Gay marriage

[Methos]

Honestly what does gay marriage add? They can't settle down and naturally have a family. Its not like they have to make an honest woman out of each other and avoid their children being called bastards. Its really only an attempt to hijack a cultural tradition by people insecure about their own status in society and wishing for validation of their normality. Having gay marriages adds absolutely no society value, and its a pretty sad attempt at retconning a cultural tradition that's existed since the dawn of time. The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

[Cecily]

Honestly what does gay marriage add? They can't settle down and naturally have a family.

So that means that they're not allowed to get married because they can't naturally have children? What about a woman who is infertile? Does that mean she cannot get married because she can't "naturally have a family"? There are things like adoption. Also, I've heard of gay men and lesbians actually having children together and sharing custody of the child.

Its not like they have to make an honest woman out of each other and avoid their children being called bastards. Its really only an attempt to hijack a cultural tradition by people insecure about their own status in society and wishing for validation of their normality. Having gay marriages adds absolutely no society value, and its a pretty sad attempt at retconning a cultural tradition that's existed since the dawn of time. The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

And not allowing gay marriage adds society value? I don't see the point. o_o;

Well, the problem is that there are many benefits that come with marriage that two people who are in love and want to be together would like to have, just like any heterosexual couple. I'm not even sure if civil unions are available in every state -- and if they are, they might not be recognized in other states. Also, civil unions do not even grant all the same benefits as a normal marriage does.

These are just some of the benefits available to married people:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Some of those might be covered by a civil union -- but not all of them are.

The problem is that even if gay people can get civil unions in some states, it's not the same as marriage -- and that is the unfair part. I think that they should be able to marry anyways, but if they're not going to be able to marry because it might "destroy the precious definition of the word" then they need some equivalent. :) Otherwise, it's just inequality.

[The Overlord]

Honestly what does gay marriage add?

Add to what? This question means nothing without explanation.

They can't settle down and naturally have a family.

Actually they do, and from what I've seen on it, statistically they have a better rate of staying together than hetero couples. And just maybe, they're not always looking to 'settle down naturally' and have a family. Ever consider that?

Its not like they have to make an honest woman out of each other and avoid their children being called bastards.

Dude, public school, even private school is a wolf pit and a circus. I was born in wedlock and of normal hetero parents, and I've been called far worse than a bastard. Society will always find something to ridicule. What's your point?



They live a homosexual lifestyle; your abnormality is their normality. Maybe they don't give a damn what you think. Ever consider that?

Hijack? Interesting use of terminology. Christianity hijacked practices and beliefs from faiths that preceded it, but I'm guessing you'll use the church argument back yourself up, again, what's your point?

Having gay marriages adds absolutely no society value, 

That's an opinion. Who says it has to add something to be valid? The point is it causes no harm to heterosexual couples, and that's something you're all scared of. As I've said, I've heard the arguments: Some believe it violates normal marriage, which can't be proven. You're trying to turn the argument 180 degrees and attack from the other side, implying that it must carry some societal good. Once again, the argument fails miserably.

and its a pretty sad attempt at retconning a cultural tradition that's existed since the dawn of time.

This too, is an opinion.

The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

Who says this is a whim? Homosexuality has existed since the 'dawn of time' as well; all the classic civilizations had to find ways to deal with it too. It says something harsh about our society when we have such simple-minded and naive views of sexuality.

[Oniya]

The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

Actually, if we're getting back to original meanings, I like the original meaning of gay.

First three in Webster's New World dictionary:

gay (gā)

adjective

   1. joyous and lively; merry; happy; lighthearted
   2. bright; brilliant - 'gay colors'
   3. given to social life and pleasures - 'a gay life'

Etymology: ME gai < OFr < ? Frank *gahi, swift, impetuous, akin to Ger jäh


That's it, I think we should all have gay marriages. Much better than the alternative.  *nods sagely* 

[Methos]

So that means that they're not allowed to get married because they can't naturally have children? What about a woman who is infertile? Does that mean she cannot get married because she can't "naturally have a family"? There are things like adoption. Also, I've heard of gay men and lesbians actually having children together and sharing custody of the child.

And not allowing gay marriage adds society value? I don't see the point. o_o;

Well, the problem is that there are many benefits that come with marriage that two people who are in love and want to be together would like to have, just like any heterosexual couple. I'm not even sure if civil unions are available in every state -- and if they are, they might not be recognized in other states. Also, civil unions do not even grant all the same benefits as a normal marriage does.

These are just some of the benefits available to married people:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Some of those might be covered by a civil union -- but not all of them are.

The problem is that even if gay people can get civil unions in some states, it's not the same as marriage -- and that is the unfair part. I think that they should be able to marry anyways, but if they're not going to be able to marry because it might "destroy the precious definition of the word" then they need some equivalent. :) Otherwise, it's just inequality.

If it adds nothing and the status who is that marriage doesn't include members of the same sex, its incumbent upon them to demonstrate that the change is somehow worth while as they are the ones who wish a departure from what currently exists. Benefits can all be covered under civil unions. And playing around with the whole "what about old people or infertile women" thing is nothing more than sophistry and its entirely beside the point. Marriage existed between two members of the opposing gender as th anchor for the family for thousands of years. Did it always result in children no, was family the primary rational for it - yes.

[Methos]

Add to what? This question means nothing without explanation.

Actually they do, and from what I've seen on it, statistically they have a better rate of staying together than hetero couples. And just maybe, they're not always looking to 'settle down naturally' and have a family. Ever consider that?

Dude, public school, even private school is a wolf pit and a circus. I was born in wedlock and of normal hetero parents, and I've been called far worse than a bastard. Society will always find something to ridicule. What's your point?

*snip*

They live a homosexual lifestyle; your abnormality is their normality. Maybe they don't give a damn what you think. Ever consider that?

Hijack? Interesting use of terminology. Christianity hijacked practices and beliefs from faiths that preceded it, but I'm guessing you'll use the church argument back yourself up, again, what's your point?


That's an opinion. Who says it has to add something to be valid? The point is it causes no harm to heterosexual couples, and that's something you're all scared of. As I've said, I've heard the arguments: Some believe it violates normal marriage, which can't be proven. You're trying to turn the argument 180 degrees and attack from the other side, implying that it must carry some societal good. Once again, the argument fails miserably.


This too, is an opinion.

Who says this is a whim? Homosexuality has existed since the 'dawn of time' as well; all the classic civilizations had to find ways to deal with it too. It says something harsh about our society when we have such simple-minded and naive views of sexuality.

Yes homosexuality has existed a long time. On the other hand the people in it were never considered to be in marriages, and from the Romans onwards its been considered a deviant practice. By the same token everything you've written is an opinion, so if you have no real rebuttal to it there isn't any point in engaging in debate. Essentially everything you have to say exists on some bizarre axis in your mind around 'religion is evil' and its honestly rather tiresome to listen to that phrase churned out with slightly different wording again and again.

