silverwhisper's tags:
i am a proponent of gay marriage. it’s a subject i have previously addressed, as have others here.

i support gay marriage for several reasons but when you come right down to it, i don’t believe that the government has any role to play in determining which two adults who are not related can be married. it’s an intrusion of the government into something intensely personal, and for that reason alone should be opposed.

there are those who insist that they oppose gay marriage because their faith dictates so. this is, quite frankly, ignorant. within the christian bible, there is no scriptural prohibition against gay marriage, and ultimately, the bible spends a whole lot more time decrying other things such as greed or lying than it does matters of homosexuality. yet we don’t prevent the greedy or the liars from getting married, do we?

to be honest, i submit that social conservative opposition to gay marriage is in fact a function of a peculiar obsession they have with homosexuality. when the reverend* billy graham says that’s the case, you know that something’s up:

i think that the bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, but the bible also teaches that pride is a sin, jealously is a sin, and hate is a sin, evil thoughts are a sin, and so i don't think that homosexuality should be chosen as the overwhelming sin that we are doing today.

and that’s simply besides the point anyway, because when you come right down to it, religion is not the basis for law in this country: the united states of america is not a theocracy.





so what’s your view of gay marriage? and why?

ed

*previously read "late"--i incorrectly believed dr. graham was deceased.

del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • CayenneMan said on Nov 14, 2007....
        Well silverwhisper, I for one do not believe homosexuality is normal. I give you my word that the bible has had no influence on my beliefs in this matter . The sight of two men walking down the road holding hands makes me * * --* * ill. I can't help it, it makes me want the world to cease, and it will if it continues.However I must admit two beautiful women holding each other has often started my launch mode
    . . . I'm not perfect but honest.
      
  • pickersplock said on Nov 14, 2007....
    You know it's odd, but I have a gay friend and he told me once he didn't believe gays should be allowed to marry and I, of course, asked him, "why not", and he said, "Because all gay men are total sluts and it would never work".  That answer totally shocked me.
    I think most people, maybe I'm wrong, would support civil unions.  They seem to get hung up with the word "marriage" because it has religious conotations and I think they are afraid that there would be serious legal battles if say a gay couple wanted to get married in a Catholic church.  Now, my husband was raised Catholic and I was raised Methodist.  When we went for our interview with the priest to plan our ceremony, I felt uncomfortable.
    So, here's what I think, there should definitely be something in place.  I'm not sure if we should call it marriage yet, only because I'm worried about hate crimes against gays due to moving at a pace that's too fast for some people to adjust their minds too.
    I hope that made some kind of sense to you ed.
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....
    cayenneman: welcome to my blog and thanks for visiting! i'm curious about something though. if the idea makes you nauseous, is that to you a good reason to deny a fundamental part of the human experience to other people?

    pickers: it does. :> however, it's up to each church to permit or disallow a given wedding to take place. a catholic church similarly won't marry divorced people.

    ed
  • moonriver said on Nov 14, 2007....
    ed, i agree with you entirely. in fact, i'm honored to have attended two weddings -- one of a gay male couple, another of a lesbian couple, all of them long-standing friends.

  • evil_twin said on Nov 14, 2007....
    I definitely support the idea because I think that anyone who loves another person to the extent they want to spend their lives with them, they should be allowed to do it legally. Why not? How is it hurting me if gay people get married? To me, it's just about love. And love is never a bad thing.

    As for religious beliefs and reasons, I'm not Christian and their rules don't enter my thought process. In my religion, gay marriages are acceptable and actually performed often. They just aren't legal yet.

    -evil_twin LA
  • TinSoldier said on Nov 14, 2007....
    I have problems with the word "marriage" but I have no problems with civil unions. If people find that unfair, then switch the legal contract between heterosexual couples to be a "civil union" and leave the word marriage to the churches.

    Either way I find it a good compromise.

    Do you know that in some parts of the world it is entirely acceptable for two male hetero buddies to walk down the street holding hands? As part of their culture?
  • botoni said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Clearly there is an issue for many churches and for many people when it comes to accepting gay marriages. In my opinion a legal civil union would be quite acceptable. Pickers, your friend has an opinion regarding gay promiscuity that has some truth to it but isnt totally correct. There are churches that willingly perform gay marriages here in Canada and there are others who wont. It appears to me that a couple who want a religious ceremony do have the option although it may not be in the church of their choice.
  • beyondtheveil said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Ed- Let me put this simply by saying its none of my business, its none of government's business, and its none of religion's business if any two adults wish to engage in a legal marriage.

