PC1
Guest
db682 said:Now someone roast me for something about my post.
db
Actually, the point you made about adoption and impact on children is a very good one, and well said, I thought.
Biggs
Well-known member
speaking of webster:
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
----------------
so we have one as between opposite sexes, and recognized by law, and the other as "like" a traditional marriage... personally, i'm wondering whatever happened to the political correctness of life partners... do homosexual people take life partners anymore? i suppose not, when now the push is for marriage in the "traditional" sense, and all that implies (where the law is concerned. already stated my views about religion).
before mentioning adoption, i should say that as has already been mentioned, comparing homosexuality to criminal behavior is completely inaccurate, and does not realy address the crux of the thing. if anything, homosexuality should be equated to alcoholism or tobbacco abuse in that it is an unfortunate type of behavior (a tendency, according to webster) that we should seek to remedy, not embrace, celebrate, or embellish via popular culture. while criminals are sought out and prosecuted, alcoholics can still buy alcohol, people dying of lung cancer can smoke until the day they die and people with same sex preferences should, in my mind, be allowed to exercise their habit and lifestyle with other consenting adults. even among these things, the first two behaviors can have directly harmful impacts on other people, whereas a homosexual lifestyle arguably has far, far less. however, adoption SHOULD be characterized by responsibility, and it seems to me that quite simply, people (any people) with tendencies that diminish the would-be parents' capacity to raise the child in a customary fashion should be prohibited. the child is already a product of STRAIGHT people who royally fucked up, and brought a child into the world without the means to care for it properly. for MOST of the country, even if marriage rights were extended to "married" homosexual individuals, they would not be the norm for the community. the last thing an already homeless, father/motherless child needs is to be placed in an environment where harmful tendencies are accepted, or made to confront the decidedly more difficult social challenges as they age and mature. my previous posts about the common mindset (through the middle of the country especially) reinforce this.
Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>
----------------
so we have one as between opposite sexes, and recognized by law, and the other as "like" a traditional marriage... personally, i'm wondering whatever happened to the political correctness of life partners... do homosexual people take life partners anymore? i suppose not, when now the push is for marriage in the "traditional" sense, and all that implies (where the law is concerned. already stated my views about religion).
before mentioning adoption, i should say that as has already been mentioned, comparing homosexuality to criminal behavior is completely inaccurate, and does not realy address the crux of the thing. if anything, homosexuality should be equated to alcoholism or tobbacco abuse in that it is an unfortunate type of behavior (a tendency, according to webster) that we should seek to remedy, not embrace, celebrate, or embellish via popular culture. while criminals are sought out and prosecuted, alcoholics can still buy alcohol, people dying of lung cancer can smoke until the day they die and people with same sex preferences should, in my mind, be allowed to exercise their habit and lifestyle with other consenting adults. even among these things, the first two behaviors can have directly harmful impacts on other people, whereas a homosexual lifestyle arguably has far, far less. however, adoption SHOULD be characterized by responsibility, and it seems to me that quite simply, people (any people) with tendencies that diminish the would-be parents' capacity to raise the child in a customary fashion should be prohibited. the child is already a product of STRAIGHT people who royally fucked up, and brought a child into the world without the means to care for it properly. for MOST of the country, even if marriage rights were extended to "married" homosexual individuals, they would not be the norm for the community. the last thing an already homeless, father/motherless child needs is to be placed in an environment where harmful tendencies are accepted, or made to confront the decidedly more difficult social challenges as they age and mature. my previous posts about the common mindset (through the middle of the country especially) reinforce this.
houseman
Board Supporter
PC1 said:
I did NOT resort to name calling. Read his comments. Actually, I'll quote them here:
Gays should be fortunate for the RIGHTS they do have? If he had of been talking about blacks we'd all be agreeing his comments to be prejuidice. However, since he is speaking of gays they're alrigth and tolerable?
That kind of talk has NO place in society let alone this thread. What, we still live in the 50's or something?
I'm sorry... you better do better if THAT'S what you consider as "name calling".
homophobes? I did not and would not say that. I don't mix my words. If I thought that you can bet I'd be more than happy to say it.
A
Edited as I had the word racist in there with prejuidice.. my bad.
size
Well-known member
In all honesty, I think that a child may be in a better situation living with a loving gay family than left in an orphanage or passed from one foster family to another. If you have not experienced this or do not know someone who has, it is really a difficult thing to understand.
However, I do find it ironic that homosexuals still feel the need to nuture young despite the fact that the lifestyle eliminates physical chacnes of creation.
However, I do find it ironic that homosexuals still feel the need to nuture young despite the fact that the lifestyle eliminates physical chacnes of creation.
houseman
Board Supporter
PC1 said:
It's only been held that way because of the church go'ers and bible thumpers. The Chruch has serious flaws and I tell you, ANY insitutuion who protects child molesters like they do don't deserve a voice let alone the ability to dictate what IS and what ISN'T right or wrong and moral.
[/quote]
2. The intent of comparing homosexual relationships with other deviant, immoral behavior was not a deliberate intent to compare it with a "criminal act". While I cannot at the moment think of an immoral act that is not "criminal", that probably serves to defeat the notion that morality cannot be legislated.
3. The "Church", however one cares to define that, is comprised of humans and who can argue that it has not committed some atrocious acts in the name of God. However the church has not been the foundation of our legal system. Principles of religion have been. Religious principles define conduct between and among people (and God). And while we have freedom of choice including the freedom of whether or not to believe in God, the U.S. was founded as one country under God.