[Cecily]

If it adds nothing and the status who is that marriage doesn't include members of the same sex, its incumbent upon them to demonstrate that the change is somehow worth while as they are the ones who wish a departure from what currently exists.

Uh, what? I don't understand the whole point that 'allowing gay marriage adds nothing to society' -- if anything it adds to society because equality is something that every society should have, or at least try to have. How does not allowing it add anything to society? How does allowing gay marriage effect heterosexuals at all?

I'm not gay, or bisexual, and I still support gay rights and marriage. Using the term 'they' as if it's only gay people who want gay marriage to be allowed is pretty silly.

Benefits can all be covered under civil unions.

Key word: can. They're -NOT- all covered under civil unions.

playing around with the whole "what about old people or infertile women" thing is nothing more than sophistry and its entirely beside the point.

Your implications in your post earlier implied that because gay people cannot 'naturally start a family' that them getting married means nothing. Plenty of people who get married never have children even if they're capable of it... it's not like there are any laws that say people who get married have to start a family, obviously.

Marriage existed between two members of the opposing gender as th anchor for the family for thousands of years. Did it always result in children no, was family the primary rational for it - yes.

So? We don't live in a time similar to thousands of years ago. That's like saying that slavery should still be allowed because humans did that thousands of years ago. Just because people who got married traditionally did it and had children doesn't mean that's all what married couples do now. Things change, and having equality for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation is something that everyone should want. :)

[RubySlippers]

So that means that they're not allowed to get married because they can't naturally have children? What about a woman who is infertile? Does that mean she cannot get married because she can't "naturally have a family"? There are things like adoption. Also, I've heard of gay men and lesbians actually having children together and sharing custody of the child.

And not allowing gay marriage adds society value? I don't see the point. o_o;

Well, the problem is that there are many benefits that come with marriage that two people who are in love and want to be together would like to have, just like any heterosexual couple. I'm not even sure if civil unions are available in every state -- and if they are, they might not be recognized in other states. Also, civil unions do not even grant all the same benefits as a normal marriage does.

These are just some of the benefits available to married people:

Access to Military Stores
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
Bereavement Leave
Immigration
Insurance Breaks
Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Social Security Survivor Benefits
Sick Leave to Care for Partner
Tax Breaks
Veteran’s Discounts
Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison

Some of those might be covered by a civil union -- but not all of them are.

The problem is that even if gay people can get civil unions in some states, it's not the same as marriage -- and that is the unfair part. I think that they should be able to marry anyways, but if they're not going to be able to marry because it might "destroy the precious definition of the word" then they need some equivalent. :) Otherwise, it's just inequality.

Many of these could be corrected with Federal Legislation confering these right to Civil Unions save in the Military and I will add homosexuals cannot legally serve in the military. Others just need state laws such as with visitation rights. None require gay marriage per se just a legal recognition of a Civil Union so why not focus on that?

I suspect you might get more support than if you seem to attack the sanctity of marriage as the people of faith see it. I favor this approach it would likely be easier to get save in Florida now, our Amendment 2 pretty well shafted the logical and simple approach.

[Methos]

Uh, what? I don't understand the whole point that 'allowing gay marriage adds nothing to society' -- if anything it adds to society because equality is something that every society should have, or at least try to have. How does not allowing it add anything to society? How does allowing gay marriage effect heterosexuals at all?

I'm not gay, or bisexual, and I still support gay rights and marriage. Using the term 'they' as if it's only gay people who want gay marriage to be allowed is pretty silly.

Key word: can. They're -NOT- all covered under civil unions.
Your implications in your post earlier implied that because gay people cannot 'naturally start a family' that them getting married means nothing. Plenty of people who get married never have children even if they're capable of it... it's not like there are any laws that say people who get married have to start a family, obviously.

So? We don't live in a time similar to thousands of years ago. That's like saying that slavery should still be allowed because humans did that thousands of years ago. Just because people who got married traditionally did it and had children doesn't mean that's all what married couples do now. Things change, and having equality for everyone regardless of their sexual orientation is something that everyone should want. :)

Marriage is a tradition and a religious act that takes place between a man and a woman. I oppose changing the meaning of the act and the word to include things it was never meant to contemplate. There is no practical benefit to allowing gays to marry. All of the government benefits can be covered under civil unions without profaning tradition and religion with a ludicrous redefinition of the term just because some minority group believes it would give them warm fuzzies. Even Barak Obama doesn't see in utility in it and isn't he the left wing messiah?

[Apple of Eris]

Just a note, in the United States of America, marriage is not a religious act. Marriage is a Civil act - it is technically, a contract between two indivduals.

In fact it can best be compared to forming a business partnership or even a corporation.
*shrug*

[RubySlippers]

Tell many of the churches that, they will disagree.

[The Overlord]

Yes homosexuality has existed a long time. On the other hand the people in it were never considered to be in marriages, and from the Romans onwards its been considered a deviant practice. By the same token everything you've written is an opinion, so if you have no real rebuttal to it there isn't any point in engaging in debate. Essentially everything you have to say exists on some bizarre axis in your mind around 'religion is evil' and its honestly rather tiresome to listen to that phrase churned out with slightly different wording again and again.

This in turn is also an opinion, and this has become a very tiring and circular debate.

Once again:

The case that gay marriage needs to 'add something' to society remains utterly subjective.

You have to prove it's a bad thing to say it's wrong. Again, there's no case here. The point remains is that California made it alright and then rescinded. Now that's it been on the books, making it illegal is a clear violation of civil rights.

Unlike the Romans, we have the opportunity to show that we've evolved in the past 2000 years and come up with an amicable solution to this. We led by example by electing our first black president. If America is a true world leader, then we can lead by example here too.


When religion stops committing atrocities in the name of belief, I'll stop calling it out. If religion is enacting a violation of civil rights or condoning it, then yes, it is committing evil. Religionists like to delude themselves that just because it's written in their book or they think they can interpret it from their book, it's just fine. You can't have your cake and eat it too; you're trying to justify your faith and push it on everyone. And you still have cause to wonder why some of us want to fight you?

The continuous hidebound blithering of the religious right that believes they know better for all of us is even more tiresome. Of all the churches, the Mormons have some of the least latitude in all this. Here’s a church that practices polygamy, or at least sects of the Mormon church continue to do so. Talk about hypocrits.

The Catholics can't talk either; while they've been pushing dogma all these years, they've quietly been doing altar boys. At least with married gays it's consensual between adults. Sick.

Again I make my point; as a liberal I want to give everyone a choice on civil rights. As conservatives you want to give them a choice too, so long as it's yours, and you'll use the weight of your churches to enforce it?  And then you come out of your corner and accuse of being against organized religion? You want to accuse ME of being an instigator? That's rich.

