11 states vote on gay marriage

[Bonochick]

If they don't believe in the Bible, then no amount of logic will work with them, for they have already been lost.

Luckily, those non-believers are the minority, and they sit in the back of the bus.

Posts like that are unnecessary and can be considered very offensive. Please refrain from making such comments.

This thread is deteriorating FAST...actually, it has been for quite awhile, it seems. Either get this thread back on track to a civil discussion, or this thread will have to be closed.

 

[Bonochick]

Dammit, Sicy, you beat me!

 

[Sicy]

 

[indra]

Sorry, it's just people who accuse me of being second-class because I'm secular and not religious get my back up.

It probably didn't help that I've already had someone have a go at me today saying that I can't appreciate U2's music as much as they do because I'm secular

You have to be kidding! That just sucks!

 

[mellyinsf]

It probably didn't help that I've already had someone have a go at me today saying that I can't appreciate U2's music as much as they do because I'm secular

Renne please that is rediculous, some people here are bored and trying to make others feel bad.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

If they don't believe in the Bible, then no amount of logic will work with them, for they have already been lost.

Luckily, those non-believers are the minority, and they sit in the back of the bus.

Actually, non-Christians (which would include both people of other religions and people of no religion) are a majority in the world. If you must be a troll, please at least attempt to be factually accurate in your trolling.

 

[Dreadsox]

I believe in the Bible.

I do not believe it to be a literal book all of the time.

I believe you cannot pick and choose what parts of the bible are meant to be literal and which are not. It is a dangerous practice to do, since there are many passages which could be used to institute many things.

We could start with the old testament and institute a law that you should not eat any animal that has blood.

We could start with the old testament and institute a law that says capital punishment is illegal, ie Cain and Abel.

And yes, there are parts of the Bible that contradict these two examples I give. Picking and choosing is a dangerous thing to do.

The Bible, which may be the book that some believe is a literal truth, does not have the same meaning for others, making the religious argument a weak one.

 

[verte76]

I'm sorry these initiatives passed. They are a triumph for intolerance and hatred of gays. Yes, folks, you can be a liberal and a practicing Catholic. I just came back from a Catholic pilgrimage, in fact. I have yet to be told I should be excommunicated for my views.

 

[BVS]

I agree with this 100%, so then why would one sin now make the law books and not others. Even if homosexuality is a sin, which I do not believe, why does it all of a sudden need to be a political issue. No one has shown me where two men or two women getting married hurts anyone.

Murder - obvious
Traffic laws - save lives
Robbery - obvious
Fraud - makes sense
Gays not being able to marry -

Religion does not nor should it determine our laws. So can anyone give me a reason for this?

I'll ask again for no one has even attempted to answer my question. Is there a reason beyond that of your religion as to why gays can't marry?

If not it shouldn't be on the ballot, constitution, etc.

 

[Sherry Darling]

Well said, Dread and Verte!

The thing I don't get about Christians insisting that the Bible condemns homosexuality is that most folks who feel this way are perfectly reasonable and willing to interpret other Scriptures. I doubt most of 'em would say I need to cover my head or keep quiet in Church (out loud, anyway )). And I hear very few folks saying we need to cure and prepare our meat a certain way or take certain precautions to (avert your eyes if you blush easy....) protect semen. It's understood that these texts of Scripture are a part of the historical and cultural time in which they were written. Someone, then, who insists that homosexuality is a sin based on God's Word needs to explain why they interpret these verses literally, without sociohistorical context, and not the others.

A minister I knew in college once, who taught me Christian theology, once gave me some great advice: never trust someone who tells you they're not interpreting Scripture. There is no "neutral" setting.

Peace,
SD

 

[speedracer]

I'll ask again for no one has even attempted to answer my question. Is there a reason beyond that of your religion as to why gays can't marry?

Go back and read my posts in this thread.

