Do you oppose same-sex marriage for religious reasons?

[MC208B 0]

Quote

Quote

Homosexuals have always been allowed to marry, and many of them have. Of course, if they're not attracted to the opposite sex there's little point in doing so, but they're free to marry if they really want to.

I wrote this elsewhere but it's appropriate here too:

Straight people, like gay people, have the right to marry any partner the government approves of.

Straight people, like gay people, should want the government to get out of the spouse-approval business.

What is your slant on the Nov 04 elections where 11 states voted NO to gay marraige? That was the PEOPLE speaking to the government?

[Casurf1978 0]

The people were wrong, just like they were wrong with segregation and womens rights. The majority can be wrong and they often are. Read what a few of our founding father wrote about minority rights.

"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."

Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801

[narcimund 0]

Quote

What is your slant...

My slant is written in post #3 of this very thread.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

I think you'll find people will offer answers which fall into the following categories:

1) Clearly stated religious or moral opposition based on non-universal premises.

2) Weak practical reasons which obscure or disguise a religious or moral stand. Often accompanied by a footnoted religious/moral position which is usually the real key to their thinking.

3) Weak practical reasons which obscure or disguise bigotry. Often accompanied by a footnoted comment about revulsion, social superiority, or fear of an uprising by oppressed groups.

4) Confusion (i.e.: misunderstandings about the practical ramifications).

5) They personally don't want to engage in it so they don't believe anyone else should.

How about "I really don't care either way, nor do I want tax $ spent on a protracted legal battle whiny minority who want their 'civil unions' called 'marriages' (a warm fuzzy feeling, since the benefits (survivorship, etc) are the same) because the majority of the population dont want to change it"?

You gotta realize that the vast majority of the world does not care who you fuck. Indifference does not equal Fred Phelps.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

How about "I really don't care either way, nor do I want tax $ spent on a protracted legal battle whiny minority who want their 'civil unions' called 'marriages' (a warm fuzzy feeling, since the benefits (survivorship, etc) are the same) because the majority of the population dont want to change it"?

If you didn't care, then you wouldn't be in the scope of the original question. But since you obviously DO care, I'll hazard a guess you're in category #5: "Any right that I don't want isn't important enough to give other people."

Hey, aren't you the guy who used his psychic powers to magically detect why I moved?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

If you didn't care, then you wouldn't be in the scope of the original question. But since you obviously DO care, I'll hazard a guess you're in category #5: "Any right that I don't want isn't important enough to give other people."

Hey, aren't you the guy who used his psychic powers to magically detect why I moved?

Well sport, you were a "second class citizen" in the US, by your own admission because you couldn't get married to another man. In Canada, you are a "First Class Immigrant" and now married to said man.

You do the math. It doesn't take an Agent from the FBI to figure that one out.

Actually it's just irritating to see the money and time wasted on this debate. Civil Unions weren't good enough, apparently some wanted the warm fuzzy feeling of being able to say "married."

A big waste to gain an arbitrary title.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

You do the math. It doesn't take an Agent from the FBI to figure that one out.

Actually it's just irritating to see the money and time wasted on this debate. Civil Unions weren't good enough, apparently some wanted the warm fuzzy feeling of being able to say "married."

A big waste to gain an arbitrary title.

I'm pretty good at math but you might want to look into hiring an off-duty FBI agent. Your facts AND your interpretation are loose.

By the way, out of 50 US states, only 1 has "civil unions" for homosexuals. Yet more casual incorrectness on your part. Civil unions might or might not be "good enough" but for 98% of Americans they're not available.

Like I said, if Category 5 people don't want something, then they see it as "wasteful" when somebody else wants it. I'm certain of it now. You're DEFINITELY category 5.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Actually it's just irritating to see the money and time wasted on this debate. Civil Unions weren't good enough, apparently some wanted the warm fuzzy feeling of being able to say "married."

This is the wording of the Marriage Protection Amendment, which is being proposed to mend the U.S. Constitution:

Quote

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.