    If there is a judging God and afterlife, it is only that God's business, not ours. Anyone who openly condemns or causes suffering to those couples in my opinion place themselves in much more consequence with the deity than the gays ever might.
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....
    moon: that's incredibly cool, if you ask me. :>

    kyle: o, i think most of us coulda guessed where you stood. :>

    TS: i'm curious--marriage has long held civil as well as religious significance, no?

    botoni: i'm glad you weighed in, since you're the only openly gay soulcaster i know of. me personally, i don't think that gays are much more prone, if at all, to promisciuty than straights.

    beyond: well said, sir.

    ed
  • TinSoldier said on Nov 14, 2007....
    ed: Yes certainly. I got married in a church and even though I'm not particularly religious the ceremonial and traditional aspect of it lent an importance to it. I would do it again.

    But when I say "civil union" I'm speaking from a purely legal standpoint. There are some churches which do not have the same hangups regarding the word "marriage" that I may or that other churches may.
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....
    i'm confused then b/c you said that you have a problem w/ the word marriage in this context. ?

    ed
  • exhibit_c said on Nov 14, 2007....
    In my view, it benefits society when any group of people pledge to be a family, take care of each other, be responsible for each others' debts, etc. Whether they are having sex is pretty much irrelevent. Actually, sex is pretty much the only activity that the Surpreme Court has ruled to have a right of privacy.

    I'm not a historian of the gay rights movement (or anything else), but I think that the anti-gays have brought gay marriage on themselves. I think that for most gays, a "separate but equal" kind of union would be fine, but it's been opposed as "marriage under a different name." So, marriage it is.

    I've also pondered the terminology. "Civil union" is such a bland term. Who could want a "civil union?" Or a "domestic partner?" If the bureaucrats and anti-gays would allow a name with a little zing, we all might be happier.
  • TinSoldier said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Probably because I'm just a doofus. :D

    I'm having trouble explaining it.
  • vacantmind said on Nov 14, 2007....

    Well, I am a bi-sexual female that happens to be married to a man. I have a daughter and neice that are also bi-sexual. I believe marriage is a commitment between two people to care and love one another. I don't think that has anything to do with being male of female.

    Alot of the couples I know would tell you they don't need that piece of paper to prove how much they love one another. However, they do need it to protect their families in case of death. The adopted children, who are usually the older foster kids being ignored in our system, could be sent back into the system if something happens to one of them.  They can't collect social security for these children either.  There finances can be contested in the courts and awarded to the nearest blood relative.  Everything they have worked for can be stripped from them.

  • StupidGenius said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Let people do what they want when it comes to "love"
     
    Its not the governments place to get involved unless someone is being hurt in the process.
     
    SG
  • buckrogers said on Nov 14, 2007....
    I think there should be a clear distinction between male and female marriage from that of a civil union made up of two partners of the same sex.
    A male and female marrige that is dedicated to having children and raising a family has an entirely different purpose than that of a homosexual civil union, which is based on a purely emotional attachment. Homosexual relationships are irrelevant to developing the future generation and should not receive the same legal status of a normal marriage.
    It is more and more difficult to raise children now than it has been in the past. Developing families of children need the necessary tax breaks of marriage in order to raise their families. Homosexual relationships do not face the same costs and therefore should not be entitled to the same tax/legal benefits.
    I see this stand as neither religious or political, but simply common sense.
  • StupidGenius said on Nov 14, 2007....
    They face the same costs if they decide to decide to have children by a surrogate mother. Therefore if they are in a civil partnership and are the legal guardians of a child they should recieve the tax breaks like everyone else.
     
    SG
  • Eilan said on Nov 14, 2007....
    So is a heterosexual marriage that doesn't produce children--either by circumstance or by choice--abnormal?

    And did I miss something?  When did Billy Graham become "late"?
  • the_infernal_optimist said on Nov 14, 2007....
    I support gay marriage. I don't see how sexual orientation (or ethnicity or any one of a number of other factors) has anything to do with someone's "right" to get married.

    ~Infernal
  • uniquely-ironic said on Nov 14, 2007....
    To me this seems like two issues.  One being, should gay/lesbian couples have legal rights and protections.  The other is what do we call the arrangement by which they obtain their rights and protections.
     
    We force gay couples into second class citizenship when we deny them the rights to build a future together and to provide and protect each other.  All of the kinds of couples raise children, buy homes, hold jobs and all the things that we consider normal.
     
    My own personal opinion is that all couples should have to apply for and get a civil union license, regardless of the sexes of the couple.  This would level the playing field for everyone.  The couple could then pursue the spiritual ceremony with a church, coven, sect or whatever their spiritual beliefs are organized by.
     
    BTW, I am a confirmed conservative but this issue seems like it's a non starter for debate and it disappoints me that it has been elevated to that level.
  • StupidGenius said on Nov 14, 2007....
    im in agreement with ironic.
     
    well said
     
    SG
  • vacantmind said on Nov 14, 2007....

    UI, Very well put.

  • MissMimi said on Nov 14, 2007....

    This is such a non-issue for me, it always surprises me a little when people have trouble with it.  Marriage, civil union, whatever, call it whatever makes you comfortable.  To deny a whole group of people certain rights because of their sexuality is absurd, and should be illegal.  It doesn't threaten traditional marriage -- the 50+ percent divorce rate is doing a pretty good job of that.  How can it be bad when two souls who love each other want to make a public legal commitment to each other?