 

[Irvine511]

Marriage is the institution which to create and foster children. Since those of the same sex cannot have children together, they do not need a marriage. They can rent a condo together somewhere down on the shore, preferably well away from me and out of view of our children, but we the majority will not be granting them any marriage licenses.

yes, marraige is only about children.

except for straight couples who choose not to have children.

and couples who marry later in life and choose not to have any children. you can say a lot of things about John Kerry and THK's marriage, it wasn't about children.

and infertile people. we allow them to marry too.

and people who get married in their 70s.

GOP_Catholic: i'm glad you post here. it's good to know that people like you exist. and good to know that your kids are probably taught by homosexuals in schools, on the soccer field, wherever. and their lives are immeasurably enriched by all the homosexuals who are woven into the fabrice of all aspects of american life, and the reason you can't see them is because they defy all the stereotypes you propagate in order to keep your world as rigid and black-and-white as your insecurities demand.

love is love is love. one love one blood one life.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I don't think that person is allowed here anymore Irvine, but that doesn't make what you said in your reply any less valid or important

 

[BVS]

Go back and read my posts in this thread.

Yes I've heard this argument and I don't find it to be one that holds water, for several of the reasons given in here already.

 

[speedracer]

Yes I've heard this argument and I don't find it to be one that holds water, for several of the reasons given in here already.

There are two components to a logical argument: axioms (base assumptions) and deductions. Which axioms do you disagree with, and which deductions do you find faulty?

The main axiom in my argument is that many people intend for marriage to uphold the nuclear family -- one man, one woman, and some number of kids. (Yeah, I know, many marriages don't lead to children, but we really don't feel like making couples sign an affidavit declaring an intention to conceive or adopt children when they apply for a marriage license.)

Irvine disagrees with this axiom and declares that marriage should just celebrate the union of two individuals. Hence the different conclusion.

Now if you find a logical flaw in one of the deductions I make, I'd genuinely like to see it.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I don't think that person is allowed here anymore Irvine, but that doesn't make what you said in your reply any less valid or important

I was wondering, but afraid to ask, if all the scary people disappeared over the weekend while I was away.

 

[nbcrusader]

Checked the banned members thread. Two of the "scary ones" were banned.

 

[joyfulgirl]

Thank you.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Irvine511]

Irvine disagrees with this axiom and declares that marriage should just celebrate the union of two individuals. Hence the different conclusion.

that's mostly correct, but my view is much more utilitarian and far less romantic. marriage, as we see in many other countries, is a financial arrangement. it's about two people choosing to stick it out together, and marriage is a way for them to merge their assets and legal protections. this is why the whole debate about "gay marriage" and how it relates to the election misses the point. it's not about marriage, even, because most of those amendments -- most crucially, and not incidentally in Ohio and Michigan -- banned not only marriage, but "all legal incidents thereof." ask yourselves, you married heterosexuals, how you would feel if your spouse could not visit you in the hospital. or could not make decisions for you should you become incapacitated. or could not adopt your children. or could not inherit your wealth if you were to die. this is the reality gay couples now face in many states across the country, and don't think for a second that this language "legal incidents thereof" wasn't carefully worded and pitched to a specific audience. no, these amendments weren't about the preservation of the traditional idea of marriage, they were an attack on the homosexual "lifestyle." though, in this case, the lifestyle these amendments destroyed was one of family and commitment.

this is why i call those who called for, and then voted for, these amendments bigots, because of that phrase: "all legal incidents thereof."

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/gays.conference.ap/index.html

Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, shared a personal story that she believes illustrates the prejudice that a gay person cannot love as truly or as deeply as a heterosexual.

The Portland, Oregon, woman said an employee who was grieving over the death of her husband asked Thorpe, "Do your people feel sad when your person dies?"

"It tells it all," Thorpe said. "I said, 'you saw me as a little less human and for me to realize it breaks my heart.' "

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

I felt there was no need for this to be on the GA ballot.

