Thoughts on Gay Marriage - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

MSD · 05-25-2004, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
[broken record]
The government has no business whatsoever defining marriage or enforcing such a definition.
[/broken record]

The only necessary component of marriage on the government level is power of attorney/right to inheritance. Polygamy and healthcare? each additional wife costs as much as a dependent on your health plan. Homosexual couples and inheritance? that's what a willl is for. Non-traditional unions and power of attorney? living will.

If you want marriage, go to your preferred place of worship and get married. If you want all the legal issues settled, write out a living will, a will, and a contract dictating who owns/gets what (just like a prenuptual now) and have it notarized. Make it a condition of the contract that it is null and void if both parties put notarized signatures on the dotted line.

filtherton · 05-31-2004, 07:47 PM

A newsletter from a pastor i know(names edited):

Quote:

Dear friends,
As many of you are already aware, two members of our church, ----- and ----- were legally married in Provincetown, Massachusetts on May 17th. Having officiated at more than thirty marriages over the years, I've been thinking about and studying about and praying over the issue of marriage for quite some time.

I'm going to use this column to share some of my thoughts with you. In doing so, I'm not hoping, nor am I claiming to speak about gay marriage with the voice or wisdom of God. Just as is the case with all others who attempt to lead God's people, I can only speak with my own voice; the voice of -----.

Within our congregation, there is no requirement that you agree with me. Indeed, one of the unique and wonderful features of our congregation is our ability to patiently, joyfully, lovingly and sometimes noisily disagree with each other. I only ask that you consider what you're about to read. With the length of this letter, you may want to read it one section at a time. I have no doubt God will continue to bless all of us as our discussions continue.

On the History of Marriage
It starts in any one of a hundred ways. Two people meet and instantly they're drawn to each other, "Some enchanted evening you may see a stranger... across a crowded room." Love at first sight. Or perhaps a friendship deepens into something more. "Tale as Old as time, true as it can be. Barely even friends, then somebody bends unexpectedly."

However it happens, people reach the point where they believe they're "right" for each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. Most who reach that point eventually take the "leap" and get married (although it can take some of them a good, long time). In the Western world, marriage is based almost exclusively on romantic love.

Such has not always been the case. In times past, marriage was often arranged by parents. Marriage has also been used for strictly political purposes, to unite tribes and kingdoms. Marriage has served economic purposes and required the exchange of a dowry. Wives were regarded as property to be exchanged between their fathers and their husbands-to-be through much of history.

The Church didn't establish a firm tradition for marriage until over fifteen hundred years after the resurrection of Jesus, at the Council of Trent in 1563 (the presence of a priest and two witnesses was specified).

All of the above is just to say that, although many of us think of our most recent traditions of marriage and family as "normal" and "timeless," they have, in fact, only existed in their present form for a few decades. Most came into being immediately following W.W.II.

On the "Biblical Image" of Marriage
Some of the folks who are deeply attached to the current form of marriage have dubbed it an unchangeable "Biblical image" of marriage. It is not. The Bible does not contain one, single image of marriage. It contains a whole host of images.

In ancient, times, with Abram, for instance, it was considered completely acceptable for a man to father a child with a servant in his household if his wife was unable to bear children (thus came Ishmael). After an angelic visit, Abraham then fathered Isaac with his wife Sarah. Completely normal and acceptable in the eyes of the Bible.

Jacob, Abraham's grandson, worked seven years to gain the hand of his first wife, Rachel, only to discover he'd married Leah, her older sister instead. He then worked seven more years for Rachel. Having two wives was not seen as a problem at that time.

Generations later, during the years Israel was a great kingdom, David and his son, Solomon, had multiple wives and multiple concubines, which, again, were seen as completely acceptable.

From the above examples, it's clear the Bible supports a wide variety of "images" of marriage. But it also discourages marriage. The Apostle Paul, in writing to the churches he founded, advised his followers not to marry unless they were too inflamed with passion to resist sexual involvement.

The Biblical "images" of marriage are all over the map, so to speak, changing as the societies and circumstances of our ancestors changed.

"Therefore a man leaves his father and mother..."
But what of the passage from the second chapter of Genesis, used as a springboard from which to talk about marriage in so many weddings: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh"?

The original intent of the Adam and Eve story from which that passage is taken seems to have been to explain why certain things are the way they are: why we tend to be embarrassed when we're naked, why women have pain in childbirth, why snakes crawl on the ground, why men have to work to grow crops, why we humans don't live in paradise and, with the "Eve was created from Adam's rib" section, why men and women are attracted to each other (even after women have gone through childbirth). In other words, this story seems to have been intended simply to say that God is the reason these things are the way they are.

In the past, this section of the Bible has been used to argue several interesting things. For instance, when they were first developed, it was argued that women should not be allowed to use anesthetics during childbirth because the Bible said women were supposed to have pain.

I suppose we could argue that farmers should not be allowed to have air conditioned tractor cabs because the Bible says they're supposed grow food "by the sweat of [their] brow[s]."

The translation of the original Greek word "sarx" as "flesh,' as in "the two become one flesh" has often led people to believe the passage had something to do with sexual union and procreation - the "one flesh" referring to the children to be created when the "two become one." Some have even extrapolated from that translation to argue that the purpose of marriage is the production and raising of children. The word "flesh," however, is not a good translation of the Greek word "sarx."

A Deeper Meaning
The word "sarx" actually has a much broader, deeper meaning. It refers to everything that makes a person human: mind, heart, imagination, intuition AND physical body. In my sense of things, it is only our SPIRITS that are able to connect and encompass all those elements - all of who and what we are.

When I officiate at a marriage, the bond I am celebrating, therefore, is not the more youthful, ROMANTIC/SEXUAL bond but the more timeless SPIRITUAL bond. This bond becomes clearer as couples grow in their relationship even as their romantic/sexual feelings subside a bit.

Couples who have been married for multiple decades (and there are a quite a few in our congregation and community) often come to sense that what they share goes beyond words or physical reality. Long lasting, healthy marriages are, indeed, spiritual relationships. They can even seem to last after one partner has moved on to the next life (by choice, not requirement).

