How My View on Gay Marriage Changed

[TheTrueCentrist]

Number of states during that time which allowed or recognized SSM during that time - zero.

Homosexuality was just being on the verge of acceptance during the early 90’s. Some countries (like Denmark) were already doing SSM’s.

If I went back in time to 1950 and said that states would be recognizing SSM’s I’d be locked up in a mental institution - that’s how ludicrous the idea would have been to the people at the time. Such an idea would have been ludicrous as late as the 70’s.

Cultural Marxism slouches toward Gomorrah.

But we were not talking about whether or not states allowed gay marriage. We were talking about whether or not people would say “the same” about gay marriage as we are currently saying about pedophile marriages. “The same” would be that people believed there was some serious legal impediment to legalization of gay marriage (beyond a simple law against gay marriage.)

I have explained that the legal impediments are:

in the case of pedophile marriage, the age of consent would have to be lowered to ridiculously young ages (lower even than countries with a more tolerant attitude towards that sort of thing) and children would have to be bound by contracts

in the case of incest marriage, the genetic harm done to the offspring is sufficient to render a ban on the practice. I have admitted that there might be exceptions for demonstrably infertile couples.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Actually the idea would no doubt have appeared ludicrous even if you went back several millenia in time. Societies often tolerated homosexual behavior, but not homosexual marriage. Nearly every culture recognized that such a concept was an impossibility, and of no benefit to the state whatsoever. Marriage was recognized as between men and women. It is only our current society that seems to have so lost its senses.

I’m gonna give that one a [citation needed] tag.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/01/content_319807.htm

 

[CopticChristian]

But we were not talking about whether or not states allowed gay marriage. We were talking about whether or not people would say “the same” about gay marriage as we are currently saying about pedophile marriages. “The same” would be that people believed there was some serious legal impediment to legalization of gay marriage (beyond a simple law against gay marriage.)

I have explained that the legal impediments are:

in the case of pedophile marriage, the age of consent would have to be lowered to ridiculously young ages (lower even than countries with a more tolerant attitude towards that sort of thing) and children would have to be bound by contracts

in the case of incest marriage, the genetic harm done to the offspring is sufficient to render a ban on the practice. I have admitted that there might be exceptions for demonstrably infertile couples.

True,

Your entire argument is ludicrous. You are arguing for legalization of an adjective. Yup, an adjective. Ok…so using pedophile won’t work for you. What other adjective shall we go to court over…perhaps…

Temporary Marriage…people get divorced and it makes no sense to marry knowing that people get divorced…so why not get people to go to court for temporary marriage.

Adulterous Marriage…people commit adultery…and what the heck…why not just be up front about it and call your marriage what it is…then everyone knows what they are getting into…

Sexless Marriage…perhaps people want to make others understand that the marriage is without sex…why not…

SadoMasochistic Marriage…people do this stuff and may desrve special rights and priveleges not granted without openly professing their status…

Praphelia Marriages that would encompass a vast variety of forms of arousal…for in essence what you are arguing for is nothing more than a form of arousal that fits two people…do you deny these people equal rights too?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

True,

Your entire argument is ludicrous. You are arguing for legalization of an adjective. Yup, an adjective. Ok…so using pedophile won’t work for you. What other adjective shall we go to court over…perhaps…

Temporary Marriage…people get divorced and it makes no sense to marry knowing that people get divorced…so why not get people to go to court for temporary marriage.

Adulterous Marriage…people commit adultery…and what the heck…why not just be up front about it and call your marriage what it is…then everyone knows what they are getting into…

Sexless Marriage…perhaps people want to make others understand that the marriage is without sex…why not…

SadoMasochistic Marriage…people do this stuff and may desrve special rights and priveleges not granted without openly professing their status…

Praphelia Marriages that would encompass a vast variety of forms of arousal…for in essence what you are arguing for is nothing more than a form of arousal that fits two people…do you deny these people equal rights too?

