I think that's a pretty wild assumption. In the Bible, there were many references to polygamy, and we no longer find that in the US.Originally Posted by rep
The question was "how does it hurt you?" I know that there are a lot of irrational reasons, but if you objectively consider how it negatively impacts YOU, what reasons do you come up with? Why do you want to force your "morals" on others.
That's an odd way to describe yourself, but ok.
As a lesbian, I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea because of the way they were raised, both in the home and the church. With the recent election gay/lesbian rights issues have been set back a few years, so it may be a while before this becomes as common as it should be.
How?
BTW, when did you decide to be heterosexual?
I agree with rep - this is a 'dead horse' and no views are going to be changed.
I have to say though I find the thought that homosexual 'promiscuity' is a reason to not allows monogamous gays to marry rather weak. I wonder is anyone would be willing to apply this same standard to promiscuous heterosexuals. (BTW, you can find lots of evidence of the latter in singles bars across this country.)
Honestly I never gave this issue much of a thought until my son told me he was gay. Up to that time I did not see a 'need' to allows gays to marry. However I've been forced to do a lot of soul-searching on this and I honestly can not think of a single non-religious based reason to continue this ban.
And if the main objection is religious-based, then frankly what business does Government have being involved in it?
Perhaps one way to deal with this is to get Government out of the 'marriage' business entirely and leave it to individual religious institutions to decide who they want to consider 'married' and under what conditions. Government can then issue 'life partnerships' or 'civil unions' or whatever you want to call them and stop having any role in religious ceremonies and practices.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
..being the voice of reason.;)
It's funny, no matter how you dress it up, intolerance eventually reveals itself. And it never goes away, there is always a need to isolate and repudiate the other.
I think the basis for this intolerance is our Puritan heritage. Anything having to do with sex is seen as, well, dirty. So anything outside vanilla heterosexual sex is really dirty.
How bizarre. (Personally I think such an intense interest in what other people do in their bedrooms indicates some lack of satisfaction with one's own sex life. There are therapists for this sort of thing.....;) Or get a hobby--I hear fly fishing is fun....)
Three Supreme Court Justices disagree with you . But I am sure, at least in your own mind, your much smarter than they are.
It's quite obvious that any reason you don't personally agree with is an "irrational" reason in your totally objective little world.
Let's take a peek into your model of political correctness and see if you really are advocating everything you seem to profess ad nauseam.
Incest for example, takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Incest.
Rape, has taken place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating rape?
Prostitution, takes place in privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating prostituion.?
Beastality, takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating beastality?
Bigamy, takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Bigamy?
Adultry takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Adultry?
Child porn takes place in the privacy of bedrooms - Are you advocating Child Porn?
If the answer is yes to these, then your a pretty sick individual with no moral values and the states have said NO you don't have total privacy to do what ever you want in your bedroom or anywhere else. No matter how irrational you personally see it ,going down the road of same sex marriage in the name of privacy rights would lead to no limits on state laws regarding crimes against nature and deviate sexual activity.
Once the highest court of the land says that "privacy" outweighs the compelling interest a society has in promoting family, and reliable standards of right and wrong, there is no place to draw a line.
Just for the record, I also have a relative who has just "come out" to his family that he is gay. He was recently arrested for the third time and charged again with indecent exposure in a public park. He is fighting to keep his job, teaching in a third grade in elementary school. He will probably win in today's political climate.
Suprise and shock but the parents of the third graders in his class room are not "comfortable" with his newly announced life style choice. I guess they are irrational too!
Rep
The supreme court has ruled that abortion is protected by the constitution of the US. Since you are anti-choice, I am sure, at least in your own mind, you're much smarter than they are. Except that I spelled "you're" correctly.
No, I meant "irrational" as it is defined in Merriam-Webster Dictionary "(1) : not endowed with reason or understanding ". You did not give a reason. What you said was:
There is no REASON in your support of your opinion. OK, so you feel that way. Why? Because the bible told you to think that way? Because W told you to think that way? Why? When I ask my child why she did something and she responds "because", that's an unacceptable response. It does not answer the question. If you have no basis in reason, then just say so. Apparantly, your reason is that some people agree with you, and that's no reason.
When will you learn that pedophilia and homosexuality are different things. The heterosexual male teacher in the next class could be abusing the little girls, you know.