Marriage, despite its ups and downs, is a wonderful way of living. If it had been my choice, I myself, would still be married. Without marriage it can often seem we move from one primary relationship to another. Although healthy adolescents, sometimes move through many relationships, the grief which arrives at the end of each relationship makes this more and more difficult as we grow to maturity. Unless we learn to live without a primary relationship (which can be done in healthy ways with some considerable effort), the lack of marriage and the stabilizing of relationships it brings can leave us living very difficult lives.

None of us are meant to live in this kind of continuous transition from one relationship to another. The grief involved can leave us cynical and calloused; inaccessible to warmth and caring. Still, straight people have always had the possibility and opportunity to find Mr. or Ms. "right" with whom they could move into married life.

With our society's attitudes regarding gay and lesbian people and their relationships, however, we have denied them this possibility. In fact, we've done everything in our power to force them into living exactly this most difficult kind of life. We have denied gay and lesbian people the vehicle most straight people use to settle into stable adulthood, while many among us have loudly blamed them for their lack of stability.

This has been unkind and unfortunate to say the least. And it has been unnecessary. It has long seemed to me that the unity of Spirits involved in "two becoming one" has no gender limit. In my heart and soul it is clear any two people, regardless of gender are able to form such a spiritual bond and make promises based on that bond.

In my sense of things, whenever two people, within the bounds of honesty, openness, fidelity and choices freely and maturely made are willing to make such promises and pledge a lifetime to each other, I find those pledges and that relationship to be worthy of blessing.

"Gay" Marriage?
Are the pledges gay and lesbian people are now publicly making to each other properly called "marriage?." I believe they are, but in the final analysis, it is not up to me to decide. In presiding over a marriage, it has never been what I said that "married" a couple. It is what they, themselves have said, the promises they have made to each other before God - their own vows that "married" them. I have only facilitated those promises, asked God's blessing upon those seeking to keep them and witnessed that the promises were made.

Created By and Beloved of God
Perhaps you're wondering where all the sound and fury regarding gay marriage is coming from. A portion comes from the general refusal of some of our friends and neighbors to acknowledge that God chooses to create, for God's own good reasons, a wide variety of different kinds of people to populate this earth.

Based on the life and ministry of Jesus, I have come to believe that all of us, no matter to which others our own age we are most naturally attracted, are God's beloved children. Each of us is meant to live in harmony with the way God chose to create us in the healthiest, most functional ways we can manage.

There are Scripture passages which might appear to disagree but, suffice it to say that, unless you and I follow to the letter the kosher rules for food preparation, always wear clothing made from only one type of fiber, sacrifice animals on an altar in a copy of the great temple that once existed in Jerusalem, demand that women keep silence in church while keeping their hair long and their heads covered, and that men keep their hair short; unless you and I do everything in our power to be sure that our society takes excellent care of the widows and orphans in our midst, we are demonstrating that we have already cast aside the sections of the scriptures which could be interpreted to speak against people who are gay or lesbian.

"Wives, submit yourselves..."
Another portion of the sound and fury surrounding gay marriage is coming from those whose model of straight marriage is most unwieldy and unworkable in our current day. This model, which expects all women to be married and wives to "submit themselves to their husbands," is sorely challenged in our current lives.

The area commonly referred to as the "Bible belt" has the highest divorce rate in the country. The requirement that husbands be unchallenged heads of their households with no regard for the differences in the relationships between couples ignores everything we know about the variety God has created in the couples we, ourselves, already know.

Our more conservative friends have reason to be concerned about marriage (as do we all). Yet, their concerns cause them to cling even more tightly to things that are not working - their belief that the solution to current problems is to force all men and women to fit rigidly defined gender roles and all straight marriages to function according to their rigid model.

Marriage Will Continue
Straight people will not cease to be attracted to each other nor will they give up wanting to create their own families in the healthiest ways possible simply because gay and lesbian people are allowed to do so. Indeed, to listen to the rhetoric of the Christian right, one would think the only reason straight men and women ever became couples and married was because there were no other options.

But let's step back from this whole debate for just a moment. Is not the purpose of marriage that of moving its participants out of the adolescent dating phase of life into the time when we settle into adulthood with a permanent partner to build a life and raise children (if we choose to do so)?

Does marriage not lend stability to our entire society and help ensure that children are raised in homes with adequate resources where they are surrounded with the love and nurture they need to grow to their best potential?

Numerous reputable studies have shown no differences in health and well being between children raised by gay parents and straight parents, nor have they shown that children raised by gay parents are more likely to grow up gay themselves.

Straight marriage and gay marriage serve exactly the same purposes. Gay marriage and straight marriage offer the same benefits to the people who chose to marry and to society in general. Indeed, gay marriage is very likely to lend a new and much healthier level of stability to a segment of society which has widely been criticized for its lack of stability.

Opportunities for Inspired Action
As someone who knows and ministers to gay and straight people alike, it is my firm conviction that the "crisis" being caused by the possibility of gay marriage offers all of us multiple opportunities: First, those of us who sense inspiration to do so can take this opportunity to pray that God will guide people on both sides of this issue as we work to find common ground and just, compassionate Christian solutions.

Second, those of us who sense inspiration to do so can take this opportunity to offer compassion to people whom our society has routinely rejected, just as Jesus, himself offered compassion to the tax collectors and sinners of his own day.

Third, those of us who sense inspiration to do so can take this as an opportunity to lift up and celebrate the wonderful and amazing power of the marriage covenant itself and our own marriages. After, all, if thousands of gay and lesbian people are fighting to be allowed to enter into that same covenant, perhaps marriage itself is worth a bit more than our society has lately recognized.

Shalom

'nuff said.

Wax_off · 05-31-2004, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
'nuff said.

You said a mouthful. Thanks for posting that.

gondath · 06-01-2004, 02:01 AM

What denomination is the pastor? It makes a huge difference.

filtherton · 06-01-2004, 02:02 PM

He's got a master's degree in theology, which means a lot more than denomination.

matthew330 · 06-01-2004, 08:09 PM

ahhh - nevermind.

cj22009 · 06-02-2004, 05:08 AM

It doesnt bother me one way or the other iff they want to get married let them I think people or just scared of what they don't know they just see that the bible says its wrong I look at it this way how many people say that and go and have premarital sex or do somthing else that the bible says is wrong

Mehoni · 06-02-2004, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by filtherton
A newsletter from a pastor i know(names edited):

'nuff said.

