# And what of Gay Marriages?



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 23, 2003)

How many of you approve of Gay marriages?

How many dissaprove?





And how many hold the opinion of the new govenor of California, who was quoted as saying (and I'm not making this up):

"I don't believe in Gay marriages.  I believe Gay marriage should be between a man and a woman."

If Arnold ever pushes that proposition through the California assembly, I'm moving to California, having my marriage annulled, and then re-marrying my wife.  But it'll be a Gay marriage.  I'm not sure what responsibilities that will entail, but it will be in keeping with my iconoclastic nature and will be the talk at ALL the parties.

Seriously, though...how many are pro-Gay marriage?  I mean same sex...not Arnold's definition.

What problems/advantages do you see with this?


Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2003)

Same Sex Partners, have a problme getting insurance for their 'Spouse' and also have the heir issue if one was to pre-decease the other.

Some large companies offer same sex insurance to their implies if they ask for it. This is good in that people can get group rate insurance. This is bad as it does not cover the man and women living together. So, I see a discrimination suit in the future. 

The US Military supposedly has the do not ask do not tell policy. What difference does it mean to mean if the guy in the next cube or the woman at the next station on the line as a positive relationship with someone of the same sex? Why should my religious morals affect their legal rights?


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2003)

Whether it's called marriage or not, some sort of civil union procedure is needed--for health insurance, visitation rights, and so on.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 23, 2003)

Up until a few days ago, I agreed with this point of view . . . 





> Whether it's called marriage or not, some sort of civil union procedure is needed--for health insurance, visitation rights, and so on.


. . .  that what really mattered was the legal items. I thought it was silly that the discussion essentially came down to fighting over the definition of "marriage".

But my wife has enlightened me. She said that it is the definition of marriage that is being fought over. Why shouldn't our gay friends and family be allowed to share in 'all that emotional stuff' that is included in 'marriage'.

It is not the legal argument, it is the "I love you" emotional thing that they are fighting for. It is the significance of the wedding ring that they are fighting for, it's not just the right to visit a sick lover in the intensive care ward.

I have a very good friend that travelled to Vermont from Georgia to be joined in a 'civil union' soon after this was legal. But even more exciting, is that this past July 4th ... he, and his partner of 25+ years travelled to Canada to get married in Toronto. Both my wife and I thought this a wonderfully, ironic celebration of Independence Day ... to get married in a foreign country.

To see some other very thoughtful discussions on the topic, visit http://www.andrewsullivan.com and check out his link on homosexuality.

Peace & Love - Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *. . .
> But my wife has enlightened me. She said that it is the definition of marriage that is being fought over. Why shouldn't our gay friends and family be allowed to share in 'all that emotional stuff' that is included in 'marriage'.
> 
> ...



Mike,

Good Points. I agree everyone should have the option of the joy and pain associated with a marriage. And I think that portion would be much eaiser to accomplish if the legal portions we not an issue. Since, one can get married by a Judge, and not ahve a religous ceremony for their wedding, I was apporaching this from a non religious point of view. Even though I agree with your enlightened Wife, I just did not believe it would all be possible from day one. So, you pick your fights/arguements/issues and make the best of them for the betterment of society as a whole.
:asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 23, 2003)

I find it interesting to note that those who claim it destroys the 'institution of marage' seem to miss the point that is in fact adds to it, not diminishes it.

I see no problem whatsoever with 2 people who are in love making the comitment to each other.  Gender and race are both non issues IMHO.

Again though the whole 'gay is bad' thing is only a recent cultural thing, as both the Romans and the Greeks didn't seem to care about it.  Nor do the Japanese today.  It seems it is only a big deal in countries with conservative religious hang ups that make it a big deal.  (The US and much of the Mid East come to mind).

If they want to marry, let em.  If they want to serve, let em.  If they want to be able to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness?  

Let em.

:asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 23, 2003)

An interesting article, written by a conservative, agrees with what Bob writes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22BROO.html?ex=1070529008&ei=1&en=2d02b9ee619250d1

He says  that Christians should DEMAND that Gays marry, thereby bringing power to the relationship.  The article has some great stuff on marriage and its meaning.

George Barna, a Christian researcher, reports that Christians actually experience divorce at a higher rate than non-Christians (www.Barna.org).  

An argument goes that Gay marriages will cause the deterioration of the institution of marriage in our culture.  With divorce rates at 50%...what sort of deterioration do they envision?  It sounds like heterosexuals are messing it up pretty well without the help of Gays.

What if it were found that Gay marriages are MORE SUCCESSFUL than straight marriages?  I doubt that they will be...but were it so, that would certainly sour some people's milk.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ender (Nov 23, 2003)

animals and insects should also be allowed to marry!!*L


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 23, 2003)

Problem is, both sides seem to have different issues.

For those who agree with gay marriage, it is often about why can't homosexuals enjoy the same privliges as hetrosexuals (love expression, unity, insurance benefits, etc.)

For many who disagree with the idea, or "conservatives" it is about 2 things; the christian perspective and adoption.

One: Christians, generally speaking, feel that a major reason for the institution of marriage is procreation. Since Homosexuals can't procreate with the aid of a labratory, then they shouldn't be allowed to be married.

My disagreement in this is that there is a difference in a marraige by the state and a marriage by your church. I can be married by an church if I want to, but if I don't go through the right proceedures, I won't be married as far as the state is concerned. Vice versa, I can go down to city hall without having to get married in a church. So, if I belong to a church that says "no gay marriages here," then fine, but I need to remember that this is not the same as a marriage by the state.

Two: Adoption is a major issue for those who disagree. I have heard from many conservatives that gay marriages bring us one step closer to letting gay couples adopt, and that a child shouldn't be subjected to a "gay lifestyle."

I feel that this a mistake also. A child could be brought into a disfunctional environment whether it is by being brought into a hetrosexual home or not. In my opinion, the adoption agencies need to decide whether or not the household is fit to bring up children. In many cases, a child shouldn't be subjected to certian "gay lifestyles". At the same time, often I could see just as many circumstances that a child would be better loved and brought up by a gay couple then by being left in foster homes. It is up for an adoption agency to determain these things.

So, my conclusion is that Gay marriages should be legal by the state!


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 23, 2003)

What it comes down to is that there will be a State definition of Marriage, and a religious one.

The State definition will allow the couple State rights.

The religious marriage that takes place at a religous ceremony will grant the couple that religion's benefits.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 23, 2003)

Good points.

And on topic up to a point...does having two daddies or two mommies cause a child to grow up to be Gay?

This, of course, opens up the "nature or nurture" part of the argument, which is a very touchy issue and one brought up elsewhere on this forum.  

We might want to bring that up in another thread.  

What say you?


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 23, 2003)

Wow.  Went to my favorite blog and just happened on this site:

http://members.aol.com/DrSwiney/unions.html


A guy wrote a book about the ancient history of Gay marriages, apparently approved of by the church prior to the 14th century.


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 23, 2003)

> does having two daddies or two mommies cause a child to grow up to be Gay?



Someone very dear to me ... and very heterosexual .. was the product of the marriage of a gay man to a gay woman. She grew up with her mother, and her mothers' lover. She occassionally visits her father, and his partner.

And, while she is straight, her two daughters are experiencing gay / bi-sexual proclivities (although, I think this may be more an self-discovery process in one of the girls, the other girl is gay as the day is long)

Parents of "X" are gay

X is not gay

Children of X are exhibiting gay behavior (?)


Boy, that sure looks like a genetic experiment in recessive genes, doesn't it? 

