Gay Marriage...i don't get it

[Stickboy]

Why should you go against church teachings? No one is asking you to become homosexual (not that you can, let me clarify ) or marry another man, are they? What does another person being homosexual have to do with you? Giving that 'lil nudge' is offensive to a non-believer like myself.

Ok, I'll take these in the order your presented them:

1. You are correct, no one is asking me to be gay. However, since it I believe it to be wrong, and the chruch also teaches this, how could I ever support something like this? I know it to be wrong, and therefore it will never get my support, esp if it comes to a vote.

2. Someone else being a homosexual has nothing to do with me. That doesn't mean I have to agree, endorse, or legitimize it.

3. By nudge, I mean just stating my opinon (in a forum such as this). I would never push someone to do something they didn't want to do. IF they want me to hear their side of, they should have the courtesy to hear my side. It's not like I approach perfect strangers and start to convert them.

I understand that some take offense to religious views. Perhaps they should understand that their behavior may offend me? See, we have the right to say whatever we want to. Again, just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

If anything's unclear (I am very tired tonight), let me know and I'll try to state it a different way.

 

[kbm8795]

Ok, I'll take these in the order your presented them:

1. You are correct, no one is asking me to be gay. However, since it I believe it to be wrong, and the chruch also teaches this, how could I ever support something like this? I know it to be wrong, and therefore it will never get my support, esp if it comes to a vote.

Since you aren't gay, your belief in it's appropriateness can only pertain to your own intimate relationships. So, when you believe it to be wrong, that only means you believe it to be wrong for you. Now if you made that decision for yourself based on the teachings of your church, that's your business. Believing it to be "wrong" for someone who has no more control over their sexual orientation than you do, and advocating statutory restrictions on their civil rights based on nothing more than that is persecution. I'd wager there are some teachings in the Church about that. Moreover, your particular Church is not in agreement on teaching or treatment, and it's own actions regarding coverups of sexual abuse place it in a rather precarious position when attempting to claim the right to teach about something it obviously understands little about.

2. Someone else being a homosexual has nothing to do with me. That doesn't mean I have to agree, endorse, or legitimize it.

Actually, it isn't any of your business. Personal relationships are just THAT - personal. Just like you don't expect the rest of the State to agree with your choice of a mate, and can choose to break with your own Church on that choice if you like. Who you choose to marry doesn't have to be endorsed, agreed to, or legitimize by your next door neighbor. You aren't prevented government and tax-supported benefits, even if you marry for convenience and know you are lying about the vows when you make them.

3. By nudge, I mean just stating my opinon (in a forum such as this). I would never push someone to do something they didn't want to do. IF they want me to hear their side of, they should have the courtesy to hear my side. It's not like I approach perfect strangers and start to convert them.

I understand that some take offense to religious views. Perhaps they should understand that their behavior may offend me? See, we have the right to say whatever we want to. Again, just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

There is a difference between holding A religious view and claiming to hold THE religous view. While I'm not saying you view your beliefs that way, there is a significant movement in this country that certainly does. The concept that every man is entitled to worship according to his conscience doesn't just apply to those who embrace one church's teachings. Nor should anyone's rights be abrogated for exercising their conscience in exercising their religious beliefs.

I'd tend to be more agreeable with some concepts if this issue didn't involve hundreds and hundreds of benefits and responsibilities that have nothing to do with any biblical belief. These are government granted benefits, and if an individual or another couple who are citizens can show considerable hardship and indignity because they cannot access them, then the damage stops being some endorsement of a religious belief and becomes deliberate and insensitive persecution. If "legitimizing" a relationship is what is necessary to allow someone basic human dignity in personal and estate matters, that citizen's grievance should be addressed by something more substantial than someone else's religious belief and something less abstract than a "sanctity" argument.If the only reason to marry is to satisfy a religious belief desire, then all of those benefits should be scrapped. After all, if a man and a woman love each other that much, they won't mind spending hundreds of dollars constructing their own security systems. Then everyone can be equal sinners without benefits.

If anything's unclear (I am very tired tonight), let me know and I'll try to state it a different way.

