Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 12:25 PM
Same-Sex Marriages *Should* Be Allowed
Being from the Midwest (and big and dumb-looking besides), most folks assume I'm a homophobic. As it turns out, I've known a few homosexuals in my life, but not very many. Or rather, I suspect that I know a lot more of them then I recognize, but I never think about it. I never think about it because it doesn't matter.
Real love is rare enough that people should be able to love and live and *marry* whoever the hell they want to and I resent a government that thinks that they get to decide who's love counts and who's love doesn't count (although I do support parents being able to decide whether their minor children should be able to marry).
BTW, you can save yourself the trouble of responding if you're going to say anything other than "+1", as I won't be responding to any kind of negative comments on this issue. There is literally nothing you can say to change my mind, so don't even try.
103 comments on this post
Kevin Dente:
Right on. The majority doesn't get to vote that discrimination is OK, and that's what it is - discrimination, plain and simple. Perhaps the last form of legalized discrimination.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 12:47 PM
Mike Julier:
I certainly agree with you. In the back of my mind though is this little lawyer-like guy wondering if marriage is a religous or societal notion, not governmental/legal. Not because I care about semantics, but I'm wondering what similar things the government feels the need to be involved in that perhaps it shouldn't be. I'm not coming up with any but I'm assuming there must be several...
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:00 PM
anon:
In my mind, "marriage" is between a man and woman. It is something that is ordained by God and has a religious connotation.
I cannot fathom two people being "married" if they are a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. To say that gay couples can be married, a change of defintion would be needed.
While a gay couple should probably be able to enjoy a union that is affected by the same laws that a married couple live under, I still wouldn't consider them "married".
I cannot fathom two people being "married" if they are a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. To say that gay couples can be married, a change of defintion would be needed.
While a gay couple should probably be able to enjoy a union that is affected by the same laws that a married couple live under, I still wouldn't consider them "married".
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:00 PM
Craig Andera:
+1, Chris.
The thing that kills me is how obvious the parallel between the arguments against giving gays the legal protections afforded heterosexuals, and the arguments that denied women and non-whites rights in the centuries before this one. In fifty years, it will be as shameful to oppose the right of two people that love each other to marry on the basis of sexual orientation as it is now to deny them that same right on the basis of "race".
The thing that kills me is how obvious the parallel between the arguments against giving gays the legal protections afforded heterosexuals, and the arguments that denied women and non-whites rights in the centuries before this one. In fifty years, it will be as shameful to oppose the right of two people that love each other to marry on the basis of sexual orientation as it is now to deny them that same right on the basis of "race".
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:03 PM
Curt Hagenlocher:
If marriage was strictly a religious or "societal" notion, then the government has no reason to make any laws governing marriages whatsoever, or to grant special rights to people who are "married". But that's not the case.
+1 to Chris.
+1 to Chris.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:09 PM
Ben Kuhn:
+1/2
I mostly agree. The question of love and commitment is a personal one. The tougher question for me is whether the government should recognize it officially. Why do they recognize marraige today? My guess is that the tax benefits, etc, are there to promote commitment and stibility for a family (esp. children), to improve society as a whole... does the same apply to same-sex marraige? I won't way one way or the other, because I'm neither a parent nor married. I think this is a better context to evaluate the current political debate than, say, fear, religion, or just about anything else that most people are talking about today, though. I certainly don't think that it's the governments job to bring religion into the state-recognized marraige question at all. So there's my 2c.
I mostly agree. The question of love and commitment is a personal one. The tougher question for me is whether the government should recognize it officially. Why do they recognize marraige today? My guess is that the tax benefits, etc, are there to promote commitment and stibility for a family (esp. children), to improve society as a whole... does the same apply to same-sex marraige? I won't way one way or the other, because I'm neither a parent nor married. I think this is a better context to evaluate the current political debate than, say, fear, religion, or just about anything else that most people are talking about today, though. I certainly don't think that it's the governments job to bring religion into the state-recognized marraige question at all. So there's my 2c.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:14 PM
anon:
"Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."
--George Washington
--George Washington
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:16 PM
George Chernyha:
Chris,
You are right. The problem stems from the fact that somewhere along the way we, and our governing authorities, lost sight of the fact that there are two sides to a marriage. One side (the traditional side) is marriage as a sacred bond between two inviduals. The other side is marriage as a business partnership.
From this perspective, the Government has not been given the authority to regulate marriage of either type. The First Amendment is *supposed* to keep them out of the former (via the non-establishment clause). As for the latter, unless it is being done for fraudulent purposes, they cannot decide who can and who can't enter into a business partnership. From a commerce perspective, same-sex and opposite-sex partnerships deserve equal standing, i.e. health benefits, property rights, etc.
You are right. The problem stems from the fact that somewhere along the way we, and our governing authorities, lost sight of the fact that there are two sides to a marriage. One side (the traditional side) is marriage as a sacred bond between two inviduals. The other side is marriage as a business partnership.
From this perspective, the Government has not been given the authority to regulate marriage of either type. The First Amendment is *supposed* to keep them out of the former (via the non-establishment clause). As for the latter, unless it is being done for fraudulent purposes, they cannot decide who can and who can't enter into a business partnership. From a commerce perspective, same-sex and opposite-sex partnerships deserve equal standing, i.e. health benefits, property rights, etc.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:26 PM
Rory:
+1
That's all I have to say. The argument is over at Scoble's, so I can rest easy here :)
That's all I have to say. The argument is over at Scoble's, so I can rest easy here :)
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:26 PM
AC:
You know, I agree. What's more, who is to say that *love* can only exist between two people. If ten people all really love each other and want to get married, who are we to stop them. I also think there is a disgustingly enormous amount of intolerance and even hatred toward those in "interspecies" relationships. I think they should be able to get married, too...although it may be hard to determine consent.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:31 PM
john:
while I agree with you, what I have the real problem with in this whole grand debate that the politicians are having is this:
As far as I understand it, marriage and the laws and rules that govern who can marry, and when they can marry and what forms they fill out has always been a state thing. It really gets my blood boiling when the federal government decides they need to step in and take control of an issue that has traditionally been in the realm of the states.
As far as I understand it, marriage and the laws and rules that govern who can marry, and when they can marry and what forms they fill out has always been a state thing. It really gets my blood boiling when the federal government decides they need to step in and take control of an issue that has traditionally been in the realm of the states.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:39 PM
Markus Egger:
But what about.... ahh.... who am I kidding? I agree with you 100%. What happened to "everybody being equal" and "land of the free"? My a..[fanny]! And besides the points you bring up, there also is the issue of marriage having significant legal influence. Which is another issue altogether. But don't even get me started...
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:42 PM
Mickey Williams:
++ Whether or not two people that love each other happen to be of the same sex is just so far off my radar that I'm just amazed that people get so frigging twisted up over this.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:43 PM
Michael Teper:
The reason societies in general, and our government in particular, recognize and reward marriage are stability, mutual support, child bearing and caring, etc. Certainly all of the above can easily extended to homosexual relationships and supporting "unions" but not "marriage" is pure pandering to the religios mobs.
Or is it?
Rory beat me to it, but while I have no problem with gay marriage, polygamy and interspecies relationships do not sit well with me. At the same time, and in particular in the case of polygamy, I can't say that I can formulate a strong argument against it if I am willing to open up marriage to more than man and woman. In other words, I think the whole anti-gay-marriage issue is more about constraining the set of problems the goverment has to deal with rather than intentional discrimination. IMHO.
Or is it?
Rory beat me to it, but while I have no problem with gay marriage, polygamy and interspecies relationships do not sit well with me. At the same time, and in particular in the case of polygamy, I can't say that I can formulate a strong argument against it if I am willing to open up marriage to more than man and woman. In other words, I think the whole anti-gay-marriage issue is more about constraining the set of problems the goverment has to deal with rather than intentional discrimination. IMHO.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:50 PM
Michael Weinhardt:
+2
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is a committment to your lover for life...with the piece of paper. Whether you disagree with my definition or not, any two people from any two religious, racial, sexual, intellectual (etc) backgrounds are possibly going to fall in love and *choose* to spend their lives together under whatever rules/beliefs etc make sense to them, irrespective of definitions or pieces of paper. What Bush says is just plain ignorance mixed in with a whole bunch of disrespect, especially at a time when respect is needed most. I mean, how is it that people in the 21st century are still creating distinctions on race, religion, sexuality, especially as policy from the people who should be doing the opposite? Enough already.
