A Big Step for Gay Marriage Rights... [Archive]

Zero

10-25-2006, 01:27 PM

It's too bad Washington's State Supreme Court didn't rule similarly. I was quite disappointed, particularly considering the generally progressive atmosphere of the NW. Nonetheless, this a big step indeed, and it'll be interesting to see if (or rather, when) this becomes a part of a midterm ad campaign somewhere in NJ. :rolleyes2

Edit: I would be cautiously optimistic about this decision, considering this additional piece (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061025/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_12) I found:

New Jersey's Supreme Court opened the door to gay marriage Wednesday, ruling that homosexuals are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but leaving it to lawmakers to legalize same-sex unions.

The high court gave lawmakers 180 days to rewrite marriage laws to either include same-sex couples or create a new system of civil unions for them.

The ruling is similar to the 1999 decision in Vermont that led to civil unions there, which offer the benefits of marriage, but not the name.

soundchazer

10-25-2006, 02:19 PM

I have always been in favor of same sex civil unions having the same benefits as married couples. I keep wondering why some gay couples are so adamant about having their union being called marriage to begin with.

Had they used this approach, a lot of "on the fence" conservatives would be OK with their plea for equality.

And congrats to all the Gay couples in New Jersey.

GWS923

10-25-2006, 09:13 PM

Yeah New Jersey, representin'

It's nice to see that my home state is as liberal as I want it to be.

Blue Audio

10-25-2006, 10:01 PM

I can now honestly say the following statement; "Jersey is for fags."

Pennsylvania all the way.

Natsuke Takeda

10-26-2006, 08:13 AM

>.> That last post didn't discuss anything but anger.... and Pennsylvania can stay there.. not like anyone there has the cajones to seriously say that IN Jersey... because it's "Joizey" lol

As a Jersey resident, I say good for us. You can also bet this liberal decision will add to the Democratic presidential run, don't you think? That is, IF the Democrats can play their cards right... Howard Dean, anyone?

It's also a big step for Gays in NJ. A huge step. However, I don't think Gays should press on after such a decision to push other decisions. They could only press so far until others start to press back.

Illjwamh

10-26-2006, 10:57 AM

I have always been in favor of same sex civil unions having the same benefits as married couples. I keep wondering why some gay couples are so adamant about having their union being called marriage to begin with.
Because it reaks of "seperate but equal".

Yeah, we'll give you rights and stuff, but you still can't call it what we call it. You have to have your own terms for the same thing.

laborpilot86

10-26-2006, 12:35 PM

Good job by the NJ court. Gay people can't screw up marriage any more than straight people have:3huh:

soundchazer

10-26-2006, 02:28 PM

Because it reaks of "seperate but equal".

Yeah, we'll give you rights and stuff, but you still can't call it what we call it. You have to have your own terms for the same thing.

You do realize that marriage is an act that has been linked to religion, right? If a religion won't accept your "status", why would you even want to marry? I sure as heck wouldn't.

loner

10-26-2006, 02:54 PM

You don't have to marry in a religious institution. Getting a marriage license doesn't involve priests.

soundchazer

10-26-2006, 03:05 PM

You don't have to marry in a religious institution. Getting a marriage license doesn't involve priests.

True, but they still work under the definitions of the religious marriage, which is why so many States are scrambling to introduce a very specific definition of marriage.

My point is you shuldn't need to be married to get the benefits. We have to remember that there are heterosexual couples who decide NOT to marry but still live together for years. I believe under some well defined circumstances, they should also get some of the benefits of the married couples.

laborpilot86

10-26-2006, 04:30 PM

The whole 'religious vs. civil' thing is kinda muddled by the fact that many of the more established Protestant churches and the more Reform Jewish congregations bless same-sex couples. But your right, marriage is NOT a religious pregrotive, but a civil contract.

Illjwamh

10-26-2006, 07:29 PM

You do realize that marriage is an act that has been linked to religion, right? If a religion won't accept your "status", why would you even want to marry? I sure as heck wouldn't.
It's been said (sort of), but marriage doesn't have to be tied to religion. In every single culture in the history of human civilization, there has been some sort of custom akin to marriage. True, they most of the time are tied to religion, but "most" does not equal "all", and "religion" can mean many different things. Too many people equate "religion" to "Christianity" these days.

soundchazer

10-26-2006, 08:09 PM

Oh... I was not talking about Christianity at all... most Jewish and Islamic groups also have a problem with same sex unions.

Arkaine Deao

10-27-2006, 03:44 PM

I was under the impression that America was a country under separation of church and state, but if the lawmakers have to define the term "marriage" by a religious viewpoint, that is clearly not true. I don't agree with the concept of marriage for personal reasons, so I may be biased in talking about this, but I do not see why any couple has to be married to recieve special benefits.
My opinion on what should be done with the people who make these laws::biggun:

laborpilot86

10-27-2006, 10:00 PM

Shadowmage

10-30-2006, 02:38 PM

snip I see a mass deletion right around the corner.

Ask and ye shall receive. And before the OMG Cenosorshipz! fly, I don't want to see flaming from either side. Tough shit.

:roark:

Xfox*X

10-30-2006, 03:06 PM

That's because thier is a certain element in American culture that gets it's rocks off oppressing people they don't like, in this case it's the gays. Back in the day it was the Catholics, or the Blacks, or the Jews, or the Hispanics, or the Chinese, or the Communists, or the Italians, or the women etc:eyebrow:

Basically this group of people hate anyone who isn't male, or straight, or Protestant, or upper-middle class:bews:

people oppress people not countrys. look at africa they fight and kill each other all day long over there in the differnt countrys just because they are from differnt tribes. its not the country so dont say its only america.

laborpilot86

10-30-2006, 03:11 PM

Xfox*X

10-30-2006, 03:16 PM

The differance with the United States is that we have laws and a Constition. We are a nation of laws, not men. When one group of people in this country seem to think that the only we they can affirm thier existance as citizens is to oppress another group of citizens, for whatever reason, it is the first step towards civil war and tyranny:thumbdown

so a country based off the bible should change their laws for people that openly sin against the countrys beliefs is opression? why did they come here if they were going to be oppressed? BEING GAY IS A CHOICE NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY GOD DIDNT MAKE FLAWED CHILDREN!

laborpilot86

10-30-2006, 03:25 PM

THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER BEEN A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY!It is a secular federal republic based on non-religious laws.

Another thing....whose bible? The protestant?, the catholic?, eastern orthodox?, the eithopian?, the armenian?, the jewish?, the lutheran?, the baptist? before you start talking about 'based on the bible' keep in mind that everybody has thier own version, and they are willing to kill for it. Is that what you want? a society torn apart by petty religious squabbles?

:jesus: loved everybody

Xfox*X

10-30-2006, 03:43 PM

f1rst children

10-30-2006, 04:59 PM

You do realize that marriage is an act that has been linked to religion, right? If a religion won't accept your "status", why would you even want to marry? I sure as heck wouldn't.