Just a note, in the United States of America, marriage is not a religious act. Marriage is a Civil act - it is technically, a contract between two individuals.

In fact it can best be compared to forming a business partnership or even a corporation.
*shrug*

Which nicely makes the case.

Again, this religion sticking its nose into law, and forgetting the cardinal rule-

Isn't-your-business-get-out…

[Methos]

Actually the American constitution and the declaration of independence were all basically cribbed from the philosophical work of John Locke. Locke believed that our rules and morality were all our divine patrimony and the reason that the anarchy Hobbes positited didn't transpire was divinely inspired. The entire framework of Anglo-American law is rife with judeo-christian values whether you like it or not.

It always amuses me that while liberals proclaim their "tolerance" as some sort of cherished value, the hatred they show towards religion and anyone who doesn't agree with them is anything but tolerant.

How many times do people need to point out on this board to you Overlord that more crimes have been committed in the name of Communism and other aestistic creeds than have ever been comitted in the name of religion before you give you tired "religious attrocities" tripe a rest? People commit attrociities and your sad delusion that religion is the sole inspiration for them is either entirely wilfully blind or intellectually dishonest. Stalin, Mao, Robbespiere, and Pol Pot are among the greatest butchers in history and religion had absolutely nothing to do with their ideologies.

I don't think much of Mormons, on the other hand there is really nothing particularly damaging to soceity in their quaint fairy tale of a founding. It doesn't devalue any existing societal structures, and yet the cultural marxism that passes as liberalism these days hasn't seen a pillar of society that it wouldn't like to tear down consequences be damned.

Given that you don't seem to think we shouldn't judge other people's relationships in any case and everyone should do whatever feels good - what hell is your problem with even the fringe Mormons who want to have a dozen wives? Why not just sign onto N.A.M.B.L.A. 's agenda for that matter while your at it. If you can't judge other people relationships for 'moral content' then where do you get off saying poligamy is wrong or pedophillia is wrong? According to you "its all about their choice" as opposed to any societal standards which is simply incoherent. But then again the only coherent thought you seem to have is that you hate religion for a variety of incoherent reasons.

[HairyHeretic]

Right, time to cool it down folks, before anything else gets said that works people up further.

[Methos]

I find the the comparison that some people like to make between gay marriage and interracial marriage to be misleading Trieste. They remained marriages between two members of the opposite gender, and the skin tone of either partner served as no barrier to the creation of a normal family unit. For that matter marriages between different ethnic groups had been common practices forever, so the only real issue at stake was American's internal fixation with race. Their was no change to the definition of what constituted a marriage.

As for the Churches that sanction gay marriages, most of them have very little religion left in them and are no more than left wing talking shops. But given the plunging attendence for those sort of organizations there really won't be much division amongst them given twenty or thirty years time. The serious religious organizations are united in their opposition to gay marriage, given that homosexuality is sort of viewed negatively in that whole Bible thing.

There have already been studies conducted on it in Europe Trieste. The devaluation of marriage and family has rather severe consequences. Family was society's traditional building block. Quicky and easy divorce already dealt that institution a body blow and gay marriage would cheapen it even further. The result has been greater impermanence in people's relationships and that lack of stability has social costs. Marriage is a practice that should be taken seriously, changing it on a whim is simply a bad idea.

[Trieste]

I find the the comparison that some people like to make between gay marriage and interracial marriage to be misleading Trieste. They remained marriages between two members of the opposite gender, and the skin tone of either partner served as no barrier to the creation of a normal family unit. For that matter marriages between different ethnic groups had been common practices forever, so the only real issue at stake was American's internal fixation with race. Their was no change to the definition of what constituted a marriage.

But many of the same accusations of slippery-slopeness that you are stating come from that debate. The reference you made to pedophilia, for instance, was a popular deterrent at the time, and it has since been proven that no, people will not go and wed their dogs or their newborn children simply because you let other people marry who they want. It does not work that way.

As for the 'normal' family unit, it's not always one man, one woman, and many children. There are many different and varied forms of the family and not all of them consist of what we would define as a nuclear family. And there has always been a fixation with differences, be they religious, racial, or otherwise... the US just happened to have one with blacks versus whites - although if you look, you'll also find extreme resistance to whites marrying Asians, hispanics and other ethnicities throughout the history of the US. It's just not as well-popularized.

As for the Churches that sanction gay marriages, most of them have very little religion left in them and are no more than left wing talking shops. But given the plunging attendence for those sort of organizations there really won't be much division amongst them given twenty or thirty years time. The serious religious organizations are united in their opposition to gay marriage, given that homosexuality is sort of viewed negatively in that whole Bible thing.

What right have you or I or anyone to decide what church is more valid than another? A church is a church is a church - and I might add that 'godlessness' was an accusation flung at the Episcopalian church when it first began ordaining women, yet very few people would consider Episcopalian churches ungodly ... unless you're a Roman or Orthodox Catholic but they don't really like anyone, so they don't really count. (And before you go there, that was a joke. I grew up around Catholicism; I'm allowed.) The so-called serious religious organizations are far from united, and are declining in attendance just as much as other churches.

There have already been studies conducted on it in Europe Trieste. The devaluation of marriage and family has rather severe consequences. Family was society's traditional building block. Quicky and easy divorce already dealt that institution a body blow and gay marriage would cheapen it even further. The result has been greater impermanence in people's relationships and that lack of stability has social costs. Marriage is a practice that should be taken seriously, changing it on a whim is simply a bad idea.

I would very much like to see these studies, and I'll be happy to read them once you point me in the right direction. We can discuss them then.

I would also like to hear the opinion on how allowing more people to get married would devalue the institution of marriage further than things like Britney Spears' 24-hour drunken marriage-plus-annulment. Or, if you don't like current cultural icons, how about Elizabeth Taylor's 8 or 9 husbands? And how do you know that same-sex marriages are not more stable than hetero marriages specifically because they know what a gift it is?

I don't understand how anyone can decide that they can judge the sanctity of someone else's union. Leave it to God, honestly... but for those of us here on Earth right now, the legal right has nothing to do with the religious rite of marriage. As I said, religion is religion and will either allow it or not allow it. It's the civil right, not the religious right that is on the table. Nobody is arguing that every single church ever has to marry gay couples left and right. What people are calling for is equal rights under the law. Equal insurance coverage. Equal tax breaks. Equality in their daily lives, whether they are religious or not. For me? I personally agree with the stance that government should not be involved in this. Filing joint taxes and having governmental regulation of marriages seems just silly to me. But if there is going to be such silliness in the US, it should be open to all couples, everywhere.

And this is all being said, mind, from the standpoint of someone who really doesn't have much use for marriage ... to either sex. When I look at someone and find myself attracted to them, their gender is the very last thing that occurs to me. Their smile, their sense of humour, their intelligence, their figure, all of this stuff is more important than gender. I honestly don't see how that's such a bad thing that if I happen to fall for another woman, that I should not be able to propose to her, and follow through on that. Why should I not be allowed to pledge my life and my love to whomever I choose? How does that threaten anything at all? Because that's pretty much what the personal side of it comes down to.

