mar·riage

[michaeledward]

. . . And of course, you cannot substitute in "people eating dogs" while misquoting my statement and still have the same logic. I agree there.

Gee ... I didn't think I mis-quoted you. I did change the grammer, to fit the logic statement. Let's see; you said:

I dunno...

Nevermind the whole marriage fiasco, but the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural, so this would obviously lead to anything they try to do which is reserved for a man and woman, like produce offspring or marry.

It seems we are trying to fit a tradition of what a man and woman would do to what a sick or disturbed same sex couple wants in their deviant lifestyle.

But it is tradition that is under attack, and on a higher level, the will of our Creator.

To which I drew the thought; Homosexuality is un-natural. I did not use quotes, so technically, I don't think I was quoting you. But that aside, did you mean to say something other than; homosexuality is un-natural? Because when I read the clause 'the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural', I get the idea that you think that homosexuality as being something that is not natural. I may also have got the idea that you think that homosexuality is un-natural by your choice of words when you describe:

sick or disturbed same sex couple

.

I just want to be clear. And I certainly don't want to mis-quote, or mis-state any of your thoughts.

 

[MisterMike]

You are correct. That is exactly what I meant to say. That homosexuality is not natural.

So if you take something that was traditionally meant for a natural couple and apply it to something it is not meant for, well, you can't. Bearing children for 1. Which I believe you misquoted as "wanting to raise a child"

Marriage is the other. Which you quoted as "wanting to marry" Yes, they can want to marry. But its a square peg/round hole kind of thing IMO.

A lot has been said for each side in this "debate". I quote debate because one side has sort of sidestepped all of that and just gone right to the Town Hall. I wonder what would happen if we just wrote in an Ammendment to ban it without the due legal process...

So here we are, it's happening. Do I think it should be banned? Yes. Why, becuase it conflicts with a lot of things, naturally and religiously. Will it be banned? Maybe not. But I have to protect and educate my kids about a lot of things, what's one more.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

If its unnatural, why does it exist in nature?

I also recall reading how 'lefties' were considered evil/etc....but that was later changed.

 

[michaeledward]

So if you take something that was traditionally meant for a natural couple and apply it to something it is not meant for, well, you can't. Bearing children for 1. Which I believe you misquoted as "wanting to raise a child"

Bearing Children... Biologically, it does require a male and female. But raising a child traditionally has taken more than just a man and woman. Traditionally, societies had extended families. Grammies and Grampies and Aunties and Uncles, and all played a part in not just producing a child, but raising the child.

Marriage is the other. Which you quoted as "wanting to marry" Yes, they can want to marry. But its a square peg/round hole kind of thing IMO.

Why do you think the desire to pledge love and commitment to each other is the same thing as trying to put a SQUARE PEG into a ROUND HOLE? Surely, you don't mean to equate SEX with MARRIAGE? One can be an important compenent of the other, but it is not required. Right now, same-sex couples are prohibited from publically making the commitment called marriage, so whether they want to or not is irrelevant, isn't it?

A lot has been said for each side in this "debate". I quote debate because one side has sort of sidestepped all of that and just gone right to the Town Hall. I wonder what would happen if we just wrote in an Ammendment to ban it without the due legal process...

Actually, the same-sex marriage people took the due legal process. They asked to be married, they were denied, they felt this denial was outside the laws of Massachusetts, the sought legal remedy in the appropriate court. The Massachusetts court reviewed the laws, and case histories, and determined there was no legal cause to withhold a marriage license from two people of the same gender. That is exactly how the legal system in the United States is designed to work.

So here we are, it's happening. Do I think it should be banned? Yes. Why, becuase it conflicts with a lot of things, naturally and religiously. Will it be banned? Maybe not. But I have to protect and educate my kids about a lot of things, what's one more.

I appreciate your point of view, in this world there are many things that we want to share with our children, and things we want to keep them safe from. I do not consider homosexuality one of the things that we need to protected them from, but we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'd note that unfounded hatred, an ignorance of actual history and biology, and an insistence that everybody live by the rules of one's own religion aren't natural, but apparantly they are.

I apologize for my immoderate tone on this thread. But I can't see that a moderate tone would help, and I am genuinely appalled at some of the unreason I've read here.

 

[Quick Sand]

Am am not a lawyer or anything but this is my current understanding of the situation here in Canada.

B.C. and Ontario have fully recognized the right for same sex couples to marry and it is now completely legal in these two provinces. artyon: In Quebec the Supreme Court gave the government until July 2004 to make the necessary changes and make same sex marriage legal there as well. The rest of the provinces are continueing to expand on the rights of same sex couples. Although they have not fully allowed marriage YET, most have at least made ammendments to allow for same sex couples to enter into a form of civil union that gives them basically the same legal benefits as married couples in terms of insurance, taxes, adoption, etc. So far, Alberta seems to be the most resistant to these changes but even it is starting to come around.

Things here in Canada aren't perfect but I'm proud of the fact that we are continueing to EXPAND on the rights of same sex couples instead of trying to REDUCE them as Bush seems to want to.

 

[Makalakumu]

A man and a woman get married. Ten years later, man has a sex change and becomes a woman. Now, two women are LEGALLY married, living together, loving each other, and raising each other kids. They even make love. Are they still married? What does God say about this? I just saw this on Dr. Phil so you KNOW it happens.

upnorthkyosa

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I dunno...

Nevermind the whole marriage fiasco, but the whole issue of homosexuality is what's un-natural, so this would obviously lead to anything they try to do which is reserved for a man and woman, like produce offspring or marry.

It seems we are trying to fit a tradition of what a man and woman would do to what a sick or disturbed same sex couple wants in their deviant lifestyle.

But it is tradition that is under attack, and on a higher level, the will of our Creator.

Tradition be damned. The government isn't in the job of legislating tradition.

We've covered the issue of the "nature" of homosexuality elsewhere, Mike. You've avoided commenting on posts that link to sites that present a tremendous amount of data and testimony by scientists, health officials, and medical organizations that posit homosexuality's biological origin. You can ignore such evidence, but it pretending it doesn't exist doesn't invalidate it.



Regards,


Steve

 

[loki09789]

Things here in Canada aren't perfect but I'm proud of the fact that we are continueing to EXPAND on the rights of same sex couples instead of trying to REDUCE them as Bush seems to want to.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the info. I am glad that Canadian gov. is focusing on national spirit and not confusing it with personal or religious values.

On the issue of Bush, he was voted into office and made the leader of our nation (here come the Electoral College debate). He is doing his job the best way he knows how. That choice was based on the values and stance that the majority of citizens found necessary for the nation now. As a citizen of the USA, I have the right to express my opinion and lobby/influence my government by vote and protest if I want to change/support issues. That is how we make our differences. Criticism alone won't get anything done - except make the media very rich - so we have to exercise our responsibilty to vote if we want to earn the right to complain.

I think things have been really good for so long, relatively speaking of course, that citizens - in the USA at least - have forgotten that voting and contributing to the welfare of the nation/community is a responsibility as well as a right. How many here don't even vote, and yet enjoy the freedom of speech to complain without being thrown in jail?

Personal values aside, voting and recognizing the role/responsibility of citizen is a big deal. Are you the complainer in the dark, or a candle lighter? All this verbal stance taking if fine for discussion, but what actions will/do we take based on it?

Paul M.

 

[someguy]

Am am not a lawyer or anything but this is my current understanding of the situation here in Canada.

B.C. and Ontario have fully recognized the right for same sex couples to marry and it is now completely legal in these two provinces. artyon: In Quebec the Supreme Court gave the government until July 2004 to make the necessary changes and make same sex marriage legal there as well. The rest of the provinces are continueing to expand on the rights of same sex couples. Although they have not fully allowed marriage YET, most have at least made ammendments to allow for same sex couples to enter into a form of civil union that gives them basically the same legal benefits as married couples in terms of insurance, taxes, adoption, etc. So far, Alberta seems to be the most resistant to these changes but even it is starting to come around.

Things here in Canada aren't perfect but I'm proud of the fact that we are continueing to EXPAND on the rights of same sex couples instead of trying to REDUCE them as Bush seems to want to.

Give Canada cookie. Good job Canada.

"That choice was based on the values and stance that the majority of citizens found necessary for the nation now."
So if the majority of people said that Atheism is bad so it should be? How about a Pagan religion? Race?

 

[loki09789]

Give Canada cookie. Good job Canada.

"That choice was based on the values and stance that the majority of citizens found necessary for the nation now."
So if the majority of people said that Atheism is bad so it should be? How about a Pagan religion? Race?

If you are dealing with a democratic nation with the constitution or something similiar to it, eventually freedom issues win out. Legislation legalizing slavery existed, now it is gone and seen as 'evil' yet it was there. Women's vote was a heated issue and eventually they were awarded the vote...

IF the majority of a nation vote and support that idea, for better or worse, government officials will support it or be voted out and the official that does support it will be put in office. I didn't make the system, it isn't a perfect system, but it is the one I live with. All the more reason to vote and take up the responsibility of citizenship.

The Choice quote was how the voter's chose the President, not personal take on an issue. I was addressing the fact that the President, good or bad, is there, and doing the job he was sworn to do the best way he knows how.

IF you don't agree, don't vote for him ever, or again. Vote for one of the other candidates that is closest to your values/position/issues. Notice I didn't say the same. There is never a perfect fit, just the best possible choice given the choices.

IF you don't support his stance or issues, vote if it warrants or write/support lobby groups that stand against the issue. Participate in some protest - hopefully legal and non violent. If it is not, be prepared for the consequences.

Complaining and talking here is fine to vent. How will you act to make a difference though?

Paul M.

 

[sma_book]

I just read this in the current issue of 'The Nation'. Alan Hawkins of Brigham Young University puts forth the following argument:


Is there anything wrong with this picture? Think about it.

Actually, follow the below link and you can pretty much see that versions of this - but not the marriage part - are already happening. From an ex-single mom point of view, this makes more sense than many of the other options out there.

http://www.co-abode.com/themoms.php

IMHO, however, this is seperate from the whole marriage thing. Both my parents are gay. However, my childhood doesn't quite fit the two gay-parent stereotype. My mom & dad married each other first. Dad, who was in absolute denial about his gay-ness, eventually ran off to play with the boys much to the pain and sorrow of my mother. Many years later, my mom found much more love, sanity, and over all goodness with those of her own sex. There was more emotional angst in my life from dealing with the repercussions of my mom and my dad being 'in the closet' rather than from their actual orientation.

If people feel an honest genuine commitment to one another that does not harm me or anyone else, that isn't shrouded in self-deception, why shouldn't they be allowed to make that commitment public? I have seen more dysfunctional straight people than gay, and I have seen plenty of both.

- Sheryl

 

[loki09789]

"If people feel an honest genuine commitment to one another that does not harm me or anyone else, that isn't shrouded in self-deception, why shouldn't they be allowed to make that commitment public? I have seen more dysfunctional straight people than gay, and I have seen plenty of both."

Psych babble would call this dysfunction related to repression/denial in the cases you are referring to about gays and marriage. On a cultural level, isn't repression something that the constitutional rights of US citizens is suppose to be protecting us from?

Thanks Sheryl

 

[hardheadjarhead]

A man and a woman get married. Ten years later, man has a sex change and becomes a woman. Now, two women are LEGALLY married, living together, loving each other, and raising each other kids. They even make love. Are they still married? What does God say about this? I just saw this on Dr. Phil so you KNOW it happens.

upnorthkyosa

Some years ago I met a couple who had met and dated in a lesbian relationship. One of them had a sex change. Now both of them consider themselves to be heterosexual and in a heterosexual relationship.
NOW...how does THAT complicate things?

The "male" has a vagina (the surgery for construction of a male appendage is exorbitant), and both engage in the same sexual methods that they did as lesbians. Yet to all outwards appearances, the "male" is truly male...and looks like he could bench about three and a quarter.

Human sexuality is far too complicated and diverse to spend a great deal of time legislating it. If two adults engage in consensual behavior that harms no other person, why should they suffer the consequences of negative legislation?

Much of this issue regards property rights, as has been mentioned. I suspect a family member can contest a will set forth by one homosexual for the benefit of his/her partner. A marriage license is a contract much more binding, is it not? Can we restrain people from their intended post-mortem distribution of their property and wealth?

I don't know...somehow I can't see securing "the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" as applying to a few, and not all.

Regards,


Steve

 

[rmcrobertson]

Hey, I have a question. As a matter of religious liberty, if two people decide to get married, and they find a church/minister (in any form) that's willing to marry them, then why--as a matter of religious liberty--in the world should anybody have the right to tell them no? Except on the grounds that their religious beliefs are wrong and therefore not worth respect, which last time I checked, ain't Constitutional?

Despite the distortions, all the Court in Massachusetts said was that they could find nothing in the Constitution to justify religious discrimination. Which is what some of you guys are pushing.

Then there's the whole "equal protection under the law," stuff, but I doubt the folks who're all upset by this topic have much respect for that either.

I just cannot see why in the hell anybody figures that they have the moral or legal right to tell other people who they can and cannot marry.

 

[MisterMike]

Hey, I have a question. As a matter of religious liberty, if two people decide to get married, and they find a church/minister (in any form) that's willing to marry them, then why--as a matter of religious liberty--in the world should anybody have the right to tell them no? Except on the grounds that their religious beliefs are wrong and therefore not worth respect, which last time I checked, ain't Constitutional?

They can, but it doesn't mean it is a marriage as far as other religions are concerned. Some religions say you can only confess to a Priest while others would say you do not need a Priest. The thing is we do not have a U.S. Deptartment of Confession so there is no real squabbling about it.

Despite the distortions, all the Court in Massachusetts said was that they could find nothing in the Constitution to justify religious discrimination. Which is what some of you guys are pushing.

The court found that there was nothing stating it had to be between a man and a woman. I guess you have to be really clear now-a-days otherwise we'll have a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Venkman: Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos.
Winston:The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

Oops, I was daydreaming there....

Then there's the whole "equal protection under the law," stuff, but I doubt the folks who're all upset by this topic have much respect for that either.

Sho-a they would.

I just cannot see why in the hell anybody figures that they have the moral or legal right to tell other people who they can and cannot marry.

Depends which version you follow. The "legal" one or the "religious one."

In some places black is black, white is white and marriage is between a man and a woman. Now we have too much gray.

 

[michaeledward]

I guess you have to be really clear now-a-days otherwise we'll have a disaster of biblical proportions.

Mayor: What do you mean, biblical?
Ray: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor... real Wrath-of-God-type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies.
Venkman: Rivers and seas boiling!
Egon: 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos.
Winston:The dead rising from the grave!
Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
.

You know ... at times like these ... I really like MisterMike. And gee, I would have thought you were too young to remember that film.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I see. Point a) everybody has to follow my religious tenets, and nobody's allowed to have other beliefs than mine; b) only the people I decide should have rights to equal protection under the law should have rights to equal protection under the law, c) I don't really know anything about actual biology, but in my view some things jist ain't natch'rul.

There are a lot of things with which I disagree that I put up with, even respect, as necessary compromises about things that are really none of my business anyway. For example, that whole insane notion that God made man superior to women.

I also see that my point got missed. I'd be interested to know, since there's nothing in the Constitution permitting the government to pick and choose which religious practices it likes, exactly how it i that you Constitutionally justify telling people they cannot get married in a church (or whatever) of their choice, by a willing minister (or whatever) who believes that their God (or whoever) legitimates such a marriage. In other words, marrying is a matter of religious liberty, eh? So....

I love these arguments, because they're always the same. We cain't be lettin' no black man marry no white wimmen! It says so right herein the Bible! And it ain't natch'rul anyway! You look at black dawgs--they don't want to be marrying no white dogs!

Personally, I just don't have enough arrogance to tell other people what they should believe, or how their God speaks to them.

 

[sma_book]

Below is the text from one of those e-mails that friends and family forward along for guffaws and chuckles. Those who believe in a very strict interpretation of the entire bible will probably not find it amusing, or scarier yet, will want the honest answers to the questions posed. :wink2: :

Regards,
Sheryl
-------------------------------------------
Subject: Fw: Food for Thought

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice
to people who call in to her radio show. On her radio show recently, she
said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination
according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US
resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as
thought provoking.

**********************************
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. The passage clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10

16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Oh man....I love it!