Well there's tax breaks, for one.

You're right about there not being a valid reason for married couples to get benefits other people don't. I don't even see a reason for couples - married, civil unions, domestic partners, co-habitants, whatever - of any kind to get special treatment by the government.

And marriage has just as much a history as a method to transfer property (which used to include the bride herself) as it has a history in religion.

The differance with the United States is that we have laws and a Constition. We are a nation of laws, not men. When one group of people in this country seem to think that the only we they can affirm thier existance as citizens is to oppress another group of citizens, for whatever reason, it is the first step towards civil war and tyranny:thumbdown

The problem here is that each side sees themselves as the ones being oppressed, when you can make a case that neither in fact are.

I'm not getting into the religious right's persecution complex. All you have to do is google phrases like "War on Christianity" and "War on Christmas" to see the paranoia in some elements of the Christian Coalition. You'd think every Nativity scene removed from a lawn in front of City Hall was immediately replaced with giant bronze busts of Stalin and Lenin.

On the other hand, the homosexuals who want to get married aren't really being oppressed by not being allowed to marry. They're simply being denied a priveliege, which they're interpreting as someone oppressing their rights. But Rights != Privelieges. Gays aren't being "oppressed" by being denied the civil benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) any more than single people are being "oppressed" by being denied the same benefits.

Equal access to public facilities is a right. Public education through grade 12 is a right. Getting to file in a lower tax bracket is not a right. Marriage itself is subject to a number of limitations such as age, heredity, and quantity. Is every nutjob who wants to marry both his daughters also being "oppressed" by being denied the civil benefits of marriage?

Xfox*X

10-30-2006, 05:05 PM

Well there's tax breaks, for one.

You're right about there not being a valid reason for married couples to get benefits other people don't. I don't even see a reason for couples - married, civil unions, domestic partners, co-habitants, whatever - of any kind to get special treatment by the government.

And marriage has just as much a history as a method to transfer property (which used to include the bride herself) as it has a history in religion.

The problem here is that each side sees themselves as the ones being oppressed, when you can make a case that neither in fact are.

I'm not getting into the religious right's persecution complex. All you have to do is google phrases like "War on Christianity" and "War on Christmas" to see the paranoia in some elements of the Christian Coalition. You'd think every Nativity scene removed from a lawn in front of City Hall was immediately replaced with giant bronze busts of Stalin and Lenin.

On the other hand, the homosexuals who want to get married aren't really being oppressed by not being allowed to marry. They're simply being denied a priveliege, which they're interpreting as someone oppressing their rights. But Rights != Privelieges. Gays aren't being "oppressed" by being denied the civil benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) any more than single people are being "oppressed" by being denied the same benefits.

Equal access to public facilities is a right. Public education through grade 12 is a right. Getting to file in a lower tax bracket is not a right. Marriage itself is subject to a number of limitations such as age, heredity, and quantity. Is every nutjob who wants to marry both his daughters also being "oppressed" by being denied the civil benefits of marriage?

you make some valid points. but i think everyone is trying to oppress everyone else and its because we are such a comptetive people we are just trying to get a edge on others.

loner

10-30-2006, 06:58 PM

you honestly believe we are a non religious based country? so you also think i have to by a differnt bible to go to a lutheran church and a differnt one to go to a baptist?

You have to buy a different sacred text if you are Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Daoist, or Baha'i, or Jedi, or worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Or you don't want to buy one at all if you are athiest. Or you don't have to buy one but wouldn't mind having one of all religions if you are agnostic but really interested in religious studies.

Erigion

10-30-2006, 07:24 PM

so a country based off the bible should change their laws for people that openly sin against the countrys beliefs is opression? why did they come here if they were going to be oppressed? BEING GAY IS A CHOICE NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY GOD DIDNT MAKE FLAWED CHILDREN!
Even if the USA was founded by people who believed in God and the Bible, they created the country where everyone, in theory, is equal. There is no legal reason as to why homosexual couples should not enjoy the same rights as a married couple. People can spout all they want about how the Bible doesn't like homosexuals, it doesn't matter at all according to the laws of this land.

If there are people who believe that all people are not created equal then they should get out of the US and start a new country.

Roark

10-30-2006, 09:12 PM

On the other hand, the homosexuals who want to get married aren't really being oppressed by not being allowed to marry. They're simply being denied a priveliege, which they're interpreting as someone oppressing their rights. But Rights != Privelieges. Gays aren't being "oppressed" by being denied the civil benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) any more than single people are being "oppressed" by being denied the same benefits.
I think the point here isn't "oppression" so much as it is imbalance in law. Laws defining marriage for public purposes (i.e., tax breaks) as man and woman are inherantly discriminatory. Why should same sex couples NOT get the same tax breaks as "traditional" marriages?

Also, it's awful hard to raise a family (adoption, sometimes artificial insemination for lesbian couples) when both parents must work for health benefits, paying taxes, etc. To codify something obviously discriminatory into law because of tradition should raise a few eyebrows.

Finnf00

10-30-2006, 11:02 PM

Also, it's awful hard to raise a family (adoption, sometimes artificial insemination for lesbian couples) when both parents must work for health benefits, paying taxes, etc. Not against gay marriages or anything, but that doesn't sound like a good argument to me. Public daycare is where you have your kids when both parents are off working. It's quite a common practice all over the industrialized world. Other than that, I agree with what you're saying. Equality in legislation is the key here.Equal access to public facilities is a right. Public education through grade 12 is a right. Getting to file in a lower tax bracket is not a right. Marriage itself is subject to a number of limitations such as age, heredity, and quantity. Is every nutjob who wants to marry both his daughters also being "oppressed" by being denied the civil benefits of marriage?A part from what Roark said, I think there really is a difference between age limitation and sexual discrimination. Giving tax breaks to straight couples is discrimination on a national scale. A clear message from the people who run the country that being hetero is better for you.

Roark

10-31-2006, 06:59 AM

Not against gay marriages or anything, but that doesn't sound like a good argument to me. Public daycare is where you have your kids when both parents are off working. It's quite a common practice all over the industrialized world. Other than that, I agree with what you're saying. Equality in legislation is the key here.

Daycare in America is expensive, as far as I know. It's not a public service here, again as far as I know. Generally, working parents hire babysitters or impose on family members more than shell out for daycare.

But yes, the imbalance in law is really the issue here, especially this proposed ammendment to define marriage as man/woman. Mana and I were talking about it last night, and we decided the best "F U!" in this whole situation would be to pass that ammendment, then also push through a bill that pretty much replaces "marriage" with "civil union between any gender" in all existing tax and legal documents.

Mana

10-31-2006, 07:07 AM

DayCare IS expensive here. I think for my sister and me, at a school age (assume 10 years ago, me at age 10, my sister at age 5), it was around $600 a month for a total of $7.2k a year. This is also when the child is in school, only spending a few hours at the day care a day. For pre-school and younger children who were there all day, it was even more, with babies being the most expensive (you got a HUGE decrease if your child was potty-trained).