Those are private issues that the government has no business knowing about or legislating. People are free to call their marriages whatever they want. It should be noted that if the gay community had their way there would probably be no distinction between “gay marriage” and “heterosexual marriage;” in other words, the addition of the adjective is only necessary because there is opposition which needs to make the distinction. Moreover, you’re attempting to change the topic by bringing up “special priveleges[sic]” even though there is no reason to do so. None of the things you listed would require any special treatment from the government, and indeed homosexuals are not asking for special rights. We should note, though, that some places have safeguards against temporary marriage by requiring couples to wait some period of time (e.g. 6 months) before filing for a divorce. I suspect that is to deter people from using marriage to transfer property without paying taxes.

 

[CopticChristian]

Those are private issues that the government has no business knowing about or legislating. People are free to call their marriages whatever they want. It should be noted that if the gay community had their way there would probably be no distinction between “gay marriage” and “heterosexual marriage;” in other words, the addition of the adjective is only necessary because there is opposition which needs to make the distinction. Moreover, you’re attempting to change the topic by bringing up “special priveleges[sic]” even though there is no reason to do so. None of the things you listed would require any special treatment from the government, and indeed homosexuals are not asking for special rights. We should note, though, that some places have safeguards against temporary marriage by requiring couples to wait some period of time (e.g. 6 months) before filing for a divorce. I suspect that is to deter people from using marriage to transfer property without paying taxes.

Today

 

[CopticChristian]

nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/how-my-view-on-gay-marriage-changed.html?_r=3

This article is by David Blankenhorn, the founder of the Institute for American Values and had, until recently, been active in campaigning against gay marriage.

So what we have here is a microcosm of the ongoing national debate…this thread is unfortunately causing debate about the issues that were discussed and made known in courts…as it concerns arguments against gay marriage…There does not have to be debate…there is some idea that coming to the OHCAC/people, ie this forum will stir up enough controversy that based on the secular world, as public opinion polling changes so will the attitude of the Church…just say no…I don’t have to give a reason for my opposition to gay marriage…I don’t believe in it…I did find some interesting things for perspective.

I found that this by far in my opinion is the best argument against gay marriage…

byfaithonline.com/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage/

Anthropologist Edward Westermarck, in his work The History of Human Marriage, explains that marriage:

1. Has always involved men and women.
2. Has existed from primitive times in all human societies.
3. Always exists to serve the family. It never exists solely for individuals or for couples.

(Marriage does benefit adults—often richly—but that’s not the primary reason cultures have favored marriage.)

Westermarck and other anthropologists tell us marriage has always been about the next generation.

So, on every land mass, throughout human history, marriage between a man and a woman has been the social norm. There are simply no exceptions! And in each of those societies, the public purpose has centered on the well-being of children.
Why is this universally true? Is it merely the result of broad-scale religious indoctrination? Is this a right-wing conspiracy?

Far from it. Simply put, marriage transcends religion, politics, culture, and law. Indeed, it appears that human nature requires marriage.

Note that the agenda is clear with no intention of backing down…

huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-hamady/the-problem-with-gay-marr_b_1505858.html

Currently, we are a long way off from achieving this important goal. Only nine states have civil union laws that provide for some (not all) of the benefits extending to heterosexual marriages. And not one is recognized by the federal government.

I know that for gay men and women who long to be married and enjoy the cultural and religious equality of the institution, that setting aside this aspect of the fight might seem like surrender. But in fact, it is civil unions that we all – whether gay or straight – must staunchly and adamantly be fighting for.

Once secured, each of us may then choose to pursue a marriage ceremony in whatever religious, spiritual, or humanistic fashion we personally embrace. To honor our equal and equally-recognized union in whatever manner we hold dear. And, if we desire, to continue to petition religious institutions to alter their views on the matter.

