# Ohio Amendment



## raedyn (Nov 11, 2004)

The following is the text of the amendment Ohio voters passed last week. 61.77% of voters supported this ballot initiative.



> Only a union between one man and one woman may be a marriage valid in or recognized by this state and its political subdivisions. This state and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage.


This is the anti-'gay marriage' amendment for this state, obviously. But it goes farther than banning unions between same sex couples. It also denies recognition to common law relationships. This could prevent unmarried couples - even straight ones - from adopting, from being able to make medical descions about their partners, from recieving each other's pension, etc etc.

I'm not surprised about the denial of rights to gay people because we've been doing that for centuries. But I am surprised that voters would deny all those rights and responsibilties to straight couples.

Why do you think this passed? Were people just blind to the effect the measure would have on straight people? Or does this state actually have such conservative values that the people don't value any relationship unless it has been ordained by God - and the state?

(link pulled from http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/oh/state/issue/1/ )


----------



## raedyn (Nov 11, 2004)

On a side note:
If they passed this measure here, could I (decidedly NOT single; engaged, living with the father of my daughter, but not yet married) be considered a single mom and get all the money for school, and the extra health coverage and other desirable social programs we have set up for single parents? I'm down with that!


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 11, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Or does this state actually have such conservative values that the people



Ding, ding, ding!  Welcome to the world of compassionate conservatives... where "compassion" really means, "as long as you strictly adhere to our vision of personal behavior".


----------



## jfarnsworth (Nov 11, 2004)

I'll tell you that it was the hardest fricking decision on the ballot! All I kept hearing was vote yes then it was vote no. The whole damned thing was misleading!!!!!!!!! The people calling my house hour after hour of vote this way or that way was getting on my last ******* nerves. Any one can read how it was stated and form their own opinions on how they perceived issue #1! Whether I voted right wrong or indifferent  :idunno:  who really knows. All I can say is the wording was very iffy. 

Lastly, I don't know your ideas or opinions but for me what people do inside their own house, I could care less. If a man likes a man, fine. If a woman likes a woman, fine. As long as they don't bring it upon me or affect my household I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own home.
 :asian:


----------



## Xequat (Nov 11, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> I'm not surprised about the denial of rights to gay people because we've been doing that for centuries. But I am surprised that voters would deny all those rights and responsibilties to straight couples.


What other rights have been denied to gay people?  Seriously, I'm not gay, so I can't think of a single one, but I can see why you think that this one is a denial of a right because it allows, albeit indirectly, only persons of heterosexual preference to marry.  I mean, it doesn't say that a gay man and woman can't get married, that's why I say indirectly, but that's idiotic.

I don't know why this even became in issue.  Homosexuality has in the past been condemned for promiscuity, but if they are allowed to marry, wouldn't that decrease promiscuity and promote family?  Honestly, I couldn't possibly care any less about it.  Being gay, in my opinion is just a sexual preference.  For example, I like breasts.  Other guys like legs.  Some guys go for blondes, brunettes, or redheads ahead of other things.  Another example, I like rock music.  I like guys who like rock music and I like girls who like rock music.  Well, I also like girls and guys who like country music even though I hate country music.  So why does a person's preference on anything matter.  I guess that in a lot of ways, it has to do with religion.  

But I'm not sure that we should regulate or honestly even acknowledge homosexuality in a legal sense any more than we should recognize nonsexual preferences.  We don't know if gayness is natural or a choice.  Personally, I think it depends on the person.  I know some guys that are really flamboyant and gay, some that dress nicely and are neat freaks and are actully kind of effeminate but aren't gay, and I know some that seem straight as far as stereotypes go, but are gay.  It's possible that the ones who "sound and act gay" are gay through some biological occurrance and the others made the choice.  I know two like that and they were both abused as kids and had a rough childhood.  But until we know that it's a choice, I'm not sure we should regulate it.  And if we find out that it's natural, then it's not their fault any more than race or gender, and therefore probably shouldn't be regulated.  But the hyperreligious could argue that we all have a cross to bear.


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 11, 2004)

I didn't get a chance to vote due to some circumstances beyond my control, but there were only 2 things I wanted to vote for.

Kerry, and "no" on issue-1 (banning same-sex marrage). 

I think a friend of mine drove the point home the best, in the least amount of words I've heard to date.  He works downtown and was outside near a COTA stop (Central Ohio transit Authority for those not in columbus).  Anyways, a black gentleman came up to him and asked if he would sign a petition to get issue 1 put on the ballot.  My friend, of course, started asking questions as to what this meant.  The gentleman answered them apparently, quite candidly.  My friend thought about it, and replied "OK, then get in the back of the bus, *explative beginning with 'n' deleted*..."  You have to understand, my friend is the LEAST racist/sexist/anything-ist person I know, and was merely saying that for emphasis.  The gentleman looked dumbfounded for a moment, then walked off without another word.  

The government, nor anyone else has the right to tell two people they can't get married.  You can have all the opinions you want, and you're entitled to them, but the MINUTE you start forcing that opinion on someone else, you're wrong.  Plain and simple.  Are these people causing harm to anyone else?  Are they, in some way, a menace?  "Well, the bible says..."  Riiiiiiiiight.  When common sense and logic fail, run to the good book!  

*sighs heavily at the majority's ignorance*

Events like this bill passing only makes me think of one of the lines on the "Witty One-Liners" thread...  "Some people are alive only because it's against the law to kill them..."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 11, 2004)

1. Translation of the Ohio initiative, and similar ones across the country: only Christian marriage as the Religious Right defines it counts. We have abolished all recognition of civil unions for EVERYBODY, straight, gay or orange. Common-law marriage is abolished. All "spousal," benefits (receiving retirement benefits, sharing medical insurance, the right to visit one's beloved in the hospital whether or not their traditional family approves, etc.) are abolished. Any child born outside of wedlock as we define it is a bastard, and has no inheritance rights whatsoever. In brief, one agrees with the first poster.

2. If one traces the origins of such initiatives, they come directly from the religious Right--Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell (you know--the 9/11 is God's punishment for America's sins guys?), the ACLJ. They are not in any sense originally popular initiatives, though they became so.

3. So here's a question: suppose a couple meets, falls in love, is strong church-going people, attends a Church that's serious, hears a pastor that seriously teaches God's Love and the Sacrament of Marriage extends to everybody, and wants to get married? For what reasons exactly would any yahoo deny them the right to talk it over with their pastor, receive counseling on marriage and its responsibilities, go down to city hall, get a license, go back to their church, post the banns, send out invites, and get married in their church WITH THE FULL, FREE, WILLING SUPPORT OF THEIR PASTOR, THEIR CHURCH, AND THEIR FELLOW CHRISTIANS?