    And for those who say, what's next, group marriage?  Pedophiles being able to marry children?  Some nut case who wants to marry his iguana?  More absurdity.  Marriage or civil union as I define it is: two human adults of sound mind declaring a commitment to each other to create a family unit.

     

  • StupidGenius said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Another good good comment. Well put Mimi.
     
    SG
  • pickersplock said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Right on Miss M!
    And botoni, I found it bizarre, that he said that to me.
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....
    exhibit c: well said. it's a subject about which i'm passionate as i said. me personally, i dislike the "boring-ification" that keeps on going.

    TS: well, should you figure it out, let me know?

    vm: also well said. there are IIRC 1000+ distinct legal rights that arise from marriage that would each have to be specifically addressed by the "separate but equal" construct of civil unions.

    SG: yep. and thanks for that response to buckrogers. good show!

    buckrogers: bzzt, thank you for playing! read this and get back to me...if you dare.

    eilan: thank you for mentioning the infertile. :> and good catch, for some reason i thought he'd passed on but clearly i was in error. thank you. :>

    infernal: to me it's always been a civil rights issue.

    u-i: you've never struck me as a conservative, in all the things we've discussed...how weird! perhaps your position here is b/c you're a true conservative, who prefers smaller government? i like your suggestion. it's one i've seen before but that doesn't make me like it any less. :>

    mimi: yeah, those slippery slope arguments suck and are for the mentally deficient. :>

    ed
  • uniquely-ironic said on Nov 14, 2007....

    I do believe in less government as the basis for being conservative in my leanings.  I believe in tightening the belt to meet the budget and people using common sense over lawsuits to settle their problems.  I do come dangerously close to being a liberal in other arenas.

  • silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....
    those are stances that i can respect philosophically, u-i. :>

    ed
  • uniquely-ironic said on Nov 14, 2007....
    SW - ahhh, the philosophic vs the realistic.  I do recognize that in practice these ideals tend to wilt.  I do wish there were more private philanthropic persons/companies these days to cover the gaps.  In my own life I do support charities of all sorts so that I can say that I do my part.
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 14, 2007....
    i very rarely encounter folks w/ your views who fail to live up to them--and i just knew you did. :>

    ed
  • uniquely-ironic said on Nov 14, 2007....
    SW - How kind of you to say so.
  • TinSoldier said on Nov 14, 2007....
    sw: I think that uniquely-ironic put it closest to my own feeling in her post not far below mine. That's what I'm trying to say -- she just said it better.

  • Fallyn said on Nov 14, 2007....
    marking this.....i have a lot to say. :P but no time.
  • lfbno7 said on Nov 14, 2007....
    I'm opposed to marriage in general. I think there should be timed contracts. I think we should have a more secure economic system so that people aren't dependent on spouses for support. Each person should be economically independent, in the ideal society that I can barely even conceive of. There should be 100% employment too. Anyway I think lifelong marriage is going too far, and people should just hook up for a few years and then re-evaluate and try somebody new.

    As for gay marriage, sure. I know some lesbians and they are just as screwy as the rest of us, and God bless em, let em do what they want. They are very romantic people and they'd love to meet that special someone and get married. Then they'd drive each other crazy, just like in most other marriages.

    As for tax consequences of marriage, I am opposed to income tax. I think all tax should be voluntary, meaning sales tax. You want the product, you buy it, you pay the tax, it comes with the territory. I think certain necessities should be sold tax free, but boats, planes, cars, tv sets, jewelry, clothes that go beyond the basics, etc., should all be taxed enough to make up for the elimination of income tax, which I think is just plain wrong, and which our country didn't have for a long time.

    As usual I'm coming out of left field here. What can I say. That's how I approach the question. Who among us actually thinks that our present society is the be all and end all of all possible societies? I think we've got some heavy evolving to do before we come anywhere close to getting it right, and if anyone ever agrees with me on anything I get hives.
  • one_wired_kitty said on Nov 14, 2007....

    While I do not agree that men are meant to lie down with other men and women are not meant to lie down with other women - I am in no place to tell other consenting adults what they do in their own bedroom or tell them that they cannot marry. It's quite frankly none of my business.

    Seems to me the institution of marriage has been defiled enough by straight people .... ya know - with the 50% divorce rate and all ... I just don't see how gay marriage will hurt it.

  • Cussane said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Hmmmmm, lets see, spousal abuse, 50% divorce rate, seems us hetrosexuals have the market cornered on screwing up the whole marrige thing, are we so narrow minded and petty that we would decide the fate of a group of people who are different than we are, hmmmmmm where do we go next, origin, race, skin color????.
     
    But really, what difference does it make in the big scheme of things, how will it effect you to the point where you can not function
     
    Cussane
  • crybabylu said on Nov 14, 2007....