Things that make you go "hmmm" - Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 23, 2003)

Well, the argument goes that the "Gay lifestyle" can cause a person to become gay...regardless of the growing amount of information indicating that there is a biological etiology for the syndrome.

Many people don't understand that genetic expression can be purely genetic, such as the case with eye color...and then there is genetic mutation.  There is also genetic expression which is abnormal but not necessarily mutational in the sense that we normally perceive it.

Example:  A pregnant mother is exposed to high levels of a certain hormone through diet...perhaps something like diethylstilbetstrol (I think I spelled that right), and it causes certain genetic "switches" in her unborn child not to be thrown...or maybe they're thrown when they ought not to be.  Result:  Child with homosexual inclinations.  

That child has a child of his own some day, and the parent is not exposed to any outside influences that might cause an aberrant expression of sexuality.  His/her offspring are normal.

In short...there could be a number of biological reasons for homosexuality.

I do not, for one, think it is a matter of choice.  I find it difficult to believe I could chose homosexuality.  I certainly didn't "decide" to be heterosexual.  It "chose" me, as it were.   

I could never be Gay.  I simply dress too abysmally.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## Quick Sand (Nov 23, 2003)

I personally completely support homosexual marriage. 

A lot of people here are using terms like "they" and homosexuals  versus "normal people" etc. I don't think there's anything abnormal about homosexuality. It's been seen throughout our entire history, it's not a new fad, and it's also seen in the animal kingdom. (Along with homo sapiens I mean.)

I think that to an extent everyone has the possibility of being homosexual if you meet the right person. Love and marrige are about emotional conntections with another person more then it's about chromosomes isn't it???? 

I've never been attracted to a person of the same gender as me but I'm not sure that I never will be. How can you close off 50% of the population just based on their genitals? If I can find a person to love and have a commited relationship with than I'll be doing better then a large portion of the popluation on this continent, regardless of their gender. Like was stated before 50% of marriages end in divorce. Aren't you more likely to end up unhappy if you're not open to all possible relationships? 

:soapbox:   JMHO


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 23, 2003)

Think about it a moment...

lights are out....you are in a passionate embrase, kissing, cuddling, etc.

Suddenly the lights go on, and its a member of the same gender.

We've all been trained to go "AAAAHHHH!!!!!!!"

But what if we liked it?  

I heard an old George Carlin bit a while back that made me think of that....made sence then...still does.

Hate knows no boundaries.

Neither does Love.

Its not the choice for me, but I respect others right to decide for themselves.


Part of the hypocracy of the whole thing is, we secretly (or blatently) display our lust for the thought of 2 gals, while at the same time condeming 2 guys.   Something seems 'not fair' there, y'know?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 23, 2003)

Hokey smoke, grownups. Are you folks sure you do martial arts?

Anyway, just to add to the conversation, I have for some time now felt that it is none of my damn business--in a profound sense--to worry over who gets married to whom.

By the way, that book on "gay," marriage (they actually had a very different sense of people, sexuality, etc. than we do) in the medieval period apparently considered a union, not a marriage--it was more like an affirmation of a relationship--and further, the book was more than a little trendy.

On the other hand, those who fantasize that "Western culture," started out and has remained straight really need to go baack and read Plato--especially the "Symposium," where the whole discussion revolves around which philosopher gets to sit next to the beautiful young man.

Thanks.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 23, 2003)

> I think that to an extent everyone has the possibility of being homosexual if you meet the right person. Love and marrige are about emotional conntections with another person more then it's about chromosomes isn't it????




I'm fully open to the notion that sexuality runs across a continuum.  I can even except that some people will move across that continuum.  But not ALL will, if given a choice.  

I'm talking preference...not behavior under stress or duress.  It seems that under the stress of say, prison, homosexual behavior will take place among men who are preferred heterosexuals.  Two men trapped on a deserted island...who knows?  But given a reasonably stress free environment people will, I think, go with the selection that nature has inclined them towards.

Will there be variation in that?  Likely.  Perhaps there will be variation in most of the population, with strict homosexuality/heterosexuality existing among a few.  But even those variations, I submit, would be largely biological and due to the developmental complexities of the human brain...and societal pressures (or lack thereof) would have very little to do with orientation.

But I don't think Mommy and Daddy's behavior make Billy or Suzie straight or Gay.  Nor can Billy and Suzie be "recruited" by someone with a "Homosexual Agenda".  It just doesn't work that way.



Steve


----------



## arnisador (Nov 23, 2003)

See also:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10863

And for Kaith's comments:
http://rustaz.com/bbs/index.php?showtopic=830

(In particular, see this comment by some member of Kaith's board.)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 23, 2003)

> _Originally posted by arnisador _
> *See also:
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10863
> 
> ...



:rofl:


----------



## MartialArtsChic (Nov 24, 2003)

It's my opinion that people are born gay.  I did theater for 8 years and have numerous gay friends.  Some have been together for 15 years or more.

The way I see it, if you're lucky enough to find someone to be by your side, laughing, loving and sharing for the rest of your life, who cares what the genders are.

As for gay marriages - sure, let 'em get married, have it recognized in every way.


----------



## Arthur (Nov 24, 2003)

Gay marriage interesting how much attention this has taken up in my life lately. I wouldnt have expected it, after all how much does it affect me. Yet there is this part of me, and maybe its the same part of me that has attracted me to martial arts all my life, that has a huge issue with unfairness and abuse of power.


I just moved from Massachusetts, the state that put all this back in the news. The topic is certainly on our minds in this area on all the talk radio shows, and generally all around the local water coolers.

Generally speaking if you wanted to paint me in a political corner youd probably call me conservative. I believe in less government, I believe the money I earn is mine, I believe I have a right to buy and own a gun, and I place the concerns of my country above those of world opinion. However recently in regards to this issue Ive found myself on the opposite of the debate. Separate and disparate from my friends and local talk show hosts.

I hear all around me how this court decision is legislating from the bench, how the decision will destroy the institution of marriage, and how its just plain silly. Its sad to me that Ive heard these things from people I normally listen to because they have a good foundation in law, and make decisions based on facts and logic rather than emotions, religion or personal passions. 

The fact is from a legal perspective Gay marriage is a given. Each state has a different constitution (and in theory states have rights, but the civil war might argue), and while they vary the Massachusetts constitution has a very familiar relationship with the US constitution.

Which brings us to the issue of two different clauses  the establishment clause of the first amendment and the equal protection clause from the 14tth amendment.

The establishment clause is interesting, in that it talks about religion and society and government. This clause is often taken out of context in modern society. While we could argue specifics and interpretation for eons, basically it comes down to saying that the state shouldnt be making religious laws to either engender or prohibit religion. Or to paraphrase government should stay out of the biz of religion.

And in this idea, we hit the first snag regarding gay marriage.  If government should stay out of the biz of religion it really has no right creating a state version of a  Judeo-Christian ritual called marriage. The very idea of the state institution of marriage is basically un constitutional as it is a establishment of a state sanctioned religious institution.

Then we come to the 14th amendment and the part often referred to as the equal protection clause.  To paraphrase, this clause basically says that all citizens deserve the same rights as all other citizens.

A strict interpretation of the 14th amendment is probably the best argument for  civil unions if we only look at the equal protection part. However the full amendment speaks of limiting states rights in light of equality laws. This basically nullifies the federal defensive marriage act! So when you consider the federal mandate of the 14th amendment, along with the equal protection clause and the 1st amendment it becomes apparent that from a legal standpoint that outlawing gay marriage is unconstitutional.

From a legal standpoint, it would seem the Massachusetts Supreme Court did its job, and admirably so in face of fierce opposition. 