I loved that.

roachboy · 06-02-2004, 08:39 AM

most matters that engage me on this question have been addressed, often quite eloquently---thanks folks----all i have to say is that marriage is a legal question--it might lean on "traditional" conceptions, but once those conceptions get translated into law, those "traditional conceptions" (which are almost always ahistorical, arbitrary assemblages of information routed through an irrelevant network of texts) no longer matter.

it seems that most objections to gay people getting married are predicated on pushing the legal environment back into an arbitrary notion of tradition, which of course the christian right thinks that it holds a monopoly on defining.

i am left wondering why conservatives would care who other people choose to love, and why it would concern them if those people choose to avail themselves of the various protections afforded to folk who marry.

gondath · 06-02-2004, 05:25 PM

I think it's funny that some are saying tradition has nothing to do with marriage and then post a link from a pastor's sermon. Hmm, last I checked, a pastor was a religious figure. This puts the argument square back into the realm of religion again. It seems to be he gets in his digs against more "conservative" religions. His argument is as much about endorsing his own religious views as anything else. Let me mention again that he is a religious figure and lists no concrete facts besides a kind of idealism to support his claims. The history of marriage as it has existed in other parts of the world has no relevance to the current state of marriage here in this country right now.

Wax_off · 06-02-2004, 10:23 PM

Well, I think you missed the point. I could be wrong, but I think the post was trying to point out that not all religious thought is in uniform opposition to gay marriage and that this pastors opinion is that religious tradition probably shouldn't have much to do with peoples opinion about it. He's trying to say that marriage is not a tradition set in stone, that the definition has changed over time, so why shouldn't it change again? In that way, the history of marriage IS relevant to the current state of marriage here in this country right now.

And you deride the pastor for not listing concrete facts, being idealistic and endorsing his own religious views, but isn't that what you're doing? There are no facts here, only idealism and opinions.

Derwood · 06-07-2004, 08:29 AM

I am as pro-Gay marriage as they come, and most points I could make have already been made, so I'll instead post some random thoughts:

- Isn't it ironic that George W. Bush is pushing marriage as a cure all for the lower class, but goes out of his way to prevent it for a small minority.

- If any argument against gay marriage in this thread had the word GAY replaced with the word BLACK, everyone would probably be in an uproar and no one would support the statements.

- Simply put, the gay community will always be considered second-class citizens both socially and legally as long as they aren't afforded the same rights as the straight community.

- Gay rights are the last bastion of Civil Rights.

- The concept of "separation of church and state" is the biggest fallacy in politics, particularly in this administration.

gondath · 06-07-2004, 12:42 PM

I love how you blasted GWB in your support for gay marriage, and yet all the arguments supporting it use his "Operation Iraqi Freedom" tactics to defend it. Somehow, everyone opposed to the minor issue of gay marriage is labeled as intolerant and against the perceived progress of all civil rights everywhere. Keep your bullying, pro-American/anti-American style tactics out of here. It serves no purpose and still does nothing to give credibility to the argument for gay marriage. Back up your assertions with some solid evidence for why you back this issue. I, for one, have already given mine.

filtherton · 06-07-2004, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gondath
I think it's funny that some are saying tradition has nothing to do with marriage and then post a link from a pastor's sermon. Hmm, last I checked, a pastor was a religious figure. This puts the argument square back into the realm of religion again.

You must've confused your co-opting of the concept of marriage to fit your convenient misconceptions about the history of the word marriage with the perspective of someone who is actually familiar with the history of marriage as it has been constantly redefined throughout its history.

I wasn't denouncing tradition, i was just trying to tell you that you seem to have no idea of what marriage has been traditionally. The point of what i posted is essentially this: in the bible, historically, the definition or marriage has constantly changed to reflect the society that employs it. There are many different ways of defining marriage and all could be accurately described as traditional. You can't claim to argue for the conservation of the "traditional" method of marriage because you aren't arguing for the conservation of the traditional definition of marriage. You're arguing for the conservation of a definition of marriage that you're comfortable with.

Quote:

It seems to be he gets in his digs against more "conservative" religions.

His "digs against conservative religion" are accurate. Sorry you think that the truth amounts to insult. The fact is that many churches who denounce homosexuality are very selective in their interpretation of that part of the bible. They emphasize a condemnation of homosexuality whilst downplaying cloth blends when both are mentioned with the exact same amount of urgency. That's the other point of my post. God is a convenient shield with which to hide one's homophobia, unfortunately one can't do it without cognitive dissonance unless one is consistent in one's interpretation of certain parts.

Another point is that this is a sound endorsement of gay marriage by a religious authority. Gay marriage should be protected by the first amendment. Ironically, many of the same people who become shrill at the thought of legalized gay marriage also become shrill at the idea of the ten commandments being removed from a courthouse. Do you know how sadly unamerican it is for a holy man to argue for only the rights of his own religious perspective? How shorsighted it is?

Quote:

His argument is as much about endorsing his own religious views as anything else. Let me mention again that he is a religious figure and lists no concrete facts besides a kind of idealism to support his claims.

I'm sure you just scream for facts from whomever it is that told that the bible denounces homosexuality. I can tell from our conversation that factual information is really high on your list of "Things that effect my perspective".

I provided you with the dictionary definition you asked for, but since it didn't say what you wanted it to you ignored it.

Here's some facts from the artical that you may have missed:

Quote:

The area commonly referred to as the "Bible belt" has the highest divorce rate in the country.

Quote:

Numerous reputable studies have shown no differences in health and well being between children raised by gay parents and straight parents, nor have they shown that children raised by gay parents are more likely to grow up gay themselves.

I wish i had citations, but suffice to say, calling a pastor a liar is a mortal sin

Quote:

A Deeper Meaning
The word "sarx" actually has a much broader, deeper meaning. It refers to everything that makes a person human: mind, heart, imagination, intuition AND physical body. In my sense of things, it is only our SPIRITS that are able to connect and encompass all those elements - all of who and what we are.

I realize that interpretations aren't facts, but since you seem to use them as such you should have no problem if he does.