[Moondazed]

And after reading all of this I find myself wondering just what it is that's being defended?  'Traditional' marriages are failing more often than succeeding, so the whole man + woman thing must not be the perfect configuration some people tout it as.

[The Overlord]

And after reading all of this I find myself wondering just what it is that's being defended?  'Traditional' marriages are failing more often than succeeding, so the whole man + woman thing must not be the perfect configuration some people tout it as.

That's pretty much it. I suppose someone would want to argue that allowing homosexual marriage would be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back and totally wrecked the concept of marriage, but please don't insult our intelligence by posting it.

Again I maintain this is a completely abstract concept; there is no actual way that you can prove gay marriage is sinful or somehow going to shatter society. You can believe it, but you can't prove it, and if we want to pass laws based on such fairy tales then I must ask if the entire system is due for an overhaul...forcibly if need be.

[Huntress]

okay just a few points and i don't want to insult anyone here by what i ahve to say.
1. people are entitled to believe what they want to believe...calling it a fairy tale isn't very good debate ettiquette.
2. Gay marriage doesn't take away from straight marriage. If you want to get married in a Church that doesn't accept homosexuals, do it.
3. civil unions=/= marriage. don't tell people who deserve their american rights to be happy with less than that which they deserve.
that's really all i got to say...

[The Overlord]

1. people are entitled to believe what they want to believe...calling it a fairy tale isn't very good debate ettiquette.

I'm trying to make a point here on separating reality from the beliefs of one or more factions.

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, making it a proven case to argue so it holds water with people that don't believe it is what's important here. If religionists don't do that, then it means they're expecting us to share their beliefs, and thus we're back to the argument of individual rights and freedoms. But then religion at large doesn't have a real problem with the suppression of rights and freedom.

The basic premise that homosexuality is a sin, therefore punishable in an afterlife, and therefore must be illegal here on the mortal coil....OK, I won't use fairy tale, but I will use mythology. You can slice it any way you want, call it what you want, but it's still just a belief.

Mythology is a fair term; whether we call religious dogma a religion, a cult, or a mythology is entirely based on cultural relevance, i.e., how many people currently believe it. Christianity and all its branches started as a cult, and in the end they're all going to be mythology.

The debate here, is not whether religionists have the right to believe what they want; the point here is whether they have the right to push those beliefs on others whether they like it or not.

They don't.

What is bad debate etiquette here is believing your opinion overrides others just because your books say it does.

And in that respect, about 99% of we've all said here is just fluff. It comes down to one crucial point, which from here on will be my response in this thread:

None of your business.

[Huntress]

well i get you're passionate about this...but you don't need to be so harsh. As a Christian, I resent that you say "in the end it will be a mythology". I find that very insulting.
I, personally, agree that gay marriage won't hurt anything and that gay people should be allowed to marry. It's a constitutional right that no one should have the right to take away.
Just...remember that we are people too. All of us. And yelling at others doesn't make your point.

[The Overlord]

well i get you're passionate about this...but you don't need to be so harsh. As a Christian, I resent that you say "in the end it will be a mythology". I find that very insulting.

It's not insulting, or at least it's not meant to be insulting.

Long before and along side Christianity were beliefs: The Norse gods, the pantheons of the ancient Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians. Christians believe in one god, Hindus believe in many. Who is to really say which is more right?

Many of these faiths passed into antiquity, it would be naive to think Christianity won't. Sure, it might not happen for many, many years, but in the end, all that will remain of Christianity will be the same; crumbling relics and books, and the remains of the places of worship they used to dwell in.

I'm not saying it's pretty, but there you have it. Like everything else it will evolve or pass away...all we have to do is look at world history to see this.

I'll end here, as this is a derailment from the real topic.

[Huntress]

*nods* but Christianity has lasted 2000 years...think on that for a moment.

Back on topic, though...
I'm not trying to condescend; i hate when people do that to me. I just...Be aware. :)

[The Overlord]

Honestly what does gay marriage add? They can't settle down and naturally have a family. Its not like they have to make an honest woman out of each other and avoid their children being called bastards. Its really only an attempt to hijack a cultural tradition by people insecure about their own status in society and wishing for validation of their normality. Having gay marriages adds absolutely no society value, and its a pretty sad attempt at retconning a cultural tradition that's existed since the dawn of time. The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

Methos you're repeating yourself, therefore I shall respond as I said I would, on the only subject that matters here-

It's none of your business.

[The Overlord]

*nods* but Christianity has lasted 2000 years...think on that for a moment.

Back on topic, though...
I'm not trying to condescend; i hate when people do that to me. I just...Be aware. :)

I'm not here to insult anyone's faith, but I have no problem giving it a good hard kick when someone uses it as license to believe they hold the moral high ground and can pass universal laws with it.

[Oniya]

*nods* but Christianity has lasted 2000 years...think on that for a moment.

Back on topic, though...
I'm not trying to condescend; i hate when people do that to me. I just...Be aware. :)

Speaking as a sometime student of mythology, I'll add that the Egyptian pantheon lasted several thousand years, and unless I'm mistaken, Hinduism predates the Common Era and is still being practiced.

A wise man who follows the Tsalagi ways once told me that 'We should all follow our own Path.  Mine will not be the same as yours, but it is right for me, and yours will eventually be right for you.  As we travel, we take in new ideas and discard others that we have no need for.  Therefore, if someone - anyone - is leading you on your Path, and you don't watch where you're going, you will step in what they have left behind on the Path.   So keep your eyes open, and wear your hip-waders, because some people have left a lot of sh*t behind them.'

[Cherri Tart]

Honestly what does gay marriage add? They can't settle down and naturally have a family. Its not like they have to make an honest woman out of each other and avoid their children being called bastards. Its really only an attempt to hijack a cultural tradition by people insecure about their own status in society and wishing for validation of their normality. Having gay marriages adds absolutely no society value, and its a pretty sad attempt at retconning a cultural tradition that's existed since the dawn of time. The meaning of words shouldn't just be changed on a whim.

i am just speechless - so, my SO and i have nothing of value to add to our society?  want to know something?  the only value i have is being married to a man and producing babies?  btw, i already accept that i am not normal and i am not trying to be - i simply want to be left alone to live my life with the woman i love - is that so wrong?  i just don't think i can even voice the pure white rage i felt at reading through this statement and how hard it is to not react viscerally to.  thank you very much for discounting me as a person just because my DNA doesn't mesh with yours. 

[Caeli]

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the current topic at hand, but you guys. Seriously.

Gay marriage is probably an issue that would best be debated and argued over in a separate thread. I understand that peripherally, marriage between homosexuals and religion are related, but the real topic of this thread is Utah, Mormon campaigning against CA's Proposition 8, and the boycott.