From a religious standpoint there are two issues as I see it one we go back to the first amendment the state has no biz making a religious judgment or law!  And two.. as was mentioned above the catholic church not only condoned but encouraged gay marriage for centuries. Yes they used that word, they had specific ceremonies and were fully invested in it!

For those that want to argue from a naturalist point of view saying its just abnormal and wrong might I point out that there deer population produces gay deer in direct proportion to the deer that cant be fed in the local area. This is but one of many studied that shows that homosexuality has a direct impact on the positive viability of race. Its easy to look at procreation on the individual level but m any social scientists will tell you that society must be looked at as a whole, to understand its realities.

The realities is there are many biological, societal and other reasons for homosexuality, and the arguments made for hetero marriage equally apply to gay marriage. To other wise is to expose extreme ignorance and arrogance, IMO.


----------



## Arthur (Nov 24, 2003)

PS

Did I mention that getting married by US law is a lot like eating in a "white only" restaurant!

think about it!

Arthur


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 24, 2003)

Gay deer?

Danged Gay deer should all be SHOT, if'n ya ask me.

For one to properly cook a venison steak, quick sear it on both sides to keep the juices in, and then slow cook it to taste.

THERE I GO AGAIN...jeez, you'd think I was complusive with food.
----------------------

Good post Arthur.

Something to note on the issue of conservatism versus liberalism- Most of us have our own line item veto when it comes to various issues.  Our society tends to polarize politics.  We MUST be one or the other, and to debate a topic...a single topic...defines us as to our political orientation.   So the thinking goes, anyway.

Many of us are thus left with a hand wringing existential angst regarding our political stance in life.  Witness, as example, my own views:

Am I a liberal, or a conservative?  I believe in gun rights, ergo I'm a conservative.  BUT, I'm pro-labor, so I must be a liberal.  I believe in a strong national defense...mmm, must be conservative.  I also believe in certain social programs for the poor and elderly.  Jeez...I must be a liberal.  NO WAIT...I believe in freedom of religion.  I'm a conservative.   I believe in freedom from religion...dang...I'm a liberal again.  I'm very, very pro-law enforcement.  Okay...okay...I'm really a conservative.  Yet I'm for the legalization of marijuana.  Whoa, duuuuude...I'm back to being a liberal, like, wow.  I sing the National Anthem and stand at attention when the Marine Corps hymn is played at football games (and tell the idiot behind me to shut up or "I'll rip your lips off your face, freak" when he tells me "down in front")...yet I think a person should have the right to burn that flag in political protest...liberal.  I believe child molesters should be hammered by the law.  Conservative.  I think Gays should have full rights.  Liberal.  I think Alan Colmes is a pencil neck wimp...like any good conservative.  I think Sean Hannity is a bully...gotta be a liberal.  I rather admire Donald Rumsfeld for his handling of the press...without doubt I'm a right wing neo-nazi.  I think Ann Coulter is a fascist psychopath who probably dresses in chains and rubber and carries a whip on the weekends...man, I must be a bleeding heart.  

I could never bring myself to shoot a deer, gay or not.  I'm a Bambi advocating, tree hugging liberal.

If any ya'll shoot a deer...don't throw away its liver, heart or kidneys.  Send them to me.  I'll make orzo stuffing with red pepper, liver and fresh herbs, venison heart en mole, and kidneys with mushrooms and vermicelli.

Aw, crap.  I'm so confused...no conservative eats THAT part of a deer.  You're supposed to feed it to your  dogs.

BACK TO THERAPY.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## ABN (Nov 24, 2003)

Steve,
   After your therapy session meet me at Starbucks for a latte, I'll bring my new issues of American Rifleman & Wine Spectator. 

Arthur,
   I agree with you in every aspect of your post. 

   I am a practicing Catholic and, like HHJH and Arthur, predominantly conservative in my political views. That being said I find myself wholeheartedly in favor of Gay marriage. I know many people who are gay and who have had "partnerships" for as long as I've been alive. 

From a totally pragmatic and "conservative" standpoint, when I consider the contributions to society (and the tax base) they have made as artists, teachers, musicians, financial types, philanthropists, waiters, bartenders, or whatever, I think its rather discriminatory not to give these people the same rights, financial incentives, advantages, and protections, that their heterosexual contemporaries are allowed.

From an emotional perspective, I would like to see my gay friends accorded, the same recognition of commitment that their heterosexual contemporaries are afforded.

Personally I think the whole debate is fallacious and an attempt to superimpose the view of one group upon the whole. There are far greater things going on in the world that deserve our attention. All we would be doing is granting official recognition to something that has been taking place since the beginning of recorded history. Will it take some time to adjust? Absolutely but, to use Arthur's reference, it took people down south a little while to get used to seeing everybody use the same water fountain as well.

andy


----------



## someguy (Nov 24, 2003)

People dhould learn the old saying.
Live and let live.
I think I dont really care what a person does for this debate  so they should have equal rights.  People aminly need to get over there fefars of diffrent people.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 24, 2003)

If it happens in the animal kingdom, is it "Love"? I didn't know animals could love. And if it isn't Love then isn't it just sexual urges? If so, then the same would have to apply to humans. Love and sex can be totally independant of each other.

It sounds to me that by some social practice homosexual acts have become a symbol of love between the same sex. But it's not something any other species does in the same way(because they cannot love).

As for the "gay gene" - I'm not convinced if some lab in the Netherlands makes a press release.

It's wrong, it's a defect and that's my belief. This just makes another reason to explain our morals and beliefs to our children before they're engrained by TV and public school systems. 

BTW, it's also wrong to hate. (Just so I don't come off like some biggot)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 24, 2003)

> Love and sex can be totally independant of each other.



True.  But we can not dictate to consenting adults that they have sexless love.



> As for the "gay gene" - I'm not convinced if some lab in the Netherlands makes a press release.



What's your point?  That science in the Netherlands is defective?  Perhaps you require something more substantial?

Here's some other references, then:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=PubMed

That's about 177 Journal entries.

Here's a nice little slideshow:

http://campus.houghton.edu/orgs/psychology/homosexuality/

In the slide show we find the following:

_Pillard et al. (1981, 1982) discovered that when male probands reported other gay and lesbian relatives, they usually came from the maternal side of the family. This seemingly lends support to the idea that homosexuality is heritable, and may be connected to a region on the X chromosome (Pattatucci, 1998).

Males (genetic XY) who are unable to utilize testosterone normally are feminized, as are male babies whose mothers were subject to high dosages of estrogen while pregnant. 

This research is supported by the earlier conclusions of Meyer & Bahlburg (1993) who proposed that high concentrations of androgenic hormones are required during the period of sexual differentiation of the brain to masculinize the neural substrate relevant to sexual orientation and neurocognitive function._

And lastly, we find this:

_The etiology of homosexuality remains unclear, but the current literature and the vast majority of scholars in this field state that one's sexual orientation is not a choice, that is, individuals no more choose to be homosexual than heterosexual.

       ---American Academy of Pediatrics
           Committee on Adolescence_



> It's wrong, it's a defect and that's my belief. This just makes another reason to explain our morals and beliefs to our children before they're engrained by TV and public school systems.



Define "defect".  Defect of character?

What would you do/say if your child came to you and admitted homosexuality?  Who/what institution would you blame?

Regards,

Steve Scott


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 24, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *
> It's wrong, it's a defect and that's my belief. This just makes another reason to explain our morals and beliefs to our children before they're engrained by TV and public school systems.
> 
> BTW, it's also wrong to hate. (Just so I don't come off like some biggot) *



MisterMike,

Hi, How are you?