[/quote]
So much for separation of chruch and state, huh?
Ahh.. so you agree gays are a minority? Wonderful. Then, they can be treated as women and blacks and any other minority group whose civil rights are being violated?
You bring up the "institution" of marriage. Tell me, how the hell does two gays being married affect your marriage? HOW does it undermine YOUR marriage? Are you saying that because you are straight that your love hold a higher value than someone who is gay and if they are able to wed that your love is somehow undervalued now?
My head hurts. lol.
A
Cogar
Member
It sounds like you have a problem with religion, which is altering your perception. Most of the people who call themselves Christians never go to church and have never read the Bible. You are way overestimating the impact of religion in this argument. Further, there are people who do not consider themselves religious in any way who believe marriage is between a man and a woman--despite the newfound political correctness in Webster's Dictionary that Biggs found. I would like to see someone find a definition for a "same-sex marriage" in any dictionary published before 1960 (to draw a date out of the air).houseman said:
Let me also state that the Roman Catholic Church, the one with the child molesting priests, is not really a Christian teaching organization, so don't lay that behavior on Christians. (I will leave further discussion of that for a more appropriate thread. Let me also say that my comments are not directed toward Catholics, but rather the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.) Further, I believe that you will find that virtually all Catholics find the behavior of such priests deplorable.
Let me add that the separation of church and state means that the state shall not establish an official religion that we all have to follow. Read the first amendment. It is quite clear.
houseman
Board Supporter
db682 said:
First off.. I'll address the adoption. I've had friends raised in orphanages. 3 in fact. All 3 grew up in worse conditions than I and I certainly didn't live high off the hog.
Two of them were beaten with a regular occurance and I came later to find out they were sexually abused as well. The 3rd? Well, Mitch was so big at the time he entered into the orphanage at 13 (already 6' and well over 200lbs) that they pretty much left him alone.
It was disturbing back then as it is now and I know they were not the exception to the rule but rather THE rule. Common place it was.
Who the hell cares what sex the couple is that adpots a child as long as it's going into a loving, stable home? My god... go to a damn shelter sometime you guys.. take a look around as the conditions and what they kids have to grow up in. You'd rather these kids grow up like that instead of going into a loving home just because the people possibly adpoting the child are gay?
That's just wrong!
Now, I do not agree with the idea of using marriage as a scape goat for adpoting a child, even though the child DOES benefit. However, how is it any different when mothers keep getting pregant so they get more welfare money (additional money for each kid)? That goes on but you don't see the parallel there, huh?
Another thing I take exception to is this notion that if a gay couple adpot a child, that child is going to grow up being gay as well. Wow!
I grew up in a poor home, mom working two jobs. Being treated like **** from my mom, etc. I swore that I'd never live my adult life the way I had to live my childhood (poor) and that I would NEVER treat my kids the way my mom treated me. I guess using your analogy I should turn out exactly like my mom?
What about my friends who were beated as kids? I guess they'll turn to beating their children as well, eh?
Sorry.. that doesn't hold weight.
Being gay ISN'T A LIFESTYLE. I will admit there may be a few for who it is, most definitely but look at the big picture. You honestly think someone would voluntarialy choose to put themselves through the baggage that comes along with being gay? I can't fathom it.
I had a friend in University who was gay. He was beaten quite badly because he was gay. How do I know thius for sure? Spray painted the word "queer" on his chest. Why the HELL would he put himself through THAT if it was simply a lifestyle thing for him?
Ok.. I'm rambling here. Too damn busy but you get my point?
I'll try and post more later!
A
NPursuit
Well-known member
What's wrong with my statement? I don't see how that statement makes me prejudice? I'm saying they should feel fortunate for the level of acceptance they have received. I think you're fishing for a way out the debate by now placing labels on me. Yet again you used the blacks example and yet again it's not valid to the discussion or as an example to label me as a bigot or prejudice.houseman said:
size
Well-known member
Cogar said:
This reply is OFF TOPIC:
This is a unfair statement to make. Admittedly, there is/was a sex scandal in the Catholic Church, but these scandals exist in other religions, teacher/student relationships, mentoring, foster homes,etc. These type of sexual relationships shoudl NEVER be tolerated. However, the Catholic Church is a ultra conservative organization that is HATED by the mainstream media b/c of the lack of tolerance. Consequently, the paricular story was dragged thru the dirt repeatedly. However, you are correct, this certainly does not dismiss the behavior and it is THE WORST ACT YOU CAN COMMIT ON A CHILD. However, Catholic and other Christian organizations do some much charity work that never gets recognized. It is only the bad that gets recognized.
PC1
Guest
Houseman: So much for separation of chruch and state, huh?
the term "separation of church and state" is not found in the U.S. constitution nor it's amendments. Rather, it refers to the 2nd amendment to the constitution which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Note: as mentioned earlier, it speaks of respecting 1 religion over another. It doesn't preclude respecting "religion" or respecting religious principles. The intent was to avoid a theocracy similar to the church in England, where 1 church was inextricably interwoven with government, and dominated all other religions.
Another game of semantics, people throw around the phrase "separation of church and state" as if it's unlawful to enact any legislation dealing with a moral issue that's based on religious principle. That's simply incorrect.
I'm not implying Houseman, that's your intent here. But it's a common misperception that should be addressed when it arises.
Houseman: Ahh.. so you agree gays are a minority? Wonderful. Then, they can be treated as women and blacks and any other minority group whose civil rights are being violated?