    Well, Gosh, Ed, you done said it all, but I don't mind making a little noise about it.

    I'm not just "fed up" with the government interfering in marriage, I'm fed up with them interfering in our lives period as long as we aren't hurting anybody.  The law is supposed to protect and to serve, and tell me how a law like that does either?  Who are they protecting, and who are they serving?

    I will tell you who Bush was protecting and serving, when he came up with such a cockabull whim as that, he was catering to the "far right" who has all but hi-jacked this countries dreams and ideals.  A bunch of Hitler type control freaks who if they had their way, we would report everything we do in our lives 24 hrs a day.  I wonder how soon it will be when we will even have mandatory "spyware and video equiptment" throughout our homes, and in the streets, and in our cars, they are already everywhere else, oh yeah............all in the name of protect and serve.

    Oh....and one more thing, if these so-called "moralists" would really read their Bibles, maybe they would start overhauling their own characters and start leaving everyone else to take care of that job for themselves....

  • TinSoldier said on Nov 14, 2007....
    What are you talking about, crybabylu? GW Bush didn't outlaw homosexual marriage, and the fact that homosexual marriage is not recognized by the government for the purpose of giving specific benefits and responsibilities has no bearing on what someone can do in their own bedroom.

    It's not a denial of "rights" so much as a denial of "benefits". At least in my view.

    Regarding the other stuff -- well, we aren't that far yet and I don't think that we will be.
  • crybabylu said on Nov 14, 2007....

    Hey TinSoldier, in all respect to you, I  don't know that you and I are reading the same newspapers or wathcing the same news programs, but of course I try not to watch "Fox -Right Bias- News".

    George Bush aggressively, and I do emphasize "agressively" sought the marriage amendment act.  There were numerous interviews where he difined his own "personal" views on the subject, and several heads of government when questioned by the media, blatantly said that homosexuality is immoral.

    Yeah, I agree with you that is a denial of "benefits" that every heterosexual is entitled to but not homosexuals.  Why can't they have the same benefits that we have?

    And regarding "my other stuff", did you ever think that the government could "lawfully wiretap, and read emails?'  You don't think we will ever have spyware everywhere.  Oh my, that is the one thing I am most certain about.

  • TinSoldier said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Heh -- I don't watch Fox News either, you know.

    Yes, W did push for the marriage amendment, and I was and am opposed to that. Fortunately it did not and would not pass.

    Unfortunately, we do have a law like that in our Oregon Constitution.

    If you've read my responses in this thread then you know that I do believe that heterosexual and homosexual couples should be entitled to the same benefits. If I haven't made that clear yet then I am doing so now. My only problem is with the word "marriage", for no other reason than the fact that it has a traditional definition, but see exhibit_c's post above:

    exhibit_c wrote:
    I've also pondered the terminology. "Civil union" is such a bland term. Who could want a "civil union?" Or a "domestic partner?" If the bureaucrats and anti-gays would allow a name with a little zing, we all might be happier.

    Regarding the other stuff? I know that it is bad, and we should definitely fight against it, but this is not yet China nor Soviet Russia, nor any one of a couple of dozen countries around the world. But to directly answer your question? No, I didn't think that we would reach the point that we have.

    Only 432 more days as I post this.
  • Fallyn said on Nov 14, 2007....
    i support gay marriage......for most of the myriad of reasons already stated above.

    the statement however that gay marriage shouldn't be supported because it produces no children?
    for one. that's false. the ratio of gay couples in a serious committed relationship who by some means or other have children is nearly equivalent to those in hetero marriages.

    for two. should hetero couples who either cannot or choose not to ever have children be forbidden to marry and only allowed a civil union or nothing???

    this makes 0 sense to me.


  • Eilan said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Probably a bit of a hijack, but. . .

    Dan Savage, in his blog at The Stranger, has a feature that he calls Every Child Deserves a Mother and a Father, in which he regularly draws attention to child abuse cases from throughout the US.  The catch?  The parents/caregivers are (presumably) heterosexual. 

    He's responding "to folks who insist that a child, if it can't be raised by its opposite-sex biological parents, simply must be placed in a home with opposite-sex foster or adoptive parents. It is, according to Mitt Romney, Gary Bauer, Michael Savage, et all, 'child abuse' to place a child in a home with two gay male parents or two lesbian parents."

    A little over the top?  Perhaps.  But he makes his point.
  • crybabylu said on Nov 14, 2007....
    "a  little over the top", i guess.  What i think is crazy that in practically all states they let gay couples be foster parents, but if they want ot adopt, now that's different story.   Now, that is plain nuts!   If they are acceptable foster parents, then they should be acceptable adoptive parents.,
  • TinSoldier said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Which states do or don't allow adoption, cry? Which do or don't allow foster parenting?

    I'm truly interested.
  • crybabylu said on Nov 14, 2007....