 

[Irvine511]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/11/gays.conference.ap/index.html

Roey Thorpe, executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, shared a personal story that she believes illustrates the prejudice that a gay person cannot love as truly or as deeply as a heterosexual.

The Portland, Oregon, woman said an employee who was grieving over the death of her husband asked Thorpe, "Do your people feel sad when your person dies?"

"It tells it all," Thorpe said. "I said, 'you saw me as a little less human and for me to realize it breaks my heart.' "

that captures so much. it astonishes me when people who say they are "against" homosexuality and compare it -- like, say, Pat Buchanan -- to something like kleptomania. even people on this list have compared homosexuality to a married man wanting to boff the intern, and that you should "just say no." it's so naive it's shocking, not to mention self-serving and self-deceiving in order to advance a specific kind of "moral values" that are political in nature. it's not about sex, it's about sexual orientation. while physical desire is a large and important part of this identity, it's only a part, and the reduction of homosexuality to sex and only sex is at the absolute center of this pernicious agenda. it's about dehumanizing an Other.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

That quote just really stood out for me, made me very sad. If a heterosexual person can ever understand what it's like, maybe it's through quotes like that. (and of course many other things, but maybe that's one small step )

 

[MadelynIris]

Did you guys ban GOP_Catholic?

If so, that's disturbing to me. I see that he/she was pretty adamant about their position, but to ban them?

I've been dropping into FYM for 4 years now, and have seen soooo much worse than this.

I've said it before, I'd love to see free speech reign somewhere on this forum. Make an unmoderated section! I want to hear it all. Let only the brave enter.

Mark

 

[joyfulgirl]

Did you guys ban GOP_Catholic?

If so, that's disturbing to me. I see that he/she was pretty adamant about their position, but to ban them?

I've been dropping into FYM for 4 years now, and have seen soooo much worse than this.

I've said it before, I'd love to see free speech reign somewhere on this forum. Make an unmoderated section! I want to hear it all. Let only the brave enter.

Mark

Yes, free speech should reign, but there is a difference between free speech and a troll. GOP_Catholic was a troll. We have had huge fights in FYM between sincere people with passionate, differing viewpoints and no one was banned. GOP_Catholic wasn't that. He/she was simply a troll and didn't belong here.

 

[pax]

If you have a question about why a particular member was banned, I refer you to the "banned members" thread in IB, which is where an admin will mention banned posters and why they were banned as they happen.

And, as I believe I mentioned in here a little while back, unkind comments about homosexuals/homosexuality cloaked as "personal beliefs" aren't going to fly in here. We wouldn't let someone post about Jews, African-Americans, Swedes, Taoists, or whatever in such a manner. We won't allow it towards gay people either.

End of discussion. Please get the thread back on track or it will be closed.


















isn't everyone just tickled to have me back?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Why is it that people always defend gay marriage with all this talk about if two individuals love each other, they should be allowed to marry?

What if a man loves a pig, or what if a man loves a five year old boy? I just don't see it going in the right direction.

 

[Irvine511]

And, as I believe I mentioned in here a little while back, unkind comments about homosexuals/homosexuality cloaked as "personal beliefs" aren't going to fly in here. We wouldn't let someone post about Jews, African-Americans, Swedes, Taoists, or whatever in such a manner. We won't allow it towards gay people either.

i wish the GOP was as civil and respectful as FYM.

 

[Irvine511]

sorry about the above -- don't know how it came out like that.

 

[pax]

The difference between an adult man marrying another adult man, and one of those men marrying a pig or a five-year-old, is that two adult men are able to CONSENT to such a union. A marriage to an animal or a child is very clearly out of bounds because neither can rationally consent to such a union.

For other good reasons, too, of course, but I imagine that would be the legal argument.

Now, again, back on track with the thread and no more talk about pigs and young children. This issue is about the right, or lack thereof, of rational adults to marry other rational adults regardless of gender.

Thank you.