Ok, I am admitting my ignorance up front-figure that will keep me out of too much trouble. What role exactly does the government have in current marriage unions, other than issuing a license? When the preacher says "by the power vested in me by the state of so and so" what specifically are those powers? My intial reaction was "religious ceremonies, what role does the gov't have in that?" but then I started to think about that whole power vested thing and am confused because that seems like mixing church and state. Not that it matters, I just like to obsess over stuff like that.
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
Government bestows a temendous amount of legal benfits and responsibilities on married couples. My point is that if people wish to define marriage based on their religious views, then the Government really shouldn't have any role in what is obstensibly a religious pracitce.
If you open the door to Governement participation in religious practices (forgetting for a moment separation of Church and Stae issues) then whose religious values take precedence? If Government chooses one religious view over another, then what are the consequences of such involvement?
By the way there are a growing number of devout Chirstians who disagree with the current predominant religious view of homosexuality. For a very thoughful and thought-provoking perspective on this issue, I recommend reading 'Living in Sin' by Bishop John Shelby Spong, Episcopal Bishop of Newark (now retired.)
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
A couple of folks asked why marriage instead of civil union - here is some info on that topic:
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Sect...ontentID=22127
Why aren’t civil unions enough?
Comparing marriage to civil unions is a bit like comparing diamonds to rhinestones. One is, quite simply, the real deal; the other is not. Consider:
Moreover, even couples who have a civil union and remain in Vermont receive only second-class protections in comparison to their married friends and neighbors. While they receive state-level protections, they do not receive any of the more than 1,000 federal benefits and protections of marriage.
- Couples eligible to marry may have their marriage performed in any state and have it recognized in every other state in the nation and every country in the world.
- Couples who are joined in a civil union in Vermont (the only state that offers civil unions) have no guarantee that its protections will even travel with them to neighboring New York or New Hampshire – let alone California or any other state.
In short, civil unions are not separate but equal – they are separate and unequal. And our society has tried separate before. It just doesn’t work.
Marriage: Civil Unions:
- State grants marriage licenses to couples.
- State would grant civil union licenses to couples.
- Couples receive legal protections and rights under state and federal law.
- Couples receive legal protections and rights under state law only.
- Couples are recognized as being married by the federal government and all state governments.
- Civil unions are not recognized by other states or federal government.
- Religious institutions are not required to recognize marriages or perform marriage ceremonies.
- Religious institutions are not required to recognize civil unions or perform civil union ceremonies
Federal Benefits
Although the federal government has taken the lead in protecting many minority groups from discrimination, it has not only failed to do so for lesbian and gay families, but actually penalizes same-sex couples for being unable to marry.
For example:
- Lesbian and gay families are denied the same benefits married heterosexual families receive under Social Security.
- Lesbian and gay families are taxed for health benefits provided to their domestic partners, while married heterosexual families are not.
From taxes to health care to retirement, the federal government offers benefits and policies that help American families deal with everyday issues, or "kitchen table" issues — concerns that make up a huge part of everyone's daily lives and are often discussed around the kitchen table. Select an article from the list below to learn more about these "kitchen table" issues and how the Human Rights Campaign is working to end the unfair treatment of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families under federal law.
- After the loss of a job, lesbian and gay families are not guaranteed the opportunity to purchase continued health coverage for a domestic partner, although married heterosexual couples are.
I thought I'd let someone else take this on but since the cooler minds walked away.....
You did a great job of equating a victimless activity (homosexual activity between consenting adults) with a series of crimes with clear victims, children, animals and rape victims.
Regarding the 'domino effect' of legalizing homosexual marriage let's consider incest, particularly since you use it as an example. First cousin marriages are legal in a number of states, that certainly hasn't led to the legallity of parent-child or brother-sister marriages, has it? To continue that same point, I can own a hand gun (something legal for more than 200 years) but strangely I still can't own a tank. I wonder when that will become legal? Care to hazard a guess?
I suspect that the parents are not comfortable with his choice of the 'flasher' lifestyle but since indecent exposure isn't a victimless crime maybe the distinction is too fine for you.