    These are the states that allow gay adoptions:

    adopt, regardless of sexual orientation, so long as they are not co-habitating in non-marital relationships. Critics of such restrictive policies also point out that in many of the states that have bans on second-parent adoption by same-sex couples, these same couples are still able to act as foster parents. [citation needed]

    Legal status of adoption by same-sex couples in North America

    US States’ laws on adoption by same-sex couples[11] State LGBT individual may petition to adopt Same-sex couple may jointly petition Same-sex partner may petition to adopt partner’s child Alabama Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions Alaska Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions Arizona Yes No explicit prohibition Unclear Arkansas Unclear No explicit prohibition Unclear California Yes Yes Yes Colorado Yes Yes Yes Connecticut Yes Yes Yes Delaware Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions District of Columbia Yes Yes Yes Florida No[12] No[12] Probably not[12] Georgia Yes No explicit prohibition Unclear Idaho Yes Unclear Unclear Illinois Yes Yes Yes Indiana Yes Yes In some jurisdictions Iowa Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions Kansas Yes No explicit prohibition Unclear Kentucky Yes No explicit prohibition Unclear Louisiana Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions Maine Yes No explicit prohibition Unclear Maryland Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions Massachusetts Yes[13] Yes[13] Yes[13] Michigan Yes No No explicit prohibition Minnesota Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions Mississippi Yes No[14] Unclear[14] Missouri Unclear Unclear Unclear Montana Yes No explicit prohibition Unclear Nebraska Unclear No explicit prohibition No Nevada Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions New Hampshire Yes In some jurisdictions[15] In some jurisdictions New Jersey Yes Yes Yes New Mexico Yes Unclear[16] In some jurisdictions New York Yes Yes Yes North Carolina Yes Unclear Unclear North Dakota Unclear[17] No explicit prohibition[17] Unclear Ohio Unclear Unclear In some jurisdictions Oklahoma Yes[18] No[18] Unclear Oregon Yes Yes In some jurisdictions Pennsylvania Yes Unclear Yes Rhode Island Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions South Carolina Yes Unclear Unclear South Dakota Yes Unclear Unclear Tennessee Yes No explicit prohibition Unclear Texas Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions Utah Yes No[19] Unclear Vermont Yes Yes Yes Virginia Yes No explicit prohibition Unclear Washington Yes No explicit prohibition In some jurisdictions West Virginia Yes No explicit prohibition Unclear Wisconsin Yes No explicit prohibition No Wyoming Yes Unclear Unclear

  • TinSoldier said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Ack! I'll wade through it tomorrow, maybe, but can you please learn how to format it to be human readable?
  • crybabylu said on Nov 14, 2007....

    yeah, I am trying.  I thought I had it one way, and it came out another way.  I was trying to set up a link that had a chart, but that failed and the above is what pasted.  Who knew?

      1. Anyhow, this is the link.http://weddings.lovetoknow.com/wiki/States_that_Allow_Gay_Marriage
  • TinSoldier said on Nov 14, 2007....
    Cool. I'm going to bed -- see ya later! (Yes, I'll check the link).
  • crybabylu said on Nov 15, 2007....
    silverwhisper:  Sorry about the long post, I tried to format it into a link, but instead when I thought I was pasting the link, all of the above info came out.   Could you please fix it for me.  I left the link 2 posts beneath it....thanks, dee. 
  • MissMimi said on Nov 15, 2007....

    I think this is what you want, dee.

  • silverwhisper said on Nov 15, 2007....
    TS: ah--OK, that makes sense. :>

    fallyn: yeah, those "marriage is for children" folks just don't know infertile couples--or older couples who get married after the woman has been through menopause.

    lbf: one of the things i like about reading you is the fact that there's absolutely no mistaking a comment by you as possibly being by anybody else. :>

    1WK: heh...well said. :>

    cussane: also well said. :>

    dee: OK, that's a whole lotta stuff you said...i've got a whole bunch of problems w/ bush, but let's not lose focuse here: bush sadly isn't the only person opposing gay marriage. it's a sop to the neocon(victs) who have hijacked the republican party: i suspect bush himself doesn't really care.

    eilan: i really, really gotta start reading him!

    mimi: thank you, good job!

    ed
  • crybabylu said on Nov 15, 2007....

    Ed, I never looked at it that way, and don't know that I still do.  Everytime, he was interviewed, he adamantlly said "I believe marriage to be between one man and one woman.  and about abortion issues, he has fervently fought against any kind of stem cell research. which I am not sure anyone voting against it actually knows exactly what stem cell research actually entails.  How ignorant of them.

  • silverwhisper said on Nov 16, 2007....
    i'm sure he has, and i think that he's trying to reassure the neocon(victs) who put him in office. let's leave aside stem cell research as that isn't really very relevant here, and focus on gay marriage though, OK?

    notice that the social conservatives were the ones pushing first for the constitutional amendment to abridge civil liberties first. the call was put out for a while before bush responded. if bush really felt that way, he'd have been leading the charge, if you ask me.

    it's IMHO much more about the neocon(victs) than it is about bush. when he leaves office, their misguided policies will still be in place.

    ed
  • crybabylu said on Nov 16, 2007....