I think you do just fine. Probably most of the frustration on my end is that no one ever addresses the material harms involved in this situation or discusses ways to compromise on those grievances and still satisfy the requirement that every citizen is equally protected under the law. Unless they can show me specific material or practical harm, someone else's religious beliefs mean nothing in that argument. And those churches know it, too - that's why they want that constitutional amendment to negate due process and equal protection clauses for gay Americans. It doesn't have anything to do with "protecting marriage" and everything to do with trying to remove their existence and legal protections as American citizens. It is very clearly reflected in the Republican Party platform this year.

 

[Spitfire]

You were here?

No, and damn proud of it.

 

[Minotaur]

Exactly. The federal government should have nothing to do with it. It should be a state thing. Go ahead and get married in in California if you're gay, but Illinois may choose not to recognize it, etc. That's how this country is supposed to work, states deciding how to run themselves, the federal government should never have gotten this powerful.

Mmm, not quite (from the US Constitution, Article IV, aka the Full Faith & Credit Clause)...

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

 

[Minotaur]

Ok, I'll take these in the order your presented them:

1. You are correct, no one is asking me to be gay. However, since it I believe it to be wrong, and the chruch also teaches this, how could I ever support something like this? I know it to be wrong, and therefore it will never get my support, esp if it comes to a vote.

It doesn't require your support or your vote. It's a matter of already existing Constitutional law that is not being enforced.

2. Someone else being a homosexual has nothing to do with me. That doesn't mean I have to agree, endorse, or legitimize it.

See above... you don't have to agree with or endorse it.

3. By nudge, I mean just stating my opinon (in a forum such as this). I would never push someone to do something they didn't want to do. IF they want me to hear their side of, they should have the courtesy to hear my side. It's not like I approach perfect strangers and start to convert them.

I understand that some take offense to religious views. Perhaps they should understand that their behavior may offend me?

What behavior offends you? If I see two heterosexuals making out in public it's just as offensive as seeing two homosexuals doing it. There is a time and a place for everything. There is nothing about homosexuality that you need to see that should offend you. If two men making out offends you, then seeing a man and a woman making out should offend you.

See, we have the right to say whatever we want to. Again, just because you CAN say something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

DING DING DING We have a winnerrrrrr!!!

 

[kbm8795]

Mmm, not quite (from the US Constitution, Article IV, aka the Full Faith & Credit Clause)...

Article IV

Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.


Section 2. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

This is exactly the constitutional point that religious extremists are afraid of, and the "activist" judges they are really referring to are really the Supreme Court judges in Loving v. Virginia who allowed an interracial couple who had been married in D.C. to be recognized in Virginia, where the state prohibited it. . . even outlawed it to the point that they were arrested. Trying to pass a federal amendment nullifying that clause only for same-sex couples is the religious right's goal, and the use of that amendment to prohibit and potentially recriminalize those relationships. The phony excuse that the "people" should have a voice in choosing to deny constitutional rights to one segment of citizens is dangerous and will end up biting the rest of us in the butt down the road.

In Illinois, first cousins over the age of 50 can marry, as long as one is sterile. Missouri prohibits any familial marriage. If a first cousins couple moves from Illinois to Missouri, the state does not dissolve their marriage or exclude them from benefits, even though the "people" there have chosen not to let first cousins marry.

 

[Rich46yo]

This "ban the homos" thing is one of the many ways the church drove me away. To think in 2004 you would still deny taking the sacrament to people for a sexual preference they were born with is just silly. You might as well drive away all people born with black hair. The hypocrisy of it all! Cover for child molesting priests, foster an atmosphere of sexual perversion in the priesthood that attracts such people, but deny the sacrament to a law abiding adult just because he/she was born with a sexual preference "for other adults" thats different then man/woman.

When I first became a policeman there was a lot of ignorance and distrust between us and the gay community. 99% of the ignorance was on our part, and frankly they were right to distrust us. Now? We have an awful lot of openly homosexual cops. Ive worked with some, and have worked in one of the largest gay communities in the country. It has been an interesting experience and at one time I never thought I'd "one day" consider them as "normal" as myself. The bottom line is they almost never cause a problem for the police.