As far as I'm concerned, marriage is a committment to your lover for life...with the piece of paper. Whether you disagree with my definition or not, any two people from any two religious, racial, sexual, intellectual (etc) backgrounds are possibly going to fall in love and *choose* to spend their lives together under whatever rules/beliefs etc make sense to them, irrespective of definitions or pieces of paper. What Bush says is just plain ignorance mixed in with a whole bunch of disrespect, especially at a time when respect is needed most. I mean, how is it that people in the 21st century are still creating distinctions on race, religion, sexuality, especially as policy from the people who should be doing the opposite? Enough already.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 1:51 PM
SP:
I think like Michael Teper above. I have the same question: "Why 2 people and not 3, 4, 5... ? ". Someone might think this idea is too twisted the same way someone else might think about gay marriage.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 2:05 PM
Chris Dix:
+1. Just because that's the way it has always been, does not make it right.
"Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generation which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies."
- Thomas Paine
"Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself, in all cases, as the ages and generation which preceded it. The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave, is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies."
- Thomas Paine
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 2:21 PM
Dylan Greene:
+1. What's next? Making divorse illegal? Jail time for mixed-race marriages? Captial punishment for adultry?
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 2:31 PM
Mike P:
Won't effect my life any.
Will make 2 people other people happy.
Seems like a no brainer. +1+1+1
Will make 2 people other people happy.
Seems like a no brainer. +1+1+1
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 3:04 PM
Buck:
I'm glad to hear it. Last year, I heard someone characterize the typical Republican as "a libertarian who really doesn't like gays (compared to 40 years ago when he was a libertarian who really doesn't like blacks)." Unfortunately, it's more bipartisan than that.
The last few weeks have been hard for me, because I had always naively assumed my coworkers regardless of political leanings were generally for gay marriage. Turns out, most are going out of their way to oppose it, grabbing every "logical" reason they can find -- face it, gays marrying doesn't destroy marriage (check other Western countries), and it doesn't mean your church has to marry them, and it doesn't mean that groups or men and dogs get to marry. It does mean that two people can make decisions about each other's terminal care, among many other things, and it's criminal they don't have the right.
The last few weeks have been hard for me, because I had always naively assumed my coworkers regardless of political leanings were generally for gay marriage. Turns out, most are going out of their way to oppose it, grabbing every "logical" reason they can find -- face it, gays marrying doesn't destroy marriage (check other Western countries), and it doesn't mean your church has to marry them, and it doesn't mean that groups or men and dogs get to marry. It does mean that two people can make decisions about each other's terminal care, among many other things, and it's criminal they don't have the right.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 3:38 PM
Chris Sells:
I have to say that I'm *very* proud of all my readers right now. Thank you!
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 3:40 PM
Markus Egger:
You know, as someone who hasn't grown up in this society (I am originally from Europe/Austria), this just seems like a whole bunch of nonsense. (The whole gay-marriage subject... not this thread).
It has always struck me as one of the great American mysteries: A good percentage of the population seems to see getting married (the earlier the better) as their main goal in life. Apparently, getting married is the ultimate in romance and love. Yet at the same time, getting married now is largely a legal contract, that IMO should be available to all couples no matter what. AND, people should be educated about what this legal agreement really means, and what a commitment for life really means.
And then of course, there is the religious aspect to all of this, which makes a wedding (ignore the legal aspects for now, would you? ;-) ) one of the holiest of things. How that jives with making divorces America's favorite past-time, is a bit beyond me. Odd.
But I guess as a foreigner I do not have to understand these things. I will just go on with my own (unmarried) live, and remain happily in love and commited, because I have the freedom to make that decission for myself (together with my firlfriend :-) ). Now if only *all* other couples would have the freedom to make their own choice about these things, like one would expect it in a free, western country...
It has always struck me as one of the great American mysteries: A good percentage of the population seems to see getting married (the earlier the better) as their main goal in life. Apparently, getting married is the ultimate in romance and love. Yet at the same time, getting married now is largely a legal contract, that IMO should be available to all couples no matter what. AND, people should be educated about what this legal agreement really means, and what a commitment for life really means.
And then of course, there is the religious aspect to all of this, which makes a wedding (ignore the legal aspects for now, would you? ;-) ) one of the holiest of things. How that jives with making divorces America's favorite past-time, is a bit beyond me. Odd.
But I guess as a foreigner I do not have to understand these things. I will just go on with my own (unmarried) live, and remain happily in love and commited, because I have the freedom to make that decission for myself (together with my firlfriend :-) ). Now if only *all* other couples would have the freedom to make their own choice about these things, like one would expect it in a free, western country...
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 3:47 PM
Peter Eschenbrenner:
Just wanted to say...
I am not a Heterosexual.
I resent being classified as one. I am a man. No other label necessary.
I am not a Heterosexual.
I resent being classified as one. I am a man. No other label necessary.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 3:55 PM
Joe Somebody:
Forget laws and religion for a second. I would like to hear what *mothers* have to say on this subject. And I want to hear it from the deepest voice in their hearts, not the heads of all the Dads here. :-)
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 3:58 PM
Scott:
SellsComment++;
http://scottkoon.org/journal/index.php?p=153
http://scottkoon.org/journal/index.php?p=153
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 4:02 PM
Yup:
The government should have no place in marriage in the first place.
Gays should be allowed to marry, and affirmative action should be ruled unconstitutional.
Gays should be allowed to marry, and affirmative action should be ruled unconstitutional.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 5:00 PM
WhoCares:
If you don't understand the religous and moral underpinnings of this issue then there is not much point in debating it.
Although there's not much point anyway when you're arguing with a closed-minded liberal.
Although there's not much point anyway when you're arguing with a closed-minded liberal.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 5:35 PM
NCS:
When even the two liberal senators from the most liberal state in the nation are against gay marriage... for crying out loud, get a clue people.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 5:36 PM
Yup I Agree:
Who signed the "Defense of Marriage" act in the 1990s? Bill Clinton.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 5:48 PM
anonymous:
Sells for PRESIDENT!!!
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 5:51 PM
Eric:
Many people allude to love when they talk about this issue. But I think that the important part is rights.
If I get sick and get taken to the hospital, my wife automatically has rights - rights to see me, rights to decide my treatment if I'm not capable, etc.
In a same-sex couple, there are no such rights. One can, with a fair bit of expense, approximate the same, though you'll need to carry around documentation to prove it.
If I get sick and get taken to the hospital, my wife automatically has rights - rights to see me, rights to decide my treatment if I'm not capable, etc.
In a same-sex couple, there are no such rights. One can, with a fair bit of expense, approximate the same, though you'll need to carry around documentation to prove it.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 6:04 PM
Joe Patterson:
The thing about this that is *really* fasciniating is the proposal for a constitutional amendment. Is it just me, or haven't all amendments of this nature affirmed people's rights, instead of smacking them down? Substitute gay with black, or woman, or mexican, or jewish, or whatever, and the proposition suddenly becomes horrific.
Not that I think banning gay marriage has a chance of becoming an amendment, but if it did, it would be #1 in the Bill of Wrongs...
Not that I think banning gay marriage has a chance of becoming an amendment, but if it did, it would be #1 in the Bill of Wrongs...
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 7:41 PM
:
This is not a *rights* issue but an issue of tradition and the natural order of things.
Don't descriminate but don't hijack marriage. Give homosexuals civil unions but don't reinvent the term marriage. For millenia marriage has meant male/female union, why do we have to destroy the langage and tradition?