One's dying to hear the explanation for that one. Wait, wait, don't tell me--they're, "reading the Bible wrong." Their pastor is a heretic--not a real Christian. Their Church is inspired by Satan.

Seriously--one's dying to read the explanation for that one.

Eventually, when we all recover our senses, these stupid little laws whomped up by scared people are going to get thrown out by courts that stand up for religious liberty. Only a question of how long it takes.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 11, 2004)

> 61.77% of voters supported this ballot initiative



All other issues aside,this is a fact that shouldnt be ignored. How does one reconcile issues like this with the public will?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> All other issues aside,this is a fact that shouldnt be ignored. How does one reconcile issues like this with the public will?



I reckon we reconcile them in a similar fashion to how we dealt with the public will in the South, where the majority of people were quite comfortable with keeping "colored" folk in segregated facilities, preventing them from voting, etc... by recognizing that majority rule doesn't override basic human rights.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 11, 2004)

The loopy Amendment IS the public will. Hitler got elected, too.

1. This is why we have a Bill of Rights, as already said.

2. Education, education, education.

3. Looking forward to an answer to question of religious liberties.


----------



## Ping898 (Nov 11, 2004)

The way I see things is the amendment got passed for the same reason any law or amendment that restricts a certain groups rights get passed, people are scared of what they don't know.  They are afraid that allowing gay people to marry will destroy family values and the sanctity of marriage.  People tend to classify others as only one thing, they have tunnel vision, in this case, the person is gay and they can't see anything else, like the fact that the person may have a generous heart, be raising 2 great kids, have been in a stable loving relationship for 20 years and be involved involved in any number of other things that may or may not benefit humanity.  All that is seen is that this person/persons are gay.  

Also people don't always understand the full impact of their actions.  Ohio wasn't the only state to pass an amendment, 11 other states I think also did.  And sadly Ohio's amendment isn't the worst one out there. 

Obviously this is just my opinion on it, but I think (and admittedly this is a bit simplistic condensation), but as long as it involves consenting adults and doesn't present any physical danger to anyone else, then do whatever makes you happy.


----------



## Zepp (Nov 11, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> I think a friend of mine drove the point home the best, in the least amount of words I've heard to date.  He works downtown and was outside near a COTA stop (Central Ohio transit Authority for those not in columbus).  Anyways, a black gentleman came up to him and asked if he would sign a petition to get issue 1 put on the ballot.  My friend, of course, started asking questions as to what this meant.  The gentleman answered them apparently, quite candidly.  My friend thought about it, and replied "OK, then get in the back of the bus, *explative beginning with 'n' deleted*..."  You have to understand, my friend is the LEAST racist/sexist/anything-ist person I know, and was merely saying that for emphasis.  The gentleman looked dumbfounded for a moment, then walked off without another word.



:rofl: That story is priceless!  I'm going to have to pass that one around.


----------



## MGM (Nov 11, 2004)

Rights have been violated in many, many instances. It was only last year that the Supreme court struck down state laws that made homosexual "acts" illegal. 

In the early 50's a California court decided that homosexual men could be jailed at any time with out having committed a crime.

Some state laws actually held the death penalty for being homosexual, several people were put to death. 

Some states repealed voting and licensing rights if you were convicted under one of their sodomy laws. Some even refused said people to be a witness at a trial or be a member of a jury.

Some states allowed anyone to murder a homosexual with out any fear of prosecution, you were preventing "unnatural acts" therefor a hero.

I think just a few rights have been violated over the years.

_Most people, no doubt, when they espouse human rights, make their own mental reservations about the proper application of the word "human."_
_Suzanne Lafollette_


----------



## someguy (Nov 11, 2004)

Me for ruler of the world I will take care of all this silliness about human rights being violated.
How can you have a violation when no rights exist of course.
Ok  really though what is a persons buessness is a persons buessness and doesn't matter to me unless it hurts some one else or I suppose even them selves.
Ignorance is bliss.  I hope America is happy.
Me, me always is happy.


----------



## Rynocerous (Nov 11, 2004)

MGM said:
			
		

> Rights have been violated in many, many instances. It was only last year that the Supreme court struck down state laws that made homosexual "acts" illegal.
> 
> In the early 50's a California court decided that homosexual men could be jailed at any time with out having committed a crime.
> 
> ...


MGM, I'm just curious to were you got this information... I have not heard of these terrible instances when it comes to gays. Being legal to murder gays, executing gays, etc. If you would be able to provide me with a link to this info, that would be brilliant. I'm always interested in history, and always wanting to learn. Thanks a bunch...

Cheers,

Ryan


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 11, 2004)

Try a Googol search under the topic, "Stonewall." Look up Roy Cohn (counsel for Joe McCarthy! early advisor to Nixon!!) and his...career. Read about Terry McAuliffe, onetime Republican bigwig. Scope out some of, say, Michael Moon's writing.

Stillwaiting for discussion of religious issue.


----------



## MGM (Nov 11, 2004)

Rynocerous,

Unfortunately, the above comes from the voices in my head, mostly stems from research for a collage class years ago.


Most states changed there statutes decades prior to the Supreme Court decision so they have not added them to the on line data base. Unfortunately the only way I know of finding them is to embrace the horror..........leave the sanctity of the computer........ and seek out a Library. Do those things still have micro-fiche?(sp?) 


This is the Supreme Court case, it is about 100 pages of legal goop but several state laws are cited.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/decisions/lower_court/14-99-00109-cr.html


----------



## TwistofFat (Nov 11, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Ding, ding, ding! Welcome to the world of compassionate conservatives... where &quot;compassion&quot; really means, &quot;as long as you strictly adhere to our vision of personal behavior&quot;.


As a registered and long time libertarian I am against government telling me who I can marry and what I can do vis-a-vis sex. After all, all marriage is same sex marriage...the same sex over and over...try the veal. (please, do not let my wife see this or I am dead).
There is no reason beyond the political for a 'ban' on a marriage that harms no one. 
PM - if 67% of the vote was YES do we know what percentage were democrats (at least 17%). Are there 'compassionate conservatives' within the giant D?!!


