How does same gender marriage hurt you?

[drk]

Against homosexual marriage


To be clear here, this is entirely a legal issue, Harry! How is it NOT?

• People living a homosexual lifestyle want a specific legal status since they're apparently not happy with the status they now have
• This particular decision goes to the core of judicial activism
• This particular decision goes to the federalism issue

In a nutshell, gay marriage hurts me by setting a legal precedent that redefines marriage, thereby setting a precedent to further redefine marriage. It also means that other states will be faced with a decision to accept transplanted gay marriages or not, creating a "Defense of Marriage Amendment" fight (just in time for a liberal Congress, as well.)

What legal argument can be used to oppose a further redefinition?

No, simply put, traditional marriage has to enjoy a "favored status" over all other "civil unions" and remain a special case, because sure as shootin' this is NOT the end of it.

Now, if you have ANY common sense whatsoever you will realize that any society cannot endure if the basic building block, which is the nuclear family unit, is degenerated. This is not rocket science.

The abominable thing is that gay marriage PROPONENTS (not gay marriage enablers who are just clueless) don't give a crap about society. They care about themselves and their own sense of acceptance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you talking about another issue altogether, Harry? Discuss it if you wish:

Against homosexuality, not homosexuals
Most citizens DO NOT accept homosexuality, nor in my opinon should they. They should, however, accept and treat homosexuals as anyone else.

Which is common sensical, because homosexuals are not "homosexuals". They are merely regular people that have some frequency of homosexual sex. Get the difference?

What they do in their own bedrooms does not define them in any way, shape, or form, unless they choose to "join the gay lifestyle" which is largely a political decision to define themselves, which many seem to want to do.

Since race (inaccurately) is the favorite analogy used to support gay marriage, I'll reluctantly drag blacks into this. There are no "black people", either--merely people who have more melanocytes. They aren't "different" any more than any other population subset. They become "black people", though, when everything in their life is viewed through the prism of race. It's a hang-up.

People who practice homosexuality are great. Or slobs. Like anyone else.

Homosexuality is a forgivable sin. It's merely a sexual decision that is unprofitable, like many if not most sexual decisions. But there is a correct sexuality as defined by the Maker of man, and homosexuality is expressly prohibited. I won't pretend to have exhaustive knowledge on the dangers, but I could name a few. Just because monogamy is necessary for correct sexuality, it is not sufficent (for any of us).


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The problem with America these days is that too many identify with a political special interest group (including evangelical Christians, unfortunately). Multiculturalism divides a society. This striving to identify ourselves in some unique way is destructive to our cohesion; feminist, evangelical, gay, black, whatever.

To you politically active amongst us who think expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex partners is a reasonable request: PLEASE do what's right for society, not a special interest group. Support man-woman traditional nuclear families. To you who like to have sex with your same gender, this is your society too. We will all rise or fall together.

[drk]

No one is imposing anything, they are allowing it!

If the people of California voted against it, and a judiciary changes the law to the contrary, how is that NOT imposition?

[hcjilson]

Again, off topic- The judiciary does not MAKE law, they INTERPRET law! They are not making same gendered people get married, they say the law allows it. How does this HURT ANYONE? Would any contributor to this thread care to come forth and tell us how same gender marriage has hurt them?

Dear Spex, we're up to 38 pages of nonsense and I don't think anyone has been hurt by same gender marriage yet! :):)

[HarryChiling]

Will someone please tell me what shredded pork has to do with same gender marriage. (sorry Harry but you did leave yourself wide open)

LOL, someone made reference to eating pork being a sin in the bible earlier in the thread, I would have quoted it if the thread wasn't as logn as the bible. I just thought it was funny and made what I thought was a humorous comment about it.

It doesn't in the least bit hurt me to see a same sex married or not couple. I don't understand how annyone else can see it otherwise but it makes no difference to me, I did want to post simply to point outr my objection with people using the bible as some sort of proof something is wrong. Again my belief is that the bible is a tool, just liek a hammer to a carpenter. It doesn't support or deny anything just helps tyo guide us in our lives, gay or straight, the same bible applies. That was all.