Don't descriminate but don't hijack marriage. Give homosexuals civil unions but don't reinvent the term marriage. For millenia marriage has meant male/female union, why do we have to destroy the langage and tradition?
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 7:42 PM
DevHawk:
I blogged a response (http://devhawk.net/PermaLink.aspx?guid=bb2c85ad-794b-46c9-b969-4891333c0702) but suffice to say +1.
Hopefully we'll get to the point that we don't assume anyone is homophobic until proven otherwise.
Hopefully we'll get to the point that we don't assume anyone is homophobic until proven otherwise.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 7:55 PM
ramu:
Bravo Chris! Don't stop there! How about 3 person marriages? Group marriages makes the love count bigger. we should support that too.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 8:20 PM
Joe Patterson:
+1 for Adam Kinney's link :-D
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 8:51 PM
Rick Childress:
-1
ramu has the right idea.... we shouldn't 'discriminate' against man-boy relationships or people that want to 'marry' their pets either.
Can't 'discriminate' against love.....
ramu has the right idea.... we shouldn't 'discriminate' against man-boy relationships or people that want to 'marry' their pets either.
Can't 'discriminate' against love.....
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 9:20 PM
nospamplease75@yahoo.com (haacked):
+1 Chris.
Insinuating that allowing gays to marry logically leads to letting people marry pets is an absurd argument against gay marriage. If you apply that logic in this case, why stop there? Why not make that point against any marriage that violates the "natural order of things" or "God's sacrament of marriage"?
If you're so concerned about saving the sanctity of marriage, with the high divorce rates in this country, we should amend the constitution to outlaw divorce.
For it sayeth in the Gospel of Mathew chapter 19 verse 9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Oh, and let's not stop there. We can't let atheists, or non-christians for that matter get married. Marriage is ordained by God. We shouldn't allow sinners to marry.
Insinuating that allowing gays to marry logically leads to letting people marry pets is an absurd argument against gay marriage. If you apply that logic in this case, why stop there? Why not make that point against any marriage that violates the "natural order of things" or "God's sacrament of marriage"?
If you're so concerned about saving the sanctity of marriage, with the high divorce rates in this country, we should amend the constitution to outlaw divorce.
For it sayeth in the Gospel of Mathew chapter 19 verse 9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."
Oh, and let's not stop there. We can't let atheists, or non-christians for that matter get married. Marriage is ordained by God. We shouldn't allow sinners to marry.
Thursday, Feb 26, 2004, 10:45 PM
Dennis v/d Stelt:
"Do not let any one claim to be a true American if they ever attempt to remove religion from politics."
--George Washington
I can go with this...
I read some comments saying the can go with man-man woman-woman marriages, but right after that comes relationships with children en animals. When oh when, I ask, will this be accepted too?
I don't want to judge people that ARE gay, but the Bible says enough about people that practice the fact that they are gay. I don't know if this comes out correct in English, but what I mean is kind of the following:
There are people that are gay and thats just a result of sins coming into this world. There are people that have serious problems with it, that they are gay.
There are also people that are gay and have no problem telling and showing everyone they are gay. No offense, but when I only read about what happened to Sodom and Gomorra (in Genesis) I can only come to the point that such marriages aren't approved of by the One that really is the King of kings and ruler of the world. And that's not Bush! :)
I hope I don't offend people, that's definitly not my intention.
--George Washington
I can go with this...
I read some comments saying the can go with man-man woman-woman marriages, but right after that comes relationships with children en animals. When oh when, I ask, will this be accepted too?
I don't want to judge people that ARE gay, but the Bible says enough about people that practice the fact that they are gay. I don't know if this comes out correct in English, but what I mean is kind of the following:
There are people that are gay and thats just a result of sins coming into this world. There are people that have serious problems with it, that they are gay.
There are also people that are gay and have no problem telling and showing everyone they are gay. No offense, but when I only read about what happened to Sodom and Gomorra (in Genesis) I can only come to the point that such marriages aren't approved of by the One that really is the King of kings and ruler of the world. And that's not Bush! :)
I hope I don't offend people, that's definitly not my intention.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 1:04 AM
Hassan:
It’s my opinion that sanctioned recognition of gay marriages is imminent within the next twenty years. It wasn’t until 1967 that the Supreme Court spoke on the issue of interracial marriage. It seems unfathomable now that people would support laws banning interracial marriage. I imagine this is how opponents of same-sex marriage will appear in hind-sight.
Get on the right side of history.
Get on the right side of history.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 1:32 AM
Anon:
I actually thought you were gay Chris.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 3:40 AM
John:
You can have my +1 Chris.
Dennis,
You offend me to the core.
When people aren't taking anything from you, you have no right as an individual or a society to limit their freedom to do as they please. Generally what they are doing is pursuing happiness, heard about that one?
If you don't like what they do, then don't do it yourself. At the point where people’s activities start to 'really' impact others (beyond hurting their sensibilities, i.e. 'physical damage') then that is the point that societies need to regulate individual’s behaviour.
Thoughts, words and actions between consenting parties should not be regulated by others. I know it's not quite as simple as that (due to damage by inaction I guess), but I think it's the gist.
I didn't realise that George Washington was such a ballbag. Don't you dare force your notions of a God on me. Don't you dare label me as a sinner and persecute me because I fail to believe what you do.
Dennis,
You offend me to the core.
When people aren't taking anything from you, you have no right as an individual or a society to limit their freedom to do as they please. Generally what they are doing is pursuing happiness, heard about that one?
If you don't like what they do, then don't do it yourself. At the point where people’s activities start to 'really' impact others (beyond hurting their sensibilities, i.e. 'physical damage') then that is the point that societies need to regulate individual’s behaviour.
Thoughts, words and actions between consenting parties should not be regulated by others. I know it's not quite as simple as that (due to damage by inaction I guess), but I think it's the gist.
I didn't realise that George Washington was such a ballbag. Don't you dare force your notions of a God on me. Don't you dare label me as a sinner and persecute me because I fail to believe what you do.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 4:09 AM
Andreas Häber:
Yeah +1 :)
Read a nice story about two penguins, Roy & Silo (both male penguins), who share a nest together at a zoo in New York. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3672158/
So it seems to me that the penguins are a lot nicer and understanding to each other then humans are...
Read a nice story about two penguins, Roy & Silo (both male penguins), who share a nest together at a zoo in New York. See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3672158/
So it seems to me that the penguins are a lot nicer and understanding to each other then humans are...
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 4:47 AM
Greg:
-1
I just lost some respect for you Chris.
I just lost some respect for you Chris.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 5:37 AM
anon:
"I didn't realise that George Washington was such a ballbag."
You may be surprised then, to know that of the 55 delegates that attended Constitutional Convention, 52 were orthodox "ballbags". Each of these men practiced the Christian faith.
While I cannot hope to give a proper argument to the literary eloquence of Thomas Paine (mentioned in a previous post), I would like to defend our hertiage by saying this:
Should we abandon what America's forefathers and founders have taught us? Should we not base our decisions on what we have learned from the past? Should we not hope for a moral world that fears God, and is safe for our children to grow up in?
While its true that just because that's the way it has always been done, doesn't make it right - it doesn't make it wrong either.
You may be surprised then, to know that of the 55 delegates that attended Constitutional Convention, 52 were orthodox "ballbags". Each of these men practiced the Christian faith.
While I cannot hope to give a proper argument to the literary eloquence of Thomas Paine (mentioned in a previous post), I would like to defend our hertiage by saying this:
Should we abandon what America's forefathers and founders have taught us? Should we not base our decisions on what we have learned from the past? Should we not hope for a moral world that fears God, and is safe for our children to grow up in?
While its true that just because that's the way it has always been done, doesn't make it right - it doesn't make it wrong either.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 6:52 AM
Matt Teeters:
"There is literally nothing you can say to change my mind, so don't even try."
Chris, I hope you don't claim you're the open-minded sort.
Chris, I hope you don't claim you're the open-minded sort.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 7:20 AM
Me:
BTW, you can save yourself the trouble of responding if you're going to say anything other than "+1"
Typical liberal mindset, if you don't believe the way I do, then don't express your opinion.
