Here's my opinion. In this day and age, the term "marriage" is generally seen as a legal one, rather than religioius. It determines which box you check on your loan application, IRS forms, etc. In that same sense, marriage is a legal agreement between two individuals, why can't those two individuals make this agreement between each other? Because you don't like it? So then go eff yourself, this is America, people do shiat that I don't like every day but I'm not gonna write my congressman about it. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it. I'd rather have a child grow up in a loving, same-sex-parent household than in a dysfunctional heterosexual one. My bottom line is this...just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. These people are going to have their relationship regardless of the fact that they get a piece of paper validating it in the eyes of the government. Imagine someone telling you that although you love your boyfriend/girlfriend to death, you can't marry him/her because John Boy Smith from Redneckville thinks it's gross. Grow up, people, there are bigger, more important issues to flap your jaws about than this one. I say marry who you want, just invite me to the wedding and make sure I get some cake :cheers:

Originally posted by penncam
[B"I disagree that society's march toward sanctioning homosexual marriage represents enlightened thinking."

[/B]

Nice story.

But I also look at it that banning gay marriage doesn't represent enlightened thinking. People are always quick to try and correlate homosexuality with a declining society.

Saddam Hussein killed thousands of people in is country and surrounding countires. He wasn't gay.

Bin Laden has terrorized the world for years now. Considering his multiple wives, don't think he is gay either.

When I'm leaving the metro late at night, I'm extra careful of where I go and how close I get to certain people. Those people being gay or not doesn't cross my mind.

When I go to the ATM machine, i'm not looking over my shoulder for gays. I'm looking for thugs.

When screeners at the airport are going through people's stuff, they aren't specifically targeting gays.

When I see these shows on TV where they track down these ruthless people and throw them in jail, they are quite often not gay (after they get to jail, this may change!)

So no. I don't think gays are causing the downward spiral in society

:cool: A lot of what you say is valid, ST, but one of the arguements this author relates to is the fact that this country has become quite fond of, quite good at - making adjustments-

"Who are we trying to fool? Instead of becoming more moral, we are just redefining terms and standards to accommodate our addiction to licentiousness and our shameful repudiation of personal responsibility and accountability. If we don't like to live within certain standards we instinctively know are beneficial, healthy and morally sound, fine, (well),we'll just change the standards."

"What surprises me is not the cultural pressure to abandon traditional values, but the lame resistance of traditionalists. Apathy is one thing, but rolling over without a fight is quite another."

"Part of this is attributable to complacency: Everything is "no big deal" -- let's just live and let live. But also involved is a willful ignorance of the inevitable implications of losing the culture war.

More significant than either complacency or ignorance, though, is our acute moral negligence, which is probably born of our cowardice. That is, we are often unwilling to stand up for what we know is right (moral negligence) because we don't have the courage to withstand the ridicule of the politically correct thought police."

Is he touching a nerve here? Is what he is saying here, in any way valid?

Are we too damn chicken to look deep inside ourselves - knowing what is right and what is wrong - and stand up to the accusations and shouts of bigotry and homophobia, to stand up for what we believe?

That we do not want to face the heat, backing up our convictions?

I wonder if he's got something here.

Originally posted by penncam
:cool: A lot of what you say is valid, ST, but one of the arguements this author relates to is the fact that this country has become quite fond of, quite good at - making adjustments-
Isn’t that how our form of government is supposed to work? Being as it is of the people, by the people, and for the people when the attitudes of the people change the government follows along. What it shouldn’t be doing is dictating what is or isn’t a personal decision of the people – namely who you will marry and what sex they must be.

"Who are we trying to fool? Instead of becoming more moral, we are just redefining terms and standards to accommodate our addiction to licentiousness and our shameful repudiation of personal responsibility and accountability. If we don't like to live within certain standards we instinctively know are beneficial, healthy and morally sound, fine, (well),we'll just change the standards."
Sounds to me as if this guy wants to set the standards for all of us and impinge upon our freedoms based on his sense of morality. What exactly is the common good of the people to deny same-sex couples the ability to marrying?

"What surprises me is not the cultural pressure to abandon traditional values, but the lame resistance of traditionalists. Apathy is one thing, but rolling over without a fight is quite another."
Maybe the lame traditionalists realize that by denying this group of citizens equality under our laws violates the traditions that they are trying to adhere to, like “liberty and justice for all” or “equal protection under the law”.

"Part of this is attributable to complacency: Everything is "no big deal" -- let's just live and let live. But also involved is a willful ignorance of the inevitable implications of losing the culture war.
What are these implications?

More significant than either complacency or ignorance, though, is our acute moral negligence, which is probably born of our cowardice. That is, we are often unwilling to stand up for what we know is right (moral negligence) because we don't have the courage to withstand the ridicule of the politically correct thought police."
What do we know that is right? Do we know that by leaving it to the states to decide that we are somehow undermining the operation of our government and way of life that will result in our destruction?

Is he touching a nerve here? Is what he is saying here, in any way valid?

Are we too damn chicken to look deep inside ourselves - knowing what is right and what is wrong - and stand up to the accusations and shouts of bigotry and homophobia, to stand up for what we believe?

That we do not want to face the heat, backing up our convictions?

I wonder if he's got something here.
Nope, he is not touching a nerve here, at least for me. He is just regurgitating his hatred towards something that he doesn’t understand. We see this daily from lots of folk, no surprise for me. You know what though, his ranting is okay. It shows his true colors. I look at it like this, we don’t have to like or agree with same-sex marriages, but if we are free, as we like to proclaim, should we be telling our citizens who they can’t love and commit to without stating factual information as to why it would be detrimental to our society?

Originally posted by Ken King
Isn’t that how our form of government is supposed to work? Being as it is of the people, by the people, and for the people when the attitudes of the people change the government follows along. What it shouldn’t be doing is dictating what is or isn’t a personal decision of the people – namely who you will marry and what sex they must be.

What are these implications?

I look at it like this, we don’t have to like or agree with same-sex marriages, but if we are free, as we like to proclaim, should we be telling our citizens who they can’t love and commit to without stating factual information as to why it would be detrimental to our society?
I think what he is trying to get at(although I'm not privy to his mental thought processes), is the fear of many commentators -that if widely adopted, same-sex "marriages" will lead to the licencing of incest, pedophilia, and even more curious(er), unions between humans and animals.

Sound idiotic?

What's to stop it?

"Equal protection under the law" will grant those privileges as well, won't they?

If you want to carry on an affair, and get married to your 2,000lb pet heifer, that's ok, isn't it? IT'S A FREE COUNTRY, DAMMIT!!

There are but 4 or 5 states that are allowing same-sex
marriages; the vast majority of the other states don't.

Is that the will of the people, or the will of state governments?

The majority of the population of this country does not approve of states granting same-sex marriages; I think what this author his trying to explain is that a minority of homosexuals are imposing their will on the majority of the people in this country.

However, if you speak out against it, you're labeled as a bigot and/or a homophobe. A lot of people do not want to be stereotyped into that kind of group, and simply throw their hands up in the air and roll over - give up. Even though they have deep convictions against it. How many of us want to be cut off from our friends, our groups, our community over our true feelings?

Accordingly, (again, my guess)he feels we're wusses; it's better to go along with an idea we don't like, and feel very strongly against, than risk being excommunicated from society.

I think that is the thrust of his editorial.

Originally posted by penncam
I think what he is trying to get at(although I'm not privy to his mental thought processes), is the fear of many commentators -that if widely adopted, same-sex "marriages" will lead to the licencing of incest, pedophilia, and even more curious(er), unions between humans and animals.
Just as allowing interracial relationships has led us down the “slippery slope”. It is fear mongering, nothing more. Worrying about what might be without any proof that this will actually take place.

Sound idiotic?
Yes

"Equal protection under the law" will grant those privileges as well, won't they?
No it will not, there are compelling interests of the people to prevent incest, pedophilia, and bestiality. I haven’t seen this interest in preventing consenting adults of the same-sex from marrying.

If you want to carry on an affair, and get married to your 2,000lb pet heifer, that's ok, isn't it? IT'S A FREE COUNTRY, DAMMIT!!
And exactly how does one know whether or not that heifer has consented to your advancements of amour?

There are but 4 or 5 states that are allowing same-sex
marriages; the vast majority of the other states don't.
And there are states such as Maryland that do not recognize common law marriages, but the state does recognize those established elsewhere. What is your point?

Is that the will of the people, or the will of state governments?
That is the will of the people within those states, they elected those that enacted the legislation, didn’t they?

The majority of the population of this country does not approve of states granting same-sex marriages; I think what this author his trying to explain is that a minority of homosexuals are imposing their will on the majority of the people in this country.
No, the minority (referring to the homosexuals) want to be treated as all other citizens are. They don’t want to start incestuous relationships, they don’t want to rape children, and they certainly don’t want to steal your heifer.

However, if you speak out against it, you're labeled as a bigot and/or a homophobe. A lot of people do not want to be stereotyped into that kind of group, and simply throw their hands up in the air and roll over - give up. Even though they have deep convictions against it. How many of us want to be cut off from our friends, our groups, our community over our true feelings?
Again, this is all conjecture and supposition, maybe the people he has targeted simply don’t want to say that the government should step in and create a ban that in its very nature is against our principles of freedom and discriminates against a portion of our society.

Accordingly, (again, my guess)he feels we're wusses; it's better to go along with an idea we don't like, and feel very strongly against, than risk being excommunicated from society.

I think that is the thrust of his editorial.
The "thrust" of his editorial is found in his opening comment, "I disagree that society's march toward sanctioning homosexual marriage represents enlightened thinking."

My read on this is that he thinks that there is no place for same-sex marriages within our society and that they should be excluded and shunned by the populace. That is his version of “enlightened thinking” – not too far from similar beliefs held by the KKK, Hitler, and others that seek to control instead of include.

Great comments, Ken. The only thing I can add is that the Town Hall writer seems to equate homosexuality with licentiousness. That sounds ridiculous, a "Reefer Madness" type of exaggeration. Like we're supposed to believe that all gay people are ho-bags.

I think PennCam needs to get to know some fags like be and my ugly half. I mean, to think that anyone would legalize beastiality, or even equate a homosexual on the same level! I would no sooner screw a cow then I would a woman. Not that I haven't screwed a woman before, but that is beside the point. Why don't you take your bible and thump Britney Spears upside the head with it? Or Rush Libaugh, the ultra conservative---who is getting a divorce-----Some sanctity of marriage those breeders have going on there. You really want to know why I want to get married? So I don't have to pay nearly triple the rate to put him on my health insurance. So if one of us ends up in the hospital, I don't have to worry about not getting in because we arent "related" So I don't have to fill out 50 different forms when we purchase another house or car, so I don't have to pay to have agreements written up by lawyers to ensure that every asset of ours goes to the other should one of us die, (no, a will wasn't good enough)......and about a thousand other rights that breeders have over us. I want to get married because marriage is the foundation of the family and a community. You would think that with the high level of divorce among breeders, you would take up the argument of making divorce harder instead of preventing people from getting married. If you make it harder and costlier to get out of, maybe then, some idiots- gay and straight- wont get married in the first place.

Not a sermon- Just a thought.:cheers:

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
I would no sooner screw a cow then I would a woman. :lmao:

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
Some sanctity of marriage those breeders have going on there.


Is "breeders" some sort of perjoritive toward heterosexuals? I'm hearing the same tone when I read "breeder" that I would hear if I read the word "######".




Hmmm. 'Aggot-fay' didn't make it past the censors. If that word is blocked off, I want breeders blocked off too dammit.

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
Why don't you take your bible and thump Britney Spears upside the head with it? Or Rush Libaugh, the ultra conservative---who is getting a divorce-----Some sanctity of marriage those breeders have going on there.

Not a sermon- Just a thought.:cheers:

AH2000, I did not bring the Bible into this discussion, you did; but since you have, there's ample evidence in there against homosexuality, and it's called an "abomination". I suppose(because I'm not God) he saw it that way as a deviance from the family unit He created - you do remember Creation?

I cannot and will not deny you your right to live together as a couple in a common union, in a legal manner the state and/or federal judicial systems recognise, but I'm very much unwilling to allow that "union" to be given the same name as a "marriage".

The sanctity of the meaning of the word would be broken down, watered down, to the point where it would be meaningless. It has to do with a tiny little thing called "Tradition". I guess, to some people, that in itself means nothing; sorry it's not the way I view it.

For over 5,000 years it has meant the joining of a man and a woman in matrimony, for how ever long it lasts; and that is their call.

If Britney Spears wants to make a d@mn fool of herself, again, that is her call, and the poor idiot that entered into the relationship with her. I do not think one has to be heterosexual to make a mistake, or act the fool when deciding to select and join with a mate.

JMHO :cheers:

If you believe in religion~ Not all of us do. So, Just because you believe something created this beautiful earth in Six days, and rested on the Seventh, I suggest looking at the theory of Evolution. I say believe what you want, just don't impose your beliefs on me or others who don't believe in that kind of fiction. But, if you look at another thread, the priest down in St. Georges got fired for cheating on his wife. And his wife is a priest too! So you see, if there is a heaven and hell, then I guess I will be going there with him. Or is that not how it works? At least I can say I have never cheated on my partner. :cheers:

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
If you believe in religion~ Not all of us do. So, Just because you believe something created this beautiful earth in Six days, and rested on the Seventh, I suggest looking at the theory of Evolution. I say believe what you want, just don't impose your beliefs on me or others who don't believe in that kind of fiction. :cheers:
:cool: That is a very interesting way of enunciating your opinion, AH2000.

Outside of the "fiction" theory, I think the jury is still out which has more credibility: the theory of Evolution, or the theory of Creation.

One might also suggest the fact that ever since gays and lesbians came out of the closet, they have been imposing their views and themselves on the general population, whether we like it or not.

However slowly, there seems to be more gay/lesbian cinema being foisted on our television sets, ie., "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and lately I see more ghey programming on the IFC channel and the Sundance channel as well. Oh well, I guess that isn't the same as imposing one's views on mainstream America too, is it?

I don't know, maybe the best we can hope for is that the states can agree with an amiable solution where gays and lesbians can enter into a legally viable union, achieve the rights that any married couple have concerning next of kin, property rights, etc., that will end the misery.

I just cannot accept the term "marriage", given the way I was raised; it does not fit in with the parameters I grew to adopt.

:cheers:

Originally posted by penncam
[Bever since gays and lesbians came out of the closet, they have been imposing their views and themselves on the general population, whether we like it or not. [/B]

they are such BAD people for imposing TOLERANCE.... shame on them!!!!! :sarcasm:

i also can't believe women imposed on men over such trivial thing as equal rights! :more sarcasm:

or better yet, how can african americans impose their views about civil rights... OH FOR SHAME! :even more sarcasm:

Originally posted by penncam

One might also suggest the fact that ever since gays and lesbians came out of the closet, they have been imposing their views and themselves on the general population, whether we like it or not.

However slowly, there seems to be more gay/lesbian cinema being foisted on our television sets, ie., "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and lately I see more ghey programming on the IFC channel and the Sundance channel as well. Oh well, I guess that isn't the same as imposing one's views on mainstream America too, is it?



imposing their views? Hardly. They are simply having to add a little extra muscle to break through this barrier that people have put up.

And again, these exact some things were being said about blacks years ago.

"Look at those negros, thinking they can eat in the same place I eat"
"Look at those negros lining up to vote, how dare they?"
"Oh no, they've let a negro on TV. Now watch, before long we'll have shows with an all black cast"

Even with those fears, restaurants did not go down hill because blacks were allowed to eat there too. Voting didn't change one bit, and yes, the Cosby Show was the worst thing on TV and the television industry has yet to recover.

Originally posted by SmallTown
yes, the Cosby Show was the worst thing on TV and the television industry has yet to recover.

tru that! :lmao:

Originally posted by penncam
One might also suggest the fact that ever since gays and lesbians came out of the closet, they have been imposing their views and themselves on the general population, whether we like it or not. :lmao:

Damn gay people! Imposing their views, whether we like it or not! :mad:

:lmao:

Is that imposing the "gay view" on people, or simply helping someone dress better and feel better about themselves and build their own confidence? I guess if I cheated on my wife, got married for 48 hours, had no self respect and was miserable, I would want everyone else to be miserable too.

Originally posted by penncam
:cool: That is a very interesting way of enunciating your opinion, AH2000.

Outside of the "fiction" theory, I think the jury is still out which has more credibility: the theory of Evolution, or the theory of Creation.

One might also suggest the fact that ever since gays and lesbians came out of the closet, they have been imposing their views and themselves on the general population, whether we like it or not.

However slowly, there seems to be more gay/lesbian cinema being foisted on our television sets, ie., "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", and lately I see more ghey programming on the IFC channel and the Sundance channel as well. Oh well, I guess that isn't the same as imposing one's views on mainstream America too, is it?

I don't know, maybe the best we can hope for is that the states can agree with an amiable solution where gays and lesbians can enter into a legally viable union, achieve the rights that any married couple have concerning next of kin, property rights, etc., that will end the misery.

I just cannot accept the term "marriage", given the way I was raised; it does not fit in with the parameters I grew to adopt.

:cheers:

maybe all the homo's will move to massachusetts or Cali. Kind of like an exile..... :biggrin:

Originally posted by ceo_pte
maybe all the homo's will move to massachusetts or Cali. Kind of like an exile..... :biggrin:
Yep, become residents, get married and then move back to their original states with a legally recognized marriage license.

Originally posted by Ken King
Yep, become residents, get married and then move back to their original states with a legally recognized marriage license.

NO... they can't move back! They just have to stay there! Maybe they can all move in with that judge..... dang liberal activist judge... :biggrin:

Originally posted by ceo_pte
NO... they can't move back! They just have to stay there! Maybe they can all move in with that judge..... dang liberal activist judge... :biggrin:

I see you're still living in that bubble you call a world. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by ceo_pte
NO... they can't move back! They just have to stay there! Maybe they can all move in with that judge..... dang liberal activist judge... :biggrin:

I don't think throwing out the liberal card will help you on this argument. Most other arguments, that works great.

The term marriage is like the word vagina. People want to call it anything but what it really is.

One more person's view on why adoption of Gay "Marriages" will hurt familiy values. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/rh20040630.shtml)

Again, it involves a forgotten nuance in America today: Tradition.
Some folks seem to think it doesn't mean much anymore, has no use for us.
All we have to do is think of it as in the past; it's ancient history.

Tradition - the way things are done. Don't like it? Change it to suit you and your views. Repeat it often enough, and more and more people will think there's something to it.

The Liberals do that often.

Gov. Mitt Romney's Profile in Courage (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby/jj20040628.shtml)

" The governor of Massachusetts was not among the gentry at the Adams-Smith wedding on Tuesday. He was in Washington, telling the Senate Judiciary Committee why the high court of his own state was wrong to throw out the timeless definition of marriage. His testimony was an occasion of genuine leadership. Few mainstream politicians have stepped up to make a principled case in support of that timeless definition, and so far none has done so as cogently as Romney."

To those of you who want to know how Gay Marriages will have a hurtful impact on society, read the entire brief as Gov. Romney stated it before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Originally posted by penncam
One more person's view on why adoption of Gay "Marriages" will hurt familiy values. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/rh20040630.shtml)

Again, it involves a forgotten nuance in America today: Tradition.
Some folks seem to think it doesn't mean much anymore, has no use for us.
All we have to do is think of it as in the past; it's ancient history.

Tradition - the way things are done. Don't like it? Change it to suit you and your views. Repeat it often enough, and more and more people will think there's something to it.

The Liberals do that often.
Come on Penn, get with it. In case you still haven’t noticed, or read history, it was tradition to enslave people. We discovered that this was inherently wrong to treat fellow humans in this manner and that tradition was ended. It was tradition that women stay at home and raise the children and care for their “master”. We discovered that this too was wrong as it deprived equal treatment and opportunity for what is now the majority of our society, it too has ended. Tradition is fine when it is right, but in this instance it is again wrong as it denies equality on many levels for a portion of our society, it should be ended.

It is the function of our government to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. How does the banning of same-sex marriages on a Federal level accomplish this?

http://www.rogerhedgecock.com/timages/page/media/gay%20harmony%20%20com.mp3

Ken, I am not arguing the idea that it is the state's responsibility to bring justice and a sense of equality to the local level or populace; what I think Gov. Romney is after - implies that the State Supreme Court of Massachusettes is simply wrong in their literal interpretation of the state constitution.

What other recourse does he have?

Further, he states what the dangers are that he feels will ultimately befall us, harm us as a society, if this debate is allowed to find favor, in time, of gay marriages.

We have been, for quite some time now, finding ways of circumventing traditional mores, ethics and values in the guise of accomodating alternative lifestyles; he's not buying into it.

Many people I talk with compare us to ancient Rome; our excesses as a society seem to be taking us down that road to ruin, just as they did.

Self-gratification, it's all about me, and be d@mned what anyone else thinks - or what time honored values have preceded me.

Where do we go from here? What is next to be called "outmoded" in today's culture? How far do we race along under the premise of 1st Amendment rights, Free Speech, Equal Protection, and etc.?

As I said earlier, I am not about to tell gays they do not have a right to legal rights/security, if something befalls a spouse; I just can't equate their "union" to "marriage" in traditional terms.

Originally posted by penncam
Self-gratification, it's all about me, and be d@mned what anyone else thinks

While you have a point about self-gratification, I feel that has nothing to do with homosexuality and gay marriage. As I said before, I don't know what causes homosexuality, but the idea that it's a choice for most gays sounds ludicrous. I think Anne Heche and Julie Cypher are exceptions to the rule because of their psychological problems.

Do you really believe that most gays "switched teams" simply because they enjoy gay sex more than straight sex? If so, I find that sad. That belief implies that human beings aren't capable of romance and intimacy.

Originally posted by penncam
Ken, I am not arguing the idea that it is the state's responsibility to bring justice and a sense of equality to the local level or populace; what I think Gov. Romney is after - implies that the State Supreme Court of Massachusettes is simply wrong in their literal interpretation of the state constitution.
Wait, the body of the government of Massachusetts responsible for determining whether laws within that state are constitutional is wrong in how they interpret their constitution as it applies to laws being crafted? Isn’t that their job to make these determinations? And didn’t a Federal Appeals court just confirm that the Massachusetts Supreme Court was within their right to do so? This to me is the same as the people whining about the Presidential election of 2000. They lost; now get over it.
What other recourse does he have?
How about including all his constituents under his umbrella instead of excluding some.
Further, he states what the dangers are that he feels will ultimately befall us, harm us as a society, if this debate is allowed to find favor, in time, of gay marriages.
Oh, so he is clairvoyant and can see what will happen in the future. Maybe he should just pick some lotto numbers and by his own island when he wins where he can establish a totalitarian system of his desires.
We have been, for quite some time now, finding ways of circumventing traditional mores, ethics and values in the guise of accomodating alternative lifestyles; he's not buying into it.
Yep, that “until death do us part” marriage tradition is certainly holding firm in our society, isn’t it? As to ethics and values, shouldn’t all citizens be treated equally under law? Our nation is a nation of accommodation, we demand access for those that cannot walk, talk, or see, as it should be. We say that you cannot discriminate for many categories of our citizens and I simply see this as an expansion of those protections and privileges.
Many people I talk with compare us to ancient Rome; our excesses as a society seem to be taking us down that road to ruin, just as they did.
Maybe you should talk to others then. What ruin will come about by granting these people the ability to form a legally recognized union? It isn’t like we don’t have enough unmarried folk living together already, many single parent families, high STD rates, or such. Is it your contention that by allowing same-sex marriages that these will become greater?
Self-gratification, it's all about me, and be d@mned what anyone else thinks - or what time honored values have preceded me.
You see it as self-gratification; I see it as equal protection. I guess in your eyes we aren’t all equal under our laws and that it is okay to hold those with a differing sexual orientation to differing standards. I bet interracial marriages really bust your chops, remember how these were traditionally frowned upon and are now commonplace.
Where do we go from here? What is next to be called "outmoded" in today's culture? How far do we race along under the premise of 1st Amendment rights, Free Speech, Equal Protection, and etc.?
How about being tolerant of others. Accepting that while we might not personally agree with how they live their lives they are entitled to do so in our society.
As I said earlier, I am not about to tell gays they do not have a right to legal rights/security, if something befalls a spouse; I just can't equate their "union" to "marriage" in traditional terms.
So it is all about a word for you, is that what you are saying? And what do you say about a marriage established via common-law where there is no ceremony before either a magistrate or a minister? Are these really marriages?

Ken, you've said all there needs to be said on this issue.

Maybe this will put an end to this thread for good:

http://www.jurito.net/otro/shutup/xtina.html

Originally posted by Tonio
Ken, you've said all there needs to be said on this issue.

Maybe this will put an end to this thread for good:

http://www.jurito.net/otro/shutup/xtina.html
That ought to make Penncam go postal. :roflmao:

Originally posted by Tonio
Ken, you've said all there needs to be said on this issue.

Maybe this will put an end to this thread for good:

http://www.jurito.net/otro/shutup/xtina.html
:rolleyes: Hey, Tonio and Ken, I didn't understand your predilictions. What can I say? If that kind of entertainment is your bent, so be it.

I think you both have said ALL there is to say.

If that is your answer to this debate, you have, in effect "made your bed", and you both are entitled to lie in it.

Enjoy it.

Hiding the Truth from Elementary School Children (http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/throck_hidingtruth_6_16_04.htm)
Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School” is an award winning video that aims to give teachers ideas about how to discuss gay issues in schools. Released in 1996 by producers Helen Cohen and Oscar winner Debra Chasnoff, this video is still quite controversial, in part because it shows elementary school children talking about homosexuality in public schools. In one of the segments, there is a young gay man answering questions from middle school students about what it is like to be gay. The film is still being shown in schools but there is a little known fact about that young man that today's viewers don't know.

The young man in the video is no longer gay. And that is something producers Chasnoff and Cohen as well as at least one school committee in Maryland don't want you to know.

Well isn't that just special!:cheers:

Click on the URL, there's more.

Originally posted by penncam
:rolleyes: Hey, Tonio and Ken, I didn't understand your predilictions. What can I say? If that kind of entertainment is your bent, so be it.
The link was funny, lighten up (though I knew it would rile you up).
I think you both have said ALL there is to say.
I don't think all or enough has been said. This issue will stay current until such time as those seeking to be able to establish a legally recognized partnership, union, or marriage (pick your own term) with the adult partner of their choosing becomes legal. It doesn’t even have to be allowed nationwide, as I still contend that this is a state issue and should remain one with the only activity by the Federal government on this issue is that they assure that a creation of a wedded couple in one state is honored and binding in all the states regardless of their laws and rules.
If that is your answer to this debate, you have, in effect "made your bed", and you both are entitled to lie in it.

Enjoy it.
Again, lighten up. I think Tonio’s humor, while a tad “out there”, was a needed break from the division this issue creates. People are getting too spun up with all the “what-ifs” and the “what will surely happen” if gays succeed in this endeavor to obtain equal ability. I truly do not understand this fear and I believe that it is unfounded. We have seen this fear before in this nation surrounding equality where people act ugly because of unrealistic fears and, to put it bluntly, simple bigotry.

As to the bed that I lay upon I will say this, it is one where I am open to the hope that one day we will see these attitudes of exclusion and shun that you express, along with a great many others, eradicated. If we are to be the free nation that we claim to be then there has to be a place and an accompanying acceptance for those within the gay community. To be free we must let them coexist as equal members of our society and allow for them to exercise the same freedoms that the majority already possesses.

You know it isn’t like we have to understand or condone the pleasures that these people share sexually (I certainly don’t see what is in it for them. But who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to say that they should not be allowed to enjoy themselves as consenting adults.) nor are we being expected to partake in it. All we are being asked is simply to allow those that choose to commit themselves to one another to do it in a manner where they hold equal status as what we consider a traditional married couple. For me this seems extremely reasonable from an equal rights point of view. And that is how I am looking at this issue.

Originally posted by penncam
Hiding the Truth from Elementary School Children (http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/throck_hidingtruth_6_16_04.htm)
Elementary: Talking About Gay Issues in School” is an award winning video that aims to give teachers ideas about how to discuss gay issues in schools. Released in 1996 by producers Helen Cohen and Oscar winner Debra Chasnoff, this video is still quite controversial, in part because it shows elementary school children talking about homosexuality in public schools. In one of the segments, there is a young gay man answering questions from middle school students about what it is like to be gay. The film is still being shown in schools but there is a little known fact about that young man that today's viewers don't know.

The young man in the video is no longer gay. And that is something producers Chasnoff and Cohen as well as at least one school committee in Maryland don't want you to know.

Well isn't that just special!:cheers:

Click on the URL, there's more.
Interesting related topic, but I don’t see how it relates to those that are seeking to become a legally recognized married couple. I think it would be an eye-opener to actually observe what is being taught as sex-ed to our youth nowadays. Biology gave us the basics and what I remember from sex-ed classes some 30 odd years ago was that it concentrated on preventing pregnancy and protecting oneself from STDs and saving oneself for that special person. It certainly didn’t discuss pleasure or bedroom activities of consenting adults.

I would say that if they are getting into orientation indoctrinization type lessons and activities amongst couples (regardless of sexual preference) then I think they are out of line. If a child is confused as to their “makeup” and cannot talk about it with their peers or family then they should find a professional to help them discover who they are. I certainly don’t think that teachers have been equipped with the skills or the tools to attempt something as complicated as this. My gut feeling is that they shouldn’t include the referenced video in their curriculum, but again as I have never seen it, or observed what is being taught, it leaves me ill equipped to make an argument one way or another.

let's look at America. I don't see gays and lesbians trying to adopt discrimination into our constitution. I am so glad the dems are going to win and replace a bunch of these republicans like Rick Santorum.

Originally posted by Cmecu
True god is not american, but he does have his standards. Our founding fathers respected that, and found this country on them standards. They knew it would make a near perfect society, and it was fine, until the constition has been butchered so badly to everyones liking, instead of people conforming their lives to gods liking.
SO it boils down, is it all about you and what makes you happy ? or about our entire society and what makes god happy. one will lead to peace and happiness, the other to anarchy and destruction. you choose,

I know you keep bringing God and religion up, but have you ever seen God? Or even spoken with him and he talked back, has he granted you any believable miracles lately? I ask you this because your whole life philosphy may be make believe. So why force your pretend ideology on American taxpayers who most don't go to church, or believe in nothing?

So it is all about a word for you, is that what you are saying? And what do you say about a marriage established via common-law where there is no ceremony before either a magistrate or a minister? Are these really marriages?

As for myself, yes it is about a word. Marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman, blessed by their Creator. This was defined quite a bit before there was a USofA or a US Constitution. Let the homosexuals have a civil union. I don't particularly care one way or the other. It still won't make their "preference" normal or right to me. If they don't try to force their beliefs on me and my family, and I won't force mine on them. A magistrate can "marry" them, just as they do heterosexuals of no faith, but it still isn't "marriage" in God's eyes. I am Episcopalian, so this issue really hits close to home. I don't think the farce of a same sex blessing in our church is at all appropriate, because homosexuality is wrong according to the Scriptures. Sin isn't something to be celebrated, but repented. Leave "marriage" alone. Go have a civil union, legally binding, but not blessed.

Let the flames begin!

Originally posted by PrchJrkr
As for myself, yes it is about a word. Marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman, blessed by their Creator. This was defined quite a bit before there was a USofA or a US Constitution. Let the homosexuals have a civil union. I don't particularly care one way or the other. It still won't make their "preference" normal or right to me. If they don't try to force their beliefs on me and my family, and I won't force mine on them. A magistrate can "marry" them, just as they do heterosexuals of no faith, but it still isn't "marriage" in God's eyes. I am Episcopalian, so this issue really hits close to home. I don't think the farce of a same sex blessing in our church is at all appropriate, because homosexuality is wrong according to the Scriptures. Sin isn't something to be celebrated, but repented. Leave "marriage" alone. Go have a civil union, legally binding, but not blessed.

Let the flames begin!

i don't think you are going to get flammed since you are expressing that gay couples should be able to get "married" by a magistrate. if a gay church will sanction the marriage, good for them, but i just hope that "regular" churches won't be FORCED to "marry" a gay couple due to some knucklehead bringing on a lawsuit...

Originally posted by PrchJrkr
As for myself, yes it is about a word. Marriage is the sacred bond between a man and a woman, blessed by their Creator. This was defined quite a bit before there was a USofA or a US Constitution. Let the homosexuals have a civil union. I don't particularly care one way or the other. It still won't make their "preference" normal or right to me. If they don't try to force their beliefs on me and my family, and I won't force mine on them. A magistrate can "marry" them, just as they do heterosexuals of no faith, but it still isn't "marriage" in God's eyes. I am Episcopalian, so this issue really hits close to home. I don't think the farce of a same sex blessing in our church is at all appropriate, because homosexuality is wrong according to the Scriptures. Sin isn't something to be celebrated, but repented. Leave "marriage" alone. Go have a civil union, legally binding, but not blessed.

Let the flames begin!
Well it seems that marriage has spread beyond the religious constraints and has become common-place within the governments of our states and every nation of the world. The word is used by those that choose the civil course versus the religious course and it still implies the same - that two people have made a choice to commit themselves to one another as a single entity.

Being that you are an Episcopal I am sure you have read the Theology Committee report titled, The Gift of Sexuality: A Theological Perspective from March 2003, it presents the turmoil within the church on the matter, if you haven’t read it try the link below, excellent reading on how they are struggling with the issue.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/theologycomreport.pdf

As to your comment “because homosexuality is wrong according to the Scriptures”, I would like to say that I have only found six references in the Bible regarding homosexuality, four of which are in the Old Testament and two are in the New Testament.

The first is the story of the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19:1-19) and talks of men that wanted to commit a homosexual rape and makes no connection to consensual same-sex relationships.

The second instance is found in Judges 19:1-30 which seems to retell the story of Sodom but in a differing context where the men wanted to rape the male guest but were offered the concubine and virgin daughter instead of the man. Again there is no connection to consensual same-sex relationships.

The third and fourth instances are found in Leviticus at 18:22 and 20:13. These are directly related to homosexual acts but if we are going to demand compliance with these passages what should we do with all the other religious laws that make up the Old Testament Levitical Code, accept them as law or reject them as we have always done? And if you accept them as law why should homosexuals be required to adhere to them if in fact the rest of Christianity routinely ignores the ones that pertain to heterosexual behavior?

In the New Testament the first instance is found in I Corinthians 6:9 where Paul says, “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Reading this list it appears that many will not inherit the kingdom and to isolate the homosexuals and give them greater weight of condemnation is in itself in violation of the scriptures as we all are created in the Lord’s image and are deserving of his grace if we embrace and accept him.

The second instance is found in Romans 1:18-29, reading the entire passage you discover (at least I did) that Paul was saying that those that reject God will be given over to lustful acts, not those that embrace and follow him. So it seems that there is room for interpretation in these passages for believers of the word.

A point of perspective in the religious discussion is that the gay life-style and the making of a commitment in a monogamous same-sex relationship are never discussed in the Bible. I doubt if it was even a part of the conscious mind back in that day and age.

I still feel that this is an issue for each state and that they should handle it according to their desires and devices. I also feel it is a shame that many that claim to be Christian are so willing to condemn those that are different and that they do not understand. As I understand Christianity I would think that they would be the first to be tolerant towards the desire of loving people wanting to make a binding commitment to another of like mind even if they are of the same sex.

Originally posted by Ken King
A point of perspective in the religious discussion is that the gay life-style and the making of a commitment in a monogamous same-sex relationship are never discussed in the Bible. I doubt if it was even a part of the conscious mind back in that day and age.

Ken, I do not think you have it quite right on this one; In Rome there was rampant homosexuality in their society, among the "elite", the senators and royal entourage, or so the history books tell us.

I've seen it evidenced on the History Channel and The Discover Channel.

So, to say it wasn't "part of the concious mind" in that era isn't entirely accurate, I do not believe.

The name, (and pardon my spelling), Caliguila comes to mind, not to mention Nero and his crowd.

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen. His last 3 or 4 years of life were spent under house arrest.

Where? In ROME!

He wasn't in prison or a dungeon; he was in a residence, where he recieved guests; where he wrote and talked with his contemporaries.

You'd like us to believe Paul was not aware of the sexual practices in his own native country?

This would lend a little more gravity to the ideas he was writing about, don't you think?

I also must agree with PrchJrkr's assessment.

Originally posted by penncam
Ken, I do not think you have it quite right on this one; In Rome there was rampant homosexuality in their society, among the "elite", the senators and royal entourage, or so the history books tell us.

I've seen it evidenced on the History Channel and The Discover Channel.

So, to say it wasn't "part of the concious mind" in that era isn't entirely accurate, I do not believe.

The name, (and pardon my spelling), Caliguila comes to mind, not to mention Nero and his crowd.

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul was a Roman citizen. His last 3 or 4 years of life were spent under house arrest.

Where? In ROME!

He wasn't in prison or a dungeon; he was in a residence, where he recieved guests; where he wrote and talked with his contemporaries.

You'd like us to believe Paul was not aware of the sexual practices in his own native country?

This would lend a little more gravity to the ideas he was writing about, don't you think?

I also must agree with PrchJrkr's assessment.
You didn't catch the phrase "the making of a commitment in a monogamous same-sex relationship". Which is a little different then the rampant acts of debauchery that you talk about, but show me where there are stories of the committed couple desiring to wed as we have today. That is what I was saying was missing from thought back then.

And if you are in agreement with what PrchJrkr says where you too don't care other then for the word that is being used, why does it get your shorts twisted into such a knot?

Originally posted by Ken King
You didn't catch the phrase "the making of a commitment in a monogamous same-sex relationship". Which is a little different then the rampant acts of debauchery that you talk about, but show me where there are stories of the committed couple desiring to wed as we have today. That is what I was saying was missing from thought back then.

And if you are in agreement with what PrchJrkr says where you too don't care other then for the word that is being used, why does it get your shorts twisted into such a knot?

You see, there is the rub, as it was formerly termed.

Approximately 2,000 years ago homosexuality was in fact termed debauchery, and that is why if you go back in the Old Testament to Leviticus, chapt. 18, it was referred to as abominable.

If one accepts the notion that God created man and then woman, it was for THEM that the term "marriage" was coined.

Not only in Judean terms but in almost every other religion, or civilised, time honored tradition, it has only meant a bond between a man and a woman.

Some of my religious friends have told me their studies have suggested that homosexuality was first practiced as an exercise of power over another human being of the same sex, ie., grown men over boys and men of power over men of lesser positions in class or stature. I suppose it was an excercise in dominance.

However, through the ages, it has progressed to an equal partnership of two people of the same sex. It's gotten to be a "fashionable" thing through time.

So, here we are - 2,000 odd years later - trying to come to terms with how or what to call a civil union between consenting same sex adults.(hopefully) We've confounded it with Equal Protection under the Law, it's protractors have tried to compare it to slavery/civil right issues, which by the way, African Americans think is absolute BS, among other things, in order to find an amicable solution to the problem. I do not know where it's going to end up; maybe it will all play out the way you and others wish it will. In time, I suppose our memories will blur, and 100 years from now, our successors will ask what all the fuss was about.

If you don't get it by now, if I haven't made myself clear enough, I feel this way because from the beginning of time, only man and a woman honored the tradition of "marriage". Anything else cheapens the term, takes away from it, and lessens its meaning as it was originally intended for future generations to come - after we are long dead and buried in the ground.

End of Sermon

Originally posted by penncam
You see, there is the rub, as it was formerly termed.

Approximately 2,000 years ago homosexuality was in fact termed debauchery, and that is why if you go back in the Old Testament to Leviticus, chapt. 18, it was referred to as abominable.
Yeah we’ve covered that and we all know that this is one of very few rules of Leviticus that for some reason you want to hang on to. What about the rest of them? Was this book errant and therefore you have no obligation to live within those rules? Or is it that you select only those that you want to follow and disregard the rest?
If one accepts the notion that God created man and then woman, it was for THEM that the term "marriage" was coined.

Not only in Judean terms but in almost every other religion, or civilised, time honored tradition, it has only meant a bond between a man and a woman.
And usually arraigned as a matter of some convenience or binding that had nothing to do with acceptance and agreement of those being bonded. It wasn’t until around the 9th century before any church (which in this case was the Catholic Church under Pope Nicholas I) that declared that a marriage without the consent of those being married was unlawful and void. Furthermore it wasn’t until the mid 1500s that a declaration came about requiring a marriage to be performed in the presence of a priest, this is when marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era.
Some of my religious friends have told me their studies have suggested that homosexuality was first practiced as an exercise of power over another human being of the same sex, ie., grown men over boys and men of power over men of lesser positions in class or stature. I suppose it was an excercise in dominance.

However, through the ages, it has progressed to an equal partnership of two people of the same sex. It's gotten to be a "fashionable" thing through time.

So, here we are - 2,000 odd years later - trying to come to terms with how or what to call a civil union between consenting same sex adults.(hopefully) We've confounded it with Equal Protection under the Law, it's protractors have tried to compare it to slavery/civil right issues, which by the way, African Americans think is absolute BS, among other things, in order to find an amicable solution to the problem. I do not know where it's going to end up; maybe it will all play out the way you and others wish it will. In time, I suppose our memories will blur, and 100 years from now, our successors will ask what all the fuss was about.
See but we aren’t talking about the form of sexual relationships that you keep coming back to. We are talking about two people of the same sex that want to bond into a single entity equal to traditional marriage under the laws of our nation. A nation, I remind you, that prides itself on its efforts to treat its citizens equally. Denying them the opportunity is discrimination, pure and simple. It isn’t a confounding of anything; it is seeking equal treatment under our laws. As to your comment about what African Americans think, have you consulted homosexual African Americans and inquired their opinion. The few I know see it as a civil rights issue of being denied an opportunity because they are different.
If you don't get it by now, if I haven't made myself clear enough, I feel this way because from the beginning of time, only man and a woman honored the tradition of "marriage". Anything else cheapens the term, takes away from it, and lessens its meaning as it was originally intended for future generations to come - after we are long dead and buried in the ground.

End of Sermon
You’ve made it clear that you are of a bigoted mind on this issue, seeking to deny an aspect of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and legal protection based solely on sexual orientation. Also your harping at the time honored tradition of marriage is pure hogwash. I take it that adultery, divorce, and out of wedlock live together couples do nothing to cheapen the term for you? One would think that a couple seeking to commit to one another in a traditional manner would be embraced by someone that holds the true meaning of being married at heart, regardless of the fact if they are of the same sex or not.

Originally posted by Ken King
One would think that a couple seeking to commit to one another in a traditional manner would be embraced by someone that holds the true meaning of being married at heart, regardless of the fact if they are of the same sex or not.
You are quite right, we have indeed gone through this territory over and over again. We just have different interpretations of it, and how it applies to society.

I have posted news commentaries of other learned individuals(I assume) in the news that I think are worth considering, and you simply dismiss their posturing as so much demented opining, or in another way, so much of their imagination. I'm not so sure; that is why I posted them - food for thought.

We agree on the point that as human beings we can and do screw up the institution of marriage as heterosexuals; so, do we need to add to this the homosexual aspect? If, we assume the homosexual crowd isn't going to respect the institution of marriage any more than the heterosexual crowd does,(why should they?) are we simply adding more misery to our society as a whole?

It isn't so much that I view my thoughts, as well as approximately 60 - 65% of our American public as bigoted; it's simply that many of us don't agree that we should add to the mix this institution of "marriage", as we've known it - for the same sex couples seeking the same rights that every other man/woman couple - and call it a "marriage". I, and I presume others, don't feel it was intended that way.

We can go 'round and 'round on these issues until our keyboards lock up, and still not accomplish a darn thing.

You have your opinions and conclusions and I have mine, as well as others who have posted to this thread, who, I might add have risked being tagged as bigots for standing up for their beliefs.

There is a tag I can probably attach to the way you feel, but that accomplishes nothing; it simply rachets up ill feelings, and clouds your thinking while you're trying to explain the basis for the way you look at this dilemma.

As I said before, I don't know where this is going to end up, or which way the states and the country will decide this issue. Many states are already putting the issue on the ballot for Nov(?), so we'll just have to see where it all comes down.

Originally posted by penncam
You are quite right, we have indeed gone through this territory over and over again. We just have different interpretations of it, and how it applies to society.
And what you are missing is that these religious laws have no bearing on our legal proceedings and standings. Our laws might be based upon religious morals and ideals but they should and are not bound to mirror all of them.
I have posted news commentaries of other learned individuals(I assume) in the news that I think are worth considering, and you simply dismiss their posturing as so much demented opining, or in another way, so much of their imagination. I'm not so sure; that is why I posted them - food for thought.
What have I dismissed? I have considered them and find fault with them for one single premise - they all seek to exclude a portion of our society from the benefits and protections of our way of life and rule of law.

We agree on the point that as human beings we can and do screw up the institution of marriage as heterosexuals; so, do we need to add to this the homosexual aspect? If, we assume the homosexual crowd isn't going to respect the institution of marriage any more than the heterosexual crowd does,(why should they?) are we simply adding more misery to our society as a whole?
Why would we assume that those seeking to enjoy an opportunity that they are currently denied would be as likely or more likely to act as traditional heterosexual couples do? And if they do act on an equivalent level how does this impact any of us anymore then the current state of marriage does?

It isn't so much that I view my thoughts, as well as approximately 60 - 65% of our American public as bigoted; it's simply that many of us don't agree that we should add to the mix this institution of "marriage", as we've known it - for the same sex couples seeking the same rights that every other man/woman couple - and call it a "marriage". I, and I presume others, don't feel it was intended that way.

We can go 'round and 'round on these issues until our keyboards lock up, and still not accomplish a darn thing.

You have your opinions and conclusions and I have mine, as well as others who have posted to this thread, who, I might add have risked being tagged as bigots for standing up for their beliefs.
Do you deny as to not being of a bigoted mind on this issue? You have not yet provided any logical reason for your intolerance toward this prospect nor have you provided a clear government interest to take the power from the states by banning same-sex marriages nationwide. All I have seen from you is a homophobic fear driven argument to stop something that you believe will lead to the end of our society without supporting it with facts or evidence.
There is a tag I can probably attach to the way you feel, but that accomplishes nothing; it simply rachets up ill feelings, and clouds your thinking while you're trying to explain the basis for the way you look at this dilemma.
Tag it, I could care less what you think of me. Besides, it seems to be clouding how you’re thinking more then I; I guess the truth hurts doesn’t it?
As I said before, I don't know where this is going to end up, or which way the states and the country will decide this issue. Many states are already putting the issue on the ballot for Nov(?), so we'll just have to see where it all comes down.
And the states should decide the matter, those that allow it should be allowed to do so and then every state should be bound to honor those “marriages” should those holding them move to their states as we do now with all other forms of marriages allowed amongst the states.

Originally posted by penncam
You are quite right, we have indeed gone through this territory over and over again. We just have different interpretations of it, and how it applies to society.

I have posted news commentaries of other learned individuals(I assume) in the news that I think are worth considering, and you simply dismiss their posturing as so much demented opining, or in another way, so much of their imagination. I'm not so sure; that is why I posted them - food for thought.

We agree on the point that as human beings we can and do screw up the institution of marriage as heterosexuals; so, do we need to add to this the homosexual aspect? If, we assume the homosexual crowd isn't going to respect the institution of marriage any more than the heterosexual crowd does,(why should they?) are we simply adding more misery to our society as a whole?

It isn't so much that I view my thoughts, as well as approximately 60 - 65% of our American public as bigoted; it's simply that many of us don't agree that we should add to the mix this institution of "marriage", as we've known it - for the same sex couples seeking the same rights that every other man/woman couple - and call it a "marriage". I, and I presume others, don't feel it was intended that way.

We can go 'round and 'round on these issues until our keyboards lock up, and still not accomplish a darn thing.

You have your opinions and conclusions and I have mine, as well as others who have posted to this thread, who, I might add have risked being tagged as bigots for standing up for their beliefs.

There is a tag I can probably attach to the way you feel, but that accomplishes nothing; it simply rachets up ill feelings, and clouds your thinking while you're trying to explain the basis for the way you look at this dilemma.

As I said before, I don't know where this is going to end up, or which way the states and the country will decide this issue. Many states are already putting the issue on the ballot for Nov(?), so we'll just have to see where it all comes down.

I think you made a lot of good points and agree with you.

Originally posted by mojorisin
I think you made a lot of good points and agree with you.
:cool: Ah, be carefull my friend! You too might be labeled as a bigot!

The individual who started this debate sees only one side of it. He is the champion for the gay rights crowd, and wishes to protect their civil rights no matter what calamity it may have for our nation and society.

He reads only what he wants to read, that which aligns itself with his views and screw the rest of anybody elses' opinion.

I laughed when he questioned my reply to the point that "what makes you think the homosexual crowd will respect the institution of marriage any more than the heterosexuals do!!

They are Human Beings, you dummy!! Is that reason enough?

Just because their sexual persuasion is 180 degrees out from "straight" folks, that does not give them any more of a lock on virtue than any other group.

Ken, you are a very intelligent man, but you make up your mind early on, and get all skewed to one side of an issue; once there, you exhibit all the traits of a person who has a mind with a steel trap: It's made of solid metal and cannot accept any other possibilities save for the one you fiercely believe in.

I cannot recall even once that you said "well, maybe there is some worth in that particular arguement"...........uh-uh, pal.

Anyone else is .........................................wrong!

As I said in another reply, you and your little buddy Tonio have pretty much said all there is to say on this debate.

In effect, you've ended it by name calling and ridicule. The ironic thing is: this was a good debate at first, but you've closed it off
with your one-sided views.

I won't call you any stupid names, because while I disagree with your ideas, I still respect you and your beliefs; I just do not share them.

It appears that you refuse to even consider anothers' opinion if they do not coincide with yours.

Cheers

Originally posted by penncam

They are Human Beings, you dummy!! Is that reason enough?



Exactly why this should not even be an issue. So they are human enough to make a mockery of marriage, but not human enough to give them marital rights?:confused:

And Penn... Of all people, you really shouldn't be talking about people's one sided views. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by SmallTown
Exactly why this should not even be an issue. So they are human enough to make a mockery of marriage, but not human enough to give them marital rights?:confused:

And Penn... Of all people, you really shouldn't be talking about people's one sided views. :rolleyes:
ST, I suppose you're going after my belief in God and the way I believe He intended the institutution of marriage was meant.

How does that distinguish me from any of the others who have voiced their objection that the civil union between gays and lesbians should not be termed as a marriage?

I really do not have an objection to their joining a commitment, no matter what other arguements we've gotten into, I just do not feel it is appropriate to call it a marriage for the reason I stated in my first paragraph of this reply.

It's true we've gotten off track, but that is what my main point has been all along.

Oh for craps sake, they're already getting divorced in Canada (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/22/153009.shtml) Ten years together - five days married. Divorcing for stupid reasons too; why can't they just be happy? :shrug:


And it ain't working out in Sweeden either (http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1623) ...
The survey indicated that homosexual male couples were 1.5 times as likely to divorce as opposite-sex couples; while female homosexuals were 2.67 times as likely to divorce as opposite-sex couples.

Should I bother to mention San francisco? (http://www.bongonews.com/layout3.php?event=953) Blame that one on Babs. :lol:

"For God's sake!" said Gary to television reporters. "How much Barbra Streisand can I stand? Babs at breakfast, Babs at lunch, Babs during my soaps! She is SO last century! And who do you suppose we had to listen to at our wedding? SORRY! I just refuse to listen ever again."

Oh the drama (queens)! :drama: :drama: :drama:

Originally posted by penncam
ST, I suppose you're going after my belief in God and the way I believe He intended the institutution of marriage was meant.

How does that distinguish me from any of the others who have voiced their objection that the civil union between gays and lesbians should not be termed as a marriage?



Because you're the one harping on other people's one sided views :wink:

I really wish people would make up their minds. First it's a bad thing if someone see's an error in their ways and change there way of thought (Kerry), now all of a sudden it's a bad thing if you DON'T do that?

"The Senate is debating whether to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. They want to define marriage as a sacred union between a man and J-Lo." —Craig Kilborn

Sharon, the first URL I clicked on revealed a humorous side to this issue; the second one was more sobering, when read in it's entirety:

"A pro-family think tank has just issued an analysis of a Swedish study that indicates high rates of divorce among homosexuals. The results of the study should serve as a warning here in the U.S. about the greater instability of homosexual relationships than heterosexual marriages. "

and:

"Read and distribute this report! Also, read TVC's report on the high rate of "consensual infidelity" among homosexual couples in Amsterdam. Even in so-called "steady" homosexual relationships, homosexuals had a minimum of six additional sexual encounters yearly."

So some folks think gay peoples' leaning towards infidelity are no worse than straight people's?

It ain't as rosy a picture as it seems, is it?

Be that as it may, I still feel if gays and lesbians want to join together in a commitment to each other, let 'em.

I cannot agree that it should be termed a "marriage".

Maybe this question was already answered, but for my sake do it again.

Is it only for same sex "unions" or would any non-religious "union" be forbidden from being called a marriage?

Originally posted by penncam
:cool: Ah, be carefull my friend! You too might be labeled as a bigot!

The individual who started this debate sees only one side of it. He is the champion for the gay rights crowd, and wishes to protect their civil rights no matter what calamity it may have for our nation and society.
See only one side, if that were the case I would have dismissed your absurdities a long time ago. And damn right I am a champion for civil rights, you should too if you believe that all men are created equal. I guess your association with being an American stops shy of your personal animosities. Besides I am quite positive that this debate was ongoing prior to my comments on it here at SOMD. What caused the debate was a cry by folk of your like-mind that feel an amendment to the Constitution is required when in fact it is not. Marriage has been under the prevue of the states forever and should remain there.

He reads only what he wants to read, that which aligns itself with his views and screw the rest of anybody elses' opinion.
I read the information provided probably even more then you and comprehend it quite well, but unlike you I am able to separate myself from unfounded fears that you allow to control your every thought. What you have failed to do is provide a single compelling government interest in snatching that authority from the states. Why can’t you simply do that?

I laughed when he questioned my reply to the point that "what makes you think the homosexual crowd will respect the institution of marriage any more than the heterosexuals do!!

They are Human Beings, you dummy!! Is that reason enough?

Just because their sexual persuasion is 180 degrees out from "straight" folks, that does not give them any more of a lock on virtue than any other group.
And in your failure to comprehend you missed my point, which is that they will probably have an equal failure rate should we allow for them to enter into legalized unions or marriages. So there would be no hindrance or impact upon society any greater then what we experience now with only heterosexual marriages.

Ken, you are a very intelligent man, but you make up your mind early on, and get all skewed to one side of an issue; once there, you exhibit all the traits of a person who has a mind with a steel trap: It's made of solid metal and cannot accept any other possibilities save for the one you fiercely believe in.

I cannot recall even once that you said "well, maybe there is some worth in that particular arguement"...........uh-uh, pal.
And that is a presumption where you are again in error. If you take the time to search through many of the documented discussions on these forums you will find instances where I have had a change of mind after becoming better informed. But where you won’t find a deviation is when dealing with treating people equally. In that context I will step forward in every instance and seek the equality that our form of governing demands.

Anyone else is .........................................wrong!

As I said in another reply, you and your little buddy Tonio have pretty much said all there is to say on this debate.

In effect, you've ended it by name calling and ridicule. The ironic thing is: this was a good debate at first, but you've closed it off
with your one-sided views.

I won't call you any stupid names, because while I disagree with your ideas, I still respect you and your beliefs; I just do not share them.

It appears that you refuse to even consider anothers' opinion if they do not coincide with yours.

Cheers
It is not name calling when a person opines about another’s displayed character, in this case I have stated that you are of a bigoted mind and I stand by that and the text of your posts in this thread confirms it for all to see. You have unfounded fears where you believe that same-sex marriages will lead to the destruction of our nation, yet you provide no evidence to what you claim as fact. You have yet to identify the compelling government interest in denying them the right to marry other then regurgitating the speculation, supposition and the opinions of others that share your fear. And because I reject those non-fact based opinions you consider me closed minded on the matter. So be it, convince me that I am wrong, just give me one instance or reason for the government to act against this specific class of people by denying them an ability that other loving citizen couples possess.

Originally posted by Firefly
Maybe this question was already answered, but for my sake do it again.

Is it only for same sex "unions" or would any non-religious "union" be forbidden from being called a marriage?
The amendment deals with defining marriage as being legal only between a man and a woman and denying any state the ability to authorize otherwise, it has no tie to any religion or any religious act.

Originally posted by penncam
Be that as it may, I still feel if gays and lesbians want to join together in a commitment to each other, let 'em.

I cannot agree that it should be termed a "marriage".
And that is the problem with the amendments being proposed (SJ RES 30 and SJ RES 40) both of which hold the exact same verbage which is "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

Based on your statements you too should be against such an amendment because it is a little more then being just about the word, it's about denying same-sex coulpes the right to form any such union no matter what it is called.

Have you even read the proposed amendments yourself?

So the problem is only with same sex being joined. It is a ridiculous argument. As previously stated, many cultures that are much older than Judeo-Christian Islamic religions condone homosexuality (Greek, Celtic, Russian, some African tribes). It seems this is all simply the Christians, again. Now they are saying they defined a word and everyone has to define it the same way. If they want to define the union of only one man and one woman as a special word, why don’t they invent a whole new word? They can't hi-jack a word.

this thread is

:deadhorse:

:bunny: :bunny: :bunny::bunny: :bunny: :bunny:

If they want to define the union of only one man and one woman as a special word, why don’t they invent a whole new word? They can't hi-jack a word.

So, the latest tactic is to turn the thing around 180 degrees and claim that marriage being between a man and a woman is the new position, the hijacking position?

Marriage is between a man and a woman and that is world history. Nobody from one end of the globe to the other had any doubt, until recently, as to what anyone meant when a man and woman legally binded. Dragging homosexuality into the debate, condoning or otherwise, is irrelevent.

The debate is in what to call this new thing; a socially and legally recognized union between whomever and however many people want to be part of said agreement.

I have no problem with the concept of a civil contract, which marriage is one of many, but let us not step into complete insanity and deny what marraige always has been.

Originally posted by Ken King
You have unfounded fears where you believe that same-sex marriages will lead to the destruction of our nation, yet you provide no evidence to what you claim as fact. You have yet to identify the compelling government interest in denying them the right to marry other then regurgitating the speculation, supposition and the opinions of others that share your fear. And because I reject those non-fact based opinions you consider me closed minded on the matter. So be it, convince me that I am wrong, just give me one instance or reason for the government to act against this specific class of people by denying them an ability that other loving citizen couples possess.


Adult Children Speak Out About Same Sex Parents (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20040707.shtml)
Debating what we choose to call this civil union committment that gays want to enter into is only one issue.

I have posted concerns before about children of such a union, but noone seems to seriously consider them.

Well, here is a story about a woman who was/is a product of such a union, and after many years of silence, she's willing to tell her side of it:

"When growing up, I always had the feeling of being something unnatural," Cassidy says. "I came out of an unnatural relationship; it was something like I shouldn't be there. On a daily basis, it was something I was conflicted with. I used to wish, honestly that Pat wasn't there."

Why does she oppose same-sex marriage? "It's not something that a seal of approval should be stamped on: We shouldn't say it is a great and wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who later in life will turn around and realize they've been cheated. The adults choose to have that lifestyle and then have a kid. They are fulfilling their emotional needs -- they want to have a child -- and they are not taking into account how that's going to feel to the child; there's a clear difference between having same-sex parents and a mom and a dad."

As I've said in the past, it's food for thought.

Originally posted by penncam
Adult Children Speak Out About Same Sex Parents (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/maggiegallagher/mg20040707.shtml)
Debating what we choose to call this civil union committment that gays want to enter into is only one issue.

I have posted concerns before about children of such a union, but noone seems to seriously consider them.

Well, here is a story about a woman who was/is a product of such a union, and after many years of silence, she's willing to tell her side of it:

"When growing up, I always had the feeling of being something unnatural," Cassidy says. "I came out of an unnatural relationship; it was something like I shouldn't be there. On a daily basis, it was something I was conflicted with. I used to wish, honestly that Pat wasn't there."

Why does she oppose same-sex marriage? "It's not something that a seal of approval should be stamped on: We shouldn't say it is a great and wonderful thing and then you have all these kids who later in life will turn around and realize they've been cheated. The adults choose to have that lifestyle and then have a kid. They are fulfilling their emotional needs -- they want to have a child -- and they are not taking into account how that's going to feel to the child; there's a clear difference between having same-sex parents and a mom and a dad."

As I've said in the past, it's food for thought.
Well eat on this. You have still not given a compelling government interest. You are posting concerns and fears.

Feeling unnatural? Well the girl is; she was the product of “artificial insemination”. Big deal, that’s like complaining about having an abusive alcoholic or drug addicted parent or a criminal for a parent or a philandering parent or not having one or both of your parents. We all have problems.

Originally posted by Ken King
Feeling unnatural? Well the girl is; she was the product of “artificial insemination”. Big deal, that’s like complaining about having an abusive alcoholic or drug addicted parent or a criminal for a parent or a philandering parent or not having one or both of your parents. We all have problems.

We all have problems?!?!

Oh really?

The great champion of civil rights ridicules this woman's feelings!

What about the rights of THIS woman? Oh, sorry, she didn't have any rights, did she?

What she felt, and went through each day of her life as she was growing up doesn't mean a damn thing to you?

She felt she was a "lab experiment".

Well, dur, Ken; When two women decide to have a child, that is the way they're going to have to do it, through artificial insemination, as far as I know.

According to her, as well as the author of this article, there are more offspring like this lady out there, but out of respect and love for their parents, they shy away of speaking out about their inner feelings, of being a product of that kind of relationship.

They do not want to embarass their "parents".

But all you seem to care about is delivering those rights to people who wish to enter into "an unnatural relationship", Cassidy's phraseology, I believe.

She believes this practice will eventually harm our society, with a generation of kids growing up "feeling out of place".

This woman is a living, breathing witness to to the practice you so diligently endorse.

But hey, she means nothing to you.

"We ALL have problems".

Originally posted by penncam


What she felt, and went through each day of her life as she was growing up doesn't mean a damn thing to you?

She felt she was a "lab experiment".


I agree. Exactly why SMIBS are such a bad thing :cool:

Originally posted by SmallTown
I agree. Exactly why SMIBS are such a bad thing :cool:
:wink: You do know that you're warped, don't ya?

Explain what any of this has to do with civil rights or same-sex marriages? Many choose artificial insemination or other means to have a child like the single woman that uses the artificial means to acquire a child; would that child feel unnatural too? It should because it is. Adopted children can feel unnatural too especially when of a differing race, yet we allow and endorse that. I guess it isn't enough for you to know that a child has loving parent/s regardless of the sex.

You’ve just switched tactic and are trying to focus on an obtuse point because there is no compelling government interest in denying the right for same-sex couples to form a legal union equivalent to a marriage.

Originally posted by Ken King
Explain what any of this has to do with civil rights or same-sex marriages? Many choose artificial insemination or other means to have a child like the single woman that uses the artificial means to acquire a child; would that child feel unnatural too? It should because it is. Adopted children can feel unnatural too especially when of a differing race, yet we allow and endorse that. I guess it isn't enough for you to know that a child has loving parent/s regardless of the sex.

You’ve just switched tactic and are trying to focus on an obtuse point because there is no compelling government interest in denying the right for same-sex couples to form a legal union equivalent to a marriage.
Ken, I'm trying a different tack here because the very rights you are so fiercely supporting - are producing "flawed" individuals'; people with serious hangups. I just gave you an example of one, but as I noted in an earlier post, you're of one mind on this issue, an nothing is going to sway you differently.

After reading the article, the best reply you could come up with was that "sure it was unnatural", that's just the way it is.

On the one hand, you are deeply committed to the gay communities' right to enter a union, but seem to be utterly complacent of the terrible result of that union. I cannot believe you were so dismissive when you replied:

"We all have problems"

You care about one groups' rights but don't seem to be aware, or care about the individual's rights in this instance.

It is like you blew her off.

Let's turn this arguement around: let's pretend you were in this child's/woman's shoes, and you went through life knowing it wasn't right, that you felt like a "lab experiment" and felt out of place from the rest of your peers.

You enter into a conversation with someone you trust, reveal feelings that have plagued your pscyhe throughout your formative years, and later on into adult life.

That person then says to you: Sorry, "We all have problems."

So, what does this have to do with same sex marriages and civil rights?

People like you are so concerned with the right of certain individuals, or groups to have that freedom, you forget the rights of the outcome - specifically the offspring of those unions; you seem not to care one whit about the individual it damaged or hurt.

It's like you're saying "I support the rights of these groups to the death, their cause is just, blah, blah, blah,

but,

I don't give a hoot about the person that is produced from this relationship, or that they may be seriously impaired."

Guess what, you just abdicated on that person's civil rights, didn't you?

You told them it doesn't matter: "We all have problems."

Ken, I'm sorry, but that is really cold-hearted on your part.

It also smells of hypocracy.

Originally posted by penncam
Ken, I'm trying a different tack here because the very rights you are so fiercely supporting - are producing "flawed" individuals'; people with serious hangups. I just gave you an example of one, but as I noted in an earlier post, you're of one mind on this issue, an nothing is going to sway you differently.
Yeah, like everyone from a heterosexual relationship is without problems. We have many that blame their dysfunctional family for their plight. This is nothing new nor is it unique to the spawn of same-sex couples.

You need to get a grip on the issue. It isn’t about reproductive rights and what happens when as a society we allow for the creation of life for those that can’t or don’t want to do it via the normal means. It’s about the right for a same-sex couple to form a union. I wonder how many of them go on to have children? Do all of these children of same-sex couples share "Cassidy's" feelings?
After reading the article, the best reply you could come up with was that "sure it was unnatural", that's just the way it is.
Nope, it wasn't the best I could come up with, I just don’t see her problem as being that great. I mean if her mother(s) hadn’t chose to bring her into the world she wouldn’t be around to complain about how tough her life is.
On the one hand, you are deeply committed to the gay communities' right to enter a union, but seem to be utterly complacent of the terrible result of that union. I cannot believe you were so dismissive when you replied:

"We all have problems"

You care about one groups' rights but don't seem to be aware, or care about the individual's rights in this instance.

It is like you blew her off.

Let's turn this arguement around: let's pretend you were in this child's/woman's shoes, and you went through life knowing it wasn't right, that you felt like a "lab experiment" and felt out of place from the rest of your peers.

You enter into a conversation with someone you trust, reveal feelings that have plagued your pscyhe throughout your formative years, and later on into adult life.