I also would like to understand your comment about defect.

Is it your belief system that states this is a defect? A social Defect? A biological defect? A moral defect?

Could Homosexuality be a population control built into the species given a current conditions of the person or the mother during pregnancy? Could this population control be due to stress put on certain individuals that may or may not line up with geneitc traits that allow for this characteristic?


Is the Genetic Disorder of the Liver, called Gilbert's Syndrome a true disorder or is it a mutation or is it just a representation of certain genetic traits. Gilbert's is where the liver does not process the by products in the blood well, this makes the person have elevated Billirubins, most likely an enlarged liver do to working harder and more consistent, an enlarged spleen that is always working to also clean the blood. This also makes the person more suseptible to alcohol and processing it. Yet, this also means that the person's system is always on elevated alert and handles the common germ much more readily. The negative to this, is when they get sick they get really sick, since it had to over come the natural resistance of the system that others would have to ramp up to speed on.

So, some would call this a defect, others call it a syndrome, others cal it a genetic mutation. This is why I ask you for further clarification, to understand your point of view.

Thank You 
:asian:


----------



## arnisador (Nov 24, 2003)

Please, keep on topic--homosexual marriage.

Feel free to start another thread for related topics. I can move some posts from this thread to another if that would be desirable.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 25, 2003)

Thanks MisterMike for a dissenting opinion.

I was really quite surprised by how supportive of gay marriages the posters on this board are. As I mentioned earlier .... I am a very left leaning liberal type, and I expected much more of the opposing point of view.

Homosexuality, whether by nature or nurture or design or defect, is a minority state of being, therefore, will always have some who do not accept, respect, or endorse it. Fortuneately, we live in a society where one of the priciples we adhere to is that we will respect the rights of the minorities; and the minorities will in turn accept the results of the majority. When all of us act with good will, the society will, mostly, hold a correct attitude or at least be moving in a correct direction.

I really expected to hear more opposition on this post. I really respect MisterMike for being bluntly truthful about his opinion. So many of those commentators ... those voices on talk radio ... are couching their dissent in words that just don't ring true; "they are legislating from the bench", "the definition of marriage has always been between a man and a woman", "I just want everyone to be happy", "I want a marriage for my commune".

Each of those arguments have the stench of 'I need to present myself so that I am not prejudiced against xyz ... but there is no way in hell I want them moving in next door.'

Again, thank you MisterMike for your honesty. I respectfully disagree and hope that we can agree to disagree on this.

Peace - Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 25, 2003)

Arnisador,

I would suggest it isn't TOO much of a digression to discuss homosexual etiology briefly insofar as it impacts justification for Gay marriage.

Should it be proven, with reasonable satisfaction, that homosexuality is in fact biologically driven and not an issue of choice or immorality, then the stance against Gay marriages is badly weakened.  Further, if that research I  posted is valid, _any_ discrimination against Gays is a profound injustice.

But we should not get too far off onto that topic, I agree.   It was dealt with in another thread.  Still, not all here posted to that thread before it was closed.

I would be more than happy to start another thread, or have you do so with the previous posts.  The other thread shut down I believe because it got off topic or got too heated.  Can we pick it back up?  Do the mods decide that?  I'm not clear on the rules.


Regards,

Steve


----------



## freddrinkwine (Nov 25, 2003)

As  a society we should support gay marriage. We should support two consenting adults that love eachother enough that they want to make a life comitment. We need to start intervening and saying wer'e not allowed to kill; not who wer'e not allowed to love. And for all the people talking about protecting the sanctity of marriage - look at the sad state of straight marriage: over 50% fail. And that doesn't mean the other 50% are good. The conservatives railing against gay marriage - look at them - their marriages are riddled with infidelity and every other perversion.
Get over it - gays have always been around - they always will be. Let them be and move on to things that actually matter. I am a happily married straight man and have no problem with gay people any more than people with red hair or people who like classical music or people who are Jewish or people who are black or people who are whatever.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *True.  But we can not dictate to consenting adults that they have sexless love.
> 
> 
> ...




I'm not dictating anything, and I wouldn't call those conclusions any more "substantial"


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Rich Parsons _
> *MisterMike,
> 
> Hi, How are you?
> ...



Hi Rich,

I guess I was leaning towards a mental/psychological defect. And defect shouldn't be taken as negative. Maybe it is something inheritable, but then, aren't some mental illnesses?

For you second question, I don't think it is some Darwinian thing where it is to ensure overpopulation doesn't happen.

It's something that has been around since the early ages. But the covenant of marriage was set up to be between a man and a woman. That's the spiritual aspect. What the state does is another thing. This was my original post wayyy up the thread.

If they want civil union, or whatever you want to call it, I think we are all protected under equal rights. Go for it.

Hospital visitations and all the rest of the things that should be afforded people who care about each other should be available.

It just that should the State throw the term marriage around it's a slap to those who really know where it was derrived from.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Thanks MisterMike for a dissenting opinion.
> 
> I was really quite surprised by how supportive of gay marriages the posters on this board are. As I mentioned earlier .... I am a very left leaning liberal type, and I expected much more of the opposing point of view.
> ...



Hi Mike,

Those are good points you make. I see many fronts on this issue.

1. How it is being handled legislatively and judicially as you noted.

The Judicial branch is to interpret the law, not write it. But the exteemists know which courts to bring their cases to just for this reason.

2. How it is being introduced to our schools

For me, I have my own set of values, as does everyone else. As a parent it is my responsibility to pass these onto my children until they are able to make decisions for themselves. Hopefully things will stick, sometimes they don't. But we as parents do our best. Now more than ever we have to compete with a lot of propaganda and outside influences to keep our kids out of trouble. Schools, TV, radio, internet. The list goes on. All of these are means by which the extremists(and there are some in every minority group) are using to push their agenda.

3. The issue of separation of church and state

As I stated in other posts. There's a difference between civil union and marriage to the informed. Call it what you want but more words are distorted every day. 

I think it's all good for discussion and although I may have been blunt I certainly tried to articulate it with compassion.

Thanks,


----------



## arnisador (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hardheadjarhead _
> *The other thread shut down I believe because it got off topic or got too heated.  Can we pick it back up?  *



Yes, I'll unlock that thread.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Hi Rich,
> 
> *



Mike,

Thank You for the clarification. I was not trying to say you were wrong, only trying to understand your point.

Once again thank you for the reply
:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 25, 2003)

How, precisely, does anybody know how the, "covenant of marriage," was set up? 

It's a real question: my guess would be that most of the folks on this thread are taking what they take to be the Biblical account of the institution--and that's exactly the problem. Last time I checked, none of us had the right to impose our religion, or our religiously-based ideas, on everybody else. 

It's kinda like the dreaded abortion question: since this can only be settled in terms of faith and personal belief, the Court has basically said that we have no business making this choice for anybody but ourselves.

I still don't see why this is any of my beeswax. I understand that there are lots of folks who think that gay marriage  undermines the family, threatens religious institutions, etc. etc.--but does it really do that more than the spectacle of Liza Minelli, MacCauley Culkin, Michael Jackson getting, "married?" That's legal and moral and family-enhancing, but gay marriage ain't?

I guess I assume that gay pople are just as dumb as straight ones, and have the right to act just as stupidly. 

Next: the fantasy of being, "straight."