If there is more to be said or argued or debated over concerning gay marriage, I really suggest that you guys split it into a separate thread, so as not to derail from the issue of the boycott.

[Vekseid]

Alright, split.

If you want to continue discussing religion specifically (outside of gay marriage), please make a new thread.

Thank you.

[Ket]

Honestly what does gay marriage add?

What does gay marriage take away?  Would your life be so horribly affected if gay couples were allowed to legally wed?  Would the clouds fall out of the sky, buildings collapse, rivers flood, earthquakes ravage the earth, etc?  I think not.

[Wistful Dream]

I have been blessed in my life to know quiet a few "gay" people, and you know what Methos? They are happy. They know who they are, they know how they love and generally, they find others who love them just like the rest of us.

Why in the world would you post this here of all places? You have to know that several people on the site are or have friends who are. Trying to stir up trouble and hurt for no good reason is a horrible thing to do.

~hugs Cherri tight~

I am extremely disappointed in this Methos, I thought you were better then this.

[Cecily]

Many of these could be corrected with Federal Legislation confering these right to Civil Unions save in the Military and I will add homosexuals cannot legally serve in the military. Others just need state laws such as with visitation rights. None require gay marriage per se just a legal recognition of a Civil Union so why not focus on that?

Yes, that was my point -- I was saying that even if civil unions are options for gay people, they don't give all the same benefits as marriage does. I think that the whole 'don't ask don't tell' policy is ridiculous, but people who are gay can still serve in the military as long as they don't tell people in the military about it. I think that having civil unions with all the same benefits as marriage would be great, but I personally think that gay marriage should be allowed anyways. -Shrugs- But it's better than nothing. :)

I suspect you might get more support than if you seem to attack the sanctity of marriage as the people of faith see it. I favor this approach it would likely be easier to get save in Florida now, our Amendment 2 pretty well shafted the logical and simple approach.

Wait, what? I'm not sure what you mean there. I'm not attacking marriage, if that's what you meant. I think marriage is a great and special thing that every adult -- regardless of their sexual orientation should be allowed to have.

[Vekseid]

For the record, the 'tradition' of marriage in judeo-christianity was not, originally, "A contract between a man and a woman."

It was a contract between a man and a woman's father, in which the man would agree to pay the bride price and uphold certain filial obligations. None of which restricted him to one wife.

[RubySlippers]

If your a Christian nope its between the couple and God and the bible-thumpers all read a few passages in the OT and one or two in the NT to show God condemns it. Even though Jesus never once spoke on the issue of homosexuals. But that means to them no Gay Marriage since marriage is sacred. And they had enough clout even in California to pass a Constitutional provision against it.

For me I would just make Civil Unions the standard and let marriage be a religious matter confering to the couple in the former the same level of rights married people have. The latter can be a seperate matter done privately. And allow Civil Unions to cover more than one adult citizen I see no reason eight people can't be married to each other.

Like I said Florida just banned Civil Unions at least the one contract strong ones so be grateful you still have that option in other states.

[Inkidu]

I'm for gay marriage. Honestly what two people do is none of my business. The joke I add at the end is, "Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us." That's just a joke on marriage in general. :D They could probably be considered married by common law. Besides the idea of marriage as something sanctimonious is relatively new. Past the medieval ages I say. Maybe enlightenment period. The Bible has it in there not because it was bad, but the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were gay rapists. If you had to sleep on the street they would molest you. It's one of those things in the Bible that was like a dietary constraint. They didn't eat shellfish out of a unglazed jar because they kept milk in it. If everyone's sleeping with their own sex. The Hebrew population doesn't grow. /Just my two cents. 

[CassandraNova]

For the record, here's a very nice speech that sums up my feelings on the matter pretty much perfectly: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5srKS0r5pVg

[Avi]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FapFXSoBMaQ

Whether you agree with Olbermann or not on any other issue, I think this is one of the most cogent summaries of the whole debate on gay marriage.  He is clearly for it, but you can be either way and still appreciate the argument.

Edit: Cassandra beat me to this. :P

[ShrowdedPoet]

Alright. . .I guess I'm jumping in a bit late most of all that needed to be said has been said and rather well.  But. . .

I did alot of research into marriage in high school.  I was intrigued by it and where it came from.  Actually. . .marriage doesn't come from Christianity or even religion.  So yeah. . .the AMERICAN tradition of marriage is a far cry from what marriage started out as.  I think it was much more beautiful in between its starting point and its ending point.  *nods*

[Oniya]

A few corrections on the Biblical stuff, from someone who was raised Catholic, and is a compulsive reader:

You're right - most of the laws in Leviticus, from the dietary to the sexual, were based on the needs of a small, nomadic population that needed to keep as many people healthy as possible.  Pork and shellfish were proscribed because of parasites.  The kosher sets of utensils are a very effective way of reducing/eliminating cross-contamination.  My husband was raised Jewish, and informed me that the color code on knife sets that they now market for eliminating cross-contamination are the traditional colors of fleishig (red, for meat) and non-fleishig (blue - which I believe can traditionally be used for both milchig {dairy} and pareve {neither meat nor dairy} ingredients).

All that aside, in such a situation, the emphasis is on men making babies, and as many as possible.  There is no proscription in Leviticus against lesbianism (although refusing your husband or wife {sin of Onan} was a Bad Thing^TM), interestingly enough, and actually, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not specified as homosexuality.  Actually, the Bible says these cities were destroyed because 'they were wicked and sinners' (Gen. 13:13) and makes no specific or implied connection between homosexuality and their destruction.

Even more clearly, Ezekiel 16:49 says, 'Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.'  (Searchable Bible databases and History Channel documentaries are a wonderful thing.)

I should also point out that all of Leviticus is Old Testament, Judaic law.  In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have dined with tax collectors and prostitutes, and said 'A new command I give you: Love one another as I have loved you.'  This would be agape love, not earthly like eros and stronger than philos.  And yet, here are all these people speaking out in hate.

[Inkidu]

You're right the were cities of sin. However, I believe, that it is the first rule set down on homosexuality. I was just being general about the whole city. Sure there were wicked heterosexuals too, but I didn't state that for the sake of the thread. I didn't say they had to crank out babies, but back then two homosexuals didn't make babies, and they were in the desert for most of the Old Testament. It's more smart tradition than anything else.

[CassandraNova]

Edit: Cassandra beat me to this. :P

Wow!  Synchronity, eh?

[Mathim]

Sorry if I repeat something that's been said but I didn't feel like reading all two pages of stuff.

I am completely in support of gay marriage/civil unions/whatever, it doesn't matter what it's called to me, whatever they want to call it is just fine with me. Calling marriage something sacred and pure is complete bullcrap since people treat it like something so inert; the divorce rate is enormous and a lot of people only do get married for the wrong reasons. How is that sacred? I'm sure for the very few people who are in a marriage for the right reasons and are happy with it have the right to call it sacred, but for anyone to say that allowing gays to get married to each other hurts marriage, they need to wake up and smell the coffee, straight people are doing far worse things to the notion of marriage than gays EVER could.

