PDA

View Full Version : Mass. Court ruling



BWayne
11-18-2003, 08:18 AM
------------------

Ted T.
11-18-2003, 08:51 AM
It's already here,

in some places.

Michael w/1911
11-18-2003, 09:14 AM
Iím disappointed, no, I disgusted by the ruling. Gods law and his word means less and less to the average American today. I fear the day will come, when people of faith, will be forced to enter places of worship like the perverts enter the porno palaces today. Quick stepping with their heads down, I assume, in the hope that their friends wonít see them. The greatest threat to this country comes from within; more proof was handed to us this morning.

Michael

Pale Horse
11-18-2003, 09:54 AM
Michael I agree with you about the govt. throwing out the any religeous belief for the sake of making sin more accectable is crap. If you look at Romans 1 the latter half will give you the answer. Unfortunatly this world is going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better. The day I hang my head in shame like a degenerate is the very day I have failed my savior who had no shame in dying for me. Keep it in perspective there is a day coming when we will be the minority, but we are in Christ so we will tolerate it till we die or he comes and takes us home. Keep faithful brother.

Only in America can you make a farce out of the justice system if you have a bank account that is more than 1 million dollars. It makes me sick to my stomach. Every day that I am here I am reminded of 2 things. First Men are going to do evil and fool the justice system because of loop holes. Second None will escape the judgement seat of Christ period.

If the courts would like to take God out of everything there will/are far reaching ramifications. example Thou shall not murder. If God said it first, and he did, then we can all murder or in the case of giving false testimony we can all commit pergery sp?? because they were commands given by God to us. If the men of this world want to suppress God let them try to, I dont reckon it will work.

Gabriel Suarez
11-18-2003, 10:15 AM
Look, for people like us, right is right and wrong is wrong. Period. Regardless of what the courts say. Homosexuality is wrong. That's what the book says and that's all I need. I certainly don't need some silly politician telling me that I'm wrong and he's right.

I for one don't care how others live because I don't want them telling me how I should live. We all have choices. Just because its legal to smoke dope and illegal to defend yourself doesn't mean we are going to drop acid and sell our guns. BUT, I don't want to be friends with any dopers, gun haters, or others who look at life from the opposite pole (perhaps a poor choice of words given the topic at hand).

The problem is that when a "legal" system approves or disapproves of something, there is a great deal of societal acceptance or non-acceptance. If guns were made illegal, many would never go near them. If heroin was made legal, many would try it...just to see. If we as a nation embrace this concept of same-sex marriages, and legally condone it, the message we are sending is that there is nothing wrong with this, and that being homosexual is perfectly fine. Isn't it interesting how its OK to marry another man, but you sure as heck better not have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds? Where do we get idiots like this and why do we keep placing them in positions of power?

Tolerance means that we live and let live "as much as it depends on us". It does not mean that we adopt and embrace strange ways and customs so we won't be called prejudiced.

I for one do not want a homosexual teaching my kids in school. I don't want their minds filled with silly ideas such as this judge thinks.

Those of you who know me know that although I always try to be a gentleman, I'm about as politically correct as a leopard skin coat at an animal rights convention. So, here is a suggestion. The next time a fruit fly calls you a "homophobe" tell them that "phobe" comes from the word phobia which denotes an unreasonable fear. Advise them politely, and unapologetically, that their lifestyle does not invoke fear in your heart, but rather disgust. So we may not be called a "homophobe" but rather a "homo-disgustus".

dgg9
11-18-2003, 10:44 AM
Let me ask a question. Most studies indicate that homosexuality is mostly ingrained and not something one chooses. Even if that's not true for all homosexuals, it's true for many. So perhaps the concept of morality (i.e., action as expressed by free choices) does not apply?

So, a) they exist, and will continue to exist and b) most are what they are by nature.

Given that, what if anything should the legal system do about that? Is marriage a fundamental civil right, or is it something that the majority defines? If marriage is a civilizing, stabilizing influence that brings men into the mainstream of society, and we refuse that institution to gays, isn't it hypocritical to then criticize them for anti-social promiscuity, when the marriage option is off the table?

Note that I don't hold forth any conclusions to any of this.

John Silver
11-18-2003, 10:46 AM
A Cooperism comes to mind here. "Legal does not necessarily mean moral, and illegal does not necessarily mean immoral."

The idea that a person dislikes something because they are afraid of it is one of the more subtle and devious changes that the left has instilled in contemporary thought.

I can be disgusted by something and not be afraid of it, such as the gay issue. Like wise, I can be scared of something, but not hate it, such as a venomous snake taking interest in me.

As a closet libertarian, I loathe the idea of stopping people from making mistakes. This issue is going to be a hot button like the drug issue debated on another thread here.

I wish society would rule itself and that actions could be beaten down by social outrage and common principals rather than relying on the legal system. But, we have entered a quandry when we expect the government to be our moral compass.

Fine, make it legal, it's a free country. But, they have to have all of the same do's and don'ts that a man/woman couple should have when it comes to legal liability and obligation.

I do have to point out that we have only ourselves to blame for this. An minority group with virturaly no support decided to change public thought. They have been able to because we've thought it impolite to speak up.

NedMan
11-18-2003, 10:55 AM
Fine, make it legal, it's a free country.

Absolutely. This whole debate, this whole problem stems from government attempting to regulate an institution between individuals.

It's not in government's purview at all to define what marriage is. Government, in fact, has absolutely no business in this area; of course I can't find an area where it does have business, but that's another story.

If people want to walk straight into the burning fires of Gehenna, who am I to stop them? People make choices and should not be stopped from hurting themselves if they so choose.

Legalize gay marriage? No, because marriage needs no "legalizing". Decriminalize it and remove government from all involvement with defining marriage.

God's law does not need human enforcers, and we are not worthy of the task; nor can we understand it. To attempt to enforce God's law is to believe God is not capable of enforcing his own law here on earth or in the afterlife. God doesn't need our help; that's why he's God.

dgg9
11-18-2003, 11:54 AM
Absolutely. This whole debate, this whole problem stems from government attempting to regulate an institution between individuals.

Here is one area where I am a little leery of libertarian utopianism.

Like it or not, marriage in the traditional form has evolved with humanity for thousands of years. It's an institution that is intertwined with society as we know it.

I would not lightly toss that aside. That sort of destructive utopianism is generally not safe.

Jack Rumbaugh
11-18-2003, 12:30 PM
I'm struggling with this very issue. If homosexuality is an abomination (and it is),how do I reconcile my nature to be open minded and non judgemental with people. I guess as I pray about it, things will be made clear but so far all I can come up with is to be compassionate but not accepting.

Tough subject...

And for the record, making same sex marriges legal diminishes my vows with my wife.

Jack

John Silver
11-18-2003, 01:17 PM
This is a bad issue, even worse than the drug one batting back and forth elsewhere here.

Jack, I wouldn't say that this ruling diminishes the vows with your wife. The significance of those vows was before God, not the state, and that is what matters. The danger is that the public at large has one more reason to view marriage as a minor and insignificant undertaking.

I'd love to have a way to make gay marriage illegal, but I just can't find any solid reasoning which aligns with the Constitution. The argument that it weakens society and the relationships which further society are probably on the right track, but at this point they are too vague and unsubstantiated to hold up in court.

I would like to clarify one thing, and that is the concept of homosexuality is some how genetic. I had a psychology professor who was very, very , very left wing. But, he readily admitted that there has not been a single legitimate study showing anyone is born that way due to genetics. He went on to say that every indicator pointed to the behaviour being learned or chosen. Whether that be concious or subconsious was another matter.

All of the gay people I've known enough to be honest with me have felt that if their relationship with their parents (particularly their fathers, take note) had been better, they "probably wouldn't be gay right now."

dgg9
11-18-2003, 02:35 PM
I would like to clarify one thing, and that is the concept of homosexuality is some how genetic. I had a psychology professor who was very, very , very left wing. But, he readily admitted that there has not been a single legitimate study showing anyone is born that way due to genetics. He went on to say that every indicator pointed to the behaviour being learned or chosen.

I've heard exactly the opposite. btw, "born that way" is not necessarily "genetics."

There are homosexuals in the animal kindom too, which tends to refute the notion of choice.

Sam Spade
11-18-2003, 03:23 PM
I'm going to come down on the libertarian side of this.

Joe and Bill want to sign a contract, combine their assets, have joint ownership of a house and accept responsibility for each other's debts. Exactly why does the government need to interject anything into the discussion? It has no authority to do so, and people need to realize that.

But Joe and Bill are also engaged in (to put it mildly) un-Biblical activities. What do we say there?

Governments--groups of men--have no charter whatsoever to intercede between any person and God. Those that think otherwise include communism, which tries to prohibit that relationship, and the Taliban, which tried to dictate the precise form of that relationship. Looking at those limits, their error is obvious.

We're supposed to be better than that, because we have an example in Christ and his church. Even so, we go beyond those teachings. For example, women don't cover their heads in chruch, and slavery is rightly recognized as an abomination.

So the American government needs to stay out of civil contracts. While I will protect my family from immorality, which implies making a judgement, I intend to leave condemnations of what others do to God.

NedMan
11-18-2003, 03:30 PM
May God bless you, Sam Spade. That was the best explanation I could imagine.

John Silver
11-18-2003, 07:03 PM
I've heard exactly the opposite. btw, "born that way" is not necessarily "genetics."

There are homosexuals in the animal kindom too, which tends to refute the notion of choice.

It is a controversial issue, but I stand behind what I say. Genetics/born that way/nature all are the same thing as they oppose the "nuture" argument (as in the ageless nature vs. nurture.) Besides, it's not my research that I'm relating, but that of a tenured pro-gay professor. The animal argument is popular, but really more rhetoric than proof. There are so many differences between human sexuality and the thousands of different animal sexuality patterns under such a wide range of conditions that to make much of a comparison is a waste of time. However, I'm at risk of highjacking this thread and starting a flame war all at the same time, so I'll stop now.

In discussing the issue of gay marriage with other people today, I found out that one reason Christian legal groups have been so against it is because of how wide spread courts are taking implications from different cases. Here, the specific worry was that if the law ordanes gay marriage, that churches will be forced to take a stand on the issue. If they decide against allowing gays to marry in their church, they are could easily risk losing their tax exempt status because they could be labled a hate group.

At first glance, I thought it was a bit of a reach. But, as I ponder it more, I realize that it's possible. Normaly, such a move would take a lot of convolutions, but we all know there are groups out there who will attack Christianity in any way they can. Of course, this is more a problem with court interpretation than of making something legal or illegal, but it is something to keep in mind.

sponge
11-19-2003, 04:33 AM
I am coming down against "gay marriage". As someone who defines marriage as man and women!, homosexual marriage is a contradiction in terms so the gays should just have to start off by finding they own all new definition for their union. I see this as an attempt by some to broaden the definition of marriage. Like those who attemt to broaden the word vigilante to include self defense. What's next, some pervert will decide to try to "marry" his pet Pig, (and maybe even score a seat on the jerry springer show). I don't see upholding the real definition of marriage as a violation of anybodys constitutional rights.

sponge
11-19-2003, 06:23 AM
To those here who just seem to take the legalize everything no government approech.Again where does one draw the line?. There needs to be some law and order for civilization. And law and order is based on legal definitions. And you and your family is just a part of civilization so government is there to help moderate those family's self interest, because those interests will inevitably contradict each other, look at the weak governments of africa and others and how it leads to tribal warfare, with little of the advancements in civilization that have happened here. And to keep god from punishing the country there needs to be some moral support. And just because the animals do it does not make it good policy. THIS POST IS IN ADDITION TO MY POST JUST ABOVE.

Gabriel Suarez
11-19-2003, 07:02 AM
A couple of points:

1). The idea that "that's the way they are and its OK" is silly. Pedophiles are the way they are, what about them and their rights??

2). I agree its not the government's business if Joe and Bill want to blend their assets as a marrie couple. So what is stopping them from writing up a legal trust together? Nothing, but that's not enough for them. They want to be looked at as normal. Sorry but they are not.

3). I'm all for small government and what the gov should have done was to refuse to hear such a case either way. How much money was spend on Adam and Steve??

4). I am tolerant to the point that I think they can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. I stop at the point where I think they need any "official" recognition. I don't advocate taking any action against that community of course, but I also don't want to have anything to do with them.

I'll tell you this, the way our nation is going, it won't be long before Adam and Steve are President and First Lady.

And further, I don't think there is anything wrong with "Judging" in the sense that we use our brains to determine those whom we do not wish to be around, whose cultures we do not wish to participate in, and whose ways are contrary to ours. This is certainly not the same as "casting the first stone".

Some Christians believe we must not judge anything at all. Wrong. Here is a few examples.

1). Your son is assigned to an openly homosexual teacher in school. A non-judgemental Christian would let it go. Would you? Is taking your son out of that class a sin because you are judging? Certainly not.

2). A pedophile wants to teach Sunday school at your church. Do you turn the other cheek to him and give him access to all the little ones...after all no one should judge. Or do you say no.

Its not judging in the biblical sense, its using your brain to determine the best course based on your knowledge of what God wants us to do in our lives.

dgg9
11-19-2003, 07:26 AM
1). The idea that "that's the way they are and its OK" is silly. Pedophiles are the way they are, what about them and their rights??

The difference is that adult-to-adult homosexuals are not pedophiles -- they're not hurting anyone.

The difference is behavior. If I hurt someone, then the fact that I can't help it is immaterial. If I hurt no one, but people simply dislike what I do, AND I can't help it, then what?

My point was that homosexuals EXIST, like it or not, and for the most part don't hurt anyone else. Since they exist and since they're not going to / able to change, what next? Must they stay underground and be excluded from social instituons like marriage? I don't have a ready answer, btw. I'm just curious what we expect that they do?

Gabriel Suarez
11-19-2003, 07:37 AM
The difference is that adult-to-adult homosexuals are not pedophiles -- they're not hurting anyone.

The difference is behavior. If I hurt someone, then the fact that I can't help it is immaterial. If I hurt no one, but people simply dislike what I do, AND I can't help it, then what?

My point was that homosexuals EXIST, like it or not, and for the most part don't hurt anyone else. Since they exist and since they're not going to / able to change, what next? Must they stay underground and be excluded from social instituons like marriage? I don't have a ready answer, btw. I'm just curious what we expect that they do?


dgg9,

I'm not an expert on human behavior. I do know that I have a choice about who I associate with and who I allow to influence my family. Moreover, we should not expect them to do anything. That's between them and God. We are however expected to live as God calls us to live.

I will say that the widespread acceptance of compromise on issues like this DOES hurt us by subverting our customs and way of life. I see this no different as saying the heroin addict hurts no one, the cat sacrificing moon worshipper hurts no body, ect. The mere fact that we as a culture are embracing these practices as right, moral and correct has hurt us.

Again, this may be a difficult answer for some, but as this is The Christian Warrior forum, I must point out the Bible which says clearly that this is wrong. You either believe God, or you believe the Mass. Courts. I believe the answer is to simply turn away from contrary cultures such as homosexuals and not allow them to have influence over our lives. If that makes me intolerant, then I'll gladly and proudly wear the label.

dgg9
11-19-2003, 08:05 AM
I see this no different as saying the heroin addict hurts no one, the cat sacrificing moon worshipper hurts no body, ect. The mere fact that we as a culture are embracing these practices as right, moral and correct has hurt us.


And of course I would say that the heroin use hurts no one just in the act of taking heroin. If he actually harms someone else, then let that be illegal (as it already is).

My philosophy is that the legal boundary must be "actual harm to someone else." Otherwise we get into a quagmire of prior restraint, in which gun control falls as a category. Take drugs, as long as no one is harmed. If you then rob someone, well, robbery is already illegal. But tyranny lies in saying "you can't do X, since then you might do Y."

As for homosexuality per se, that really harms no one. Being offended is not being harmed.

There's also an important distinction: personal morality is not law. It's ok to be offended at homosexuality. It's ok to say it's not right, moral, correct. It's ok not to associate with any of it. It's quite another thing to try to make that which we dislike, illegal. Therefore I see refraining from making something illegal as different than approving of it. That's the price of freedom. Whether that extends to gay marriage, I don't know. That's a complicated question. I have no answer.

Vig Creed
11-19-2003, 08:15 AM
Look, for people like us, right is right and wrong is wrong. Period. Regardless of what the courts say. Homosexuality is wrong. That's what the book says and that's all I need.

AMEN, Gabe! My sentiments exactly!

Judges are NOT legislators, "The Law" or God, although some seem to imgagine they are.

Maybe it is time to get out the tar & feathers???

creed

PS: It is indeed shocking to see how many have been brainwashed into accepting legalized perversion!!! :confused:

John Silver
11-19-2003, 08:27 AM
As for homosexuality per se, that really harms no one.

OK, and here is one of the reasons I don't post my name on my profile, because if an employer or prospective employer happened to be shown my comments, I'd be looking for a new job. Actually, come to think of it, I am, but that's besides the point.

Let me throw some gas on the fire here.

I would argue that the homosexual culture has hurt us tremendously. AIDS would not be the epidemic it is right now if it had only been IV drug users spreading it. The primary cause of spread was and is gay sex. Those men practicing it in secret brought it home to their wives and spread it through the emergency blood supply and blood products, not to mention to each other. No one wants to say it on the news or in "polite" company, but it's true. The spin campaign put on about this has been just incredible.

And, AIDS is truly at epidemic proportions. One radio advertisment requesting money claimed 1 out of 4 workers world wide is infected with HIV. Imagine if somehow handling a Bible infected 1/10th the number of people with a deadly disease. Could you imagine the up roar that would ensue? We would be hunted down like rabid dogs.

Also, I hold before you the Catholic church. For decades, their seminaries have followed the don't ask/don't tell policy with priests and very pro-homosexual texts have been used. If the child abuse scandal was simply due to priests not being allowed to marry, we would be seeing young women filing charges of molestation, not young men. For crying out loud, they work amongst the very girls who foster the "Catholic school girl skirt" fantasy, and they are still after the alter boys.

Does part of a culutre doing wrong justify making a "lifestyle" illegal? Maybe it does when we consider that these are not a small percentage we are talking about, not the "1%'s" of the motorcycle world.

I still think this has to be handled on a cultural/social level, but it does need to be handled. Unfortunately, I would not put any money on it.

dgg9
11-19-2003, 08:37 AM
AIDS would not be the epidemic it is right now if it had only been IV drug users spreading it.

In this country, AIDS is indeed prevalent in the (male) gay community. But they are also overwhelmingly the primary victims (if we set aside IV drug users). It seems besides the point to blame them for something that they themselves are mostly the victims of. In this country, careful heterosexuals seldom get AIDS. It is not an "epidemic" to the population at large.

In other parts of the world (Africa, Asia), heterosexual practices are what spreads the disease, and they really do have epidemics.

John Silver
11-19-2003, 08:51 AM
In the last (approximately) five years, do you know where the largest percentage growth of AIDS victims has been? Morman girls. I was rather amazed to hear it, but I confirmed it with a Morman co-worker. It has to do with what their church did (or really didn't) teach about sex.