Nice try. I didn't say homosexuals are a "minority". I said they are in the minority in terms of sheer numbers. In terms of civil rights, they have the same rights as everyone else. Save for our discussion here, we don't want them to have the right of homosexual marriage for all the reasons aforementioned.
Houseman: You bring up the "institution" of marriage. Tell me, how the hell does two gays being married affect your marriage? HOW does it undermine YOUR marriage? Are you saying that because you are straight that your love hold a higher value than someone who is gay and if they are able to wed that your love is somehow undervalued now?
My head hurts. lol.
The sanctity of marriage is affected. What it means to be married is affected. Marriage, like many other legal concepts, has it's roots in religion. It's always been between men and women. Society has always placed a higher value on marriage between men and women than in any homosexual relationship. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it doesn't affect love between husbands and wives. But it changes what it means to be married. If in the end, society indeed says that precluding homosexuals from marriage is an illegal form of discrimination, then legally, we're also going to end up being compelled to allow polygamists to marry. Why should that group be "discriminated" against? So then, what does it mean any more. It means nothing. It simply is another form of legal property ownership (not the spouse, rather the property rights that convey). At that point, we will have deconstructed something in society that has served civillization for thousands of years now. And I feel that would be a damned sorry day indeed.
These are points you have not addressed anywhere. I hear terms like equality, being treated equally. I don't hear you talking about any long term impact on society. I don't hear you talking about how YOU would feel if your children came home from school one day with printouts and literature FROM SCHOOL encouraging them to explore the virtues and joys of homosexual sex and relations...... RUBBISH that YOUR tax dollars were spent on that runs 180 degrees from your own deeply held personal convictions on the subject. Is this so far fetched? It's not at all. We already have States here in the U.S. in which parental notification is NOT necessary for minor children who want to have an abortion. This is all a GROSS intrusion of our government into the private affairs of it's citizens, all in the name of prohibiting DISCRIMINATION. The entire charactarization of the dispute is WRONG. It isn't about discriminating, it's about protecting values MOST people hold dear to their hearts.
And if you can't understand that, or don't want to understand that. That's your perogative. I'll fight it tooth and nail.
the term "separation of church and state" is not found in the U.S. constitution nor it's amendments. Rather, it refers to the 2nd amendment to the constitution which states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "
Note: as mentioned earlier, it speaks of respecting 1 religion over another. It doesn't preclude respecting "religion" or respecting religious principles. The intent was to avoid a theocracy similar to the church in England, where 1 church was inextricably interwoven with government, and dominated all other religions.
Another game of semantics, people throw around the phrase "separation of church and state" as if it's unlawful to enact any legislation dealing with a moral issue that's based on religious principle. That's simply incorrect.
I'm not implying Houseman, that's your intent here. But it's a common misperception that should be addressed when it arises.
Houseman: Ahh.. so you agree gays are a minority? Wonderful. Then, they can be treated as women and blacks and any other minority group whose civil rights are being violated?
Nice try. I didn't say homosexuals are a "minority". I said they are in the minority in terms of sheer numbers. In terms of civil rights, they have the same rights as everyone else. Save for our discussion here, we don't want them to have the right of homosexual marriage for all the reasons aforementioned.
Houseman: You bring up the "institution" of marriage. Tell me, how the hell does two gays being married affect your marriage? HOW does it undermine YOUR marriage? Are you saying that because you are straight that your love hold a higher value than someone who is gay and if they are able to wed that your love is somehow undervalued now?
My head hurts. lol.
The sanctity of marriage is affected. What it means to be married is affected. Marriage, like many other legal concepts, has it's roots in religion. It's always been between men and women. Society has always placed a higher value on marriage between men and women than in any homosexual relationship. If homosexuals are allowed to marry, it doesn't affect love between husbands and wives. But it changes what it means to be married. If in the end, society indeed says that precluding homosexuals from marriage is an illegal form of discrimination, then legally, we're also going to end up being compelled to allow polygamists to marry. Why should that group be "discriminated" against? So then, what does it mean any more. It means nothing. It simply is another form of legal property ownership (not the spouse, rather the property rights that convey). At that point, we will have deconstructed something in society that has served civillization for thousands of years now. And I feel that would be a damned sorry day indeed.
These are points you have not addressed anywhere. I hear terms like equality, being treated equally. I don't hear you talking about any long term impact on society. I don't hear you talking about how YOU would feel if your children came home from school one day with printouts and literature FROM SCHOOL encouraging them to explore the virtues and joys of homosexual sex and relations...... RUBBISH that YOUR tax dollars were spent on that runs 180 degrees from your own deeply held personal convictions on the subject. Is this so far fetched? It's not at all. We already have States here in the U.S. in which parental notification is NOT necessary for minor children who want to have an abortion. This is all a GROSS intrusion of our government into the private affairs of it's citizens, all in the name of prohibiting DISCRIMINATION. The entire charactarization of the dispute is WRONG. It isn't about discriminating, it's about protecting values MOST people hold dear to their hearts.
And if you can't understand that, or don't want to understand that. That's your perogative. I'll fight it tooth and nail.