While we're on the subject of facts, i have yet to see you provide anything except a misunderstanding of tradition and an unsupported assertion that straight parents raise better children than gay parents.

Quote:

The history of marriage as it has existed in other parts of the world has no relevance to the current state of marriage here in this country right now.

How's that? I thought we were talking tradition here. Tradition has roots in the past, you can't pretend it is irrelevant without any kind of justification.

Derwood · 06-07-2004, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gondath
I love how you blasted GWB in your support for gay marriage, and yet all the arguments supporting it use his "Operation Iraqi Freedom" tactics to defend it. Somehow, everyone opposed to the minor issue of gay marriage is labeled as intolerant and against the perceived progress of all civil rights everywhere. Keep your bullying, pro-American/anti-American style tactics out of here. It serves no purpose and still does nothing to give credibility to the argument for gay marriage. Back up your assertions with some solid evidence for why you back this issue. I, for one, have already given mine.

Was this directed at me?

gondath · 06-08-2004, 03:21 AM

Yes, Derwood, you are chief but not exclusively the person that was aimed at since you asked. I don't normally quote and then counterpoint and nitpick my way through. I don't want my posts to descend into the realm of personally directed attacks. It's just not my style.

Anyways, marriage as it has existed with multiple wives or for money has no bearing on the current state of marriage. I guess gays now want a slew of constant sexual partners like people have in the past or is it that they just want to marry by class now? The point here is that traditions of marriage don't much matter as they existed outside this country, unless you want me to make comparisons on gay traditions through history. Stick to the current state of affairs.

I did actually make several more points than mentioning how gays make worse parents, which by the way is subjective. There is no way to measure quality of parenting, or quality of anything period, without being subjective. I don't much care for the lifestyle, but I can assure you this issue is separate. I don't normally do more than ignore them and go about my business. Most supporters seem to be coming up with excuses or laying down heavy slander. I am at least attempting to tread on solid ground here without labeling dissenters as intolerant, afraid, etc. Several people here also still seem to think making random comparisons to other unrelated civil rights issues is somehow relevant to the issue at hand. Comparisons alone do not an argument make. have yet to see a solid line leading from gays not being permitted to redefine marriage to a world of oppression, cruelty, and intolerance towards gays.

Lets restate that marriage is a religious affair as it exists in this country for the great majority of people, as the quote from the pastor proved. A sermon is a sermon. Progressive religion is an oxymoron. I don't find his master's degree in theology to be meaningful in the slightest. I've talked to many theologians and found them all to be along the same strain. My beliefs are supreme, your's are evil and backwards, etc. Also, people tend to get married in a church or by a religious figure. The very nature of conflicting religious views means you need hard evidence to back up your claims. Mentioning love is a bad path to follow here.

Let me state for the record that I am in no way religious, religiously affiliated, or spiritual in any way. I am a diehard atheist, so think before sliding me casually into any kind of religious group. I do not also call myself liberal, conservative, right-wing, or left-wing. I see issues as they exist independently without either labeling all people who oppose as part of one group or by allowing some larger, intangible political body to dictate my thoughts for me.

Marriage seems to be the key problem here. Gays are fighting to get accepted into a fundamentally broken institution. If you don't think it's broken, then you must like at least some of its customs. Laws of marriage aside, it's the traditions as they've existed in this country here that seem to lend it any appeal at all.

Not only are they fighting for perceived rather than tangible gain, but they are encouraging public officials to break federal law to do it. I don't see people rising up against what seem to be just about every right in the Constitution being broken by the Patriot Act. The country has bigger issues going on. The draft issue comes to mind... Anyways, it's not a good thing when states get involved against the federal government and publicly flout it. That has never gone over well in the past.

A truly modern and progressive thing to do would be to get rid of marriage altogether. I do think it should be labeled a civil union, not religiously affiliated, and not connected to perceived emotions like love. I don't see too many of the pro-gay marriage crowd lobbying for multiple wives and husbands, the right to marry a person under 18, or the right to marry an animal. I can't think of too many compelling arguments against those without going into the realm of personal standards. Heck, we might as well go for marriage to objects, too. The laws can be changed to fit a wider definition if necessary. That's enough for me but probably not everyone else.

Anyways, I'm summarizing here, so I hope my meaning is a bit more clear and rises above my rambling and apparently woefully limited perceptions. I can only hope to emulate the patterns of posters on this board for my enlightenment to begin. I request a summary to keep this on track if it's not dead already.

FoolThemAll · 06-08-2004, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Derwood
- If any argument against gay marriage in this thread had the word GAY replaced with the word BLACK, everyone would probably be in an uproar and no one would support the statements.

I'm completely in favor of allowing two men to get married in the eyes of the law.

Just as long as they're both of the same race.

Derwood · 06-08-2004, 05:47 AM

gondath -

Interestingly, most of the points you make had nothing to do with my single post on this topic, but I digress.

As someone who has many, many gay friends and coworkers, I think I can safely say that ultimately, civil unions would just fine with them. I think the fight for marriage is simply a fight to be recognized as equals in a society that still treats gays as second-class citizens.

I think it's very easy to argue against gay marriage when you are straight and already have the privelage.

NoSoup · 06-08-2004, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Derwood
I think it's very easy to argue against gay marriage when you are straight and already have the privelage.

I have been keeping up with this thread for quite some time, and decided that I might as well join the fun

Derwood, you are exactly right. It is far easier to deny someone something if you currently have the right to do something, and they currently don't.

For those of you arguing that gay marriage goes against "tradition" ... I'll agree with you. Gay marriage certainly does go against recent tradition. However, so did Women's Rights, Desegregation, Freeing the slaves.... well, you get the point.

However, as "tradition" seems to be the anti-gay marriage arguement of choice, at least from those that I have talked to (TFP or otherwise) - what example do you suppose we should use to call tradition? Man & Woman in a loving and respectful relationship? Maybe Man & Women, with the women's sole purpose to please the man? (50's textbook)

The reason I don't see any real value to the "tradition" arguement, as I have hopefully illustrated above, is the fact that there is no way to define which tradition to use as a model, and even if their was, you can't pick a single tradition and require a society as a whole (especially one as multi-cultural as America) and require everyone to not only accept, but practice it.

