Update: Surprising Turnabout on Prop. 8 by Attorney General Brown

My Last Thread On Gay Marriage

Okay. 


























As for the topic on hand, maybe some saw other writing on the wall Joe.  Is what some take offense to in "gay marriage" really any different then those who take offense in anything else?  If we are going to be a society that feels that political correctness is necessary then it is a two way street.  There are some whether religiously or traditionally inspired that simply take offense to it.  There is no changing their minds on that and why should there be?  I think that many have said to let them have their civil unions, but why should it also be called marraige?  That would be no different IMO if one of us went overseas to Spain and tried to tell them that breakfast is the most important meal and that they are no longer able to take their extented lunch breaks, and that they now had to adopt americans' ways for meals.  Which would also mean that marriage could also be suggested as multi-cultural tradition, both nationally and internationally. 

Because it IS shoving it in people's faces. The church does not support the marriage (except for a few radical churches). The society, religious or not, does not support the marriage. Yet the gays go to court and force the government to accept their relationship and then turn around and give society the finger and demand respect.

Please examine the definition of the words: rational, logical, and reason.

You gave NO reason. Your post was lacking in any logical progression of thought. And it was irrational.

Not a court case, but found this article.

[bucpimpin]

I will tell it like I believe it.

I believe Gay and Lesbian acts are a sin. I believe in my faith over all else including country. I want my child to grow up in a society that shuns that type of behavior. I believe if it is continuously shunned by the majority that that type of deviance will die out in the public eye. I do believe that Gays and Lesbians want to be thought of as the norm, they want it to be a choice of humans. Well I don't. I believe that is it a deviant behavior that must be suppressed. Its a chiping away of the moral fabric of the world. There must be rules and rules enforced to have a non deviant society.

Thats my opinion.

[olafberserker]

Is "pimpin" considered a sin also?  Just curious.

[cyberdude557]

No one is advocating stopping what consenting adults are doing in their own homes. That is no one's business. But marriage is a different. You are bringing it out into society and forcing society to accept it the relationship.

[ufojoe]

That would be no different IMO if one of us went overseas to Spain and tried to tell them that breakfast is
the most important meal and that they are no longer able to take their extented lunch breaks, and that
they now had to adopt americans' ways for meals.

Poor analogy and not anything close to what is happening here. In your case, you are affecting the Spaniards' lives/habits directly.
In the gay marriage issue, you wouldn't even know it happened unless you read or watch the news. It didn't affect you when the
marriages were allowed and it won't affect you when they're allowed again in the future. You don't have to adopt anything and
your marriage (if you're married) is the same as it was before. If anybody is worried what this will do to their traditional marriage,
then their marriage must extremely weak.

You gave NO reason. Your post was lacking in any logical progression of thought. And it was irrational.

Not a court case, but found this article.

A small group of idiots does something stupid and that's the reason you give for keeping same sex
marriage illegal? Seriously?

Poor analogy and not anything close to what is happening here. In your case, you are affecting the Spaniards' lives/habits directly.
In the gay marriage issue, you wouldn't even know it happened unless you read or watch the news. It didn't affect you when the
marriages were allowed and it won't affect you when they're allowed again in the future. You don't have to adopt anything and
your marriage (if you're married) is the same as it was before. If anybody is worried what this will do to their traditional marriage,
then their marriage must extremely weak.

Wow, thank you for taking what I said out of context.  I offered you a SUGGESTION as to why some have a problem with marriage in the title with it.  As others have stated, and I agree with, along with many others, what they do behind closed doors is their business, just like what I do behind my doors is mine.  Civil unions, if they want, for the sake of benefits of health care, life insurance, etc, don't bother me, and even the marriage term doesn't bother me, as long as it isn't in context with where it hurts people what does it matter?  But the case that I could see is for those who view it as a tradition, and while marriage is regarded as a legal action, it was first considered as a religious action, and has also been a tradition for many many years, who are we to offend those who want to uphold that tradition?

A small group of idiots does something stupid and that's the reason you give for keeping same sex
marriage illegal? Seriously?

Good grief, you need to get a grip.  Seriously, did you not read what I was trying to get at?  It is a minority that is pushing themselves onto others.  I didn't say that these people were the model of all homosexuals now did I???  I'll have you know that I have a few friends that ARE homosexual, including the ex-wife of one of them who both have recently had a new grandson from their daughter in their previous marriage.  What I was pointing out is that there ARE some groups out there that WANT to FORCE what they do onto others.  Where is that right? I don't care if you are homosexual, heterosexual, christian, muslim, aethist, buddist, taoist, or whatever, if you think that you have to force your views onto others as the one right way, you IMO are wrong.