Here you will find the gay agenda and a reflection of those posting on this thread that concur…

bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Lastly I believe along with the Cultural argument, the better argument is this…everyone knows that in Family Law…rulings in families with children are always made “in the best interest of the child”…here is the rub for the gay…studies can and will be produced…proving, touting that children do well in a homosexual family and no study has been produced to date that proves otherwise…so you should be able to see that this is in effect a Social experiment…why study it? Because as yet we do not know the consequences. In time this has not been studied and the question is when was the first study produced? Someone must know…Once that information is known…here is what I will say…

The abiility to procreate…and adopt…Since the first study was produced, at whatever date in time, and you must admit it is being studied, and no study “to date” has been produced to prove any adverse effects…is it in the best interest of the child to propogate marriage with the notion that gays should have children and raise families…unitl we have a study that proves otherwise? For whose benefit do we believe we are acting?..for whose benefit is marriage?..for the individual or the child?

What is in the best interest of the Child?

I flat out refuse to consent, debate, agree that Gay Marriage for whatever reason is acceptable as long as there is any notion of involving children in the equation…I refuse to give my consent to any child to be part of a Social experiment to advance an adult cause…no if’s, and or but’s, no way, no how…not on my watch…I have children and those children depend on me to make decisions for their future…chidlren need adults that watch out for their best interest in safety and the best interest of the child takes precedence over the best interest of two homosexuals…are we clear…Crystal…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So what we have here is a microcosm of the ongoing national debate…this thread is unfortunately causing debate about the issues that were discussed and made known in courts…as it concerns arguments against gay marriage…There does not have to be debate…there is some idea that coming to the OHCAC/people, ie this forum will stir up enough controversy that based on the secular world, as public opinion polling changes so will the attitude of the Church…just say no…I don’t have to give a reason for my opposition to gay marriage…I don’t believe in it…I did find some interesting things for perspective.
I found that this by far in my opinion is the best argument against gay marriage…

byfaithonline.com/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage/

It seems we are changing topics for real this time. If you want to rest your case for marriage on a 90 year old piece of literature that’s fine. So long as you realize Edward Westermarck’s definition of marriage was:

“a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law”

We can also find at least one example where he would be wrong:
books.google.com/books?id=mlFp0nFhvbwC&dq=Ritualized+Homosexuality+Herdt&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

Note that the agenda is clear with no intention of backing down…

huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-hamady/the-problem-with-gay-marr_b_1505858.html

Here you will find the gay agenda and a reflection of those posting on this thread that concur…

bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

That is an unhelpful way of looking at things. By making this into an “us vs them” situation, you are making this a discussion not worth having. You cannot consider the position honestly because you are setting yourself up as a stalwart defender of a certain position who will simply give stock rebuttals or change the subject and never seriously consider any criticism of your claims.

Lastly I believe along with the Cultural argument, the better argument is this…everyone knows that in Family Law…rulings in families with children are always made “in the best interest of the child”…here is the rub for the gay…studies can and will be produced…proving, touting that children do well in a homosexual family and no study has been produced to date that proves otherwise…so you should be able to see that this is in effect a Social experiment…why study it? Because as yet we do not know the consequences. In time this has not been studied and the question is when was the first study produced…Once that information is known…here is what I will say…

The abiility to procreate…and adopt…Since the first study was produced, and you must admit it is being studied, and no study “to date” has been produced to prove any adverse effects…is it in the best interest of the child to propogate marriage with the notion that gays should have children and raise families…unitl we have a study that proves otherwise…for whose benefit is marriage…for the individual or the child?

It is a little hard to follow your train of thought with all those ellipses. Firstly, the issue of gay adoption is separate from gay marriage. Yes, there have been some studies done which seem to indicate there is no (or very little) difference between children raised by homosexual and heterosexual parents.

Your question seems to be: “Why should we even consider letting gay people adopt children?” I will answer with this question: are there children in this world who lack loving families? If there are children in need of families and a set of people who wish to provide for this need, shouldn’t we find out if those people are qualified then start placing children with them?

 

[CopticChristian]

It seems we are changing topics for real this time. If you want to rest your case for marriage on a 90 year old piece of literature that’s fine. So long as you realize Edward Westermarck’s definition of marriage was:

We can also find at least one example where he would be wrong:
books.google.com/books?id=mlFp0nFhvbwC&dq=Ritualized+Homosexuality+Herdt&printsec=frontcover&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

That is an unhelpful way of looking at things. By making this into an “us vs them” situation, you are making this a discussion not worth having. You cannot consider the position honestly because you are setting yourself up as a stalwart defender of a certain position who will simply give stock rebuttals or change the subject and never seriously consider any criticism of your claims.