----------



## MA-Caver (Nov 25, 2003)

My take on it all... gays are going to cohabitate no matter what. They want to have the term "Marriage" to be "legally" applied to their relationship. About 20 years ago I attended a lesbian wedding "ceremony" where the two lovers had exchanged vows of fidelity and love and bla bla bla and thus they called it marriage and co-habitated together. 
Since they've been persicuted <sic> (a lot less now than before)they've been looking for equality. They're going to fight for it in the courts and they're going to win state by state over the next 15-20 years. 
The Commonwealth of Mass, is breaking those barriers down. Texas helped with the removal of the anti-sodomy law and Vermont had it's hand as well as Hawaii and several other states of the union. 
It's going to happen whether we like it or not. We can choose to live with it or face possible consenquences of our negativity. 

The hardest states for the Gays to battle will be those of the "deep" south and Utah. It'll take a while but eventually those states will be forced to accept/legalize Gay marriages.  The end result may not be pretty. 

:asian:


----------



## Mithios (Nov 25, 2003)

I say they should have the right just like everyone else.    What goe's on behind closed door's is none of my business. Mithios


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 25, 2003)

I used to be against Gay Marriage because it would be so costly for organizations such as the military that it sounded like a bad idea. What will probably happen is that these organizations will take away all the perks they offer to married couples before they finaly allow it. This is a pretty important thing because it will not only hurt married couples, it will in fact diminish marriage in general. I'm not sure its a bad thing because when I was in the military I was single. I wasn't happy that I was taxed the most, I didn't get seperate rats, or an housing allowance. I knew of men and women getting married just for the extra stuff. Who can blame gays for trying to cash in? Why do organizations penalize single people?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 25, 2003)

Basically, single people of whatever preference get penalized because our government--back when the country was considered underpopulated, and there was a lot of fear that immigrants from Italy, Ireland, etc. would take over--decided that as a matter of social policy we would encourage family life and children-getting.

In other words, the government got involved, through the tax structure, insurance regs, laws, etc. with pushing the family...


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Basically, single people of whatever preference get penalized because our government--back when the country was considered underpopulated, and there was a lot of fear that immigrants from Italy, Ireland, etc. would take over--decided that as a matter of social policy we would encourage family life and children-getting.
> 
> In other words, the government got involved, through the tax structure, insurance regs, laws, etc. with pushing the family... *


And people wonder why divorce rates are so high.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Basically, single people of whatever preference get penalized because our government--back when the country was considered underpopulated, and there was a lot of fear that immigrants from Italy, Ireland, etc. would take over--decided that as a matter of social policy we would encourage family life and children-getting.
> 
> In other words, the government got involved, through the tax structure, insurance regs, laws, etc. with pushing the family... *



Wow Robert...you always bring things to the table that I haven't thought about...what are you, a College Professor or something?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 25, 2003)

> Next: the fantasy of being, "straight."



LOL

Funny story as told by a comedian I saw on TV a while ago. This is not word for word, and is censored as best as I can, but he was talking about his friend who is a homophobe:

Comedian: There is no reason to be homophobic...everyone is gay, it just depends on how gay you are.

Friend: What...I'm not gay!

Comedian: Oh yea...well do you ever watch Porno?

Friend: Well yea...

Comedian: Do you only watch girl on girl porn, or do you watch guy on girl also?

Friend: I watch guy on girl too.

Comedian: And do you want the guys (member) to be small and flacid when he trys to take her?

Friend: No! I want him to have a big hard (blank)! Oh....I guess we all are sorta gay...

:rofl: :rofl: 

btw: I don't think that the idea of being straight is a fantasy, but I just thought this was a funny story and reminded me of this conversation. I hope I censored well enough!

PAUL


----------



## ABN (Nov 25, 2003)

PAUL,

YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE ATTEMPTED CENSORSHIP MORALITY ORDINANCE. YOUR NAME, IP ADDRESS, AND ISP INFORMATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE CONSIDER YOURSELF ON DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION. 




///S/// 
JOHN ASHCROFT 
ATTORNEY GENERAL


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Nov 25, 2003)

> _Originally posted by ABN _
> *PAUL,
> 
> YOU HAVE VIOLATED THE ATTEMPTED CENSORSHIP MORALITY ORDINANCE. YOUR NAME, IP ADDRESS, AND ISP INFORMATION WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE PROPER AUTHORITIES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE CONSIDER YOURSELF ON DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION.
> ...


 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 26, 2003)

Uh..."defect," isn't negative? Science has exactly the same value as moral interpretation based on religious belief? Say what?

My point was this: all the grounds for opposing everybody being allowed to git hitched are religious. We shoudn't be imposing our personal religious beliefs on anyone else. Therefore...

Impressive conversation, fellow kids. Who knew martial arts harbored so many rationalists and decent people?

Oh yeah. I think that ALL these categories--straight, gay, lesbian, white, black, etc.--are, in the end, based on bizarre combinations of biology, history, culture and fantasy. Like tonight, driving home from The College of the Burnin' Desert, I heard some guy whose last name was, I think, Garza, argue that Thanksgiving should be for white people like him only. 

Given that he claimed to have a black son-in-law, and given his last name, I damn near pulled over, called in, and asked just what it was that made him dream he was, "white," whatever the hell THAT word means. I mean, when I was a little kid in the 1950s, this guy was one of the "them," that we were told not to play with...


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Uh..."defect," isn't negative? *


Perhaps anomaly would have been a better word for you? 



> *
> Science has exactly the same value as moral interpretation based on religious belief? Say what?
> *


Hopefully that wasn't my quote. But since it's out there, some religions do not recognize science, others do, and others even place it below their beliefs.



> *
> My point was this: all the grounds for opposing everybody being allowed to git hitched are religious. We shoudn't be imposing our personal religious beliefs on anyone else. Therefore...
> 
> Impressive conversation, fellow kids. Who knew martial arts harbored so many rationalists and decent people?
> ...



Opposing and imposing are 2 different things. Lots of people are opposed to this but it will still come to be law in some fashion.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 26, 2003)

Ah yes, the victimization of the majority by the minority.

And yes, "anomalous," which would be the correct word here, is still insulting. Try this sample sentence: "It is peculiar, and indeed anomalous, for an adult to continue to fantasize that there is a fatherly, protective figure who lives in the sky and watches over him." See my point?

I don't expect to convince you of a thing, nor should you change your mind about things like this. However, I'd be interested in an answer to the question: since your beliefs about "gay marriage," are founded on your religious views, why do you think it's appropriate to make eveybody else conform to your religious views? It's a real question: I'm interested.

Again, thanks.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 26, 2003)

There's not need to feel insulted if you believe in yourself enough. Just as I'm sure my statements, although blunt, may come off a bit rough around the edges, it's still factual. Just as I do not take personal insult to your example. Although a better one would have been using the word in say, someone's heart condition. Defective valve or an anomaly in heartbeat.

My beliefs on this subject are based on religious and biological evidence, and I'm not looking for people to conform. Although I do feel it a duty to expose others to the Word, the choice is still up to them.


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 26, 2003)

Mike-

You made some comments about the origins of marriage that I feel were...if not exactly wrong, slightly misleading.

Marriage started out as a political institution.  Marriage didn't start to become about "love" and all that until this century or perhaps a bit earlier.  Marriage was simply a tool to ensure that inheretence went to the proper person.  Its quite simple, really.  If a woman is only permitted to um...procreate...with a single man, he can operate with the reasonable assumption that the children of that woman are biologically his, and can therefore inherit things such as land, title, etcetera.

Women were used as political pawns.  Peace treaties were often sealed with a marriage.  