Typical liberal mindset, if you don't believe the way I do, then don't express your opinion.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 7:23 AM
Me:
I think you need to see the bigger issue. Gay marriage isn't about two consenting adults making a decisions and we should let them alone and do what they want. It is a societal issue. Those in favor of gay marriage say it is so they can enjoy the same benefits that heterosexual couples have. Where does it lead to? For example, if gay marriage is becomes accepted by society "made legal", then if a gay couple decides to become married, are churches then required to perform the ceremony? No, then why are churches even needed anymore to perform a marriage. Why even is marriage needed? As I look at this issue I see this more being about one section of society looking for acceptance, and the removal of the guilt they feel about their act than benefits. No one wants to feel guilt, why is there guilt at all. Mainly because an individual feels there is a higher being or higher thing that holds them responsible for what they do. If you remove this from the equation, by slowly tearing down a person's religious beliefs, you lose the guilt. Eventually remove the religion from the equation. Take out "In God we Trust", take out anything that would be implied as sinful so people don't have to feel guilt. Ask yourself, if gay marriage is ok (even though biblically it isn't), then why isn't poligamy ok? I hear people say "Why that would be immoral!". Who or what then defines morality? How can morality say one thing is ok and another wrong. Eventually morality doesn't matter anymore to a society. Whether or not you or anyone else likes it, we currently have a majority of the population who believe in a higher being, and being a western society they base this belief on the bible. Whether you're Jewish, Islam, or Christian, they all hold a belief in the Old Testament, which is what is basing the moral belief on marriage being between a man and woman. You cannot pick and chose morality from what a society is based on. All great civilizations eventually fall from within, and the commonality of it is when the people of a society no longer have a common belief system. Whether this is due to a conquering force integrating different cultures and nothing cohesive holds the society together, or a new and upcoming religion makes the existing system fall. This is where the country is headed the eventual fall of a belief system and subsequently the society itself.
Cut the roots, kill the tree.
Cut the roots, kill the tree.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 7:25 AM
Rick Childress:
Well stated, anon.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 7:31 AM
Rick Childress:
Even better, 'me'
I know this sounds homophobic (which I don't consider myself to be), but can anyone estimate the impact on our children?
Let's frame it like this. You either believe that being gay is 1) a choice or 2) you're 'born that way'. Don't you think this will seriously muddle young adults in the generations to come? Young men and women will see it as a lifestyle choice just like 'what you want to be when you grow up'.
Chris, you have two boys. What if one of them came home from college with his boyfriend Steve? Now, as a loving father you would accept him as he is in a loving manner. But what if that wasn't 'what he is', what if society's acceptance of the issue had somehow colored his opinion. How would you feel about that? (This is not meant to be attack on you, Chris. You seem to feel strongly about this issue, but what happens if it affects *you*?)
I know this sounds homophobic (which I don't consider myself to be), but can anyone estimate the impact on our children?
Let's frame it like this. You either believe that being gay is 1) a choice or 2) you're 'born that way'. Don't you think this will seriously muddle young adults in the generations to come? Young men and women will see it as a lifestyle choice just like 'what you want to be when you grow up'.
Chris, you have two boys. What if one of them came home from college with his boyfriend Steve? Now, as a loving father you would accept him as he is in a loving manner. But what if that wasn't 'what he is', what if society's acceptance of the issue had somehow colored his opinion. How would you feel about that? (This is not meant to be attack on you, Chris. You seem to feel strongly about this issue, but what happens if it affects *you*?)
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 7:41 AM
Pex:
Here's an appropriate quote from the second season of The West Wing, when talking to somebody who said the bible says homosexuality is an abomination.
"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? "
For those interested, the homosexualtiy remark I'm referring to is Leviticus 18:22.
"I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be? While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police? Here's one that's really important because we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you? "
For those interested, the homosexualtiy remark I'm referring to is Leviticus 18:22.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 8:40 AM
E. W.:
The lemming effect.
When the population of lemmings increases, they go and jump off a cliff into the sea.
Is homosexuality any different?
It seems that people that tend to call themselves 'moral' or 'conservative' are persecuted just as actively by liberals as the liberals themselves claim to be by conservatives.
Why is it that because I choose to stand for conservative ideals that I'm considered 'close-minded'? Is it not a possibility that in making a personal decision that gay marriage is wrong that my beliefs are just as protected and equally as viable as someone who feels differently? It is ridiculous to assume that because I believe the way I do that I am somehow less enlightened than someone who support liberal ideals. So-called ‘open-minded’ liberals certainly must recognize that. A difference of belief is just that. You can’t prove my chosen belief is wrong, and likely I can’t prove yours is wrong.
So where does legislation come in? Our elected representatives on Capitol Hill are appealing to their constituency (which in this case is the majority of the American people) by not allowing same-sex marriage. Certainly the Mayor of San Francisco has no right to violate state law and issue licenses as he wishes (regardless of ANYONE’S beliefs on the issue). Let me write that again just in case you missed it: State law can’t be violated by anyone, regardless of beliefs. If your group is offended, then appeal to the California Supreme Court and not a district activist-judge who is legislating from the bench. Aside from that course of action, all of this religious/political talk simply doesn’t matter. There are appropriate channels for appeal. Without governmental sponsorship in terms of congressmen/senators (be they state or federal) any attempt to change state law won’t happen.
Challenge: Find a democratic presidential candidate (who has received more than 10% in any state primary so far) who supports gay marriage. You can’t. This is an issue that even democrats won’t touch because it would be the same as abdicating the nomination. Simply, there is no constituency for it.
Gay culture is a novelty. It has existed and likely will always exist. Simply the fact gay culture exists neither makes it right, nor an enlightened form of being. The new pro-gay-culture Bravo network and homosexual TV personalities are there for our amusement. Nothing more. They are pop culture. Pop culture is transient.
When the population of lemmings increases, they go and jump off a cliff into the sea.
Is homosexuality any different?
It seems that people that tend to call themselves 'moral' or 'conservative' are persecuted just as actively by liberals as the liberals themselves claim to be by conservatives.
Why is it that because I choose to stand for conservative ideals that I'm considered 'close-minded'? Is it not a possibility that in making a personal decision that gay marriage is wrong that my beliefs are just as protected and equally as viable as someone who feels differently? It is ridiculous to assume that because I believe the way I do that I am somehow less enlightened than someone who support liberal ideals. So-called ‘open-minded’ liberals certainly must recognize that. A difference of belief is just that. You can’t prove my chosen belief is wrong, and likely I can’t prove yours is wrong.
So where does legislation come in? Our elected representatives on Capitol Hill are appealing to their constituency (which in this case is the majority of the American people) by not allowing same-sex marriage. Certainly the Mayor of San Francisco has no right to violate state law and issue licenses as he wishes (regardless of ANYONE’S beliefs on the issue). Let me write that again just in case you missed it: State law can’t be violated by anyone, regardless of beliefs. If your group is offended, then appeal to the California Supreme Court and not a district activist-judge who is legislating from the bench. Aside from that course of action, all of this religious/political talk simply doesn’t matter. There are appropriate channels for appeal. Without governmental sponsorship in terms of congressmen/senators (be they state or federal) any attempt to change state law won’t happen.
Challenge: Find a democratic presidential candidate (who has received more than 10% in any state primary so far) who supports gay marriage. You can’t. This is an issue that even democrats won’t touch because it would be the same as abdicating the nomination. Simply, there is no constituency for it.
Gay culture is a novelty. It has existed and likely will always exist. Simply the fact gay culture exists neither makes it right, nor an enlightened form of being. The new pro-gay-culture Bravo network and homosexual TV personalities are there for our amusement. Nothing more. They are pop culture. Pop culture is transient.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 9:27 AM
Me:
Pex:
For every scripture you take out of context to support your argument, I can do the same. The Bible can only be understood as a whole, not bit by bit. According to you, then I should be able to pull one statement from Othello, and everyone here will understand the entire play.