Last edited:
PC1
Guest
houseman said:
Well, I would encourage you to scroll back and read some of my posts that you must have missed. I spoke about the concerns many conservatives have with respect to the continuing legislation the U.S. government has passed over the past 4-5 decades that have weakened the family unit by making divorce too easy, convenient even, in allowing single moms to collect welfare, food stamps, insurance, and other financial benefits (again, this is not to say I advocate spouses stay in abusive relationships). My discussion framed potential legislation for homosexual marriage in the context of being just another assault on our traditional historical values.
houseman said:
I'm sorry you had to live like this. It's unrealistic but I wish every kid had the kind of upbringing I had.
houseman said:
You need to understand that just because we don't want to see the institution of marriage compromised by granting it to homosexuals, that doesn't mean we condone any violence against homosexuals. I, and most people, hope to God that people who commit violence against ANYONE else gets to full weight of law dropped on them like an anvil off the 2nd floor.
I think it was only 2 or 3 years ago, it happened somewhere in Colorado. A young homosexual college student was picked up in a bar by a couple of jerks, I think one was posing as gay. They took the poor kid, tied him up, and dragged him behind their pickup until there wasn't much left of him. I prayed for he and his family. What a sick and needless tragedy.
In my mind, these two punks should get the electric chair. I wouldn't mind seeing them get something more painful, even dragged themselves.
The bottom line is that violence against anyone else shouldn't be tolerated, it should be punished SEVERELY. We don't condone it, rather we abhor it.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
I don't have too much time here. Houseman you keep tiring to equate people who oppose gay marriage with religion which is why I took it out of my argument. Opposition to gay marriage is more than just a moral or religious issue. You also keep trying to link gay marriage to civil rights movements of the 60's. You can not do this. The color of someone's skin is genetic and being gay is a behavior. As I stated before gays are not forced to sit on the back of the buses or not aloud into restaurants. You can not tell by looking at someone if they are gay or not. It is comparing apples and oranges. Marriage is not a right.You also did revert to name calling or labeling when you labeled NP as having bigoted and prejudicial thinking instead of responding to the substance of his comments.
PC1
Guest
VanillaGorilla said:
One of the VERY few advantages of being an unemployed bum, HA! I have more time during the day to compose thoughts on subjects like this.
Actually, good news on that front, I start a new job this Monday 2/16. Aside from the $ aspect, it's a job I'm looking forward to starting just by it's nature...... I've been hired as a right wing lobbyist to write for, and petition both state and federal legislators with respect to tracking, thwarting and defeating proposed pro-homosexual biased legislation.
Just kidding
Although, like me or hate me, my presence around here will diminish greatly. I will be around though. This is a great forum. I've learned a lot here, and enjoyed all your company. My continued best regards to you all.
BingeAndPurge
Active member
houseman said:
You are wrong here. Your analogy doesn't fit here either. Social study after social study can offer you proof that growing up in a poor environment lessens a persons chance at moving up the social ladder. Not to mention the fact that the majority of sex offenders were themselves abused and the same goes for people who beat their kids and spouses as well.
custom
Well-known member
Wow. I had no idea this thread was going on, or else I would have chimed in sooner.
Let me say that PC1, Size, and Vanilla Gorilla have made excellent arguments. You voice of reason rings loud within this field of mindless banter.
I do have a few points to add, as well.
Personally, I am extremely tired of the homosexual agenda in this country. I am tired of being called a bigot and a slanderer because I do not accept homosexuals and their lifestyles with open arms. I am tired of how trendy it is to be gay and fashionable. I am tired of the liberal media skewing the news to make it seem like anyone who disagrees automatically hates.
I am tired of the homosexual agenda wanting it both ways (no pun intended). First they want acceptance into the secular world, and now they want to tell private, faith based organizations such as the Boy Scouts and church denominations that they must accept them as well.
The fact is the homosexual agenda is built on a foundation of lies. They say that homosexuality is totally natural, that 10% of any given species practices homosexuality. LIES. They said that accepting homosexual behavior would help curb sexually transmitted diseases. LIES. They said that children raised in a same sex parent group would not be more likely to be gay as well. LIES.
I do not hate homosexuals, but I absolutely will not, cannot accept their behavior. I cannot turn a blind eye to drug addiction, pedophiles, or career criminals. As a person of faith, I am to love the sinner, but hate the sin.
As it has been said a few times in this thread, this is a much larger picture. This is not about just gay people, but about the civil, legal union between a man and a woman which has been defined as marriage for over 5,000 years. Who in the world is a state court to change the definition of marriage? Marriage is a divinely created union between a man and a woman, period. I believe it be instituted by God in the Garden of Eden. The court has no business redefining this. As mentioned, our constitution was written, and this country founded by men with strong Judeo-Christian values. The vast majority of our forefathers help degrees in divinity, theology, or ministry. To insinuate that they would have left this possibility open within the constitution is ludicrous at best. This country founded by godly men has truly stepped into darkness.
This is indeed a blight in United States history as well as the moral fabric of our society. When I saw the South Park episode about NAMBLA, I thought it was a joke. Apparently its not. Using the exact same tactics, this group for man-boy love is trying to edge into main stream society. Using the homosexual agenda that has worked, the man-boy love group makes perfect sense as well.
Homosexual behavior is immoral at best. It goes against nature. Do you actually think that a rectum is designed to take the kind of “work out” that it does in a homosexual relationship?
Let me say that PC1, Size, and Vanilla Gorilla have made excellent arguments. You voice of reason rings loud within this field of mindless banter.
I do have a few points to add, as well.
Personally, I am extremely tired of the homosexual agenda in this country. I am tired of being called a bigot and a slanderer because I do not accept homosexuals and their lifestyles with open arms. I am tired of how trendy it is to be gay and fashionable. I am tired of the liberal media skewing the news to make it seem like anyone who disagrees automatically hates.