Marriage had little or nothing to do with religion other than the fact that the churches were the political powerhouses back in that era.  Marriage certainly wasn't about love, because oftentimes, the bride and groom's first meeting was at their wedding!  Neither bride nor groom usually had much of a choice in who their partner would be.

interesting quotes from the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA:



> One of the earliest and most frequent customs associated with the entrance into marriage was the capture of the woman by her intended husband, usually from another tribe than that to which he himself belonged.


Gosh... this really sounds like the ideal...


Until the ninth century marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century there were blessings and prayers during the ceremony and the couple would offer their own prayers. Then priests asked that an agreement be made in their presence. Then religion was added to the ceremony. 


As you can see, marriage:

1. hasn't always been about love.
2. hasn't always been about religion.


so, you really can't base your argument on the history of marriage, because the history of marriage doesn't support the current HETERO marriage tradition...

If you go back to the roots of marriage, it was for economic purposes, a blending of assets and an extending of mutual protections.  At the moment, not only are homosexuals fighting for the rights to have their relationships recognized, they are fighting for the same economic and social rights as heteros... this sounds pretty in accordance with the "marital tradition" to me.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 26, 2003)

Mr. Mike:

Sorry, but I'm not buying. 

In the first place, you may find it a little easier to have a discussion if you stop suggesting that people who disagree with you are suffering from some sort of fantasized (on your part) emotional...ah...anomaly, as in your sentence, "There's not need to feel insulted if you believe in yourself enough." One may perfectly legitimately feel insulted by such a remark, on the grounds that my self-confidence is none of your beeswax: emotional...ah...defects would only come into question if one were to accept such a statement as true. 

For example, if I were to say that, "Men who claim to be worried about gay marriage are actually worried about their own sexuality," one might legitimately take offense, without necessarily taking such a silly claim to heart. 

I still haven't seen the slightest tad bit of this, "scientific," evidence on who should and should be allowed to marry that you claim to be employing. Where is it? I've seen stuff on the so-called, "gay gene," sure, but it's a pretty big logical jump from there to the civil and religious institution of marriage.

I'm still interested in an answer to the question I asked: since in the end your objections are founded upon your religious beliefs, as they have every right to be, why do you feel that it's appropriate to insist that everybody else has to follow the dictates of your religious beliefs? Does this have to do with what you, "feel," is your "duty to expose others to the Word?" (Incidentally, that word, 'expose...' I'd find another.) Could you explain, and this time leave my emotional status--whatever that is--out of it?


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *Mike-
> 
> You made some comments about the origins of marriage that I feel were...if not exactly wrong, slightly misleading.
> ...



No, I didn't. I said:



> *
> It's something that has been around since the early ages. But the covenant of marriage was set up to be between a man and a woman.
> *






> *
> so, you really can't base your argument on the history of marriage, because the history of marriage doesn't support the current HETERO marriage tradition...
> *



But I can, because even arranged marriages were between a man and a woman.

As for what they are fighting for, the only thing they can shoot for legislatively is equal taxation as the rest of us married folk. And I'm fine with that.

Most other policies other than child custody are up to the public/private institutions.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 26, 2003)

Robert, I can realllly cut this short for you by saying:

I never felt that it's appropriate to insist that everybody else has to follow the dictates of my religious beliefs.

Not once in this discussion thread, not once in any conversation I've ever had.

I'm also finding it very easy to have this discussion. What might make it easier for you all to understand it is to stay on topic and not suggest things I did not say. If I do say something, please quote it for myself and all to see. Because if you cannot, I cannot continue to discuss points I never made, and will not reply again to it.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 26, 2003)

Uh...Mr. Mike...if you'll look, I quoted you repeatedly. Could you explain why my reading of your quotes isn't accurate?

And again: my question's very simple. You rely on a claim of scientific and religious ground for your argument. OK, fine. I merely want to know what that scientific evidence is. Did I miss it? I also want to know why you feel that it's legitimate to insist that everybody must live by the rules of your perfectly-legit religious beliefs. 

I must add that I think you're avoiding those questions with a lot of other stuff. There's no need for any of it; I don't even care that we disagree. I'd just like to see the evidence you claim to have, and I'd like to hear the explanation of determining public policy--and private relationships--with a particular set of Christian ideas.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 26, 2003)

Well Bobby, you had your chance. But in true Liberal fashion, you ignored my replies and changed focus from the topic. I guess this is why conservatives dominate talk radio.

Buh-bye, Bobby. Thanks for playing


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *Hi Rich,
> 
> 
> ...



Its the second statement I was taking issue with... MARRIAGE WAS ORIGINALLY A LEGAL AGREEMENT, WITH NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  As you can see by the quotes I gave you in my previous post,  one should really be asking the question of "should RELIGION be throwing the term marriage around?"  since, after all, the roots of marriage lie in economics, not in religion.


----------



## MisterMike (Nov 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *Its the second statement I was taking issue with... MARRIAGE WAS ORIGINALLY A LEGAL AGREEMENT, WITH NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  As you can see by the quotes I gave you in my previous post,  one should really be asking the question of "should RELIGION be throwing the term marriage around?"  since, after all, the roots of marriage lie in economics, not in religion. *



Sorry, I think you'r more misled than Bobby. Marrying for money is what women do in the present. :rofl:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 26, 2003)

I see. 

If you don't wish to answer the question, that's just fine. However--and to respond precisely in kind--in true fake-conservative right-wing talk show host style, you prefer invective. Never fails to amaze me, when folks who espouse Christian values abandon them at first opportunity.

Just to clear up a few things, unless I'm hallucinating--as we Libs are wont to do--the topic of this thread is, "and what of gay marriages?" I've several times simply asked you on what grounds, scientific or religious, you are resting your arguments against allowing it. You know--it's that thing about building one's house on rock or on sand?

Rather than offer an answer to a polite question, you've chosen various forms of insult--including the latest, "Bobby," which employs the dimunitive of my name in an attempt to position yourself as the adult responding to a foolish child. 

I pursued the matter out of genuine interest, and to keep the conversation going--and, frankly, because I suspected that no answer or logical refutation would be forthcoming. And readers please note: whatever Mister Mike might think I think, I always phrased things politely, and well...judge the responses for yourself. For me, it's enough to make one think that  Neil Hertz had a point about male hysteria in response to political pressure. 

Part of the reason I've become more and more sympathetic to, "minorities," like gay people as I've gotten older, I have to say, is the unreason of those who have problems with them. Here, it's the classic right-wing talk-show host response: get a question, launch insults, wait for the other party to get honked off in the slightest, accuse them of being childish and losing their temper, keep shifting the grounds of the discussion, keep claiming that one has, "proof," without ever specifying what that proof is, and eventually, when the game grows tiring, break off the conversation on the grounds that the other party is somehow being unreasonable for asking a question. Follow up with a snippy comment about the other person's beliefs, or what you're pleased to claim they believe.

And never, never, never answer the question. Never cite the basis for the belief.  Never follow ordinary rules of courtesy. Just yell.

As for the topic, the connection is that it is this sort of unreason that makes life difficult for so many.

Just to "help," the other side, here are the primary arguments against so-called, "gay marriage."

1) Christian. Gay marriage violates the rules for life laid down in the Bible, and in mainstream Christian teachings since the Renaissance at least. It particularly violates the teachings of modern Protestantism, in particular those of the evangelical and fundamentalist divisions of Protestantism. 

2) Christian. Gay marriage violates the basic premises that a) sex in marriage, the proper place for all sexual behavior, is either a sort of, "necessary evil," preferable to illegitimate lust or a pleasure that serves as a foretaste of Heaven, and b) sex in marriage is to be enjoyed in the context of procreation.