For those that protest saying that it is against God, the same general rule applies. It may be against your God(s), but that is the reason there is a seperation of Church and State. We are allowed to practice any religion we want to here in this Great Country - and even if some religions disallow gay marriages, as shown above, some do, although it doesn't really matter, as the religious aspect is up to the Gay couple in question.

For me, the hardest part to accept with the defence of the Bible is shown above. If you are willing to follow the Bible to a T when it comes to denying people rights, you better be up there hacking up animals to sacrifice & wearing only one type of cloth at the same time - if not, your opinion means little to me since you are willing to deny others peoples rights based on your religion but you don't hold it close enough to your heart to practice it to the letter.

Finally, people have stated that it is better for a child to be brought up in a "traditional" nuclear family. I have not seen a single study that has stated that, and if there is, I apologize. However, I do remember seeing several studies that stated that children brought up by same sex parents do just as well in all aspects of their life than a child as a result in a traditional marriage. With the divorce rate as high as it is, not to mention having children out of wedlock, wouldn't you think that it is better to have two parents, even if they are the same sex, than just one? Once again, this brings up the "traditional" aspect of all this, and puts us back in square one.

I see absolutely no issues with gay marriage, and have seen nor heard any conclusive proof showing that it is has/will damaged society. It is simply the next civil rights battle - and the war is near over.

seretogis · 06-08-2004, 10:36 AM

It genuinely disturbs me when people compare the debate over "gay marriage" to the freeing of slaves. It's the equivelant of comparing Bush or Clinton to Hitler, and just as ridiculous of an argument.

It is not even a civil rights issue, though liberals would love it to be -- it's an issue of the government pushing its nose where it does not belong. It is as unconstitutional for government to regulate marriage as it is for it to regulate what sexual acts two (or three, or twelve) consenting adults enjoy together.

elfuq · 06-08-2004, 10:44 AM

That Pastor's letter is astonishing and absolutely dead-on. It should have a wider circulation.

NoSoup · 06-08-2004, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
It genuinely disturbs me when people compare the debate over "gay marriage" to the freeing of slaves. It's the equivelant of comparing Bush or Clinton to Hitler, and just as ridiculous of an argument.

It is not even a civil rights issue, though liberals would love it to be -- it's an issue of the government pushing its nose where it does not belong. It is as unconstitutional for government to regulate marriage as it is for it to regulate what sexual acts two (or three, or twelve) consenting adults enjoy together.

I agree with you on some points -

I firmly believe that it is a civil rights issue, but not to the extreme of slavery. My statement before simply dealt with other civil right battles from the past, trying to substantiate my beliefs regarding "tradition" as the excuse to oppose it.

I agree with you that it does come down to the government regulating things in areas where their nose doesn't belong.

Civil Rights
pl.n.
The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.

tecoyah · 06-08-2004, 11:57 AM

I firmly believe, my governing officials have far greater tasks before them, and incredibly more important issues to deal with. I lose more faith in these people with each arbitrary issue they decide to take on.

Derwood · 06-08-2004, 01:20 PM

Well I think that it was clear that Bush's statement on TV about pushing for an amendment to ban gay marriage was nothing but smoke and mirrors. It was a distraction tactic. "Woo-hoo! Look over here! Hot button issue! No, don't look over at the war in Iraq! Gays getting married over here! Yoo hoo!"

filtherton · 06-08-2004, 01:27 PM

I want to hear just one anti-gay marriage person tell me exactly why their perspective should trump the unhindered exercise of religious practices.

Halx · 06-08-2004, 03:20 PM

As a pro-freedom individual, I must say that my own opinions are being well-represented in this thread. The pure logic that shines from the words of filtherton (nice use of the term 'cognitive dissonance') and the like makes me proud to be in charge.

I don't have much to add except to tie in a thread that I previously posted regarding fascism. By definition, to deny gays the right to marry would be a step closer to a fascist state.

seretogis · 06-08-2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Halx
I don't have much to add except to tie in a thread that I previously posted regarding fascism. By definition, to deny gays the right to marry would be a step closer to a fascist state.

I disagree to some extent, for a couple of reasons. First, you and I can, right now, get married. There's nothing stopping us from inviting witnesses and exchanging rings and vows in front of a willing pastor/rabbi/priest of whatever religion.

Secondly, this isn't about a fascist government robbing a group of people of their "right to marry" (where in the bill of rights is that, btw?). It's about the government overstepping its bounds and becoming entwined with defining a purely social institution. Even by recognizing gay marriages the government would still be wrongly involved with marriage in the first place. So, by not recognizing same-sex marriages the government is not any more fascist than before. Instead, get it out of marriage completely.

I'll be waiting patiently for my ring.

filtherton · 06-08-2004, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Halx
As a pro-freedom individual, I must say that my own opinions are being well-represented in this thread. The pure logic that shines from the words of filtherton (nice use of the term 'cognitive dissonance') and the like makes me proud to be in charge.

Awww shucks

Halx · 06-08-2004, 05:05 PM

ser, I worded it like so: "a step closer"

pig · 06-08-2004, 06:31 PM

Interesting debate going on here, and I would say that most of my thoughts have been nicely summed up by the filterton et al crowd. A couple of things to add which I haven't seen yet.

1. The whole issue of children being reared by a homosexual couple versus straight couple is, as far as I understand it, complete strawman argumentation. It would seem to make the assumption that all straight households are safe havens of love and understanding, and all gay households are hotspots of sin and debauchery. For myself, I would far rather a child grow up in a stable and loving home, with financial means to see to the child's well being and education, regardless of sexual orientation of the parents. If this means a stable homosexual home versus a less stable heterosexual home, then so be it.

2. I've seen a lot of mentions of beastiality earlier on this thread, and just to check myself, isn't there a distinction between consenting homosapiens and non-consenting other mammals that we can draw here?

3. In discussions regarding the question of what is better for a stable society, I've frequently encountered the notion that heterosexual homes are somehow inherently better for society. Conseding that I have no evidence to back up my next statement, but prefacing it by saying that if we're going to play mind games, then fine - let's play mind games - allow me to ask the following.