I am tired of the homosexual agenda wanting it both ways (no pun intended). First they want acceptance into the secular world, and now they want to tell private, faith based organizations such as the Boy Scouts and church denominations that they must accept them as well.
The fact is the homosexual agenda is built on a foundation of lies. They say that homosexuality is totally natural, that 10% of any given species practices homosexuality. LIES. They said that accepting homosexual behavior would help curb sexually transmitted diseases. LIES. They said that children raised in a same sex parent group would not be more likely to be gay as well. LIES.
I do not hate homosexuals, but I absolutely will not, cannot accept their behavior. I cannot turn a blind eye to drug addiction, pedophiles, or career criminals. As a person of faith, I am to love the sinner, but hate the sin.
As it has been said a few times in this thread, this is a much larger picture. This is not about just gay people, but about the civil, legal union between a man and a woman which has been defined as marriage for over 5,000 years. Who in the world is a state court to change the definition of marriage? Marriage is a divinely created union between a man and a woman, period. I believe it be instituted by God in the Garden of Eden. The court has no business redefining this. As mentioned, our constitution was written, and this country founded by men with strong Judeo-Christian values. The vast majority of our forefathers help degrees in divinity, theology, or ministry. To insinuate that they would have left this possibility open within the constitution is ludicrous at best. This country founded by godly men has truly stepped into darkness.
This is indeed a blight in United States history as well as the moral fabric of our society. When I saw the South Park episode about NAMBLA, I thought it was a joke. Apparently its not. Using the exact same tactics, this group for man-boy love is trying to edge into main stream society. Using the homosexual agenda that has worked, the man-boy love group makes perfect sense as well.
Homosexual behavior is immoral at best. It goes against nature. Do you actually think that a rectum is designed to take the kind of “work out” that it does in a homosexual relationship?
PC1
Guest
Biggs said:
I'm going to respectfully disagree with Biggsey. The very issue under discussion is the INADEQUACY of the laws of our land, IF it becomes LEGAL for homosexuals to marry. I'm arguing that homosexuals shouldn't be granted the rite of marriage as it's not spelled out in the constitution that any group of citizens distinguished solely on the basis of behavior have any special rights.
Logically, you can't argue that because homosexuality isn't illegal, it shouldn't be compared with an illegal activity WHEN I'm saying the law is inadequate in the first place!
I don't think that the Massacusetts legislators have the balls to tackle this issue, sadly. It's therefore going to need to be handled by a voter referendum question, but just you watch the homosexual activists fight that with every ounce of their energy. God forbid the electorate decide the issue!
It's fairly clear to me that given the national pollitical landscape, it will be a presidential campaign issue. Hopefully, the end result will be something along the line of the Defense of Marriage Act. From a popular standpoint, the majority of voters and citizens will be behind it. Expect challenges at the US Supreme Court, but if we get DOMA at the federal level, hopefully it will stand.
While we're on the subject of Legality, legally, at various points in time in civillized society, homosexuality was a crime. Adultry was a crime......We still have sodomy laws on the books of many States today.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with sodomy laws, nor am I saying homosexuality should be outlawed.
My larger point however, was to compare homosexuality with other acts that we as society hold to be immoral, regardless of the "legality" of the issue. For much of our history, our society DID hold the belief that homosexuality was on a par with child molestation.
To say that the comparison is illegitimate, simply because one is legal and the other is not is flawed. If you dispute that, I would ask you if you feel the laws of the land you live in represent the highest standard of morality you ascribe to. Most I think, ascribe to higher standards of morality.
Last edited:
PC1
Guest
Nice Post Custom, well said 
BingeAndPurge
Active member
MaDmaN said:
Better hope that Kerry doesn't win in November, he has voted more liberally on issues than Teddy has.
PC1
Guest
BingeAndPurge said:
May God please forbid that Kerry wins the general election.
Cogar
Member
More OFF TOPIC (sorry folks).size said:
Let me start by saying that it was not my intention to increase the focus on religion in this thread, since it is potentially volatile enough already. I reread my post and now realize that I should have stated things differently. Therefore, let me clarify what I meant and hopefully that will make things better rather than worse.
1. My comments were intended to keep this discussion about homosexual marriage from becoming a "religious zealots vs. normal people" debate--which it is not.
2. At any given time, I would guess that 1/4 of the people on this board are Catholics, so I had no intention of offending them. It would serve no purpose and is off topic anyway. Many of our friends and part of our family are Catholics. Yes, I know it is a terribly hackneyed statement, but it is true. It also makes for some lively conversations around the dinner table from time to time.
3. I really do believe that the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church leadership contributes to the pedophile priest issue. For example, priests are commanded to be celibate. This goes against human nature, and it is not taught in the Bible either. This creates a situation just asking for trouble.
4. I was not aware that other churches had this problem--at least to that degree. If the implication of my statement was in error, I stand corrected. Further, I fully understand that the abuse of children takes place in all walks of life.
PC1
Guest
Personally, I think it's fine to admit that we have historical traditions and laws in this country (and many others) that are rooted in religious practice. Pre-school age children start learning "the golden rule" once they have enough of an attention span to be able to follow children's television programs like "Barney" even.
"Treat other people the way you want them to treat you."
While it's referred to secularly as "the golden rule", people familiar with the Bible or who attend church regularly know this paraphrases a teaching of Jesus.
Issues of morality don't need to be drawn along partisan lines of secular versus religious, we have established history and tradition.
"Treat other people the way you want them to treat you."
