|
Post by Just Here on Aug 18, 2004 17:48:53 GMT -5
Btw, you can probably figure out why I oppose sodomite marriage since you understand my basis for right and wrong to be the Bible. Again you have looked to the bible, decided that a certain sexual act is a sin and decided that a same sex marriage is somehow related to the sin. It seems that the basis for your rejection of the marriage of same sex couples is centered around what their sexual activity might be. If that is the case, hetrosexual marriage, in many cases, would fall into the same catagory - sinful, according to your belief, sexual practices. Should those marriages be forbidden as well? Should a couple be forced to state an oath prior to marriage stating what they will and will not do in their bed? Look at the issue of same sex marriage if the partners are female. Sodomy, in the biblical sense of the word, does not enter into it. The bottom line is that no one is asking you to marry someone of the same sex. Why do you want to impose your belief on others? Should they not have freedom of choice? I am trying to get to an answer regarding the legal issue that is not based on people's sexual activity. It would be interesting to see where the bible speaks out against same sex marriage. Please point the way. Have a nice vacation.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 18, 2004 18:07:07 GMT -5
Too much to answer before I go, but I had to respond to this:
You fail to see that someone is going to be imposing their belief here. Either I impose mine which includes the definition of marriage to be between a man and a women as I understand God to ordain, or you impose yours which might include two men, two women, a man and his goat, etc, etc.
Again, what is your basis for suggesting that you should be able to impose your definition of marriage on me? It would seem that such a tolerant person such as yourself, who is not bound by any standard of objective truth, would tolerate my strict defintion of marriage seeing that I am beholded to such a stardard. Doesn't your tolerance extend to those who try to uphold standards?
Robb
|
|
krispian St ppouwer
Guest
|
Post by krispian St ppouwer on Aug 18, 2004 19:04:51 GMT -5
Love is love is love is love. So don't get your frilly panties in a twist.
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 18, 2004 23:29:11 GMT -5
You fail to see that someone is going to be imposing their belief here. Nope. You are in favor of passing a law that will restrict someone's ability to do something. I am suggesting that we allow people to marry who they wish. No one imposes anything on you. You believe that is the definition of marriage. You should follow what you believe. However, placing that same limitation on others is imposing your beliefs on others. On the other hand, allowing people to marry whomever they wish is not imposing any belief on them. Each is free to follow their beliefs. How does allowing people to follow their beliefs add up to imposing a belief on them? I am not imposing any belief or definition on you. You are free to marry whomever you wish. That would be someone of your species of the opposite sex I would guess. Yes it does. And that is why I believe you , no matter what your belief, should be able to follow it without external restraint. How is allowing others to follow their beliefs, even if they are not your beliefs, in any way an imposition on you? How can you say my view is intolerant when I am allowing you to follow your belief yet you seek to prevent others from following theirs? As far as standards, I assume you will be posting the biblical references that speak against same sex marriage. Have a good vacation.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 19, 2004 0:14:33 GMT -5
Present, Here I am supposed to be packing bags to leave and I am instead in front of the computer. Because in this case it is yet another attack on the institution of marriage that God has ordained. I believe that this attack is coming from Satan himself and ought to be opposed by Christians. I do not want my children growing up in a culture where perversion is considered normal. I want them to grow up in a culture that attempts to honor God. Further, I believe that this country will cease to be blessed by God (but instead be judged) as we turn away from Him and turn to our own sinful lusts. I would rather not have the judgement of God imposed on my country by those that refuse to honor God and his commandments...that would be an imposition. A hermeneutically correct reading of the Bible will show without a doubt such things as God's ordination of marriage between a man and a women and His judgment concerning sodomy. Of course you will not find any such term as "same sex marriage" in the Bible, but it is obvious that such a concept is in contradiction to verses like this which establish what IS acceptable and appropriate. Genesis 2:24 - Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Please notice that it says "man" and "wife". If you fail to see this principle clearly, I can offer little further help. Thanks for the well wishes. Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Aug 22, 2004 2:06:53 GMT -5
