equality blooms with spring

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Again calling names makes you look desperate aside from being ignorant of the scripture.



And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:


Jhn 2:2 And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.


Jhn 2:3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.


Jhn 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.


Jhn 2:5 His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do [it].

How does this address other celebrations, contracts, or other issues?

You obviously didn't understand the question.

I want an example from the Bible of everything you celebrate, get in contract with, or any other conservative issue. I want you to be consistant with the Bible in every single issue you put forth. Otherwise you are just picking and choosing.

I want examples of denying rights.

I want examples of torture.

I want examples of birthdays.

I want examples of lease or mortgage contracts.





Diamond, guess who challenged Jesus about his knowledge of the word...

Given your previous posts, I don't think challenging folks about their knowledge of scripture is a wise thing...

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by diamond

I have no problem with Gay Domestic Wedded Couples having the civil rights as the same as marrieds couples.

So where's the tyranny?

<>

You're unlike many of your anti-gay marriage counterparts, and that's a commendable place to be at.

But then the question becomes, why do you believe that "separate but equal" works?

[BVS]

God gave us free will. So why shouldn't America?

If it doesn't harm another, why are we denying freedom?

Have you conservatives lost your way?

[deep]

Is Ted Olson a consecrative?

[diamond]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

why do you believe that "separate but equal" works?

Because marriage is a word that stands on it's own.

I think people of the same sex that want to solemnize their union need to come up with a word different from one that already has a clear meaning.

<>

[phillyfan26]

Originally Posted by diamond

Because marriage is a word that stands on it's own.

I think people of the same sex that want to solemnize their union need to come up with a word different from one that already has a clear meaning.

<>

What's wrong with the situation in Massachusetts that makes you think there needs to be different words?

And, more importantly, would you vote for something like Proposition 8 simply because of the wording, or is the idea behind it the more important thing here? I'm genuinely curious.

[diamond]

Originally Posted by BVS

How does this address other celebrations, contracts, or other issues?
...

Those aren't the topics we're discussing, and I answered the question pertaining to the topic at hand, while you resorted to calling me a liar.

I gave you an example of how Christ attended a marriage between a man and a woman and now you're trying to change the subject.

<>

[diamond]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

What's wrong with the situation in Massachusetts that makes you think there needs to be different words?

And, more importantly, would you vote for something like Proposition 8 simply because of the wording, or is the idea behind it the more important thing here? I'm genuinely curious.

Because what youre saying in Gay Marriage= Homosexual union of 2 people of the opposite sex who are not homosexual but hetrosexual.

It's a term in contradiction w itself. The word marriage is spoken for already, and it means:

2 hetrosexuals of opposite sex who want to unionize/solemenize their relationship.

You need people of opposite sexes to even approach the meaning of the word marriage.

If Prop 8 were worded as :a marriage shall be between a man and a woman and gay partnerships can have similar benefits that men and women have who cohabitate, I would be ok with that.

<>

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by diamond

Because what youre saying in Gay Marriage= Homosexual union of 2 people of the opposite sex who are not homosexual but hetrosexual.

It's a term in contradiction w itself. The word marriage is spoken for already, and it means:

2 hetrosexuals of opposite sex who want to unionize/solemenize their relationship.

You need people of opposite sexes to even approach the meaning of the word marriage.

If Prop 8 were worded as :a marriage shall be between a man and a woman and gay partnerships can have similar benefits that men and women have who cohabitate, I would be ok with that.

<>

If you're so hung up on definitions, let's look at what you're suggesting:

Gay partnership - two gay people forming a business, or taking part in some sort of economic venture?

Gay union - an organization that protects the rights of gay workers?

See, the problem with your suggestion is that these labels do not come close to actually describing the relationship that the two parties involved want to have, and what they want to communicate to the world about their commitment to each other. The word that best describes that sort of relationship is - wait for it - marriage.

It's very simple, really.

And just because you're uncomfortable with those uppity gays co-opting your word doesn't mean that you or other heteros have exclusive rights to it. Several states have already decided that, and I have confidence that within the next decade or so, the rest will follow suit.

[indra]

Originally Posted by diamond

You need people of opposite sexes to even approach the meaning of the word marriage.

No actually I don't. You might, but I understand English to be a living language, thus the meaning of words is quite able to develop and change.

I don't get the fear that marriage is somehow devalued if them there gays are allowed to do it too. If Fred and Erma down the street have a shitty-assed marriage, does that mean your marriage is shitty-assed too? If not, why the hell not?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by indra

I understand English to be a living language, thus the meaning of words is quite able to develop and change.

Just watch how the definition of "rich" will develop and change over the next 4 years.

[martha]

The museums will be full of interesting quotes and photos, won't they?

[indra]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Just watch how the definition of "rich" will develop and change over the next 4 years.

I'm pretty sure it won't describe me no matter how much it's meaning changes.

But we'll be sure to screw you over real good!

[A_Wanderer]

Originally Posted by BVS

How does this address other celebrations, contracts, or other issues?

You obviously didn't understand the question.

I want an example from the Bible of everything you celebrate, get in contract with, or any other conservative issue. I want you to be consistant with the Bible in every single issue you put forth. Otherwise you are just picking and choosing.

I want examples of denying rights.

I want examples of torture.

I want examples of birthdays.

I want examples of lease or mortgage contracts.



Diamond, guess who challenged Jesus about his knowledge of the word...

Given your previous posts, I don't think challenging folks about their knowledge of scripture is a wise thing...

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."

Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame

[A_Wanderer]

Many “alleged” Christians fail to see typical Christian responses to evil in the world. In the haste to stop the killing of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, thousands of Christians signed up to go and fight. But closely scrutinize who says Christians stood back and watched in silence.

Few mention Pope Pius XXII’s secret actions to transport as many Christians as possible out of Nazi Germany, or the hundreds of Catholics that worked tirelessly to save as many Jews and Christians from death camps, or even Saint Maximilian Kolbe who traded his life for a citizen incarcerated in a death camp.

Those “kangaroo” Christians seem to forget who came up with the Emancipation Proclamation (Lincoln{Christian}), or a Congress of mostly Christian Republicans who passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution—mainstays for all Blacks today. The writer remembers Catholic Archbishop Joseph Rummel excommunicating three segregationists (1962) for refusing to integrate church schools in Louisiana.

Starting in 1981, the perfect solution was devised for the oncoming crisis of HIV/AIDS, much of which was transpiring in the Black community. A Nobel laureate couldn’t have come up with a better solution—total fidelity in marriage, and no sex with anyone but your marriage partner. Many ignore that advice.

Shockingly, many have molded “enhanced interrogation techniques” with “torture”. There’s a huge difference–as well as a major definition variance–they don’t want to talk about.

Torture involves extreme physical pain or even death, such as the cutting off of appendages, gouging of eyes, use of shredders to the body, electrical shock—you name it. Blood is usually involved.

But water boarding, only done on 3 prisoners in the US, is probably the most “enhanced” of the techniques. Because of the conditions of the test, there was no pain, no blood, no death—only fear. As a result, hundreds maybe thousands, were saved from certain death from terrorists during the “Second Wave”–an assault intended for a high rise on the West Coast, but thwarted by the information gained from water boarding those three terrorists.

Interestingly, all three terrorists are walking around today with their digits intact, tongues attached, and none the worse physically or mentally.

It’s likely even Jesus would have OK’d water boarding if it would have saved his Mom. He would’ve done the same to save his Dad, or any one of His disciples. For that matter, He even died to save all humans.

It’s obvious He would not be happy with those who voted for the candidate who kills because it’s above his “pay grade” to know if they’re alive. Checking the Commandments, killing innocents is against the 5th. Because pro-aborts don’t know for sure life does not exist at conception, they are still willing to risk that it’s not killing.

Misinterpreting the Christian Response - roetenks’s Diary - RedState

[melon]

Originally Posted by diamond

It's a term in contradiction w itself. The word marriage is spoken for already, and it means:

2 hetrosexuals of opposite sex who want to unionize/solemenize their relationship.

You need people of opposite sexes to even approach the meaning of the word marriage.

Only two?

"And David knew that the LORD had established him as king of Israel and had exalted his rule for the sake of his people Israel. David took more concubines and wives in Jerusalem after he had come from Hebron, and more sons and daughters were born to him in Jerusalem." - 2 Samuel 5:12-13

"[King Solomon] had seven hundred wives of princely rank and three hundred concubines..." - 1 Kings 11:3

Leviticus' only restriction on polygamy?

"While your wife is still living you shall not marry her sister as her rival; for thus you would disgrace your first wife." - Leviticus 18:18

[BVS]

Originally Posted by diamond

Those aren't the topics we're discussing, and I answered the question pertaining to the topic at hand, while you resorted to calling me a liar.

I gave you an example of how Christ attended a marriage between a man and a woman and now you're trying to change the subject.

<>

But it's the precedent you presented when you asked if these people ever attended or sanctioned a gay marriage. By that flawed logic, every single thing you stand for or celebrate has to have an example of Christ or the disciples attending or sanctioning.

See, it's just crap logic...

[BVS]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

Matthew 13:42: "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."

"Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels."

Mark 9:43-48: And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched."

Luke 16:24: "And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame

I'm not quite sure what you think these are examples of...

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Just watch how the definition of "rich" will develop and change over the next 4 years.

But I'm sure the definition of paranoia will stay the same...

[MrsSpringsteen]

For gay couples, married matters

Most say they feel more committed, accepted by peers

By Stephen Smith, Boston Globe Staff | May 24, 2009

Five years after the first same-sex weddings in Massachusetts, gay and lesbian couples express deeply traditional reasons for deciding to wed and cite equally conventional benefits flowing from marriage, according to a study being released this week.

A significant majority of the 558 gay men and women surveyed said that since marrying, they feel more committed to their spouses, more accepted in their community, and more likely to be open about their sexual orientation at work.