[Uncle Fester]

Dear Spex, we're up to 38 pages of nonsense and I don't think anyone has been hurt by same gender marriage yet! :):)

I think some of you have blisters on your fingers from typing so much.:p

[For-Life]

LOL, someone made reference to eating pork being a sin in the bible earlier in the thread, I would have quoted it if the thread wasn't as logn as the bible. I just thought it was funny and made what I thought was a humorous comment about it.

It doesn't in the least bit hurt me to see a same sex married or not couple. I don't understand how annyone else can see it otherwise but it makes no difference to me, I did want to post simply to point outr my objection with people using the bible as some sort of proof something is wrong. Again my belief is that the bible is a tool, just liek a hammer to a carpenter. It doesn't support or deny anything just helps tyo guide us in our lives, gay or straight, the same bible applies. That was all.

I made the comment. I hope you enjoyed it. It just goes to show you how people only use the bible when it is convenient for them. Goes to support my belief that this is not a religious belief, but a personal dislike.

[LilKim]

So many personal dislikes and phobias can be validated by the person saying that "God doesn't like you if you do ______." Times were different thousands of years ago. Christians as a society were in the minority--they needed all the warm bodies they could get. A couple of the same sex, whether it be male or female, would produce no offspring, thereby they woud not be contributing to the expansion of the Christian belief. That, and I'm sure some tribal leader thought it was nasty. :p It's always easier to raise a person to accept a certain doctrine than it is for an outsider to accept it. Look at how hard those Jehovah's Witnesses have to work! I'm sure the early Christians viewed homosexuality as an indulgence for the wealthy of Roman society (which it sort of was). And anything Roman was to be shunned.

[35oldguy]

I have been keeping up with what all the opinions are on this subject.

Why not say the heck to any laws of any kind and let everyone do anything they want about everything. Would this be ok with those that think it is ok to have gay marriages? If we are going to bend for this group why not bend for every group that wants to act away from the norm!

As far as does it hurt anyone of us personally, physically possibly no but who knows for sure?

Spexvet, it does not physicaly hurt or affect me. But that is no reason to allow gay marriage. I dont want to live in a where it's ok. Nor do I think late term aboration should be legal. Like I said eariler some where there should be a line drawn, I just feel as though its right of center.

[For-Life]

I have been keeping up with what all the opinions are on this subject.

Why not say the heck to any laws of any kind and let everyone do anything they want about everything. Would this be ok with those that think it is ok to have gay marriages? If we are going to bend for this group why not bend for every group that wants to act away from the norm!

As far as does it hurt anyone of us personally, physically possibly no but who knows for sure?

no, because that logic makes no sense.

I ask you, what is the purpose of a law?

[ziggy]

At the risk of sounding like a right wing nut.............. for me its about drawing a line. I'm not comfortable with pushing the envelope that far. I think that MOST of the population feel the same, its not something you can put your finger on. It is a moral issue that most of the folk I come in contact with are not willing to bend. Over the last 30 years it has become easier for homosexual couples to live open, and will most likely take another 30 for them to get married, at least in conventional terms.

I was off by what, 26 years or so... I think I was off about a lot of things. I still dont agree with gay marriage, but I also dont agree with my doctor when he tells me that having that extra slice of cheese cake is bad for me!! This tread was started about four years ago and the only thing that has change for me is that my girls are older and I cant help but wonder if I would deny them the love and stability that their mom and I have if one of them were gay. If I hurt any one, I'm sorry. Love and peace to all.

[drk]

Will gay rights trample religious freedom?


Los Angeles Times

By Marc D. Stern

Early this morning, gay and lesbian couples were surely lining up at county clerk's offices across the state to exercise their new right to marry, bestowed on them last month by the California Supreme Court.

