RE: Same-sex marriage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/21/2005 12:48:30 AM)

I will put a different twist on it. The State should not be involved in marriages. Period. All it is to them is a cash cow. I actually do not have much use for marriage, either (although My tune is changing now that I have met My current girlfriend), but I believe it should be left in the hands of the church.

If it is, then O/one should logically default back to the age old definition of what a marriage is.. It is not a contract, it is a covenant. A covenant does not involve the State at all. The State has twisted the definition of marriage to redefine it as a contract which brought on it's own set of problems. It involves the couple and God. The church can be used as a witness to this covenant, however.

Marriage was defined long before words were even thought of, and it was never between two people of the same sex. Further, God denounces the act of homosexuality (although I believe abstinent homosexuals are exempt). Therefore, there is no way that God would either bless or embark upon a covenant with a lifestyle He denounces. Thus, a church can not condone it either.

See, it is not the homosexual I have a problem with (I have several homosexual/lesbian friends and have dated bisexual and bi-curious females), it is the actions that I can not condone, and I believe homosexual marriage is condoning those actions.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/21/2005 1:31:55 AM)

I thought I said virtually the same thing a page and a half ago.

The only difference is that I didn't presume to decide that churches shouldn't permit homosexual marriages.



Lepidoptera -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/21/2005 8:57:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BlkTallFullfig

quote:

ORIGINAL: ShiftedJewel
Well, since I really do enjoy fishing I decided to open my own can of worms and post a thread about same-sex marriage.

I’m all for it. I believe that homosexual couples should be allowed to marry their SO in every state of the union
Jewel

Oh Jewel,
I was feeling pretty good today, but now you're about to place me in the position of being stoned to death when I voice my opinion.

My background/religion which is fairly conservative (I'm working on losing what is worthless), taught me that marriage is something a man and a woman who intend to live together and procreate do.
I believe that "Civil Unions" should be permitted with all the same legal protections for 2 adults who wish to enter into one; I'm not sure why it needs to be called "marriage" though... Marriage has always been between men and women, and I know some institutions are better off dissolved, but that isn't what's being argued here.

So I am against calling them marriage, but I am all for legal protections afforded to married couples. M


The problem is, say in the case of Vermont where gay marriage is illegal but gay civil unions are legal, that the gov't is handing out "marriage" licenses to straight couples and "civil union " licenses to gay people.

Separate but equal? Didn't work for black civil rights, won't work for gay civil rights.

Since the gov't is a secular institution, every couple should get a civil union license.

Then, if you are religious, you can get married in a church. Won't that make everyone happy?



SirKenin -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/22/2005 12:19:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lepidoptera
Separate but equal? Didn't work for black civil rights, won't work for gay civil rights.

Since the gov't is a secular institution, every couple should get a civil union license.




Ahh, but the State should not be involved in marriages like I said, number one. Number two, the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that homosexuals have absolutely no rights to homosexual marriages accorded to them by any part of the Constitution nor Amendment thereof. That is why they are taking it to the individual states, because they know that if they attempt to take it back to the USSC they are going to lose.

This really is not a case of civil rights then. They clearly do not have any accorded to them by the Constitution or it's Amendments. This is not even in the same ballpark as black civil rights, nor should the fight be equated to same. The homosexual agenda (note that not all homosexuals adhere to this agenda, but it does exist) is trying to do this to garner sympathy for their cause, but the USSC has already ruled against them. Now it becomes an issue of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to redefine an institution to accomodate them and they are hammering at individual states to do it.



perverseangelic -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/22/2005 12:41:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin
the United States Supreme Court has already ruled that homosexuals have absolutely no rights to homosexual marriages accorded to them by any part of the Constitution nor Amendment thereof. That is why they are taking it to the individual states, because they know that if they attempt to take it back to the USSC they are going to lose.

This really is not a case of civil rights then. They clearly do not have any accorded to them by the Constitution or it's Amendments. This is not even in the same ballpark as black civil rights, nor should the fight be equated to same. The homosexual agenda (note that not all homosexuals adhere to this agenda, but it does exist) is trying to do this to garner sympathy for their cause, but the USSC has already ruled against them. Now it becomes an issue of whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to redefine an institution to accomodate them and they are hammering at individual states to do it.


Wait...we're still human, right? I mean, last time I check all people were granted rights under the constitution. Being homosexual or bisexual or intersexed or anything else doesn't make you suddenly "not human"

Also, the consitition does not grant rights to heterosexuals either. Nowhere in the constitution does it say "we shall allow straight people to marry" Why should homosexuals have to be mentioned specifically when heterosexuals aren't?