If this amendment ends up being passed, it seems that the part about "the legal incidents thereof" would pretty much wipe out any benefits that same sex couples would get from civil unions.

And currently civil unions do not provide the same legal benefits of marriage anyway. People in a civil union may get typical marriage benefits from the state that recognizes their union, but they do not get any of the federal benefits that married couples get.

Oh, and as narcimund pointed out, I believe that Vermont is the only state that even allows same-sex civil unions... And, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, no other state is required to recognize their civil union.

[MC208B 0]

Quote

Quote

What is your slant...

My slant is written in post #3 of this very thread.

Must have been heartbreaking to you when your very own state, Oregon voted against gay marraige too then? I mean if that wacky left coast place didn't endorse what you feel is right and good, then who will?

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What is your slant...

My slant is written in post #3 of this very thread.

Must have been heartbreaking to you when your very own state, Oregon voted against gay marraige too then? I mean if that wacky left coast place didn't endorse what you feel is right and good, then who will?

Yeah, that whole "Majority Rule/Democracy" thing is a bitch.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Must have been heartbreaking to you when your very own state, Oregon voted against gay marraige too then?

Personally, I find it heartbreaking to think that so many people in our country are so eager to make constitutional amendments that take away a fundamental human right from their fellow citizens.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Must have been heartbreaking to you when your very own state, Oregon voted against gay marraige too then? I mean if that wacky left coast place didn't endorse what you feel is right and good, then who will?

Is that gloating in these posts? Is that what your little smiley face means? If so, I think we see how much of a lie this touted "indifference" is.

And heartbreaking? No, that's too strong. I would have had to expect some other outcome for it to mean that much to me. But yes, when bloodthirsty people choose to destroy out of fear, loathing, or cruelty it does hurt.

Does my pain bring you pleasure? Did you just smile a little bit?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Let me first apologize for bringing this topic up once again; I know it has been argued into the ground on here...

But I am writing a position paper on same-sex marriage and trying to come up with a clear reason for why people are opposed to it... So for those of you who are opposed to it, is it mostly a religious and/or moral issue for you? Or is it something else? (Links to websites that provide clear opposition statements would be appreciated too, as most of what I am finding is not very clear.)

Christianity & Homosexuality

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? (carm.org)

What does the Bible say about homosexuality? (bible.com)

[Shotgun 1]

Regarding parenting, here is something I came across from the American Psychological Association:

http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

It's pretty long, but this is part of the conclusion:

Quote

In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.

Of course, research in this area is fairly new (and they mention some of the problems with research methods), but so far everything I have read on this subject seems to draw the same general conclusions.

And here is a link to the APA Policy Statement on Sexual Orientation, Parents, & Children:
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

[MC208B 0]

Quote

Quote

Must have been heartbreaking to you when your very own state, Oregon voted against gay marraige too then? I mean if that wacky left coast place didn't endorse what you feel is right and good, then who will?

Is that gloating in these posts? Is that what your little smiley face means? If so, I think we see how much of a lie this touted "indifference" is.

And heartbreaking? No, that's too strong. I would have had to expect some other outcome for it to mean that much to me. But yes, when bloodthirsty people choose to destroy out of fear, loathing, or cruelty it does hurt.

Does my pain bring you pleasure? Did you just smile a little bit?

No, your pain doesn't bring me pleasure.

This gay marraige=civil rights struggle doesn't bring me pleasure either. It's not equal, not even close.

The Multnomah county gang of four outright pissed me off when they decided that gays should be allowed to marry and issued 3,000 licenses to local gay couples in CLEAR violation of Oregon laws. Remember that one? They didn't even bother to tell the 5th comissioner, he heard about it on the news. Of course, those 3,000 couples were later disappointed when the licenses were ruled invalid. That WAS heartbreaking for them.

Of course, after the people of the state of Oregon voted on the issue, the losers are filing lawsuits to overturn the will of the people.