For every scripture you take out of context to support your argument, I can do the same. The Bible can only be understood as a whole, not bit by bit. According to you, then I should be able to pull one statement from Othello, and everyone here will understand the entire play.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 9:50 AM
Mickey Williams:
Re: Passing fad, novelty, pop culture, Bravo, etc.
Here's a list of gay and bi artists/entertainers/celebs (AKA people) off the top of my head that doesn't include anyone on Bravo. It's not just recent, it's not liberal-driven, it's not the communists, and it's not going away, either.
- Michaelangelo
- Tchaikovsky
- Francis Bacon
- King James I
- King James IV
- Sappho (okay, that one is obvious)
- Oscar Wilde (okay, that one, too)
- Auden
As for more recent non-liberal homosexuals, let's not forget Roy Cohn, who helped lead the last great conservative witch hunt in this country.
Gay people have always (and will continue to) commit to each other - with or without marriage. The Nazis couldn't stop homosexuality with guns and gas chambers, so I'm not thinking that a bunch of twisted up prudes are going to have much success. If you can't be happy for people that love each other and want to commit, try to learn to accept it, because frankly they don't need your approval.
Here's a list of gay and bi artists/entertainers/celebs (AKA people) off the top of my head that doesn't include anyone on Bravo. It's not just recent, it's not liberal-driven, it's not the communists, and it's not going away, either.
- Michaelangelo
- Tchaikovsky
- Francis Bacon
- King James I
- King James IV
- Sappho (okay, that one is obvious)
- Oscar Wilde (okay, that one, too)
- Auden
As for more recent non-liberal homosexuals, let's not forget Roy Cohn, who helped lead the last great conservative witch hunt in this country.
Gay people have always (and will continue to) commit to each other - with or without marriage. The Nazis couldn't stop homosexuality with guns and gas chambers, so I'm not thinking that a bunch of twisted up prudes are going to have much success. If you can't be happy for people that love each other and want to commit, try to learn to accept it, because frankly they don't need your approval.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 10:08 AM
Rod Paddock:
It seems to me strange that the people in congress and in the white house talk about this great institution known in marriage.
If this institution is so great then why is the divorce rate somewhere around 50%. I am part of this 50% myself, so is my fiance.
Maybe congress should have rule. If you have ever been divorced you cannot vote on the amendment. That would mean that a supermajority will never be reached.
I wonder what % of congress has been divorced.
If this institution is so great then why is the divorce rate somewhere around 50%. I am part of this 50% myself, so is my fiance.
Maybe congress should have rule. If you have ever been divorced you cannot vote on the amendment. That would mean that a supermajority will never be reached.
I wonder what % of congress has been divorced.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 10:47 AM
Me:
"twisted up prudes" again with name calling. It seems that the only hate and vile I see are from people who support this agenda. The other side doesn't spout insults or degrade people because you don't believe the way they do. Yet, you on the other hand and most who support this issue are intolerant of anyone who is against the issue.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 10:48 AM
Me:
Rod your comments only confirm my thesis on the eventual destruction of this society. The root of this one issue is far more than just gay marriage, it is the destruction of America in its current form and the institution of a socialist republic. In any communist society, for example the old Soviet Union, they instituted atheism, churches and the freedom of religion did not exist. Nothing is held higher than the state. If you people are as blind to even see this going on, I feel extremely sorry that there is a lack of patriots willing to forego what previous generations have fought for. Being a veteran of the US military, I swore to protect and serve this country from all enemies foriegn and domestic. This is the most dire of enemies, from within. This is an attack at our very core. Every time someone on the left attacks a person for having a religious faith, look at Rosie's comments at Bush referring to his comments as full of hate, evil. It is getting to the point that anyone of faith and conviction is full of hate or evil, this is totally opposite of what are fore fathers fought for. Freedom of religion is a right of all Americans, and they should not be chastised for believing that this is wrong, yet the left will not tolerate their beliefs. Go ahead and support what you will, but the more you give away the more they will take. We will all wake up one day and only be able to do, worship, believe in what is dictated by the state.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 10:57 AM
Me:
Quote from previous post: "will be as shameful to oppose the right of two people that love each other to marry on the basis of sexual orientation as it is now to deny them that same right on the basis of "race"."
Here's another thing that gets me about "gay rights", I hear more and more it being compared to the rights that blacks have fought for over the past several decades. They actually "teach" this in my kids school. How gays are constantly being discrimated against. If I were an African-American I would be enraged that this argument would even be considered. A black man can go into a job interview and immediately be discrimated against. It's not like a person can hide his race, if the hiring company is racist, then that person most likely will not be hired. Now on the other hand, say a gay man walks in for an interview, do I as an interviewer automatically know that the man is gay? Is there some big blaring sign on the person saying "Hey I'm gay!"? So how can I discriminate against this person as it is possible to discriminate against one who is of a particular race, female, disabled, or any other visibly obvious criteria that one may be biased against?
Give me a break people, the two can't even be compared.
Here's another thing that gets me about "gay rights", I hear more and more it being compared to the rights that blacks have fought for over the past several decades. They actually "teach" this in my kids school. How gays are constantly being discrimated against. If I were an African-American I would be enraged that this argument would even be considered. A black man can go into a job interview and immediately be discrimated against. It's not like a person can hide his race, if the hiring company is racist, then that person most likely will not be hired. Now on the other hand, say a gay man walks in for an interview, do I as an interviewer automatically know that the man is gay? Is there some big blaring sign on the person saying "Hey I'm gay!"? So how can I discriminate against this person as it is possible to discriminate against one who is of a particular race, female, disabled, or any other visibly obvious criteria that one may be biased against?
Give me a break people, the two can't even be compared.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 11:25 AM
Jeff Johnson:
Some of the claims that America is a Christian notion are a 1984-esque attempt to rewrite history. America was founded to be an entirely secular government. The spirit of the age was either completely anti-religious (as espoused by Thomas Paine) or else a vague, anti-literalist Deism that the religious right today probably wouldn't even consider Christian.
'I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.'
- Thomas Jefferson
'I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 12:01 PM
Peter Eschenbrenner:
When quoting Thomas Jefferson be sure to note that he hated not only organized religion, but big government as well.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 1:55 PM
Nat:
Late to the party, but just to throw in my two cents...
Since America is supposed to be a country where one has freedom of religion (including lack of one) and have a seperation of church and state, why do people always bring up the Bible when we are dealing with legislation concerning things like this? It is your right to believe everything you read in the Bible, Torah, Koran, or even the Sells Brothers' web site, but citing a religious belief as justification for legislation disqualifies the argument from the start.
Since America is supposed to be a country where one has freedom of religion (including lack of one) and have a seperation of church and state, why do people always bring up the Bible when we are dealing with legislation concerning things like this? It is your right to believe everything you read in the Bible, Torah, Koran, or even the Sells Brothers' web site, but citing a religious belief as justification for legislation disqualifies the argument from the start.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 1:58 PM
anon:
"America was founded to be an entirely secular government."
Although I did not live in the age, and have no first hand information, there is considerable literature that supports that America's roots are based in religion. Many of the first settlers (aside from Native Americans) travelled for months on the ocean just so that they could practice their own brand of religion with considerably less fear of persecution. They wanted freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion.
Patrick Henry (whom I assume lived well before 1984) said, "America was not founded by religionists nor on any religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."
John Adams, our 2nd president said, "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
Also, take note that while Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the first to imply the Separation of Church and State idea for an interpretation of the 1st ammendment, there is in fact no mention of the words "separation", "church", and "state" therein (these words do however appear together in the Russian Constitution if my memory is correct). Again, at least in my mind, the our 1st ammendment affirms freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion.
And finally, "Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government."
My point here is that all this doesn't sound like Separation of Church and State from the countries founders...
Although I did not live in the age, and have no first hand information, there is considerable literature that supports that America's roots are based in religion. Many of the first settlers (aside from Native Americans) travelled for months on the ocean just so that they could practice their own brand of religion with considerably less fear of persecution. They wanted freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion.
Patrick Henry (whom I assume lived well before 1984) said, "America was not founded by religionists nor on any religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ."
John Adams, our 2nd president said, "Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
Also, take note that while Thomas Jefferson was perhaps the first to imply the Separation of Church and State idea for an interpretation of the 1st ammendment, there is in fact no mention of the words "separation", "church", and "state" therein (these words do however appear together in the Russian Constitution if my memory is correct). Again, at least in my mind, the our 1st ammendment affirms freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion.
And finally, "Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government."
My point here is that all this doesn't sound like Separation of Church and State from the countries founders...
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 2:38 PM
Actually read books other than the bible in school:
And the word God occurs in the consitution how many times?
Zero.
Zero.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 2:41 PM
Me:
Don't you just love how libs pull a comment out of the air without any reference to a source. They must of got it off of the Web, then it must be true.
On quotes, of course Rosie with her "liberty and justice for all" comment after her marriage. Let's pull a famous liberty comment out. I'm sure all of you have heard this famous quote about liberty, but your teachers never teach it in the full context of what it was given.
Patrick Henry: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone, is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."
And of course we do know where Rosie got her comment from: "... to the flag, of the united States of America, and to the Republic, for which it
stands,one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
Of course the "under God" was added in the 1950s.
On quotes, of course Rosie with her "liberty and justice for all" comment after her marriage. Let's pull a famous liberty comment out. I'm sure all of you have heard this famous quote about liberty, but your teachers never teach it in the full context of what it was given.
Patrick Henry: "An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not to the strong alone, is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."
And of course we do know where Rosie got her comment from: "... to the flag, of the united States of America, and to the Republic, for which it
stands,one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
Of course the "under God" was added in the 1950s.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 3:35 PM
Dan Gilmore:
*language warning, but used in context*
I think it's great that homosexuals are getting married, and I think it should be allowed.
You know what kills me about this whole situation? The slippery slope arguments. They hold NO water at all. I've heard everything from "Fags have no rights" to "When will it end?" to "When will the gay community know when is enough?"
Forgive me, but saying that this leads to something else indicates that you cannot come up with a better argument against it. I hate it when folks say "Oh, don't do that, that will lead to (insert really bad thing here)". Our justice system is there for a reason. If left unchecked, yes, the worst could happen, but don't use that to hinder the current issue.
Just my 2 cents
I think it's great that homosexuals are getting married, and I think it should be allowed.
You know what kills me about this whole situation? The slippery slope arguments. They hold NO water at all. I've heard everything from "Fags have no rights" to "When will it end?" to "When will the gay community know when is enough?"
Forgive me, but saying that this leads to something else indicates that you cannot come up with a better argument against it. I hate it when folks say "Oh, don't do that, that will lead to (insert really bad thing here)". Our justice system is there for a reason. If left unchecked, yes, the worst could happen, but don't use that to hinder the current issue.
Just my 2 cents
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 3:52 PM
Me:
Dan:
Tell me where on this page did you read any of those negative comments from people opposed to gay marriage? Most of the people who are opposed to gay marriage have been nothing but respectful to others. The only negative language I have read or heard was from those favoring gay marriage.
Tell me where on this page did you read any of those negative comments from people opposed to gay marriage? Most of the people who are opposed to gay marriage have been nothing but respectful to others. The only negative language I have read or heard was from those favoring gay marriage.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 4:19 PM
Tom:
"Typical liberal mindset, if you don't believe the way I do, then don't express your opinion."
I agree. You should tell your congressman about this abuse of your right to free speech. Cite his deletion of your comment as evidence.
I agree. You should tell your congressman about this abuse of your right to free speech. Cite his deletion of your comment as evidence.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 6:22 PM
Jason Bunting:
Oh well, you said not to respond, but alas - I must!
Here is the thing: marriage's foundations are in religion. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (we have all heard that joke). That is the issue really, it all boils down to the words being used. You cannot "marry" two men or two women, it is used to denote a holy ordinance performed between a man and a woman. Period. Curse me all you want!
Here is the thing: marriage's foundations are in religion. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve (we have all heard that joke). That is the issue really, it all boils down to the words being used. You cannot "marry" two men or two women, it is used to denote a holy ordinance performed between a man and a woman. Period. Curse me all you want!
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 8:24 PM
Damien McGivern:
+1
Left this comment on Robert Scoble's blog too.
All you Americans are nuts! Some in a good way others in a funny way (the way I prefer). The real fruit cakes are the religious nut cases (we have them over here too) - usually, in my experience, those to the far right in the political spectrum. They bash, try to ridicule and silence people for speaking their mind on issues that don't agree with their little book but jet are the first to point out how other counties who don't have the right of free speech are bad and should be over thrown - shame on you. If you are all good little religious bigots then why should you care if two men or women who love each other get married - is your faith really that fragile that their getting married will somehow turn you GAY? This, my friends is the real heart of the problem - these people believe that having openly gay people in their communities will somehow turn straight people gay. Wake up call - your born gay not 'turned' gay. I truly believe that once EVERYONE gets that is not a disease (as some people really do think) or curable or most importantly wrong to be gay then debates such as this will cease to exist. But of course that's not going to happen in the real world any time soon so I have just one question - don't you guys have somewhere in your constitution that religion shouldn't influence your political decisions? As in my opinion this negative view, that gay marriages shouldn't happen, is really only religion blinding people to the truth - that people can't help, nor should they, about the way they feel about themselves or others. Feelings/love isn't wrong guys, oppressing it is.
Left this comment on Robert Scoble's blog too.
All you Americans are nuts! Some in a good way others in a funny way (the way I prefer). The real fruit cakes are the religious nut cases (we have them over here too) - usually, in my experience, those to the far right in the political spectrum. They bash, try to ridicule and silence people for speaking their mind on issues that don't agree with their little book but jet are the first to point out how other counties who don't have the right of free speech are bad and should be over thrown - shame on you. If you are all good little religious bigots then why should you care if two men or women who love each other get married - is your faith really that fragile that their getting married will somehow turn you GAY? This, my friends is the real heart of the problem - these people believe that having openly gay people in their communities will somehow turn straight people gay. Wake up call - your born gay not 'turned' gay. I truly believe that once EVERYONE gets that is not a disease (as some people really do think) or curable or most importantly wrong to be gay then debates such as this will cease to exist. But of course that's not going to happen in the real world any time soon so I have just one question - don't you guys have somewhere in your constitution that religion shouldn't influence your political decisions? As in my opinion this negative view, that gay marriages shouldn't happen, is really only religion blinding people to the truth - that people can't help, nor should they, about the way they feel about themselves or others. Feelings/love isn't wrong guys, oppressing it is.
Friday, Feb 27, 2004, 10:08 PM
Don Box:
Chris, I can't make heads nor tails of this thread. Your readers seem awfully obsessed with man-on-man or woman-on-woman couplings. To paraphrase the Bard, "anon and me doth protest too much, methinks."
I do take exception with your statement in which you "support parents being able to decide whether their minor children should be able to marry."
I don't think you've gone far enough.
I plan on exercising control over the selection of my childrens' spouses whether they marry before the age of majority or after.
I can't believe that you would allow one or both of the the brothers Sells to marry some woman, man, or beast that didn't meet with your high standards.
You would be one scary father-in-law, my friend!
DB
PS: It may be too early to tell if John and/or Tom will turn out gay, but I hope for your sake that they don't become OS/2 users.
I do take exception with your statement in which you "support parents being able to decide whether their minor children should be able to marry."
I don't think you've gone far enough.
I plan on exercising control over the selection of my childrens' spouses whether they marry before the age of majority or after.
I can't believe that you would allow one or both of the the brothers Sells to marry some woman, man, or beast that didn't meet with your high standards.
You would be one scary father-in-law, my friend!
DB
PS: It may be too early to tell if John and/or Tom will turn out gay, but I hope for your sake that they don't become OS/2 users.
