Protesting against Freedom - Rally against Gay marriage.............

[Andre1969]

Let's face it, nobody on this earth is truly free from sin. And the Bible can be twisted and interpreted in so many ways, that we're all probably gonna go to hell in a handbasket no matter how much we pray and do good deeds!

 

[setab]

Let's face it, nobody on this earth is truly free from sin.  And the Bible can be twisted and interpreted in so many ways, that we're all probably gonna go to hell in a handbasket no matter how much we pray and do good deeds! 

Totally agree with the first sentence; totally disagree with the second sentence unless you are counting on the good deeds thing. That's where grace comes in, but again, this is probably not a good forum to go there.

setab

 

[ladelfina]

setab, I wouldn't care or have brought anyone into it "personally" if it weren't already a discussion touching on the role of the state to uphold or enforce a certain group's religious tenets. When governing civilly crosses the line into governing religiously, sorry, I'll cross the line of polite disagreement, which includes naming names of public figures I feel are acting contrary to the wishes of the majority of Americans, using their power and influence as government officials to exclusively promote Protestant Evangelism.

There's a world of difference between "hurting" someone's "feelings" and denying someone a right that others enjoy, not based on any logic other than squeamishness or religious disapproval.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .How can one support gay marriage without ultimately relying on their own values and belief system?  . . .

This is really easy to understand, justin.  Try.  I haven't heard a single person propose outlawing heteosexual marriage.  That's the difference. 

If you believe that one group's efforts to outlaw diversity based on religious beliefs is equivalent to another group's efforts to reduce restrictions on diversity, then you are on a very slippery slope.  Take the case going on in Afganistan today where the courts are considering inforcing existing law, backed by the Koran, to execute someone who has converted from Isalm to Christianity.  Is that okay?  Would it be okay if the punishment were less severe?  Would it be okay if the religions were reveresed in the case?  How is it different from the religious groups in Minnesota trying to drive their views restricting behavior into law?

People on this board are not supporting gay marriage.  They are simply choosing not to support a single, small, vocal, irrational group's view of marriage over all others.  There is a very big difference.

 

[sgeeeee]

Oh no!!  The poor, oppressed, white, middle-class, liberal majority is unhappy.    I weep for them. 

. . .

I wait for the day when this is true. And I believe this administration is unwittingly exposing the far right to be corrupt, narrow-minded hypocrits. This is leading the nation gradually away from their extreme positions and will eventually bring about that liberal majority.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . That's why I think the argument "The religious right is wrong because support for their position is derived from their values and beliefs" is a fallacious argument.

. . .

And no one has made that argument. The argument is that all beliefs are based on values. Different people and different groups hold different values. Why should we limit everyone's behavior based on one group's set of values?

That's the question you really need to answer. No one here has tried to outlaw your lifestyle even though it is not based on their values. Why do you support outlawing lifestyles based on their values? How do you justify that?

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

so much comment so early in history--all worthy of deep thought--but i'm just out of bed and i've got to get to the gym. wanted to post a little camp from the 1980s "trouble in paradise" album 8-track cd.

listen at your own risk. i will neither be held responsible if this music turns you gay, nor will i accept the obligatory toaster-oven for meeting quota. that said, here's the clip so you can sing along:

www.romanovskyandphillips.com/clips/selfrespectingfaggot.mp3

What Kind of Self-Respecting Faggot Am I

Guess that I was destined to be the kind of guy
Who never really fits in and never keeps in time
So now I've started asking the question on my mind
What kind of self-respecting faggot am I?

I moved to San Francisco, it seemed the place to be
But I'm not into disco, and bars intimidate me
My only can of Crisco is where it's s'posed to be
What kind of self-respecting faggot am I?

Don't own a single record by Barbra, Bette, or Judy
Heard of Bette Davis, but never saw her movies
Guess I'm irresponsible, it seems I've shirked my duty
What kind of self-respecting faggot am I?

I don't read magazines like GQ
My hair's too long, my clothes are out of style
And when the conversation turns to Broadway shows
All I can do is sit and smile

I don't brunch on Sundays, don't own a set of weights
I wouldn't dream of screwing 'til after several dates
I know it's quite pathetic, I might as well be straight
What kind of self-respecting faggot am I?