Yup, homosexual agenda exists. We demand to be given the same legal protection and consideration as do heterosexuals. We demand to not be discriminated against based on our sexual orientation. I'd say that's right in the same feild as any other type of civil rights.

Marriage within the church is a religious institution. I could care less how it is defined. Marriage under law is a civil institution, because the government has made it such. It is about economic benifits, as well as other benifits. To deny those benifits to individuals because they are both the same gender is a wrong as to deny those benifits to individuals because they are another race, and it is just as arbitrary. As a queer person, I have NO desire to redefine marriage, marriage can be between a chicken and a goat for all I care. That's up to whatever church you're interested in. However, I want there to be legal equality for partnerships between -any- two people (for now.) It isn't about marriage. That's for the churches to figure out. It's about people who are committed to one another being able to inhert, without a spesific will. It's about being able to visit your partner in the hospital, legally instead of just in practice.

Rename marriage, by all means! But rename it for -everyone- not just homosexuals.


Yes, sometimes these things happen now. However, it shouldn't be a fight for homosexuals to be treated in the same ways that heterosexuals are as a matter of course.



Youtalkingtome -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/22/2005 9:40:00 AM)

perverseangelic,
Their is a difference between human rights and constitutional rights.
Although most people see them as one.
Their is a difference between civil rights and constitutional rights.Again people see them as one.
Myself I choose constitutional rights.I don't want civil rights.Civil rights were granted to minorities that were left out of the bill of rights.
Another thing that is over looked by most people either by not being informed or on purpose is the seperation of church and state.
Their is no such law.What was meant is that the founding fathers didn't want a single government sponcered religion like England had at the time.
No where in the speach that has the term seperation of church and state in it does it say freedom from religion it says freedom of religion.
This is greatly over looked today.And is tearing apart our country.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/22/2005 10:38:49 AM)

RIGHT OBVIUSLY THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE ALL HAVE TO CHOOSE A RELIGION OR ELSE WE SHOLUD BE SHOT.



perverseangelic -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/22/2005 10:39:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Youtalkingtome

perverseangelic,
Their is a difference between human rights and constitutional rights. Their is a difference between civil rights and constitutional rights.

I agree with the first premis and disagree with the second. Many of the constitituionally granted rights -are- civil rights.

"civil rights
pl.n.

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."

(Miriam Webster Dictionary)

We get 'em through the constitution if we are US citizens. Homosexual people, if they are US citizens have 'em. Heterosexuals too. Neither orrientation is specified.

Nor is "marriage" among any of the rights the constitution gives anybody. If you want to get strict, we should just do what many of us on this thread have been advocating and get rid of marriage all togheter.

Human rights, that's trickier. I'd say that refers to rights all individuals have by virtue of being human beings. Most people can't agree on what those are, so I'm not even going to take it on.

quote:

Myself I choose constitutional rights.I don't want civil rights.Civil rights were granted to minorities that were left out of the bill of rights.


Technically, in the language of hte bill of rights, no one was left out. It just took the culture a while to catch up and realize that. As far as I know, the language of the constitution gives rights to all humans. Later amendements re-asserted that people of other races and women really -are- human after all.
(At least, I'm pretty sure about this, give me references if I'm wrong)

quote:


Another thing that is over looked by most people either by not being informed or on purpose is the seperation of church and state.
Their is no such law.What was meant is that the founding fathers didn't want a single government sponcered religion like England had at the time.


I know that as well. Also I know that the phrase "seperation of church and state" isn't anywhere inthe Constitution and was actually found in some letters written by Jefferson. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea.

quote:

No where in the speach that has the term seperation of church and state in it does it say freedom from religion it says freedom of religion.


Again, agreed. However, it does say that there will be no laws made abrdiging the practice of religion. As I see it, a government that advocates one system of religion, is, in essence, abridging the practice of other religions. In giving preference to one spesific type of Christian ideals, they are abriding my right to practice my religion. I see this as especially true of marriage laws. Current laws give precident to (primarially) Christian morality. In allowing only couples that meet that religions standard of "couple" to have a union in the eyes of the state, they are abridging the rights of other religions, with other definitions of what a union of people can be composed of.

Say, for example, a law was made that basically said "You can practice any religion you want, but if you are a Wiccan you get a 50% break in your taxes." That isn't stopping anyone from practicing their religion. It -is- giving precident to one religion over another, which, in my opinion, is the same thing. It is violating someone's freedom to choose their religion based on the religion itself and not the government.


I hear what you're saying. I think you are wrong in saying that civil rights are not constitutional rights. Much of what we think of as civil rights are dirrectly stated in the constitition and are applied to all people. Later "civil rights ammendments" stated what was -already- in the language of the constitution, clarifying it so that a changing culture could not interpret that original language in a way as to be discriminatory.



LadyAngelika -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/22/2005 10:58:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

RIGHT OBVIUSLY THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE ALL HAVE TO CHOOSE A RELIGION OR ELSE WE SHOLUD BE SHOT.


Actually, you bring up an interesting point Lam but it’s not so far off. In the US, you have many laws prohibiting sodomy and oral sex and the reason for that is that it is wasting the seed needed to populate a new country. This is a prime example of when the state utilized the church in order to further its agenda. Here in Québec, we know that French Canadian families could grow up to 16 children and that is because the Church issued order was “Procreate! Procreate! Procreate!”. In fact, believe it or not, people actually get government subsidies for procreation here still, though in Québec, we have done a pretty good job of separating Church & State – not perfect mind you, but better then I see in most places.

Now we know that in the eyes of this alleged God, sex is for procreation. Interestingly enough, the only reason why homosexuality is seen as a sin in religion is because it is wasting the seed. It is a non-procreative act. So every time a heterosexual is having sex without procreation in mind, they are committing a sin because they are wasting the seed. This is further emphasized if your seed ends up in a condom or if it is deflected by a birth control pill! You think I'm extreme, right? Well this is the kind of catholic education I got.

I also remember the bible saying something about Love thy neighbour. Mine are a hot gay male couple. :)

- LA



onceburned -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/22/2005 1:21:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lepidoptera
Since the gov't is a secular institution, every couple should get a civil union license.

Then, if you are religious, you can get married in a church. Won't that make everyone happy?


This sounds eminently reasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Youtalkingtome
Myself I choose constitutional rights.I don't want civil rights.Civil rights were granted to minorities that were left out of the bill of rights.


I think civil rights have a broader scope than you realize. Do a google search on the phrase "violating his civil rights" and I think you will see that it is a staple of lawsuits, even for non-minority issues. Constitutional rights are important but they don't begin to cover all of the rights we expect in a civil society.



pantera -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/23/2005 6:37:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cellogrrlMK


Even though I voted for Bush, I voted against the constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages- keep g'vmt out of our personal lives,....but also our pockets!!!!!


quote:


Ah well, we all make mistakes [:D] .... too bad your second vote couldn't negate the first.




Well cello, some things are more important than others.... having a strong person in the white house and our national security, along with keeping our tax breaks and getting even more of those are more important issues right now than what name is given to a relationship- ...even though it is also important that everybody enjoys the security that unions offer (gay or straight)... and I'm not saying that to be PC - ...I actually enjoy to exercise freedom by saying unpopular things that are not PC every now and then... I certainly put freedom of speech ahead of PC any day




Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/23/2005 1:41:38 PM)

Well, yes, but I'm not sure you can pin sodomy laws on the Founding Fathers. I'ma hafta go research this a little bit, but I have a strong suspicion that most sodomy laws in the U.S. date from the nineteenth century. In fact, I also have a strong suspicion that the main motivation for them was not religious but hygienic. That was the heyday of let's-identify-all-the-perverts-and-put-them-in-asylums.

Also, fortunately, many sodomy laws have been and are being repealed.

Lam

Edited to add: Hey I have three handcuffs now!

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

Actually, you bring up an interesting point Lam but it’s not so far off. In the US, you have many laws prohibiting sodomy and oral sex and the reason for that is that it is wasting the seed needed to populate a new country. This is a prime example of when the state utilized the church in order to further its agenda.




darkinshadows -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/23/2005 2:25:08 PM)

quote:

Further, God denounces the act of homosexuality (although I believe abstinent homosexuals are exempt).

quote:

See, it is not the homosexual I have a problem with (I have several homosexual/lesbian friends and have dated bisexual and bi-curious females), it is the actions that I can not condone, and I believe homosexual marriage is condoning those actions.



Forgive me in advance if I come across a little rude.
However... I do take issue with someone using the name of God or anyone else for that matter, to justify their own negativity.

But it isn't up to you to have a problem. It isn't up to you to condone. It is up to your to be open and to love.