I went online to see if I could check current "tuition" (as it's called) prices, but apparently their system isn't automated, and I'm going to get an e-mail from the "Director" about it. But, yeah, 'tis a lot of money.

Xfox*X

10-31-2006, 09:10 AM

Even if the USA was founded by people who believed in God and the Bible, they created the country where everyone, in theory, is equal. There is no legal reason as to why homosexual couples should not enjoy the same rights as a married couple. People can spout all they want about how the Bible doesn't like homosexuals, it doesn't matter at all according to the laws of this land.

If there are people who believe that all people are not created equal then they should get out of the US and start a new country.

if that was true blacks would have never been slaves and the law would have been writen man and man woman and woman and man and women are allowed to be married not a man and a women.

Roark

10-31-2006, 09:59 AM

if that was true blacks would have never been slaves and the law would have been writen man and man woman and woman and man and women are allowed to be married not a man and a women.
Funny you mention slavery, since that was a major contention when the Contstitution was framed. There was a strong abolitionist contingent. The natural contradictions about being a "free" country and allowing slaves (and not allowing woman suffrage, and not allowing non-property holding people to vote) came under heavy fire. The biggest reasons for allowing slavery were compromise to draw souther states into the union and issues of state rights. Blacks were not slaves in Northern states that disallowed the practice (at least, not legally).

I'm relatively sure the constitution does not, as of now, define marriage at all. Considering that homosexuality was barely discussed in Western civilization at the time (at least openly), the framers probably didn't see a need to include such a clause. The argument doesn't rest on the founders' intentions though. It rests on recent developments in social rights and current nondiscrimination clauses.

LadyYuina

10-31-2006, 02:18 PM

Gay couples have the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples under the New Jersey state constitution, the state Supreme Court rules.

~discuss~

edit - looked around for an online article -

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/jersey.samesex.ap/index.html

That's good for them. I only hope that other states would do the same thing.

laborpilot86

10-31-2006, 02:48 PM

I seem to have started a very interesting debate...

:iamabanan

I'm sorry, but i get very cross with people who insist that the United States is religiously based country.

It's not

see http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/fundocs/billeng.htm

It's a real eye opener

soundchazer

10-31-2006, 03:16 PM

Xfox*X

11-01-2006, 06:57 AM

Funny you mention slavery, since that was a major contention when the Contstitution was framed. There was a strong abolitionist contingent. The natural contradictions about being a "free" country and allowing slaves (and not allowing woman suffrage, and not allowing non-property holding people to vote) came under heavy fire. The biggest reasons for allowing slavery were compromise to draw souther states into the union and issues of state rights. Blacks were not slaves in Northern states that disallowed the practice (at least, not legally).

I'm relatively sure the constitution does not, as of now, define marriage at all. Considering that homosexuality was barely discussed in Western civilization at the time (at least openly), the framers probably didn't see a need to include such a clause. The argument doesn't rest on the founders' intentions though. It rests on recent developments in social rights and current nondiscrimination clauses.

People in the north never had slaves? wow thats completely untrue but ok. for your recent developments in social rights for gays its all crapthey arent born that way they choose it. it just means people are getting dumber or are to big of followers to know the diffence just because you are feminie doesnt make you gay but everyone one sure think so now a days.

I seem to have started a very interesting debate...

:iamabanan

I'm sorry, but i get very cross with people who insist that the United States is religiously based country.

It's not

see
It's a real eye opener

your link doesnt work your right it opened my eyes. you know we arent a religious based country we just put God's name on are money we have scripter on are government buildings and on inportant statues nope deffently not because it has to do with religon in the slitest

Roark

11-01-2006, 08:05 AM

People in the north never had slaves? wow thats completely untrue but ok. for your recent developments in social rights for gays its all crapthey arent born that way they choose it. it just means people are getting dumber or are to big of followers to know the diffence just because you are feminie doesnt make you gay but everyone one sure think so now a days.

I love when people read what they want. It makes for such interesting debates when one side goes off into their own little world. I believe the exact quote that's completely untrue was "Blacks were not slaves in Northern states that disallowed the practice". No where in that quote does it say anything about people there NEVER having slaves.

But, if the only way for you to argue is to make up stories about what the other person said, feel free.

I'm sure that people choose to be gay, just like some people choose to like redheads, or Asians, or children, etc. No one ever develops sexuality early in life and all people's preferences on what they find attractive are purely affected by choice. Yes, I'm sure that's exactly how it works.

f1rst children

11-01-2006, 11:57 AM

I think the point here isn't "oppression" so much as it is imbalance in law. Laws defining marriage for public purposes (i.e., tax breaks) as man and woman are inherantly discriminatory. Why should same sex couples NOT get the same tax breaks as "traditional" marriages?

I agree the laws are imbalanced, but that doesn't equal oppression or even demand correction. Say gay marriage is passed nationwide and gay married couples are given all the benefits that hetero married couples have. What about:

- non-married hetero couples
- non-married gay couples
- single hetero citizens
- single gay citizens
?

NONE of them will receive the benefits that the hetero and gay marrieds will. Yet there will be no outcry over this legal imbalance, no cry for "bachelor(ette)'s rights" or "engaged to be engaged rights."

I'm not asking why some marriages should be valued more than others, but why marriages should be valued over not being married at all? Why should married couples pay less taxes? Do they use less fire, police and postal services? Are they less protected by the army, or drive less on the highway?

Roark

11-01-2006, 12:45 PM

That is a good question. I am not a tax account, nor a historian of tax codes, but these are a few possible answers, based mostly on conjecture:

Historically, married couples of any orientation involve a primary and secondary earner, generally due to childcare. This makes one partner dependant on the other. Since married couples incur larger expenses than singles (food, clothing, shelter, etc.), the tax break allows couples to retain greater purchasing power with less income.

Other reasoning (again, this is just speculation) involves stability. Marriage relationships are more stable and do demand less in the way of social services (police, etc.). Two people living together take up less space than two individuals, generally take less resources (share a car), and it's easier to make food for two than two meals for 1.

(Before someone goes "OMG! Contradiction!", this is meant to comapre the cost of two people living together vs. those two people living separately. The statements about two people living together being more expensive refers to higher expenses than either faced living alone. To do some fuzzy math, each person may take 1 unit of resources/day individually, meaning separate they take 2 units. Living together may reduce that to 1.5 units for both - more than living alone, but less overall.)

Third reason is that married couples tend to have kids, meaning more dependants and less time for one partner to work. Adoption and other methods make this a possibility for any couple type. Studies do show that two-parent situations lead to happier/healthier/etc. children, so creating an incentive to stay together financially aids the process.

Finally, there's the argument that marriage has always been a matter of finances more than religion or love, although the latter are major factors.