A few examples of government 'involvement' in marriage would include:
1) joint income tax return filing
2) untaxed spousal health care benefits (note that people recieving domestic partnership benefits are taxed on those benefits as additional income, not the case for married couples)
3) common property laws (depending on what state you live in)
4) bigamy laws
5) divorce settlements
That's a very quick list I'm sure there are many, many more.
In our society marriage has two fundamental aspects, one legal and one religious. Both with ancient roots. Perhaps it's finally time to eliminate the legal aspect, remove any and all state recognition of marriage. Couples can have their union sanctioned by their particular religion and, if they so choose, enter into a legal covenant.
Steve:
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States referring to "The Separation of Church and State."
Chip
American citizens living under the same roof- a parent,a child- contributing members of the same community,no longer share the same civil rights thanks to the last election. That's wrong.
Our schools stress a 'celebration of diversity' ...there are dozens of kids in the GSA (Gay Straight Alliance) after-school group in our community. Our schools acknowledge and celebrate all children...athletes, musicians, artists. The adults in the community voted to punish some of them. It's no wonder kids are confused and angry.
I didn't say there was.
Besides you are avoiding answering my questions:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...
- If you open the door to Governement participation in religious practices (forgetting for a moment separation of Church and State issues) then whose religious values take precedence?
- If Government chooses one religious view over another, then what are the consequences of such involvement?
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
Reason as defined by definition: : a statement offered in explanation or justification. The problem is you don't like ANY explanation or justification that does not agree to your own morallly corrupt, evidently athiest, liberal left wing minority agenda.
You seem to be looking for a monetary or physical reason as to why SSM would hurt anyone in an effort to justify the homosexual lifestyle as normal. I am not sure it does or does not exist. (and you can't prove it either because there are no studies on same sex marriage because it is still so far illegal.)
I strongly suspect it would affect the insurance rates of companies forced by the federal government to cover the spouse of same sex marriages. In half of those instances those couples would be engaging in risky aids related sexual activity. In those cases the rates for those companies would be passed on to everyone. There were news reports today that companies that now were covering domestic partnerships were paying higher premiums because of the additional cost of treating aids related diseases.
But my main reason weather you want to hear it or not, is that I do not approve or condone of the so called homosexual lifestyle. I like most Americans do not want persons who engage in homosexual acts as partners in their businesses, fellow employees, scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their childrens schools or boarders in their home. We view this as protecting ourselves and our families from a life style we believe is immoral and destructive. I really don't need any other reason than that and evidently neither do the majority who voted 11 zip against SSM.
When will you learn that there is a price for that lifestyle and that crusing the parks for homosexual partners will probably cost him his career and his destructive life style is to blame.
Coda
Tell the men and women crowding the hospital wards with aids related illnesses that it is a victimless activity (homosexual activity between consenting adults) Tell those who have destroyed their lives, careers, marriages, families and communities by buying into the liberal politically correct agenda of homosexuality.
Take out rape, child abuse, and bestality.
Are you really advocating incest between consenting adults, adultry and bigamy. Just because a few states approve of cousins marrying, it is certainly not a mandate. Is this the type of society you advocating for your children and grandchildren? Heck we know better than to date cousins, even in the south!
Rep
Sorry I don't understand the first part of your post.
But saying that kids are confused by a Gay Straight Alliance is a pretty darn good reason not to have a Gay Straight Alliance. How do they know what side to get on when they play dodge ball?
Diversity is another false left wing political feel good mantra.
Didn't you celebrate all children before the "celebration of diversity".
Rep
No, it doesn’t state that explicitly but it is the Supreme Court’s job to interpret the Constitution and they have said, “[T]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable.” At the very least, the Establishment Clause prevents the preferential treatment of one particular religious view over another.
If "most Americans" think pedophilia is synonymous with the "lifestyle" of homosexuality, then we truly are a country of idiots.
For starters, the government has a law that prohibits same gender marriages.
Ok, those are good. But this opens a more emotional side of this issue. Are gay/lesbian people upset that they can't file joint taxes? Is it the federal protections provided that they want or just the simple fact of being recognized as a legitimate couple. (that's kind of rhetorical but still an interesting question) I actually got a bigger tax break when I filed single head of household.