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 11, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> On a side note:
> If they passed this measure here, could I (decidedly NOT single; engaged, living with the father of my daughter, but not yet married) be considered a single mom and get all the money for school, and the extra health coverage and other desirable social programs we have set up for single parents? I'm down with that!


WOW!  I AM a single mom, and I'd LOVE to get all that money for school, extra health coverage and other desirable social programs.  Where do I sign up?


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Stillwaiting for discussion of religious issue.



If your looking for a sound, logical reason for the banning of civil unions, I don't think you'll find one. The majority of voters, especially the religious ones, have forgotten the reason our government exists. If you want to call yourself American, you believe that the government exists to keep us safe, and to protect our freedoms. Protecting freedoms doesn't include enforcing religious beliefs and "values" through intrusive laws.

The problem is, as I have said over and over again in the study when the subject has come up, is the word "marriage." The word has a religious conotation, which is why something like a gay "marriage" ban would pass anywhere in a christian driven majority. Remove the word marriage from the constitution, call any union between two consenting adults a civil union, and the problem is solved.

Do you think changing a silly little word here or there would really change all that much? You bet...the republican party has been doing this and winning elections with it for some time now.

The thing is, most non-political religious folk are good people who just don't want their value's trounced on by the "liberals" (there's another silly little word), and the political right knows it. So, they use it against them. They make them afraid that their values are going to be taken away by liberals and their lives by terrorists. When the people are afraid, then the wealthy minority can take away things like healthcare, jobs with decent wages, environment, and good schools all in the name of the almighty dollar. We really are in a sad state of affairs.

I am waiting for the left to wise up and make the case to these good people who just don't want their values trounced on that by enforcing your values on others you create a totalitarian state, for one, and for two, if the government simply protects everyone's rights to have their own values then we'll all be in a better place. You can make decisions on your values with your family, your pastor/priest, and your community when the government is protecting your freedom to do so. This has worked well in the past to a degree. What hasn't worked is the enforcing of religious value's. The left needs to make that case instead of pretending that everyone who has values based on religion at all are just a bunch of dumb former slave owners. That is, WE need to make that case if they ever expect to get these rip-off artists out of OUR government. 

And, is anyone surprised that the religious-right makes the arguement against taxation because "people and families should be able to make their own decisions with their money, not with the big fancy government," and then they proceed to legislate morality as if to say that for some reason people and families can't make their own decisions regarding morality and need the government to decide morality for them? I'm not surprised. It's all part of the big scam where the majority is enslaved by a wealthy minority. It's ashame to see that the scam seems to be working. 

I guess I'll just arm myself and await the second coming...  

Paul


----------



## Phoenix44 (Nov 11, 2004)

Are you all really that naive? Sure, these laws are bigoted examples of one religious group inflicting its narrowmindedness on others. But seriously, why should the Bush Administration REALLY care?

Because if you deny people the right to marry, and you deny people the right to civil unions, and if you deny life partners any alternative recognition for their relationship, then the REAL Bush base--no, not the few million fundamentalist Christians the Bushies duped--but BIG BUSINESS, doesn't have to provide benefits to their employees' partners. And that's what's REALLY important to the Bushies. Money, not Jesus. Bush said it himself: "You're my base. The haves and the have-mores."


----------



## OULobo (Nov 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Translation of the Ohio initiative, and similar ones across the country: only Christian marriage as the Religious Right defines it counts. We have abolished all recognition of civil unions for EVERYBODY, straight, gay or orange. Common-law marriage is abolished. All "spousal," benefits (receiving retirement benefits, sharing medical insurance, the right to visit one's beloved in the hospital whether or not their traditional family approves, etc.) are abolished. Any child born outside of wedlock as we define it is a bastard, and has no inheritance rights whatsoever. In brief, one agrees with the first poster.


While I agree it was motivated by the christian conservative and religious right, the law doesn't require christian marriage. Any religion's service is recognized provided it is in accordance with state laws (legal ages, no duress, and unfortunately now, between a man and a woman).


----------



## PeachMonkey (Nov 11, 2004)

TwistofFat said:
			
		

> Are there 'compassionate conservatives' within the giant D?!!



Absolutely, my good man -- take a look at Joe Lieberman.


----------



## Zepp (Nov 11, 2004)

OULobo said:
			
		

> While I agree it was motivated by the christian conservative and religious right, the law doesn't require christian marriage. Any religion's service is recognized provided it is in accordance with state laws (legal ages, no duress, and unfortunately now, between a man and a woman).



Yes, but the fact remains that the law now defines a religious institution, namely marriage.  If it remains, it sets a legal precedent for future laws that could discriminate between particular religions.

Something else that worries me about this nonsense:  The 1st amendment provides for the separation of church and state.  It specifically says: 





> *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



So, if a constitutional amendment was passed that defined or set limits on marriage, wouldn't that invalidate the first amendmant?

As a non-christian, I find this scary.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 11, 2004)

Just playing "devils advocate" ..but is there an "establishment of religion" here? I read that as meaning a State Sponsored religion shouldnt be established, much as the Church of England was during the founding fathers days. I believe OULobo said that the gvt. isnt saying that "you must be married by X church". Just that marriage is a religious institution. Personally, like Paul J. im for civil unions. If you want to share benefits, insurance, property etc. let a lawyer draw up a contract.


----------



## Zepp (Nov 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Just playing "devils advocate" ..but is there an "establishment of religion" here? I read that as meaning a State Sponsored religion shouldnt be established, much as the Church of England was during the founding fathers days. I believe OULobo said that the gvt. isnt saying that "you must be married by X church". Just that marriage is a religious institution.



The way I read things, if marriage is a religious institution, then a law defining it is a law that respects an "establishment of religion," even if that particular establishment hasn't been defined yet.

And by the way, I'm also in favor of civil unions, and like Paul, I think that should be the legal status of all marriages.


----------



## Tgace (Nov 11, 2004)

If I am reading this properly, its saying that the State shall not recognize a marriage except when a man and woman are wed. Does that mean a church wont be able to perform a ceremony if it so desires? I suppose that would make it a "marriage" as far as that church was concerned, but the state wont recognize it. Granted that would only be for a "spiritual union". Does this also prevent a gay couple from drawing up legal documents that would allow them to have power of attorney, wills, etc.??


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 11, 2004)

That's precisely what it means.

The State is, in effect, saying that marriage is NOT a private and or/religious institution. It is saying that whatever one's individual beliefs, whatever one's church teaches, nobody may get married, unioned, or whatever, unless their marriage conforms precisely to the State's criteria for legitimacy and decency.
No domestic partnerships, no spousal benefits, nada. 

If you're not married, and you are presently covered by your domestic partner's health insurance, this very likely means that you will lose your benefits. As was mentioned below.

It's not at all a fundamentalist initiative. No, not at all. After all, it was pushed to serve the political needs of a born-again fundamentalist Protestant, inspired and supported by radical fundamentalist groups like the 700 Club, voted for in overwhelming numbers by radical fundamentalists, and it relies on a fundamentalist Christian definition of marriage. But it's not Protestant fundamentalist!

Hope folks who voted for Bush enjoy what's going to happen, in this regard and many others.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 11, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> WOW! I AM a single mom, and I'd LOVE to get all that money for school, extra health coverage and other desirable social programs. Where do I sign up?


Move to Canada.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 11, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> MGM, I'm just curious to were you got this information... I have not heard of these terrible instances when it comes to gays. Being legal to murder gays, executing gays, etc. If you would be able to provide me with a link to this info, that would be brilliant. I'm always interested in history, and always wanting to learn. Thanks a bunch...



William Manchester's book "Goodbye Darkness" tells of the story of a Marine Sergeant Major who was sentenced to fifty years for oral sex with a Navy Corpsman.

Then there is this:

_Early Colonial statutes echoed English law, making sodomy a capital crime. But it was much more common for offenders to be flogged or just booted out of town. Thomas Jefferson, one of the few Founding Fathers who made known his views on sodomy, thought that castration was a more poetic form of justice than death. After independence, the death penalty was dropped for sodomy in most states. Until the late 19th century, there was very little persecution of homosexuals in America. But then you began to see some medical writings on so-called deviant sexuality. Some physicians began to look upon homosexuality as part of a larger syndrome, called degeneracy, which also included madness, criminal behavior, poverty and idiocy. It was believed that all of these social pathologies could be transmitted genetically from parents to children. So castration of homosexuals, or commitment to insane asylums, was often recommended on medical grounds.  Even as late as the 1940s, some doctors tried to treat homosexual patients by injecting them with hormones. By 1961 all of the states had antisodomy statutes, though because of repeals the number is now down to 24 states._

http://www.sodomylaws.org/history/history04.htm


Note that all sodomy laws were overturned by the Supreme Court last year.

Some other sources...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_hate1.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fuel2.htm


Here's some stuff on current advocacy for the death penalty for Gays and adulterers (the latter of which the Ohio referendum also seems to discourage to a degree) by members of the Religious Right:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=2049

http://scottmaui.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/25/5445/1320

http://www.outfront.org/action/update9.html


And my favorite, of course....

http://www.godhatesfags.com


Regards,


Steve


----------



## raedyn (Nov 11, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I believe OULobo said that the gvt. isnt saying that "you must be married by X church". Just that marriage is a religious institution.


No. It was a social institution before it was formalized as a religious institution. And people can get a marriage licence without going to ANY religious organization, so it's not exclusively religious. I don't believe there is anyone arguing that all churches should be forced to bless same sex unions. I'm not, anyways. But I do believe there is no good reason for the state to treat a couple any differently based upon the genders of the people involved. Any couple should be able to go to the churches that DO bless their relationship, get married, and have that legally recognized. Or they should be able to go to a sexular marriage commisioner and get a marriage licence and all the rights and responsibilties that go along with that.



> Personally, like Paul J. im for civil unions. If you want to share benefits, insurance, property etc. let a lawyer draw up a contract.


So then gay people become second class citizens. Anybody can get a lawyer to draw up a legal contract but it's a helluva lot more expensive and complicated than getting a marriage licence.

I'll reiterate;

There are two separate issues with respect to marriage:
1) What a given church/synagouge/mosque/etc. will recognize
2) What the state will recognize

I do not believe it's right or desirable for a state to legislate what a church should do in this respect, but I cannot be comfortable with the government ignoring some families as if they don't count.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 11, 2004)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> I don't know your ideas or opinions but for me what people do inside their own house, I could care less. If a man likes a man, fine. If a woman likes a woman, fine. As long as they don't bring it upon me or affect my household I could care less what they do in the privacy of their own home.


Fair enough. Many people feel this way. But if what that means to you is also "so gays, please keep it out of my face", I ask you to consider;

Do straight people keep it out of my face?
What about movies, TV ads, people walking down the street holding hands, kissing, talking graphically about sex at work, telling about their husbands/wives etc etc.
Straight people don't leave it at home, why should gay people?

I don't know if this is what you meant, so sorry if I misinterpreted, but I've often heard people that felt it wasn't homophobic to feel gay was okay as long as they didn't have to look at it. Of course, this is preferrable to someone that feels gays should be shot, but it still isn't equality.

Just something to think about?


----------



## raedyn (Nov 11, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> I don't know why this even became in issue. Homosexuality has in the past been condemned for promiscuity, but if they are allowed to marry, wouldn't that decrease promiscuity and promote family?


Hey, interesting idea. I hadn't thought of it that way. But I feel I must point out, the idea of homosexuals being more promiscuous that heterosexuals is a myth.

And don't kid yourself, people. Just because the government doesn't give status to queer couples doesn't mean they aren't already having families!



> But I'm not sure that we should regulate or honestly even acknowledge homosexuality in a legal sense any more than we should recognize nonsexual preferences.


Exactly. Gay & lesbian people should be treated the same as everyone else. They shouldn't get special mention in laws at all. Nothing preventing them from adopting, from marrying, from engaging in consensual sexual acts, from teaching, from serving in the military - nothing special at all.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 11, 2004)

Anybody who voted for these Amendments, anybody who voted for Bush on the grounds that he would restore traditional morality to this country, here's your buddies. They may easily be found through a search for "godhatesfags."