It seems the people that are so adamantly against gay marriage feel that way due to religious reasons. What's interesting is that this country is, in theory, supposed to keep church and state separate. Now, if the religious people are trying to ban gay marriage due to their religious beliefs, then they are being unconstitutional. Yes, I know a bunch of you are going to tell me about how marriage started from god and all that. But when I first thought about marrying my wife, religion was not on my mind. I did not think at all, from the time I proposed up to the present, that marriage is a religious institution. It is a committment of love, and a legal institution. On my wedding day, there was no priest there. Well, the closest was my brother, who is a worker. A judge was the officient performing the legal proceedings. In fact, the closest any moment came to being religious was when I asked my brother to say "thanks" for the meal out of respect for the professing guests at the reception. But, I'm rambling... people seeking to ban gay marriage based on religious beliefs is wrong. If there is some kind of researched, non-religious proof that homosexual partnership is detrimental to the well being of the United States, (or more importantly the world), then let's consider banning gay marriage. Let the proof be from many different studies, and researched as impartially as possible (I realize that all research is biased to some degree). One study is not all inclusive. Let's interview neighbors, friends, relatives, acquaintances, enemies/opponents, co-workers, etc. of homosexual partners and see what they have to say. Let's look at how homosexual partners, equally committed to each other and the well being of people around them as equivilent hetersexual partners, contribute to society. I believe that what we would find is that homosexual partnership/marriage would have much the same impact as heterosexual partnership/marriage. No, I'm not saying that homosexuals are all wonderful and never have fights and etc. I realize that they are prone to the same type of relationship problems/benefits as heterosexual couples. There could also be homosexual couple domestic violence, rape, murder, etc. just as what happens with heterosexual couples. Let's not make a decision on gay marriage based on religious principles. Let's keep the decision to the facts. andy
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Aug 22, 2004 7:39:17 GMT -5
It seems the people that are so adamantly against gay marriage feel that way due to religious reasons. What's interesting is that this country is, in theory, supposed to keep church and state separate. Now, if the religious people are trying to ban gay marriage due to their religious beliefs, then they are being unconstitutional. . . . . Andy, I believe marriage should be between a man, a woman, and God. Governments should stay out of it completely. In fact, it is as you say whether we like it or not. But I do not fault anyone for wanting to get the government to support whatever they believe in. If they believe it is right, then they should want to devote any and all resources to make sure it is done that way. We need more people who are willing to stand up and support what they really believe, even if they have a different opinion from my own. inatent
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Aug 23, 2004 2:30:12 GMT -5
Andy, I am sorry to see that you have bought into this misunderstanding regarding the intent of our founding fathers concerning church and state. Its ok, since you and I both learned this garbage in public school (who can blame us). The reality is that the idea of "separation of church and state" was created firstly to keep government out of the church and secondly to prevent the establishment of a state sanctioned denomination as was the case in most of Europe at that time. The fact that a belief in God was at the foundation of this country cannot be denied. A creator God is assumed from among the first words in the Declaration of Independence ...all men are created equal... notice “created”, not evolved. The revisionist history that you and I have been taught can be easily refuted by studying the lives of the founding fathers as well as the original documents. I am troubled by the attempts at history revision going on in an attempt to remove any mention of God from our govt. I can only concur with the prayer of the US Supreme Court at the beginning of each session..."God save the Republic and this honorable court" Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Aug 23, 2004 14:24:55 GMT -5
I am sorry to see that you have bought into this misunderstanding regarding the intent of our founding fathers concerning church and state. Its ok, since you and I both learned this garbage in public school (who can blame us). I would venture to say this is an opinion and not a fact. There are many who view the church and state issue very differently. It was also an attempt to keep the church out of the government as it has been in France. But what God? The opening speaks of "...the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God ...". The definition of 'Nature's God' can present problems. Using the DoI as a scientific document is not a good choice. Ov course it does not mention evolution. THe theory was not in place. It doesn't mention a lot of things just as the Bible doesn't. All men created equal? Not quite. The document reflected thinking of the time in North America not always universal truth. If I remember the last time this was brought up the the claim was made that the majority of the founding fathers were Christian! That certainly was not the case. You have to wonder about their view of God as compared to modern views. Which God?