Is it possible that in times of underpopulation / struggle for survival in a new area / exploration of new frontiers, that heterosexuality would be preferred because it would result in more workers and a higher population to settle the underpopulated area? Or that, contrarily, in times of excess / overpopulation / relative geographic stability, that homosexuality might become more popular, as a natural mechanism to curb population levels? Shortly put, I personally believe that the stigma of "unnatural" applied to homosexuality is quite incorrect, and that homosexuality is as natural as can be, as right as rain...

seretogis · 06-08-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Halx
ser, I worded it like so: "a step closer"

Yeah, I don't feel that failing to recognize same-sex marriages is "a step closer," as government is already involved with defining and regulating marriage. For it to be a step closer to fascism it would have to get even further entrenched in such social/religious institutions.

cbr9racr · 06-13-2004, 07:28 AM

Folks, its really quite simple. Here in America, we have a process to decide how we want to shape our society. That process is DEMOCRACY.

And this is essentially what we are speaking about with the gay marriage issue...how we want our society to be structured. If the conservatives want to have certain constraints, they can try to make it law....just as the liberals can.

But, I do think that we (America) is really getting off the path with the emerging "everything is ok" culture.

Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Hell yes. I liken it to a mental health problem, or possibly a chemical imbalance. There's just no denying it....we are born with certain "equipment" that works with the other sex's "equipment". Dudes with dudes just isn't natural, and NOTHING anyone says can refute that.

To summarize, the majority makes our societal rules (democracy), and I see no problem with either side arguing their point, but both sides need to agree that what the majority decides should be accepted. If we have supreme court judges that rule FOR gay marriage against the desires of the public majority, we have a vehicle to get them ousted, and should do so.

seretogis · 06-13-2004, 08:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cbr9racr
Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Hell yes. I liken it to a mental health problem, or possibly a chemical imbalance. There's just no denying it....we are born with certain "equipment" that works with the other sex's "equipment". Dudes with dudes just isn't natural, and NOTHING anyone says can refute that.

Regarding homosexual behavior being "natural," I have to wonder what dictionary you are using, if any, as you contradict yourself above. The common use of the word "natural" is to mean "occurring in nature." Homosexual behavior certainly does fit this definition, as it occurs among animals other than humans. Now, is it normal or ideal? Probably not, but that requires an entirely different argument than if it is "natural" or not.

analog · 06-13-2004, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Now, is it normal or ideal? Probably not, but that requires an entirely different argument than if it is "natural" or not.

Normal for people who are homosexual, yes, and there are very many of them, so it's not like it's a tiny little offshoot minority thing. Ideal? I'm not really sure how you would define heterosexual love as ideal, any more than homosexual love is? And don't give me talk about babies, babies are irrelevant- they aren't now, and likely never will be, barring nuclear disaster, the sole driving purpose for marriage.

hammer4all · 06-13-2004, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cbr9racr
Dudes with dudes just isn't natural, and NOTHING anyone says can refute that.

Dudes with clothing just isn't natural, and NOTHING anyone says can refute that.

Yes, this is a Natural Law fallacy.

gondath · 06-13-2004, 03:31 PM

What happens in nature isn't a terribly good argument for or against homosexuality. Mutations happen in natrue too, but they are more commonly detrimental, fatal, or useless than helpful. You don't see people lobbying for or against people with webbed feet.

Anyways, it's kind of getting off topic in here.

seretogis · 06-13-2004, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by analog
Normal for people who are homosexual, yes, and there are very many of them, so it's not like it's a tiny little offshoot minority thing. Ideal? I'm not really sure how you would define heterosexual love as ideal, any more than homosexual love is? And don't give me talk about babies, babies are irrelevant- they aren't now, and likely never will be, barring nuclear disaster, the sole driving purpose for marriage.

I meant normal / ideal as far as a genetic trait goes. It isn't ideal to have a species or subset of a species which is unable to breed with one another. I'm not suggesting that homosexuality should be considered socially unacceptable, it just isn't normal or ideal for the species. The fact that it does occur in nature, though, extinguishes any idea that homosexuality is simply a psychological defect.

But, yes, this is a bit off-topic.

DelayedReaction · 06-13-2004, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cbr9racr
To summarize, the majority makes our societal rules (democracy), and I see no problem with either side arguing their point, but both sides need to agree that what the majority decides should be accepted.

I disagree. If we just accepted what the majority decided then there would never be change. A few decades ago the majority thought that women and blacks shouldn't be allowed to vote; through cultural change and the expression of a minority that is no longer the case.

It doesn't matter if those in the wrong are the majority; they're still wrong.

Superbelt · 06-14-2004, 03:28 AM

See what you are doing Taxachussets? You allow gay marriage and all hell breaks loose.
Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. This is on You, Gay Marriage. Your existence forced the breakup of such a bastion of, and advocate for, stable heterosexual monogamous relationships. The venerable Rush Limbaugh is getting divorced. For the third time! And we had such high hopes for this one to last too. It started off so well being an online affair with a married woman.
Or maybe the only way she could handle being married to him was the fact that he was always drugged.

Why do hypocrites always have the loudest, most influential and powerful voices?

Derwood · 06-14-2004, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt

Why do hypocrites always have the loudest, most influential and powerful voices?

You mean like Newt Gingrich? He forced his wife to sign the divorce papers while she was in the hospital for cancer treatment. Nice guy, huh?

06-01-2004, 08:09 PM	#86 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	ahhh - nevermind. Last edited by matthew330; 06-02-2004 at 03:54 AM..