While it's referred to secularly as "the golden rule", people familiar with the Bible or who attend church regularly know this paraphrases a teaching of Jesus.
Issues of morality don't need to be drawn along partisan lines of secular versus religious, we have established history and tradition.
PC1
Guest
............ and thanks guys, for your kind wishes on my new job. Best of luck to you all as well.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
No, not because of the bible. If homosexuality was normal two men or two women could have a baby together. They can not. Therefore homosexuality is a disorder either a genetic one or a mental one.
So what you're saying is anyone who wants to be married and can't are victims of prejudice. Marriage is not a right. Members of NAMBLA want to marry little boys. Do you think that's ok.......... because they throw around the prejudice, bigot, and ignorance words allot too. I want to marry my monkey bubbles. I am being discriminated against because the state won't let me marry bubbles. Anyone who disagrees with this is a monkeyphobic, intolerant, ignorant bigot. Bubba wants to marry his cousin. Cletus wants to marry his sister. Ray, Steve, and Renaldo want to marry each other. If homosexuals we told to get in the back of the bus, or told they can not eat at restaurants, or not allowed to vote then you would have a point. This is not about rights. Aside from not being able to get married what rights are being denied? Not many. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home....... but don't try to force me to accept it. Don't try to socially engineer the culture so that what you do in your home is normal when it isn't. Also don't covertly go into the school systems and try to brainwash children that it's ok.
custom
Well-known member
Exactly. Its almost comical that whenever the homosexual agenda does not get what it wants or gets defeated by sound argument and logic it always reverts to crying "gaybashers! bigots!"
I guess Diane Sawyer was doing a story on 2 gay men living together who paid some woman to conceive for them. She actually gave birth to 4, so she wanted one of the babies as well. THey gay guys said no because they had signed a contract earlier. Anyway, Diane Sawyer, who I usually have respect for was insinuating that these kids were better off with the gay guys because they had a better house, made more money, and the kids each had their own room. Kinda made me sick that this is the type of things which we judge people's worth on; not moral aptitude or the propencity to love but rather wealth and possessions. Who cares if the kids grow up in an unnatural, immoral, undecenet environment? They'll have better toys.
I guess Diane Sawyer was doing a story on 2 gay men living together who paid some woman to conceive for them. She actually gave birth to 4, so she wanted one of the babies as well. THey gay guys said no because they had signed a contract earlier. Anyway, Diane Sawyer, who I usually have respect for was insinuating that these kids were better off with the gay guys because they had a better house, made more money, and the kids each had their own room. Kinda made me sick that this is the type of things which we judge people's worth on; not moral aptitude or the propencity to love but rather wealth and possessions. Who cares if the kids grow up in an unnatural, immoral, undecenet environment? They'll have better toys.
VanillaGorilla said:
VanillaGorilla
Active member
According to most people in the gay movement they are born that way. They prefer to only sleep with people of the same sex. If that's true the same rationale can be applied to child molesters. They prefer only to have sex with children. If you use the same logic that the gay movement does then child molesters are born that way. We know that many pedophiles have been the victims of molestation them selves so it is probable that they are not born that way. By following the same chain of logic it could be possible that some type of trauma or dysfunction in early childhood causes some people to be gay. Then because it happened so early in their life it seems to them that they were born that way. There are examples of people becoming gay and then going back to being heterosexual. They gay movement used Ann Heash and Ellen as the poster girls for the gay movement. Ann was repressed by society and living a lie her whole life until she switched teams. The only problem is she is back to a heterosexual life style now. People in prison are gay but when they get out go back to being hetro.Again we were designed for men and women to be attracted to each other. Why should give the cultural stamp of approval by letting them get married when it's a dysfunction?
VanillaGorilla
Active member
When someone tries to use that argument the best way to deal with that is to ask them a few questions.
1. Can you tell me with 100% certainly that growing up in that kind of environment will not hurt the children? Obviously they can't because this has just been happening recently.
2. Which would be better for children, growing up in a home with a mother and father or growing up with a gay or lesbian couple?
I also have a question what they would teach their adopted children when they ask where babies come from. Would they tell them from a man and woman or the spermcicle in the freezer.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
Cogads on the job PC1. It's tough out there.
PC1
Guest
dB682.....
I saw on the news last night, several homo couples getting "married". They actually showed two guys kissing....... is there anything more repulsive to watch than 2 men kiss?
Not in my book.
I saw on the news last night, several homo couples getting "married". They actually showed two guys kissing....... is there anything more repulsive to watch than 2 men kiss?
Not in my book.
Cogar
Member
We had the same thing on the local news where I live. In an attempt to look like they were providing a "balanced" look at the issue, they included some responses from a pastor of one of the larger churches here. However, they cut his reply into about four, 5-second sound bytes, scattered throughout the main story, which ran about 3-4 minutes. Not my opinion of equal time.PC1 said:
db682
Active member
size said:
Bingo!!! What crap.
Look at this crap that I got spamed with last night. Now not only am I getting an endless flow of junk porn emails but an email asking me to support this garbage. They got a couple unfriendly emails from me telling them to remove me from whatever ever list they got my email from. I bet they just forwarded my email to every gay group out there now. Time for a new email account.
Dear Friend,
I believe that ALL Americans, including gays and lesbians,
deserve the rights, responsibilities, and
privileges that come with marriage. And right now, we have an
unprecedented opportunity to make that
dream a reality. Please, join me in adding your voice to a
million voices raised in support of civil
marriage for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples at
Invalid Link Removed .