|
|
|
Post by HA on Aug 25, 2004 6:43:28 GMT -5
Cheney opposes ban on gay marriageAssociated Press Wednesday August 25, 2004 The US vice president, Dick Cheney, yesterday spoke supportively about gay relationships, saying: "Freedom means freedom for everyone." Mr Cheney made the remarks at a campaign rally in the Mississippi river town of Davenport, Iowa, where he was speaking to an audience that included his lesbian daughter, Mary. He said that, while he did not personally support a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, he accepted the decision of the US president, George Bush, to pursue it as administration policy. "[My wife] Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Mr Cheney said. "With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to," he added. "The question that comes up with the issue of marriage is what kind of official sanction or approval is going to be granted by government? Historically, that's been a relationship that has been handled by the states. The states have made that fundamental decision of what constitutes a marriage." Mr Bush's backing of a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage was a move Mr Cheney said had been prompted by various judicial rulings that had made gay marriage legal. The president backed a ban after the Massachusetts supreme court ruled, in February this year, that homosexual couples had the right to marry. However, the ban was defeated in the US Senate when Republican politicians broke party ranks to join Democrats in opposing it. "I think his perception was that the courts, in effect, were beginning to change, without allowing the people to be involved," Mr Cheney said. "The courts were making the judgment for the entire country." Last month, speaking just days after the Senate had blocked the ban, Lynne Cheney said states should have the final say over the legal status of personal relationships. The Cheneys have two daughters, both of whom are working on the campaign. Mary Cheney is the director of vice-presidential operations for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. She held a public role as her father's assistant in the 2000 campaign, and helped the Republicans to recruit gay voters during the 2002 mid-term elections. During the 2000 campaign, Mr Cheney adopted the stance that individual states should decide legal issues about personal relationships, saying people should be free to enter relationships of their choosing - a view held by many Democrats. The Democratic challengers in November's presidential election, senators John Kerry, of Massachusetts, and John Edwards, of North Carolina, oppose the amendment. They oppose gay marriage, but defend a gay couple's rights to the same legal protections as those conferred in marriage. Steven Fisher, spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay and lesbian group, said Mr Cheney's remarks contrasted starkly with Mr Bush's efforts "to put discrimination in the constitution." Mr Fisher said: "President Bush is feeling the heat. The administration has been using gay Americans to drive a wedge into the electorate. "There are millions of American families who have gay family members and friends, who are offended by the president's use of discrimination." From www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1290434,00.html
|
|
|
Post by ok on Aug 25, 2004 16:25:42 GMT -5
Yes. Some gay people have incredible respect for the job of rearing children too. Why just today in an advice column called Ask Amy, the person writing in (gay) referred to people who have children as "breeders". Nice. Real nice.
|
|
|
Post by Really nice on Aug 25, 2004 18:16:07 GMT -5
Yes. Some gay people have incredible respect for the job of rearing children too. Why just today in an advice column called Ask Amy, the person writing in (gay) referred to people who have children as "breeders". Nice. Real nice. Sort of like the person who started this thread: "There is no sensible reason to justify this sick practice. BAN GAY MARRIAGE! " Really nice. There are jerks on boths sides.
|
|
|
Post by Guest too on Sept 5, 2004 20:14:31 GMT -5
2 of my friends are a lesbian couple (15 years together) with a child (doner sperm) and one on the way (same anonymys doner). When the birth mother chose to stay home with her baby, she couldn't obtain health insurance through her partner's employer. Luckily, in their state (IL), legal adoption is possible for the non-birth mother (so both moms are legally the child's mother), so the child can have health insurance from working mom's employer, plus if they broke up then child support would be expected from both parents, though this isn't common in most states, non-birth mom could just lose her child! There is no religious litmus test for heterosexuals that marry; they can believe and behave any ol' way they choose. Keeping gays from marrying is discrimination that hurts their loving families including their children in a very personal way. One's opinion of it being a sin is a religious belief which shouldn't be confused with a rational examination of the merits or dismerits of legal gay marriage. Not everybody is a Christian (or a Muslim, or a....)
