answered the interracial marriage point.I did in an earlier topic. I could do it again if you like.

As for the "Bob should STFU cuz he's 14" argument, I know a 16 (possibly 17) year old who's more mature than anyone who has posted in this thread so far.

[HarmNone]

Where did I say "all" men, Bob? If you're going to interject your 14-year-old opinion into an adult thread, please read the subject matter.

Jolena,

Please read the last like 5-6 posts that were made about equal rights.

- Arkans

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Personally, if a guy wants to marry his dog, it's fine with me. :shrug:

Heh, me too.

Shouldn't moderators try to be civil by not throwing in petty snipes like that, HN? Let's set a good example for would-be new posters. Hah!

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
When marrying animals becomes legal I start an open rebellion.

- Arkans

Why, Arkans? You would not be required to do so.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
Shouldn't moderators try to be civil by not throwing in petty snipes like that, HN? Let's set a good example for would-be new posters. Hah!

- Arkans

Nope. Wasn't a snipe, Arkans. It was a simple statement of truth.

[Bobmuhthol]

God damn there was so much pwnage laid down by Latrinsorm. I seriously want to be like him some day.

Because beastiality is a goddamn perversion and even ub3r leftist groups like PETA are against it.

- Arkans

[HarmNone]

Nobody said the man and his dog-wife had to have sex, Arkans.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Where did I say "all" men, Bob?>>

I do recall starting my post with "if."



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

[HarmNone]

No, thanks, Bob. I'll just keep right on doing what I'm doing.

[Bobmuhthol]

And I'll keep being right.

Oh yeah, the dog-wife is definatly there just for the joint property ownership.

/end sarcasm

- Arkans

[Jolena]

At this point, this thread has become incredibly annoying. I'm going to respectfully bow out. Enjoy everyone.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I did in an earlier topic. I could do it again if you like.

Certainly, feel free. I don't remember it. But you also haven't been arguing tradition here. My contention is simple:

If mere 'tradition' is enough justification, then it should also be enough to ban all interracial marriages and also to be a reason to bring back slavery. After all, it's tradition.

Raven

[HarmNone]

You could make that assumption, Arkans. You might be right, you might be wrong. If you make that assumption, then you probably also make the assumption that every married man and woman in this country have sex. You would be very wrong. ;)

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Jolena
I think the most amusing thing I've noted throughout this whole long thread has been that not one time have any of the people opposing gay marriages given a reason aside from "It's against tradition!" or "I just don't want it!". I'd really like to see something to the reasons aside from that. Surely with such strong convictions against this becoming legal, you have more reasons then just those mentioned.

Forget it, they won't answer because it will mean they will have to admit that they don't want gay people to have what they have. They don't want to admit to prejudism.

[Bobmuhthol]

<<If mere 'tradition' is enough justification, then it should also be enough to ban all interracial marriages and also to be a reason to bring back slavery. After all, it's tradition.>>

Right now it's not, and you want something to be changed now, not centuries ago. That isn't valid.

[CrystalTears]

It USED to be tradition. That is the point! Tradition can change, thus why people are advocating to make marriage two consenting adults regardless of sex.

[Latrinsorm]

Well, before I do, I think we should get some clarification on what people think "marriage" is. I tend to use the Christian definition of marriage and go from there, but I'm not going to bother if that's going to be a big problem with people.

[CrystalTears]

You can't use the Christian definition of marriage because this isn't about whether religions and churches should allow gay marriages, this is about the government making that distinction.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[HarmNone]

I look at marriage as a legal structure. It can be performed as a civil ceremony without the involvement of the religious community.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Well, before I do, I think we should get some clarification on what people think "marriage" is. I tend to use the Christian definition of marriage and go from there, but I'm not going to bother if that's going to be a big problem with people.

The only thing I care about is the civil definition and rights and responsibilities of marriage. I'm more than happy to let religions do whatever they want to do.