This week, it's especially important that we reach 200,000
signatures - right-wing extremists are lobbying Congress right
now during their so-called "Marriage Protection Week." Please,
help drown out their anti-GLBT voices!
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
***************************************
Powered by GetActive Software, Inc.
Member Relationship Management Solutions
That Recruit, Engage, and Retain (tm)
Invalid Link Removed
***************************************
Gay Spam. Whats next.
db
GIJoe
Pat Tillman, American HERO
PC1 said:
Let's just say to emphasize PC's point even further, every law is an extension of someone's morality; so every law legislates morality in some form or another. An arguement based on "morality" and how wrong it is takes a form of morality to even make that statement of "belief", and can be argued to be a complete contradiction, or a self-disqualifying argument (circular reasoning of a sort -- lots of words that back themselves up, but make no valid point).
labrad
Member
Allowing gay marriages does not upset me at all. I know I am in the minority here (and yes I am straight). I have a hard time understanding why this issue is receiving so much press. As a general rule I consider myself a Republican b/c of economic issues, though I am a Libertarian at heart. IMO this great country of ours has a lot bigger issues to deal w/. My 2 cents.
Iron Warrior
Registered User
First off congrats on the new job, and best of luck with the new job.PC1 said:
Watching two men kissing is gross, two chicks kissing is cool though LOL.
I do not hate gay people, but when they try to shove their BEHAVIOR down our throats it pisses me off. I know people would be pissed off if I said it's okay to tolerate the behavior of beating animals, hating other grouops of people etc. and then had laws pass because of it.
As far as marriage goes, I think it needs to be reworked. An uncle of mine really got screwed after after a divorce for "irreconcilable differences" (she wanted to spend more of his money). His ex-wife, which never worked while they were married, got the house and gets a lot of his annual salary. The man makes about $100,000 and can't afford a house right now cause he pays so much damm child support (4 kids) while his ex-wife fucks 2 other guys in what should be my uncles home. With **** like that, I wonder if I should ever get married, my uncle wasn't a bad guy either, he just got unlucky and our system screws him for it.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
read some of the comments we have talked about. That should give you some idea why people are so upset.
custom
Well-known member
Well, I just heard today that in the last week, the mayor of San Fransico has handed out more than 200 same-sex marriage certificates. The problem is, he has about as much business distrubting marraige certificates to these people as he does pilot's licenses to school children. Just like dominos, everything is being effected by the one decision that started this. Abusrd.
VanillaGorilla
Active member
The people of CA passed that marriage is between a man in a woman in thier state, so I guess it doesn't mean anything. My guess is they are planning to take it to court. Hmmmm I wonder how the most left wing and over turned court in the land is going to vote on this issue.
db682
Active member
Same-sex marriages face legal challenges
Mayor: Such unions are 'inevitable'
SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) --Thousands of same-sex marriages at San Francisco City Hall in the past six days face legal challenges Tuesday from groups opposed to gay and lesbian unions.
Judges in two separate hearings could void the licenses that have been issued, simply stop granting them or declare the practice legal.
San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay has the first opportunity to stop the marriages when he hears an injunction request from two anti-gay marriage groups, Campaign for California Families and the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, at 11 a.m. (2 p.m. ET).
Three hours later, Superior Court Judge James Warren is scheduled to hear a similar challenge from another California-based group. Some city officials, however, said they believe the hearing in Quidachay's courtroom will be joined with the second, and Warren will be the judge of record.
Nearly 2,500 gay couples have been married in San Francisco since Thursday -- 825 in a chilling rain on Monday -- and Newsom said the marriages would continue until a court stops them.
One legal expert said that, because so many of those tying the knot are from outside California, the case could wind up in federal court. Couples have been traveling to the city to marry because San Francisco does not require proof of residency to wed.
Randy Thomasson, the executive director for the Campaign for California Families, said his group and the Alliance Defense Fund are going to court "to protect marriage and uphold the state law."
"State law of California says that marriage is only for a man and a woman," Thomasson told CNN. "The renegade mayor of San Francisco is violating the state law. He's pretending to be a dictator. He's imposing his own values upon the citizenry, and he is really out of order."
The city's mayor said Tuesday that marriage between same-sex couples is "inevitable" and that anything less is "fundamentally wrong."
Mayor Gavin Newsom's promised to "fight hard" for his position.
"There's also a constitution in the state of California that I swore to uphold just 39 days ago," he told CNN's "American Morning." "The bottom line is I took an oath of office and read that constitution, and nowhere in there did it say that I should discriminate."
Each couple paid $82 for a marriage application and a $13 license fee in exchange for the certificate.
As newlywed couples emerged Monday from the rotunda proudly holding their marriage licenses, trumpets blared, a mariachi band played and they were showered with bubbles. Cars driving by often honked their horns in support and the crowd outside cheered.
Newsom, when told what Thomasson had said, laughed politely and told CNN that he doesn't "see the world with the same set of eyes that [Thomasson] sees the world."
"I see a world that I saw over the course of this weekend where people were literally coming, from states across this nation, coming together because they have been in a loving relationship for decade after decade, and they want the same privileges and rights and obligations that were extended to my wife and I," Newsom said.
"That's the kind of world that I want to live in," Newsom said. "That's the kind of world that I think the constitution of the state of California, for that matter, the U.S. Constitution, provides and protects."
The court challenge is based on a 2000 state ballot initiative approved by voters that declares that California recognizes only marriages between a man and woman.