** 
Established in 1955 by Pastor Fred Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) of Topeka, Kansas still exists today as an Old School (or, Primitive) Baptist Church. See the WBC Monograph. In short, we adhere to the teachings of the Bible, preach against all form of sin (e.g., fornication, adultery, sodomy), and insist that the doctrines of grace be taught publicly to all men. These doctrines of grace were well summed up by John Calvin in his 5 points of Calvinism: Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. Although these doctrines are almost universally hated today, they were once loved and believed. For example, Augustine (one of the early Church fathers), Martin Luther (the founder of the Lutheran Church), John Knox (the founder of the Presbyterian Church), Augustus Toplady (hymnist and leader in the Episcopal Church), Charles Spurgeon (a well-known preacher), and John Leland (who was partially responsible for our First Amendment in the United States) are just a few examples of people who have advanced these ideas. Please see The Doctrine of Absolute Predestination by Jerom Zanchius and our MEMO ON THE CHURCH. Most of the major Confessions of Faith throughout the history of the New Testament Church have also advanced these ideas. So, even though the Arminian lies that "God loves everyone" and "Jesus died for everyone" are being taught from nearly every pulpit in this generation, this hasn't always been the case. In fact, if you are in a Church that supposedly believes the Bible, and you are hearing these lies, then your church has apostatized. If you are interested in this subject, we encourage you to do some independent research on the history of the Church from Adam to now and, more importantly, we encourage you to carefully read the entire Bible. 

WBC engages in daily peaceful sidewalk demonstrations opposing the homosexual lifestyle of soul-damning, nation-destroying filth. We display large, colorful signs containing Bible words and sentiments, including: GOD HATES FAGS, FAGS HATE GOD, AIDS CURES FAGS, THANK GOD FOR AIDS, FAGS BURN IN HELL, GOD IS NOT MOCKED, FAGS ARE NATURE FREAKS, GOD GAVE FAGS UP, NO SPECIAL LAWS FOR FAGS, FAGS DOOM NATIONS, etc. 

Perceiving the modern militant homosexual movement to pose a clear and present danger to the survival of America, exposing our nation to the wrath of God as in 1898 B.C. at Sodom and Gomorrah, WBC has conducted over 22,000 such demonstrations since June, 1991, at homosexual parades and other events (including funerals of impenitent sodomites, like Matthew Shepard). WBC teams have picketed all over the United States, and internationally (including Canada, Jordan and Iraq). The unique picketing ministry of Westboro Baptist Church has received international attention, and WBC believes this gospel message to be this world's last hope. 

For more information about WBC, feel free to attend one of our weekly church meetings. We are located at 3701 W. 12th Street in Topeka, KS. Regular service time is 11:30 a.m. (Central time)


This...stuff, incidentally, is from today. Today. But there's no problem with it really, and no way in which this sort of doctrine has any impact upon, "normal," people.

Some will try to argue that this is merely an eccentric, marginal set of ideas with no ties to mainstream Republican thought. One recommends a stroll through the Internet. 

The owner of the "Washington Times," a paper seen quoted repeatedly in these forums, agrees with this guy. "Pastors," like Jerry Falwell do.

So, before the next diatribe about John Kerry, the VVAW, and Jane Fonda...here's your buddies, O diatribers.


----------



## TwistofFat (Nov 11, 2004)

67% of the Ohio voters - this covered both parties.  Bush and Kerry voters alike supported this measure.  If all R's voted Yes then at least 17% of D's and I's are on board.   If someone can supply the percentages - formally count not exit polls - then the discsussion must move beyond the wing-nut fringes.  This happened in 11 states not just Ohio.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Nov 11, 2004)

Strictly speaking, "67% of the Ohio voters," means 67% of those who voted on this Amendment.

Is the argument that Bush supporters did not, and do not, overwhelmingly oppose gay rights, including the right to marriage and/or civil union?

Of course folks who voted Democratic may have voted for this shameful Proposition. All the more shame on them; at least if one is voting Republican and gay-bashing, these days, one is consistent.

One hopes that Republican voters are looking forward to the denial of civil liberties across the board--them homosexuals! those captives at Gitmo!! those dratted A-rab citizens!!! first them, then...

Have changed mind. Shouldn't re-read Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here." Should re-read, "Elmer Gantry."

Rather than the chest-thumping yahoos like Karl Rove who valued their boy's election so much that they thought it perfectly OK to whip up hatred in the interest of votes, let's hear it for the Doremus Jessups and Cass Timberlanes of the world, and all the many, many kindly folk who simply want to live and let live, who go to church and try to live a Christian life, who try to balance work and life and raising their kids in a hostile society run by the likes of John Ashcroft, and who would never, never hurt anybody.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 11, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking, "67% of the Ohio voters," means 67% of those who voted on this Amendment.


agreed. good point.


I still wonder - and it was really my question when posting this thread - did the people who voted for this know the consequences it would have for straight people? I'm disappointed but not surprised that people would vote to keep those dirty homos down. But I AM suprised there would be this amount of support for a measure that affects families headed up by one mand and one woman that just haven't bothered (or don't want) to get married.


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Ding, ding, ding!  Welcome to the world of compassionate conservatives... where "compassion" really means, "as long as you strictly adhere to our vision of personal behavior".



Where "good" means you do what you are told and "evil" is anything else...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Are you all really that naive? Sure, these laws are bigoted examples of one religious group inflicting its narrowmindedness on others. But seriously, why should the Bush Administration REALLY care?
> 
> Because if you deny people the right to marry, and you deny people the right to civil unions, and if you deny life partners any alternative recognition for their relationship, then the REAL Bush base--no, not the few million fundamentalist Christians the Bushies duped--but BIG BUSINESS, doesn't have to provide benefits to their employees' partners. And that's what's REALLY important to the Bushies. Money, not Jesus. Bush said it himself: "You're my base. The haves and the have-mores."



Karl Rove estimates that there are 80 million conservative christian voters.  Many stayed home in 2000 and they did their damnedest to get them out this time.  So in a sense, big business is enslaving the so called "moral majority."

The money changers are in the church again...


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> And my favorite, of course....
> 
> http://www.godhatesfags.com



This guy rewrote the bible to support his prejudice.  How many times has this been done in the past?  Can you be so sure that you are holding the "word of God" anymore?


----------



## Makalakumu (Nov 12, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> So then gay people become second class citizens. Anybody can get a lawyer to draw up a legal contract but it's a helluva lot more expensive and complicated than getting a marriage licence.



In the government's eyes, all marriages should be civil unions.  If you are gay (or straight) and find a religion that will marry you, well, the more the merrier.


----------



## Bester (Nov 12, 2004)

In the end, it doesn't matter what the "Will of The People" is.
I will bet that if you put a lines on the ballots that the following should be law, they would pass:
- Laws restricting minority access/rights in heavy white conservative areas.
- Laws restricting whites in heavy minority areas.
- Laws requiring children be removed from single parents

The purpose of the courts, these so called "Activist" judges, is to protect us, from ourselves.

If you tried to pass a law today that outlawed interracial marriage, it would fail as it is discriminatory. These "Anti-Gay" laws will eventually be overturned. It may take a while as I highly doubt that in todays uber-conservative Amerika that too many judges and justices have the balls to do what it right.