06-02-2004, 08:39 AM	#89 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	most matters that engage me on this question have been addressed, often quite eloquently---thanks folks----all i have to say is that marriage is a legal question--it might lean on "traditional" conceptions, but once those conceptions get translated into law, those "traditional conceptions" (which are almost always ahistorical, arbitrary assemblages of information routed through an irrelevant network of texts) no longer matter. it seems that most objections to gay people getting married are predicated on pushing the legal environment back into an arbitrary notion of tradition, which of course the christian right thinks that it holds a monopoly on defining. i am left wondering why conservatives would care who other people choose to love, and why it would concern them if those people choose to avail themselves of the various protections afforded to folk who marry. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

06-07-2004, 08:29 AM	#92 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	I am as pro-Gay marriage as they come, and most points I could make have already been made, so I'll instead post some random thoughts: - Isn't it ironic that George W. Bush is pushing marriage as a cure all for the lower class, but goes out of his way to prevent it for a small minority. - If any argument against gay marriage in this thread had the word GAY replaced with the word BLACK, everyone would probably be in an uproar and no one would support the statements. - Simply put, the gay community will always be considered second-class citizens both socially and legally as long as they aren't afforded the same rights as the straight community. - Gay rights are the last bastion of Civil Rights. - The concept of "separation of church and state" is the biggest fallacy in politics, particularly in this administration. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-08-2004, 05:47 AM	#98 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	gondath - Interestingly, most of the points you make had nothing to do with my single post on this topic, but I digress. As someone who has many, many gay friends and coworkers, I think I can safely say that ultimately, civil unions would just fine with them. I think the fight for marriage is simply a fight to be recognized as equals in a society that still treats gays as second-class citizens. I think it's very easy to argue against gay marriage when you are straight and already have the privelage. __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-08-2004, 10:36 AM	#100 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	It genuinely disturbs me when people compare the debate over "gay marriage" to the freeing of slaves. It's the equivelant of comparing Bush or Clinton to Hitler, and just as ridiculous of an argument. It is not even a civil rights issue, though liberals would love it to be -- it's an issue of the government pushing its nose where it does not belong. It is as unconstitutional for government to regulate marriage as it is for it to regulate what sexual acts two (or three, or twelve) consenting adults enjoy together. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

06-01-2004, 02:01 AM	#84 (permalink)
gondath Insane Location: Alton, IL	What denomination is the pastor? It makes a huge difference.

06-01-2004, 02:02 PM	#85 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	He's got a master's degree in theology, which means a lot more than denomination.

06-02-2004, 05:08 AM	#87 (permalink)
cj22009 On the edge of control Location: Ga	It doesnt bother me one way or the other iff they want to get married let them I think people or just scared of what they don't know they just see that the bible says its wrong I look at it this way how many people say that and go and have premarital sex or do somthing else that the bible says is wrong

06-02-2004, 05:25 PM	#90 (permalink)
gondath Insane Location: Alton, IL	I think it's funny that some are saying tradition has nothing to do with marriage and then post a link from a pastor's sermon. Hmm, last I checked, a pastor was a religious figure. This puts the argument square back into the realm of religion again. It seems to be he gets in his digs against more "conservative" religions. His argument is as much about endorsing his own religious views as anything else. Let me mention again that he is a religious figure and lists no concrete facts besides a kind of idealism to support his claims. The history of marriage as it has existed in other parts of the world has no relevance to the current state of marriage here in this country right now.

06-02-2004, 10:23 PM	#91 (permalink)
Wax_off No Avatar, No Sig.	Well, I think you missed the point. I could be wrong, but I think the post was trying to point out that not all religious thought is in uniform opposition to gay marriage and that this pastors opinion is that religious tradition probably shouldn't have much to do with peoples opinion about it. He's trying to say that marriage is not a tradition set in stone, that the definition has changed over time, so why shouldn't it change again? In that way, the history of marriage IS relevant to the current state of marriage here in this country right now. And you deride the pastor for not listing concrete facts, being idealistic and endorsing his own religious views, but isn't that what you're doing? There are no facts here, only idealism and opinions.

06-07-2004, 12:42 PM	#93 (permalink)
gondath Insane Location: Alton, IL	I love how you blasted GWB in your support for gay marriage, and yet all the arguments supporting it use his "Operation Iraqi Freedom" tactics to defend it. Somehow, everyone opposed to the minor issue of gay marriage is labeled as intolerant and against the perceived progress of all civil rights everywhere. Keep your bullying, pro-American/anti-American style tactics out of here. It serves no purpose and still does nothing to give credibility to the argument for gay marriage. Back up your assertions with some solid evidence for why you back this issue. I, for one, have already given mine.

06-08-2004, 03:21 AM	#96 (permalink)
gondath Insane Location: Alton, IL	Yes, Derwood, you are chief but not exclusively the person that was aimed at since you asked. I don't normally quote and then counterpoint and nitpick my way through. I don't want my posts to descend into the realm of personally directed attacks. It's just not my style. Anyways, marriage as it has existed with multiple wives or for money has no bearing on the current state of marriage. I guess gays now want a slew of constant sexual partners like people have in the past or is it that they just want to marry by class now? The point here is that traditions of marriage don't much matter as they existed outside this country, unless you want me to make comparisons on gay traditions through history. Stick to the current state of affairs. I did actually make several more points than mentioning how gays make worse parents, which by the way is subjective. There is no way to measure quality of parenting, or quality of anything period, without being subjective. I don't much care for the lifestyle, but I can assure you this issue is separate. I don't normally do more than ignore them and go about my business. Most supporters seem to be coming up with excuses or laying down heavy slander. I am at least attempting to tread on solid ground here without labeling dissenters as intolerant, afraid, etc. Several people here also still seem to think making random comparisons to other unrelated civil rights issues is somehow relevant to the issue at hand. Comparisons alone do not an argument make. have yet to see a solid line leading from gays not being permitted to redefine marriage to a world of oppression, cruelty, and intolerance towards gays. Lets restate that marriage is a religious affair as it exists in this country for the great majority of people, as the quote from the pastor proved. A sermon is a sermon. Progressive religion is an oxymoron. I don't find his master's degree in theology to be meaningful in the slightest. I've talked to many theologians and found them all to be along the same strain. My beliefs are supreme, your's are evil and backwards, etc. Also, people tend to get married in a church or by a religious figure. The very nature of conflicting religious views means you need hard evidence to back up your claims. Mentioning love is a bad path to follow here. Let me state for the record that I am in no way religious, religiously affiliated, or spiritual in any way. I am a diehard atheist, so think before sliding me casually into any kind of religious group. I do not also call myself liberal, conservative, right-wing, or left-wing. I see issues as they exist independently without either labeling all people who oppose as part of one group or by allowing some larger, intangible political body to dictate my thoughts for me. Marriage seems to be the key problem here. Gays are fighting to get accepted into a fundamentally broken institution. If you don't think it's broken, then you must like at least some of its customs. Laws of marriage aside, it's the traditions as they've existed in this country here that seem to lend it any appeal at all. Not only are they fighting for perceived rather than tangible gain, but they are encouraging public officials to break federal law to do it. I don't see people rising up against what seem to be just about every right in the Constitution being broken by the Patriot Act. The country has bigger issues going on. The draft issue comes to mind... Anyways, it's not a good thing when states get involved against the federal government and publicly flout it. That has never gone over well in the past. A truly modern and progressive thing to do would be to get rid of marriage altogether. I do think it should be labeled a civil union, not religiously affiliated, and not connected to perceived emotions like love. I don't see too many of the pro-gay marriage crowd lobbying for multiple wives and husbands, the right to marry a person under 18, or the right to marry an animal. I can't think of too many compelling arguments against those without going into the realm of personal standards. Heck, we might as well go for marriage to objects, too. The laws can be changed to fit a wider definition if necessary. That's enough for me but probably not everyone else. Anyways, I'm summarizing here, so I hope my meaning is a bit more clear and rises above my rambling and apparently woefully limited perceptions. I can only hope to emulate the patterns of posters on this board for my enlightenment to begin. I request a summary to keep this on track if it's not dead already.