[ufojoe]

Wow, thank you for taking what I said out of context.  I offered you a SUGGESTION as to why some have a problem with marriage in the title with it. 

I didn't think it was relevant to the situation we were discussing. Not at all.

Civil unions, if they want, for the sake of benefits of health care, life insurance, etc, don't bother me, and even the marriage term doesn't bother me,
as long as it isn't in context with where it hurts people what does it matter?

Really not sure what you're trying to say here. Can you rephrase?

But the case that I could see is for those who view it as a tradition, and while marriage is regarded as a legal action, it was first considered as a
religious action, and has also been a tradition for many many years, who are we to offend those who want to uphold that tradition?

Was it first considered as a religious action? The history I read disagrees with that. And that history features same sex unions
from way back when. Apparently, those were made illegal by Christian emperors. They were the P8 leaders of their time. Lots
of interesting things about marriage and Christian marriage if you read some of the history.

Good grief, you need to get a grip.  Seriously, did you not read what I was trying to get at?  It is a minority that is pushing themselves onto others.  I didn't say that these people were the model of all homosexuals now did I???  I'll have you know that I have a few friends that ARE homosexual, including the ex-wife of one of them who both have recently had a new grandson from their daughter in their previous marriage.  What I was pointing out is that there ARE some groups out there that WANT to FORCE what they do onto others.  Where is that right? I don't care if you are homosexual, heterosexual, christian, muslim, aethist, buddist, taoist, or whatever, if you think that you have to force your views onto others as the one right way, you IMO are wrong.

I agree, And the overwhelming majority are not like that. So the article you linked to is really irrelevant as far as well thought
out reasons why people are against gay marriage.

[ufojoe]

Two Connecticut SC Justices and their views on same sex marriage...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/samesex_marriag_2.html

In his majority opinion, Justice Richard N. Palmer agreed with the activists. He wrote that the "segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm," in light of "the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody."

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that "there is no fundamental right to same sex marriage."

[ufojoe]

What a great thing they did in Arkansas! Thank God those children are going to be protected from those evil "cohabitators" and
those evil/selfish gay and lesbian couples who want to adopt them or act as foster parents for them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/opinion/12savage.html?ref=opinion

Op Ed by Dan Savage (Yes, he's gay).

...while Californians march and gay activists contemplate a national boycott of Utah - the Mormon Church largely bankrolled Proposition 8 - an even more ominous new law in Arkansas has drawn little notice.

That state's Proposed Initiative Act No. 1, approved by nearly 57 percent of voters last week, bans people who are "cohabitating outside a valid marriage" from serving as foster parents or adopting children. While the measure bans both gay and straight members of cohabitating couples as foster or adoptive parents, the Arkansas Family Council wrote it expressly to thwart "the gay agenda." Right now, there are 3,700 other children across Arkansas in state custody; 1,000 of them are available for adoption. The overwhelming majority of these children have been abused, neglected or abandoned by their heterosexual parents.

Even before the law passed, the state estimated that it had only about a quarter of the foster parents it needed. Beginning on Jan. 1, a grandmother in Arkansas cohabitating with her opposite-sex partner because marrying might reduce their pension benefits is barred from taking in her own grandchild; a gay man living with his male partner cannot adopt his deceased sister's children.

Social conservatives are threatening to roll out Arkansas-style adoption bans in other states. And the timing couldn't be worse: in tough economic times, the numbers of abused and neglected children in need of foster care rises. But good times or bad, no movement that would turn away qualified parents and condemn children to a broken foster care system should be considered "pro-family."

Most ominous, once "pro-family" groups start arguing that gay couples are unfit to raise children we might adopt, how long before they argue that we're unfit to raise those we've already adopted? If lesbian couples are unfit to care for foster children, are they fit to care for their own biological children?

The loss in California last week was heartbreaking. But what may be coming next is terrifying.

Dan Savage is the editorial director of The Stranger, a Seattle newsweekly, and the author of "The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage and My Family."

[Ironphist]

this is the stuff that hurts the cause...  thought it wasn't about religion?

DELTA TWP. - A radical gay rights group is claiming responsibility for a protest Sunday at Mount Hope Church in Delta Township.

Protesters who entered the Creyts Road church along with worshippers surprised the congregation when they stood up during the service, threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted slogans such as "It's OK to be gay," and "Jesus was a homo," according to David Williams, communications director at the church. His father, Dave Williams, is the church's longtime pastor. He was not preaching at the church Sunday.