3) "Scientific." Gay marriage, based as it is upon, "abnormal," sexual expression, contradicts the biological basis of marriage. {Note: I have put quotes around, "scientific," since it is difficult to find evidence for this assertion of absolute, normative heterosexuality in animal studies or in human history.}

4) Scientific. Gay marriage rests upon the expression of perverse sexuality, with homosexuality being the result of an unusual genetic trait. 

5) Historical. Gay marriage has never been practiced before, and is a modern notion altogether. It is wrong, because it flies in the face of past practices.

6) Cultural. Gay marriage is a perverse expression of a perverse, declining, corrupt culture.

7) Cultural. Gay marriage is part of an ongoing, active and quasi-deliberate attempt to undermine the normal American family.

8) Legal. Gay marrriage runs contrary to the establish tradition of Western law.

9) Legal. Gay marriage would require enormous, sweeping changes in our civil laws, with dangerous consequences.

10) Financial. Gay marriage would place enormous and unreasonable burdens on our insurance system and tax revenues, since gay people would immediately become eligible for marriage deductions, spousal benefits, and certain inheritance rights.

11) Psychosexual. Gay marrieds who adopted, or otherwise had children, would "spread," homosexuality to them, or create a generation of confused, unahappy, and indeed neurotic children.

Sheesh. Bobby shut up now.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 26, 2003)

> MARRIAGE WAS ORIGINALLY A LEGAL AGREEMENT, WITH NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.



Hmmm...I'll agree with you that marriage as recognized by the state, especially in Western Culture, is about a legal agreement and economics.

I don't agree that "marriage" had nothing to do with "religion" if we are talking outside of governments, though. Monogamy has been around as long as we have, as far as we know. Tribal cultures predating Christianity had rules and practices and ceremonies involved in bonding a man and woman together. Some of the "rules" as far a the families and tribe were concerned may have been economic. However, overall how can we say that the desire to have a monogomous relationship with someone, wed, have children, etc. is rooted in economics and not love? How can we say spiritual beliefs don't play a role?

I think that the roots of "marriage" as a monogomous union can't be anything but love and spiritually based. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise, and I think you'll find it tracing back a lot longer then Government recognised marriages.

However, if we are talking about "Marriage by the State" then I agree with you in that marriage is based on economics; it was then and is today.

I am just not sure which you are refering too, and I think it is important to make the distinction between State Marriage and Religious Marriage. When we are talking about Gay Marriages, the issue is State Marriage.


----------



## michaeledward (Nov 26, 2003)

It could be that it was men marrying for the money (property actually).

It is very easy to prove who the mother of a child is ... she just needs to give birth in public (as many royals have in the past). 

It is damn near impossible to prove who the father of a child is. Certianly, it was impossible in the beginning of the modern era. As youth were viewed as chattal, the only way to assign ownership of the child(ren) to the male progenitor was through marriage. 

Think about it - Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 26, 2003)

You laid out the opposing arguement quite well, I'd say!


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *Its the second statement I was taking issue with... MARRIAGE WAS ORIGINALLY A LEGAL AGREEMENT, WITH NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION.  As you can see by the quotes I gave you in my previous post,  one should really be asking the question of "should RELIGION be throwing the term marriage around?"  since, after all, the roots of marriage lie in economics, not in religion. *


Marriage is a contract that seperates legitamate children from ilegitamate children. It is a pre US government and child support covanent meant to decide the distrubution of wealth after we die. To suggest it never had any religious connotations would be to suggest that our Kinship systems were not religiously based. And hopefully everyone knows that that is crazy talk. Because back in the tribal days when this stuff mattered, religion was everything.
Sean


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 26, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Touch'O'Death _
> *Marriage is a contract that seperates legitamate children from ilegitamate children. It is a pre US government and child support covanent meant to decide the distrubution of wealth after we die. To suggest it never had any religious connotations would be to suggest that our Kinship systems were not religiously based. And hopefully everyone knows that that is crazy talk. Because back in the tribal days when this stuff mattered, religion was everything.
> Sean *



Bingo, touch-o-death. Thats along the lines of what I was trying to say.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 26, 2003)

A few notes, today there is more than one religion that allows for a non monogamous relationship. And in one of those it is expected that you take care of your harem which are the women and childern in your family or extended family. This is not about a single religion claiming to be only monogamous.

Another point, yes tribes, used to beleave in lots of things, the tree spirits and the cloud spirits and also other gods as time went by. What does this have to do with marriage today or even a few years ago. The tree spirit was not asked to bless the union of two people. Now if you are talking about Dagda et al and driudism, or the blessing of the Earth Mother in what ever name she was called by the tribe then yes they were welcome at the wedding. Yet they were also welcome in the hunt, Also welcome in the sacrafice of an enemy to your favored spirit or god.

In England, if a person could prove their belief of god be swearug an oath they were let out of the asylum. Some were put into the asylum for not believing in the Christain god. What does this have to do with teh discussion of Gay Marriages.

People used to trade in slavery, (* No one mentioned this, I bring it up now *) and what does this have to do with Marriages or Gay Marriages.

All these things and more happened in history.

What do they have to offer us today in the USA or even elsewhere on the discussion of Marriage or Gay Marriage

In My Opinion Nothing. Now this does not mean that MisterMike or anyone here is wrong in their opinion or beliefs.

What it does mean is that in this society today, we have a government that happens to reconize for convenience sake religious marriages. We have the desire for separation of Chruch And State. We have the right of equality and freedom. Also some priviledges and Responsibilities in there also.


So, if an Individual does not believe in another person's belief so be it. Yet, let me ask some questions here.

Ok, let us pass a fictional law that all Christians cannot see their loved ones in the hospital and they have no rights to property or incomes due the estate, do to teh fact that have not followed the proper covenat of the Norse God Thor for Marriage. Would you hold this law in contempt? I know I would. Even if my belief system was the that of Thor and the Norse.

So, If I remember correctly, when I got married, I had to file for a license.  I also received a document from the church I was married in. There were two separate documents for the marriage. The State just recognizes the ceremony of the religious practitioner. Some may argue since this is as it has always been. I will argue that it is good business. This means that te State does not have to provide as many Justice of The Peace, (* Judge *) to perform these ceremonies. And the time of these Judges may be spent more productive (* For the State *) cases in court.


Morals

Values

Ethics

Law

(* My Definition of these words for this discssion *)
Morals:  A group of beliefs that are presented by a group or organization for the betterment of society. (* AKA Religions *)

Values:  What a person holds true or valuabel to themselves and also to their family and maybe for society.

Ethics: What is considered to be good or bad for Society. i.e. is it ethical to kill people. Is  it ethical to kill convicts?

Law:  What Society has taken from its' Ethics and deemed that some form or consequence is requried for some act. 


So, if an individual belongs to a religious group that teaches them morals for the society they belong too. They also find what is valuable to them. Such as is ite really necessary to eat Fish on Friday or not to eat pork now that we know how to cook it? These Values may be a subset of the morals a super set or an interesection of their own beliefs or the beliefs from other moral institutions. So, a person then can take these Values and argue there worth to society. This is how a person tries to change what is ethical by society. In some cultures/societies it the custom that women cover their face. Some might argue that this would be better for all of society, since thier beauty cannot distract men from their business at hand. Others might argue that they believe that Gay Marriages should be recognized, yet they are more rights to tis recogintion from society and the State, since they are not imposing any religious issues on others. Others may find one or both of these points disagreeable and thereby argue that as a society they should not be accepted as Ethical. From what is decided as Ethical, there can be made the laws. And the Consequence of Marriage to the State is Money, Tax laws and inheritence and estate issues. In this case, the state gives a tax break to the Family or union. The laws then require that companies that provide health care coverage for spouses, cover all spouses. This is an increase in monies spent for coverage. Yet seeing what I paid as single and what I pay when I was married, it was not free to me, I had to cover much of the cost. (* For another thread, I would argue that this would actually decrease the amount of insurance fraud and thereby decrease the losses the insurance companies claim to raise rates. *)


So, in this case we are discussing the issue of Gay Marriage(s). As the State we should recognize it. Why, since it has been deemed ethical to provide health care to loved ones, and to provide visitation rights and also to provide for property transfer, and more issues to numerous to list.