It seems we agree that the imbalance exists. We disagree that it needs correction. You bring examples of other imabalanced situations affected by tax codes. I don't think they're relevant to this discussion. You listed two general "types" of people there (regardless of orientation):
Singles
Couples

Both are distinct groups from "married," since marriage generally involves a set of vows, witnesses to said vows, and legal documentation. These are clear, objective distinctions. This is different from "engaged to be engaged" in that there's a clear oath, a lot of witnesses, and obligations (emotional, legal, and financial) involved. Again, this is objective criteria separating the groups.

The gender of the individuals being married should also be treated as an objective criteria. The law ought to be blind as far as who is marrying who, except in cases where harm may result (e.g., one person is not old enough to consent to the decision). John and Jane shoundn't be different than John and Jim.

Treating someone different legally based on gender is a classic case of discrimination. In the eyes of the state, gender should not be a criteria for marriage.

laborpilot86

11-01-2006, 01:08 PM

Actually, sexuality is not a choice, it's a genetic command. Things get weird though when you have a person who is attracted to both sexes. Then you have :duel:

btw nof*x... The phrases 'under god' and 'In God We Trust' were not added to the pledge of allegiance and the coinage of the United States until the 1950s. They were not part of the original text/design

And the Pledge was written by a Socialist:)

f1rst children

11-01-2006, 03:00 PM

Other reasoning (again, this is just speculation) involves stability. Marriage relationships are more stable and do demand less in the way of social services (police, etc.). Two people living together take up less space than two individuals, generally take less resources (share a car), and it's easier to make food for two than two meals for 1.

First, I don't know that marriage today represents any more of a stable relationship than non-marriage. At least in the US anyways. I'm sure we're all familiar with the oft-quoted 50% divorce rate statistic.
(Before someone goes "OMG! Contradiction!", this is meant to comapre the cost of two people living together vs. those two people living separately. The statements about two people living together being more expensive refers to higher expenses than either faced living alone. To do some fuzzy math, each person may take 1 unit of resources/day individually, meaning separate they take 2 units. Living together may reduce that to 1.5 units for both - more than living alone, but less overall.)

I'm not aware of any studies on consumption of public services by marital status, but for the sake of argument I'll accept that married people consume less at a ratio of 3:2. But - do married people also consume less per capita in private goods?

If so, then the higher tax rate on non-marrieds would seem a regressive tax. Since expenses are higher for non-marrieds, a higher tax rate represents a higher burden on them than on the marrieds. Not only do they face greater living expenses on a per person basis than married people, but they are further burdened by having to pay more taxes as well.
Third reason is that married couples tend to have kids, meaning more dependants and less time for one partner to work. Adoption and other methods make this a possibility for any couple type. Studies do show that two-parent situations lead to happier/healthier/etc. children, so creating an incentive to stay together financially aids the process.

The issue of child-rearing further complicates the issue. There's a snarky part of me that would just snap "Don't have babies you can't afford," which dismisses the entire issue just like all bumper-sticker politics. It's true that children increase expenses, but again married people are in a much better position to afford those expenses than single parents. Single parents have no 2nd income to help cover expenses, and no 2nd person to cover the massive time investment needed. In addition they still have the higher per person expenses of any other single person versus a married one. Again it appears that the single person is more in need of help, yet faces the higher tax burden.
Singles
Couples

Both are distinct groups from "married," since marriage generally involves a set of vows, witnesses to said vows, and legal documentation. These are clear, objective distinctions. This is different from "engaged to be engaged" in that there's a clear oath, a lot of witnesses, and obligations (emotional, legal, and financial) involved. Again, this is objective criteria separating the groups.

Now, once we start moving into the areas of legal/financial powers and obligations it makes even less sense to separate the married from the un-married. Essentially what you have in marriage is two people incorporating to form a single legal entity, allowing them to joint file taxes and such. However, I don't see why this "civil union" should be limited to married people. I would be in favor of letting ANY two people form a "civil union," regardless of sexuality, race, heredity, etc. The only limitations should be the ones that would prevent any person from being able to sign a contract - age, mental instability, etc.

Thus far, I've consciously avoided the "married people get benefits because marriage benefits society" argument, for the reason that it seems to grounded in what each person believes is morally beneficial to society. The anti-gay marriage side will simply whip out their Leviticus and tell of how homosexuality in general, let alone public endorsement of it, will ruin society, yadda yadda yadda, and we're back at square 1 - each side feeling like the other is "oppressing" them by forcing their moral views on everyone.
Treating someone different legally based on gender is a classic case of discrimination. In the eyes of the state, gender should not be a criteria for marriage.

I agree that gender should not be a criteria for marriage. However, while I don't believe marital status should be a criteria for economic priveliege, I also don't believe that my not being granted the same privelieges is tantamount to being oppressed.

It may be that my problem with the pro-gay marriage side has less to do with their position and more to do with their rhetoric. But when I hear people comparing the gay marriage movement to the civil rights movement (and other examples of real oppression), as if not being recognized as married is somehow comparable to the right to not be lynched, it, frankly, disgusts me.

Zero

11-01-2006, 04:30 PM

It may be that my problem with the pro-gay marriage side has less to do with their position and more to do with their rhetoric. But when I hear people comparing the gay marriage movement to the civil rights movement (and other examples of real oppression), as if not being recognized as married is somehow comparable to the right to not be lynched, it, frankly, disgusts me.

Oppression need not be in the form of direct violence to be considered as such, though the ramifications can certainly differ in severity. Let's not forget that interracial marriage was once considered a taboo among the same socially conservative groups that today replace it with gay marriage as the issue of the times. That is where the connection is made.

laborpilot86

11-01-2006, 05:35 PM

Thank You, Zero, for backing up the arguement in one of posts.

Same s-t, differant people/decade:_insane:

Xfox*X

11-02-2006, 06:46 AM

I love when people read what they want. It makes for such interesting debates when one side goes off into their own little world. I believe the exact quote that's completely untrue was "Blacks were not slaves in Northern states that disallowed the practice". No where in that quote does it say anything about people there NEVER having slaves.

But, if the only way for you to argue is to make up stories about what the other person said, feel free.

I'm sure that people choose to be gay, just like some people choose to like redheads, or Asians, or children, etc. No one ever develops sexuality early in life and all people's preferences on what they find attractive are purely affected by choice. Yes, I'm sure that's exactly how it works.

i did not read what i wanted i read that he believes that they had slaves illegally which is also not true. it wasnt always illegal there.

Actually, sexuality is not a choice, it's a genetic command. Things get weird though when you have a person who is attracted to both sexes. Then you have :duel:

btw nof*x... The phrases 'under god' and 'In God We Trust' were not added to the pledge of allegiance and the coinage of the United States until the 1950s. They were not part of the original text/design

And the Pledge was written by a Socialist:)

it is a choice.

So you say the money think isnt true but explain the buildings now. they werent built in 1950.

Tyrdium

11-02-2006, 09:37 AM

it is a choice.And your proof is...? You can't just claim something like that is true without backing it up, especially when it's a subject of debate between scientists.

So you say the money think isnt true but explain the buildings now. they werent built in 1950.LOLZ retrofit.

f1rst children

11-02-2006, 10:12 AM

Oppression need not be in the form of direct violence to be considered as such, though the ramifications can certainly differ in severity. Let's not forget that interracial marriage was once considered a taboo among the same socially conservative groups that today replace it with gay marriage as the issue of the times. That is where the connection is made.

Oppression is being denied your civil rights or having your civil liberties trampled.

If gay people were denied the ability to vote, then that would be oppression.

That gay people are denied the legal and financial benefits of civil marriage is not oppression, because those benefits are not rights. If they were, then all Americans would have them because the 14th Amendment guarantees equal rights to all Americans, regardless of marital status.

If gay-marriage proponents are being oppressed by being denied marriage benefits, then so are all single people. If gay marriage proponents were truly interested in equality, and not just ensuring their own membership in the Privelieges of Marriage Club, then they would argue that ALL people, not just themselves, are entitled to those benefits. Instead they want the door opened for themselves, but shut in the face of the next person in line.

It's also not oppression for other people to consider your lifestyle taboo, or condemn it. Practically every person does this every day on a variety of issues, based on their own personal values. Everyone can identify some behavior done by other people that they disagree with, but that doesn't mean the people you disagree with are being oppressed by you.

Being denied the right to vote through violence and intimidation is oppression. Being told you're going to hell isn't.

Roark

11-02-2006, 10:31 AM

Homosexual couples are being denied the right to have their union (marriage) legally recognized. Let us not forget that, regardless of what benefits people may or may not get from marriage, the legal right to marriage should not be based on gender. What rights and priveleges married people receive is a separate issue. Saying "You can't marry that person because you're both women" sounds a lot like "you can't marry that person because you're black and she's white."

laborpilot86

11-02-2006, 02:10 PM

Wow, talking to a teenager really is like talking to a brick wall...

On the facade of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the United States, thier is a design motiff depicting famous law-givers from history, including Moses, Hammurabi, Mohammed, the Budda (I think), Augustus and maybe Jesus.

THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY ONE RELIGION, just a display of the ancient laws that the new United States saw itself as following in the footsteps of

I challenge you, young nofx*x, to find me a symbol or any other explictly Christian motiff on a U.S government building

pm me with the picture or post on a thread, then I will conced your point about the U.S being a Christian country

How many gay people to you know?

Xfox*X

11-02-2006, 03:51 PM

And your proof is...? You can't just claim something like that is true without backing it up, especially when it's a subject of debate between scientists.

LOLZ retrofit.

scientists are false phrophets why would their opinion count? Proof God doesnt make flawed children.

Wow, talking to a teenager really is like talking to a brick wall...

On the facade of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the United States, thier is a design motiff depicting famous law-givers from history, including Moses, Hammurabi, Mohammed, the Budda (I think), Augustus and maybe Jesus.

THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF ANY ONE RELIGION, just a display of the ancient laws that the new United States saw itself as following in the footsteps of

I challenge you, young nofx*x, to find me a symbol or any other explictly Christian motiff on a U.S government building

pm me with the picture or post on a thread, then I will conced your point about the U.S being a Christian country

How many gay people to you know?

i actually know ten that i hang out with on a daily basis. for your picture i will get you one when i am not at work.

Homosexual couples are being denied the right to have their union (marriage) legally recognized. Let us not forget that, regardless of what benefits people may or may not get from marriage, the legal right to marriage should not be based on gender. What rights and priveleges married people receive is a separate issue. Saying "You can't marry that person because you're both women" sounds a lot like "you can't marry that person because you're black and she's white."

no it doesnt! it sounds alot like your a lesbo and have a problem with it. why should they have that right? its like punks rebellion no one lisens to them.

Tyrdium

11-02-2006, 04:36 PM

Yes, Roark is a lesbian. Kain is his hawt lesbian lover.

scientists are false phrophets why would their opinion count? Proof God doesnt make flawed children.... what? No, really, what? Who exactly do you consider a good source? And you can't just say "lol proof". You need to, you know, prove it. And you need to say something more than "no u!" in order to hold your point. How is it different?

Xfox*X

11-02-2006, 04:37 PM

you want proof from a false prophet so i cant give it.

Tyrdium

11-02-2006, 04:41 PM

you want proof from a false prophet so i cant give it.No, you're misreading me. I asked what sources you consider proof. Also, I'd like to know why you consider all scientists to be false prophets; that's a very broad claim. Are physicsists false prophets? How about chemists? Computer scientists? Mathematicians?

loner

11-02-2006, 04:57 PM

Roark

11-02-2006, 05:26 PM

no it doesnt! it sounds alot like your a lesbo and have a problem with it. why should they have that right? its like punks rebellion no one lisens to them.

Well, I do love teh womens.

A-R@D

11-02-2006, 07:00 PM

scientists are false phrophets why would their opinion count? Proof God doesnt make flawed children.

Bold statement, care to explain why you believe scientists to be false prophets? I can't understand why you would think that, because at least the hard sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and mathematics are completely based on data and not really open to interpretation. Biology can be a little more funny, but if you ever opened say a New England journal of Medicine you would see that the reports in them are impartial and not claiming anything other than what the data suggests. They are not prophesying anything.

no it doesnt! it sounds alot like your a lesbo and have a problem with it. why should they have that right? its like punks rebellion no one lisens to them.

I find your bigotry to be amusing. This is almost so blatant as for me to believe that you don't really have these bigoted beliefs and are just saying this start start a flame war. Try having some understanding for people who differ from yourself than yourself.

zarahf

11-02-2006, 07:48 PM

I have always been in favor of same sex civil unions having the same benefits as married couples. I keep wondering why some gay couples are so adamant about having their union being called marriage to begin with.

To get back on subject Soundchazer has a valid point here. Its a battle fought on multiple fronts. Winning the legislators is one thing and NJ's recent legal change in the law is a start in that direction. However, before the war can be won the change has to occur at the level of the common people. Debate it as we may the church(es) hold an amazing amount of sway in this department and the church will cling to marriage as spiritually ordained as between a man ans a woman. While it may only be a matter of semantics relinquishing the title of marriage in exchange for an increased chance at acquiring rights accorded to those of such stature may be a concession but not a defeat.

Kuzu Ryu Sen

11-02-2006, 07:57 PM

2+2=4. That's false prophecy?

Although sometimes, I wish you could gain the ability to read the future just by studying science. Would help with that whole Lotto 649 thing.

Xfox*X

11-03-2006, 07:52 AM

I consider you a false prophet. OH SNAP

Seriously, if I don't mind your ultra-Christian/Republican mentality, but you seriously need to stop carrying that offensive attitude. You are making all Christians and Republicans look bad. Learn to act like a civilized human being and start listening to what others are saying, instead of making random idiotic statements that doesn't make sense and are not backed up by anything, or people will continue to ridicule you.

For your information, scientists are not "false prophets" because they don't claim what they are presenting to the world came from any sort of divine figure. Science has nothing to do with God, whether God exists or not.

so disagreeing with others make christians/republicans look bad and what are these idiotic statements?

no they try to prove that everything didnt have to do with God. my proof is the bible. people have tried to prove it wrong many times and have always been proven wrong them selfs. but will you take that as proof? i dont think you will

Bold statement, care to explain why you believe scientists to be false prophets? I can't understand why you would think that, because at least the hard sciences, such as physics, chemistry, and mathematics are completely based on data and not really open to interpretation. Biology can be a little more funny, but if you ever opened say a New England journal of Medicine you would see that the reports in them are impartial and not claiming anything other than what the data suggests. They are not prophesying anything.

I find your bigotry to be amusing. This is almost so blatant as for me to believe that you don't really have these bigoted beliefs and are just saying this start start a flame war. Try having some understanding for people who differ from yourself than yourself.

if you read what tyrdium says hes talking about the ones trying to prove that gayness is a gentic thing. so i am talking about them.

Arkaine Deao

11-03-2006, 08:22 AM

Carbon dating. The Bible says that the world is barely, what, 10,000 years old? But with carbon testing we have found objects whose carbon atoms have been decayed enough for them to be many more thousands of years old than that. Of course, according to your "logic" science is direct opposition to God, so carbon dating is the work of the devil.

Tremolo

11-03-2006, 08:31 AM

Mana

11-03-2006, 08:33 AM

Xfox*X:

Stop the flaming and the trolling. Some of your posts in this thread have been simply unacceptable. If you don't know how to debate well, then don't post in a debate thread, but there is no need for the insults and the shit-slinging.

Consider this your official warning. Like all warnings, you don't get too many of them before some bad happens, so I would suggest you watch what you say and keep a civil tongue.

Arkaine Deao

11-03-2006, 08:33 AM

no they try to prove that everything didnt have to do with God. my proof is the bible. people have tried to prove it wrong many times and have always been proven wrong them selfs. but will you take that as proof? i dont think you will

The Bible is not proof. There. The Bible is a book, most likely written by the hands of several men, and even in the Bible it says that humans are inherently flawed. Have you ever stopped to consider for yourself whether the Bible is truly the word of God, or have you just relied on the teaching of your(parents, local priest, etc.)? Maybe a bunch of guys wrote a bunch of wise things and fables, then years later somebody collected them, compiled them, and said they were the word of God to attract customers. I'm not saying my word is truth, all I am saying is question. Do not accept other people's words at face value. Imagine what the world would be like if the religions of the world were still into human sacrifice. People need to start thinking for themselves, not waiting for somebody else to tell them what to do. Search your soul for the right answer. Listen to your inner self and it will guide you. And always remember your circumstances. A person who is raised to hate sees nothing wrong with his hate, and wonders why everybody is mad at him.
Besides, we're overpopulated anyway. Why are some people trying to resist nature's birth control?:D

Food for thought: Why does the Bible say that homosexuality is a sin?

Akimichi Choji

11-03-2006, 10:14 AM

Well I think gay couples should be given some acknowledgment of there relationships, but not marriage. I mean, power to gay rights, but marriage is defined as a union between a man and a WOMAN. Simple as that. I have nothing against gay people, in fact I am friends with many. But to quote G.W. "If ya cant make babies, you cant be married".

Mana

11-03-2006, 10:19 AM

But to quote G.W. "If ya cant make babies, you cant be married".

What about people like me who have ovary problems and probably won't be able to give birth to children? =\

loner

11-03-2006, 10:30 AM

so disagreeing with others make christians/republicans look bad and what are these idiotic statements?

no they try to prove that everything didnt have to do with God. my proof is the bible. people have tried to prove it wrong many times and have always been proven wrong them selfs. but will you take that as proof? i dont think you will

if you read what tyrdium says hes talking about the ones trying to prove that gayness is a gentic thing. so i am talking about them.

Disagreeing with others does not make Christians/Republicans look bad. Making offensive statements towards homosexuals, scientists, and well, people in general, and acting intolerantly does. I know for a fact that most Christians and Republicans don't act as disrespectful and intolerant as you have. So start acting like most Christians and Republicans.

If you argue with a tautology nobody will argue with you, because nobody can argue with you. There is no argument to be had. You claim the Bible is the answer to everything, and will not explain why it is. You just take it for granted. It is your right to take it for granted, but most people here don't. Meanwhile, you downright refuse to listen to anything everybody else is trying to say to you, and even ignoring factual proofs that other posters have presented to you. So we are on different wavelengths. There is no line of communication, and there can be no debate. You simply presented an opinion, then proceeded to make nonsensical statements while making rude comments to other posters.

Well I think gay couples should be given some acknowledgment of there relationships, but not marriage. I mean, power to gay rights, but marriage is defined as a union between a man and a WOMAN. Simple as that. I have nothing against gay people, in fact I am friends with many. But to quote G.W. "If ya cant make babies, you cant be married".

Please find me that definition and prove it to me that it is an universally accepted definition.

Roark

11-03-2006, 10:40 AM

What about people like me who have ovary problems and probably won't be able to give birth to children? =\
Well, remember, I'm a lesbian now, so it doens't really matter.

Mana

11-03-2006, 10:42 AM

Well, remember, I'm a lesbian now, so it doens't really matter.

True, true. Guess our engagement is off, then.

Roark

11-03-2006, 10:46 AM

True, true. Guess our engagement is off, then.
Civil union it is then!

Tyrdium

11-03-2006, 11:42 AM

people have tried to prove [the Bible] wrong many times and have always been proven wrong them selfs.Can you prove this? Remember, even one example against you invalidates your statement. "Always" is a very absolute word.

if you read what tyrdium says hes talking about the ones trying to prove that gayness is a gentic thing. so i am talking about them.Ah, but you said "scientists" - all scientists. You should say exactly what you mean.

Niner

11-03-2006, 11:50 AM

Civil union it is then!

Can I be the flower girl? Or do you not have them in civil unions? :(

Mana

11-03-2006, 12:03 PM

Can I be the flower girl? Or do you not have them in civil unions? :(

Only if you dress up in S&M gear. Roark and I may be lesbian, but we're kinky ones.

Roark

11-03-2006, 12:29 PM

Can you prove this? Remember, even one example against you invalidates your statement. "Always" is a very absolute word.

I can think of a part of the bible that's perfectly wrong: The circular will that doesn't approximate 2*pi*r for its circumfrence.

@Niner: As long as you don't expect us to take that flower from you. Deflowering is a service guests must provide themselves.

Xfox*X

11-04-2006, 09:35 AM

Disagreeing with others does not make Christians/Republicans look bad. Making offensive statements towards homosexuals, scientists, and well, people in general, and acting intolerantly does. I know for a fact that most Christians and Republicans don't act as disrespectful and intolerant as you have. So start acting like most Christians and Republicans.

If you argue with a tautology nobody will argue with you, because nobody can argue with you. There is no argument to be had. You claim the Bible is the answer to everything, and will not explain why it is. You just take it for granted. It is your right to take it for granted, but most people here don't. Meanwhile, you downright refuse to listen to anything everybody else is trying to say to you, and even ignoring factual proofs that other posters have presented to you. So we are on different wavelengths. There is no line of communication, and there can be no debate. You simply presented an opinion, then proceeded to make nonsensical statements while making rude comments to other posters.

Please find me that definition and prove it to me that it is an universally accepted definition.

so your saying christians lisen to people and agree with gayness and say that nothing form the bible is true? its flat out simple anyone that is a christian will agree anything and everthing is in the bible the bible is truth. gayness is wrong and isnt gentic. why should i lisen to people that are flat out wrong? even if i do lisen i still think your wrong which is what has happen. for your proof go read the bible i am not going to do it for you.

Tyrdium

11-04-2006, 09:54 AM

gayness is wrong and isnt gentic.You keep saying that. Do you have proof?

(Hint: the Bible doesn't state whether or not homosexuality is genetic.)

laborpilot86

11-04-2006, 09:59 AM

nofx*x dosen't need proof, because he automatically gets the 'heaven cookie' simply by saying 'I believe in Jesus'

For a person who I assume is strait you have a very unhealthy obseession with homosexuality:3huh:

Tremolo

11-04-2006, 10:16 AM

so your saying christians lisen to people and agree with gayness and say that nothing form the bible is true?

It's true. I know plenty of Christian people who have nothing against gay people and don't take every single thing from the Bible as gospel. I mean, I'm pretty sure god didn't make the world in seven days because there's no way we co-existed with the dinosaurs. I mean, come on.

its flat out simple anyone that is a christian will agree anything and everthing is in the bible the bible is truth.

No they won't. I'm pretty sure you don't know every single Christian in the world. It's people like you who try and stop the theory of evolution tought in schools.

gayness is wrong and isnt gentic.

Prove it. "Becuz da bible sez" counts for shit. I want you to REALLY prove it without mentioning religion.

why should i lisen to people that are flat out wrong?

Yeah, why SHOULD people listen to you?

even if i do lisen i still think your wrong which is what has happen.

What you think counts for very little, thankfully.

for your proof go read the bible i am not going to do it for you.

Again, The Bible just isn't proof. You need to expand your horizons big time and come to terms with the fact that some ancient storybook doesn't define everything in the world.

Xfox*X

11-04-2006, 10:19 AM

It's true. I know plenty of Christian people who have nothing against gay people and don't take every single thing from the Bible as gospel. I mean, I'm pretty sure god didn't make the world in seven days because there's no way we co-existed with the dinosaurs. I mean, come on.

No they won't. I'm pretty sure you don't know every single Christian in the world. It's people like you who try and stop the theory of evolution tought in schools.

this peole that you say you know are not true christians if they dont believe the bible. no one said i had a problem with them i just believe they openly sin.

You keep saying that. Do you have proof?

(Hint: the Bible doesn't state whether or not homosexuality is genetic.)

no your right it says God destroyed two whole citys for it. being that you all want proof from me iam done not because i thik your right or that i cant give it but because i have become obessed with arguing just to argue "not giveing proof, flaming so on" plus i got my warning.

Tremolo

11-04-2006, 10:32 AM

this peole that you say you know are not true christians if they dont believe the bible. no one said i had a problem with them i just believe they openly sin.

No, I'd say they were modern Christians willing to take other viewpoints onboard. It's the bloody 21st century - we should be beyond taking a story book as gospel, especially one thought up by simple people who used god to explain stuff that couldn't be explained. Nowadays it holds absolutely no water.

The fact that you're unwilling to listen to the viewpoints of others is a bit depressing. Homosexuality may be a sin according to the Bible, but it isn't to those who aren't Christians. There's nothing to say Christianty is the one true religion considering how many others there are, and there's nothing to say that all religions are just a load of bollocks. We don't know. People can believe what they want as far as I'm concerned, no matter how stupid I think it is, but you've got to take on board the fact that the world might not work how Christians want it too. Just because you believe it does doesn't actually make it so.

You've got to be more accepting and less pig-ignorant. Seriously.

Tyrdium

11-04-2006, 11:19 AM

no your right it says God destroyed two whole citys for it.According to traditional interpretation, yes. However, that interpretation says nothing about it being a choice or genetic, but simply that they were homosexual. See the difference?

loner

11-04-2006, 01:48 PM

All lines of communication are cut off then. When you downright refuse to entertain what other people say could have an inkling of truth in them, and people think you are an extreme fanatic, you and people are on different wavelengths, like I said. I suggest you and people to stop this nonsense now and just ignore each other from now on. That's what I'll do.

laborpilot86

11-04-2006, 02:50 PM

Smart move loner:icon_danc

ash_chan

11-04-2006, 03:17 PM

this peole that you say you know are not true christians if they dont believe the bible.

Uh, wrong. I'm a Christian, but I don't take it as fundamentally as you. In the beginning, "Let there be light", could that possibly be a metaphor for the Big Bang? To me, it very well may be. I think it is a possibility. But to people like you it's impossible. God just went and flicked a light switch.

Believing in scientific things doesn't make me any less of a Christian than you.

no one said i had a problem with them i just believe they openly sin.

And you don't? According to the Bible, everyone sins. We are all sinners, but we shall be forgiven, as long as we ask for it and we follow our faith.

I happen to be bisexual. My church still kept me with open arms because they know that that's just the way God made me, and if it was a mistake for me to turn out that way, He will forgive me because I have faith.

Kuzu Ryu Sen

11-04-2006, 04:04 PM

Gen 18:20-21 (NIV)

20 Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21 that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Gen 19:1-9 (NIV)

1 The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. 2 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." 3 But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. 4 Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5 They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6 Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7 and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8 Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof." 9 "Get out of our way," they replied. And they said, "This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.

So, from this passage:

- God wants to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah because they're rife with sin.
- The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah are:
- wanting to sleep with Lot's visitors
- wanting to do worse to Lot when Lot tries to mediate with his own daughters

You can interpret that passage as anti-homosexual, but:
a) it is not explicitly stated that the mob was exclusively gay.
b) the emphasis is on not the fact that the angels were in the guise of men, but that they were guests in Lot's home.
c) the mob is more angered by Lot's attempt to exert his power over the situation than his offer of his daughters.

Certainly, there are holes in my presentation, of course, but this example does not state whether the "wicked thing" is sleeping with the men, or dragging strangers out from someone's home to rape them.

And of course, there's nothing in there about genetics.

laborpilot86

11-05-2006, 10:39 AM

Ojisan

11-05-2006, 06:23 PM

Romans 1:26-27:

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

I'm sure you're all aquainted with this. Homosexual acts are pretty much labeled as perversions, and as it that:

When you downright refuse to entertain what other people say could have an inkling of truth in them

is the premise behind Christianity (hence Roman persecution), Fox here is doing a pretty good job representing his religion in its truest sense.

f1rst children

11-06-2006, 12:41 PM

Excellent bit of research, Kuzu-san, and something that was desparatly needed in this debate. That passage is more about being hospitable to peaceful strangers than about playing 'whack-a-gay'

There are actually more admonitions against wearing certain fabrics and working on the sabbath than there are against gays in the bible

I don't see people like nofx*x calling for the return of the old Sunday 'blue' laws do we?

We don't see that because the big money overseers of the right-wing evangalical movement are more interested in creating a lassiere-faire free-for-all than in actually doing anything about gays, feminists, abortion...

What I find curious is how often extreme evangelical "Christians" resort to quoting the Old Testament and seem to rarely quote the New Testament. You'd think if you're going to name your group after Jesus, you'd at least want to focus on the parts of the Bible with Jesus in it. That's like saying you love hiphop and then only listening to opera. The very nature of Jesus in Christian theology is that he breaks the covenants of the Old Testament.

Why is it I never hear about camels passing through the eyes of needles before a rich man enters heaven from Pat Robertson as he travels the country on his private jet? Why is it I never hear about Jesus' admonishing those who make a public spectacle of their faith from the pulpit of television preachers?

And then you have George W, who named Jesus as his favorite "political philosopher." Ignoring, I suppose, that Christianity as government policy borders on the edge of socialism - limiting religion in public, rich people working to benefit the poor, etc.

laborpilot86

11-06-2006, 03:50 PM

Like I said before :jesus: loved everybody.

Ojisan

11-06-2006, 03:58 PM

What I like about Jesus, is that God basically failed in the first place, wtf, and so sent Jesus to clean things up. Go omniscient Christian God, go!

Tyrdium

11-06-2006, 04:40 PM

Omniscience does not require benevolence. And, of course, there's the saying "God works in mysterious ways".

Ojisan

11-06-2006, 05:09 PM

There's an "ineffiecient" clause in that statement aswell.

Roark

11-06-2006, 10:10 PM

Omniscience does not require benevolence. And, of course, there's the saying "God works in mysterious ways".
No, but omnibenevolent does.

(Dating from Aquainus on up, god traditionally holds the three O's: Omnipotent, Omnicient, and Omnibenevolent. Some substitute "Omnipresent," but that's just another way of saying all knowing.)

f1rst children

11-07-2006, 11:02 AM

Omniscience does not require benevolence. And, of course, there's the saying "God works in mysterious ways".

To quote a computerized space probe that probably crashed into God:

"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

Or "The highest form of art is artlessness," if you want to get all Zen about it.

Agawa

11-11-2006, 09:04 PM

"If ya cant make babies, you cant be married".
So. Since I am perfectly capable of having children, but will probably marry someone of the same gender, I can get married while someone who is straight but is incapable of children cannot?
BEING GAY IS A CHOICE NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY GOD DIDNT MAKE FLAWED CHILDREN!
No one human is perfect. No one.
I have always been in favor of same sex civil unions having the same benefits as married couples. I keep wondering why some gay couples are so adamant about having their union being called marriage to begin with.

Had they used this approach, a lot of "on the fence" conservatives would be OK with their plea for equality.
I know it's a while back, but I'd still like to reply to this. This is going to be a personal answer, so please don't take it as an argument towards are against civil unions, but merely my own feelings about civil unions.

Marriage has always been an incredibly important thing to me; and something that I've looked forward too for most of my life. I don't want to be set apart from the rest of society in what it's called simply because I'd be marrying someone of the same gender. As piddling as it may be, it still makes me feel like society wants me to isolate myself from it, and from its consideration of 'normal'.
Finally, hearing the words civil union merely reminds me of the fact that I'm not considered eligible for marriage in the U.S., at least not with someone of my choice, and that there are those who don't believe I have that right. Yes, the latter will be true regardless, but I'd rather not be legally joined with someone under a term representing that.
Anyway, since you asked, I felt I should answer - although, I don't count as a gay couple. Keep in mind, these are merely my personal feelings on civil unions - not my opinion on them.

Finally, I hadn't heard about NJ, so thanks for the link. It's good news in my opinion.

PsychoSaiya-jin

11-12-2006, 03:33 PM

I've been hearing alot of flaws in the current same-sex union laws. The main things being that these Unions, not being Marriages, do not carry the same requirements (gender regardless).
The fact that Unions do not require a consumation, for example, means that they can be easily explioted for immigration scams. There are also undefined areas regarding the likes of adultery and even inheritance.
There is also the question of divorce.

What I see often is alot of people talking about Gay Marriage Rights but no Gay Marriage Responsibilities.

I haven't been keeping up with this thread completely but my opinions are largely based on the information about what the laws and situations are in this country. The only legally binding hetero-unions in this country are Marriages.

Roark

11-12-2006, 09:57 PM

The only legally binding hetero-unions in this country are Marriages.

I'm fairly certain hetero unions don't have to be marriages in name, as long as one obtains the proper licenses and whatnot and has a legally binding oath taken by a judge. These normally involve prenuptiual agreements, people who want the benefits of union without religion, etc. Some places may call this a marriage license, other places may just use that as a short term.

Also, non-marriage unions often pay more attention to legal matters like inheritance, divorce, etc., based on contracts and whatnot. Those kinds of proceedings are provided free to people joined through "normal" marriage, in the form of state-supported courts to figure it all out.

Why the government should have any hand at all, really, in private citizen's lives like this is actually beyond me, really.

Griveton

11-14-2006, 02:45 PM

What I see often is alot of people talking about Gay Marriage Rights but no Gay Marriage Responsibilities.
.

In this case, most of the clamoring is for homosexuals to have the right to equal rights and responsibilities than heterosexuals. In a marriage/civil union/brouhaha you get a package that involves both rights and responsibilities, both express and implied.

Why the government should have any hand at all, really, in private citizen's lives like this is actually beyond me, really.

I believe the main reason for this is that marriages can (depending on the spouses) have different legal dynamics from, say, two friends living together.

The easiest example is the non-working spouse (be it the man or woman, although woman is much more common). A working person is entitled to some government benefits that a non working person lacks. Because a spouse (say, a full-time mom) does not have a formal, paid job, that person would lose some of the protections of the law. Because this unemployment is not because of lack of desire or lack of capacity, it wouldn't be a fair situation. Marriage laws help amend this.

On another note, Messicans can now get their hawt man on man or woman or woman marriage (civil union, actually) in Mexico City.