It's so hard to be a homo, it's hard to play the game
When you don't own a poster of Marilyn what's-her-name
I know it's hard to fathom, it's really quite a shame
What kind of self-respecting faggot am I?

music & lyrics©1983 Ron Romanovsky & Paul Phillips
Published by Bodacious Music (ASCAP)

ps, that wasn't the door to use the "f" word. the "n" word rule still applies.

 

[sgeeeee]

. . .The point that seems to be overlooked in this thread is that the religious right IS "directly and measurably affected" by the concept of gay marriage.  Not in a physical sense, but rather in a spiritual or moral sense.  For someone who's core identity is largely based on their faith, gay marriage might be one of the most important issues to them.  Imagine someone who is so vehemently opposed to gay marriage that they are filled with animosity at the thought or sight of a gay married couple.  Ignoring for the moment the appropriateness of their feelings, it doesn't take much empathy to put yourself in this person's shoes and to understand that their feelings truly are hurt by the notion of gay marriage. . . .

This is truly scary.  Everyone holds certain beliefs passionately.  Apply your standard of "measurably affected" to Isalmic fundamentalists.  Should we feel empathy for them and pass laws restricting the rights of women, dictating what they wear, reducing them to chattle?    If not, then what is the difference between their case and the religious right in this country?  They aren't in a majority, although they claim to be.  They have simply leveraged their single-minded voting block and political funding machines to be more influential than most other groups.  

Again, this is a spippery slope.  The fastest growing religious group in America today are the Mormons.  Read about their history and their church today and think about the future when they hold a majority of votes before you propose any more dismantling of the separation of church and state.  

 

[sgeeeee]

The tone is hateful and much more intolerant than the intolerance it purports to object to.  The post is frought with over generalizations, logical inconsistencies and the type of rhetoric than incites rather than solves.  Why would anyone want to sit down and discuss anything with someone who rants on like this?  I am middle class, white and Christian and I don't feel ashamed about any of that.

setab

You make not one single specific point that can be discussed. What do you find intolerant? What over generalizations do you see? Where are the logical inconsistenceis? Of course you don't want to sit down and discuss anything, but don't blame that on me.

Let's recall what this discussion is about. It is about a particular event where a particular group of people in Minnesota are trying not to change existing law (the law is already in their favor) but to place additional hurddles on anyone who might want to modify the law in the future.

So far, the argument supporting them has been, "Some of us don't feel comfortable knowing that homosexuals exist, so can everybody just respect our feelings and outlaw this thing for everybody? If you don't go along with that, you must be intolerant of our feelings and that would make you a bad liberal." Got anything else?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

And the terrorists win.

 

[brewer12345]

Why do you hate America?

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

May I insert this here...?

 

[brewer12345]

Hey, there's no boobs in that pic! You can do better. In the meantime, there's this: http://www.fandango.net/polaroid/POOP.gif

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

There are too boobs in that picture. At least two. Maybe three. Possibly four!

 

[sgeeeee]

Okay. I must respect OP in a kayak. That is sacred.

May I insert this here...?

 

[justin]

Let's recall what this discussion is about. It is about a particular event where a particular group of people in Minnesota are trying not to change existing law (the law is already in their favor) but to place additional hurddles on anyone who might want to modify the law in the future.

Sgeeeeeee, are you sure you're not really JG's split personality? You had three posts in a row there, all replying to me.

I was just throwing out some food for thought, and to give you something to fill your time up with. The whole gay marriage thing doesn't really matter to me much. The outcome of the issue has very little relevance to my personal life. I was more or less playing devil's (or god's ) advocate since it looked like group think had set in.

I personally think the issue isn't as cut and dry as you make it seem.

My personal feelings are as follows: If I was the one setting the policy, I'd probably allow domestic partnerships to be state-recognized by civil unions. Civil unions would confer the same rights and responsibilities as man-woman marriage. The main difference would be the name of the legal institution being entered into. If there were a referendum on this issue I'd most likely vote in favor of civil unions. I still believe marriage = man+woman, but who am I to judge a man+man or woman+woman committed relationship invalid and hence deny both partners the rights and responsibilities of their heterosexual counterparts.