God passes judgement - not a man.

If you have problem with homosexuality - take it to God, don't argue a point that in essence is insulting to an individuals freedom of choice.

He who cast the first stone etc.... Take a look at your profile -


quote:

Interests (click for descriptions):

Living Expenses Provided
Watersports
Naked / Collar & Cuffs
Tattoos
Fisting
Wax Play


May I suggest some reading?

Leviticus 19:28 - any version

It isn't your place to condone via God, when your own desires are under question of His instruction.

Peace and Love



cellogrrlMK -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/23/2005 4:46:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pantera

Well cello, some things are more important than others.... having a strong person in the white house and our national security, along with keeping our tax breaks and getting even more of those are more important issues right now than what name is given to a relationship- ...even though it is also important that everybody enjoys the security that unions offer (gay or straight)... and I'm not saying that to be PC - ...I actually enjoy to exercise freedom by saying unpopular things that are not PC every now and then... I certainly put freedom of speech ahead of PC any day




Well, if that's not the classic Repulican line then I'm a monkey's uncle! [:D]

cello



LadyAngelika -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/24/2005 4:43:30 AM)

quote:

Well, yes, but I'm not sure you can pin sodomy laws on the Founding Fathers.

Well considering I have a minor in interdisciplinary studies in sexuality, I actually can pin it on them. Then again, you can't believe everything you read in academic books ;)

Here is an interesting site you might want to peruse: The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States

Though it doesn't specifically say so there, one of the main MO's was to ensure population of the land. I'm sure that there were other factors too.

Edited to add: Congrats on your three handcuffs!

- LA



pantera -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/24/2005 6:23:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cellogrrlMK


quote:

ORIGINAL: pantera

Well cello, some things are more important than others.... having a strong person in the white house and our national security, along with keeping our tax breaks and getting even more of those are more important issues right now than what name is given to a relationship- ...even though it is also important that everybody enjoys the security that unions offer (gay or straight)... and I'm not saying that to be PC - ...I actually enjoy to exercise freedom by saying unpopular things that are not PC every now and then... I certainly put freedom of speech ahead of PC any day




Well, if that's not the classic Repulican line then I'm a monkey's uncle! [:D]

cello




Very nice to meet you, how's your nephew? I heard he was a little silly-

If you want to label me, go right ahead...I'm not going to get mad (unless you call me a dem, commie or idiot).... LOL!!! just kidding-

the moment you open your mouth to label somebody you don't know, you label yourself as a fool



pantera -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/24/2005 6:33:41 AM)

I think I will change my avatar for a little while



cellogrrlMK -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/24/2005 7:04:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pantera


quote:

ORIGINAL: cellogrrlMK


Well, if that's not the classic Repulican line then I'm a monkey's uncle! [:D]

cello




Very nice to meet you, how's your nephew? I heard he was a little silly-

If you want to label me, go right ahead...I'm not going to get mad (unless you call me a dem, commie or idiot).... LOL!!! just kidding-

the moment you open your mouth to label somebody you don't know, you label yourself as a fool



Hmmmm, my comment looked more like a statement in response to your post, not a labelling of you personally. If any labels were made it was my labelling MYSELF as a potential monkey's uncle LOL! Which in itself is silly, since I'm female and would therefore have to be an aunt, not an uncle, and since I have no nieces or nephews (why'd you assume it would be a boy? [;)] ) it makes no difference anyway.

No need to call names or get defensive dude.... sheesh!




Lordandmaster -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/24/2005 4:59:03 PM)

According to that site, the remaining sodomy laws in Massachusetts, namely the "crime against nature" and "unnatural and lascivious acts" laws, both date from the 19th century. And it sounds to me as though the target of the second one had to be psychopathy, not heresy.

If the pattern of sodomy legislation in the United States followed anything like the pattern in Europe, then the heyday of legislation was the 19th century and the motivation was catching (and, at least at first, reforming) degenerates and other psychopaths. But, again, I'll have to read more about this.

Lam

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyAngelika

Here is an interesting site you might want to peruse: The History of Sodomy Laws in the United States



LadyAngelika -> RE: Same-sex marriage (5/24/2005 5:10:23 PM)

quote:

According to that site, the remaining sodomy laws in Massachusetts, namely the "crime against nature" and "unnatural and lascivious acts" laws, both date from the 19th century.


Alright, the remaining. But there were anti-sodomy laws that made sodomy punishable by death in 17th century America.

- LA



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.711914E-02