That person then says to you: Sorry, "We all have problems."
See, this is where you have skewed my belief for equal treatment for all on the specific issue of allowing such unions into your demented argument that I have no care or feeling for a person that was given life and is now complaining about it. I guess she would have been better of never being born.
So, what does this have to do with same sex marriages and civil rights?

People like you are so concerned with the right of certain individuals, or groups to have that freedom, you forget the rights of the outcome - specifically the offspring of those unions; you seem not to care one whit about the individual it damaged or hurt.


It's like you're saying "I support the rights of these groups to the death, their cause is just, blah, blah, blah,

but,

I don't give a hoot about the person that is produced from this relationship, or that they may be seriously impaired."

Guess what, you just abdicated on that person's civil rights, didn't you?

You told them it doesn't matter: "We all have problems."

Ken, I'm sorry, but that is really cold-hearted on your part.

It also smells of hypocracy.
The hypocrisy is yours. I have been consistent in the outlook I have on this from the beginning. I think that they should be allowed to form a union but I am willing to accept that the states should decide the issue for themselves, as it has been.

You on the other hand condemn and would like to deny a right to these people and then you want to champion what you seem to feel is an “abomination” (the fruit of these horrific unions). Maybe you should be fighting to ban a woman’s right to have a baby unless she is married to a man. That seems like a noble task for a prurient elitist such as yourself.

I notice that you still haven’t given a compelling reason why the government should step in and deny the right no matter how you try to spin it.

Originally posted by Ken King
I notice that you still haven’t given a compelling reason why the government should step in and deny the right no matter how you try to spin it.
Ken, as dumb as it may sound, I just went over about 15 pages of this debate - just to see where we've come from - and where it's gone.

Unless you've got some post of mine advocating Federal intervention on this issue, I don't recall that I have said anything to that premise, that is, favoring it.

I think it's a states right issue, and they have to be in the forefront to deal with it.

I have asked the question what are the people to do when their own state courts rewrite their state laws, upon finding a loophole in those verses, with which there is ambiguity.

In other words the original intent was still there, but these state judges found ways to challenge it and get around it.

Isn't that essentially what took place in Massachusettes?

Way back there in my thoughts, I don't want to see the Federal Government have to step in and issue a blanket rule.

However, will the Feds ultimately have to go there? I don't know.

In recent news articles, many states are in fact, putting the issue of Same Sex Marriage on the ballot for Nov. I guess we'll see soon enough.

My overall feeling is that the Federal Gov. is too involved already with what the states can or cannot decide for themselves.

Originally posted by penncam
Ken, as dumb as it may sound, I just went over about 15 pages of this debate - just to see where we've come from - and where it's gone.

Unless you've got some post of mine advocating Federal intervention on this issue, I don't recall that I have said anything to that premise, that is, favoring it.

I think it's a states right issue, and they have to be in the forefront to deal with it.

I have asked the question what are the people to do when their own state courts rewrite their state laws, upon finding a loophole in those verses, with which there is ambiguity.

In other words the original intent was still there, but these state judges found ways to challenge it and get around it.

Isn't that essentially what took place in Massachusettes?

Way back there in my thoughts, I don't want to see the Federal Government have to step in and issue a blanket rule.

However, will the Feds ultimately have to go there? I don't know.

In recent news articles, many states are in fact, putting the issue of Same Sex Marriage on the ballot for Nov. I guess we'll see soon enough.

My overall feeling is that the Federal Gov. is too involved already with what the states can or cannot decide for themselves.
Fine it’s a state’s right, no need for the amendment, good we can have same-sex marriages in the states that say it’s alright.

Did these courts find a loophole or find that the laws were faulty? Read the decision: http://www.malawyersweekly.com/signup/gtwFulltext.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm And it wasn’t the judges that challenged the law it was 14 citizens, the judges in the process have made rulings as to the cases placed before them. As judges we expect them to know the law and to know when laws violate the rights of the people as set forth in their constitution. We might not agree with the outcomes but that too is nothing more then life and it’s the best that we have right now.

Originally posted by Ken King
Fine it’s a state’s right, no need for the amendment, good we can have same-sex marriages in the states that say it’s alright.

Did these courts find a loophole or find that the laws were faulty? Read the decision: http://www.malawyersweekly.com/signup/gtwFulltext.cfm?page=ma/opin/sup/1017603.htm And it wasn’t the judges that challenged the law it was 14 citizens, the judges in the process have made rulings as to the cases placed before them. As judges we expect them to know the law and to know when laws violate the rights of the people as set forth in their constitution. We might not agree with the outcomes but that too is nothing more then life and it’s the best that we have right now.
Geeez! Do you actually expect that anyone but a lawyer could sit down and digest that entire document?

You talk about dry?!?

What I got out of it was the court's decision to grant same sex marriages was applied here because these couples, who brought suit into the courts were "technically able to produce offspring", and thereby the court had to find, or come to the conclusion it couldn't deny them a civil marriage under the grounds presented.

Apparently, the ability to "procreate" is or was a major tenet in Massachussettes constitution in the description of who could qualify for requesting a certificate of marriage.

So, if these couples coud adopt, use artificial insemination, as a means to procreate, the court could find no justification to deny them their rights.

OK, no loophole here, I stand corrected. Maybe a little bending of some long-standing, traditional ideas.

Like no one ever thought that they'd be challenged in a court of law.

Is that the gist of the proceedings?

Back, one more time to the woman Cassidy, in the article I posted:

It seems you don't have any kindred sympathies for her plight.

Ken, it wasn't her choice to be brought into this world through a same sex relationship. All she knew is was "didn't feel right", that she was "an lab experiment".

Where is the clamor over this woman's nightmarish feelings throught her life?

You see, as the article explains, she had kept her thoughts to herself until she turned on the TV one day and was watching the procession of gay couples recieving marriage licenses in San Francisco, with children running around among them.
It triggered, I guess, an emotion of what she went through as a child/teen/adult, and she felt she had to say something about the dangers people could face inside these relationships.

As adults, we're better prepared to handle the complexities of life(mostly), but kids cannot; they have nothing to base it on. No experiences to fall back on, etc.

Now put that same child in the mix of society where the majority of your peers have a mom and a dad. What does that do to your thinking processes?

How can you or I empathize with those feelings? Yeah, after reading her story, I was thinking it might have been extremely rough on her.

Bottom line was that she had no say in it; it's where she found herself, and all she knew was it "was unnatural".

I hope there aren't too many more like her out there; only time will tell us that.

Originally posted by penncam
Geeez! Do you actually expect that anyone but a lawyer could sit down and digest that entire document?

You talk about dry?!?

What I got out of it was the court's decision to grant same sex marriages was applied here because these couples, who brought suit into the courts were "technically able to produce offspring", and thereby the court had to find, or come to the conclusion it couldn't deny them a civil marriage under the grounds presented.

Apparently, the ability to "procreate" is or was a major tenet in Massachussettes constitution in the description of who could qualify for requesting a certificate of marriage.

So, if these couples coud adopt, use artificial insemination, as a means to procreate, the court could find no justification to deny them their rights.

OK, no loophole here, I stand corrected. Maybe a little bending of some long-standing, traditional ideas.

Like no one ever thought that they'd be challenged in a court of law.

Is that the gist of the proceedings?
It’s not dry, matter of fact it is very interesting and insightful.

The ability to procreate was what the Attorney General was pushing forward as a reason to preclude same-sex couples from marrying. To which the court shot his argument down. If you read section III you will discover some of what banning the marriages does to those that are denied the ability.

Back, one more time to the woman Cassidy, in the article I posted:

It seems you don't have any kindred sympathies for her plight.

Ken, it wasn't her choice to be brought into this world through a same sex relationship. All she knew is was "didn't feel right", that she was "an lab experiment".

Where is the clamor over this woman's nightmarish feelings throught her life?

You see, as the article explains, she had kept her thoughts to herself until she turned on the TV one day and was watching the procession of gay couples recieving marriage licenses in San Francisco, with children running around among them.
It triggered, I guess, an emotion of what she went through as a child/teen/adult, and she felt she had to say something about the dangers people could face inside these relationships.

As adults, we're better prepared to handle the complexities of life(mostly), but kids cannot; they have nothing to base it on. No experiences to fall back on, etc.

Now put that same child in the mix of society where the majority of your peers have a mom and a dad. What does that do to your thinking processes?

How can you or I empathize with those feelings? Yeah, after reading her story, I was thinking it might have been extremely rough on her.

Bottom line was that she had no say in it; it's where she found herself, and all she knew was it "was unnatural".

I hope there aren't too many more like her out there; only time will tell us that.
None of us asked for the parents we have/had and we all have feelings relative to that whether thankful or unthankful. But seeing that this woman is now married with children of her own she seems to have handled it well even if it did cause her discomfort while growing up and it apparently didn’t influence her sexual orientation.

Is life tough on children of same-sex couples whether brought into the relationship via artificial insemination, surrogate parent, adoption, whatever? I would venture yes, but it is also tough on a lot of others for many differing reasons. Her problem as she relates it is that she felt unnatural which for me is better or less traumatic then those that suffer from abusive or negligent parents or those with no parents. Maybe if she had talked about this instead of hiding from it earlier in her life she could have better handled her situation.

Originally posted by penncam
:cool: Ah, be carefull my friend! You too might be labeled as a bigot!



Cheers


To tell you the truth I was against the amendment at first but have changed my mind. The reasons are:

1. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
2. I don’t feel that it is right for a few states to decide the fate of the rest of the country.
3. I think there would be a big impact on medical insurance premiums

Originally posted by mojorisin
To tell you the truth I was against the amendment at first but have changed my mind. The reasons are:
Your reasons are rather flaccid. An amendment would be government sanctioned discrimination against a group of citizens resulting in them being treated differently (AKA second-class). Luckily the measure was unable to move out of the house of origination and appears to be dead.
1. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
I wonder if you too are just hung up on the word, marriage; would you see a “union” as being appropriate for same-sex couples?
2. I don’t feel that it is right for a few states to decide the fate of the rest of the country.
How does allowing for citizens of a state to marry deciding the fate of the nation? The law in MA covers this, they do not allow persons from other states to come there to marry if their home state doesn't allow it.
3. I think there would be a big impact on medical insurance premiums
How so? Do you have data that says that same-sex couples are more sickly then others?

Originally posted by Ken King

How so? Do you have data that says that same-sex couples are more sickly then others?


I guess all single gay people are currently without medical coverage and will only be able to receive it if they get married? Sorry mojo, that is a pretty weak argument.

Originally posted by Ken King
Your reasons are rather flaccid. An amendment would be government sanctioned discrimination against a group of citizens resulting in them being treated differently (AKA second-class). Luckily the measure was unable to move out of the house of origination and appears to be dead.

I wonder if you too are just hung up on the word, marriage; would you see a “union” as being appropriate for same-sex couples?

How does allowing for citizens of a state to marry deciding the fate of the nation? The law in MA covers this, they do not allow persons from other states to come there to marry if their home state doesn't allow it.

How so? Do you have data that says that same-sex couples are more sickly then others?

I have already posted AIDS stats before but here is a good article from CDC:

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for multiple sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis B and hepatitis A. Numerous reports document high rates of STDs among MSM that appear to be associated with a resurgence in unsafe sexual practices. For example, in a survey of young MSM (aged 15 – 22 years) conducted in seven metropolitan areas between 1994 and 1998, 7% had already acquired HIV infection and 11% had acquired hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Among young black MSM, 16% were already infected with HIV and 93% were unaware of their infection; those who were unaware of their infection were more likely to have had unprotected anal sex.

