Gay Marriage

[SparrowHawk]

I do not believe there is one and that is why when these laws finally hit the SCOTUS i think they will fail.

The ONLY valid argument is a moral one. My only misgiving in all of this is Marraige in and of itself is a matter of faith. A civil union is a matter of tort law. Currently we have a system that combines the religous & Legal aspects into one contract.

Being that one of the primary roles of government is to enforce contracts and protect private property a gay couple is no different then a straight couple. However I know of no religion that supports gay relationships. To me the solution is quite simple.

Gay or straight one can enter a Civil Union sanctioned by the government in order to protect their assets and certain other benefits they may derive from such an arrangement.

The portion know as Marriage would be sanctioned by the various religons that operate in the US. I think to be fair and respectful of both points of view you divide marriage into 2 portions, Legal & Spiritual.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

However I know of no religion that supports gay relationships.

Episcopalians Approve Rite to Bless Same-Sex Unions

http://www.nytimes.c...nions.html?_r=0

 

[SparrowHawk]

Episcopalians Approve Rite to Bless Same-Sex Unions

http://www.nytimes.c...nions.html?_r=0

Interesting! thanks for the link. I still feel my initial point is valid especially when it comes to the more fundamentalist Christians.

Personally I don't think the Christian Church has a leg to stand on legally or spiritually on this issue. Iwas more or less playing Devil's Advocate. For me Individual Liberty is paramount and ANY religion trying to impose it's will on non members to me is an initiation of force and should not be tolerated. Does Westboro Baptist have the right to express their views? Of Course they do! Do they the right through legislation to force compliance with those views? NO!

The COTUS doesn't guarante us Fredom from religion, instead it guarantees us freedom to worship as we choose.

On a side note. The NY Times has less credibility as a source then Wikipedia does.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

The NY Times has less credibility as a source then Wikipedia does.

I disagree.

Maybe some of the writers/columnists may have slants, (as do most newspapers in the world) but I think the vast majority of the content of the NYT is credible and reputable.

 

[Ms Tree]

The ONLY valid argument is a moral one. My only misgiving in all of this is Marraige in and of itself is a matter of faith. A civil union is a matter of tort law. Currently we have a system that combines the religous & Legal aspects into one contract.

Being that one of the primary roles of government is to enforce contracts and protect private property a gay couple is no different then a straight couple. However I know of no religion that supports gay relationships. To me the solution is quite simple.

Gay or straight one can enter a Civil Union sanctioned by the government in order to protect their assets and certain other benefits they may derive from such an arrangement.

The portion know as Marriage would be sanctioned by the various religons that operate in the US. I think to be fair and respectful of both points of view you divide marriage into 2 portions, Legal & Spiritual.

Really? So who's morality shall we use? Mine? Yours? Michelle Bachman? Gingrich? Clinton? Romney?..... who's? Your morality is barely more popular than mine so ours are both out. I prefer arguments based on logic and law when it comes to policies of state. Morality is a personal decision and as far as I am concerned should only be used as a base in personal decisions.

I am all for separating the religious aspect from the religious aspect but we have been down this road a few times already. The only thing protecting religious marriage now is government. Government has been co-opted as a protector.

The term marriage is like the term Q-tip or Band aid. Whether I get a license for a CU or marriage, when someone asks me what the relationship is between me and my partner I will say she is my wife and we are married. The fact that we had a JP marry us in a secular service at a B&B has nothing to d with it. So the term will still be used and nothing will change other than the documentation which no one cares about.

Secondly, if marriage is relegated to religious institutions, any institution can marry any thing or any one or multiple people because there are no government regulations prohibiting such unions. So someone can go to their religious institution and get a 'license' to marry their daughter, chair or dog and go around telling people that I am married to my daughter, chair or dog so the term marriage will even have less meaning than it does now.

How does any of this help the sanctity of marriage?

Personally I could care less what the term is so long as everyone can participate on an equal footing. What you proposed is pretty straight forward. Why is it that no religious institution has every promoted this idea? I believe it is because they will lose the protection of the government.

I believe they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Separate the institutions and lose all control or stick with the current plan and allow same sex, multiple's and what ever other combinations are out there get married.

 

[delldude]

I disagree.

Maybe some of the writers/columnists may have slants, (as do most newspapers in the world) but I think the vast majority of the content of the NYT is credible and reputable.

How do you acknowledge the heavy party bias then?
How do you acknowledge non coverage of critical anti-Obama issues?
Is there any reporting of anti-Obama issues?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

How do you acknowledge the heavy party bias then?
How do you acknowledge non coverage of critical anti-Obama issues?
Is there any reporting of anti-Obama issues?

1) you only see what you want to see. It is called selective attention. You are only paying attention to your slant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

2) you mean like Birther mania?

3) yes

 

[delldude]

1) you only see what you want to see. It is called selective attention. You are only paying attention to your slant.

Yes and you are the one guilty of it....not me.....

LOL

On Sunday, Arthur Brisbane, the public editor for The New York Times, admitted that the newspaper has a pro-Obama bias and encouraged the paper to be more even-handed during this years’ presidential election.

I’ll give Brisbane credit for being honest enough to admit that the Times leans way too much in favor of Obama, but he is kidding himself if he thinks that the powers-that-be at the paper will heed his advice and aim for unbiased coverage of the President.

 

[signals]

I just re-read the first two lines of your post. You dont know what you Are talking about.

Actually I do. Did the Catholic Church start reading the Holy Bible during Mass or do we just listen to the words of the priest from our Misselette still?

 

[signals]

No twist at all. Perversion is a POV. Some used to find interracial marriage a perversion. Some religions find that sex for pleasure is a perversion. Some feel that a 40 yr old man married to a 20 yr old woman is a perversion (my sister and brother in law have been married for over 30 years). What you find perverse is not a legal argument and does not matter in the least.


This argument is solely about equal rights. The right of two (or more) adults to enter in to a binding contract. You may laugh all you want but you have yet to provide a legal argument against equal marriage. I do practice what I preach. I do my best to separate my personal feelings from my positions on peoples rights.


No idea what you are ranting on about in the rest of your post. Bottom line is if you have a compelling legal argument go for it, other wise it really does not matter.

Yes as usual you twist or miss the point. I am totally for equal rights as dictated by Caesar in his domain. If Caesar wants equal rights for gays to marry, so be it. I do not object and and can adjust to it in the world of Caesar who I must render to. As far as my 'perversion' statement, well that goes into the God issue, or my beliefs that I am entitled to as you are to your beliefs.

On God's plateau, I don't have to accept that homosexuality is acceptable because of my beliefs. On Caesar's plateau, I can accept it regardless of my beliefs. I would have a problem with say, gay marriages in churches, because then the hypocracy is that separation of church and state only applies to the church!

I assume no responsibility for the foolish, so called, Christians who push their beliefs on the state.

 

[signals]

Fine. You can consider what ever you want as a perversion. I could care less. Just don't start passing laws prohibiting things you find offensive with no legal argument to support it and think that this slippery slope cannot come back and bite you in the ass.

Perhaps someone down line will think Christianity is a perversion and ban that. Extreme example but you get the point.

If you have a legal argument against homosexuality legs hear what you have. Southwind obviously does not.

NAMBLA thinks there is nothing wrong with their perversion. Should we start passing laws or are you OK with it?

Your hatred, and I use the word loosely so spare me the argument, for Christians makes me wonder what your Satanic beliefs really are? Now there's something they won't ban!!!

A legal argument against homosexuality can't exist, after the psychology world removed it from its DSM as a mental illness.

 

[Ms Tree]

Yes as usual you twist or miss the point. I am totally for equal rights as dictated by Caesar in his domain. If Caesar wants equal rights for gays to marry, so be it. I do not object and and can adjust to it in the world of Caesar who I must render to. As far as my 'perversion' statement, well that goes into the God issue, or my beliefs that I am entitled to as you are to your beliefs.

On God's plateau, I don't have to accept that homosexuality is acceptable because of my beliefs. On Caesar's plateau, I can accept it regardless of my beliefs. I would have a problem with say, gay marriages in churches, because then the hypocracy is that separation of church and state only applies to the church!

I assume no responsibility for the foolish, so called, Christians who push their beliefs on the state.

Still have no ideawbat you are talking about.

Who said anything about church ceremonies? They can do what they want. Who cares?

 

[Ms Tree]

NAMBLA thinks there is nothing wrong with their perversion. Should we start passing laws or are you OK with it?

Your hatred, and I use the word loosely so spare me the argument, for Christians makes me wonder what your Satanic beliefs really are? Now there's something they won't ban!!!

A legal argument against homosexuality can't exist, after the psychology world removed it from its DSM as a mental illness.

First you have to change the consent laws then you can work on NAMBLA. No I am not in favor of it. I do not think a child has the ability to make an informed decision.

Yea yea. Old news. Let check my Pentagram and Ill get back to you.

About time. There is nothing to support the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness or any other illness for that matter.

So sincere is no legal argument can we just grant equal rights to everyone and move on? These stupid arguments are getting so tiresome.

 

[KCFlyer]

NAMBLA thinks there is nothing wrong with their perversion. Should we start passing laws or are you OK with it?

Wife beaters figure there's nothing wrong with what they do either. There are laws agains sex with minors (ask some high profile republicans) and there are laws against wife beating. I am heterosexual. If one heterosexual man has sex with a 12 year old girl, does that mean I have sex, or condone sex with 12 year old girls? NAMBLA is perverts....they don't represent the vast majority of gay people in this or any other country. Why do you all use them as a reason to ban this?

 

[signals]

Still have no ideawbat you are talking about.

Who said anything about church ceremonies? They can do what they want. Who cares?

Yes I understand. Spiritual matter are foolishness to you. I'll condecend to your level to explain it...

I can live with gay marriage and gay rights even though my spiritual beliefs are against them. You were talking about "equal rights" and 'perversion' and I was explaining where I was coming from.