But I'm still uncomfortable when walking into a gay bar on "speedo night", or, "dress night","leather night"...ect I still don't like the idea of "gay marriage" because I believe it will further destroy whats left of the nuclear family. I do not believe such a household can raise children normally.

But such decisions are outside my control. If such legislation is passed I will live with it. Ive come a long way since being an 18yo in military basic training,"A homophobic institution if there ever was one". Anyone of us could have been born homosexual, its just one of the cards God shuffles each time someone is born. And most sexual perverts, especially percentage wise, are heterosexuals. Most of all child molesters.

Ive met to many people like Minotaur to still be living in ignorance. One of my best pinches ever was on a group of animals who were beating up gay men walking home from bars at night,"one guy they almost killed". They rightly deserve to be classified as a "hate crime" and offenders should be jailed for extended periods. Unfortunately this incident happened before such legislation was passed.

Like I said, we've come a long way..........take care......Rich

 

[Deanko]

Protect the Sanctimony of Marraige

Actually wasted...um...I mean 'spent:...my first hour at work reading this thread. All the talk about religion and morality in relationship to traditional vs. gay marraige reminded me of one of my favorite religious conservative parody sites on the internet--www.BettyBowers.com. Conservatives will hate it, at it is pretty anti-Bush. If you are of the other persuasion, you will be laughing your patooties off.

Apropos of the thread, I found some zinger bumper stickers on there and tried to attach them in this post. I am sure these will infuriate some, but make others chuckle. Enjoy...or despise 'em. It's your call! Peace, D.

 

[Minotaur]

I still don't like the idea of "gay marriage" because I believe it will further destroy whats left of the nuclear family. I do not believe such a household can raise children normally.

Your p.o.v. is commendable, as is your willingness to be open-minded. But you're making assumptions that have no basis in fact, and are actually absurd if you take them apart (not a personal attack on you... many people believe these things).

You're assuming that already-existing families will be taken apart to regroup as homosexual families. That's absurd. I have yet to see anyone make a legitimate (or any) argument for how homosexual marriages will cause the further decline of heterosexual marriages. Does homosexual dating contribute to the decline of heterosexual dating?

The disintegration of the nuclear heterosexual family has nothing to do with homosexuality. Why can people not realize this? Is homosexuality the new Judas goat for the decline in heterosexual marital values?

And where do you think these children that some gay couples want to raise will come from? They will come from the pool of unwanted and/or unadopted children. Being raised by two people who will love the child is less preferable than the child being left in foster care? My understanding is that the loving stable foster family is a thing of fiction or at the least a rarity.

 

[MaxMirkin]

If anything is changed in our legal system they should have new form of marriage "union" so athiast and all other people shunned by catholics have an option with legal implications to there partner. Now no one is stepping on anyone toe's and everyone gets treated equaly

Atheists have no problem with "legal implications to there partner." Where did you hear otherwise?

 

[tomas101]

i could care less who marries who...it doesnt effect me in any way what so ever so why should i waste my time complaining about something i dont really give a flying fuk over...pple need to mind their own business...if they wanna adopt, then i say go for it...marry who ever the fuk u want, b/c i dont give 2 shits who anybody marries...
[/rant]

 

[slider]

Atheists have no problem with "legal implications to there partner." Where did you hear otherwise?