As far as from a religious standpoint-for myself I disagree with the lifestyle choice but figure that Jesus came here and hung out with people that others considered evil or wrong (i.e. prosititutes, tax collectors, non-Jews etc) and loved them anyway and that is the example I should follow. I am not God, and don't to judge people. My past was not fabulous so I try not to throw stones as my house is glass also. I actually had a conversation with a friend of mine who is lesbian and we talked about how the extremists on both of our sides make the rest of us look bad.
I guess if I had to say what my main concern is it would be this. My fear is that eventually it will be deemed "hateful" of me to disapprove of that particular lifestyle and even if I can defend my point of view that because I am considered not "tolerant" I could be eventually fined or worse charged with a "hate crime" just because I don't agree. There is current legislation afoot ( or attempts at it) to make it illegal for my pastor to say from the pulpit that he thinks homosexuality is wrong. If gays don't have to agree with the Bible and due to the right of free speech can say so, why shouldn't my pastor in his own church be able to disagree with homosexuality? Those are the kinds of things that concern me more that anything else about this issue.
Let the refining and improving of your own life keep you so busy that you have little time to criticize others. -H. Jackson Brown Jr.
If the only tool you have is a hammer you will approach every problem as though it were a nail
Not true. I'm looking for a real reason, not just "'cause I don't like it". Even if that is your reason, why prohibit others from doing what they want. Hopefully for you, "the majority" will never decide to prohibit conservatives.
Please don't pity the insurance industry - they are very healthy, financially. I strongly suspect that most of those who would now be covered as spouse had their own insurance before, and so the difference would not be great. If the spouse did not have insurance prior to marriage, they would have been one of the dreaded "drains on society" without health insurance. If they have to pay higher premium, that's their problem, but as they are entering a monogamous relationship, the chance of getting AIDS is reduced. Is there an AIDS problem in the lesbian community?
"Since I don't like it, I'm gonna make sure you can't do it". OK, I got it.
Just think, if he were married to a nice man, he wouldn't be out trolling for a guy. But it sounds like he has more problems than that. Might he have been sexually abused by a man when he was young?
If anyone wants the torture of multiple spouses, go ahead! One is enough for me, but I'm not going to stop you.
I thought you were informed. I highlighted the southern states for you:
First cousins may legally marryAK, AL, CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, HI, MD, MA, NJ, NM, NY, NC, RI, SC, TN, TX, VT, VA
and Washington DC
http://web.ask.com/redir?bpg=http%3a...of+law+unclear)+(Not+legal...&tit=Cousins+United+to+Defeat+Discriminating+ Laws+through+Education&bin=&cat=wp&purl=http%3a%2f%2ftm.wc.a sk.com%2fi%2fb.html%3ft%3dan%26s%3da%26uid%3d0E8778A79FA4957 04%26sid%3d10C5DFBBC0D522914%26qid%3dDEF54FA12AB66D42ACD006A 1A76468C7%26io%3d%26sv%3dza5cb0db5%26o%3d0%26ask%3dwhat%2bst ates%2blegal%2bmarry%2bfirst%2bcousins%26uip%3d408831e1%26en %3dbm%26eo%3d-100%26pt%3d%26ac%3d24%26qs%3d0%26pg%3d1%26u%3dhttp%3a%2f%2fm yjeeves.ask.com%2faction%2fsnip&Complete=1
Someone asked:
Is there an AIDS problem in the lesbian community?
Answer:
A very small one, it seems to come from the bi-sexual community. Seems the bi-sexual women are getting it from thier husbands and boyfriends and passing it to the lesbians.
I don't approve of bigotry or ignorance, but I have learned to co-exist with it. Suggest you could do the same. Gay people BTW are both better educated and higher earners than the population in general--I know this contradicts the painstakingly researched stereotype of the cruising/pedophilic pervert, but those are the facts.
One more thing, quoting the Bible to underpin this, or any argument, is absurd. The Bible, as I thought everyone knew (perhaps not?) is full of conflicting statements, as well as ones we routinely reject as a society. Check out what Exodus says about slavery (pro) or Leviticus says about eating pork (con). The notion that one can pick and chose what one takes literally is ridiculous on its face. I would think any reasonably intelligent person would be abashed to make such an argument.
Well, one has to allow for the possibility that he's just agreeing with the other six, any or all of whom may actually be smarter than Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas. Even if they're not, they might be right, might they not? After all, there are so many of them...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks