Homosexual Marriage

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name But there is a difference between allowing it and encouraging it, don't you think?

I have yet to see an instance in which "allowing" gay folks equal rights isn't interpretted by the fundamentialsts as "encouraging" the gay "lifestyle". Anything short of buring gay people at the stake seems to be considered to "encouragement".

[Mr. Jaggers]

It would be ironic if Jesus actually turned out to be a homosexual. Certainly, Christ’s universal message of love cannot be true unless it extends to all mankind, and not just a select few.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers It would be ironic if Jesus actually turned out to be a homosexual. Certainly, Christ’s universal message of love cannot be true unless it extends to all mankind, and not just a select few.

Ian McKellan, who is gay, rasied some hackles recently:

Speaking before the movie opened the 59th Cannes Film Festival in France last night, Sir Ian, who plays the historian Sir Leigh Teabing, said Brown had argued his case "very convincingly". "When I read the book I believed it entirely," he said. "When I put the book down I thought what a load of potential codswallop. But I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. I know that the Catholic Church has problems with gay people. I thought that would be absolute proof Jesus was not gay."

[BWRoberts221]

"I am a real Christian; that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus." - Thomas Jefferson

That's a great quote, I didn't know he said that. Thomas Jefferson believed in the actual words of Christ, not the medieval interpretations and add-ons created by extreme conservatives. Fundamentalists mis-interpret the meaning of those teachings and yell really loud about who is going to hell and who isn't. None of that hateful nonsense is actually in the Bible. Also, it should be obvious by now that Bush is no more a Christian than Osama. The only thing he worships is money and power. The only reason Gay Marriage is an issue again is because Bush needs to regain the support of his hillbilly voting base. The best way to do that is scare them into believing the devil and his minions (liberals) are going to take away their God.

[Dirty Name]

Fundamentalists mis-interpret the meaning of those teachings and yell really loud about who is going to hell and who isn't. None of that hateful nonsense is actually in the Bible.

News Flash: Most "Christians" aren't the fundamentalist sort. You're just singling them out because they are a juicy target.

[Dirty Name]

I have yet to see an instance in which "allowing" gay folks equal rights isn't interpretted by the fundamentialsts as "encouraging" the gay "lifestyle". Anything short of buring gay people at the stake seems to be considered to "encouragement".

Whoa... who said anything about "allowing equal rights?"

They already have equal rights. State recognition of those irrelevant unions goes a step further - to the point it becomes encouragement. There is no law against gays getting "married." The law simply prevents them from claiming certain benefits. Please keep that in mind when you debate here.

[RickSp]

Quote by: BWRoberts221 That's a great quote, I didn't know he said that. Thomas Jefferson believed in the actual words of Christ, not the medieval interpretations and add-ons created by extreme conservatives. Fundamentalists mis-interpret the meaning of those teachings and yell really loud about who is going to hell and who isn't. None of that hateful nonsense is actually in the Bible. Also, it should be obvious by now that Bush is no more a Christian than Osama. The only thing he worships is money and power. The only reason Gay Marriage is an issue again is because Bush needs to regain the support of his hillbilly voting base. The best way to do that is scare them into believing the devil and his minions (liberals) are going to take away their God.

Thomas Jefferson did not necessarily believe what you might think. He took a pair of scizzors to his Bible and cut out the parts he didn't like. Jefferson was also a politician who said different things in public than he did in private. He was no freer to speak honestly than politicians are today.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Regarding Jesus he wrote:

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Whoa... who said anything about "allowing equal rights?" They already have equal rights. State recognition of those irrelevant unions goes a step further - to the point it becomes encouragement. There is no law against gays getting "married." The law simply prevents them from claiming certain benefits. Please keep that in mind when you debate here.

They already have equal rights? That's breaking news!

What silly double talk. You claim that gays can marry, just not receive the legal benefits and obligations of marriage. Then they aren't married in the eyes of law, are they? They can pay taxes, they just can't file jointly. They can't inherit the property of their partners without paying ruinous taxes.

But you claim that they can get married and that they have equal rights - just not the rights of straight people. That is like claiming that black folks had equal rights during the "seperate but equal" days, they just couldn't sit down with white folks at the lunch counter. Sure gays have equal rights. And wet streets cause rain.

[BWRoberts221]

News Flash: Most "Christians" aren't the fundamentalist sort. You're just singling them out because they are a juicy target.

Well, they also yell the loudest. Looking at my posts, I sound rabidly anti-Christian, but I'm not. I am very opposed, however, to the mindset of mainstream Fundamentalism. But I don't want to stray too far in this thread. I think Bush is effectly pushing the panic buttons of people who were raised with conservative beliefs. When you listen to conservative talk-radio (like some of my co-workers do), the topic is almost always on the perceived war against Christianity. Apparently they view Gay Marriage as an attack against their beliefs. If they had left the issue alone, I think the gay community (their greatest enemies) wouldn't be making such a fuss either. On that side, I think the gay community whines too darned much. I voted that gay marriage is a non-issue compared to other issues. But what bothers me most is all the dancing around the fact that this is rooted in homophobia and religious belief. It's not about "protecting" anything.

[BWRoberts221]

Quote by: RickSp Thomas Jefferson did not necessarily believe what you might think. He took a pair of scizzors to his Bible and cut out the parts he didn't like. Jefferson was also a politician who said different things in public than he did in private. He was no freer to speak honestly than politicians are today.