I say, lets legalize gay bashing.  What "fag" ever did anything for this country right? While we are at it, lets reinstitutionalize slavery. I've always wanted a house slave. What else can we do?  Right. Lets ban cross racial relationships, require the registration of all Arab and Jews (basically because they look too much alike), ban all Hispanics from holding office, and start deporting Asian because those slant eyed bastards just drag our IQ up and we don't need that now do we? Now, have I missed anyone?  Oh Right!  Once we get all that done, lets build fences and guard posts around all these Indian Reservations and add a $5 car toll to cross the borders on those people buying their cheap tax free cancer sticks and cheap gas. Our President doesn't know the meaning of the word "Sovernty", so we can just do it. Anyway, those dumb redskins lost anyway.

Now that I have managed to offend, well, everyone, pause for a moment.
What part of what I said offended you, and what part didn't?
It should all be offensive. If parts weren't, you might want to think for a moment on what is truly within your hearts.

Discrimination of any form, be it cultural, religious, gender, sexual orientation, or other should not be tolerated, accepted or legislated.

We eliminated slavery.
We eliminated racial and gender barriers to voting, and many other rights.
Profiling based on race/religion/etc is illegal.

So why is it supposedly right to discriminate against gays and deny them the right of happyness?

I for one will be watching for Mr. Bush's reaction to meeting Sir Elton John and his partner at an upcoming gathering.


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 12, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> In the end, it doesn't matter what the "Will of The People" is.
> I will bet that if you put a lines on the ballots that the following should be law, they would pass:
> - Laws restricting minority access/rights in heavy white conservative areas.
> - Laws restricting whites in heavy minority areas.
> ...



You forgot to remove women's right to vote and own land...


----------



## raedyn (Nov 12, 2004)

Bester said:
			
		

> Now that I have managed to offend, well, everyone, pause for a moment.
> What part of what I said offended you, and what part didn't?
> It should all be offensive. If parts weren't, you might want to think for a moment on what is truly within your hearts.


Nicely put.



> I for one will be watching for Mr. Bush's reaction to meeting Sir Elton John and his partner at an upcoming gathering.


Particularly after Sir Elton John has declared that he would like to marry his Rocket Man, longtime life partner David Furnish in small intimate ceremony. (link)


----------



## GAB (Nov 12, 2004)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This guy rewrote the bible to support his prejudice. How many times has this been done in the past? Can you be so sure that you are holding the "word of God" anymore?


Upnorthyosa,

You have a very good point regarding (most of if not all zealots)
who use the bible to bring up something they are for or against.

Does this mean that the bible is good or bad? Depends on how you interpret it.:idunno: I know everytime I read these stories it only strengthens my position even further (freethinker, agnostic) I feel comfortable with that.

If you look at the old testement it is the history of a certain culture and there struggle for survival and finding the promised land, in the story (seen through many eyes) is all the good, bad and ugly, of what man will do to man (women included).

Now the new testement and the koran are both about one mans influence on the face of an already very controversial group of people. The reason I include the koran is because the peoples all go back to the same father who is in the old testement.

Now if you look at our culture we have a freedom of speech ammendment in our constitution, whether you like it or not it is for all to have the same rights.

We can agree to disagree, but we all have the right to an opinion and a right to live life in the pursuit of what the constitution gives us the right to do.

If you truly want a good life then just look no further than the constitution and its bill of rights. It is not perfect but I believe it is better then the bible.

These are the things man and women are dying for as we speak.

Is that ok? for some no, but for others yes.

Personally I am very happy when the populace that does vote is very close to being the same amount on one side or the other, it is when you get to the 2/3 rd is when it bothers me...Now you will see the unjust begin.

Regards, Gary


----------



## Bester (Nov 12, 2004)

Rewriting the Bible to suit ones needs?
Never.  Why, let me quote from the scripture here:

Gen 3:20 Adam named his wife Steve, because he would become the father of all the living. 
Gen 4:1 Adam  lay with his wife Steve, and he became pregnant and gave birth to Cain.  He said, "With the help of the LORD I have brought forth  a man." 

See, they do have gay relationships in the Bible.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 12, 2004)

Nice, Bester...I don't remember that sermon from church, but it sounds about right to me, heh.  Come to think of it, if we're going to use the Bible to regulate ourselves, I think we should take the entire Bible and not just parts that are convenient for the timely argument.  For example, the Bible endorses stoning wives to death for adultery.  Well, it's in the Bible, so I guess we should do it.  Seriously, you can't legitmately take part of it and use the fact that it's in the Bible as justification and then not use another part.


----------



## Bester (Nov 12, 2004)

You mean, like, read the "Whole" book?

I don't have time for that.  I have to pick up my white sheet from the drycleaner, unchain my barefoot wife so she can make dinner (It's getting harder for her to get around, being pregnant and all), and still have to complain to my local government about that pagan couple down the block who had the audacity to hold a Samhain celebration on Satans Candy Day, those heathens.





- Note to those without a clue - That was S-A-R-C-A-S-M.


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 12, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Are you all really that naive? Sure, these laws are bigoted examples of one religious group inflicting its narrowmindedness on others. But seriously, why should the Bush Administration REALLY care?



They care because they use this narrowmindedness to get people to vote for them.

So yes...I must be niave....


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 12, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> That's precisely what it means.
> 
> The State is, in effect, saying that marriage is NOT a private and or/religious institution. It is saying that whatever one's individual beliefs, whatever one's church teaches, nobody may get married, unioned, or whatever, unless their marriage conforms precisely to the State's criteria for legitimacy and decency.
> No domestic partnerships, no spousal benefits, nada.
> ...



Naw...it's not fundamentalist driven at all....It's not money oriented either (considering all the insurance claims that now get to be denied under the new initiative).


----------



## Cruentus (Nov 12, 2004)

raedyn said:
			
		

> agreed. good point.
> 
> 
> I still wonder - and it was really my question when posting this thread - did the people who voted for this know the consequences it would have for straight people? I'm disappointed but not surprised that people would vote to keep those dirty homos down. But I AM suprised there would be this amount of support for a measure that affects families headed up by one mand and one woman that just haven't bothered (or don't want) to get married.



For the record, yes, there are many consequences on straight marriage with these laws as well.

And for the record, I voted against the gay marriage ban, and I am for Civil Unions for consenting adults, gay or straight.