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<<It USED to be tradition.>>

Slavery was never a tradition. Few people owned slaves. There was no law saying you could or should own a slave. There is, however, a law saying that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[HarmNone]

I also wouldn't accept marriage as a strictly Christian concept, since it exists in societies that are not predominately Christian. Hindus marry. Buddhists marry. Moslems marry. Christianity has nothing to do with it.

[Back]

Anyone have a quote from the bible on what “marriage” is defined as?

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Slavery was never a tradition. Few people owned slaves. There was no law saying you could or should own a slave. There is, however, a law saying that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Bingo, Bob! That's the very law some of us would love to see changed! Imagine that! :lol:

[Bobmuhthol]

Yeah, and outlawing slavery didn't change any laws because there were no laws concerning slavery. Establishing a law is not changing one.

[HarmNone]

But, Bob.....we're not talking about slavery. We're talking about marriage rights for gay people. Keep up, dear. Keep up. :D

[Back]

Someone needs to make a :splittinghairs: smiley. I’m in my off hours at the moment. Sorry.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
Anyone have a quote from the bible on what “marriage” is defined as?

Good question. Doing a keyword search, I don't see any definition of marriage in the bible. It's mentioned but not defined.

This is a realy good site for those interested:

Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/)

Raven

[Bobmuhthol]

<<But, Bob.....we're not talking about slavery. We're talking about marriage rights for gay people. Keep up, dear. Keep up.>>

....................................

What the fuck.

[CrystalTears]

http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm

"Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3)."

"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical - but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium."

"To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees."

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

Slavery was actually in the Constitution, eerily enough. Many state laws were in place regarding it, and several Federal Supreme Court cases.

I don't agree with many aspects of Christianity. I don't agree with many aspects of Communism. I don't agree with many aspects of white supremacy.

Doesn't mean I don't think those people who believe in those things should be able to be married.

It's about freedom and being an American. I'm sorry y'all suck too much to get that.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Bobmuhthol
Yeah, and outlawing slavery didn't change any laws because there were no laws concerning slavery. Establishing a law is not changing one.

Here, I'll make it easier for you, Bob:

But, Bob.....we're not talking about slavery. We're talking about marriage rights for gay people. Keep up, dear. Keep up.

The above comment is in response to the quoted post. That should help. :)

[Bobmuhthol]

Yes, I understand that. Allow me to retort.

What the fuck.

[GSLeloo]

My view of the entire thing is very simple. America is supposed to be a separation of church and state. The only real thing against gay marriage is church. So apparently this "shouldn't" be a problem in a country that keeps those separate. Guess we messed that one up.

If you think the only "real thing" against gay marriage is religion, Leloo, you havn't really been paying attention for the past year or so.

- Arkans

[Back]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Originally posted by Backlash
Anyone have a quote from the bible on what “marriage” is defined as?

Good question. Doing a keyword search, I don't see any definition of marriage in the bible. It's mentioned but not defined.

This is a realy good site for those interested:

Bible Gateway (http://bible.gospelcom.net/)

Raven

Thats what I thought when I couldn’t find one. Its those silly people who claim to have God’s cell number who say try to use that as some kind of leverage against mere mortals.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
"Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3)."

Looking up a selection of those passages, it doesn't actually define marriage. They are all examples of one man married to two women. Well. Guess it's time for all good Christians to get polygamy made legal.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

Yeah I edited my post with another quote of it saying that no where does it actually say outright that marriage is between a man and a woman.

[GSLeloo]

I mean in the sense of legal reasons. Everyone has a different opinion on it but when it comes to the government, isnt the religious part the only actual thing that is getting in the way of it being legal?

[Snapp]

Originally posted by Arkans
If you think the only "real thing" against gay marriage is religion, Leloo, you havn't really been paying attention for the past year or so.

- Arkans

Actually that really does seem to be the only thing stopping it. People's religious beliefs. Ask Dubya.