In its controversial decision, the court insisted that these same-sex marriages would not "diminish any other person's constitutional rights" or "impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official or any other person." Religious liberty would be unaffected, the chief justice wrote, because no member of the clergy would be compelled to officiate at a same-sex ceremony and no church could be compelled to change its policies or practices.

And yet there is substantial reason to believe that these assurances about the safety of religious liberty are either wrong or reflect a cramped view of religion.

Read full story here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,5628051.story


I posted this because there is a danger involved in promoting one groups rights over another.

I think we can all agree that homosexual couples in the United States have a right to live together and have all the civil rights and privileges of all Americans (because they are Americans, regardless of their behavior), including some marriage alternative.

I, for example, don't believe that the landlord can claim he's exercising religious freedom for not renting to non-marrieds. Where is the religious justification for that? There's none that I'm aware of in Christianity, although the guy may not have been Christian.

But can the government superimpose gay civil rights on religious-minded organizations as mentioned in the piece?

Should there be protection for those who conscientiously object to certain actions as against their religion?

There is a big case in Canada going on about this same thing.

What say you all to balancing sexual civil rights of Americans with religious civil rights of Americans?

[Andrew Weiss]

drk,

In theory I agree with you. Religious organizations ought not to be compelled to perform actions which conflict with their doctrine or core values.

But I wish it were that simple.

What would you say about giving churches an exemption from banning interracial marriages, for example? Or from banning people who are wheelchair-bound from services?

Before you say that both of those examples are specious, consider:
-- Interracial marriages were banned societally and religiously in the US for years.
-- Banning other people from church based on physical characteristics, etc., while not being done, is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

In other words, where do you draw the line? Should religious institutions be compelled to act only in ways which agree with your interpretation of the Old/New Testaments? Or should it be more broadly-based? Or should religious institutions be given a free hand to do what they consider appropriate, regardless of who is discriminated against and why?

This is where lawyers have fits. Drawing lines in situations like this is like building a sand-castle on a low-tide sand-bar. How do we draw the lines, who gets to do it, and what (or whose) values does society apply?

Great discussion topic. Very, very tough to actualize in the real world.

[For-Life]

DRK in Canada churches can refuse to facilitate gay marriages. End of story

[Steve Machol]

Churches also are tax-exempt in the U.S. IMO that is a big advantage they have that give them preferential treatment not available to others. A huge advantage in fact.

[Grubendol]

And when they use that exempt status and then *illegally* actively campaign and endorse in political activities, they are breaching their “religious rights” civil contract with the government.


I know my language there is all twisted around and poorly worded. I apologize. I drove about 1300 miles this weekend and didn’t get much sleep. I’m a bit discombobulated.

[drk]

Issue #1: Tax exemption and responsibilities thereunder

FWIW, I totally agree that to retain tax-exempt status, religious organizations may not make overt publically-aimed political statements.

Now, that doesn't mean the preacher can't say whatever the heck he wants in his church, but it means that he can't go on Larry King Live and endorse John McCain or whomever, speaking in the capacity of leader of his church.

I personally think it's bad theology for Christ's church to be politically active, though only a portion evangelicals agree on this. It needs addressed.



Issue #2: What should be allowed in a church
Under the general rubric of "separation of church and state" (although not an official law, I know) whatever goes on in a church should be allowed, as it is voluntary to attend like a private club. We're talking doctrine/practices that are not considered criminal.

I do think that the civil authorities can have jurisdiction over such things that threaten the vulnerable (minors, etc.), or such things as threaten the community at large. It cannot be a safe haven for pedophiles or terrorists.

Now, the rub is what is considered criminal, right? The concept of illegal "hate-speech" etc. blows the time-tested and commonsense approach above to all hell. Canada tries to make anti-homosexual speech illegal, and now they have ingress to church doctrines/practices and there goes freedom of religion.

That scenario alone (which is sort of the point of the article linked) should show how the whole "anti-discrimination" legislation thing is entirely untenable. If a church wants to believe that only virginal Native American males are members, then so be it!