----------



## Xequat (Nov 13, 2004)

To back up a little bit, how does the amendment affect heterosexual marriages?  I don't see anything in the text of the referendum that says anything about commonlaw marriage or any other "straight" marriage.  Just curious.


----------



## Bester (Nov 13, 2004)

The narrow parameters exclude all but what is included.


----------



## raedyn (Nov 13, 2004)

from the text of the amendment;





> shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals


that would mean no recognition for common law couples.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Nov 28, 2004)

Rynocerous said:
			
		

> MGM, I'm just curious to were you got this information... I have not heard of these terrible instances when it comes to gays. Being legal to murder gays, executing gays, etc. If you would be able to provide me with a link to this info, that would be brilliant. I'm always interested in history, and always wanting to learn. Thanks a bunch...
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Ryan




Ryan,

The thread is mostly dead, but I came up with another link you might want to check out concerning past discrimination against Gays:

http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/introduction.htm

In my state of Indiana sodomy was a crime punishable by death at one time in accordance with English Common Law.  

This also from the web site:

_In an amazing case from 1944, Spence v. Dowd,38 the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals sternly ordered lower courts to review the case of a man who had been arrested on a charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He had been denied an opportunity to consult an attorney, then charged with sodomy, never informed against or indicted, tried without an attorney, and denied the right to prepare his defense. After six years in prison, he had filed for a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied summarily without a hearing.39 The Indiana state courts and federal trial court consistently had refused to hear Spences claims. Judge Otto Kerner of the Seventh Circuit said that Spence "is entitled to be heard. The District Court should have inquired into and specifically found the facts." The case was remanded with instructions to hear Spences case._

Interesting how some of these laws affected heterosexuals as well.  In Alabama a person could be castrated for being a sadist, a masochist, a sexual pervert or for indulging in any other "grave" form of sexual perversion.  Versions of sterilization were practiced in other states as well.  One young girl was sterilized here in Indiana for having loose morals.

An dramatic scene in the movie "Kinsey" has him interviewing a young man that was branded by his brothers for being Gay.  Don't know whether the scene is based on fact or not.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## lvwhitebir (Nov 30, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Anybody who voted for these Amendments, anybody who voted for Bush on the grounds that he would restore traditional morality to this country, here's your buddies.



Oh, I nearly forgot.  Thanks for reminding me.  If you voted for Bush you're the devil incarnate.  I gotta remember that.

There are fringes on just about every belief.  It doesn't mean that if you belong to a particular political party or voted a certain way that you necessarily harbor every opinion by that side.

Don't combine the two (voting for Bush and voting for the amendment).  They are separate issues.  It's like saying if you voted for Kerry you voted for killing unborn babies.  

I'm frankly sadened that the Ohio issue passed.  I agree that the church is responsible for "marriage" and the state for "civil unions."  But the majority spoke and we either wait until the majority changes it or it's found to be unconstitutional.  Blaming political parties or which president you voted for is rediculous.

WhiteBirch


----------



## OUMoose (Nov 30, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> There are fringes on just about every belief.  It doesn't mean that if you belong to a particular political party or voted a certain way that you necessarily harbor every opinion by that side.



Until we can have multiple candidates in office and have "line item voting", this blame is going to exist.  Someone may not agree with everything a candidate stands for, but the vote for that candidate is an acknowledgment that you will take the good with the bad, and that you think the pro's outweigh the con's.


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 1, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> Until we can have multiple candidates in office and have "line item voting", this blame is going to exist.



We do have multiple candidates, although we have too strong of a two party system.  I was surprised by the extra candidates that were on the ballot that I'd never heard of.

I don't think the blame should exist at all.  I will never have 100% exactly the same beliefs, experiences, and priorities of someone else.  Just because I belong to a group or agree with a part of what a group believes doesn't mean I believe in everything they believe.  That's what makes us human.

The Catholic church doesn't believe in abortion at all, but how many American Catholics disagree?



			
				OUMoose said:
			
		

> Someone may not agree with everything a candidate stands for, but the vote for that candidate is an acknowledgment that you will take the good with the bad, and that you think the pro's outweigh the con's.



It doesn't mean I'll "take the good with the bad" simply because I'm not voting for a dictator that gets his way on everything once he's in office.  It means that we'll use the checks and balances our government has in place to ensure that the "bad" (as defined by the majority) is held in check.  I agree that it does mean that I think the pros outweigh the cons.

WhiteBirch


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 1, 2004)

I don't know if you both were receiving phone calls about this issue but the ones I had were very misleading. Some said if you vote yes this, this, and this will happen. If you vote no then it's subject to change due to the wording of the amendment :idunno: . Then I somewhat heard the opposite from the other cantidate's office. Who were we supposed to believe :idunno: ? How do you sort through who was telling the truth and who wasn't? I was frustrated towards the end and was definately tired of the phone calls.
 :asian:


----------



## OUMoose (Dec 1, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> We do have multiple candidates, although we have too strong of a two party system.  I was surprised by the extra candidates that were on the ballot that I'd never heard of.


That's not exactly what I meant.  What I was saying was unless we could have multiple offices (meaning Bush AND Kerry for example as president), as you could vote for Bush's stance on crime, but Kerry's foreign policy, there will always be problems. 



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> I don't think the blame should exist at all.  I will never have 100% exactly the same beliefs, experiences, and priorities of someone else.  Just because I belong to a group or agree with a part of what a group believes doesn't mean I believe in everything they believe.  That's what makes us human.


  That is true, and I agree with you.  Unfortunately the majority of the populous that I've noticed has a "with us or against us" attitude, which is echoed from our President.  There is no grey, only black and white (no, I'm NOT trying to bring race into this, before someone says it).



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> The Catholic church doesn't believe in abortion at all, but how many American Catholics disagree?


  Probably not that many, since birth control and abortion are looked negatively upon based on their tenents, but that's a whole 'nother thread.  



			
				lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> It doesn't mean I'll "take the good with the bad" simply because I'm not voting for a dictator that gets his way on everything once he's in office.  It means that we'll use the checks and balances our government has in place to ensure that the "bad" (as defined by the majority) is held in check.  I agree that it does mean that I think the pros outweigh the cons.


 The checks and balances will only work if we as a people stand up to exercise them.  If we don't like something, we have to voice it to our representatives.  Whether they do something about it is questionable, but if they don't, they get ousted for someone that will.