Saturday, Feb 28, 2004, 12:27 AM
Mitch Denny:
With intensive corrective therapy OS/2 users can have close to normal life - speaking as one who was formerly afflicted.
Saturday, Feb 28, 2004, 2:00 AM
John:
OK. It's true. I've used OS/2 in the past, but I was young and foolish and just trying to find myself.
It was only a minor fling, just a little ObjectREXX, nothing too serious. You know, FTP a few logs files, parse them and print a quick report. I mean really it was nothing, I didn't even press CTRL-ALT-DEL or anything like that..
It was only a minor fling, just a little ObjectREXX, nothing too serious. You know, FTP a few logs files, parse them and print a quick report. I mean really it was nothing, I didn't even press CTRL-ALT-DEL or anything like that..
Saturday, Feb 28, 2004, 5:44 AM
Chris Sells:
I know what you mean, Don. Even though I'm straight, I could understand how one man could feel physical love for another man, but OS/2? Yikes! : )
Saturday, Feb 28, 2004, 9:14 AM
JF:
Like it or not, there is only one place to find absolute truth, and that is in the Bible - the inspired Word of God. Honestly, I don't expect you to take my word for it, in fact I'd rather you discover it for yourself.
If you want to understand where we are coming from, I challenge you to read the book 'Persecution' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261111/qid=1077999303//ref=pd_ka_1/102-1096327-0787366?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
Nuff said.
If you want to understand where we are coming from, I challenge you to read the book 'Persecution' (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261111/qid=1077999303//ref=pd_ka_1/102-1096327-0787366?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
Nuff said.
Saturday, Feb 28, 2004, 12:22 PM
Mickey Williams:
Truth and David Limbaugh in one posting - those go together like anchovies and corn flakes.
Saturday, Feb 28, 2004, 4:44 PM
DB:
JF : don't you think some people in the US are currently operating much, much serious persecutions (both inside & outside their country) than your psychotic, paranoid fears ?
My advise for a reading, in MS reader format :
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000U7L4I/qid=1078083933/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-2039687-1104018
My advise for a reading, in MS reader format :
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000U7L4I/qid=1078083933/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-2039687-1104018
Sunday, Feb 29, 2004, 11:58 AM
Me:
Micheal Moore?!! That is laughable, the man has been proven to twist facts and present falsehoods. To even present him as a valid source is laughable. People just take that leftest diatribe as fact. I've read and watched his Bowling for Columbine, and the way he twisted facts was uterly nonsense. He shows several NRA events and then tries to merge them into one. He shows an interview with Heston, but uses someone else for the back shots. And you want to use him as a valid or respectable source of information? If you like leftest propaganda and want to get spoon feed lies then go ahead.
Monday, Mar 1, 2004, 6:26 AM
Sri:
If we ought to allow homosexual marriages then we ought to allow every other alternate form. I don't even want to mention those "other" forms because they are downright creepy.
How about that Chris ?
- Sri, Dallas, TX
Monday, Mar 1, 2004, 9:40 AM
Mickey Williams:
Many of these same arguments were made (including one recent Bush appointee to the appeals court) in support of laws against miscegenation. A constitutional ammendment was proposed to ban interracial marriage about 90 years ago. Does this look familiar:
Intermarriage between negros or persons of color and Caucasians ... is forever prohibited.
(proposed ammendment by Seaborn Roddenberry, circa 1912)
Same arguments then as now - unnatural, creepy, against the laws of (my/your/somebody's) God, help! help! we're being oppressed by not being allowed to oppress others, etc.
You look just as backwards to me as I hope these people appear to you. Except that the Republican party seems to still embrace these people, so who knows?
Monday, Mar 1, 2004, 10:03 AM
Me:
Mickey:
You are just so right in your analysis. Gays are going through the same thing blacks had to go through, it is so sad. Everytime I see a gay person having to sit at the end of the bus, or have their own drinking fountain, it is just sad. Everytime a gay person walks into a job interview with the "Hey I'm Gay" sign on them and instantly be turned down due to their sexual orientation, it is EXACTLY the same thing that blacks had to go through in this country, sad, so sad. We need to do something in order to provide them with the same rights as everyone else, it makes me feel good, and that's what we all want to feel good right. I don't think it should end there, we should all support NIMBLA, pologamy, and any other cause out there, who cares what the majority of society says, all we have to do is find a sympathetic judge for our cause and he can override any law that society has had a majority agreement upon. The needs and wants of the few should outweigh the many, as long as it makes us feel good. If they don't like it, we'll just compare it so racial descrimation or something most people won't touch, that will show them.
You are just so right in your analysis. Gays are going through the same thing blacks had to go through, it is so sad. Everytime I see a gay person having to sit at the end of the bus, or have their own drinking fountain, it is just sad. Everytime a gay person walks into a job interview with the "Hey I'm Gay" sign on them and instantly be turned down due to their sexual orientation, it is EXACTLY the same thing that blacks had to go through in this country, sad, so sad. We need to do something in order to provide them with the same rights as everyone else, it makes me feel good, and that's what we all want to feel good right. I don't think it should end there, we should all support NIMBLA, pologamy, and any other cause out there, who cares what the majority of society says, all we have to do is find a sympathetic judge for our cause and he can override any law that society has had a majority agreement upon. The needs and wants of the few should outweigh the many, as long as it makes us feel good. If they don't like it, we'll just compare it so racial descrimation or something most people won't touch, that will show them.
Tuesday, Mar 2, 2004, 7:45 AM
Rick Childress:
+ 1 'Me'
Tuesday, Mar 2, 2004, 8:44 AM
Mickey Williams:
Assuming you're talking about NAMBLA (I have no idea what NIMBLA is), and polygamy (unless pologamy is some weird horse-sport fetish of the rich), I don't think anybody is advocating sexual exploitation of minors or exploitation of women. Or animal cruelty for that matter.
This issue is all about two people that want to formalize a commitment that they already share, so that they can get the same rights offered by the (supposedly secular) government to male/female couples. It's not about wanting extra rights, it's all about wanting the same rights.
This issue is all about two people that want to formalize a commitment that they already share, so that they can get the same rights offered by the (supposedly secular) government to male/female couples. It's not about wanting extra rights, it's all about wanting the same rights.
Tuesday, Mar 2, 2004, 11:10 AM
Me:
Mickey:
Excuse me mickey, I don't have a spell checker on my browser. Nor do I really follow the activities of NAMBLA. How can you say it doesn't compare, according to those folks it's not exploitation, its an agreement between consenting individuals. What gives you the authority to say they're not? Just watch, NAMBLA is already working PACs and trying to affect policy. Remember at one time homosexuality was considered a mental illness.
The point is, regardless of the topic, what is going on San Fran is illegal, a law was passed, and now anarchy rules in the city. Is this the way the country should be run? In MA, a single judge thinks they can change the rule of law for a nation, is this how the country should be run? Society decides these issues and not one person or judge even a town should decide for the rest of the country. We elect representatives and vote on issues, and I think everyone has heard of the Defense of Marriage Act, this was during Clinton's admin, remember? But yet, who cares what society thinks as long as it makes a couple people feel good right?
Excuse me mickey, I don't have a spell checker on my browser. Nor do I really follow the activities of NAMBLA. How can you say it doesn't compare, according to those folks it's not exploitation, its an agreement between consenting individuals. What gives you the authority to say they're not? Just watch, NAMBLA is already working PACs and trying to affect policy. Remember at one time homosexuality was considered a mental illness.
The point is, regardless of the topic, what is going on San Fran is illegal, a law was passed, and now anarchy rules in the city. Is this the way the country should be run? In MA, a single judge thinks they can change the rule of law for a nation, is this how the country should be run? Society decides these issues and not one person or judge even a town should decide for the rest of the country. We elect representatives and vote on issues, and I think everyone has heard of the Defense of Marriage Act, this was during Clinton's admin, remember? But yet, who cares what society thinks as long as it makes a couple people feel good right?
Tuesday, Mar 2, 2004, 1:53 PM
Mickey Williams:
A single judge cannot be they. A single judge can be he, she, or decline to state, but not they. And in any event, it *was* they - the majority of the state supreme court decided that the state constitution required equal protection, not a single judge.
