Stem-Cells, Gay rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ?? by JaynezTown

Stem Cell Research:
First, I’m a proponent of it.

Second, the President did not ban stem cell research. The president banned the use of federal dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research. This means that embryonic stem cell research can continue funded by state dollars or private dollars. Furthermore stem cell research can be funded by federal dollars if it is using either pre-harvested embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells. There is an ethical knot with the use of human embryos to supply medical research. Anyone concerned with the benefit that stem cell research might some day provide should understand the need to prevent the issue from becoming politically entangled with such a divisive and controversial issue as abortion.

Gay Rights:
The problem with gay marriage is that the American people were basically given an ultimatum. Give up traditional marriage or else. That resulted in a backlash. It was very poor politics on the side of the gay rights activists. They chose to use threats and offensive presentation, when they should have been trying to reach out. They demanded understanding and recognition of their problems, but dismissed a long held and sacred tradition of the American people, and that hurt the gay rights movement far more then it helped.

Abortion:
This will always be a controversial issue.

Janet Jackson’s bood:
This was just rude. And dumb.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2004 1:02 AM

FARSCAPEPKWARS

Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Quote:
Originally posted by Leafy:
Not all Americans are ignorant of the issues, and many are VERY deeply ashamed of how the election turned out.

One article I read said that one of the big reasons people voted for Bush is that he was a churchgoing man. Oh, my. Of all the reasons to vote for a president, that should rate near the bottom of the list.

Bush does not represent ALL the American people. He may represent the country, however badly, but a very large number of us don't claim him as ours. It's an embarrassment.

...and Bush isn't even a {real} religious person. He's a poser. He was a drinker, smoker, womanizer and layabout till just after he was forty. Then he wanted to get into politics, so he became a born-again something or other (presbyterian I think), to enhance his political career, he got married and of course he was so devout that he changed his religion to his wife's religion. (baptist or methodist or some such, I forget which) When asked who his favorite philosopher is, GW replied, "Christ." That's real nice and all and may get those of us who haven't read the Bible, but Christians kniow that the taechings of Christ are not philosophies. that gw thinks they are, shows what he knows.

sounds nuts

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, December 27, 2004 6:51 PM

I think using the Bible as a legal document gets you into trouble. You'd have to start killing children who disobeyed their parents and married women who were raped by somebody not their husbands.

Jesus turned a number of Old Testament teachings on their ear. He was, to my mind, the original long-haired hippy preaching love not war.

And even in the Hebrew Bible, the OT itself, there are deliberate contradictions in the text. Man and woman were created together, but no, first man was created and then woman later-- I don't think the people writing all this down were confused. These stories are meant to be metaphors for human experience. That's why, if you read say, Job or Ecclesiastes, you get a very different message than if you're reading Ruth or Kings. The book is supposed to capture diversity in order to appeal to all people the authors (people writing the word down) could think of.

As for rules set down in the Bible, the Bible has text that specifically condones slavery and specifically condemns wearing two kinds of material together. It has rules permitting things you and I would never cosider moral. I'm not saying the writers intended for people to be immoral.

I don't think they even wanted people to follow all of the rules and laws set forth in the Bible, at least, not in the OT; there are so many that are self-contradictory. I think the contradictions were meant to make people stop and think about what they were doing. I personally believe the hundreds of rules were meant to keep people busy so they wouldn't be getting into trouble. Those rules were meant to be impossible to follow, so that people were always working hard to be better. Trying to follow hundreds of rules will teach anybody humility pretty quickly, and it certainly forces anybody who cares about it to think long and deeply before acting.

The founding fathers of this country (arguably all of them, but certainly at least half) had very unconventional ideas about religion. Some were atheists. All of them agreed there must be a WALL between matters of church and state, to protect religion from the state and to protect people from the state and from religions other than their own. Of course the founders were born with a Judeo-Christian background. So what? You and I have a history of stealing from and murdering the native people of this land in our background, as citizens of this great country. That doesn't mean we love that aspect of our collective past. On the contrary, we defy our past. We struggle each day to be closer to the truth about that and other issues.

In governing ourselves, we are called upon to use our consciences and our minds in forming the laws of this country. As individuals, we may interpret things differently, but we may not impose our personal points of view on others. We are bound to create and enforce a code of law that tramples as little on individual freedom as possible, preserving equality and justice for all people.

The Bible is not and was never intended by the founders to be anything other than a religious text read freely by the people who wish to do so.

To address the question in the title: I don't understand it either, but people are just really threatened by what they don't understand, and they seem very resistant to learning about anybody different than they are. As Jon Stewart put it, "People are just really freaked out by the idea of dudes kissing." Even though dudes kissing (or getting married) don't affect anybody else at all. I don't get it.

People also would rather be sentimental than scientific about when human life begins and when a new life ceases to be a small clot of differentiated cells and begins to be a person.

Personally, for myself, I am very sentimental about that. I'm a mother of three and I've had a miscarriage and the second I knew I was pregnant, to me, it was a baby in there. But I don't have four babies. I have three, and I had one pregnancy that all of the wishing and wanting in the universe couldn't make into a baby. Science trumps sentiment, no matter how you feel about it.

I wouldn't choose to have an abortion, although if I had dire health issues I would have to think about my family in making a decision that could risk my life. But my life situation allows me a great deal of comfort there. Not everybody has a support system or a means of survival should they accidentally become pregnant, and I do believe there is a window of time between conception and birth when scientifically speaking a pregnancy is not yet equivalent to a human life.

I wish it were otherwise. I wish every pregnancy could end in a happy, healthy baby being born into a loving and supportive family. Unless you've lost a pregnancy, you can't know how much I wish that. But that's not the reality. Making a law about whether poor people can have a medical procedure (because make no mistake, even if it's totally illegal in this country to have an abortion, rich people will still be able to afford to go elsewhere to have them) doesn't change that reality.

And as for frozen embryos that might be used for stem cell research, they can either be destroyed (which is what happens to them right now) or used to further research that will eventually save or improve other human lives. I'm donating my body to science so that my death can be in the service of life. I don't think it's immoral to do the same with frozen clots of cells. No, they never got to be people, but then, they wouldn't be anyway if they were just going to be destroyed.

I do think it's irresponsible for our government not to fund that kind of research, but considering all of the other stuff I'm worried about right now with this administration, stem cell research not being funded is relatively low on my emergency scale.

And as for the boob, who cares?