In addition, syphilis rates are increasing nationwide among MSM. CDC has estimated that over 40% of all cases of primary and secondary syphilis in 2002 were among MSM. In San Francisco, where the number of cases of early syphilis increased 10-fold between 1998 and 2002, 88% of all cases in 2002 were among MSM, two-thirds of whom were co-infected with HIV.

The continued high rates of multiple STDs among MSM underscore the importance and need for the delivery of comprehensive STD prevention services in both public and private sectors. However, clinical and preventive services for MSM often do not provide integrated services to prevent all of the STDs affecting this population. In addition, despite recommendations to vaccinate MSM to prevent hepatitis A and hepatitis B, vaccination coverage in this population is low.

CDC’s 2002 STD Treatment Guidelines provide specific recommendations for STD prevention services that should be provided for all sexually active MSM. These services include: 1) testing for HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia, at least annually; and 2) vaccination against hepatitis A and hepatitis B. Ensuring that MSM receive these recommended services will require a multidisciplinary response. Clinicians are encouraged to routinely identify sexually-active MSM and to consistently provide all of the recommended STD prevention services. HIV and STD prevention program managers offering behavioral and/or clinical interventions to MSM should look for ways to structure service delivery to address all STDs. Wherever they access clinical or preventive services, MSM should receive or be referred for all of the recommended STD prevention services. Public health officials, medical societies, HIV community planning groups and other community stakeholders should promote full implementation of the recommended services. In addition, community groups that have been successful in disseminating HIV prevention messages can help by raising awareness and informing MSM of the need to obtain these essential services.

We encourage all of our partners at the federal, state and local level to promote and implement comprehensive interventions we know to be effective in preventing STDs among MSM. Additional information and educational materials on STD prevention among MSM are available at www.cdc.gov/hepatitis, www.cdc.gov/std and www.cdc.gov/hiv; information on adult vaccination is available at www.cdc.gov/nip.


Sincerely,

Harold Margolis, MD, Director
Division of Viral Hepatitis
National Center for Infectious Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
John Douglas, MD, Director
Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases
National Center for STD, HIV, and TB Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Lance Rodewald, MD, Director
Division of Immunization Services
National Immunization Program Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Janssen, MD, Director
Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention
National Center for STD, HIV, and TB Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Originally posted by mojorisin
I have already posted AIDS stats before but here is a good article from CDC:

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for multiple sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS), syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, hepatitis B and hepatitis A. Numerous reports document high rates of STDs among MSM that appear to be associated with a resurgence in unsafe sexual practices. For example, in a survey of young MSM (aged 15 – 22 years) conducted in seven metropolitan areas between 1994 and 1998, 7% had already acquired HIV infection and 11% had acquired hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Among young black MSM, 16% were already infected with HIV and 93% were unaware of their infection; those who were unaware of their infection were more likely to have had unprotected anal sex.

In addition, syphilis rates are increasing nationwide among MSM. CDC has estimated that over 40% of all cases of primary and secondary syphilis in 2002 were among MSM. In San Francisco, where the number of cases of early syphilis increased 10-fold between 1998 and 2002, 88% of all cases in 2002 were among MSM, two-thirds of whom were co-infected with HIV.

The continued high rates of multiple STDs among MSM underscore the importance and need for the delivery of comprehensive STD prevention services in both public and private sectors. However, clinical and preventive services for MSM often do not provide integrated services to prevent all of the STDs affecting this population. In addition, despite recommendations to vaccinate MSM to prevent hepatitis A and hepatitis B, vaccination coverage in this population is low.

CDC’s 2002 STD Treatment Guidelines provide specific recommendations for STD prevention services that should be provided for all sexually active MSM. These services include: 1) testing for HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia, at least annually; and 2) vaccination against hepatitis A and hepatitis B. Ensuring that MSM receive these recommended services will require a multidisciplinary response. Clinicians are encouraged to routinely identify sexually-active MSM and to consistently provide all of the recommended STD prevention services. HIV and STD prevention program managers offering behavioral and/or clinical interventions to MSM should look for ways to structure service delivery to address all STDs. Wherever they access clinical or preventive services, MSM should receive or be referred for all of the recommended STD prevention services. Public health officials, medical societies, HIV community planning groups and other community stakeholders should promote full implementation of the recommended services. In addition, community groups that have been successful in disseminating HIV prevention messages can help by raising awareness and informing MSM of the need to obtain these essential services.

We encourage all of our partners at the federal, state and local level to promote and implement comprehensive interventions we know to be effective in preventing STDs among MSM. Additional information and educational materials on STD prevention among MSM are available at www.cdc.gov/hepatitis, www.cdc.gov/std and www.cdc.gov/hiv; information on adult vaccination is available at www.cdc.gov/nip.


Sincerely,

Harold Margolis, MD, Director
Division of Viral Hepatitis
National Center for Infectious Diseases
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
John Douglas, MD, Director
Division of Sexually Transmitted Diseases
National Center for STD, HIV, and TB Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Lance Rodewald, MD, Director
Division of Immunization Services
National Immunization Program Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Robert Janssen, MD, Director
Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention
National Center for STD, HIV, and TB Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Nice to see that you are thinking for yourself again. But what does this have to do with establishing monogomous same-sex unions? It would seem that if they are allowed to form a union these type of incidences would neither decrease or increase, so how would it be more costly?

Your excerpt from the CDC is nice, but you forgot the part that the group with the highest rate of infection and increase in new HIV cases is heterosexual African American and Latino women. Your information is also from 2002, very outdated. It was good info at the time, but times have changed. Oh, before you say something dumb, I do work for the HIV/AIDS administration in DC, so I do know what I am talking about. I will be happy to provide you with more stats if you like.

Originally posted by Ken King
Nice to see that you are thinking for yourself again. But what does this have to do with establishing monogomous same-sex unions? It would seem that if they are allowed to form a union these type of incidences would neither decrease or increase, so how would it be more costly?

I posted data that supported my argument and that is what you wanted. If you don’t feel there is any direct correlation between the data and some gay person becoming a dependant of another gay person, then we will never agree.

I have no problem if someone believes that homosexuality is wrong. But when someone claims that gays seek to destory the family, or seek to go into schools to convert kids, that's when I raise the :bs: flag.

Now, since this thread has gone on too long, would anyone mind if I drove the thread over a cliff and put it out of its misery?

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
Your excerpt from the CDC is nice, but you forgot the part that the group with the highest rate of infection and increase in new HIV cases is heterosexual African American and Latino women. Your information is also from 2002, very outdated. It was good info at the time, but times have changed. Oh, before you say something dumb, I do work for the HIV/AIDS administration in DC, so I do know what I am talking about. I will be happy to provide you with more stats if you like.

Look at exposure rate. Males having sex with other males is still number one.

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/aids_statistics.html#exposure

3 dec 2003

Originally posted by mojorisin
Look at exposure rate. Males having sex with other males is still number one.

http://www.thebody.com/cdc/aids_statistics.html#exposure

3 dec 2003

Your overall point?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Your overall point?

I hope it's not the infuriating claim that gays are being punished by God. :burning:

Originally posted by mojorisin
I posted data that supported my argument and that is what you wanted. If you don’t feel there is any direct correlation between the data and some gay person becoming a dependant of another gay person, then we will never agree.
And what data do you have for those that were disease free upon entering into a longterm monogomous relationship? And failing that what significance does what you have provided have to the increase in medical insurance premiums should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?

Originally posted by BuddyLee
Your overall point?

This was some of the data that I posted in support of why I think health insurance premiums would raise.

Originally posted by Ken King
And what data do you have for those that were disease free upon entering into a longterm monogomous relationship? And failing that what significance does what you have provided have to the increase in medical insurance premiums should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?

This is a good read, especially the points about medical insurance and social security.


http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032432.cfm

That is the overall infection rate since they began keeping track. I think you should know that the overall NEW rate of infection for gays has declined steadily through 2003. Hetero African American and Latino women are now the highest risk category for NEW infections. Yes, overall, the data will show gays at a higher rate, however, you must also keep in mind that many hetero's who died of AIDS in the 80's and 90's were not labled as AIDS cases; usually cancer or some other complications brought on by AIDS.

Originally posted by mojorisin
This is a good read, especially the points about medical insurance and social security.


http://www.family.org/cforum/extras/a0032432.cfm
Good read? It isn't even interesting, just another version of fearmongering. Maybe we have a differing ability to comprehend the written word but what you provide is not data, it discusses nothing at all about facts nor is it supported by any data, it is only speculation by Dr. Dobson of what he fears might happen.

Originally posted by Ken King
it is only speculation by Dr. Dobson of what he fears might happen.

One of our wedding presents was a book by Dr. Dobson, "Love for a Lifetime." Some good chapters, but he ruined the book for me when he went on a rant for three pages about how God "intended" women to be subservient to men. This pustule claimed that women were too emotional to ever hold a logical thought.

Originally posted by Ken King
Good read? It isn't even interesting, just another version of fearmongering. Maybe we have a differing ability to comprehend the written word but what you provide is not data, it discusses nothing at all about facts nor is it supported by any data, it is only speculation by Dr. Dobson of what he fears might happen.

I never said this was conclusive data. I already posted the data that supported why I thought medical insurance premiums would rise in a previous post.

Originally posted by Tonio
One of our wedding presents was a book by Dr. Dobson, "Love for a Lifetime." Some good chapters, but he ruined the book for me when he went on a rant for three pages about how God "intended" women to be subservient to men. This pustule claimed that women were too emotional to ever hold a logical thought.

Most women are more emotional so you couldn’t totally disagree.

Will you guys just kiss and make up?

Originally posted by mojorisin
Most women are more emotional so you couldn’t totally disagree.

True, but that wasn't his BS point. He was claiming that women don't have the capability to make decisions.

Originally posted by Aimhigh2000
That is the overall infection rate since they began keeping track. I think you should know that the overall NEW rate of infection for gays has declined steadily through 2003. Hetero African American and Latino women are now the highest risk category for NEW infections. Yes, overall, the data will show gays at a higher rate, however, you must also keep in mind that many hetero's who died of AIDS in the 80's and 90's were not labled as AIDS cases; usually cancer or some other complications brought on by AIDS.

Do you have a link so I can read about it?

Originally posted by Tonio
True, but that wasn't his BS point. He was claiming that women don't have the capability to make decisions.

Ok, I see what you are saying.

I will find the link for the CDC. Just a perspective, here is the report for the DC (DC includes Maryland (Except Baltimore and St. Mary's) a portion of West Virginia, and Norther Virginia.

http://dchealth.dc.gov/about/pdf/epi_profile_2004.shtm

AS noted on page 31, the most notable increase in infections are with heterosexuals that have sexual contact with an IV drug user. Overall there has been a steady decline in MSM over the past decade. I will check with our Epi unit on the link to the CDC data.

One of the most effective ways to reduce the rate of new infections of HIV is also the most debated. That is needle exchange programs. Some people say that by exchanging needles that "we promote drug use." I say we meaning health departments across the US. DC is not allowed by Congress to fund any such programs. If you look at it from an epidemic point of view, which is the lesser of two evils? Drug use, or the spread of a deadly disease? If needle exchange programs can reduce the amount of new infections a year, should we not put politics aside and vote for public health?