----------



## OUMoose (Dec 1, 2004)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> I don't know if you both were receiving phone calls about this issue but the ones I had were very misleading. Some said if you vote yes this, this, and this will happen. If you vote no then it's subject to change due to the wording of the amendment :idunno: . Then I somewhat heard the opposite from the other cantidate's office. Who were we supposed to believe :idunno: ? How do you sort through who was telling the truth and who wasn't? I was frustrated towards the end and was definately tired of the phone calls.
> :asian:


I wasn't getting the phone calls (hugs his Nextel), but I had more than one person come up to me on the street and get me to try to sign a petition.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 1, 2004)

Aw man.... don't tell me that you live by the cell phone   and you don't have a home phone?


----------



## OUMoose (Dec 1, 2004)

Heck ya!  Gets rid of the accursed telemarketers too, though that seems to be changing as well...  *shakes his fist at the FCC*


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 1, 2004)

I don't see why we need legal marriage AT ALL.  

Parents should support their kids, and should have access to their kids, regardless of marital status--and in fact the states already have laws to that effect (although enforcement varies unfortunately)

Regarding medical decisions, if you believe that your spouse is automatically your health care proxy, you are mistaken.  You must DESIGNATE a health care proxy whether or not you are married.  Under HIPAA and state privacy laws, you must also designate individuals who may receive your medical information--your spouse included.

Everyone should have health insurance.  Why should anyone's health insurance depend on being married to someone who works for a big company?  How ridiculous.

You should be able to designate whomever you want to receive your pension. And Social Security should remain viable.

If you have the desire or the need to have some sort of a ceremony, religious or secular, to bind your union, that's great.  But why should any of your secular rights have anything to do with it?


----------



## lvwhitebir (Dec 2, 2004)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> I don't know if you both were receiving phone calls about this issue but the ones I had were very misleading.



I also didn't get any phone calls about it, although we screen calls through our answering machine.  When I read it I realized just how strict it was and knew it wasn't for me.

On the news afterwards I heard it was the strictest resolution of all the states.  I mean not only is marriage out of the question, but civil unions as well?  What difference does the couple's sex have to secular benefits?  But, hey, that's just my opinion.

WhiteBirch


----------



## OUMoose (Dec 2, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> What difference does the couple's sex have to secular benefits?


None whatsoever, but correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't living together unwed in any instance considered "living in sin"?  Therefore, it doesn't matter if you're a man and woman, 2 men, 2 women, a guy and a sheep, etc...


----------



## jfarnsworth (Dec 2, 2004)

lvwhitebir said:
			
		

> .  I mean not only is marriage out of the question, but civil unions as well?  What difference does the couple's sex have to secular benefits?  But, hey, that's just my opinion.


As I've stated before it means nothing to me. What two people do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business. After hearing the people on the phone I came to the conclusion that even if people lived together they would still would not have the same options as married couples. No pension, retirement, insurance, adoption, and a few others that I forgot (i'm at work). It's just frustrating. The common law apparently is gone. Only another way for the government to screw someone.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 2, 2004)

OUMoose said:
			
		

> None whatsoever, but correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't living together unwed in any instance considered "living in sin"? Therefore, it doesn't matter if you're a man and woman, 2 men, 2 women, a guy and a sheep, etc...


Interesting point.  Sounds like religious law to me.....


----------



## Kane (Dec 3, 2004)

I've been reading a lot of these posts, and it seems like many of you are getting the wrong idea about marriage. It is not just about religion. 

Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman. It has always been that way. ALWAYS! If you think this is just a radical Christian fanatic belief think again. I identify myself as not to be religious. I do not currently follow a God, I am actually agnostic. I still think marriage should be between a males and females. That isn't what only God-like figures promote. The laws of nature are against homosexuality. Just like inbreeding. Why not make it legal for a mother and son to get married? Honestly I don't see how this is anymore sick than to members of the same gender getting married. What about child-lovers? Why don't we make it legal for a 15 year old girl to marry a 45 year old man if we are going to say a man and a man or woman and woman should get married?

Oh and please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Gay people should be burned alive or anything. I know some gay people and they are very nice people. I personally don't care what they do. If they are attracted to their own gender let them be. It shouldn't however be promoted. We don't want a society of homosexuals. By legalizing gay marriages will promote homosexuality. 

That is coming from a person that doesn't follow a religion at the moment. So it is not only a Christian or religious thing.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 3, 2004)

Kane said:
			
		

> Marriage by definition is between a man and a woman.



Definitions change.




> The laws of nature are against homosexuality.


 How do you figure that?
- There are examples of same-gender partnership in other species.
- We have documentation of same-gender relationships going back a few thousand years. It doesn't seem to be going away, despite countless attempts over the centuries to out-law, sterilize, murder, harass, and otherwise punish gay people.




> Why not make it legal for a mother and son to get married? Honestly I don't see how this is anymore sick than to members of the same gender getting married.


 There's nothing 'sick' about same-sex relationships. This is a false analogy.




> What about child-lovers? Why don't we make it legal for a 15 year old girl to marry a 45 year old man


 Completely unrelated. Smoke and mirrors to the issue at hand. But with parental consent or permission of a Judge, most states allow this, anyways. 



> Oh and please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Gay people should be burned alive or anything. I know some gay people and they are very nice people. I personally don't care what they do. If they are attracted to their own gender let them be.


 But they shouldn't be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as a heterosexual couple, right? Is that what you are saying?




> It shouldn't however be promoted. We don't want a society of homosexuals.


 Why the hell not? I'm straight, I'm happy with that, but I'm perfectly happy being surrounded by my gay friends as well. What would that hurt? The answer: absolutely nothing. It would make homophobic heterosexuals uncomfortable, sure. But then all the bigoted Whites were also uncomfortable when the Black people weren't segregated anymore. That's not reason enough to stop progress; it's the bigot's problem. 




> By legalizing gay marriages will promote homosexuality.


 Guess what, gay people exist whether the law recognises & protects them or not. Every citizen should be entitled to the same rights and responsibilities regardless of their personal attributes - skin colour, gender, orientation, religion etc.



> That is coming from a person that doesn't follow a religion at the moment. So it is not only a Christian or religious thing.


It's still a narrow-minded and prejudiced thing, religious-based or not. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but I'm also entitled to disagree with them and to challenge them when you make public statements such as this.

If I (a woman) decided that I was going to marry a woman, that doesn't effect you a sniff. If you don't want to marry someone of your gender, I'm okay with that. Just don't marry someone of your own gender. Simple.


----------