Another group of protesters demonstrated outside the church at the same time as the indoor protest.

The Eaton County Sheriff's Department responded to the scene Sunday but no arrests were made.

In a released statement, David Williams said churchgoers were unclear as to the purpose of the demonstration.

A Lansing group affiliated with a radical gay organization known as Bash Back, formed to protest the Republican and Democratic national conventions earlier this year, put out a call on the Internet on Oct. 7 for activists to come to a "radical queer convergence" in Lansing on Nov. 7-9.

A posting on its MySpace page declared the convergence a "fierce success."

[ufojoe]

It doesn't help.

Radical group. That's all that needs to be said.

The courts won't rule based on what a few idiots do. I would hope people are smart enough to see
that also. But I doubt it.

I don't think Christians are violent just because a small group of idiots bomb abortion clinics.

Still have yet to see any good responses to this...

I would like to hear one rational, logical reason why two people using a word to describe their relationship would be insulting.

[SnookAU]

I would like to hear one rational, logical reason why two people using a word to describe their relationship would be insulting.

There isn't one.  I look at it this way -- gay couples will be together no matter what anyways -- why not let them get married?  Who is it hurting?

And if someone is so against homosexuals, is seeing a unmarried gay couple together any better to you than seeing a married gay couple together?

Afterall, heterosexual marriages more than often end in divorce anyways.  Its not like there's anything sacred left to protect...  Until we, as a society, start to respect marriage again, I don't want to hear this "sanctity of marriage" crap anymore. 

You are bringing it out into society and forcing society to accept it the relationship.

Sounds a lot like the interracial marriages that used to be illegal...


I don't like K.O. but he has a VERY good point with the "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" line.  It too bad the blind religious right still picks and chooses when to use quotes from the Bible.

[ufojoe]

I rarely say this type of thing, Snook but...

Great post.

I have brought up the same issues repeatedly on this board and have received zero responses.

They're going to be together no matter what, so why not encourage commitment? Isn't that better than them
"living in sin?" Encouraging love and commitment. What a novel concept.

That KO special comment is the best one he has ever done.

And, like a lot of us, he has no personal reason to be so involved and intense about his feelings. Except that it's
the right thing to do.

BTW, when Obama starts making mistakes, (we know that he will) look for Special Comments from KO about
those mistakes. People forget that he used to rip Slick Willie way back when.

[SnookAU]

I believe Gay and Lesbian acts are a sin. I believe in my faith over all else including country. I want my child to grow up in a society that shuns that type of behavior. I believe if it is continuously shunned by the majority that that type of deviance will die out in the public eye. I do believe that Gays and Lesbians want to be thought of as the norm, they want it to be a choice of humans. Well I don't. I believe that is it a deviant behavior that must be suppressed. Its a chiping away of the moral fabric of the world. There must be rules and rules enforced to have a non deviant society.

Same exact things can be said of adultery...  

Why aren't people making a stand against it like they do with gay marriage?

I haven't seen anything to vote for making adultery formally illegal.

Afterall, isn't adultery more of a threat to moral fabric of marriage than homosexuals?  If not, please explain.

[John Galt?]

No one is advocating stopping what consenting adults are doing in their own homes. That is no one's business. But marriage is a different. You are bringing it out into society and forcing society to accept it the relationship.

How does a legal document "bring it out into society"? If no one is "advocating stopping what consenting adults are doing in their own homes", then aren't gay couples already "out in society"? How does a piece of paper change that? I have never seen a couple, gay or straight, walking around with a giant banner-sized Marriage Cert. so barring that how does the legal status of an already existing relationship affect society?

I would like to hear one rational, logical reason why two people using a word to describe their relationship would be insulting.

There isn't one.  I look at it this way -- gay couples will be together no matter what anyways -- why not let them get married? Who is it hurting?

And if someone is so against homosexuals, is seeing a unmarried gay couple together any better to you than seeing a married gay couple together?

See, a logical, rational reason FOR gay marriage.

If A exists and B exists, then shouldn't A+B be a valid expression? If gay couples exist and a legal contract entitled marriage exists, then shouldn't gay couples have access to that legal contract?

Ability to have children is irrelevant since there is no rule that says a vasectomied man can't marry a hysterectomied woman.
Adoption is irrelevant because marriage does not guarantee or preclude adoption (execpt in Ark).

So once again, is there a logical, rational reason why gay couples should not have access to a legal document called or equivalent to "marriage"?