It's difficult (not as difficult as some would have us believe, though) for a man to get AIDS from a heterosexual relationship, but not for a woman. For some reason condoms are rated lower for contraception than they are for disease control. I always found that a bit odd. Last time I took basic biology, sperm was larger than a virus.

That we view it as primarily a gay disease doesn't help those who have it and aren't gay, and I think it's another part of the spin campaign. It doesn't pass the common sense test to think it can happen in Africa but not here. Yes, we have much more condom usage, and that will affect it. But, you've already read my thoughts on how effective that is. In fact, it's only one study, but it recently made news that condoms barely help stop the spread of AIDS at all.

The economic numbers say we have an epidmeic. And, as medical care gets to be more expensive, and more HIV victims turn into late stage AIDS patients who are unable to work, the drain is going to become very serious.

If anyone looks at my previous posts, they will see I push personal freedom and small/non-invasive government. However, that doesn't mean we can afford to ignore the facts. Indeed, as we desire more cultural responsibility with less government hand holding, we have to be more and more brutally honest with ourselves about what is happening around us.

Gabriel Suarez
11-19-2003, 08:57 AM
But tyranny lies in saying "you can't do X, since then you might do Y."

Nobody is talking about making homosexuality illegal. That is ridiculous. We are however talking about a court embracing it as perfectly normal and good...which it is not.


As for homosexuality per se, that really harms no one. Being offended is not being harmed.

No being offended is not being harmed, but making the social statement that something like this is perfectly acceptable does harm us as a nation and culture. The issue is not about making something illegal, but rather about making a statement a homosexual marriage is the equal of a normal marriage. If that doesn't hurt our already ailing society then maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there.



There's also an important distinction: personal morality is not law. It's ok to be offended at homosexuality. It's ok to say it's not right, moral, correct. It's ok not to associate with any of it. It's quite another thing to try to make that which we dislike, illegal.

Well, here is where it gets sticky for some. Personally, I don't think its such a difficult issue, or that the answer is not as simple as we think.

We are either going to be a Christian nation or we are not. I dislike liberals, but I support their right to be liberals. God doesn't say anything about them. He does say plenty about homosexuals. Nobody is making an arguement about arresting and convicting homosexuals, but rather that it should never be an issue of law. The law either recognizes or doesn't. That's it. It either says a marriage is between man and woman, or between anyone and anything. For Christians the answer is fairly plain. Why do our courts spend so much time and money on such stupid issues.

This is one of those compromise points that cannot be made. Someone wrote about the slippery slope of compromise earlier in this forum. I think stuff like this is just that.

And BTW, perhaps we should stop compromising in language, eh? Regardless of what some goofy judge says, gay means happy and light-hearted. What we are talking about are homosexuals. Kinda like clip and magazine. Lets say what we mean.

dgg9
11-19-2003, 09:50 AM
Let me put it a different way. Marriage is an existing institution. The law is already connected to it because the law codifies it. Voting is an institution. Freedom (i.e., not be enslaved by another), civil rights, voting, etc -- these are all institutions which at one time were restricted to certain people (white, male, etc), and over time were expanded to include all people.

Now, do you think homosexuals shouldn't vote? Should they have 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc Amendment rights? Should they be allowed to drive, own property, enter into contracts? They are included in all these rights; all these institutions.

So, why exactly should the be excluded by law from the marriage institution? It's true they have been historically excluded, but women and other races have been historically excluded from many rights, and we considered their eventual inclusion progress, not a "threat" to the institution in question. Over time, women got the vote, blacks were emancipated, and it was felt that was a step forward...well, in truth many DID feel threatened, but generally we consider that shameful, yes?

I'm genuinely curious why this is different. If marriage is a civil right, why should gays have some civil rights but not this one?

John Silver
11-19-2003, 10:16 AM
We may be putting the cart before the horse here.

What is marriage? What are the goals, benefits, and drawbacks of such a union, both social and individual, of marriage? Spell it out in detail, and we may get a better grasp of the legal and civil implications and solutions.

As a single guy, I can tell you my goals with respect to marriage. To stay single, that's what. ;)

As for voting, I think we would be a world better off if only land and business owners could vote, and there was one vote per house hold. Let those who have invested in society choose it's path. Or, get the right through some sort of government service, along the lines of Heinlien. It'll never happen, but that was the idea behind many of the original voting laws.

Gabriel Suarez
11-19-2003, 10:36 AM
I'm genuinely curious why this is different. If marriage is a civil right, why should gays have some civil rights but not this one?

The right to live one's life and allow others to do the same is what freedom is. The right to agree as a group about certain subjects is what the political machine is all about. Tolerance means we may agree that those who have different ideas have these rights, but it does not mean that we must embrace their ways as the equal to our own.

On a similar note - Muslims should be "tolerated" by Christians (unless they have a bomb in their hands), but I think its wrong to invite them to speak about their religion in our churches.

Voting, owning guns, and such things are civil rights. They should not be denied to anyone. Marriage is not a civil right but rather a societal institution. Marriage comes from God and is sanctified in the Bible.

Homosexuality is not an alternative to man-woman mariage, its an abomination (God's words not mine). You either believe that or you do not. No body is telling Adam and Steve they can't do their thing, but we certainly aren't going to smile at them and say that its right...and that is what this court ruling has done.

Look, I don't want to turn this into one of those threads that wouldn't die. It looks like we are just going to disagree on this one. I don't want to persecute anyone, but I will not recognize that which is wrong. And furthermore, I vociferously disagree with any goverment telling me who can teach my kids, or work in my business.

And finally, lets use the correct terminology - we are not talking about two happy and light hearted people, we are talking about homosexuals. The issue is not about their right to life and so on, its about being recognized by law to be as normal and as sound as a man and woman marriage.

I believe that hurts our society.

dgg9
11-19-2003, 10:46 AM
Voting, owning guns, and such things are civil rights. They should not be denied to anyone. Marriage is not a civil right but rather a societal institution.

I'm not so sure they're all that different, but it is a good answer, and probably a valid description of where where the impasse starts.

I agree that no one is likely to change anyone's mind. Maybe this is a good time to exit this thread. As long as it was civil and as long as at least someone asked himself some new questions, it was all worth it.

Mute
11-19-2003, 01:27 PM
As with most Christians, I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. I also believe that the government should not be legistlating morality. Having said all this, I couldn't care less if to gay people want to get married. It's none of my business. Where I have a problem is when their marriage puts demands on me. For example, now a business owner will have to provide health care coverage and other benefits for the "life-partner." I don't even believe that a business should have to provide these benefits for heterosexual "domestic partnerships."

Gray
11-19-2003, 06:23 PM
I think that in debates such as these, it is of vital importance to defines the terms of speech:

What is a "right", and how does someone obtain a "right"?

Is there an immutable authority that defines the parameters of right and wrong, and ultimately provides the foundation for law?

The answers to these questions will provide easier answers to the topic currently discussed.

jacketch
11-19-2003, 06:42 PM
Let me put it a different way. Marriage is an existing institution. The law is already connected to it because the law codifies it. Voting is an institution. Freedom (i.e., not be enslaved by another), civil rights, voting, etc -- these are all institutions which at one time were restricted to certain people (white, male, etc), and over time were expanded to include all people.

Now, do you think homosexuals shouldn't vote? Should they have 1st, 2nd, 4th, etc Amendment rights? Should they be allowed to drive, own property, enter into contracts? They are included in all these rights

To everyones surprise, I will have to agree with dgg9 on this. I do however also agree with Gabe that marriage is an institution not a right. I think that is where our problem comes from. We have allowed the government and business to control the conditions of marriage (an agreement between a man, a woman and God) by doling out benefits that are not allowed for unmarried's. Marriage is a spiritual contract and the connection between it and civil unions has contaminated us.

