Ask Me Help Desk - Gay Marriage

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Of course not, they'll just disrupt your services and yell things like "Jesus was a homo," vandalize your church, publish blacklists, bully you, and otherwise act like a$$es and expect everyone to bow to their demands.

I don't agree... take a look at both arguments in detail and you might change your mind on that. I understand that marriage is a holy sacrament between man and woman... I couldn't agree more but the times are changing and the Church can't fight this anymore... it will pass. If the gays where asking to get married in the Church I would have a problem with it but their not, they simply want the same benefits as a married couple... in the eyes of the Government not the eyes of the Lord. Do we really have a right to stop them? To judge them? If they don't interfere with our religion or culture why can't we give them the same respect?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Of course not, they'll just disrupt your services and yell things like.....

Hello Steve:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

A GREAT conservative said that.

excon

What's funny here is I linked to actual examples of the insane rage, intolerance, violence and criminal activity of gay activists and you're all defending them. Their behavior certainly makes me want to sit down and talk things out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Their behavior certainly makes me want to sit down and talk things out.

Hello again, Steve:

Ain't interested in talk. We KNOW what you guys think. Interested in ACTION!!

excon

Back on page 10 I said the positions were intractable. I will also add that now positions are hardening making compromise virtually impossible. Thus any action by proponents of either side suddenly becomes acceptable?

Frequently abortion clinic bombers are condemned and rightly so ;not so easily excused as extremism in defense of a cause.

Hello tom:

I don't think bombing is what Goldwater had in mind. You know there IS a difference between disobedience and committing a criminal act.

Here's the problem. When considering someone's civil rights, there is NO acceptable compromise. Would you compromise YOURS?? I don't think you would.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Ain't interested in talk. We KNOW what you guys think. Interested in ACTION!!!!

excon

And we offered compromise, that WAS action. You're asking us to concede everything instead of finding a solution that could be agreeable to all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And we offered compromise, that WAS action. You're asking us to concede everything instead of finding a solution that could be agreeable to all.

Hello again, Steve:

The solution that is ALREADY agreeable to us all can be found in the Declaration of Independence. I don't think you understand. We're talking about RIGHTS here. We're not negotiating a contract.

What compromise is there from the word ALL?? Some?? Almost?? Maybe? Close, but not quite??

There is NO compromise in our founding documents. Jefferson didn't say SOME. He said ALL men are created equal and they are ALL endowed with certain unalienable rights... Those are the rights that YOU have, yet you want to compromise on others having the same rights. It ain't going to happen.

No, let me rephrase what I said above. You DON'T understand if you think compromise is a solution.

Maybe you don't understand the founding documents. I actually think you DO, but I think you're so blinded by your religion, that you just can't see the words that Jefferson wrote...

I don't know, Steve. But, I'm going to keep on trying with you.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

There is NO compromise in our founding documents. Jefferson didn't say SOME. He said ALL men are created equal and they are ALL endowed with certain unalienable rights....

And we've addressed that, the founders appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” and relied on “the protection of Divine Providence” to ensure these rights “endowed by their Creator” such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we want to base our arguments on the Declaration of Independence then we have other issues to discuss, but I’m always told the Declaration is irrelevant in those discussions.

The compromise I’m referring to allows for equal benefits for a relationship that can never be equal to heterosexual marriage. Why should we call something the equivalent of something it can never be equal to, and if the benefits and privileges are the same why isn’t that enough? That’s all they wanted before, and what will be the next configuration of “marriage” we allow?

If the founding documents began and ended with the Declaration then I might agree with you . But the operating manual of our government ;the Constitution is itself a tribute to compromise. It would not have been adopted without them.

Marriage as defined is a "right" no one is denied. Changing the definition is the issue .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Marriage as defined is a "right" no one is denied. Changing the definition is the issue

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

The compromise I'm referring to allows for equal benefits for a relationship that can never be equal to heterosexual marriage. Why should we call something the equivalent of something it can never be equal to

Hello tom and Steve:

Sorry, fellas. You are still looking at this issue through the prism of your church... I am looking at it through the prism of the Constitution. I am right.

If we were talking about RELIGION, then your arguments have merit. But, we're NOT talking about religion. We're talking about CIVIL RIGHTS!!

To wit:

Tom you see marriage defined as between a man and a woman. To me, that's a RELIGIOUS viewpoint.

I see marriage as an event the state recognizes and grants rights to the married. That's a secular viewpoint.

Steve, you see a homosexual marriage as unequal, I suppose because they can't propagate. That a religious viewpoint.

I see marriage as a bond between two people, and whether they can propagate or not, isn't an issue. That's a secular viewpoint.

You cannot force your religious values on people. It's UNAMERICAN. It's an anethema to the American way. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It ain't right. And, it ain't going to fly.

excon

It isn't going to fly ? Unless the courts do another imperial fiat and force cultural change on the country then it will fly.
The fact is that everywhere it has been put to the ballot ;gay marriage has been voted down... even in the bluest of blue states California.

Hello again, tom:

As I've said many times on these pages, the majority cannot vote out the civil rights of the minority.

Even in the blue states, where the RED stated Mormon church spent zillions to pass the proposition. I wonder why they did that if it WASN'T a religious issue.

Nope, the civil rights of the oppressed WILL be recognized. This is a GREAT country, where even though it might take a while, we DO recognize our core values. Those values are ones of INCLUSION - not exclusion as you would have it be. I don't know where you get that exclusion stuff.

I have every confidence that Obama WILL appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rectify this wrong. We shall overcome.

excon

PS> Fiat?? Tom, you CAN read where it says ALL, can't you?? Bwa, ha ha ha.

I intentionally omitted the church in my position, someone else injected the church into this, not me. But since those rights you mentioned are endowed by our Creator as defined by the founders I suppose it is appropriate to consider the religious view on this, right? But since you’ve backed away from justifying your position based on the Declaration, at least show us exactly in the constitution guarantees the right to gay marriage since I must have missed that somewhere. The people in California have spoken, what is the constitutional basis for overturning their will?

What I stated is simply a fact. It is entirely impossible for a gay marriage to be equal to heterosexual marriage, they may both be “a bond between two people” but they cannot be equal, in procreation, sexually, emotionally or otherwise. Face it, men and women are different, marriage is historically, traditionally, predominantly between a man and a woman for good reason and calling it something else doesn’t change that.

Hello again, Steve:

Do you want me to give you the "Constitution doesn't list rights" lecture again? Nahh, we're going round in circles.

Good thing Obama is going to fix it. But, I'll bet the California Supreme Court will fix it first.

excon

I knew we would just go around in circles right off the bat. We'll see what the courts do soon enough I'm sure.

Ex : recommended reading :
Amazon.com: The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (American Politics and Political Economy Series): Gerald N. Rosenberg: Books

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 gay marriage decision led to over 30 States taking it to the ballot and approving bans . Gerald Rosenberg in the book above correctly argues that judicial fiat in fact sets back the social change that was sought by the decision.

Civil unions on the other hand are supported by the majority because it is a reasonable solution.
Polls: Gay civil unions favored - Same-Sex Marriage - MSNBC.com

You claim it is our religion that is the problem ;but it seems to me that you are the absolutist .
Maybe when the populace becomes "more enlightened " then support will grow .But for now the political waters have been tested and the country isn't there yet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

But for now the political waters have been tested and the country isn't there yet.

Hello again, tom:

Well, me and my pink tighted friends are going to see if we can't coax it along.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Synnen, I said there were alternative ways to have a child...but it still requires both sexes (that is until we start cloning people like sheep). As for the bible and multiple wives, there are certainly conflicts with God's ideal and what man has actually done, otherwise we might still be living in a perfect world...but Adam and Eve blew that right off the bat.

I think I heard my brother say... the reason why they had multiple wives... is because men are pigs! - He said it not me :) So I couldn't agree more.

Eventually gay marriage will have equal protection under the law, as we well know, nothing changes until the oppressed, or the minority, have raised enough hell. That's been true of every rights movement in history. It looks as if the gay marriage folks have escalated to invading churches. Good for them. Wonder what's next?? Is denying them a piece of paper, and a few tax breaks, worth holding on to some outdated traditions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xoxaprilwine

I think I heard my brother say...the reason why they had multiple wives...is because men are pigs! - He said it not me :) So I couldn't agree more.

No argument there, I tell all the single women I know to remember the motto "all men are scum" and they'll do OK. ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Eventually gay marriage will have equal protection under the law, as we well know, nothing changes until the oppressed, or the minority, have raised enough hell. Thats been true of every rights movement in history. It looks as if the gay marriage folks have escalated to invading churches. Good for them. Wonder whats next??? Is denying them a piece of paper, and a few tax breaks, worth holding on to some outdated traditions??

Exactly! I wish I could give you a greenie Tal, because I couldn't agree more. :D

The solution is simple; the government and the courts support Civil Unions between human beings of either sex and stays out of the religious aspect of marriage.

As for churches, if one church decides that they won't marry people of the same sex then they can choose not to; however, if another church chooses to marry people of the same sex because their interpretation of the bible is different then they can.

Separation of church and state; and freedom of religion.

The evangelical or fundementalist Christian's do not hold the monopoly on the truth as there are dozens of different Christian denominations who interpret the bible differently and who is to say that their interpretation should trump other religions as well or those without a defined religion?

Quote:

The solution is simple; the government and the courts support Civil Unions between human beings of either sex and stays out of the religious aspect of marriage.

Bingo ,back to the sensible solution offered by Steve and myself in the early responses to this thred.

I think I also offered that solution on page one of this thread :P

Is there another solution, or is that the only one you have, because that one was already rejected. Now what?

First of all I think that are you sterotyping ALL christians. That we all hate homosexuality and hate the people who choose the lifestyle. Yes, here are Christians out there who choose not to talk to, be near or love a homosexual person. I personally abhore Christians who persecute homosexuality and judge them... who are they to judge? Their anger and hate makes us all look bad. We, as Christians are supposed to love everyone. God did not only love the Christians he loves the non-believers too.

I think as a Christian, you choose to live a certain way. You choose to live by God's laws and life guidelines. So in that aspect, I do believe that I also have a right to choose to protect what I believe is right. Granted, it's my choice, my opinion but I still have a right to it and to vote for it. Just like people who believe that gay marriage has a right, they choose to support it and vote for it.

I find that so many people want me to be open minded, but no one wants to be open minded to my beliefs, especially if they are Christian.

Open mindedness goes both ways. Why can't you be opened minded to my beliefs too?

Hello u:

Our founding fathers made that decision long ago, and we don't have a right to vote on it. It's like your right to own a gun. We can't vote that right out of existence because that right is guaranteed to you in the Constitution.

By that same token, and by that same document, gay people have the right to marry, if YOU have a right to marry, and you do.

You may have another opinion. You're welcome to it, and you're welcome to voice here. But, to DO something about it is abhorrent. We're not a nation that excludes people from participating in the political process. We're a nation that celebrates INCLUSION. That's the American way.

Fortunately, it's also WRITTEN into the Constitution.

excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by uvware

First of all I think that are you sterotyping ALL christians. That we all hate homosexuality and hate the people who choose the lifestyle. Yes, here are Christians out there who choose not to talk to, be near or love a homosexual person. I personally abhore Christians who persecute homosexuality and judge them...who are they to judge? Their anger and hate makes us all look bad. We, as Christians are supposed to love everyone. God did not only love the Christians he loves the non-believers too.

I think as a Christian, you choose to live a certain way. You choose to live by God's laws and life guidelines. So in that aspect, I do believe that I also have a right to choose to protect what I believe is right. Granted, it's my choice, my opinion but I still have a right to it and to vote for it. Just like people who believe that gay marriage has a right, they choose to support it and vote for it.

I find that so many people want me to be open minded, but no one wants to be open minded to my beliefs, especially if they are Christian.

Open mindedness goes both ways. Why can't you be opened minded to my beliefs too?

I don't have a problem with your beliefs, so long as you don't expect everyone else to live by them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasParent

I don't have a problem with your beliefs, so long as you don't expect everyone else to live by them.

Ah but there's the crux of the matter, most christians expect everyone to live by their beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ah but there's the crux of the matter, most christians expect everyone to live by their beliefs.

Very true NK. That's where we run into trouble with the issue of Gay marriage. This shouldn't be about religion, it should be about their rights as human beings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Altenweg

Very true NK. That's where we run into trouble with the issue of Gay marriage. This shouldn't be about religion, it should be about their rights as human beings.

That's kind of where I'm on the fence. I don't think all priests should be forced to be allowed to marry gay people in their church. Their religion is based on knowledge 2000+ years ago and I don't expect them to change. I do believe of course that a gay couple should have all the rights that a heterosexual couple does. Now where does this thinking leave the gay couple who want to be Christians? I don't know but I suspect they would be ostracized by what I read here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Ah but there's the crux of the matter, most christians expect everyone to live by their beliefs.