[Back]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/biblical_marriage.htm

"Marriage consists of one man and one or more women (Gen 4:19, 4:23, 26:34, 28:9, 29:26-30, 30:26, 31:17, 32:22, 36:2, 36:10, 37:2, Ex. 21:10, Judges 8:30, 1 Sam 1:2, 25:43, 27:3, 30:5, 30:18, 2 Sam 2:2, 3:2-5, 1 Chron 3:1-3, 4:5, 8:8, 14:3, 2 Chron 11:21, 13:21, 24:3)."

"Nowhere in the Bible does it say that "marriage is the God-ordained covenantal union of one man and one woman;" in fact, it says explicitly to the contrary! The Bible lists at least 15 polygamists (not including Herod, who is known from the historical - but not Biblical - record to have had 9 wives), and in not a single place does polygamy carry with it any sense of opprobrium."

"To rely solely on Scripture for church policy is to ignore the possibility that the Holy Spirit has been active at all in the sixteen centuries since the canon was closed in 405 CE. Indeed, we need to consider that the Holy Spirit may be actively encouraging us today to move beyond a literal reading of the Bible and to refuse to become modern Pharisees."

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

Wow. Where did you get that. I learned a new word...


opprobrium (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=opprobrium)

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
Yeah I edited my post with another quote of it saying that no where does it actually say outright that marriage is between a man and a woman.

So you did. That's a great site. Bookmarked.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Arkans
If you think the only "real thing" against gay marriage is religion, Leloo, you havn't really been paying attention for the past year or so.

- Arkans

If not religious beliefs, what do you believe is driving the objection to gay marriage, Arkans?

[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

edit: I feel bad for the mods of this folder. 10 pages in (what seemed like) 13 seconds must be tough to moderate.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by Latrinsorm]

[CrystalTears]

HN has been on it! Besides, other than someone telling people to fuck off, this has been a rather civil discussion, amazingly enough.

I think that shows it more as an example of a marriage rather than a set definition. I don't feel that it sets marriage as strictly one man and one woman, but that's just my opinion.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[HarmNone]

Agreed, CT. Nowhere within the quote does it preclude marriage between two men, or two women. It simply states the norm, and what is expected of the partners.

[GSLeloo]

I think people have always made ridiculous rules to limit their fellow men. I'm sure it used to be you can't marry someone of a different religion and you can't marry someone of a different race. Well all those were removed and civilization didn't crumble, everything was better after that. So why can't we remove this limit also? The others moved us forward in civil rights, this one will too.

[Ravenstorm]

And indeed, as CT pointed out, other passages clearly point out that one man and two women may marry so these are just exampled of what marriage can be. Not a definition of what it is that precludes anything else.

Raven

[Back]

Here is what BibleGateway.com (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+6&language=english&version=NIV& showfn=on&showxref=on) has from a search on the word “homosexual”.

The second paragraph is good advice actually. And I do agree with the whole polygamy thing.

[Latrinsorm]

Uh, ok, what? Let me try this again:
For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wifeDoesn't shall imply inevitability to anyone else?

[CrystalTears]

I'm not sure what you mean. That statement simply means that the man will get off his ass of being supported by his parents and take care of himself and his wife on their own.

[Siefer]

The same ignorant and intolerant comebacks from the same liberals voices of this board. I'm more convinced right now, more than any other time of my life, that we need another civil war to root out these un-Armerican traitors to our heritage. The unprecedented degredation of this country in the last 50 years is appalling. The world's current events make the future of our country more bleak than it has ever looked. Add this nonsense to the mix, and it's just another way to limit the white race's population from growing. Has anyone been to Brooklyn lately? Has anyone noticed that not a single person speaks English anymore? Anyone taken the train there recently? Am I the only person who noticed that the place has fallen to shit in the last 20 years? You give these inhuman people an inch and they take a mile, and continue to take until the whole damn country is rotting to its core. The same holds true for gays. We don't want them, we don't need them.

You liberal bastards have driven this country into the ground for the past 50 years with your civil rights and pacification bullshit, you are to blame for this country's faults, and you will continue to ruin this country.