My best friend Michael is gay and he's the nicest person I've ever met. He's married to a woman because he was too afraid to come out of the closet until he was in his forties, and they're staying married even though they're no longer living together or anything, just to enjoy the benefits of marriage on their taxes and whatnot. Is that not a 'gay marriage'? It's completely legal though, and it's between a man and a woman. So how's that sound? Is that any better?

[Trieste]

A few corrections on the Biblical stuff, from someone who was raised Catholic, and is a compulsive reader:

You're right - most of the laws in Leviticus, from the dietary to the sexual, were based on the needs of a small, nomadic population that needed to keep as many people healthy as possible.  Pork and shellfish were proscribed because of parasites.  The kosher sets of utensils are a very effective way of reducing/eliminating cross-contamination.  My husband was raised Jewish, and informed me that the color code on knife sets that they now market for eliminating cross-contamination are the traditional colors of fleishig (red, for meat) and non-fleishig (blue - which I believe can traditionally be used for both milchig {dairy} and pareve {neither meat nor dairy} ingredients).

All that aside, in such a situation, the emphasis is on men making babies, and as many as possible.  There is no proscription in Leviticus against lesbianism (although refusing your husband or wife {sin of Onan} was a Bad Thing^TM), interestingly enough, and actually, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not specified as homosexuality.  Actually, the Bible says these cities were destroyed because 'they were wicked and sinners' (Gen. 13:13) and makes no specific or implied connection between homosexuality and their destruction.

Even more clearly, Ezekiel 16:49 says, 'Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.'  (Searchable Bible databases and History Channel documentaries are a wonderful thing.)

I should also point out that all of Leviticus is Old Testament, Judaic law.  In the New Testament, Jesus is said to have dined with tax collectors and prostitutes, and said 'A new command I give you: Love one another as I have loved you.'  This would be agape love, not earthly like eros and stronger than philos.  And yet, here are all these people speaking out in hate.

*reads*

*rereads*

I ... Oniya, may I once more profess my undying love to you? Someone else who makes these distinctions is worth their weight in gold to me. <3 Handbook for desert living ftw... also the forms of love are fun to jump around on.

[PhantomPistoleer]

You know, purely from a very subjective perspective:

I'm getting married in December to a very beautiful girl!  She's awesome, sweet, benevolent and puts up with me (which is amazing, I'm manic!).  But, I don't see how people of the same sex marrying affects the status of my marriage, or the value of my love for my wife-to-be.  In fact, I think it's pretty grand that people feel the same way that I do about somebody else.  Love is amazing!

Methos, I'm VERY sorry for you if you believe that the desire to spend the rest of your life with someone and have it be recognized by a state of law does not contribute in one way or another to society.  The way I see it, people who are in happy marriages, or in love, mow their lawns-- and as a homeowner, that's the only contribution to society that I can demand!  :D

[CassandraNova]

...although refusing your wife {sin of Onan} was a Bad Thing...

Just a minor, minor nitpick in what is otherwise an excellent post, the sin of Onan was not masturbation or refusing his wife.  After God had killed Onan's older brother Er, Judah asked Onan to have sex with Tamar, Er's widow, so that the offspring could be declared Er's heir, which would then mean that Onan would be passed over in the line of succession.  Onan had sex with Tamar, but performed coitus interruptus, spilling his seed upon the ground, so as to avoid making Tamar pregnant.  For this act, which displeased God, God killed Onan.

[Mathim]

Wow. Some people are doing their research; sweet.

That's another thing that bugs me about opposition to gay marriage (and homosexuality in general), is people that say "Oh, the bible says it's wrong so that's why I think it's wrong." Half the time, they're wrong about whatever it is they're basing that belief on, and even when they are right about something, they're basically admitting to having no opinion of their own, it's an unquestioning notion someone or something else put in their heads that they haven't given any independent thought about. Or at least, that's the type of people I run into and feel the need to enlighten. I've already done that for several classmates and others although I don't know if they felt their opinion might need to change until they get some facts straight.

[mannik]

Gay marriage doesn't add or subtract anything from society, neither does straight marriage.

I don't understand why you loving someone else needs to be recognized by the state. If people love enough to be together for the rest of their lives then great, do that, best of luck to you. But you don't need to spend ass loads of money on a cerimony just to make it easier for the government to tax you both. Why does it matter what the state thinks about your love?

[Mathim]

It's not the state that's the issue, it's the right-wing voters making it an issue.

[mannik]

The second part of my statement was about marriage in general, not just gay marriage.

[Mathim]

Same thing; even their opposition to gay marriage is based on it threatening STRAIGHT marriage.

[The Overlord]

Methos, I'm VERY sorry for you if you believe that the desire to spend the rest of your life with someone and have it be recognized by a state of law does not contribute in one way or another to society.  The way I see it, people who are in happy marriages, or in love, mow their lawns-- and as a homeowner, that's the only contribution to society that I can demand!  :D

That's just it; a lot of gay/lesbian couples are perfectly normal. They have good relationships, they mow their lawns, they put out the trash, they pay their taxes. Admittedly, having an adopted child with two mothers or fathers, or however you want to term that, is unconventional.

But I've known a number of adopted people over the years, even some cousins of mine are adopted. Some of them came from far worse situations than a homosexual family, or have gone into worse situations. This admittedly a sticky point of the process, but it seems to work for some families. Who are any of us to question it?


That's it for me now. I've said all I can; by now everyone here is highly aware of where I stand on this. Further discussion is pointless, because the opposition and I are just going in circles, and it's nasty little consuming spiral of a debate.

Being aware of the trap is the first step to defeating it, and that is what I now choose to do. I have a senior portfolio to work on, and no more time to devote to this. In the words of Mike Myers...talk amongst yourselves.


As promised I will leave the opposition with the only thing among all the fluff that really matters here:

It's none of your business.

[LaBelleDame]

I think it's truely curious that in the Old Testiment, a couple pages after Sodom and Ghomorah are destroyed, two girls opt to get their father drunk and sleep with him, with the intention of getting pregnant.
And those offspring are blessed and become their own people.

Curious how incest is okay in the good book.
o_O
But a mention of butt-buggering and the destruction of a city, and homosexuality is suddenly a most horrid of sins.
I most certainly see no harm in same sex marriage to what marriage is.
I do see harm in what marriage is, though.

[RubySlippers]

Well I was always in the "camp" of dropping this fight for gay marriage which is loaded with problems for strong legal civil unions confering virtually the same rights excluding taxes and a few others, if these happen to have more than two people in them. I think the marriage part is turning off the support that could be given in compromise to at least the religious moderates and those on the fence but don't like the idea.