NAMBLA are a pack of child molesters. Trying to equate gays in general with NAMBLA is just ignorant. Homosexual child molestation is even less likely to become legal than heterosexual child molestation.
NAMBLA are a pack of child molesters. Trying to equate gays in general with NAMBLA is just ignorant. Homosexual child molestation is even less likely to become legal than heterosexual child molestation.
Tuesday, Mar 2, 2004, 3:09 PM
Raymond:
-googol
I must say after being divorced 5 times that I would not wish marriage on anyone. If there is any way I can discourage it from any one person or any specific group, I will. These people do not know how good they have it. Why would they want to screw things up and get married? Why? Why? Why? Come on people, let's keep it real here.
"Let's keep it real because I'm keeping it real."
I must say after being divorced 5 times that I would not wish marriage on anyone. If there is any way I can discourage it from any one person or any specific group, I will. These people do not know how good they have it. Why would they want to screw things up and get married? Why? Why? Why? Come on people, let's keep it real here.
"Let's keep it real because I'm keeping it real."
Wednesday, Mar 3, 2004, 7:04 AM
Marty Fried:
++ Gays pay the same taxes as I do, why shouldn't they have the same rights? Why does anyone care whether two people, already living together, has a legal relationship? It can only be that they feel somehow threatened by this, but I sure don't see why.
Gays don't choose to be gay (so I've heard). Why should they not be able to choose a partner who has legal rights to look out for their best interests like anyone else? I just can't understand those that oppose this - it's just plain selfish to me.
Gays don't choose to be gay (so I've heard). Why should they not be able to choose a partner who has legal rights to look out for their best interests like anyone else? I just can't understand those that oppose this - it's just plain selfish to me.
Wednesday, Mar 3, 2004, 5:42 PM
--:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/27/90226.shtml
'nuff said
'nuff said
Thursday, Mar 4, 2004, 1:42 PM
Chris Sells:
I find it telling that almost all of the anti-gay marriage folks don't leave their full names, whereas all of the pro-gay marriage folks do. Why is that?
Friday, Mar 5, 2004, 10:02 AM
Rick Childress:
Because the first thing an employer is going to do is google for some applicant's name.
Hmmm.. seems here that Joe has his own blog... mmkay .... very active in the developer community... mmkay, nice... and .... oh.... well let's just say he's not exactly 'pc'.....
Hmmm.. seems here that Joe has his own blog... mmkay .... very active in the developer community... mmkay, nice... and .... oh.... well let's just say he's not exactly 'pc'.....
Friday, Mar 5, 2004, 10:32 AM
Chris Sells:
But according to the outrage and indignant attitude shown by the folks against gay marriage, wouldn't they be on the "politically correct" side? Isn't it the commie, pinko, gay lovers that have to watch out for their jobs?
Friday, Mar 5, 2004, 3:09 PM
Mickey Williams:
Hard to run from google - as an ex punk-rock concert promoter, book author and skateboard racer, I find that people that want to hire me for consulting tend to be a bit tolerant already ;)
Friday, Mar 5, 2004, 5:54 PM
Rick Childress:
No, Chris. Political correctness is hardly equated to conservative opinion. It's more aligned with the liberal opinion. Open-mindedness, freedom *from* religion, and all that...
Friday, Mar 5, 2004, 6:37 PM
Rick Childress:
Oh and one other thing, don't forget that a lot of companies are scared to death of organizations like the ACLU, so if they googled for someone and found out they were a gay activist (for example), they'd be afraid *not* to hire for fear of being seen as an 'intolerant' company just waiting to be a legislation target.
Friday, Mar 5, 2004, 6:40 PM
Mickey Williams:
Yeah, the ACLU are a scary bunch. Imagine - a group of people dedicated to preserving your constitutional rights, no matter how unpopular your views or opinions.
Saturday, Mar 6, 2004, 11:22 AM
Rick Childress:
"NAMBLA are a pack of child molesters"
-- Mickey Williams
"Yeah, the ACLU are a scary bunch. Imagine - a group of people dedicated to preserving your constitutional rights, no matter how unpopular your views or opinions."
-- Mickey Williams
"ACLU defends child-molester group"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029
!ding!
-- Mickey Williams
"Yeah, the ACLU are a scary bunch. Imagine - a group of people dedicated to preserving your constitutional rights, no matter how unpopular your views or opinions."
-- Mickey Williams
"ACLU defends child-molester group"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=18029
!ding!
Saturday, Mar 6, 2004, 7:31 PM
Mickey Williams:
Not news - the ACLU signed on the that lawsuit about 4 years ago now, and not about same-sex marriage either. Your need to keep injecting NAMBLA into the discussion says more about you than about same-sex couples.
I doubt that there are many people that are unaware that the ACLU will defend the constitution even when it means defending the free-speech rights of a pack of losers like NAMBLA.
I doubt that there are many people that are unaware that the ACLU will defend the constitution even when it means defending the free-speech rights of a pack of losers like NAMBLA.
Sunday, Mar 7, 2004, 9:20 PM
Nathan Neitzke:
+1000 Me - You go for it. Backing you 100%.
Friday, Mar 12, 2004, 11:02 PM
Mandy Chagoya:
I agree that homosexual marriages should be allowed. Bush says that it is a sin. And I agree, but just because it may be a sin in your religion, doesn't mean you must impose your beliefs on the entire nation. If you believe it to be a sin, well I can't stop it and no one can, but not every religion sees homosexuality as a sin. And some think that when/if gay marriages become legal then more and more people will become homosexual. But I don't believe that to be true. I mean, just because you hang around tall people, it doesn't make you tall.:)
Tuesday, May 18, 2004, 4:57 PM
Mandy Chagoya:
I agree that homosexual marriages should be allowed. Bush says that it is a sin. And I agree, but just because it may be a sin in your religion, doesn't mean you must impose your beliefs on the entire nation. If you believe it to be a sin, well I can't stop it and no one can, but not every religion sees homosexuality as a sin. And some think that when/if gay marriages become legal then more and more people will become homosexual. But I don't believe that to be true. I mean, just because you hang around tall people, it doesn't make you tall.:)
Tuesday, May 18, 2004, 4:58 PM
JC:
I'm writing a college paper on weather or not Same-Sex Marriages should be allowed. While I am a person of faith, I too have realtives in my family who are homosexuals that I love. To get to the point, I'm trying to come up with different answers on the situations. What are some adult veiw points on if the government reformed taxing and benefits so that eveyone, man and wife, partner and partner were taxed individually? So only a parents biological or adopted children would recieve benefits instead of a spouse. And what about other interest groups who claim they want to recieve equal rights involving beastiality, incest, or bigamous relationships? Would this work? What pros and cons would it offer?
Saturday, Oct 23, 2004, 3:36 PM
Brando:
i agree it should be allowed, I get sick of all the youth group kids in my school along w/ adults that say it shouldnt be allowed because it's against THEIR beliefs. They dont care at all for anyone else's beliefs and have absolutely no respect for them either.
Tuesday, Apr 5, 2005, 11:40 AM
Mandy Chagoya:
hey my name's Mandy Chagoya too!!! Awesome!! go us!
Wednesday, Jan 18, 2006, 6:23 AM
Chris:
I am same sex attracted (I hate the name gay) and I am 100% opposed to so called "gay" marriage or civil unions which are "gay" marriage in all but name. Marriage has always been recognised as a union between a man and a woman and I see no reason to change that just to make some in the homosexual community feel more accepted or less guilty about the SIN they are engaging in. And a sin it most certainly is, the act of course, not the prediciment one finds oneself in being unfortunately attracted to the same sex. I believe its only a small vocal minority within the homosexual community that is pushing for this radical nonsense and making the rest of us look bad. Homosexuals should be practicing abstense, not lobying for same sex "marriage". Homosexual behaviour is a sin, married or not!
Thursday, Mar 16, 2006, 5:41 AM