    "Oh, that's reasuring!" (my little note of irony)

    People are actually saying they think it is possible, that the republicans could very well be re-elected in '80, and I find that scary. It look as though we are really going to  have to work harder on a state level.  The only problem being, that if a marriage amendment ever did pass on a federal level, it would be a mandate that the states would have to follow, wouldn't it?

  • silverwhisper said on Nov 16, 2007....
    a constitutional amendment will never pass, if you ask me, dee. no matter how unanimous people might be about it--look at what happened to prohibition. :>

    ed
  • BlueHotRage said on Nov 16, 2007....
    *cracks knuckles*
     
    I had a friend in college who went to a protest concerning Gay Marriage, and met a straight guy who said--I shit you not--said that he was against it because, "If gays can marry, then my marriage to my wife means less."
     
    (i.e., straight marriage is only "special" and "sacred" because gay people aren't allowed to have it.  Neener, neener, neener.  Otherwise, it can be soul-crushing and restrictive and perhaps a waste of money?)
     
    I'm sure the wife in question has probably divorced that bastard by now.  I know I certainly would...
     
    Marriage is, and to my knowledge has historically been, a variant of corporate mergers for individual people.  We don't ask corporations if they prefer girls or boys, because it's not necessary.  It's not necessary, because corporations don't have sex.  Moreover, it's not even necessary for corporations to like each other at all before they merge.  In fact, corporations are more often bitter enemies, until one of them starts having financial problems and is essentially forced to be bought out or go bankrupt.
     
    And if corporations aren't subject to blocked mergers due to "incorrect" sexual orientation, people shouldn't be, either.  Because it's not ever necessary.
     
    Therefore, it's my view that gay and lesbian couples should not be barred, prevented or otherwise obstacled, legally or spiritually, from having their own personal mergers, acquisitions, and tax-breaks.
     
    Because the record numbers of straight people getting divorced every goddam year is evidence that marriage isn't quite as "sacred" as the Religious Ranters want us to think it is...
  • crybabylu said on Nov 16, 2007....
    you got that right!
  • Eilan said on Nov 16, 2007....
    "If gays can marry, then my marriage to my wife means less."

    I've heard stuff like this as well, not only about gay marriage but about heterosexual cohabitation, consensual nonmonogamy, couples who engage in BDSM, etc--anything that isn't perceived to be the so-called "norm."

    The way I see it, and it's kind of a bastardization of the quote by Eleanor Roosevelt, nothing can undermine a couple's relationship unless they allow it to do so.   And a relationship that's "cheapened" by something that has no effect on it whatsoever probably isn't that strong to begin with.
  • desertsienna2 said on Nov 16, 2007....
    I am not bothered by reproductive rights for women and same-sex marriage.
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 17, 2007....
    blue: [applauds]

    eilan: beautifully put.

    desert sienna: reproductive rights for women have utterly nothing to do w/ the subject at hand. nice to see you continuing your blogjacking ways. twit

    ed
  • crybabylu said on Nov 17, 2007....
    sorry, if i got sidetracked on my earlier posts, by mentioning another subject besides gay marriage.  I guess they are both contained in the same computer chip in my mind.  you know, like in the "Conservative" agenda....L
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 17, 2007....
    [trout-smack!]
  • crybabylu said on Nov 17, 2007....
    Ha!
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 17, 2007....
    :D
  • desertsienna2 said on Nov 17, 2007....
    Gays deserve the benefit of marriage and the right to adopt and/or arrange surrogacy for children they can raise.
  • lfbno7 said on Nov 18, 2007....
    Gays deserve the same misery that the rest of us have.
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 18, 2007....
    not really much to say in response to that, is there?

    ed
  • crybabylu said on Nov 18, 2007....
    lfbno7  - I thought you weren't married?.........dee
  • lfbno7 said on Nov 18, 2007....
    zo esd ,sttorf djpty;u sgyrt notyj/

    Just goes to show you that it pays to have your fingers on the right keys, no?