NedMan
11-19-2003, 07:11 PM
What is marriage?

I can tell you that it's not something that needs definition by authority. It's whatever the two or more people involved agree it should be, and it may or may not be based on biblical law. Survivorship, debt assumption, and the details of the arrangement are for the individuals to decide, for better or for worse.

The problem is that some definition of marriage was codified at all. It's not an area for law whatsoever.

That the courts fail to recognize gay marriage is a good thing. Now if we can only get them to stop recognizing all marriage, maybe we'd start shrinking the influence of the power-hungry few in the lives of the many.

billcameron
11-19-2003, 07:27 PM
The church may perform the marriage, but the State imposes and enforces the contract provisions. Granted thru pre nupital agreements some of the State's contract provisions are negotiable. Therefore, we have the question was the States imposing itself in the institution of marriage legitimate in the first instance. I believe most people would answer yes at least early in our history as the husband and wife had defined responsiblities with the husband being the provider and the wife was expected to bear children, maintain the house, support the husband, etc. So from a standpoint of providing protection and support for the wife and children the State had a legitimate interest in "establishing the roles and mutual obligations". However, things are different today and some marriages are childless by design and the wife is employed and not uncommonly may make more than the husband. In these cases maybe the State should stay entirely out of the picture and let hetrosexual couples who are childless make their own contracts. Frankly I think that would be a legitimate approach with the State only coming into the picture when a child is born or to enforce an existing contract. I would apply this same approach to gay couples. Let them enter into a contract they develop and let that contract be enforced via existing methods. If a child came into the picture than the State could become involved. This brings us to the topic of gay adoption, which is another bag of worms. But frankly I believe the State should have more control over a "gay marriage" where there are children than a "hetrosexual marriage" that is childless. A legitimate role of the State is the protection of the young and those unable to protect themselves.

But a question does arise in my mind of why homosexuals want to be permitted to "marry". I see several potential answers: 1. they want acceptance as "normal" or at least acceptable alternative. Similar to how they want homosexuality taught as alternative life style in school 2. Health insurance access. I think this is a big concern and want partner to be considered spouse for coverage under company plans. 3. With establishment of "gay marriage" any arguments against gay adoption are weakened. 4. And lastly they really hate straight society and especially fundamentalist Christians

John Silver
11-19-2003, 07:40 PM
But a question does arise in my mind of why homosexuals want to be permitted to "marry". I see several potential answers: 1. they want acceptance as "normal" or at least acceptable alternative. Similar to how they want homosexuality taught as alternative life style in school 2. Health insurance access. I think this is a big concern and want partner to be considered spouse for coverage under company plans. 3. With establishment of "gay marriage" any arguments against gay adoption are weakened. 4. And lastly they really hate straight society and especially fundamentalist Christians

1. They have never cared about that before, so I doubt they do now.
2. Many companies will give insurance to homosexual (ok, Gabe, it's just easier to type "gay") partners, but not to heterosexual boyfriends and girlfriends.
3. Maybe, but "gay" is such a hot topic, and discremination such a law suite waiting to happen, I don't see that.
4. Holmsian logic, when you have eliminated all else, what you have left, no matter how improbable, is the answer. If being gay is genetic, then it can't be this despite what it looks like. However, if it's a form of mental illness (a gray area, to be sure), then it becomes not only possible, but probable to attack what they see as their enemies.

jacketch
11-20-2003, 04:02 AM
4. Holmsian logic, when you have eliminated all else, what you have left, no matter how improbable, is the answer. If being gay is genetic, then it can't be this despite what it looks like. However, if it's a form of mental illness (a gray area, to be sure), then it becomes not only possible, but probable to attack what they see as their enemies.
This logic follows only if you conclude that "hate" is a component that is unique to homosexuality.

John Silver
11-20-2003, 07:42 AM
This logic follows only if you conclude that "hate" is a component that is unique to homosexuality.

Absolutely not. For hate to be a part of the motivation, it need not be exclusive to them.