So, the arguements against are I as I see it:
"It is against My Religion"   and
"It has no historical Precedence"

The First is the Moral issue. As I tried above and not well, I believe that Morals affect Values, and Values affect Ethics, and Ethics Affect Law.

So, in the case of it is against a personal religion, I would argue that this has not been determine to be and ethical discussion. It is still a moral discussion. In moral discussion a person's belief system is called into the arguement and there by could be insulted or challenged. The arguement needs to progress further past Morals to Values, and then to try to affect what the majority of people believe to be ethical.

In the case of no historical precedence, I would argue that this is not the first time people this country or elsewhere made history by doing something never done before. It was nto that long ago women petitioned for the right to vote. It was argued and then it was deemed to be ethical to allow women to vote.


So, in general, in my long winded opinion, society has deemed it necessary to provide Medicare and Medicaid, even if they may not be the best. As well as Social Security those of certain ages or certain disabilities. Society has decided that the separation of Church and State, still stands today. Therefore, direct Religious doctrine should not be taken as law. No matter what the religion. Society has determined that slavery is not an acceptable act. Society has decided that education is requried, hence the taxes for schools and the requirement for kids to go to schools.


Society, still has it as be unethical to live together and not be married. It is ethical to be married though. Even though society has relaxed on this issue, there are still the looks and questions from many a person.

I think Gay Marriages should be allowed in the sense of the State. Also, if their religion that they belong to also accepts such a ceremony then I support that as well, and for the State to continue to recognize the Religious ceremony (* As it is good business *).

(* My apologies for this long post *)
:asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 26, 2003)

Dang.  I got a really good thread going here.

Go me!


By the way...I disagree with Govenor Schwarzenegger and think heterosexual Christians should be banned from gay marriages.  I also think it should be illegal for Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christians to buy pornography, drink, curse, have extra-marital sex, or dress scantily.  They should be put in jail for that.  Or maybe we should bring back the stocks.  Remember stocks?  They used to be intstruments of punishment...well, given my investment portfolio lately, they still are.

Seriously, though...if a Church doesn't want to sanctify a Gay marriage, they ought not.  If Gays want to leave that church as a result, then they should feel free to.  

I was married with a judge in temporam's signature on a marriage license...a completely secular marriage.  No church had anything to say about it.  Such an arrangement would be extremely simple for a Gay couple to follow...finding a church to perform a ceremony might be more difficult.  The benefits to the couple would be significant.

There is NO negative societal impact I can possibly see from such an arrangement.  People will be pissed...and then things will settle down.

Robert...excellent observations concerning the Right's rhetoric.  I see it also on the Left's part on occasion...but not on television.



Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 26, 2003)

The following found at this site:

http://prattle.antipope.org/archives/000976.html

Any good religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here....is a proposed Constitutional Amendment codifying marriage entirely on biblical principles: 

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women.(Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5.) 

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) 

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed (Deut 22:13-21) 

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) 

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) 

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) 

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36) 


Regards,

Steve


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 27, 2003)

So, Steve, I could have more than one wife? Wow!  and I can also have extra girlfriends as well. WOW! and no divorce so I do nt loose it all, WOW!

Yet, I see a way around point E. Just Claim she was not a virgin in from Point C.

Wow, why did people ever give up this great rules and laws?




Maybe Civilizations have come someplace and the standard of living for all is being increased?

Still WOWED!


----------



## donald (Nov 28, 2003)

Its a sad state of affairs when we have to discuss this topic. Men were made for women, and women were made for men. Its that simple. Humans are the only land species that I know of that CAN face each other during the act of extreme intimacy. Is it an accident that our respective "parts" line up? I don't believe this design is by some amazing accident of nature. I believe we were designed by God, and for one another as male, and female. Not male, and male, or female, and female. So my vote goes against the legalization of gay unions, and any benefits derived from marriage.

By His Grace   :asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Nov 28, 2003)

Donald,

I agree with the first sentence of your post.  Its a sad day when we even have to discuss this.  

Its a sad day when other people are so incredibly threatened by what happens in other people's bedrooms that they campaign to deny those human beings the basic civil rights that they have spent their lives enjoying simply because they were born heterosexual.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 28, 2003)

Well, thanks for saying it clearly. At least, we can see that it's a simple demand for everyone else to obey somebody else's religious beliefs, and nothing else.

It'll be a really sad day when a small group gets the "right," (as though somebody had taken away THEIR rights by suggesting that we all mind our own business) to impose its religious beliefs on everybody else.

And I also like this dream of biology....um...ah...you do realize that you just made everything but missionary position a violation of God's Law?

I'm still waiting to read just how it is that gay people hurt anybody when they get married.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Nov 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by donald _
> *Its a sad state of affairs when we have to discuss this topic. Men were made for women, and women were made for men. Its that simple. Humans are the only land species that I know of that CAN face each other during the act of extreme intimacy. Is it an accident that our respective "parts" line up? I don't believe this design is by some amazing accident of nature. I believe we were designed by God, and for one another as male, and female. Not male, and male, or female, and female. So my vote goes against the legalization of gay unions, and any benefits derived from marriage.
> 
> By His Grace   :asian: *


so by this I suppose you have members of your own family you won't talk to or associate with. This saddens me. :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Nov 28, 2003)

> _Originally posted by donald _
> *Its a sad state of affairs when we have to discuss this topic. Men were made for women, and women were made for men. Its that simple. Humans are the only land species that I know of that CAN face each other during the act of extreme intimacy. Is it an accident that our respective "parts" line up? I don't believe this design is by some amazing accident of nature. I believe we were designed by God, and for one another as male, and female. Not male, and male, or female, and female. So my vote goes against the legalization of gay unions, and any benefits derived from marriage.
> 
> By His Grace   :asian: *



This may be your belief and this is fine.

It is not mine.

Humans are Sea Apes. They are the only primates with salt water tears, and a subcontanious layer of fat all just like sea creatures that are mammals.

Any in Belief system this is alse by design,

So be it by the Creator
:asian:


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 28, 2003)

> Humans are the only land species that I know of that CAN face each other during the act of extreme intimacy. Is it an accident that our respective "parts" line up?



I'm not sure where we're suppose to go with that one.

Humans are also the only truly bipedal species...perhaps that has something to do with it?  How this whole issue impacts Gay marriages, I don't know.  Maybe we shouldn't let them marry because they don't "line up" right.  

<sigh>

I'm going to go to bed now...I'll read myself to sleep with the Kama Sutra tonight.  Let's see what unnatural positions those evil Hindus will have me doing this weekend.


Steve


----------



## Fightfan00 (Nov 29, 2003)

I agree that everyone should have the right or a shot at health coverage.But same sex marriage?I dont think so.Thats just my own opinion.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 29, 2003)

> I agree that everyone should have the right or a shot at health coverage.But same sex marriage?I dont think so.Thats just my own opinion.



Justification being...?



Steve


----------