I sincerely wish that all of you "independent thinkers" are punished someday for your crimes against this county.

[GSLeloo]

Is this guy serious? You have a conservative running the country, look how well that went so far.

[CrystalTears]

Actually it's people like you ruining this country. People who won't see beyond the nose on their face and doesn't want to see change ever.


We don't want them, we don't need them.

YOU don't want them, YOU don't need them. Thank GOD that you don't run this country.

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
Here is what BibleGateway.com (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1COR+6&language=english&version=NIV& showfn=on&showxref=on) has from a search on the word “homosexual”.

There's a big problem with searching the bible for any references to homosexuality: the word didn't exist till just recently.

Any reference to it now would be an intepretation of a passage that was an interpretation of a translation, etc. Most reference to same sex behavior (and female/female is never ever mentioned to my knowledge) is about specific acts under specific circumstances. The religious tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm) site has some good info on the translation problems.

Raven

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
I'm not sure what you mean.God makes people male and female. Then the man shall be joined to the wife (not, for instance, the husband or the pooch). I really don't see how y'all are interpreting Jesus/Genesis as giving an example. Maybe if he said "can be" instead of "shall"?

[HarmNone]

>>For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife<<

The quote says "a man shall leave...and be joined to his wife." It does not say what gender his wife shall be.

[Edited on 9-12-2004 by HarmNone]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
I really don't see how y'all are interpreting Jesus/Genesis as giving an example. Maybe if he said "can be" instead of "shall"?

So you're saying that the 'shall' is an imperative. That God is ordering this to happen. 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.

Raven

[CrystalTears]

Heh, going through site http://www.bible.com/answers/ahomosex.html it states the following which I found rather laughable.


Much of our society has embraced many perverted sexual practices that are considered in the Bible as abominations to God. Homosexuality is among the list of deviate or abnormal sexual practices however, there are many other practices that can be included as well. Pornography, pedophilia, prostitution, bestiality, oral sex, phone sex and computer virtual reality sex, just to name a few of them.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NIV): "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters, nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

This site decided to interpret exactly what God meant by "sexually immoral". Because you know, everyone knew that 2000+ years later people would be having oral, phone and cybersex. :lol:

Edited to say: BTW, I love my God and Almighty Father, 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!

[Edited on 9/12/2004 by CrystalTears]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
Is this guy serious?

Just pat him on the head and pity him. Anything else is a waste of time.

Raven

[HarmNone]

Heh. Yeah. Siefer's post is a good one to practice your ignoring skills on. ;)

[Snapp]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Heh. Yeah. Siefer's post is a good one to practice your ignoring skills on. ;)

I dunno about that. It did kinda make me chuckle. Maybe I'm just slap-happy tonight from lack of sleep.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
There's a big problem with searching the bible for any references to homosexuality: the word didn't exist till just recently.

Any reference to it now would be an intepretation of a passage that was an interpretation of a translation, etc. Most reference to same sex behavior (and female/female is never ever mentioned to my knowledge) is about specific acts under specific circumstances. The religious tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm) site has some good info on the translation problems.

Raven

Yeah, figured that when I got a New Testament verse. Would like to see an Old Testament quote. I Don’t recall any mention of it.

PS. Dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) gives a few definitions of marriage (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=marriage).

Merriam-Webster gets my vote.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Snapp
I dunno about that. It did kinda make me chuckle. Maybe I'm just slap-happy tonight from lack of sleep.

Nah, Snapp. You've just developed that message board skill of processing a post for it's giggle quotient while simultaneously dumping the content in your mental wastebasket. ;)

[CrystalTears]

*hits the delete button on her mental recycle bin*

It was full. :D

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
*hits the delete button on her mental recycle bin*

I was wondering what that flushing sound was.

Raven

[HarmNone]

I can't find any definition, per se, of marriage in the Old Testament. There are mentions of people being married, but no definition of what marriage is, or should be.

[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.