I know many athiest who have an unoficial union vs a marriage reconized by God. I myself am not and I am happily married I just think all people in this country should have option not be pushed into those of christian wright if they choose not to belive. WHen you boil all the water off this discussion the salt of it is NO ONE IS FREE WHEN TO THE CATHOLIC CHRUCH. THere is no reson why a legal non-christian form of marriage could not be added to out freedoms. Instead we all fall pray to the ignorance of ingorance. Some People happening to be gay wanted to get married and said why not, so instead of saying lets make a way for them to get married THEY pointed a finger and said "NO" and started name calling to get the general public involved. THE FREEDOM IN OUR COUNTRY IS COMMUNISM IN A PRETTY DRESS AND WE ARE ALL TO BUISY LOOKIN UP SKIRT IT'S TO REALY SEE WHATS GO ON. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH RUNS THE WORLD HOW EVER IT SEE'S AND USES THE BIBLE AS TOOL TO SUPPORT THERE FALACITIC LIES AND REHTORIC. IN THE END THERE IS NOTHING RELIGOUS ABOUT A MAN IN A BULLET PROOF CAR STANDING BETWEEN US AND GOD(WHOM EVER YOU CALL HIM/HER)TELLING PEOPLE THEY ARE WRONG. Read the bible it is all there about casting the first stone, and passing judgement. A better protest of gay rights would not be scream and have legal tantrums gay people should start showing up at large chirtian events and stand there silently with large sighns with biblical quotes like "who are you to cast first stone." or "Let the first man who is perfect pass judgement." and fight the popes stupididty with intellegance and the word

 

[Rich46yo]

Your p.o.v. is commendable, as is your willingness to be open-minded. But you're making assumptions that have no basis in fact, and are actually absurd if you take them apart (not a personal attack on you... many people believe these things).

You're assuming that already-existing families will be taken apart to regroup as homosexual families. That's absurd. I have yet to see anyone make a legitimate (or any) argument for how homosexual marriages will cause the further decline of heterosexual marriages. Does homosexual dating contribute to the decline of heterosexual dating?

The disintegration of the nuclear heterosexual family has nothing to do with homosexuality. Why can people not realize this? Is homosexuality the new Judas goat for the decline in heterosexual marital values?

And where do you think these children that some gay couples want to raise will come from? They will come from the pool of unwanted and/or unadopted children. Being raised by two people who will love the child is less preferable than the child being left in foster care? My understanding is that the loving stable foster family is a thing of fiction or at the least a rarity.

On an intellectual level I realize being a homosexual is something your born with and I don't consider it a perversion. I, or my kid, could have just as easily been born gay. Any of us could have. My comments on sexual perversion being a mostly heterosexual trait is based not only on fact but actual crime statistics. Who knows, maybe on an intellectual level homosexuals are capable of raising children. Maybe it all comes to the individual individuals. But on a gut level I cant help but feel sure that children are better off being raised with a mother and a father in a traditional family setting.

Would a kid be better off being raised by two thoughtful,educated,financially secure, gay guy's? Instead of being raised in some un-careing dormitory setting? Probably! But such adoptions would also open up their own particular can of worms.

I don't know how many family disputes involving children Ive had to deal with in the last 21 years, and I don't know how many incidents involving kids and young people Ive had to deal with, but they number in the many thousands Im sure. And Ive seen that when a kid is raised in a house without two nurturing parents, a man and woman, they are often headed for trouble. If a kid raised by a single mom so often ends up being a little jagg-off then what sense is it to allow a kid to be adopted by two single moms? Only this time they are married to each other? The same in reverse with a kid being raised by two gay guys. I don't care how good you are with hair, or how well you can decorate, a man is not going to take a mom's place.

I look around the neighborhood I live in,"one of the few like it in this shithole city", and almost 100% the people in it are catholic, have kids, and there is a husband and a wife in the house. We don't have gang problems where I live, or drugs being sold on the street. Our kids go to school, get good grades, and most of all behave. Ive worked all over and have been in middle class Black and Spanish neighborhoods that are the same, so obviously the formula works for everyone. Generally, "GENERALLY", a kid growing up in a house with a stable nuclear family, "mom and dad","man and woman", they will develope well. Its a formula thats worked since we came out of the trees and it would be foolish to change it.

On any other issue Im very supportive of gays......take care..........Rich

 

[bulletproof1]

damn i check in here every now and then and yall are still writing page after page. dont you see it is a circle with no end?

 

[maniclion]

How about the case on the t.v. show E.R where the lesbian Doctor and her GF had a child born by the GF. Her GF later died but since they couldn't be married her GF's parents had custody of the child even though she had raised and cared for it. She's a doctor, she's young meaning she'll definetly be able to care for the child and her health isn't going to fail her in the childs adolescent years so who is a better candidate to raise that child?