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 4:39 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hero:

Quote:
Even throwing the bible aside the pre-1800 common law that Jefferson is talking about would specifically prohibit abortion, medical experimentation at the expense of life, homosexuality, and lewd conduct.

http://www.singmind.com/singleminded/200301/choice.htm
The Roe v. Wade decision in effect restored American law to a condition more resembling the British common law, the ancient legal traditions that evolved over several centuries and that would ultimately form the basis for British statutory law. Under British common law, abortion of a fetus before ''quickening'' was not a crime. Quickening was the first recognizable movement of the fetus in the womb. Prior to that, the fetus was considered to be part of the mother, and its destruction therefore not a crime.
There is some debate as to whether abortion after quickening was also a crime under common law ...
http://www.btinternet.com/~DEvans_23/legislat.htm
Prior to 1803 English Common Law permitted abortion provided it was carried out before 'quickening', the point reached at about 20 -24 weeks when it was believed the soul entered the body. Abortions performed after quickening were an offence under British Common Law, but there were no fixed penalties and the woman having the abortion was not necessarily held responsible.
http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic5.htm
Before the 19th century, most US states had no specific abortion laws. The provisions of British common law took precedence, and women had the right to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Gay Rights:
The problem with gay marriage is that the American people were basically given an ultimatum. Give up traditional marriage or else.

Ok, in a seriousness, I've never understood this. And when I ask no-one has given me an answer. It's like when I ask, a tumble-weed goes by. So, here it goes...

How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:00 PM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Ok, in a seriousness, I've never understood this. And when I ask no-one has given me an answer. It's like when I ask, a tumble-weed goes by. So, here it goes...

How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.

Okay. I'll take a stab at this. In my mind, a lot of the opposition came from the conflation of a lot of different things. For many people, marriage is a religious institution predominantly and a political institution only slightly. When they get married, it is by their minister or priest or rabbi or imam, etc. The political implications of marriage (in other words, the laws that apply to couples that are married) are less important than the fact that, to them, this is a union between them and the person they love blessed by their higher power.

So, to those people, when they hear homosexual marriage they think that their church will be forced to marry homosexuals. And so they feel that their own marriages will be diminished, especially if their church has a strong stance against homosexuality. (Part of it, from my perspective, is prejudice - "I don't want to have anything in common with those people."). They see this as an example of the government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

What they fail to take into account is that, from the other side of the aisle, this is a fight about civil rights. For people fighting to get government recognition of homosexual unions this is mainly about getting couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.

So the use of the word marriage is unfortunate because there are often both political and religious implications. From my point of view I think the government should get out of the business of marriage altogether. I have written this elsewhere but I'll repeat it here, I cringe inwardly every time I hear a minister or priest use the phrase, "By the power vested in me by the State of California, I now pronounce you man and wife." I would much rather see marriage as a religious institution ONLY - your marriage license is issued by your denomination and is symbolic - has no legal meaning whatsoever. Then you would also sign up for a civil union and register through the government to get the legal rights currently afforded to married couples. That way the push would be for homosexual civil unions.

Those in favor of homosexual unions are fighting for homosexual couples to have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, NOT to force religious denominations to marry homosexual couples against their beliefs (although I'm sure there are activists who would like to dick with organized religion in that manner - but I would hope they are marginalized within the overall movement and only represent a small minority - anhd I could've just invented a straw man anyway

). And it's not enough for it to be a state by state battle because there are federal laws that apply to married couples in addition to state laws.

One of the many problems with the proposed Defense of Marriage amendment to the Constitution (aside from just the more general problem of legislating limits on the citizenry into the Constitution) was that the language was so vague that it could've been interpreted to forbid even civil unions to homosexual couples nationwide.

So I've run out of steam...

---------------------
"What sort of raw meat do you people feed your cruiser captains, Hamish?" - Queen Elizabeth III of Manticore

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 29, 2004 11:44 PM

@SoupCatcher:
Although I percive the same mentality in "them" as you do, my question still remains unanswered.

How does homosexual marriage tear apart "traditional" marriage?

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 5:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.

As far as you know. It’s the whole slippery slope thing. If you’re going to argue that the state must support marriage between opposite sexes, then how do you argue against state supported polygamy or incest? Gay marriage activists jump through hoops trying to avoid responding to this argument, but it is a valid concern. When marriage becomes no longer about the rearing of children, but rather becomes about affirming personal feelings then it becomes a failed institution. To a certain degree that is already happened. Already, heterosexuals attempt to eliminate from marriage aspects of responsibility and commitment, which has led to increases in divorce, but I would argue that it has also lead to increases in the crime rate, domestic violence and overall degradation of society. The institution of gay marriage is simply a continuation of that, the ultimate elimination of the responsibility factor. Marriage is no longer about family: an institution granted special privileges under the law in order to function to rear and support children and elderly, but rather has become a state honored certificate affirming sexual relationships, a right to fuck license, if you will.

But the real problem is not so much the marriage between gays and lesbians but rather the insensitive and aggressive manner in which the gay rights community dismissed the majority of Americans who take traditional marriage seriously. And in that, perhaps gay marriage is actually done society and traditional marriage some good, because people, angered by this arrogant manner in which gay rights activists seek to impose their way of life in the mainstream have begun to fight back using their right as the majority to impose law.

Ultimately, however, to save marriage, society will need more then laws, but to affirm the responsibility of family as the central focus of marriage and not the relationship between two individuals seeking conformation of their sexual gratification. And ironically, (and I feel hopefully) may actually pave the way for a more responsible emergence of gay marriage.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 9:28 AM

NEUTRINOLAD

Quote:
If you’re going to argue that the state must support marriage between opposite sexes, then how do you argue against state supported polygamy or incest?

Let me just put this troglodytic argument to rest.

Oh wait, I can't. Given the arguments for gay marriage, this is a logically inescapable conclusion.

Do I think people who are homosexual deserve all the rights and privileges of all human beings?
Yes

Do I think people who are homosexual should be granted special dispensation to alter language and institutions at their whim?
No.

There is not and never has been such a thing as a sacrament that sanctifies a matrimonial union between two members of the same sex.

So repeat after me:
There's no such thing as "gay marriage".
There's no such thing as an "unborn child".

These are what is known as oxymorons. People who use them are known as just plain old ordinary morons.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 11:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

How? How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry force heterosexuals to give up traditional marriage. Because, as far as I know, heteros will still be able to marry as they have seen fit since records have existed.

As far as you know. It’s the whole slippery slope thing.

No, not really. I'll explain below.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

If you’re going to argue that the state must support marriage between opposite sexes, then how do you argue against state supported polygamy or incest?

This is the boggie-man that the anti-gay rights people have brought up time and time again. There is no slop here. No-one is trying to bring back polygamy (which is still practiced in many countries around the world by the way), nor is anyone even talking about incest.

Clearly, no western nation would go back to polygamy as all the people that live here (and in many others around the world) look to it as "not good" to say the least.

There are many other reasons besides the social "icky" of incease. Genetic deveristy being one of them. This isn't even going to be a possibility, so don't bring it up.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Gay marriage activists jump through hoops trying to avoid responding to this argument, but it is a valid concern.