06-08-2004, 10:44 AM	#101 (permalink)
elfuq Insane Location: San Francisco	That Pastor's letter is astonishing and absolutely dead-on. It should have a wider circulation.

06-08-2004, 11:57 AM	#103 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I firmly believe, my governing officials have far greater tasks before them, and incredibly more important issues to deal with. I lose more faith in these people with each arbitrary issue they decide to take on. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

06-08-2004, 01:20 PM	#104 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	Well I think that it was clear that Bush's statement on TV about pushing for an amendment to ban gay marriage was nothing but smoke and mirrors. It was a distraction tactic. "Woo-hoo! Look over here! Hot button issue! No, don't look over at the war in Iraq! Gays getting married over here! Yoo hoo!" __________________ "You can't shoot a country until it becomes a democracy." - Willravel

06-08-2004, 01:27 PM	#105 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I want to hear just one anti-gay marriage person tell me exactly why their perspective should trump the unhindered exercise of religious practices.

06-08-2004, 03:20 PM	#106 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	As a pro-freedom individual, I must say that my own opinions are being well-represented in this thread. The pure logic that shines from the words of filtherton (nice use of the term 'cognitive dissonance') and the like makes me proud to be in charge. I don't have much to add except to tie in a thread that I previously posted regarding fascism. By definition, to deny gays the right to marry would be a step closer to a fascist state. __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-08-2004, 05:05 PM	#109 (permalink)
Halx Please touch this. Owner/Admin Location: Manhattan	ser, I worded it like so: "a step closer" __________________ You have found this post informative. -The Administrator [Don't Feed The Animals]

06-08-2004, 06:31 PM	#110 (permalink)
pig pigglet pigglet Location: Locash	Interesting debate going on here, and I would say that most of my thoughts have been nicely summed up by the filterton et al crowd. A couple of things to add which I haven't seen yet. 1. The whole issue of children being reared by a homosexual couple versus straight couple is, as far as I understand it, complete strawman argumentation. It would seem to make the assumption that all straight households are safe havens of love and understanding, and all gay households are hotspots of sin and debauchery. For myself, I would far rather a child grow up in a stable and loving home, with financial means to see to the child's well being and education, regardless of sexual orientation of the parents. If this means a stable homosexual home versus a less stable heterosexual home, then so be it. 2. I've seen a lot of mentions of beastiality earlier on this thread, and just to check myself, isn't there a distinction between consenting homosapiens and non-consenting other mammals that we can draw here? 3. In discussions regarding the question of what is better for a stable society, I've frequently encountered the notion that heterosexual homes are somehow inherently better for society. Conseding that I have no evidence to back up my next statement, but prefacing it by saying that if we're going to play mind games, then fine - let's play mind games - allow me to ask the following. Is it possible that in times of underpopulation / struggle for survival in a new area / exploration of new frontiers, that heterosexuality would be preferred because it would result in more workers and a higher population to settle the underpopulated area? Or that, contrarily, in times of excess / overpopulation / relative geographic stability, that homosexuality might become more popular, as a natural mechanism to curb population levels? Shortly put, I personally believe that the stigma of "unnatural" applied to homosexuality is quite incorrect, and that homosexuality is as natural as can be, as right as rain... __________________ You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

06-13-2004, 07:28 AM	#112 (permalink)
cbr9racr Upright	Well...here's the answer to all of this.... Folks, its really quite simple. Here in America, we have a process to decide how we want to shape our society. That process is DEMOCRACY. And this is essentially what we are speaking about with the gay marriage issue...how we want our society to be structured. If the conservatives want to have certain constraints, they can try to make it law....just as the liberals can. But, I do think that we (America) is really getting off the path with the emerging "everything is ok" culture. Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Hell yes. I liken it to a mental health problem, or possibly a chemical imbalance. There's just no denying it....we are born with certain "equipment" that works with the other sex's "equipment". Dudes with dudes just isn't natural, and NOTHING anyone says can refute that. To summarize, the majority makes our societal rules (democracy), and I see no problem with either side arguing their point, but both sides need to agree that what the majority decides should be accepted. If we have supreme court judges that rule FOR gay marriage against the desires of the public majority, we have a vehicle to get them ousted, and should do so.

06-13-2004, 03:31 PM	#116 (permalink)
gondath Insane Location: Alton, IL	What happens in nature isn't a terribly good argument for or against homosexuality. Mutations happen in natrue too, but they are more commonly detrimental, fatal, or useless than helpful. You don't see people lobbying for or against people with webbed feet. Anyways, it's kind of getting off topic in here.

06-14-2004, 03:28 AM	#119 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	See what you are doing Taxachussets? You allow gay marriage and all hell breaks loose. Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. This is on You, Gay Marriage. Your existence forced the breakup of such a bastion of, and advocate for, stable heterosexual monogamous relationships. The venerable Rush Limbaugh is getting divorced. For the third time! And we had such high hopes for this one to last too. It started off so well being an online affair with a married woman. Or maybe the only way she could handle being married to him was the fact that he was always drugged. Why do hypocrites always have the loudest, most influential and powerful voices?