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Sept 5, 2004 20:39:24 GMT -5
2 of my friends are a lesbian couple (15 years together) with a child (doner sperm) and one on the way (same anonymys doner). When the birth mother chose to stay home with her baby, she couldn't obtain health insurance through her partner's employer. Luckily, in their state (IL), legal adoption is possible for the non-birth mother (so both moms are legally the child's mother), so the child can have health insurance from working mom's employer, plus if they broke up then child support would be expected from both parents, though this isn't common in most states, non-birth mom could just lose her child! There is no religious litmus test for heterosexuals that marry; they can believe and behave any ol' way they choose. Keeping gays from marrying is discrimination that hurts their loving families including their children in a very personal way. One's opinion of it being a sin is a religious belief which shouldn't be confused with a rational examination of the merits or dismerits of legal gay marriage. Not everybody is a Christian (or a Muslim, or a....) Insurance is a matter for the insurance company. The government does not need to get involved with that. IMO, the government should not be involved in marriage, family, or living circumstances at all, unless they are harmful to other people in some way. inatent
|
|
|
Post by yes sir on Sept 5, 2004 22:26:16 GMT -5
Amen to that previous comment!
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Sept 7, 2004 7:35:25 GMT -5
This brings up an interesting point. How come the liberals who claim the need for the right of gay marriage, do not fight for that right in Muslim nations, but instead seem to defend the Muslims and their traditions? When are the liberals going to stand up for basic human rights in the Muslim countries?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 7, 2004 13:20:16 GMT -5
This brings up an interesting point. How come the liberals who claim the need for the right of gay marriage, do not fight for that right in Muslim nations, but instead seem to defend the Muslims and their traditions? When are the liberals going to stand up for basic human rights in the Muslim countries? Robb The fight is not for the rights but against those who would seek to enact laws to abridge people's rights. Same sex marriages is not against the law until someone passes a law that takes away the people's rights and makes same sex marriages illegal.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Sept 7, 2004 14:17:38 GMT -5
OK, so then why arent liberals out protesting the laws in Muslim countries that deny womens rights? Btw, I still don't understand why you want to impose your morality on me by attempting to redefine marriage in the US. If you want to hook up with your goat or another woman, go ahead. Just don't go calling it marriage and expecting me to view the perversion as equal to the God ordained institution of marriage between a man and a women. Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 8, 2004 9:26:16 GMT -5
OK, so then why arent liberals out protesting the laws in Muslim countries that deny womens rights? They are. Fighting for woman's right to a education. Fighting to give women rights. Even that ultra-liberal Laura Bush spoke out in support of Afghan women's rights. Not imposing my belief on you at all. You are still free to belong to a religion that only recognizes marriage as something between a man and a woman. (I do wonder how you feel about people who have undergone gender changes? Who could George (Christine) Jorgenson marry?) To some it is not a re-defnition. They have always thought of marriage as a joining of two people. I am not expecting you to call it or view it as anything. I am very willing for you to call it whatever you wish and think others should have that same right. You do not even have to acknowledge the marriage at all or, for that matter, you do not have to even acknowledge the existance of either person in the relationship. All I am asking is that you do not impose your views and deny the right to others to make their own decisions. For many God does not enter into the institution of marriage so the argument regarding God is a moot point. A same sex marriage or the marriage of an atheist man and woman would seem to pose the same problem for you. Before you get too crazy with this liberal thing remember that D i c k Cheney supports a person's right to marry whom they wish. Is he a liberal or a conservative? "With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone. People ought to be able to free -- ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." D i c k Cheney
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Sept 9, 2004 8:23:57 GMT -5
Ok, so you support my right as a business owner to not acknowledge gay marriage or civil unions and thereby deny heath benifits to the "partner" of these employees?
Concerning D i c k Cheney... Mr Cheney is wrong on this issue and so is his running mate who supports civil unions. For this and a few other reasons my vote will be going to Michael Peroutka... the real conservative.