Here's another scenario, my gf's brother is gay. His partner has a nephew that they care for often. The nephews mother brings him to their house to have them babysit in dirty clothes with a trash bag of dirty clothes as his luggage, she raely does laundry, feeds him a steady diet of hot dogs and macaroni & cheese, lets him go without taking a bath or brushing his teeth for a few day's at a time and when he's with his mom he's a whiny brat. When he goes to his Uncles house, his laundry gets done, he bathes two times a day, brushes his teeth 3 times a day, he eats real meals and is well behaved if he starts whining he gets a spanking.

 

[Rich46yo]

Without question theres homosexuals with the right stuff to be parents. But we have to look at the big picture. BTW What has been Kerrys position on all this. Hes been silent on it hasnt he, as he often is concerning taking a position which "either way" will cost him votes. At least Bush stands for what he believes in, and even his enemies dont say he isnt a sincere Christian.

I already know he's another Catholic democrat whos pro-abortion...............nice...real nice! "Got an un-wanted bun in the ole oven"? "Just suck it out with the ole vaccum,piece by gory piece"...take care..............Rich

 

[Randy]

"Got an un-wanted bun in the ole oven"? "Just suck it out with the ole vaccum,piece by gory piece"...take care..............Rich

The bun probably didn't belong in the oven to begin with

As for Bush, I agree...at least Bush stands up for what he believes in and not affraid to compromise his votes for doing it **** GO BUSH ****

 

[kbm8795]

The bun probably didn't belong in the oven to begin with

As for Bush, I agree...at least Bush stands up for what he believes in and not affraid to compromise his votes for doing it **** GO BUSH ****

\

Uh, actually, the Dubya has flipflopped on this issue several times, trying to opt for a kinder, more compassionate approach as the election draws near, but likely to lose the gay Republican vote this time around. As governor, he fought to keep a sodomy law that was only enforced against gay Americans, including the case that eventually went to the Supreme Court, in which law enforcement officials arrested two men in their bedroom. He was adamantly opposed to the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing those people a right to privacy. As President, he talked about compassion and how any two people should be allowed to enter any contract they wanted, then found himself backing a constitutional amendment worded by religious extremists that would prevent that in nearly any form. Now he says that he wants a constitutional amendment defining marraige (which can be used to take away due process and equal protection claues for gays) but believes states should only be free to offer civil unions if they choose. Almost sounds enlightened, until he has to run on a political platform that specifically is against those too, along with any contractual agreement that might let two people recognize themselves in a relationship. He's stuck with a Party controlled by evangelical extremists.

Kerry has consistently opposed marriage equality, but is in favor of civil unions that include access to some federal benefits. He also is opposed to any federal constitutional amendment.

 

[Rich46yo]

"""""""""Kerry has consistently opposed marriage equality, but is in favor of civil unions that include access to some federal benefits. He also is opposed to any federal constitutional amendment.""""""""""""

So Kerrys answer is, "maybe,kinda,sorta"? Exactly the kind of policy crafted to lose the least votes. Man is this guy transparant or not?.....take care...................Rich

 

[MaxMirkin]

....if he starts whining he gets a spanking

I just bet he does. .........

 

[kbm8795]

"""""""""Kerry has consistently opposed marriage equality, but is in favor of civil unions that include access to some federal benefits. He also is opposed to any federal constitutional amendment.""""""""""""

So Kerrys answer is, "maybe,kinda,sorta"? Exactly the kind of policy crafted to lose the least votes. Man is this guy transparant or not?.....take care...................Rich

Uh no...he has consistently been against same-sex marriage, but has also voted against Republican attempts to discriminate against benefits in federal laws, something the President has supported. He has also supported non-discrimination federal proposals in employment, immigration and hate crimes legislation. Bush has either stalled or has been against even those proposals. The Republican platform calls for opposition to any sort of legal protections for both singles and couples.

 

[fantasma62]

I hear the sound of a can of worms being opened...

 

[kbm8795]

I love this quote from the Prez's speech on this subject:

"Because the union of a man and woman deserves an honored place in our society, I support the protection of marriage against activist judges. And I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law," he said.