That's a very unfortunate fact. Even Liberal politicians have to pretend to be Christian if they are to have any hope of getting into office. But if Bush is only pretending to be a "Born-Again Christian", that's not good. However, if he actually is a "Born-Again Christian", that's also not good. We all know Clinton was no bible-thumper, but he had to at least make an occasional show of it by going to church with his family in tow for the cameras. "Hey everyone, look at me! I'm a Christian." What a joke. I think this proposal is a good example of politicians pushing through something they don't really beleive in just to quell the hysteria of Conservatives. They feed them lies and deception all the time because they need their votes. No wonder they feel persecuted.

[Dirty Name]

Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, April 13, 1820

RickSP, do you have a complete understanding of the context of this quote? Of the background dialogue that might have been taking place between Short and Jefferson? Of where Thomas Jefferson was in his own faith journey?

If not, then your quote is utterly meaningless and without merit.

[Dirty Name]

Duplicate Deleted

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name RickSP, do you have a complete understanding of the context of this quote? Of the background dialogue that might have been taking place between Short and Jefferson? Of where Thomas Jefferson was in his own faith journey? If not, then your quote is utterly meaningless and without merit.

Yes, I think I do have a reasonable understanding of Jefferson's views. Do you, I wonder? I am not sure, Jefferson, ever an man of the Enlightment, would refer to it as faith journey. Are you familiar with the "Jefferson Bible"? Are you even aware of it?

He wrote extensively on his views of religion, in both private letters and in public discourse. Jefferson quite literally took a pair of scissors to his Bible and cut out those portions which he didn't like. He specifically excluded all references to the Trinity and to the divinity of Jesus. What remained was what he considered a moral text shorn of its "artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests". His much slimmer version was trimmed of all the "Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurgos, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of …nonsense." He titled it "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth". It is often referred to as the "Jefferson Bible."

I have no doubt that many Christians would find his hacking away at the New Testiment to be rank heresy.

[underbear1]

Civil Unions unless used for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, would be seperate but NOT EQUAL!
It's a moot point, in 20 years when older voters have passed away, and been replaced with younger voters they will wonder what the hell was all their grandparents fuss about such a stupid policy which denied gays/lesbians equal rights?

[underbear1]

I was banned here for a month, and received the first email concerning this thread today. I don't think this site and I have any future, so I'll leave again, but this time, I slam the door.

[RickSp]

Quote by: underbear1 Civil Unions unless used for both heterosexual and homosexual couples, would be seperate but NOT EQUAL! It's a moot point, in 20 years when older voters have passed away, and been replaced with younger voters they will wonder what the hell was all their grandparents fuss about such a stupid policy which denied gays/lesbians equal rights?

It will be like Loving vs Virginia, except this time it will be the public not the courts that demand equal rights. The anti-gay marriage folks continue to slip in opinion polls and some Republicans are wondering out-loud if the focus on gay marriage will hurt rather than help them in November.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Loving v. Virginia was decided under Fourteenth Amendment, which acts as a limitation on state action. The decision does not hold that a person has an express federal right under the Constitution to be married; nor may the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to expand federal jurisdiction where it is not granted under the Constitution. It is more likely that the challenge to same-sex marriage will arise under the “full faith and credit clause” under Article IV, Section 1.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers Loving v. Virginia was decided under Fourteenth Amendment, which acts as a limitation on state action. The decision does not hold that a person has an express federal right under the Constitution to be married; nor may the Fourteenth Amendment be applied to expand federal jurisdiction where it is not granted under the Constitution. It is more likely that the challenge to same-sex marriage will arise under the “full faith and credit clause” under Article IV, Section 1.

Your legal arguments may be valid. My point was that gay marriage will in time be viewed in the same light as interracial marriage, which was also called an assault on the sanctity of marriage among other things.

That being said, the current bans of gay marriage are all state statutes, so the 14th Amendment argument may apply. The attempt to amend the US constitution was a political stunt, at best.

[Dirty Name]

My point was that gay marriage will in time be viewed in the same light as interracial marriage, which was also called an assault on the sanctity of marriage among other things.

Gender is fundamental to marriage, race is not. Altering the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples totally changes the landscape of the institution in a way that race never could.

So, no, you're pretty far off base there, and state ballot initiative results back me up on this.

Again, you people fail to grasp the purpose as to why the state would legally recognize marriage in the first place. You want everyone to believe that it's the product of religious zealots imposing their religious views on people, but the fact of the matter is that state recognition serves a more practical purpose:

To strengthen the family bond between men and women who have publicly professed they are in love, which in turn means they will be engaging in a potentially procreative sexual relationship.

You see, it's the potential procreation which represents the compelling state interest. All other sexual relationships are of significantly lesser importance to the state.

Now, test my theory. Plug in "mixed marriages," and we find they are still potentially procreative - hence the legality of them. Plug in "incestous marriage" - also potentially procreative (and harmful) - and thus obvious why states do not legally recognize such unions.

Let's try "same-sex marriage." Not potentially procreative, thus, not important enough for the state to encourage such unions.

But if we alter that landscape by changing the legal definition of marriage, the logic goes out the window.

Finally, I'll throw this out one more time:

Same-sex couples cannot possibly procreate within their relationship, while opposite sex couples CAN possibly do so.

Clearly, the two types of relationships are NOT EQUAL. Why should our society pretend that they are?

[Jack]

Gender is fundamental to marriage, race is not.

We were once unenlightened enough to believe that race was "fundamental to marriage". Public attitudes change with time and increased awareness.