Hoo boy. We have been over this illogic. Minors...incest...animals... amaizing that your logic would lead you accept such terrible things.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by inatent on Sept 9, 2004 8:39:58 GMT -5
. . . . Hoo boy. We have been over this illogic. Minors...incest...animals... amaizing that your logic would lead you accept such terrible things. Robb Hmmmm. Add IGO, and these might all be the same entity! inatent
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 9, 2004 9:19:05 GMT -5
Ok, so you support my right as a business owner to not acknowledge gay marriage or civil unions and thereby deny heath benifits to the "partner" of these employees? This is another issue. Who is and is not eligible for insurance is based on the insurance company. Many already offer the same coverage to same sex partners. But, yes. I do not believe people should be denied their beliefs because they do not agree with yours. That is the American way. Make your wishes known by using your vote wisely. This is is the second time you have thrown in minors. They are already protected by the law and are not in danger. Marriage between close relatives is also regulated at a state level and would not be impacted by a same sex marriage. I am thinking red-herring. On the other hand, why should the government be involved in anything other than protecting its citizens. Is a man wants to marry his sister who is to say he should not be able to do so? Do you really think it would be a huge problem? Look at the situation in Massachusetts. Same sex marriage is legal. After the initial flash in the pan what is the situation? Are people flocking to Massachusetts to get married? No. Did civilization as we know it come to an end? No. It was a lot of sound and fury over a non-event.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Sept 9, 2004 14:27:54 GMT -5
Non-event, eh? Then why don't you and the sodomites just drop the issue and leave the definition of marriage alone? Present, why can't you just show tolerance for my intolerant views? Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 9, 2004 15:45:05 GMT -5
Non-event, eh? Then why don't you and the sodomites just drop the issue and leave the definition of marriage alone? I think it has been dropped. The courts have said a marriage can take place regardless of sex and that is what is happening. On the other hand, there is a movement afoot to add the definition of marriage to the constitution. Can a movement to add the definition of God to the constitution be far behind? I am very tolerant of your views. Feel free to protest and make your views known. Stand and rail against the abortion. Speak out against same sex marriages. Exercise your rights to believe as you wish and your right to make your beliefs known. Just don't prevent others from exercising the same rights. No one is forcing you into nor preventing you from marrying anyone you wish. Allow others the same rights.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Sept 9, 2004 19:31:03 GMT -5
But my views infringe on the so called rights of others. How could you be tolerant of that?
I am certainly not tolerant of your views which infringe on the right to life the unborn nor your definition of marriage which imposes your view of legitimate realtionships on me and my family.
Btw, I wonder if you would support the right of any person to own or carry any firearm at any time they choose. Certainly you wouldn't make any qualifications to this right guaranteed by the Constitition would you?
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Just Here on Sept 9, 2004 23:17:21 GMT -5
But my views infringe on the so called rights of others. How could you be tolerant of that? Views do not infringe on rights. I am tolerant and respectful of your views. The problem arises when laws are enacted that will force either of us to follow the other's views. Allowing same sex marriage does not mean you will ever have to enter into a same sex marriage. Preventing same sex marriages does indeed inforve your beliefs on others. That is, I suppose, one of the differences between us. I respect your views and will defend your right to hold them just as vigorously as I will defend the right of others to hold their views. Perhaps that is, in the final analysis, the meaning of being liberal. The belief that each person has a right to their beliefs. I do support that right but with some reservations. I believe, for the safety of all citizens, that some weapons need to be controlled. Personal ownership of some weapons, cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, for example, should be subject to some restrictions. As pointed out above, I would make some restrictions but that might be said to be already in place with the phrase "...well regulated militia...".
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Sept 10, 2004 7:51:36 GMT -5
I think I understand what you are saying. You are tolerant of the views or ideas, but intolerant of the laws or policys that result from the views or ideas. Is that right? If so, I can also agree to be tolerant of your ideas as long as your views or ideas don't make it into public policy. ;D Please don't misunderstand, I support the right of free speech which was purchased by the blood of many brave Americans, but that doesn't mean that I accept the killing of babies or the further destruction of the family which is the consiquence of your "views and ideas".
Robb
|
|