And I'm afraid I agree with the black community saying homosexuality or bisexuality is the same as being a person of color is not reasonable they walk out in public and are - black. I walk out in public I'm a disabled white woman but lesbian is not. No one can tell unless I announce it in some way. That is the difference between gays and lesbians and other minorites protected under the law. Until we get that we can't plan a sensible strategy to get legal protections at some level for our loved ones in our lives and us.

I will exclude gender identity here since sex change operations and the like are a different category to consider in this since they can appear as they are.

[CassandraNova]

Well I was always in the "camp" of dropping this fight for gay marriage which is loaded with problems for strong legal civil unions confering virtually the same rights excluding taxes and a few others...

And if we put these really nice seat cushions on the seats on the back of the bus, it's like they'd don't even have to ride in the back of the bus!  Let's make sure that the separate water fountains they have to drink from make their water nice and chilly, and that makes it okay that they have to drink from a separate fountain!

Come on.  Civil unions aren't enough.  Marriage is recognized in every county, state, and in every country in the world, while civil unions aren't; so the rights and responsibilities don't necessarily travel with a couple when they leave a state in which they were granted.  Marriage is an institution that has existed for thousands of years, one that has tremendous emotional and psychological resonance in our culture in a way that civil unions don't.

But even if the philosophical case for equality doesn't move you, how about some cold, hard numbers:  Five months after New Jersey's Civil Union Law took effect, at least 1 out of every 7 civil-union couples in New Jersey were not getting their civil unions recognized by their employers.  That's about 14 percent. 

Civil unions are not just legally unequal to marriage, they're not just emotionally unequal to marriage, they're not even morally unequal to marriage.  They're unequal in the most basic, literal sense of the word:  in New Jersey there is a different and inferior standard to which companies are held when in comes to granting benefits to civil union'ed (that's another case why a system of civil unions won't work; there's no good past participle for joining in a civil union like there are for folks who are married) employees.  They're not being treated "separate but sort of equal" by their employers.  And that's why civil unions aren't enough.  Big step in the right direction, big whole lot better than nothing, but not enough.

And I'm afraid I agree with the black community saying homosexuality or bisexuality is the same as being a person of color is not reasonable they walk out in public and are - black. I walk out in public I'm a disabled white woman but lesbian is not. No one can tell unless I announce it in some way. That is the difference between gays and lesbians and other minorites protected under the law...

By that same logic, hate crime against Jews isn't the same as bigotry or discrimination against people of color.  I mean, come on, if it wasn't for the fact that they draw attention to themselves with those funny hats and clothes and their insular culture, they could pass for white in a lot of cases!  Therefore it isn't morally equivalent when they are victimized by bigotry, because they drew some of that attention to themselves by they just can't help but stand out...

Yeah.  No.  Time to take a lesson from speech class, steal a quote, and go out strong.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

[Eren]

I myself wonder why Methos seems to feel so threatened by the notion that there are people in the world in same-sex marriages. Or maybe he has never been discriminated against.

While I can't speak for America, I can say that I know people who wish to have same-sex marriage legalized here in Estonia. The reasons are simple: to enjoy the benefits married couples have. You know, being able to visit your spouse when he/she is in the hospital, being able to adopt, yadda yadda. Why not? It would not hurt the straight people.

Just like Overlord said, gays are perfectly normal. They just happen to like different sexual bits, is all. And I speak from personal experience. While having mom's gay friends was a little strange at first when I was 15, by now it has ceased to matter. In fact, most of them are some of the nicest people I've met. Not to glorify it or anything, but just adding my 2 cents.

[Trieste]

I myself wonder why Methos seems to feel so threatened by the notion that there are people in the world in same-sex marriages. Or maybe he has never been discriminated against.

Unnecessary. Out of line. *thwaps with rolled up newspaper* Please debate as opposed to attacking.

[Eren]

Sorry. Will refrain from it in the future, I promise.

*is promptly thwapped*

[Trieste]

Thank you!

[Oniya]

It appears to me that every time one person says 'what would it hurt', another says 'what would it help?'  The words 'it doesn't add anything' kept being tossed about.

I had to think about how to phrase it for a while, but there are things it adds.  For one thing, stability.  My sister has an adorable son, and a devoted life-partner.  With the way things are, if something, God forbid, were to happen to her, her life-partner would have less claim on the son they have both raised since infancy than my parents.  If they were married, there would be no question. 

It would probably lower the divorce rate - I see couples on the news talking about gay marriage, and they've been waiting - together - for decades to be 'official'.  That's longer than the average straight marriage lasts these days.

Honesty.  I'm not sure how many people remember Rock Hudson here, but think about it:  The man spent his entire married life in a lie.  There are countless others in the same situation, for one reason or another.

Loving families.  The people that want to get married are marrying because they want to, not because society has said that if you're single, 'ur nawt doin it rite!' (spelling deliberate to illustrate how idiotic that is) ; but because they truly, madly, deeply want to be joined with their partner, in the sight of God and the community, 'till death do us part'.  (Fill in your Deity of choice and personal vows.)

[Sugarman (hal)]

It all comes down to religious values. They will never agree to the union between same sex people as a marriage. That’s it bottom line. Religious people would love to force people to believe as they.  Be it Christian or  Hindu or Museum they see it their way only. Just this week a Taliban religious group through acid on some girls because they were “not dressed how a proper Museum women showed dress.”   

Remember the inquisition and witch hunts it’s still under the surface just itching to take us all down to be saved.
just my opinion

[HairyHeretic]

While I have no great fondness for any organised religions (especially the Abrahamic ones), I don't think that every religious person is an extremist fanatic.

[ShrowdedPoet]

I am religious.  BUT I do not care what others believe and feel no need to put my religious beliefs on others.  *shrugs*  Gay marriage is fine in my books. 

Oniya said it best. 

[Mathim]

What I don't like is how people seem to think homosexuals are doing this out of some kind of attack against god or whatever; that's not even close to it. The ones opposing this for false religious reasons are the ones guilty of attacking.

And what I really don't get is how women can be opposed to this for false religious reasons; the bible is always spouting misogynistic crap, are women really content being forced into submission all the time? If not then that's hypocritical, defending one aspect of what they THINK the bible is saying, but defying another.

[Oniya]

*nods*  Most of them quote Leviticus, and if you hit them with something else from that book (like no eating shrimp, no clothing of mixed fibers, or the ability for a father to sell his children into slavery, just to name a few absurdities), they sputter and say how that's not relevant these days.

[RubySlippers]

That is not true the Bible is full of powerful and spiritually strong women that can stand up for God, in fact many faiths allow women to have as much power as men.

I like to bring up who did Caine and Abel have for wives they did begat alot it seems and there not alot of people around. Seems incest was ok at one point.

But the fact is gay marriage in the US is a none issue if California can ban it it can happen in many states.