But back to the issue being discussed - why would opponents of gay marriage push for a state constitutional amendment prohibiting the state from recognizing same-sex marriages? Aside from making a statement reflecting their opinion of gays/gay marriage, the main benefit as I see it would be to prevent liberal activist state judges from interpreting their constitution in such a manner as to legislate gay marriage into existence by judicial fiat. A constitutional amendment clearly stating that marriage = man+woman would effectively force state judges to follow the constitution and not recognize gay marriages. The proponents of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage are trying to ensure that gay marriage, if enacted, is enacted through the political process instead of in the activist courts. I'm not advocating the position of the anti-gay marriage folks, just trying to explain the reasoning of their strategy.

 

[starry night]

Let's consider where marriage in our society really comes from. Isn't it really just a cultural construct created to recognize certain property rights and to aid in social stability? This status was endorsed both by governments and by church as mutually beneficial in maintining social order, recognizing property rights and discouraging behaviors that the church would view as "sinful".

So the recognition of marriage is only what the ruling society deems it to be.

Why not view this as they do in Europe, as a two-step process: First, the legal, civil, recorded civil ceremony that gives legal teeth to a union of two consenting adults, at least one of which is a citizen and resident of the state issuing the certificate.

The second is the optional religious service that couples may choose to celebrate and have the church sanction their union. You can have all the priests, chaplains, bridesmaids and unity candles you want, but you are not legally married in the US without step #1, the state-endorsed certificate, with signed witnesses and commiserate fees paid and recorded (apart from certain recognitions of common-law marriage).

Get the church OUT of the legal recognition of marriage/civil union, in the same way that the government does not interfere with the church's performance of marriage rites. Churches can therefore refuse or agree to perform services for gay or straight couples, all the while calling to their attention that, while they might view themselves married "in the eyes of God", they will not be so recognized by the state until they get that certificate, civil ceremony and pay fee.

Hasn't our society migrated signifcantly from the norm of marriage altogether? Legally recognized nor religiously-sanctioned marriages are seemingly unnecessary in many people's choices. So why not let those who do wish to make a legal (with perhaps and optionally additional spiritually-sanctioned, publicly displayed, ceremonial event) commitment do so, as citizens of the US and the state, regardless of gender

Live and let live......and love conquers all!

 

[JB]

  Who is to be the arbiter of whether "homosexuality is ok" or "homosexuality is bad"? 

Each individual. It's fair and consistent with the funamental principles of our democracy.

 

[youbet]

Under current proposals, will gay civil unions / marriages result in the happy couple paying the "marriage tax?" Or, will they still be able to file as two singles for purposes of federal income tax?

 

[justin]

Why not view this as they do in Europe, as a two-step process: First, the legal, civil, recorded civil ceremony that gives legal teeth to a union of two consenting adults, at least one of which is a citizen and resident of the state issuing the certificate.

The second is the optional religious service that couples may choose to celebrate and have the church sanction their union. You can have all the priests, chaplains, bridesmaids and unity candles you want, but you are not legally married in the US without step #1, the state-endorsed certificate, with signed witnesses and commiserate fees paid and recorded (apart from certain recognitions of common-law marriage).

Get the church OUT of the legal recognition of marriage/civil union, in the same way that the government does not interfere with the church's performance of marriage rites. Churches can therefore refuse or agree to perform services for gay or straight couples, all the while calling to their attention that, while they might view themselves married "in the eyes of God", they will not be so recognized by the state until they get that certificate, civil ceremony and pay fee.

I don't know about all states, but it is my understanding that most states don't require any sort of religious ceremony at all. Justices of the Peace, magistrates, and/or judges can usually perform marriages in most states. The "European" model, as you have described it, seems to be predominately available in most/all states in the U.S.

I actually had a civil ceremony by a magistrate that signed a piece of paper, read the state mandated marriage vows and then we were married (after paying the $12 or whatever it was). No church required. That seems to be a pretty common way to get married, particularly if you aren't real big into mainstream religion, you're poor, or it's not your first marriage.

We then went on to have a more traditional wedding, however the officiant wasn't ordained per my state's laws.

That churches refuse to wed couples of the same sex isn't a bar to marriage in and of itself.

On an interesting side note, the institution of marriage itself was governed by ecclesiastical law in most (or all) European countries up until a century or two ago. Marriage has undergone a radical transformation since then in the West.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Under current proposals, will gay civil unions / marriages result in the happy couple paying the "marriage tax?" Or, will they still be able to file as two singles for purposes of federal income tax?

Or - will the gay couple with a stay at home parent, now have the state subsidize their relationship by being able to file a 'joint' return and pay less tax than a single person?

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

The whole gay marriage thing doesn't really matter to me much. The outcome of the issue has very little relevance to my personal life.

I have yet to see a valid, cohesive argument in favor of gay marriage that doesn't rely on values and beliefs.

my uncle once asked if his daughter was gay. i said, well, she's been living with the same woman for 20 years, what do you think? he got upset with her that she wouldn't "be honest" with him. he said to me, "what do i care who's she with."

when my ol'man died, i took it pretty hard. after all, as a str8 cousin of mine says, i'm just an over emotional gay man. while mom grieved, this same uncle took control of my mother's will and got her to sign away my inheritance. this guy tried to give my inheritance to my brother's kids. i would get only a trust and then my little niece and nephews would get the principal at my death. when mom came back to her senses she was horrified that she had been so manipulated and put things right.

so this loving liberal relative who says it doesn't matter to him tried to treat me as less than a child, less than a person. how does that play into those belief arguments? not even knowing if the kids are gay, he assumes they are str8. then he assumes that i will not adopt children of my own who maybe could use that money (oops, wait, he's right, i forgot, florida won't allow me to adopt.) never mind that he forgets that i'm as much a human being as my brother is, as my niece is, as my nephews are. only i'm gay. guess it matters, huh?

jews being slaughtered in europe had very little relevance to the lives of those around them. blacks and native americans treated as cattle had very little relevance to the lives of those around them. air pollution coming out of a neighbors property has very little relevance to those around them. gays treated as subhuman have very little relevance to those around them.

even attempts to disguise as liberal (enough, at least, so that it doesn't matter) fall short of the mark. i hope this doesn't come off as persecution because i certainly don't mean to stifle opposition.

 

[justin]

jews being slaughtered in europe had very little relevance to the lives of those around them. blacks and native americans treated as cattle had very little relevance to the lives of those around them. air pollution coming out of a neighbors property has very little relevance to those around them. gays treated as subhuman have very little relevance to those around them.

When I say "the whole gay marriage thing doesn't really matter to me much", you might think I'm just another indifferent a$$hat that loves to hate gays. On the contrary, I'm just indifferent. I don't go out gaybashing, and I don't go out waving any rainbow flags. I have about 50 other issues that are more important to me at this point in my life. It is just a non-issue for me. Sort of like air pollution; just a non-issue. If gays were being killed off by the millions, or treated like blacks or native americans were back in the day, I would be much more concerned. Maybe concerned enough to do something about it if our fearless leaders weren't.

If I see a real flamboyant gay dude flaunting his stuff around town, I giggle and whisper "He he, did you see that gay dude?". To be fair, I do that about poor white trash, rednecks, hillbillies, Fundamentalists, non-whites, etc if they obviously fit a stereotype and it strikes me as noteworthy. I have gay friends and family and it's sort of a non-issue for me.

When I go home at night after a long day at the office and I have 0.75 hours of free time to do with as I wish, I have to choose wisely. I could use it to fight for gay rights, or I could spend the 0.75 hours with my wife and kid. Or surfing the web, or watching tv, or getting drunk. Fighting for gay rights is low on my priority list. I'll leave the (rainbow) flag waving for others.

 

[youbet]

Or - will the gay couple with a stay at home parent, now have the state subsidize their relationship by being able to file a 'joint' return and pay less tax than a single person?

Good point CT.

I was just trying to understand whether those seeking the establishment of gay civil unions or marriages had detailed their positions on the tax consequences.  The plan being pushed in Wisconsin would leave gay couples free to declare single or married, whichever is to their advantage, on their Wisconsin state income tax form.  Is this where things are headed for federal tax laws?

 

[Cut-Throat]

jews being slaughtered in europe had very little relevance to the lives of those around them. blacks and native americans treated as cattle had very little relevance to the lives of those around them. air pollution coming out of a neighbors property has very little relevance to those around them. gays treated as subhuman have very little relevance to those around them.

Well said. - Someone else once said something to the effect of:

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"