Newsom said that he -- and the hundreds of couples who have been married -- "know the limitations, know the challenges and know the hurdles" that face them.
Citing the fight to make interracial marriage legal in the United States -- from 1948 to 1967, "the year of my birth," Newsom said -- the mayor told CNN he was not content to wait for what he sees as "inevitable."
"It's a question of time," he said. "If we don't succeed today, or we don't succeed in the courts, because of the actions we took in the last few days ... eventually we are going to succeed."
The long-held bans on interracial marriages were "fundamentally wrong," he said, as are bans on gay marriages that prevent couples "like Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who have been together for 51 years, [from being] able to consummate that in the way my wife Kimberly and I were able to do."
Lyon and Martin, who in 1955 founded the Daughters of Bilitis, the first lesbian organization in the country, were the first same-sex couple to be married in San Francisco on Thursday.
The issue of gay marriage could become heated during this election year.
Currently, 38 states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages. President Bush in his State of the Union address said he was prepared to support a constitutional amendment to prevent "activist judges" from "redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives."
The issuing of the licenses in San Francisco began as lawmakers in Massachusetts debated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. After a third attempt to pass the measure failed Thursday, the Legislature recessed its constitutional convention until March 11, when it is expected to take up the issue again. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered the Legislature to allow gays to marry by May.
Find this article at:
Invalid Link Removed
Mayor: Such unions are 'inevitable'
SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) --Thousands of same-sex marriages at San Francisco City Hall in the past six days face legal challenges Tuesday from groups opposed to gay and lesbian unions.
Judges in two separate hearings could void the licenses that have been issued, simply stop granting them or declare the practice legal.
San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Ronald Quidachay has the first opportunity to stop the marriages when he hears an injunction request from two anti-gay marriage groups, Campaign for California Families and the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund, at 11 a.m. (2 p.m. ET).
Three hours later, Superior Court Judge James Warren is scheduled to hear a similar challenge from another California-based group. Some city officials, however, said they believe the hearing in Quidachay's courtroom will be joined with the second, and Warren will be the judge of record.
Nearly 2,500 gay couples have been married in San Francisco since Thursday -- 825 in a chilling rain on Monday -- and Newsom said the marriages would continue until a court stops them.
One legal expert said that, because so many of those tying the knot are from outside California, the case could wind up in federal court. Couples have been traveling to the city to marry because San Francisco does not require proof of residency to wed.
Randy Thomasson, the executive director for the Campaign for California Families, said his group and the Alliance Defense Fund are going to court "to protect marriage and uphold the state law."
"State law of California says that marriage is only for a man and a woman," Thomasson told CNN. "The renegade mayor of San Francisco is violating the state law. He's pretending to be a dictator. He's imposing his own values upon the citizenry, and he is really out of order."
The city's mayor said Tuesday that marriage between same-sex couples is "inevitable" and that anything less is "fundamentally wrong."
Mayor Gavin Newsom's promised to "fight hard" for his position.
"There's also a constitution in the state of California that I swore to uphold just 39 days ago," he told CNN's "American Morning." "The bottom line is I took an oath of office and read that constitution, and nowhere in there did it say that I should discriminate."
Each couple paid $82 for a marriage application and a $13 license fee in exchange for the certificate.
As newlywed couples emerged Monday from the rotunda proudly holding their marriage licenses, trumpets blared, a mariachi band played and they were showered with bubbles. Cars driving by often honked their horns in support and the crowd outside cheered.
Newsom, when told what Thomasson had said, laughed politely and told CNN that he doesn't "see the world with the same set of eyes that [Thomasson] sees the world."
"I see a world that I saw over the course of this weekend where people were literally coming, from states across this nation, coming together because they have been in a loving relationship for decade after decade, and they want the same privileges and rights and obligations that were extended to my wife and I," Newsom said.
"That's the kind of world that I want to live in," Newsom said. "That's the kind of world that I think the constitution of the state of California, for that matter, the U.S. Constitution, provides and protects."
The court challenge is based on a 2000 state ballot initiative approved by voters that declares that California recognizes only marriages between a man and woman.
Newsom said that he -- and the hundreds of couples who have been married -- "know the limitations, know the challenges and know the hurdles" that face them.
Citing the fight to make interracial marriage legal in the United States -- from 1948 to 1967, "the year of my birth," Newsom said -- the mayor told CNN he was not content to wait for what he sees as "inevitable."
"It's a question of time," he said. "If we don't succeed today, or we don't succeed in the courts, because of the actions we took in the last few days ... eventually we are going to succeed."
The long-held bans on interracial marriages were "fundamentally wrong," he said, as are bans on gay marriages that prevent couples "like Phyllis Lyon and Del Martin, who have been together for 51 years, [from being] able to consummate that in the way my wife Kimberly and I were able to do."
Lyon and Martin, who in 1955 founded the Daughters of Bilitis, the first lesbian organization in the country, were the first same-sex couple to be married in San Francisco on Thursday.
The issue of gay marriage could become heated during this election year.
Currently, 38 states have passed laws forbidding the recognition of gay marriages. President Bush in his State of the Union address said he was prepared to support a constitutional amendment to prevent "activist judges" from "redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives."
The issuing of the licenses in San Francisco began as lawmakers in Massachusetts debated a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. After a third attempt to pass the measure failed Thursday, the Legislature recessed its constitutional convention until March 11, when it is expected to take up the issue again. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ordered the Legislature to allow gays to marry by May.
Find this article at:
Invalid Link Removed