Only in the paranoid dellusions of some peoples minds.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

When marriage becomes no longer about the rearing of children,

Pardon me, but it's been this way for many decades. And what about couples that can't have children or choose not to have children? Should they then not be able to be married? After all, they can't have a family or chooses not to, and if marriage is all about family then why allow them?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

but rather becomes about affirming personal feelings then it becomes a failed institution.

This was always part of it. Or are you advocating people marrying people that they don't love. Marriage is about two people whoe love eachother, making the commitment to spend the rest of there lives together, period. So, what does it matter if they are gay or not?

When it comes to people that think this way, I really believe that they really don't see that this isn't a change in what marriage is, it an extention.

It takes nothing away from the institution of marriage.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

To a certain degree that is already happened. Already, heterosexuals attempt to eliminate from marriage aspects of responsibility and commitment, which has led to increases in divorce,

With this, you've just told me what a predujuce biggot you are. To even suggest this is pathetic. Have you even met a gay/lesbian?

The devorce rate in any country is not a function of homosexuality, but a function of the immaturity of the people who get married. I mean, how do you justify Joe and Jane getting devioced if they've never even met a gay/lesbian?

Why would deny even the right of a people to prove to you that they do have committed relationships?

I think that this is really a scape-goat for those that don't what to accept the responsibility of there own actions or the actions of people in there own sect of society. You must blame it all on "them" whoever "they" are.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

but I would argue that it has also lead to increases in the crime rate, domestic violence and overall degradation of society.

You have causality backwards. It isn't that increases in crime rate, etc contribute to the degradation of society. It's that the degradation of society has contributed to increased crime rate. There would of course be a feedback in there.

So, the problem now is, what is causing the degradation of society? I would say that it's the lack of community (read: NOT gays/lesbians). In the appartment I live in, I know pretty much no-one here. When people are in an elivator they don't talk, etc.

But if you look to the elderly anywhere, they talk to eachother all the time no matter where they are.

There society worked quite well, ours on the other hand... But then again, they helped eachother, whereas today, we tend not to.

My grandmother for instance, has no issue "making friends" where ever she goes. She also has no issue with gay marriage, and she's 96!!!

Even given that she's progressive given her age, what does that say about you?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

The institution of gay marriage is simply a continuation of that, the ultimate elimination of the responsibility factor.

Justify this!!! How doesn gay marriage eliminate responsibility?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Marriage is no longer about family: an institution granted special privileges under the law in order to function to rear and support children and elderly, but rather has become a state honored certificate affirming sexual relationships, a right to fuck license, if you will.

I'd hate to rain on your parade, but people "fuck" no-adays before they get married, if they get married.

And as far as I know, marriage, even if the couple don't have children for whatever reason, it's still about family. Or do you not count the people in the family outside the couple?

Also, the institution of marriage, although began with "religion", hasn't been an religious institution for a long time.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

But the real problem is not so much the marriage between gays and lesbians but rather the insensitive and aggressive manner in which the gay rights community dismissed the majority of Americans who take traditional marriage seriously.

How was it aggressive? Why shouldn't they fight for there civil rights?

They have a right as people to publicly and legally declare there love for one another. I would think that they are the ones that are taking it seriously and not taking it for granted.

I'd think that they are fighting a similar battle now that the Blacks fought (and are still fighting today).

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

And in that, perhaps gay marriage is actually done society and traditional marriage some good, because people, angered by this arrogant manner in which gay rights activists seek to impose their way of life in the mainstream have begun to fight back using their right as the majority to impose law.

Maybe it will do some good. People may stop taking this right for granted and some might even take it more seriously.

I am also interested in what you think about when the Blacks wanted there rights with all the marched, the Black Panthers, etc. Now that may be considered aggressive (I agree with that way at that time by the way), but how are the gays/lesbians being aggressive and/or arogant?

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Ultimately, however, to save marriage, society will need more then laws, but to affirm the responsibility of family as the central focus of marriage and not the relationship between two individuals seeking conformation of their sexual gratification. And ironically, (and I feel hopefully) may actually pave the way for a more responsible emergence of gay marriage.

You still haven't constructed anything remotely close to saying that this current institution of marriage needs saving.

And by the way, marriage isn't about procreation, that's sex. Something that anyone can do if they are married or not (and they do). You should get your facts straight.

This is exactly what I mean by not getting an answer. You can't just say, "It'll do this" and not explain why or how. This is nothing but opinions and strawman arguments, nothing based on anything remotely resembling fact.

So, basically, to answer my question, justify yourself.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 12:12 PM

RADHIL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
As far as you know. It’s the whole slippery slope thing. If you’re going to argue that the state must support marriage between opposite sexes, then how do you argue against state supported polygamy or incest?

I have this crazy idea that says you should argue the pros and cons of the situation in front of you before you tackle the ones well in the future.

The slippery slope crap is a vastly overused dodge. First it's inter-racial marriages, then inter-faith, now homosexuals, but look out, polygamy, incest, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!! END OF THE EARTH - GAME OVER.

Pfeh.

Quote:
When marriage becomes no longer about the rearing of children, but rather becomes about affirming personal feelings then it becomes a failed institution.

Strange. I've seen marriages that uphold the raising of children over personal feelings. The results are not pretty, to spouses or children.

One enables the other. The feelings enable the rearing of children, well-kept and well-loved. To center marraige on children is a mistake that often leads to misery.

Quote:
To a certain degree that is already happened. Already, heterosexuals attempt to eliminate from marriage aspects of responsibility and commitment, which has led to increases in divorce, but I would argue that it has also lead to increases in the crime rate, domestic violence and overall degradation of society.

I would agree.

Quote:
The institution of gay marriage is simply a continuation of that, the ultimate elimination of the responsibility factor. Marriage is no longer about family: an institution granted special privileges under the law in order to function to rear and support children and elderly, but rather has become a state honored certificate affirming sexual relationships, a right to fuck license, if you will.

If heterosexuals have already begun to start the destruction of marriage, then you claiming that gay marriage is the ultimate ruin is laughable at best.

The statement also presumes that homosexuals have no capability to form a family, that the only relationship possible is that of sex bunnies. To my eye, that gives me far more insight into the demons of your real thoughts on this. You have a nice well-constructed rhetoric that I'm taking apart here, I do admire that. I have a hunch this is the gut, the source of your arguement though.

Quote:
But the real problem is not so much the marriage between gays and lesbians but rather the insensitive and aggressive manner in which the gay rights community dismissed the majority of Americans who take traditional marriage seriously.

The majority of Americans have divorces, last I checked. I don't know where your majority comes from. Imagination perhaps?

Quote:
And in that, perhaps gay marriage is actually done society and traditional marriage some good, because people, angered by this arrogant manner in which gay rights activists seek to impose their way of life in the mainstream have begun to fight back using their right as the majority to impose law.

You'll pardon my chuckle - it wasn't so long ago that the mainstream was "imposing their way of life" on this little minority. Turnabout is fair play, after all, and might of majority rarely makes right. Or have you forgotten the dozens of laws overturned that outlawed homosexuality? Fight *back*? Where did you think this little battle started?

Quote:
Ultimately, however, to save marriage, society will need more then laws, but to affirm the responsibility of family as the central focus of marriage and not the relationship between two individuals seeking conformation of their sexual gratification. And ironically, (and I feel hopefully) may actually pave the way for a more responsible emergence of gay marriage.

I agree with this, if not the condescending ending.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 12:21 PM

RADHIL

Quote:
This is the boggie-man that the anti-gay rights people have brought up time and time again. There is no slop here. No-one is trying to bring back polygamy (which is still practiced in many countries around the world by the way), nor is anyone even talking about incest.

Clearly, no western nation would go back to polygamy as all the people that live here (and in many others around the world) look to it as "not good" to say the least.

A sect practiced it recently in Canada and the US, actually. Some group clinging to Mormon orthodoxy. Not sure if they've been broken up yet.

Although, any reasonable person would call what they're doing "brainwashing", "abuse", and "rape" before they call it polygamy.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
This is the boggie-man that the anti-gay rights people have brought up time and time again. There is no slop here. No-one is trying to bring back polygamy (which is still practiced in many countries around the world by the way), nor is anyone even talking about incest.

Unfortunately, I don't really have time to sift through these giant point and counter-point style posts right now, so I'll simply say that in fact with the recent politicization of the gay marriage arguments, there have already been attempts by polygamists to seek state sanctioning of their polygamy. So this slippery slope exists and is currently in practice working its way through the courts as we speak.

Incidentally, I am in favor of extending state sanction to marriage between homosexuals. And perhaps when society has matured a little more we can. But today, we condemn a man for refusing a court order to remove the Ten Commandments from a court house, but not a Mayor who commits 5000 counts of a felony by signing marriage licenses he has no right to sign. The media can't seem to recognize that the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was not an example of mass pedophilia, but rather gay perverts abusing the priesthood to impose themselves on impressionable young men, in the same way that straight perverts have been known to impose themselves on impressionable young women. The gay community cannot seem to express themselves without stripping down to a pink thong and dry humping each other on a float in full view of children or openingly having sex in the parking lot of Disney World. And when anyone criticizes the gay community they are labeled homophobes, when in reality there is a lot about the gay community that needs to be criticized and aired out before we pull it into the mainstream of American families. Society simply does not seem to have the framework or the maturity to deal with this issue right now.

As far as the civil rights comparison goes, there isn’t one. The civil rights problem (Jim Crow, Loving vs Virginia, etc) was about inequitable application of the law. The law was being interpreted or applied differently based on skin color. In the case of gay marriage the question is about the introduction of new law, not the inequitable application of current law. Gay people are not being prevented from marrying. They are perfectly allowed under the law to marry in the same exact manner as anyone else. So it is clearly not a civil rights issue, but an issue of the introduction of new law extending current marriage law, and that is something that must be dealt with through legislation.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
"As far as the civil rights comparison goes, there isn’t one. The civil rights problem (Jim Crow, Loving vs Virginia, etc) was about inequitable application of the law."

On a state level, Jim Crow WAS the law of the land. This was not unequal application of existing laws, these were laws passed specifically to discriminate against Coloreds and Negroes.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/landmark/plessy.html
"After the Civil War, the South enacted black codes to keep their former slaves under tight control. For example, some states prohibited blacks, who were not a party to a suit, from testifying in court. Others subjected blacks to criminal penalties for breaching labor contracts. In contrast, whites were only liable in a civil suit for the same action. To strike down these black codes, the nation passed the Fourteenth Amendment (July, 1868), which prohibits states from denying "to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson
"After the end of Reconstruction in 1877 with the withdrawal of federal troops, these efforts (of equality) were increasingly being reversed. With the end of federal control over southern governments and with the end of northern interest in protecting the rights of blacks, southern state governments began passing "Jim Crow" laws designed to prohibit blacks from using the same public accommodations as whites."

By the ruling of Plessy v Ferguson (May 1896), the US Supreme Court upheld state apartheid laws.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/landmark/plessy.html
"On June 7, 1892, Homer Plessy, a 30-year-old shoemaker, boarded a passenger train of the East Louisiana Railway and took a seat in the "white" railcar. When he refused a conductor's orders to move to the "colored" railcar, Plessy was forcibly removed and jailed.
Plessy argued that the Louisiana statute violated, among others, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. After the state courts found the railcar statute to be constitutional, Plessy petitioned the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court rulings.
"The object of the Fourteenth Amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based on color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to the either ... if the two races are to meet upon terms of social equality, it must be the result of voluntary consent of the individuals."
The lone dissenting vote was cast by Justice John Marshall Harlan. In his dissenting brief, he wrote, "I am of opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white and black, in that state and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the Constitution of the United States."

"it must be the result of voluntary consent of the individuals" The problem with this point is that by having ENFORCED separation of whites from others, there could not be even voluntary association. But I guess that bit of logic escaped the Supremes of the day.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

As to another one of your 'points':

Quote:
Gay people are not being prevented from marrying. They are perfectly allowed under the law to marry in the same exact manner as anyone else.

I would be happy to have some of whatever you are smoking, dude!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:24 PM

Ok. You guys know I'm long-winded, but tonight I had really hoped to spend a little time with my hetero hubby (hubba hubba!), so I really will be brief.

The people who are making an argument against gay marriage have no argument of which I am aware, at least, none that holds water.

Marriage for hundreds of years had nothing whatever to do with love. It had to do with linking families for political or business purposes through the generation of offspring. If you were lucky, you found each other tolerable or occasioanlly quite compatible, but those were the exception, not the rule.

Love came into the picture fairly recently, as in, after the colonization of America. And our concept of family has changed with the times as well, today being surrounded with almost frilly ideals of love and support and companionship rather than the heavier duty and free-labor-provider it used to be.

Today, marriage and family are, for most Americans, defined in an ideal sense as bonds of love, fidelity, mutual affection and support. Money is not supposed to mean anything anymore, although our legal system has ensured that it will always be the elephant in the room that nobody talks about.

But I am here to tell you that gay and lesbian couples who wish to get married aren't just in it for the sex. After all, they can get the sex anyway. And they're not just in it for the tax incentives, insurance benefits, and legal life-partner simplifications that come with the package, although those are nice to have as I'm sure we heteros could quickly tell them.

What do they want out of it? The same things that we all want: the symbolic (and legal) joining of two people, their hearts and lives, in the sight of God if they wish (their God loves them no matter who they are, your God will not be forced to participate), for the purpose of living out their lives together in mutual affection and support, perhaps to raise families (yes, amazingly, gays and lesbians can still have offspring and even raise them without *gulp* eating the young!), just as I do with my husband.

No churches will be forced to marry people if they don't want to. (Do you think gays or lesbians even WANT to be married in the midst of such misunderstanding and contempt as they would find in the pulpits of anti-gay churches?) But Unitarian Churches, and the other freedom-loving churches like them, will finally have the same legal weight behind ALL of their ceremonies that Methodist or Lutheran churches carry behind all of theirs. This is not hostile takeover of a righteous hets-only club. This is a call for equality. And it must be fought for and won.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
On a state level, Jim Crow WAS the law of the land. This was not unequal application of existing laws, these were laws passed specifically to discriminate against Coloreds and Negroes.

Your post is a fine historical discussion of Jim Crows laws, but the fact remains that the Jim Crow laws were examples of an inequitable application of law. These laws being the law of the land does not imply that they offer equal protection. These laws specifically targeted certain groups and that is an inequitable application of law. It is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As to another one of your 'points':
Quote:
Gay people are not being prevented from marrying. They are perfectly allowed under the law to marry in the same exact manner as anyone else.
I would be happy to have some of whatever you are smoking, dude!

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't smoke. Show me a law that says that a man cannot marry a woman because one or both of them are gay. To my knowledge, no such law exists. The current marriage law is applied equitably.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Gay people are not being prevented from marrying.

Oh, I get what you're saying. Gays can marry just like anyone else - heterosexually! You're right, man. There is no law that keeps them from heterosexual marriage. I can picture it - a gay marrying a lesbian is all right because marriage is about having kids! Wow. What a concept. That's deep.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
)was about inequitable application of the law

Not about inequitable laws, eh? OK, You don't smoke. Whatca drinking?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 30, 2004 8:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Gay people are not being prevented from marrying.

Oh, I get what you're saying. Gays can marry just like anyone else - heterosexually! You're right, man. There is no law that keeps them from heterosexual marriage. I can picture it - a gay marrying a lesbian is all right because marriage is about having kids! Wow. What a concept. That's deep.

Yes. Exactly. Now you’re catching on. Marriage has a definition in our society. It has had that definition for a very long time. And until now has never been questioned. Suddenly now, you want to change that definition. Fine. Get legislation for it and I’ll probably support it. But the fact remains, that the gay marriage issue is NOT a issue of the inequitable application of law, but the ADDITION of NEW law to expand the current definition of marriage.

And the answer to your second question is Scotch. Single malt.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 11:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Was there a legal definition of marriage as 'between a man and a woman' before this became an issue? Not that I know of. While states have recently passed laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman (kind of like the discriminatory Jim Crow laws that were enacted in the south), it is those restrictions which are new.

I like Ben Nevis myself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 12:02 PM

The federal definition of marriage was common law until 1996. Show me an example of same sex marriage before then or law that in any way recognized same-sex marriage. The concept of marriage has always been between opposite sexes. The idea of same-sex is alien to the definition. That's why it is always qualified as "gay" marriage or "same-sex" marriage, it is never just marriage, because marriage has always implied opposite sexes. This isn't something that was invented in 1996, and it's disingenuous of you to imply so. The legal definition of marriage follows logically the historical and cultural definition going back to pre-historical times. The idea that this is a "new" development is lunacy and completely contrary to the facts.

Glenfiddich Special Reserve. 12 year or preferably 18 year old. I like to go to Scotland at least once every 2 years to buy it from the distillery in Banffshire.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 12:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The federal definition of marriage was common law until 1996.

Not that I'm a stickler, but a reference would be helpful.

I discvered during the Microsoft trial that most people voiced strong, certain opinions who knew exactly zip. (I read all the posted testimony on the DoJ website as well as the laws in question b/c the news reports were pathetic.) People in general have very little interest in, or respect for, actual facts when they assert their opinions. And yes, everyone's entitled to them, but if you're going to state them publicly, then you need to be prepared for response. Up to and including supported refutation.
I back up my claims with references, and I'd appreciate it if you did the same.

Glenfiddich Special Reserve. 12 year or preferably 18 year old. What's that like? One of the smokey, peaty, sea-wrack and iodine kind?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 12:33 PM

I'm not sure exactly why you need a reference to this. You seem to be quite aware of what we are talking about, but I aim to please.

"The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Glenfiddich Special Reserve. 12 year or preferably 18 year old. What's that like? One of the smokey, peaty, sea-wrack and iodine kind?

It’s very oaky and peaty. I never really understood the iodine thing. So I don’t know about that. It has sort of a fruity smell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 2:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Your_Community&Template=/Conte
ntManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=19449

I didn't want to post to picture to preserve bandwidth, but as this site will show, states only recently adopted the federal DOMA (defense of marriage act, 1996) as state laws. Only three states had pre- 1996 laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. There is not a long history of law which forbids same-sex marriage.

The reference in its entirety rests on a decision of the US Supreme Court which addressed polygamy, not sex.

The quote you selected more than anything else demonstrates the restriction of marriage was NOT codified by either formal legislation (law) or common law (which is written, but derives from practice rather than legislation). It may be that 'everyone understood' it was so, but it was not explicitly addressed.

I'm curious what would happen if an established church with the 'power vested in them by the state' decided same-sex marriage was ok with god. If they started marrying same-sex couples, would it pit the separation of church and state against restrictive marriage laws?

The US Census Bureau reports that only 25% of all households are traditional families - two opposite-sex married parents, with children at home.

Historically, in Western cultures, marriage rules were made for nobility, and later the wealthy, for property reasons. The rest of everyone, the vast majority, were under the 'common law' which was informal and poorly defined. The poor also came together for economic reasons, but it was for survival - it drove the formation of 'extended' families which often included unrelated people. To a large extent, economics is driving the formation of non-traditional families today. People who care for each other and have a sense of responsibility to each other wouldn't be banding together if, individually, they had resources to make it on their own. Love, care and responsibility would be expressed in non-economic ways.

No matter how it is decorated and filigreed, the attempt to narrowly define marriage is based on mean, spiteful prejudice. That, and finding a minority small enough that it can be stomped-on with impunity. Letting gays marry in a tolerant church of their choice doesn't hurt anybody in particular, or society in general.

Iodine - I can't describe it. You have to have smelled it to recognize it. But peat, oak and fruit - that sounds pretty good. Ben Nevis, without being sweet, is buttery with a hint of bitter toast. It spreads through your mouth like warm butter. Very smooth.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 3:10 PM

So somehow, according to you, this radical idea that a marriage is between a man and woman is something that was invented in 1996 in order to stick it to gay people? In order to believe this you have to ignore the fact that common law marriage, as you apparently have, is between a man and woman, and that this has been the definition of marriage throughout most of Western history. And common law marriage IS defined as being between a man and a woman. One of the criteria for a common law marriage is that the couple must hold themselves out to be "husband and wife." Tell me how two men hold themselves out to be "husband and wife?"

Common law is built on English traditional morality. So I suppose that for 1700 years the religious ideals dominating Western morality as prescribed in Christian Dogma was perfectly at peace with the concept of same-sex marriages. Is that what I'm supposed to believe? Is that the story your trying to sell? That somehow, until 1996, marriage, as practiced in the Western World, was always inclusive of both sexes. The idea of marriage as being between a man and women was never put forth until 1996. This is tripe. Current marriage law simply states what has been understood about marriage for at least 1700 years, and accepted in Common law for probably a thousand years; you don't have to like it, but that's the reality we live in.

I'll have to try Ben Nevis. I'm heading over to some friends tonight, so maybe I'll stop in somewhere and pick some up, if they have it. Liquor stores around here are notoriously bare of anything worth drinking.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 4:02 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Whoa there big fella!

Common law was not actually based on 'morality'. If you don't believe that, check out the common law on abortion (further up the thread). And you seem to think that I claimed same-sex marriages were accepted. What I said was that it was not addressed either way, neither forbidden nor approved.

Quote:
... what has been understood about marriage for at least 1700 years, and accepted in Common law for probably a thousand years

You seem to think that western marriage is an eternal phenomenon, and homosexuality is a new-fangled one. I don't suppose you can imagine some backward village a few hundred years ago, pretty representative of how most people lived, where the priests came by only rarely. Where religion was some combination of church ritual and old-time 'pagan' beliefs and social rules. Where men and women cohabited without the benefit of clergy. Where women threw men out, and men left for other women. Where women took up with men just to have a way to feed the kids. In other words, a society where marriage was self-defined.

PS If you can find some Ben Nevis on the shelf, let me know. I've been ordering through importers. I'll give your brand a try. Cheers.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 5:02 PM

In 1885 gay sex was ruled illegal and homosexuals were jailed. Do you really believe that in a society were gays are jailed that marriage is likely to field a same-sex definition? I really don't know why this is so difficult to grasp, because I don't think that, given what I've read, I'm going to be convinced that homosexual marriage was necessarily an accepted practice by the state anytime in the last thousand years of English law, and certainly not in the last 200 years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 7:48 PM

JUSTANYONE

The gay marriage ethics debate is lacking a legal analysis here:

In the U.S., a marriage is a contract between 3 parties: the two partners and the state. The partners have rights and obligations spelled out under state laws. The state is a party because it defines the rights and obligations of that contract ahead of time. Under civil law, that makes it a party to the contract.

One presumption favored by pro-gay-marriage people is that the state should stay out of the bedrooms, and love lives, of those involved. However, the state's marriage-related laws are there for (mostly) the protection of those involved and the state at large. For instance: Marriages must be performed by licensed practitioners to protect against frivolous and legally complicated 'accidental' marriages. Blood tests must be performed to protect both parties (and yet-unconceived children) from highly dangerous pregnancies. Age limits apply (and they are notably not those of 'adulthood' - many states have a 14-years-old minimum marriage age, not 18). Rights of inheritance and taxation are clearly defined according to black letter law - this is a right, this is not, this is an obligation, this is not.

These laws protect both the state and the parties. They are good and worthwhile laws, mostly.

I favor amending state laws to define marriages as being of a certain 'class'. Class T (traditional hetero) would be required to conform to certain standards. Class 'G' (gay men), like Class 'L' (lesbian), would not be required to submit to a blood test ensuring chromosomal compatibility for child-rearing. Class 'M' (multiple, polygamous) marriages would have quite a few additional strictures placed on them, specifically, that all parties in the marriage must agree to the marriage or it is null/void, that all parties have been advised of the current marital status of all other parties, that that a marriage contract can only be amended with the informed consent of all involved, and if one of the parties is incompetent, the rights of that incompetent party must be protected.

There is quite a bit of interesting law to be made if polygamy is acceptable. I am quite happy in my standard hetero one. Mine is in no way threatened by others. However, I want to make sure of something as a citizen. We've decided our society is obligated to protect the least among it. Thus, we must carefully create legal strictures that people can best find happiness in.

In short, civil laws apply with some caveats. Other laws must be updated if the standard definition changes. It's not hard, we just have to think about how to protect our citizens in the best way possible.

Oh, and by the way - I'm Unicorn's husband, and quite proud of it... (grin).

(And Seagram's 7 is best, served with cool but not cold 7 up, and a small amount of Peach Schnapps)

--Kevin

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 7:58 PM

Before I start, I just want to make a side note on polygamy... What's wrong with polygamy, from a purely religious standpoint, assuming for a moment that we're only talking about love-based, family-raising arrangements where there is mutual respect in abundance? (Leaving aside, for a moment, the muddier waters associated with money, taxes, fraud, and the government's piece of the pie...)

Incidentally, the Holy Bible itself allows polygamy for anybody who can take care of such a large responsibility as all of those wives and children can be. Judaic tradition (I can't remember if this one's in the Bible itself, or if it's just the Oral Tradition) also insists upon a practice we Americans would consider to be incest: namely, when a man dies without any children, his brother must marry the dead man's wife (his sister-in-law) and impregnate her with a child 'for the dead brother' so that his soul can rest in peace. So if you're looking to the Judeo-Christian tradition for supporting how bad polygamy is, don't look back too far.

Okay. My actual point: Obviously black letter law about sex and two thousand years of what was going on in England (surely the most pertinent of all bodies of law to this debate, British law) are more important in this thread than the intention or spirit of the laws of our country as laid out by the founders all those years ago.

Did the founders write about white land-owning men instead of all people? Of course. Probably they couldn't imagine a society where all people were fully equal. Should we then assume that we must discriminate between black and white people because the founders didn't include them? Between men and women? Just because the original application of basic principles of equality and freedom wasn't extended to its full and logical end, that all _people_ were created equal, doesn't mean we the people should assume they deliberately left out most of the melting pot.

Prohibiting same sex marriage is illegal discrimination based on sex (saying you can't get married because your partner isn't the right sex). It's an invasion of privacy since the government has no right to regulate what goes on between consenting adults, either religiously, or behind closed doors when no illegal substance abuse is occurring. If the U.S. government can tell two men going to my UU Church that our church can't marry them, that's state interference with a private religious ceremony. That blows separation of church and state out of the water. AND it's the state saying it will recognize some religions above others, (all Catholic marriages recognized, only some UU marriages recognized) which is completely illegal according to the First Amendment.

Denying two people who are in love the right to marry when they are both single (so no contradictory contractual obligations exist), both of legal age, and are both competent to make decisions for themselves is just plain wrong.

It's especially wrong if the reason for that denial is that it makes some people uncomfortable. If you don't like a movie, don't go into the theater where it's playing. If you don't like caviar, don't eat it. If you're a man and you don't like men marrying men, then don't marry one.

I'm really getting fed up with all of the brain-dead, illogical arguments being made against allowing gay couples to marry. You can't logically support an argument against it, because they're people too, dammit! They fight and die for our country, just like straight people! They work hard to earn a living, just like hets. They contribute a great deal to society, just as you or I do. They deserve to be able to marry their emotional and spiritual life-partners just like I married mine. (And please don't tell me they should just pick somebody more appropriate, because I'd like to see YOU choose who YOU fall in love with!) They deserve to raise their families as recognized legal entities. There is no logical reson to deny them legitimacy, and the DOMA people make asses of themselves pretending there is.

Marriage doesn't need to be protected from a few more people trying to be married. Marriage is not going to explode or dissolve or go into orbit if Michael marries Ben. Marriages break down on an individual basis when communication goes bad between partners. The DOMA people should be working on affordable, full insurance coverage for five full years of marital counseling per couple if they're so frickin' worried about marriage. They should be instituting mandatory biology, physiology, and birth-control instruction, so that at least couples understand what will make a baby and what won't. And the DOMA jerks should require that all couples getting married have a session with a financial planner who can assist them in working through a budget and getting their money situation set up responsibly. Those are the issues that are causing most of the trouble for marriage, not 'dudes kissing.'

The anti-gay-marriage stance is bigotry of the most intolerable kind. It clothes itself in the appearence of upstanding morality and officious disapproval of The Other. It pretends to claim the high ground while sowing the seeds of discord and intolerance as it panders to the worst in us, to the fear of difference and the hatred of what we don't understand. It makes the false claim that gay marriage might somehow affect straight marriage at all in an effort to mobilize a larger anti-gay movement, sort of a gender-charged precursor to some kind of subtle ethnic-cleansing effort.

I find it difficult to play at friendly discourse about this subject when one of my three best friends in the universe, a gay man, works tirelessly for the government in an effort to protect and serve the people of this country, all of them, regardless of whether or not they'd beat him to death for being who he is. And I know, not all people who hate gays (or fear them, or feel uncomfortable-- whatever) bash gays, but history kind of forces your hand: you're either with us or against us, as the saying goes. And while he works for our safety, a large portion of the country wants to make sure he never speaks a vow of love to another man, because they think that's icky.

The DOMA can go and do something rude to one of its own orifices, please.

Pardon my hostility-- I don't drink much at all and maybe I should start. Whiskey with ginger ale is nice, Schweppes being better because it's not as sweet as your Canada Dry. Really though, the best is a nice IBC Root Beer. Then you don't even need the whiskey.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, December 31, 2004 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by justanyone:
I favor amending state laws to define marriages as being of a certain 'class'. Class T (traditional hetero) would be required to conform to certain standards. Class 'G' (gay men), like Class 'L' (lesbian), would not be required to submit to a blood test ensuring chromosomal compatibility for child-rearing. Class 'M' (multiple, polygamous) marriages would have quite a few additional strictures placed on them, specifically, that all parties in the marriage must agree to the marriage or it is null/void, that all parties have been advised of the current marital status of all other parties, that that a marriage contract can only be amended with the informed consent of all involved, and if one of the parties is incompetent, the rights of that incompetent party must be protected.

Yeah. And guaranteed to keep divorce lawyers employed for the next thousand years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 10:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

In 1885 gay sex was ruled illegal and homosexuals were jailed.

That does not quite address marriage, but I'll work with it.
In Ireland? That was the only reference I could find. But that certainly puts a hole in your argument that gay marriage has been illegal in Christian-English law for 1700 years. If I do the numbers correctly, it works out to only 110 years.

Your original claim did get me to thinking, though. When did Christianity come to the British Isles? King Arthur is presumed to have existed around 550 AD, and Christianity was not the dominant religion of the common class at the time. What was the status of British religion around 300 AD? I could look it up, but haven't, it's just a side note. I was wondering if you happen to know offhand.

This thread is getting tastier with every post. Smacks lips. Looks forward to this evening.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 12:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
In 1885 gay sex was ruled illegal and homosexuals were jailed.

That does not quite address marriage, but I'll work with it.
In Ireland? That was the only reference I could find. But that certainly puts a hole in your argument that gay marriage has been illegal in Christian-English law for 1700 years. If I do the numbers correctly, it works out to only 110 years.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about, rue. But my confusion aside, I never said it was necessarily illegal, although in many places and times it was. What I said was that, historically, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman, and that is true. Common Law clearly states that marriage is between a man and woman. You’re attempts to pull some quasi-Christian isolated ancient village out of history and claim this disproves what has clearly been the predominate definition of marriage is disingenuous. You can imagine yourself 'shooting holes' in my theory all you want, but it's just lunacy to pretend that same-sex marriage was a norm anytime in recent history. I don't understand your obstinacy in this, to be honest. Is it really that hard to believe that marriage has historically been defined as being between a man and woman in the Western world, particularly a Western Christian world?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Your original claim did get me to thinking, though. When did Christianity come to the British Isles? King Arthur is presumed to have existed around 550 AD, and Christianity was not the dominant religion of the common class at the time. What was the status of British religion around 300 AD? I could look it up, but haven't, it's just a side note. I was wondering if you happen to know offhand.

This thread is getting tastier with every post. Smacks lips. Looks forward to this evening.

The time period for King Arthur ranges between 460 AD and 560 AD.

And in 300 AD Christianity was a major if not dominate influence among the common class in Britain. All the southern Romano-British Cities (Britain below the Hadrian wall) probably had very large Christian populations in 300 AD. Christianity was the religion of the common class; that's where its strength existed. The reason for this fast spread of Christianity in Britain was that the Roman legions stationed in Britain were largely from the Eastern Empire, which was largely Christian. To say nothing of the oppressive nature of the Roman and other pagan state-religions, which tended to foster a support for non-Roman, particularly unsanctioned, religions. But Christianity would not gain a permanent stable foothold in Britain until probably the late 6th to early 7th century.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 1:57 PM

Holy crap, I get busy for a few days and look what happens. I guess it was to be expected.

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

A sect practiced it recently in Canada and the US, actually. Some group clinging to Mormon orthodoxy. Not sure if they've been broken up yet.

Point of fact, this isn't Mormon Orthodoxy.

A few years ago I took an intro religion class and at the end we got to pick (as a class) 4 representitives for certain religions to come in and give a short talk. One of them was Mormon.

The first words out of his mouth was (paraphrase), "We do not practice poligamy nor do we agree with it. We praticed it until there was laws made against it; we obey the law. Anyone that does so is not a Mormon nor would be even have a hope of being recognized by our church."

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 2:14 PM

RADHIL

Quote:
Point of fact, this isn't Mormon Orthodoxy.

Bad wording. I had presumed that meant the "old ways", when a simple dictionary check proves me wrong. It seems to represent a strict old-school sect when applied to other religious groups.

Mormons did (past tense) practice polygamy, hence my use of the word clinging. I didn't mean to imply current Mormons. The group I referenced was using old Mormon teachings, combined with the usual nutjob fascination with abuse, and mainly it seemed because got them several easily controlled wives.

Air cleared.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 3:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

...so I'll simply say that in fact with the recent politicization of the gay marriage arguments, there have already been attempts by polygamists to seek state sanctioning of their polygamy. So this slippery slope exists and is currently in practice working its way through the courts as we speak.

Pardon me, but I was talking about the rediculusness of saying that allowing homosexuals to marry would incurr other things. Just because some people are trying doesn't mean that the slippery slope exists.

But, since gay marriage isn't legal, how can this be related? How can legalized gay marriage produce polygamy when it isn't legal? Hmmm...

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

But today, we condemn a man for refusing a court order to remove the Ten Commandments from a court house, but not a Mayor who commits 5000 counts of a felony by signing marriage licenses he has no right to sign.

It's call SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!

The second is called a political statement. I whole heartedly agree with what was done and condem those that forced the stopage of it. If you want the mayor put to justice for what he did, then start a campain for it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

The media can't seem to recognize that the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church was not an example of mass pedophilia, but rather gay perverts abusing the priesthood to impose themselves on impressionable young men, in the same way that straight perverts have been known to impose themselves on impressionable young women.

Reference please.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

The gay community cannot seem to express themselves without stripping down to a pink thong and dry humping each other on a float in full view of children or openingly having sex in the parking lot of Disney World.

What?!?!?!?

What you don't seem to understand is that you can't take the actions of a few and apply it to the many.

Also, what about the straight people who have sex in parking lots? What about straight people who grope eachother in public?

It seems to me that when people find the straight version happening the will at most shake there head and be disappointed. But, if there are gays doing the same thing, then all holy hell breaks loose! Hipocratical Bigotry!

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

...when in reality there is a lot about the gay community that needs to be criticized and aired out before we pull it into the mainstream of American families. Society simply does not seem to have the framework or the maturity to deal with this issue right now.

You are right, but not in the way you think. These stereotypes must be abolished for the FUBAR that they really are.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

As far as the civil rights comparison goes, there isn’t one.

< sarcasm >
Yah, you're right. Same-sex marriage isn't part of civil rights.
< /sarcasm >

I'd say that what you are saying is a joke if it wasn't so sad

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
The second is called a political statement. I whole heartedly agree with what was done and condem those that forced the stopage of it. If you want the mayor put to justice for what he did, then start a campain for it.

Actually it’s called Tyranny. That’s what you call it when the government, under the control of a single person, usurps the will of the people and imposes his own will in its place.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Yah, you're right. Same-sex marriage isn't part of civil rights.

I agree.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
I'd say that what you are saying is a joke if it wasn't so sad

The truth can have that affect on people.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 4:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn

Quote:
Marriage has a definition in our society. It has had that definition for a very long time.
The federal definition of marriage was common law until 1996.
The legal definition of marriage follows logically the historical and cultural definition going back to pre-historical times.
The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years
common law marriage ... is between a man and woman, and that this has been the definition of marriage throughout most of Western history
Common law is built on English traditional morality. So I suppose that for 1700 years the religious ideals dominating Western morality as prescribed in Christian Dogma ...
In 1885 gay sex was ruled illegal and homosexuals were jailed
historically, marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman

You vacillate between saying heterosexual marriage was historical, defined, understood (but inexplicit), and legalistic. You own postings indicate a lot of confusion.

I take my cues from the statement: "The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years ..." In other words, people made assumptions, but it was not addressed explicitly, either by definition, by common law, or by legislation. Thus, the *ss-clenched response to promote, create and defend a new law which did not previously exist, for the sole purpose of explicit discrimination where none previously existed.
I never said that same-sex marriage was approved. I have consistently said the laws have been SILENT on the issue. I don't appreciate being misreprsented time and time again.

Perhaps you should read Unicorn's post, if you haven't done so already. It is not confused, it is rational, complete and eloquent.

On another topic, I went back to just one old thread and pulled a quote from you:

Quote:
(we) support freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it

Apparently you think you support freedom. I'm curious what this supposed freedom consists of in your mind, if it does not include personal liberty.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 5:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I don't appreciate being misreprsented time and time again.

No one's misrepresenting you. You are ignoring the reality that English common law has traditionally defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. And current statutory law is simply a statement of what has been understood in Common law and dominate Christian religious tradition for at least 200 years and probably much longer. You're trying to dance around this fact with irrelevant assumptions of what might have been in some as of yet unidentified quasi-Christian ancient village in order to rewrite history to suit your desire to paint Jim Crow on anti-gay-marriage. It's the same old thing: if you don't agree with something then scream racism.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
On another topic, I went back to just one old thread and pulled a quote from you:
Quote:
(we) support freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it
Apparently you think you support freedom. I'm curious what this supposed freedom consists of in your mind, if it does not include personal liberty.

This is a perfect example. You've pulled some obscure statement out of context, and then claim it to be mine in order to draw some conclusion that I don't support personal liberty. The statement may very well be mine. It certainly looks like something I would say, but what relevance does this have to the topic and how do you find in this that I don't support personal freedom?

I did read Unicorns posts. I don't necessarily disagree with what she said, although I also don't necessarily agree with the notion that prohibiting same-sex marriage is necessarily bigotry or illegal (in fact it is quite legal.) I am, as I've already stated, in favor of allowing same-sex marriage, but that doesn't mean that I'm ready to agree with the emotional rhetoric being thrown around by the anti-anti-gay-marriage camp. Just because I'm in favor of gay marriage doesn't mean I'm going to try to rewrite history to redefine the definition of marriage, nor am I willing to contend that there is no difference between same-sex and opposite-sex marriages and therefore should be treated with the same laws or insist that criticism of the gay community is paramount to bigotry. There is an extreme level of immaturity in the pro-gay-marriage camp, that I just can't align myself with.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 6:50 PM

So, because a minority of gay people immaturely choose indiscretion by 'wearing pink thongs in public' and so on, you refuse to align yourself with the completely rational call for equality and justice for all citizens of the U.S.?

That's like saying that because you think afros are too shaggy, you can't align yourself with the civil rights movement.

I don't get it.

There is no such thing as a weed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, January 2, 2005 7:30 PM