It is a little hard to follow your train of thought with all those ellipses. Firstly, the issue of gay adoption is separate from gay marriage. Yes, there have been some studies done which seem to indicate there is no (or very little) difference between children raised by homosexual and heterosexual parents.

Your question seems to be: “Why should we even consider letting gay people adopt children?” I will answer with this question: are there children in this world who lack loving families? If there are children in need of families and a set of people who wish to provide for this need, shouldn’t we find out if those people are qualified then start placing children with them?

True,

You do not agree with me. I oppose Gay Marriage because I see that it is in opposition to the teachings of the OHCAC that are not matters of debate.

You accuse me of using studies that are anachronistic, archaic, out of date and you got me there, Oh boy…pants down…Whoo whoooo…yup…for don’t you know that what I think and believe is based on teaching of an institution…yup just like Brooks in Shaw Shank redemption…I have been institutionalized…have to live in the boundaries of teachings that are 2000 years old…that’s me alright…so ya got me there…

I have the right to pick and choose what I think and believe and why…and as far as modern, I look to the notion of Time Binding as proclaimed by Korzybski so that all information from the past is brought forward and if you haven’t noticed…Gaudim et spes…The Church in Modern World…yup the Church has not changed, the world has and there is no obligation to change with the world as you propose…

Threads go where they will go and it appears you want it to go as you wish…in my opinion Gay marriage poses danger…a grave danger…did I say grave danger?..well yes…is there any other kind…?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

True,

You do not agree with me. I oppose Gay Marriage because I see that it is in opposition to the teachings of the OHCAC that are not matters of debate.

This entire time I have been arguing that gay marriage ought to be legal regardless of its morality. That you think it is immoral has always been irrelevant.

You accuse me of using studies that are anachronistic, archaic, out of date and you got me there, Oh boy…pants down…Whoo whoooo…yup…for don’t you know that what I think and believe is based on teaching of an institution…yup just like Brooks in Shaw Shank redemption…I have been institutionalized…have to live in the boundaries of teachings that are 2000 years old…that’s me alright…so ya got me there…

I have the right to pick and choose what I think and believe and why…and as far as modern, I look to the notion of Time Binding as proclaimed by Korzybski so that all information from the past is brought forward and if you haven’t noticed…Gaudim et spes…The Church in Modern World…yup the Church has not changed, the world has and there is no obligation to change with the world as you propose…

Threads go where they will go and it appears you want it to go as you wish…in my opinion Gay marriage poses danger…a grave danger…did I say grave danger?..well yes…is there any other kind…?

And here we have the crux of the issue, don’t we. The real reason people such as yourself want to ban gay marriage is that you don’t like it. You think that it poses a “grave danger” but provide no evidence for that claim besides religious beliefs. You were correct to point out that Christians have a right to oppose gay marriage. You are certainly welcome to forbid gay marriage within your church. You are certainly welcome to try to convince gay people to change their ways, or to not get married. What you are not allowed to do is forbid someone equal treatment under the law based on religious beliefs or the simple fact that you don’t like what they are doing. This is precisely what the author of the original piece meant when he advocated for basic fairness.

 

[edwest2]

This entire time I have been arguing that gay marriage ought to be legal regardless of its morality. That you think it is immoral has always been irrelevant.

And here we have the crux of the issue, don’t we. The real reason people such as yourself want to ban gay marriage is that you don’t like it. You think that it poses a “grave danger” but provide no evidence for that claim besides religious beliefs. You were correct to point out that Christians have a right to oppose gay marriage. You are certainly welcome to forbid gay marriage within your church. You are certainly welcome to try to convince gay people to change their ways, or to not get married. What you are not allowed to do is forbid someone equal treatment under the law based on religious beliefs or the simple fact that you don’t like what they are doing. This is precisely what the author of the original piece meant when he advocated for basic fairness.

This is not a civil rights issue:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Peace,
Ed

 

[Stephen168]

The real reason people such as yourself want to ban gay marriage is that you don’t like it.

Marriage is how society recognizes and protects this right. Marriage is the planet’s only institution whose core purpose is to unite the biological, social and legal components of parenthood into one lasting bond. Marriage says to a child: The man and the woman whose sexual union made you will also be there to love and raise you. In this sense, marriage is a gift that society bestows on its children.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

This is not a civil rights issue:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

Peace,
Ed

I haven’t been making a civil rights argument, I’ve been making a religious liberties argument.

Do they have the free exercise of religion if they are not allowed to be married in a religion sympathetic to gay marriage?

“Wait!” you will cry, “They CAN get married in their own religions, but the state shouldn’t recognize their marriage!”

I reply: then hasn’t the state, in deciding which religious marriages are valid, violated the establishment clause? Are they not establishing certain religions’ arrangements as legally protected, while excluding others?

 

[CopticChristian]

This entire time I have been arguing that gay marriage ought to be legal regardless of its morality. That you think it is immoral has always been irrelevant.

And here we have the crux of the issue, don’t we. The real reason people such as yourself want to ban gay marriage is that you don’t like it. You think that it poses a “grave danger” but provide no evidence for that claim besides religious beliefs. You were correct to point out that Christians have a right to oppose gay marriage. You are certainly welcome to forbid gay marriage within your church. You are certainly welcome to try to convince gay people to change their ways, or to not get married. What you are not allowed to do is forbid someone equal treatment under the law based on religious beliefs or the simple fact that you don’t like what they are doing. This is precisely what the author of the original piece meant when he advocated for basic fairness.

True,

You declare my thinking irrelevant. This does not sound a true Centrist nor anyone that declares their religion to by mine.

People such as myself, well then that would exclude you from being as you state “Religion yours”.

You engage marriage as something that is akin to equal treatment under the law and there are many that do not think even if the law decides that it is I must accept it. Let me remind you that lawyers wrote in their decision of Partial birth abortion statements like the following…”as science has not yet determined when life begins in the womb”…Oh yeah…do I believe this because a lawyer says so….of course not….

The author stated an opinion. You posted it and you want the discussion to go your way. Fairness. Who ever said that life is supposed to be Fair and in the context of gay marriage it isn’t fair that I have to hear, see, know, acknowledge that it exists from my perspective and I don’t even have to have a reason.

You have bigger issues as you try to force the discussion into a microcosm of what you want to discuss. When the arguments are taken away from your particulars you protest. I am going to help you out here. There are 3553 people viewing this thread and I am going to do something that is going to force them when they review this thread to confront an issue, just like I am going to ask you to do. You should expect that it will cause more change than any of your postings.

We live in America and I am going to give you an infinite number of reasons to oppose gay marriage. I discovered it while driving.

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Willilam McKinley, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Grover Cleveland and Ben Franklin.

Philadelphia as you know is where the liberty Bell sits. Denver has mile high stadium. San Francisco is where the Golden Gate Bridge is. West Point is where the military academy resides.

I oppose gay marriage for religious beliefs, accept that Culture needs marriage to produce the next generation and that it is in the best interest of the children to oppose any notion of gay marriage that could lead to children being raised by homosexuals.

I place my trust in the fact the Church is correct in this regard and this country if you haven’t noticed was founded on principles that were essentially guided by people that trusted God.

While you fight for particulars you do not realize that the fight is bigger than you can imagine. The fight is nothing more than not wanting to accept that homosexuals are not second class citizens. This country did not go to war over homosexuality, North/South. Homosexuals ride buses freely, vote, and work. There is no correlation to homosexuality and the racial plight….no way, no how.

While Homosexuals and you want fairness and acceptance I am reminded of Scarlet O’Hara and Rhett Butler…after exhausting myself with reasons why I do not and will not accept your proposition…and you speak of fairness and what you want to achieve and how difficult your plight is I feel like Rhett Butler…and frankly do not give a hoot…I have said all I can say…

What I say is give me Arizona dollars….show me the money…remember that in Jerry Maguire…Oh yeah that reminds me…in addition to the liberty Bell, Philadelphia, Denver etc…this is where money is minted…

Right now, wherever you are reach into your pocket…examine your coins, examine your dollars…you will see the faces of Presidents and notice how the dollars and the coins say…

In God we Trust…your fight isn’t with me, not Catholic answers…it is with the US mint…how in the world are you going to remove “In God we trust”…from our money , the same money that all people regardless of gender or orientation work for and get paid with…this is your fight…until then I will put my trust in God……

Show me the money…

This is your fight and the crux of the matter, gear up.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You declare my thinking irrelevant. This does not sound a true Centrist nor anyone that declares their religion to by mine.

People such as myself, well then that would exclude you from being as you state “Religion yours”.

You may certainly explain why it is relevant, but a silly personal attack such as this will not help your case.

Why would it so exclude me? In this case “such as yourself” does not imply Catholic, nor does it imply that I am different from the people to who I am referring.

You engage marriage as something that is akin to equal treatment under the law and there are many that do not think even if the law decides that it is I must accept it. Let me remind you that lawyers wrote in their decision of Partial birth abortion statements like the following…”as science has not yet determined when life begins in the womb”…Oh yeah…do I believe this because a lawyer says so….of course not….

I explicitly said you did not have to accept it. Let me repeat myself:
"You were correct to point out that Christians have a right to oppose gay marriage. You are certainly welcome to forbid gay marriage within your church. You are certainly welcome to try to convince gay people to change their ways, or to not get married. "

The author stated an opinion. You posted it and you want the discussion to go your way. Fairness. Who ever said that life is supposed to be Fair and in the context of gay marriage it isn’t fair that I have to hear, see, know, acknowledge that it exists from my perspective and I don’t even have to have a reason.

You are free to go live under a rock if you wish. If you really didn’t want to hear about gay marriage, then you can certainly seclude yourself from it. The only person responsible for making sure that CopticChristian doesn’t hear things he finds objectionable is CopticChristian.

You have bigger issues as you try to force the discussion into a microcosm of what you want to discuss. When the arguments are taken away from your particulars you protest. I am going to help you out here. There are 3553 people viewing this thread and I am going to do something that is going to force them when they review this thread to confront an issue, just like I am going to ask you to do. You should expect that it will cause more change than any of your postings.

We live in America and I am going to give you an infinite number of reasons to oppose gay marriage. I discovered it while driving.

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Willilam McKinley, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Grover Cleveland and Ben Franklin.

Philadelphia as you know is where the liberty Bell sits. Denver has mile high stadium. San Francisco is where the Golden Gate Bridge is. West Point is where the military academy resides.

I honestly have no idea where this train of thought is going. Gay marriage is wrong because [list of famous US people and things]? I know you don’t like your statements being called irrelevant, but you’ve got your work cut out for you if you want people to think that the things you just listed have any significance at all to the discussion at hand.

I oppose gay marriage for religious beliefs, accept that Culture needs marriage to produce the next generation and that it is in the best interest of the children to oppose any notion of gay marriage that could lead to children being raised by homosexuals.

I place my trust in the fact the Church is correct in this regard and this country if you haven’t noticed was founded on principles that were essentially guided by people that trusted God.

But the question “what is best for children” is a question that can and should be answered scientifically. I know that Catholicism teaches that you should oppose gay marriage, but I am saying that according to our US principles of government we should legalize it.

I pose this question. If Christians are so confident that gay marriage is harmful to children and society, why don’t they commission their own large scale study of those questions (i.e. provide funding for an impartial 3rd party organization to research them)? Then (assuming that the findings supported their position) they could use their findings as a basis for banning homosexual marriage.

While you fight for particulars you do not realize that the fight is bigger than you can imagine. The fight is nothing more than not wanting to accept that homosexuals are not second class citizens. This country did not go to war over homosexuality, North/South. Homosexuals ride buses freely, vote, and work. There is no correlation to homosexuality and the racial plight….no way, no how.

I didn’t say that there was.

While Homosexuals and you want fairness and acceptance I am reminded of Scarlet O’Hara and Rhett Butler…after exhausting myself with reasons why I do not and will not accept your proposition…and you speak of fairness and what you want to achieve and how difficult your plight is I feel like Rhett Butler…and frankly do not give a hoot…I have said all I can say…

You may feel like Rhett Butler, but I think you sound like Don Quixote, tilting at arguments I have not made.

What I say is give me Arizona dollars….show me the money…remember that in Jerry Maguire…Oh yeah that reminds me…in addition to the liberty Bell, Philadelphia, Denver etc…this is where money is minted…

Right now, wherever you are reach into your pocket…examine your coins, examine your dollars…you will see the faces of Presidents and notice how the dollars and the coins say…

In God we Trust…your fight isn’t with me, not Catholic answers…it is with the US mint…how in the world are you going to remove “In God we trust”…from our money , the same money that all people regardless of gender or orientation work for and get paid with…this is your fight…until then I will put my trust in God……

Show me the money…

This is your fight and the crux of the matter, gear up.

I do think that “In God we Trust” doesn’t belong on currency, but that is a separate issue.

 

[CopticChristian]

You may certainly explain why it is relevant, but a silly personal attack such as this will not help your case.

Why would it so exclude me? In this case “such as yourself” does not imply Catholic, nor does it imply that I am different from the people to who I am referring.

I explicitly said you did not have to accept it. Let me repeat myself:
"You were correct to point out that Christians have a right to oppose gay marriage. You are certainly welcome to forbid gay marriage within your church. You are certainly welcome to try to convince gay people to change their ways, or to not get married. "

You are free to go live under a rock if you wish. If you really didn’t want to hear about gay marriage, then you can certainly seclude yourself from it. The only person responsible for making sure that CopticChristian doesn’t hear things he finds objectionable is CopticChristian.

I honestly have no idea where this train of thought is going. Gay marriage is wrong because [list of famous US people and things]? I know you don’t like your statements being called irrelevant, but you’ve got your work cut out for you if you want people to think that the things you just listed have any significance at all to the discussion at hand.

But the question “what is best for children” is a question that can and should be answered scientifically. I know that Catholicism teaches that you should oppose gay marriage, but I am saying that according to our US principles of government we should legalize it.

I pose this question. If Christians are so confident that gay marriage is harmful to children and society, why don’t they commission their own large scale study of those questions (i.e. provide funding for an impartial 3rd party organization to research them)? Then (assuming that the findings supported their position) they could use their findings as a basis for banning homosexual marriage.

I didn’t say that there was.

You may feel like Rhett Butler, but I think you sound like Don Quixote, tilting at arguments I have not made.

I do think that “In God we Trust” doesn’t belong on currency, but that is a separate issue.

People like me with irrelevant thinking disagree with you.

This entire time I have been arguing that gay marriage ought to be legal regardless of its morality. That you think it is immoral has always been irrelevant.

Your proposition as stated is noted.

I oppose gay marriage for religious beliefs, accept that Culture needs marriage to produce the next generation and that it is in the best interest of the children to oppose any notion of gay marriage that could lead to children being raised by homosexuals.

I refuse to consent to scientific studies with children and homosexuals.

Your proposition as stated is noted. Your message and your notation of relevance is noted. I disagree. Let me look at this pocket of change here…Oh yeah…

In God I trust.

 

[edwest2]

I haven’t been making a civil rights argument, I’ve been making a religious liberties argument.

That is incorrect. There are plenty of places where people can get married, like a courtroom, and the State recognizes this. This does not involve religion because it doesn’t have to.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

That is incorrect. There are plenty of places where people can get married, like a courtroom, and the State recognizes this. This does not involve religion because it doesn’t have to.

I’m on the fence about this point.

On the one hand, it seems to not matter that there exist non-religious marriages. How people want to get married and people’s beliefs about marriage seems like something the government should not consider when granting marriage licenses. In other words, it is true that there exist secular marriages, but that doesn’t change the fact that the government has decided to legally recognize certain types of marriage over others. The government should grant marriage licenses to anyone who wants them unless the people who want them would be committing a crime (e.g. pedophilia, incest, or tax evasion.)

On the other hand, the existence of secular marriage may indicate that the government has its own definition of marriage which is decided separately from the definitions of religion. Indeed, the states typically require people who wish to get married to complete a marriage license independently of a religious ceremony. From this perspective, the government is not institutionalizing a religious arrangement. Instead, the government is recognizing that two people have taken on certain responsibilities towards each other, and correspondingly gives them certain rights. Those rights, specifically, are: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
Therefore, if gays wanted to take on those responsibilities and receive the rights, the correct thing to do would be to ask if there were any specific reason why gays would be unable to fulfill the any of the responsibilities or if it would be wrong to give them any particular right.

 

[edwest2]

I’m on the fence about this point.

On the one hand, it seems to not matter that there exist non-religious marriages. How people want to get married and people’s beliefs about marriage seems like something the government should not consider when granting marriage licenses. In other words, it is true that there exist secular marriages, but that doesn’t change the fact that the government has decided to legally recognize certain types of marriage over others. The government should grant marriage licenses to anyone who wants them unless the people who want them would be committing a crime (e.g. pedophilia, incest, or tax evasion.)

On the other hand, the existence of secular marriage may indicate that the government has its own definition of marriage which is decided separately from the definitions of religion. Indeed, the states typically require people who wish to get married to complete a marriage license independently of a religious ceremony. From this perspective, the government is not institutionalizing a religious arrangement. Instead, the government is recognizing that two people have taken on certain responsibilities towards each other, and correspondingly gives them certain rights. Those rights, specifically, are: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States
Therefore, if gays wanted to take on those responsibilities and receive the rights, the correct thing to do would be to ask if there were any specific reason why gays would be unable to fulfill the any of the responsibilities or if it would be wrong to give them any particular right.

It seems like the benefits package is what is wanted. I love some of my male friends but I would never have sexual relations with them.

Honest question. Why is gay marriage usually presented with a line like “Why can’t two people who love each other…?”

In Canada, monogamy or even getting married seems problematic, and undefined as to the details:

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

In the United States, monogamy is not part of the deal in many successful gay marriages.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Let’s add to the confusion by including Civil Unions. What are they for?

Or Domestic Partner benefits?

annarbor.com/news/gov-rick-snyder-signs-domestic-partner-benefits-ban-into-law/

Who felt most affected by this?

“The move is a blow to gay and lesbian activists throughout the state.”

Seriously, why can’t I get Domestic Partner benefits? I live with a relative, so why can’t I go to the State and demand it? Who is going to pay for the this? The State of Michigan? Number one in unemployment?

The progression seems to go like this (and please correct if I’m wrong): If we can’t get Marriage in a state, we’ll ask for Civil Unions, but if we can’t get that, we’ll ask for Domestic Partner Benefits.

The word I keep hearing is benefits.

Peace,
Ed

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

It seems like the benefits package is what is wanted. I love some of my male friends but I would never have sexual relations with them.

Honest question. Why is gay marriage usually presented with a line like “Why can’t two people who love each other…?”
In the United States, monogamy is not part of the deal in many successful gay marriages.

If you look at the list of rights and responsibilities, you would see that monogamy is not a responsibility of 2 people in a civil marriage.

Is there a specific right in the list you believe homosexuals don’t deserve to get?

 

[CopticChristian]

If you look at the list of rights and responsibilities, you would see that monogamy is not a responsibility of 2 people in a civil marriage.

Is there a specific right in the list you believe homosexuals don’t deserve to get?

True,

I oppose gay marriage for religious beliefs, accept that Culture needs marriage to produce the next generation and that it is in the best interest of the children to oppose any notion of gay marriage that could lead to children being raised by homosexuals.

I do not believe that any specific right on a list of benefits for homosexuals needs to be specified, I believe that the denial should be all inclusive and to specify a specific one is inconsequential to the notion that any benefit should be allowed.