Sticks and stones do break bones, but freedom of speech is an inalienable right in all non-tyrannies.

[Steve Machol]

Easy solution. Churches should not be given tax-exempt status. There is no justification for this and it means that we, the taxpayers, end up subsidizing them.

As for getting involved in Politics, they are doing this anyway. Removing their tax-exempt status with have virtually no affect on that activity.

The article itself highlights a basic problem when two 'rights' collide with each other. You can say that you have freedom of speech, but that does not give you the right to cry 'Fire' in a crowded room. It's a constant balancing act and there is no way you are going to please everyone every time. Also what the artile does not mention is that some of thes schools and businesses receive Federal funds an in this case they are subject to the same laws and requirements of other schools and businesses.

The statement that 'it is religious rights that are likely to be "obliterated"' is so patently absurd and over-the-top that it brings into question the entire premise of this article, not to mention the reasoning abilities of it's author. Which given his history, is not an unreasonable conclusion:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/169/story_16982_1.html

[For-Life]

Issue #1: Tax exemption and responsibilities thereunder

FWIW, I totally agree that to retain tax-exempt status, religious organizations may not make overt publically-aimed political statements.

Now, that doesn't mean the preacher can't say whatever the heck he wants in his church, but it means that he can't go on Larry King Live and endorse John McCain or whomever, speaking in the capacity of leader of his church.

I personally think it's bad theology for Christ's church to be politically active, though only a portion evangelicals agree on this. It needs addressed.



Issue #2: What should be allowed in a church
Under the general rubric of "separation of church and state" (although not an official law, I know) whatever goes on in a church should be allowed, as it is voluntary to attend like a private club. We're talking doctrine/practices that are not considered criminal.

I do think that the civil authorities can have jurisdiction over such things that threaten the vulnerable (minors, etc.), or such things as threaten the community at large. It cannot be a safe haven for pedophiles or terrorists.

Now, the rub is what is considered criminal, right? The concept of illegal "hate-speech" etc. blows the time-tested and commonsense approach above to all hell. Canada tries to make anti-homosexual speech illegal, and now they have ingress to church doctrines/practices and there goes freedom of religion.

That scenario alone (which is sort of the point of the article linked) should show how the whole "anti-discrimination" legislation thing is entirely untenable. If a church wants to believe that only virginal Native American males are members, then so be it!

Sticks and stones do break bones, but freedom of speech is an inalienable right in all non-tyrannies.

Canada did not try to make it illegal.

A Canadian reported someone and they were investigated. It is very similar to Americans who have been investigated for saying that the country should not have gone into Iraq.

[drk]

I don't see why one has to change the tax exempt status of churches. Look at this list and tell me that they are less deserving than others:
http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation...empt_orgs.html

If you want the governments to have access to the religious' tithing and gifts, what do you think the results would be? Less spending for 527 political ads?

No sir. Less ministry, less outreach. You don't want to remove the biggest charitable institution in American history, do you? One could accuse one of wanting all charitable works to be performed by the state, but I don't think you've thought that far along.

There are already regulations that control how churches interact with politics, and one doesn't need to emotionally overreact.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...161131,00.html

And Steve, reexamine your point that taxpayers subsidize churches by their tax exempt status. You must realize that's tantamount to saying that taxes belong to the government in the first place!

I do agree that the author was being reactionary, so that's one reason I posted it: I'm fair and balanced.:D

[drk]

June 12, 2008
Deafening Silence

By David Warren

Copyright 2008, Ottawa Citizen

"As free speech disappears in Canada, one looks for instance not at the more celebrated cases of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, but at the much less publicized fate of e.g. Rev. Stephen Boisson, convicted by an Alberta kangaroo court ("human rights tribunal") last November for publicly expressing the Christian and Biblical view of homosexuality, on the say-so of an anti-Christian activist from his home town.

Rev. Boisson has now been ordered to desist from communicating his views on this subject "in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet" so long as he should live. He has been ordered to pay compensation to Darren Lund, the anti-Christian activist in question, and further to make a public recantation of beliefs he still holds.