[Oniya]

*nod* Ruth and Esther are notable examples of strong biblical women.

I think you mean Seth (son #3), since Abel bought it.  Cain was exiled and went into the land of Nod, and took a wife among the Others.  Of course, it's never said who those Others were, but there were obviously more people out there.  Lot's daughters got him drunk and committed incest, but that seemed to be Frowned Upon.

Oh, and for real fun, there are two separate stories of creation in Genesis.

*yanks topic back to gay marriage*

I am optimistic that the knee-jerk, hell-fire and brimstone preachers are starting to fall more and more by the wayside, especially among the younger people.  My parents couldn't conceive of blacks and whites marrying, but that's no longer illegal.  Maybe by the time my daughter is old enough, it won't matter if she wants to marry a man or a woman.

[Mathim]

To me, as long as people are getting married for the right reasons, I have no problem with it. And I would think that, given the divorce rate of straight marriages, since gays have had to fight so hard for that right, they'd definitely take more steps to ensure that once married, they do it right and have a happy, fulfilling relationship. I know many people in straight marriages who are miserable because they did it for the wrong reasons and did it without really thinking it through.

[RubySlippers]

I like Deborah personally a powerful woman in her own right and a wife, I assume a mother. So its the first example of a career woman and endowed by God as a prophetess.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah

But its not the "firebrand" ministers that should be a concern its the conservative moderates that seemed to turn out for the Gay Marriage ban in California by enough to turn the vote.

[Mathim]

Yeah. The clergy can say whatever they want, it's down to the individual person to be rational enough to find out the truth for themselves, and decide whether or not to think for themselves, or to blindly follow what some selfish, ignorant and power-hungry people tell them.

[Sugarman (hal)]

To me, as long as people are getting married for the right reasons, I have no problem with it. And I would think that, given the divorce rate of straight marriages, since gays have had to fight so hard for that right, they'd definitely take more steps to ensure that once married, they do it right and have a happy, fulfilling relationship. I know many people in straight marriages who are miserable because they did it for the wrong reasons and did it without really thinking it through.

excellently put.

[Chris Brady]

To me, as long as people are getting married for the right reasons, I have no problem with it. And I would think that, given the divorce rate of straight marriages, since gays have had to fight so hard for that right, they'd definitely take more steps to ensure that once married, they do it right and have a happy, fulfilling relationship. I know many people in straight marriages who are miserable because they did it for the wrong reasons and did it without really thinking it through.

The problem with marriage in general at the moment keys all the way down to one simple issue.  The "It's all about ME!" problem that humanity has had all of it's existence.

No one communicates with each other.  Lovers don't trust each other*.  And everyone can't stand the thought of having to do something themselves, either because they're lazy, or they don't want to be blamed for....  Something.

As for the Divorce rate...  How many Gay Marriages have we had, compared to 'normal' ones?  Seriously, I find it hard to believe that Gays and Lesbians are somehow magically superior to all us 'Norms' and never have fights, never break up, never cheat or what have you.  I think it's more of the 'Minority Issue'.  We don't hear about such things because, Le GASP!  We'd be DISCRIMINATING!  And we can't do that to THEM.

Sorry, a tad bitter there.  Being discriminated against is not right, Majority OR Minority.

*A cute anecdote, about 6 years ago, I had the hots for a Co-Worker at my job, and we really hit it off, but as 'friends'.  At least that's what she wanted.  And apparently, I was like the perfect boyfriend to her (Or so she claimed), except she kept chasing other guys, and would dump them because they failed the criteria.  But never once did she consider me 'Boyfriend Material' despite apparently being 'perfect' (Her words.) And she would always complain about the disasters to me, and wonder who could be the one for her.  All the while telling me things her boyfriends should really know.

It was putting in a resume for a company, being told that although I fit the qualifications perfectly, they weren't going to hire me, but keep and will use the C.V. as their guide for hiring others.  And then complain about how none of the hirees are good enough.

Took me two years to call her up and apologize for misleading her this whole time.  I wasn't trying to be a friend after all.

[mannik]

*A cute anecdote, about 6 years ago, I had the hots for a Co-Worker at my job, and we really hit it off, but as 'friends'.  At least that's what she wanted.  And apparently, I was like the perfect boyfriend to her (Or so she claimed), except she kept chasing other guys, and would dump them because they failed the criteria.  But never once did she consider me 'Boyfriend Material' despite apparently being 'perfect' (Her words.) And she would always complain about the disasters to me, and wonder who could be the one for her.  All the while telling me things her boyfriends should really know.

It was putting in a resume for a company, being told that although I fit the qualifications perfectly, they weren't going to hire me, but keep and will use the C.V. as their guide for hiring others.  And then complain about how none of the hirees are good enough.

Took me two years to call her up and apologize for misleading her this whole time.  I wasn't trying to be a friend after all.

If you ask a woman to describe her idea of the perfect boyfriend they typically describe one of their friends. I have been told that people know within the first five seconds of meeting someone weather or not they want a romantic relationship with them, and that initial impression is not easily changed. The problem is that those 'perfect' people tend to click on the more 'personal friend' level than on the 'potential mate' level, probably because what they are initially looking for in a mate is more superficial than what they look for in friends.

Not exactly relevent to the gay marriage thing, but what ever...

[RubySlippers]

Everyone knows marriage is a lot of hard work and sacrifice for a hopefully more out of it then you put into it. My parents have a good marriage as far as I can tell and it wasn't easy you have to work at it. I put that same effort into my relationship and it seems to work but it requires that I and my SO work together.

[Chris Brady]

My parents have been together for more than 35 years.  And that, I believe, is because that among being lovers, they are also the best of friends and tell each other everything.  No secrets, nothing hidden.  ANd I don't care what gender you are, a relationship survives because of trust and loyalty.

[Mathim]

The problem with marriage in general at the moment keys all the way down to one simple issue.  The "It's all about ME!" problem that humanity has had all of it's existence.

No one communicates with each other.  Lovers don't trust each other*.  And everyone can't stand the thought of having to do something themselves, either because they're lazy, or they don't want to be blamed for....  Something.

As for the Divorce rate...  How many Gay Marriages have we had, compared to 'normal' ones?  Seriously, I find it hard to believe that Gays and Lesbians are somehow magically superior to all us 'Norms' and never have fights, never break up, never cheat or what have you.  I think it's more of the 'Minority Issue'.  We don't hear about such things because, Le GASP!  We'd be DISCRIMINATING!  And we can't do that to THEM.

That's not what I meant-I'm just saying, gays have had to fight and struggle for rights, so they'll be more likely to show by example that it's a good decision to give them those rights. Like when the black population of South Africa finally got the right to vote, practically every single one of them eagerly exercised that right because they had to go without that right for so long.

[Oniya]

Stumbled across this article while looking at the new words in the Collins dictionary (News and Events forum)
Five Years Later...