    I was married shortly after birth.
  • crybabylu said on Nov 18, 2007....
    so at what age did you consemate it?
  • crybabylu said on Nov 18, 2007....
    Oops! sorry Ed, are you going to hit me with that dead 'ol fish again?  (me laughing)
  • lfbno7 said on Nov 18, 2007....
    I was a child of 20 when I got married.
  • muckpar said on Nov 19, 2007....
    ed:  I have to disagree with you.  Jesus talked about marriage.  He referred to a man and a woman getting married not two people of the same sex.  Some will say he didn't mention it because it was not an issue then, That argument doesn't fly with me.  I realize I am in the minority (on soulcast) on this topic. 
  • Cussane said on Nov 19, 2007....
    Muckpar, Just out of curiosity, where you there when Jesus had this conversation, or is it based on the interepation of a book written years after the fact, edited and translated numerous times, Cussane
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 19, 2007....
    muckpar: give me a scriptural citation. personally, i favor this site for scriptural references.

    ed
  • muckpar said on Nov 20, 2007....
    Cussane:  Were you there when Aristotle and Plato were writing their works?
  • muckpar said on Nov 20, 2007....
    ed:  Mark 10:6-9,   Mark 10:11-12    In my view Jesus is very clear about a man and a woman marrying, not people of the same sex.  Another observation of mine over the past 61 years of interacting with people is simply this.  If someone wants to do something they know is wrong they will go to great lenghts to justify their behavior as being right.  Aetheists, agnostics, and those who wish to live life as they please cannot accept the moral code handed down from God, therefore they attack it, dissect it, and deny it exists.  Most of these people's God is humanism. 
     
     
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 20, 2007....
    muckpar: OK, reviewing those scriptures, i have the following thoughts on these 2:

    1. seems to me to suggest that men and women are compelled to marry and that therefore, spinsterhood/bachelorhood are to be avoided, if you ask me.

    2. seems to speak to the traditional opposition to divorce but doesn't seem particularly relevant here. ?

    for a truly useful scriptural injunction against homosexuality, you will need the pauline epistles, if you ask me.

    ed
  • muckpar said on Nov 20, 2007....
    ed:  I am aware of the statements Paul makes concerning homosexuality.  In my mind Jesus' own words settles the issue.  Here is my take on the issue.  If homosexuals want the state to recognize a marriage contract between two people of the same sex I suppose that is up to the state.  However if they are wanting God to recognize their union as a Christian marriage, they are out of luck.  That's my opinion based upon my reading of the  Bible. 
  • Cussane said on Nov 20, 2007....
    Muck, I was an twinkle in my great, great, great, great, great etc etc grrandfather's eye when those two were around, but we can scientifically prove there theories, show me proof of what jesus said, either way glad you are around to share you views, but somehow if you can, when you meet the big fella, let us know if you were right Cussane
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 21, 2007....
    muckpar: i quite agree, and recognize the scriptural underpinning in your thinking, i daresay--that seems in line with rendering unto caesar that which is caesar's. i'll confess i'm still not understanding why you cite mark 10: 11-12, but i suppose if you had a mind to explain, you would have.

    cussane: the bible is the single most highly-researched text in human history. although an unbeliever, i don't think that its long story or is history as oral tradition later transcribed does much to invalidate it or its validity as an accurate record of its teachings. i should point out that most contemporary (post-KJV) translations did go back to the earliest existing texts, btw.

    ed
  • crybabylu said on Nov 21, 2007....

    Cussane ---muckpar

    I got in a debate a few days ago on proving the bible, and the only thing i can say it is just like in science when they state a theory as proof, and then you have to disprove it.

    Although I do believe in the bible as being authentic, I believe that people take things out of context to prove "their" own way of thinking.  If you read those scriptures in context, you will see that the reason those things mentioned are there is to show us all "the human condition" and how much in need of a savior we all are.

    Furthermore, the scriptures are "personal" instructions and not to be used as weapons against each other.

  • muckpar said on Nov 21, 2007....

    Cussane:  I don't think you can prove the words of Aristotle and Plato have come down over  these centuries exactly as they said them or in what context they were written.  This is what it appears to me you are saying about the words of Jesus.  If I am wrong and you mean it another way I am all ears.I take heart in 1Cor verses 10 through 16.  Reading God's word in the spirit is entirely different from an academic reading.  But I'll bet you already know that.

    ed:  My reason for citing Mark 10:11-12 is to show why Jesus does not recognize (my belief) homosexual marriage.  Jesus says a man and a woman marry.  If gay marriage had been ok with him I feel he would have said so.  Homosexuality was a part of the culture Jesus walked and taught in.  I dare say it was practiced  in the Greek and Roman culture much like it is in our culture today.

     

     

  • muckpar said on Nov 21, 2007....

    ed:  I got my verses mixed up.  But the same principle applies in my mind.  He is talking about two (a man and a woman) divorcing.  Divorce is the conclusion of a marriage between a man and a woman in his words here.  To me its just another example of Jesus confirming marriage is between a man and a woman. 

    Cussane:  BTW I am not using the Bible as a weapon against anyone.  I am merely stating what the Word says about homosexuality, not what I say about it. You say people take the words of the Biblel out of context, that in my view is what homosexuals do when they try and justify their behavior as being ok to God. 

  • silverwhisper said on Nov 21, 2007....
    muckpar: with respect, my understanding differs, but i just wanted to understand the reason for your views. thank you, sir. :>

    ed
  • faulty_perfection said on Nov 29, 2007....
     Turn from your sin ... God loves you!