Meanwhile, Fr Alphonse de Valk, editor of the magazine Catholic Insight, is being prosecuted by a gay rights activist in Edmonton, for having upheld both sides of the Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the pages of his magazine over more than a decade: that homosexual behaviour is sinful, but that we are nevertheless to love the sinner."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...g_silence.html

[Grubendol]

Since we’ve diverged into a discussion on the place of religion in society, I thought I needed to post this…

It is the veto message from Pres. Madison. The first veto ever used by a US President. It was on a bill which would have allowed churches to administer a poverty program in Washington DC. He felt it was not the place of churches to do what was the “Civil Duty” of government. And, furthermore, he felt that churches being involved in the acts of government would corrupt both equally. Church has no place in politics because the Church would then get into the business of lobbying. Thus corrupting both politician and preacher.

To the House of Representatives of the United States:


Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:


Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment." The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are generally unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of that denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to a violation of them according to the local law.


Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty. [Writings of James Madison, 8:132-133; The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:176-177]

[For-Life]

June 12, 2008
Deafening Silence

By David Warren

Copyright 2008, Ottawa Citizen

"As free speech disappears in Canada, one looks for instance not at the more celebrated cases of Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, but at the much less publicized fate of e.g. Rev. Stephen Boisson, convicted by an Alberta kangaroo court ("human rights tribunal") last November for publicly expressing the Christian and Biblical view of homosexuality, on the say-so of an anti-Christian activist from his home town.

Rev. Boisson has now been ordered to desist from communicating his views on this subject "in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet" so long as he should live. He has been ordered to pay compensation to Darren Lund, the anti-Christian activist in question, and further to make a public recantation of beliefs he still holds.

Meanwhile, Fr Alphonse de Valk, editor of the magazine Catholic Insight, is being prosecuted by a gay rights activist in Edmonton, for having upheld both sides of the Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the pages of his magazine over more than a decade: that homosexual behaviour is sinful, but that we are nevertheless to love the sinner."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...g_silence.html

and you are telling me that you have not heard the same things and comments about those in the US who protest the War on Iraq?

[drk]

I don't get the connection? Are you saying that "free speech" in the US, if contrary to administration foriegn policy, is going to be sanctioned by some quasi-governmental authority?

No, actually I haven't heard of it, but that's not necessarily a good indication of whether it's happened. Do you have a case in point?

[Steve Machol]

I don't see why one has to change the tax exempt status of churches. Look at this list and tell me that they are less deserving than others:
http://www.muridae.com/nporegulation...empt_orgs.html

Tax them all. Fine by me. I still do not see why Churches and religions should be exempt, particularly when many of them run full fledged business in every way you look at it.

And Steve, reexamine your point that taxpayers subsidize churches by their tax exempt status. You must realize that's tantamount to saying that taxes belong to the government in the first place!

If Churches are exempt then why am I taxed? Like it or not, Government has some legitimate expenses that can only be paid for by taxation - defense, police and fire protection, etc. When someone else does not pay their fair share, it falls on the rest of us, or more appropriately in this age of fiscal irresponsibility - our children and their children.

Just to show I am not 'anti-religion' in this, Yale University - the largest employer and real estate holder in New Haven, Connecticut (they own about 25% of the property within city limits) - is exempt from all local taxes. (Not sure about state and federal taxes.)

Therefore the available tax base is significantly reduced and insufficient to pay for Police, Fire and other city services. Because of this the New Haven literally has a crumbing infrastructure that it cannot afford to rebuild, let alone services it cannot provide. And unlike the US Government, New Haven cannot issue US Treasury bonds backed by the full security of the US so that China can come in and bail them out like they have our Federal Government.

Yet Yale University is extremely rich and is a very large money-making exterprise that not only uses these city resources, but refuses to contribute to paying for them. That is wrong. Pure and simple.

[drk]

Well, at least you're consistent. :shiner: