Should the state marry gay lovers?

[brazenarticle]

Brazenarticle,

Respectfully - if you disagree with someone’s viewpoint then it is proper to discuss it. But if someone says that something has happened to them, I am inclined to agree with them on this forum. It is uncharitable to attempt to whittle down one’s experienceshtat they are presenting, especially when they are so cutting and have resulted in such violence.

If I may assert - I think that you were just trying to help the person to whom you were responding clarify a legal point of description. But it could have been done in a more understanding and less harsh manner.

Not trying to make hay - just help to clarify so we can all continue a healthy and charitable discussion.

The Smiter.

I’m not smart enough to draw judgement on anyone with any power whatsoever or being official. I was suggesting the language used was “tried” which mean they failed. I don’t want to be technical, but this weak defense is what gets torn apart in court. Just being honest as the day is long. As to judgement, not for me, only our Lord can do that and maybe a judge and jury much to my chagrin. I’m just here to offer my thoughts and invite other views. We’re far off the topic here. I would not draw any conclusions on anyone and only want to counsel. We’re all children of God no matter what anyone thinks and we all have obstacals and burdens in life.

 

[brazenarticle]

As to “charitable” discussion, not sure what you mean by that. I think the honest discussions and opinions matter the most whether or not they seem “charitable.” Not getting what you mean in that regard. You’re being rather restrictive are you not?

 

[The_Smiter]

As to “charitable” discussion, not sure what you mean by that. I think the honest discussions and opinions matter the most whether or not they seem “charitable.” Not getting what you mean in that regard. You’re being rather restrictive are you not?

I assume you were respo0nding to me with this even though I was not quoted.

By “charitable” I mean conducting a discussion that, despite getting your particular views across, is respectful of the other person’s dignity - whether or not you agree with them. One should attempt to not be disparaging or derogatory with comments.

We all make mistakes from time to time in our zeal to get our point across - but we should endeavor to be civil and understanding anyway.

Charity in no way restricts the debate. It can only allow it to be further extended because of the civility that such an attitude brings.

 

[brazenarticle]

My comments were as to the he “tried” comment and not derogatory or disparaging to the poster whatsoever. That person this relates to communicated in a private message as to why that ambiguity as to their sexual sitiuation and his/her exposed private parts that made the man have second thoughts. .
I wish that person this one assulted in that manner the best going ahead. They sound very depressed with a long history of things not working for them. A very difficult case. I just hope they don’t give up hope and can cope.

 

[Nepenthe]

Aggravated assault and battery, and attempted rape are such vile crimes it beggars belief, even if actual attempt rape did not succeed (even worse!) The cops refusal to do their sworn duty, both to you and all victims of related crimes just…words fail me. And yes, having marital status suddenly makes law enforcement officials take such matters more seriously, shameful though it is, it is so.

I have been there and then some, pathia, though of course every situation is different, and oh how my heart hurts to hear this. Message me anytime.

 

[brazenarticle]

Some of the prior posts may give insight. It’s good for this person to vent on line if that seems to help them to cope. I too invite them to email via the system. I may not tell them what they want to hear and am not a counseling professional but we can be a good listener. We all have our problems these days and it’s no mean feat to put on a happy face and pretend life is a bowl of cherries.

 

[AngelAshley]

I’ve not been able to read the whole thread, unfortunatly. Read about 6 pages and it’s taken me a couple of hous… but here’s some things I picked up on so far. Appologies if they have already been covered…
Mike Dye:

But the Church or State should never condone Godless unions.

The Church, maybe not. But why not the state? Why should people who do not follow the Catholic faith have the beliefs of the Catholic faith imposed on them? Does “Freedom of Religion” cover anyone EXCEPT catholics, or does it mean, “You’re free to be a Catholic but nothing else.”?

Spire, why do you say it’s impossible for homosexuals to get married.

Spire:

Because you need to be male and female.

In your oppinion…

Spire:

Also you consummate this union through sexual intercourse(hence is compliant with “no sex out of marriage”, etc.) something which homosexual persons are incapable of.

Homosexuals are able to have sex. Not in exactly the same way hetrosexual people do, but we still have sex.

Spire:

“Lastly, this gives way to, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.” Something again homosexual persons are incapable of.”

And infertile couples. Should we ban them from marriage? Also, what about overpopulation?

fix:

There is no equivalence between race and disordered sexual inclination or conduct.

What makes it “disordered”? (Aside from fear and ignorance!)

fix:

Once you arbitrarily redefine marriage you can keep changing it."

Yes, these things should change as society evolves, our requirements change, and we become more enlightened. Marriage has already been redefined several times by law to adjust to our changing attitudes - to race, for example.
Bennie P:

It would not be equality nor justice for the state to sanction Gay Marrage for it would lead to Churches being sued to allow Gay Marriages to be performed on Church property

Only if it were public property - Which is a good thing. The church has every right not to allow marriages on it’s own property, just as I wouldn’t want a pair of Catholics coming and getting married in my house. But in public, then yes, intollerance should be punished.
Bennie P:

Once morality is totally stripped away from society and the Church is silenced, all the injustice in which you thought happen to gays in the past will become rule of the land, for there will be no stopping of the striping away of individual rights and liberties.

etc.

Sensationalism. Where’s your proof? What basis do you have the Society will fall apart if two people that love each other are allowed to get married? If anything, that will strengthen morals.
You seem to be under the impression that the Church is the sole authority on morals, and if the Church is surpressed then there will be no morals and Society will collapse. The fact is that morals can and do exist without the church. This fact alone discredits your entire argument, pretty much.
Bennie P:

they [gays] have all the same rights as everyone else does

Except the right to get married? The right to be treated with equal dignity and respect?

Spire:

Is the following the same?

1. Male and Female.
2. Male and Male.

What about intersex people who are neither clearly male nor female? They do exist, you know.

Spire:

1. Sexual Intercourse.
2. Sodomy.

What does sex have to do with marriage?

Spire:

1. Ability to create life between the two and pass DNA to a child.
2. Ability to… stand there and look at each other.

What do Children have to do with marriage? What about infertile couples?

Arclight:

Any competent attorney can draw up documents for a gay couple that duplicate most of the default rights and duties of civil marriage

Why should they have to? Attorneys cost money. Why exclude them from the legal definition of marriage? For what reason is discrimination acceptable?

eoj:

God craeted man and woman so any thing else is big sin. GAYS AND LISBIEANS is the unqured disease of the human being

Is being intersex a sin then? Also wheres your proof that homosexuality is a “desiese”?

Also, I invite you all to read my breakdown of the article posted on the main site regarding gay marriage - I found some quite astounding things when I took the time to actually read the cited reports & studies… it’s all detailed here:

geocities.com/gaymarriage@ymail.com/

Will try to keep up with this thread from now on!

 

[Annn]

Understood. And it is unfortunate. You r3easones albeit short response seems to indicate a person of succinct clarity and I hope you participate more in the discussion. But if you read my posts, do you think that I have never been verbally assaulted by those who oppose my viewpoints - despite the charitable way I attempt to engage the discussion? Of course I have. But the exceptions are the people who react in such ways - they are not the reactions of the majority of people who engage in debate.

Any verbally abusive or physically violent reactions are wrong and unfortunate. So let’s try not to use them in our debate.

True, but I wasn’t really talking about “a debate” per se, as people who engage me in debates about my lifestyle and my decisions are generally respectful. I was talking about the fact that it seems like shouting derogatory names at queer/trans people seems to be one of the last acceptable very public insults. No one bats an eyelash when I get called a d*** in public (even when I am just walking down the street alone! And I live in a large city in the northeast!), even though our society has (thankfully!) (largely) moved beyond accepting people doings thing such as shouting out ethnic slurs, harassing Hasidic Jews for their dress, hassling interracial couples, poking fun at the disabled, etc. I’ve generally been happy with respectful debates here, at school, in my hometown, etc, but am still surprised that it’s not all that tabboo to shout out derogatory things at queer folks. I even had one man late at night drive up to me and scream out that he was going to “straighten me out” and “show me what I was missing.” eek.

 

[brazenarticle]

Should the states marry gay lovers? There are states in the US who without placing it on it on the ballot recognize and perform civil union cerimonies. It’s up to in my opinion, for the voters in each state to decide as to legal marriage between same sex partners should be made legal. It needs to be debated among the candidates, pro and con the issue, the gay and straight lobbiest’s can work their supporters and raise money to campaign for or against the matter. It would appear to be a state matter, not federal at this juncture. A lot of states possibly would pass it and let the couples go there. I suppose many have the federal tax issues in mind as to it being recognized by the entire nation and the IRS. As a federal law I don’t see it passing no matter how liberal or progressive we become in our law making. The conservative right wingers have lost a lot ground so we’ll see what gets introduced by Congress and signed into law. I think the best thing to do is let the states vote on it say every 4 years when the presidential election is due so there will be adequate turn out. Let the citizens who care enough to vote decide the matter. If the gays want it, let them work to get it passed just as any other legislation and laws that get passed. Make that case for marriage of same sex. Put it on the state ballot. Nothing wrong with that idea, is there? Just do something, don’t blow smoke about it. Many gays and straights are fine with civil unions. The legal “marriage” thing is where shoe seems to pinch for many voters and their opinions and beliefs as to changing marriage from being between a man and a woman to whatever goes between two humans? I dont’ see legal marriage between same sex folks being the law of the land anytime soon but let the voters decide the matter.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Re: Should the state marry gay lovers?

No. Further, it should not grant commercial pilot licenses to the blind, or allow those lacking upper or lower limbs to become firefighters. By nature or nurture, these individuals are outside the norm. Wanting something to be so, doesn’t automatically make it so.

My prayers are with those who are blessed with this and all the crosses of life.

 

[magdelaine]

It would appear to be a state matter, not federal at this juncture.

Well, the Messiah-in-Chief has promised to repeal the DOMA, which allows states to not recognize SSM from other states where it may be legal. This would indeed make it a Federal matter. Unfortunately, this act may be unconstitutional anyway and may fall on its own accord (without Os help).

And there is not one state that has voted *for *SSM. It only exists in the US because of a few judges that have stepped beyond the bounds of what the judiciary should be able to do. In California, where Prop 8 passed, people are still trying to figure out a way for the courts to overrule the will of the people. If and when DOMA falls, SSM will be forced on people across the nation who have not voted for it. This will truly be an instance of the “tyranny of the few” imposing its views on an unwilling nation. Which is the explicit agenda of the homosexual activist community, by the way.

 

[brazenarticle]

It’s a real hot potato for DC if it is actually put in their lap to vote on it. Do you see Capital HIll approving it without the people’s vote? I do not. It’s pretty much give up the ghost for those hoping in that regard. Just being realistic I don’t care how many Democrats support the idea. It would be polticial suicide for them imo to support its passage. That’s why I see it state by state at first and if there is approval by many states, then it will have to trickle down and brought as a serious matter as to DC on a national basis to decide.
Nah don’t see it being approved in the USA as a nation, kinda like the death penalty. It’s a state by state issue and will be for a long time.
Stick a fork in it as to this idea during my lifetime. I could be wrong!

 

[maggiemay2u]

It’s a real hot potato for DC if it is actually put in their lap to vote on it. Do you see Capital HIll approving it without the people’s vote? I do not. It’s pretty much give up the ghost for those hoping in that regard. Just being realistic I don’t care how many Democrats support the idea. It would be polticial suicide for them imo to support its passage. That’s why I see it state by state at first and if there is approval by many states, then it will have to trickle down and brought as a serious matter as to DC on a national basis to decide.
Nah don’t see it being approved in the USA as a nation, kinda like the death penalty. It’s a state by state issue and will be for a long time.
Stick a fork in it as to this idea during my lifetime. I could be wrong!

Then again, it happens all the time, doesn’t it? Most Americans are against unfettered abortion, yet, voila, the Dems in power will do away with restrictions via FOCA. In California, the AG, despite his oath to defend the will of the people, is acting as a friend of the court, I do believe, for the anti prop 8 forces…BTW, didn’t a majority of Americans oppose the stimulus packages of both Bush and Obama? Oh well…

 

[AngelAshley]

maggiemay2u:

Re: Should the state marry gay lovers?

No. Further, it should not grant commercial pilot licenses to the blind, or allow those lacking upper or lower limbs to become firefighters. By nature or nurture, these individuals are outside the norm. Wanting something to be so, doesn’t automatically make it so.

How entirely short-sighted of you! You are saying that homosexualpeople are incapable of loving each other and forming a relationship. I can tell you FIRST HAND that that is not the case, so I advise that you don’t post your quite frankly offensive comments without proof to back it up.

magdelaine:

SSM will be forced on people across the nation who have not voted for it.

This is news to me, they’re gonna start forcing hetrosexual people to get married to people of the same sex? Woah.

magdelaine:

This will truly be an instance of the “tyranny of the few” imposing its views on an unwilling nation. Which is the explicit agenda of the homosexual activist community, by the way.

Hang on, isn’t that what the church is doing now? Imposing it’s view that homosexuality is wrong onto the rest of us that know otherwise? The agenda of the homosexual activist comminity is simply for homosexuals to be recognised as equals in society. We’re not forcing anybody to become homosexual!

brazenarticle:

It’s a real hot potato for DC if it is actually put in their lap to vote on it. Do you see Capital HIll approving it without the people’s vote?

This shouldn’t be an issue that needs a vote. People who are not homosexual should not be able to vote on the rights of homosexuals. Rights are universal, and peoples oppinions should not interfere with them. Unfortunatly the majority of Americans are in some way religious, and hold the twisted view that homosexuality is immoral. Allowing them to vote against homosexual marriage allows them to impose those twisted views on people who do not share in their religion, and therefore should not have to be affected by their doctrine.

 

[The_Smiter]

True, but I wasn’t really talking about “a debate” per se, as people who engage me in debates about my lifestyle and my decisions are generally respectful. I was talking about the fact that it seems like shouting derogatory names at queer/trans people seems to be one of the last acceptable very public insults. No one bats an eyelash when I get called a d*** in public (even when I am just walking down the street alone! And I live in a large city in the northeast!), even though our society has (thankfully!) (largely) moved beyond accepting people doings thing such as shouting out ethnic slurs, harassing Hasidic Jews for their dress, hassling interracial couples, poking fun at the disabled, etc. I’ve generally been happy with respectful debates here, at school, in my hometown, etc, but am still surprised that it’s not all that tabboo to shout out derogatory things at queer folks. I even had one man late at night drive up to me and scream out that he was going to “straighten me out” and “show me what I was missing.” eek.

But that is your personal experience. I would posit that such is not the general experience of most transgendered people, especially in the urban northeast. It is certainly not the behavior I have seen where I live on the west coast with respect to such persons who are in our large urban community. I am not discounting your personal experience - I am just thinking that it is not the esperience that the preponderance of persons such as yourself have with others.

 

[magdelaine]

This is news to me, they’re gonna start forcing hetrosexual people to get married to people of the same sex? Woah.

No, they are forcing the re-definition of marriage.

Marriage is the societal recognition of the union between one man and one woman. Societies throughout history has provided this recognition because the union between one man and one woman is the best way to rear the children which are the biological result of sexual intercourse between one man and one woman. This provides the “good” of furthering society and civilization through the generations.

Today, birth control, abortion, divorce, and single parenthood have obfuscated and denegrated the meaning of marriage, but they have not changed it.

A sexual relationship between one man and one woman is fundamentally different from a sexual relationship between two men or two women because of biology. The fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can result in another person is HUGE. I’ve bourne four live children and two dead ones due to *my *sexual activity, and I can tell you that unless you have done that you don’t understand the HUGE burden, the fear, the responsibility, the work, the pain, and the chaos involved. Society gives special recognition to this one-man, one-woman relationship because staying together and raising children as a result of sex is hard. It’s not what we are naturally inclined to do…which is why it’s a societal, not an individual institution.

This century has been very hard on marriage. SSM will only serve to destroy it further, destroying its meaning for future generations. Calling apples oranges does not make apples into oranges, it only subverts the meaning of “orange”.

I’d say forcing **your **gender confusion and personal desires on society even if it means destroying one of its most important institutions is pretty tyrannical.

 

[AngelAshley]

No, they are forcing the re-definition of marriage.

That may be the case, but they are not changing it to exclude anybody, they are changing it to include people. Including same sex couples in the definition of marriage will not nullify hetrosexual marriages! Therefore nothing is being “forced” on them.

A sexual relationship between one man and one woman is fundamentally different from a sexual relationship between two men or two women because of biology. The fact that sexual intercourse between a man and a woman can result in another person is HUGE. I’ve bourne four live children and two dead ones due to my sexual activity, and I can tell you that unless you have done that you don’t understand the HUGE burden, the fear, the responsibility, the work, the pain, and the chaos involved. Society gives special recognition to this one-man, one-woman relationship because staying together and raising children as a result of sex is hard. It’s not what we are naturally inclined to do…which is why it’s a societal, not an individual institution.

I am not arguing that sexual relations are different. What I am saying is that just becuse same-sex relationships will not result in childbirth, is that a reason to deny them marriage? No, because we do not deny marriage to different-sex couples who cannot bear children for other reasons such as infertility and old age. Bottom line, Chilbirth is not and never has been a prerequisite to marriage

SSM will only serve to destroy it further

On the contrary, it will strengthen its meaning - instead of being exclusive to some people, it will be open to all.

I’d say forcing your gender confusion and personal desires on society even if it means destroying one of its most important institutions is pretty tyrannical.

I’m not confused about gender. These are not only my personal desires but the desires of millions. Opening marriage to include same sex couples will not change a single thing for marriage between hetrosexual couples.

Nobody has yet been able to put forward a good argument as to exactly how hetrosexual marriage will be affected if homosexuals are included in the definition of marriage. All I’ve heard so far is “It will damage it, we can’t explain how, it just will. It might have something to do with babies, but we can’t really back that up.”

 

[magdelaine]

All I’ve heard so far is “It will damage it, we can’t explain how, it just will. It might have something to do with babies, but we can’t really back that up.”

Not that you will actually read it, but here ya go:

marriagedebate.com/pdf/future_of_family_law.pdf

 

[maggiemay2u]

How entirely short-sighted of you! You are saying that homosexualpeople are incapable of loving each other and forming a relationship. I can tell you FIRST HAND that that is not the case, so I advise that you don’t post your quite frankly offensive comments without proof to back it up.

I never said homosexuals are incapable of love. I love many homosexuals and they love me,. Why would I ever think they couldn’t love one another? You infer something that was never said or implied.

There is research on both the nature and nurture argument.The jury is still out. It doesn’t matter to me which is true. Homosexuals are incapable of independent reproduction with members of their own sex. The act of sex between homosexuals, IMHO, is aberrant. The redefinition of marriage isn’t necessary to ensure individual property rights. I am not insulting anyone by stating my opinion. The forum is just that, a gathering of opinions. I didn’t call anyone names or insult their personhood. Perhaps you should reread my post.

 

[AngelAshley]

That paper lacks substance. Here’s just a few examples:

“In order to accommodate same-sex couples, this approach redefines marriage as a gender-neutral union of two persons. By doing so it neutralizes the law’s
ability to say that children need their mothers and fathers”
No explanation is given as to why…

“These new marriage proposals call for a fundamental reevaluation of the relationships between children and their parents.”
Do they? Where? Specifically on the agenda of inclusion of same sex marriage, how would children be affected, since homosexuals can’t produce children? How would existing children in existing families be affected?

There are many confusions between “Marriage” and “Parenthood”

“This normative model of marriage is under attack in these recent reports.”
How is it under attack? Including same sex couples would not exclude different sex couples.

“The idea is that marriage is only a close personal relationship between adults, and no longer a pro-child social institution.”
Since when has it been a “pro-child social institution”? Infertile couples and the elderly have always been able to get married, and they can never be “pro-child”.

“If the proposed changes are put in place, there are likely to be important negative impacts on the lives of everyday people.”
No negative impacts outlined…

“The competing visions of marriage at the heart of the family law debate are deeply incompatible — the adoption of one model of marriage moves us in a very different direction than its alternative.”
Not true. The inclusion of same-sex couples in the definition of marriage is compatible with the existing definition, since it has no effect on hetrosexual couples getting married.

“the legal creation of a couple-centered understanding of marriage is achieved by placing the older conjugal meaning of marriage under a moral and legal cloud of suspicion. It will place the law in a stance that is hostile towards cultural and religious communities that adhere to the ethos of conjugal marriage as the backbone of their communal life.”
… in theory. Again, no substance is given to this argument.

“To change the core features of marriage is to impact real people, adults and children, whose lives will be significantly shaped by the renewal or decline of this institution.”
Again, how? Lack of substance.

Again, a lot of questions left unanswered…