I don't have any problem with gay people, none. Did you ever jump at Estacada? Very small DZ where I learned to jump. One of the guys there was nicknamed "Gay Bob" cause he was gay. No one cared. Of course, he didn't cry about not being able to get married either.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Of course, he didn't cry incessantly whine about not being able to get married either.

Fixed it for you.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

No, your pain doesn't bring me pleasure.

I'll leave it to your conscience to decide if you're telling the truth. I very firmly believe some others here DO take joy when others are oppressed.

Yes, I did jump at Estacada long ago. Ralph's mysogyny and racism offended me badly. I didn't go back.

And your anecdote about a gay person getting along with that crowd made a lot more sense with the closing comment that he didn't expect to be treated like a full human being. I'm sure Ralph and his crowd welcomed black people and women who accepted being treated as sub-human as well.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course, he didn't cry incessantly whine about not being able to get married either.

Fixed it for you.

I celebrate your first amendment right to be offensive, nasty, childish, and rude.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Nightingale 0]

The point of issuing the licenses was to give people standing to challenge it in court. Because they are personally affected, their case is less likely to be thrown out as groundless.

[MC208B 0]

Quote

Quote

No, your pain doesn't bring me pleasure.

I'll leave it to your conscience to decide if you're telling the truth. I very firmly believe some others here DO take joy when others are oppressed.

Yes, I did jump at Estacada long ago. Ralph's mysogyny and racism offended me badly. I didn't go back.

And your anecdote about a gay person getting along with that crowd made a lot more sense with the closing comment that he didn't expect to be treated like a full human being. I'm sure Ralph and his crowd welcomed black people and women who accepted being treated as sub-human as well.

Ralph welcomes everyone (except druggies) to his DZ. You must be extremely thin skinned if the atmosphere at Estacada was to much for you.

no one is treated like they're sub human there.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Christianity & Homosexuality

Wow, from that first link that you posted (emphasis mine):

Quote

In numerous states in America several bills have been introduced by the pro homosexual politicians to ensure that the practice of homosexuality is a right protected by law. Included in these bills are statements affecting employers, renters, and schools. Even churches would be required to hire a quota of homosexuals with "sensitivity" training courses to be "strongly urged" in various work places. There is even legislation that would make the state pick up the tab for the defense of homosexuality in lawsuits, while requiring the non homosexual side to pay out of his/her pocket.

I'd be really curious to see one of these bills that would require churches to hire a quota of homosexuals. I am guessing that this sort of propaganda is a big part of the reason that people are rushing out to make constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage.

But aside from that, do you think that gay marriage should be banned because certain religions think that it is immoral?

[MC208B 0]

Quote

The point of issuing the licenses was to give people standing to challenge it in court. Because they are personally affected, their case is less likely to be thrown out as groundless.

The Oregon supremes threw out the licenses saying they were now moot (after the state constitution was amended). I think the gay groups are suing now over whether the amendment itself is valid.

Funy how these days folks that lose an issue in an election now take it to court, go figure

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The Multnomah county gang of four outright pissed me off when they decided that gays should be allowed to marry and issued 3,000 licenses to local gay couples in CLEAR violation of Oregon laws.

Which laws were being violated, and do you know the wording of those laws? I seem to recall the licenses being handed out because it had been determined that it was in violation of the Oregon constitution to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.(?)

[Nightingale 0]

Well, we don't live in a total democracy, you know. While the will of the people can regulate many things, it can't supercede the constitution without amending the constitution. If they're making the argument that the amendment to the state constitution is unconstitutional, they have every right to do that, because state constitutions are not superior to the federal constitution.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Ralph welcomes everyone (except druggies) to his DZ. You must be extremely thin skinned if the atmosphere at Estacada was to much for you.

no one is treated like they're sub human there.

Wow. This is the topic for a different thread but ... wow. You're so INCREDIBLY wrong I just can't begin ...

First Class Citizen Twice Over