Hmm..it's interesting to note that he doesn't view the use of the word "ALL" in the constitution as being a "strict" interpretation. An "activist" judge, like the Republican-appointed justices in Massachusetts, erroneously believed that constitutional provisions that said no citizen could be treated differently than others, exactly the way the Constitution was written. Now where does the Prez get the idea that "ALL" only means...well, those he thinks should be honored above others? At least one thing is for sure - conservatives will never again be able to seriously use the words "special rights" to characterize anything other than privileges for themselves.
And at least one gay buddy of mine says he now refers to them as "sinners with benefits". That has a nice ring to it.

 

[kbm8795]

Hell, worse. . . he expects the rest of the taxpayers to contribute even more to "preserve marriage" by financing federal counselling (including many faith-based initiatives) designed to "help' people STAY married. Now I wonder how long his second term will be in session before the religiously correct demand that every marriage go through that federal counselling program before being allowed to file for divorce?

I'll be expecting all of those "pro-Family" legal groups to start filing briefs trying to block each divorce filing. . .this could get fun.

 

[Stickboy]

How many think that the founding fathers would have been less inclined to give this "right"?

 

[kbm8795]

How many think that the founding fathers would have been less inclined to give this "right"?

This is one of the most shallow arguments
ever used by the "religious" right. . you don't "give" rights to people who are supposed to have them already guaranteed. By your reasoning, the "founding fathers" meant the Constitution to permanently exclude African-Americans because religious beliefs at the time saw them as less than people. The same would hold true for a woman's right to hold property, since women were considered property at the time. And the Founding Fathers intended that only white men who owned property were eligible to vote. Those would all be "strict" interpretations of the intent of the Founding Fathers.

This isn't 1790 - and attempts to frame an American's constitutional rights based on the cultural assumption that, if the Founding Fathers didn't like gays in 1790, then they meant the Constitution to exclude them as part of "the people" forever is nothing more than religious conjecture projected by groups who mostly didn't exist then, either. They didn't write any clause of that nature into the document. Of course, we don't know that the Founding Fathers didn't intend that "religion" only pertained to those denominations that existed at the time, either. That would eliminate most of today's evangelicals from constitutional protection.

 

[Stickboy]

My point was, and is, that it wasn't acceptable then, it's not acceptable to the majority of folks in the country now. You want to be gay? Be gay. Just don't shove it down the throats of people that don't agree with the lifestlye.

Like I said, put it to a vote, and let the American people decide.

 

[kbm8795]

My point was, and is, that it wasn't acceptable then, it's not acceptable to the majority of folks in the country now. You want to be gay? Be gay. Just don't shove it down the throats of people that don't agree with the lifestlye.

Like I said, put it to a vote, and let the American people decide.

OK, let's try this a different way. An individuals sexuality has not been proven to be caused by adherence or rejection of the interpretation of Bible verses. This means the only characteristic we KNOW isn't innate is religion. Expecting one group of Americans to have their relationship orientation voted on by those of another persuasion, especially those who refuse to admit that they're own orientation was based solely on scripture, rather than instinct could very well be seen as a violation of someone else's religious beliefs.

Since you've never alluded to the fact that any gay person has tried to...uh...force anything down your throat, your statements continue to be about exercising a curious interest in regulating the private lives of other Americans.

If we take your reasoning, then we should be voting on whether your Catholic Church should continue to be recognized. It has proven to cause substantial damage to others. The majority of Americans are not Catholic nor do they agree with the Pope. After that sexual abuse scandal, we should be voting on the Church as a legitimate religion.

In other words, if you want to be Catholic, then be one. If that is what prevented you from being "gay" then fine. Just don't shove your Church's teachings down the throats of people who don't agree. Or, as one recently released song would say: "Keep your Jesus OFF my p*nis."

 

[Flex]

wow, kb.

why don't you run for president, buddy?

i dont think i've ever read one post of yours that isnt intelligent, incredibly worded and articulate. F#$% Bush, vote KB!

 

[Randy]

Gay Marriage is just wrong... religion or no religion.