NK, that is unequivocally a bunch of bullsh*t.

Yes the Christian beliefs are old, we cannot expect them to change, but not all churches feel this way, not all Christians do from what I've read here.

Can we find a middle ground? I don't know.

If being married in a church is important to a gay couple, then we're crossing a different line. Can we force the Christian community to open their doors to gay couples? Well, it's always been my understanding that Christians are supposed to open the door to anyone who wants to enter, but I guess that I was reading between the lines.

Bottom line is that gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion, it's a basic human right, or it should be.

If we ostrasize one group of people based on their lifestyle, who do we go after next? When do we draw the line? When they go after Christians and their way of life?

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

NK, that is unequivocally a bunch of bullsh*t.

It's what I get when I read the religious postings on this site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

It's what I get when I read the religious postings on this site.

It's what you assume, NK. There is a difference between desiring others to live your beliefs and "expecting" them to do so, or as you guys are fond of saying "imposing" our beliefs on everyone. I for one have never "expected" anyone here to believe or live as I do, in fact I'll defend your right not to. "Expecting" or "imposing" goes against everything Christianity is about, and it's no more an affront for Christians to desire and work toward certain societal standards than it is for non-Christians to do so. In reading these boards it would be just as easy to conclude many of you don't think we should have a say, so who is doing the imposing here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

I don't think all priests should be forced to be allowed to marry gay people in their church.

This is a red herring/straw man. No church can be forced to marry anyone. In fact, churches turn heterosexuals down for all sorts of reasons. No reason they can't refuse gays, as well. That's part of what makes them churches. They can discriminate in ways that other institutions are not allowed to.

Allowing marriage for gays would NOT force churches to marry gays. Some churches already do marry gays, and they could continue if they chose, but otherwise anyone can get married in a civil ceremony, just getting a marriage license at city hall or similar.

A church is not required for a legal marriage. A church wedding is a RELIGIOUS ceremony only.

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

There is a difference between desiring others to live your beliefs and "expecting" them to do so,

That's a very fine, gray line isn't it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

That's a very fine, gray line isn't it.

In your mind perhaps. We all want things, most of us don't "expect" them all.

Desire: 1: to long or hope for : exhibit or feel desire for <desire success> 2 a: to express a wish for

Expect: 4 a: to consider probable or certain <expect to be forgiven> <expect that things will improve> b: to consider reasonable, due, or necessary <expected hard work from the students> c: to consider bound in duty or obligated <they expect you to pay your bills>

There is no gray area between the two words.

I always feel vindicated when my favorite lib agrees with the position I take :

Quote:

Another hot-button issue: After California voters adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, gay activists have launched a program of open confrontation with and intimidation of religious believers, mainly Mormons. I thought we'd gotten over the adolescent tantrum phase of gay activism, typified by ACT UP's 1989 invasion of St. Patrick's Cathedral, where the communion host was thrown on the floor. Want to cause a nice long backlash to gay rights? That's the way to do it.

http://ad.doubleclick.net/activity;s...ecn1=1;etm1=0; http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/...rge.html@Right
I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past.

My position has always been (as in "No Law in the Arena" in my 1994 book, http://www.amazon.com/Vamps-Tramps-Essays-Camille-Paglia/dp/0679751203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228881969&sr=8-1") that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement.

In their displeasure at the California vote, gay activists have fomented animosity among African-Americans who voted for Proposition 8 and who reject any equivalence between racism and homophobia. Do gays really want to split the Democratic coalition?

I completely agree with a hard-hitting piece by the British gay activist Mark Simpson (which was forwarded to me by Glenn Belverio), "Let's Be Civil: Marriage Isn't the End of the Rainbow."
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008...f-the-rainbow/

Simpson, who has been called "a skinhead Oscar Wilde," is famous among other things for a riveting 2002 Salon article that put the term "metrosexual" into world circulation. I appreciate Simpson's candor about how marriage is a very poor fit with the actual open lifestyle of so many gay men, which is far more radical. Marriage may be desirable for some gay men and women, but at what cost? Activists should have focused instead on removing all impediments to equality in civil unions -- such as the unjust denial of Social Security benefits to the surviving partner in gay relationships.

Camille Paglia on Obama choosing Hillary as Secretary of State, and more | Salon
(on page 3 )