The survey indicates that there is something universal about the legal protections and social advantages afforded by the institution of marriage, said the study's authors from the University of California, Los Angeles as well as independent researchers. And it suggests, they said, that a ritual once scorned even by many same-sex couples has the power to ease discrimination.

"This really helps us confirm and makes us understand why same-sex couples demand marriage - if it's just about the legal rights, why wouldn't they be happy with civil partnerships?" said Stephanie Coontz author of "Marriage, A History."

"They want access to that word that is so highly valued by our society and by other people.

"It is one thing not to invite your child's girlfriend or boyfriend to dinner," said Coontz, a professor at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wash. "It is quite another thing not to invite the spouse."

Same-sex marriages began in Massachusetts on May 17, 2004, after the Supreme Judicial Court declared that gay and lesbian couples had the right to wed. The ruling ignited a political and social maelstrom in Massachusetts and beyond, but since then four other states - Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, and Vermont - have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples. Lawmakers in New Hampshire are currently debating whether to make their state the next to do so.

The study was prepared and paid for by UCLA's Williams Institute, which examines legal and public policy issues related to sexual orientation and is funded by foundations and individuals, including supporters of gay marriage.

The authors of the survey, which consisted of about 30 questions, said they regarded it as an initial assessment of gay marriage, largely designed to explore issues arising during public debate rather than to delve into more personal aspects of couples' relationships. For example, researchers asked whether respondents' children had faced taunting as a result of their parents' same-sex marriage - only 5 percent had - but did not ask how happily married partners were.

"We've been interested in the impact of marriage for a long time," said Lee Badgett, researcher director of the Williams Institute and senior author of the study. "I've been combing the universe for data, but there just aren't that many places to look at same-sex couples who are literally married."

The marriage questions were included in a larger online health survey conducted this month by the state Department of Public Health. The agency found potential respondents through a database maintained by the gay rights group MassEquality, which includes donors as well as people identified as being in same-sex marriages, and invitations to participate were e-mailed. About 4 percent responded.

Those surveyed were not a randomly selected population - something that would have been far more costly and difficult to accomplish - so the findings are not representative of the more than 12,000 gay married couples in Massachusetts. But Coontz and a Wellesley College researcher, Michelle Porche, praised it as a robust, well-executed study.

Virtually all of the married men and women who responded - 93 percent - said "love and commitment" were the prime factors in their decision to wed.

Marriage appears to have forged stronger ties between spouses and their families and even colleagues on the job. When asked whether marriage had created a stronger bond with their partners, nearly three-quarters said it had. And families, the gay couples said, reacted with overwhelming acceptance of their marriage: 82 percent said their parents responded positively, while 91 percent indicated siblings were receptive.

Eight of 10 study participants said that being married made them more likely to disclose their sexual orientation to their coworkers and doctors.

"That suggests there's something powerful about that ritual, about that institution," Badgett said. "People feel more accepted by society."

Porche, a senior research scientist at the Wellesley Centers for Women, said the findings mirror those of a smaller, although more intensive, study she conducted by interviewing couples not long after gay marriage was legalized.

"Studies like these help us from afar to get to know people a little bit better," Porche said. "The more people who have reservations about gay marriage can really meet married same-sex couples and get to know them and their experience, the more they would be open to supporting" the right to marry.

Still, advocates on both sides of the gay marriage debate remain starkly divided in their beliefs.

Kris Mineau, a leader of the failed effort to place a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage on the ballot in Massachusetts, said he remained convinced that voters should have the final say on who has the right to marry. And, he said, he has not wavered.

"There's nothing in that poll that suggests to me any reason why marriage should be changed summarily to meet the personal desires of a small segment of the population," said Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute. "I see no reason to do this unless the entire population agrees this is in the best interest of our society."

Scott Gortikov, executive director of MassEquality, said the study's findings suggest that the benefits of same-sex marriage extend beyond the couple.

"What the results are saying is that equal marriage makes for a healthier and happier family life and, necessarily, a healthier and happier and more solid society," Gortikov said.

Jonathan Scott and Mike McGuill had been a couple for a decade when, on Aug. 1, 2006, they awakened and headed to the Pilgrim Monument with their young son and two friends, who'd met them for breakfast. "I said, 'Before our scrambled eggs, we're going to get married, I hope that's OK with you,' " Scott recalled.

His mother, Scott said, was married five times, so he'd grown up with a well-honed skepticism. But as his relationship with McGuill deepened and they adopted their son, marriage appeared to provide indispensable legal protection to them as a couple and as parents, said Scott, who participated in the survey.

"And yet, what happened as we were getting married, it was an experience I'd never had before," said Scott, chief executive of Victory Programs, which helps substance abusers in Boston. "I was so moved at just being in the presence of someone I'd been with 10 years, talking about our love together and our commitment to each other."

At family gatherings, McGuill felt a keen sense of difference when he watched his married brothers and sisters - until that August morning three years ago.

"Now, I have what they have," said McGuill, a veterinarian. "I have a marriage. Getting married, there's nothing revolutionary about it - it's something you do with the person you love."