     

    Genesis 1:27-28:  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply

    Leviticus 18:22:  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

    Deuteronomy 23:17:  There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel

    1 Kings 14:24:  There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the LORD had driven out before the Israelites.

    1 Kings 15:12:  He expelled the male shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his fathers had made

    1 Kings 22:46:  He rid the land of the rest of the male shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa.

    2 Kings 23:7:  He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the LORD and where women did weaving for Asherah.

    Romans 1:26-27:  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

    1Corithians 6:9-10:  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    1 Timothy 1:9-10:  Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine."

    Jude 1:7:  Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire

  • one_wired_kitty said on Nov 29, 2007....

    Faulty - are you gay? It's okay ... God loves you. Too bad nobody else does.

  • Eilan said on Nov 29, 2007....
    Thank you, Jebus!
  • exhibit_c said on Nov 29, 2007....
    My understanding is that that the concept of homosexuality as an identity rather than a behavior is about 200 years old. Nobody from before 1800 would have said "I am a homosexual." Without that understanding of identity, gay marriage does not make sense. 
  • silverwhisper said on Nov 30, 2007....
    faulty perfection: that says nothing whatsoever about gay marriage. moron.

    1WK: heh. :D

    eilan: sorry, i'm kinda giggling about that still. :>

    exhibit c: interesting, i don't think i knew that before re: homosexuality as identity. ?

    ed
  • fatesblade said on Dec 05, 2007....
    i only read the first three comments, so don't hate me if i repeat someone else's. i just wanted to say that i think it's interesting what cayenneman said. it makes him sick to see two men holding hands. that sounds exactly like the way people in the american south (as well as in the north) felt about black and white couples. even up to the 1950s and 60s black men would risk their lives if they were seen in public with white women. today that's not a problem for them. it is a problem for gay people though. too many americans are repulsed by the sight of two men being affectionate. it just does not makes sense to me. apparently, homosexuality is unnatural and sinful. when i'm cuddling with my boyfriend or kissing him or holding his hand it feels like the most natural thing in the world. i don't need some insecure homophobe telling me they don't want to see it.
  • silverwhisper said on Dec 05, 2007....
    fb: well, cayenneman is just plain wrong. and yes, that's precisely right: ultimately, this is a civil rights issue.

    ed
  • BlueHotRage said on Dec 10, 2007....

    A lot of Faulty Perception's quotes appear to address "whores" and "male prostitutes"--wouldn't those be more like, oh I don't know, indicative of the writer's disapproval of having sex in places of worship?  Or possibly disapproval of paying for sex?

    Please note that sex, in Judaism at least, is one of several things that are considered "mitzvahs," or things that Yahweh *wants* people to do as much as possible--even on the Sabbath, which means that sex is not considered "work"... ergo, nothing that anyone should be expected to PAY for.

    Granted, there's apparently favoritism for--or at least a distinct overall focus on--procreative sex, but describing sexual congress with "strange flesh" can mean pretty much anything.  Sex with strangers?  Sex with homely people?  Sex with animals?

    Also, please note that there are, and have been throughout history, male prostitutes who trick themselves out to women.  The current noun for that kind of guy is "gigolo"--which is a term that did not exist when the Torah was translated into five different languages over a period of almost 2000 years.

    And as for that annoying Leviticus quote (18:22):  "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination..."

    How do you know it's not referring to lying to mankind?  I mean, as I've come to understand it, men lie to women in order to keep them happy--such as, for example, a husband telling his wife that, yes, the new dress is beautiful, even if it doesn't look very good at all, because women apparently like to have their little illusions about life.  If, however, that guy's drinking buddy were to ask a similar question--"Holy shit, dude, that hot girl's coming this way--quick, how does my hair look?"--it's expected that the first guy would be trustworthy enough to help his buddy out, even it means saying, "You got a gross cowlick, man--I'll stall her while you comb it back."

    So, yeah, guys.  Don't lie to your buddies, because that'll make them hate your guts and not want to go out drinking with you.

  • faulty_perfection said on Feb 07, 2008....

    marriage - no

    civil union - yes

  • silverwhisper said on Feb 07, 2008....
    contrary to mike huckabee the theocrat's belief, religion is not the basis for law in the US, faulty.

    ed
  • lfbno7 said on Feb 07, 2008....
    Religion has a long way to go before it can be called moral. Its opposition to homosexuality is one example of its shortcomings. It gets an X on its paper. Wrong.
  • silverwhisper said on Feb 07, 2008....
    amen to that, lbf. :>

    ed

Comment on "pushing the hot button: gay marriage"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)


The people have spoken ... again.

...
And they are not happy.......
Homosexuality in the community has brought in some confusion and forced some people in business to act in a way they would not have otherwise acted....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20091028/pl_mcclatchy/3343585

I'll be honest. I didn't see this coming. I didn't expect Obama to do anything directly supporting the gay community. I had assumed that it was just lip service...