Omega77: I TOTALLY AGREE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH THAT "SAME SEX" CAN NOT BE CALLED MARRIAGE. BY THE HOLY BIBLE MARRIAGE IS THE UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN WHICH IS LIFE. SAME SEX IS DEATH NO LIFE. 
Javierdude22: [quote author=Omega77 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#40 date=02/29/04 at 21:38:07]I TOTALLY AGREE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH THAT "SAME SEX" CAN NOT BE CALLED MARRIAGE. BY THE HOLY BIBLE MARRIAGE IS THE UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN WHICH IS LIFE. SAME SEX IS DEATH NO LIFE. [/quote]
Wow...I thought my eyes sucked, but they must have improved cause Im seeing the letters very clear now...
Anywayzzz....
[quote author=lacsap1 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=20#37 date=02/29/04 at 15:21:45]FYI, since the first law in our constitution was in place
several "famous religious" guys has been taken the stand at court. So, churches are very carefull to admittance.
Here a little story in the press;
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (Reuters) - The Bible-brandishing leader of a Dutch Calvinist political party was fined 300 guilders (US$160) Tuesday for discrimination against gays after he compared practicing homosexuals with thieves. Leen van Dijke, leader of the minority Reformatorische Politieke Federatie made the remarks in a 1996 interview with the magazine Nieuwe Revu and later defended them, saying they were based on the bible. In the Netherlands discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation is illegal, but Van Dijke had argued a conviction would signal an end to free speech.
[/quote]
Well, Im not exactly yee-ing the examply you pulled out. Because, like the example you mentioned, these guys were not taken to court by following their religious principles, but because they blatantly insulted people on their sexuality. Thats of course very different.
So concluding, I believe churches should be able to make up their own rules and regulations on these procedings without interference of the state, or the first law in the constitution.
[/quote]Wow...I thought my eyes sucked, but they must have improved cause Im seeing the letters very clear now...
Anywayzzz....
[quote author=lacsap1 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=20#37 date=02/29/04 at 15:21:45]FYI, since the first law in our constitution was in place
several "famous religious" guys has been taken the stand at court. So, churches are very carefull to admittance.
Here a little story in the press;
AMSTERDAM, Netherlands (Reuters) - The Bible-brandishing leader of a Dutch Calvinist political party was fined 300 guilders (US$160) Tuesday for discrimination against gays after he compared practicing homosexuals with thieves. Leen van Dijke, leader of the minority Reformatorische Politieke Federatie made the remarks in a 1996 interview with the magazine Nieuwe Revu and later defended them, saying they were based on the bible. In the Netherlands discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation is illegal, but Van Dijke had argued a conviction would signal an end to free speech.
[/quote]
Well, Im not exactly yee-ing the examply you pulled out. Because, like the example you mentioned, these guys were not taken to court by following their religious principles, but because they blatantly insulted people on their sexuality. Thats of course very different.
So concluding, I believe churches should be able to make up their own rules and regulations on these procedings without interference of the state, or the first law in the constitution.
Javierdude22: [quote author=amiles link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=20#34 date=02/29/04 at 08:56:56]
The reality is that there are more kids who need adoptive parents than than there are homes for them.
In Florida, where gay couples are now barred from adoption, there are 4000 kids sitting in foster homes waiting for adoption. Is it better for these kids to be in foster homes than with adoptive gay parents?[/quote]
Amiles, your quite right of course. But Im not too sure that these 4000 kids are in foster homes because nobody wants to adopt them, I am sure a large part of them fall victim to the bureacucracy of the adoption process (which is not uncalled for).
However, if there are a lotta children with nowhere to go, than I totally agree with you.
The reality is that there are more kids who need adoptive parents than than there are homes for them.
In Florida, where gay couples are now barred from adoption, there are 4000 kids sitting in foster homes waiting for adoption. Is it better for these kids to be in foster homes than with adoptive gay parents?[/quote]
Amiles, your quite right of course. But Im not too sure that these 4000 kids are in foster homes because nobody wants to adopt them, I am sure a large part of them fall victim to the bureacucracy of the adoption process (which is not uncalled for).
However, if there are a lotta children with nowhere to go, than I totally agree with you.
[quote author=Omega77 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#40 date=02/29/04 at 21:38:07]I TOTALLY AGREE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH THAT "SAME SEX" CAN NOT BE CALLED MARRIAGE. BY THE HOLY BIBLE MARRIAGE IS THE UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN WHICH IS LIFE. SAME SEX IS DEATH NO LIFE. [/quote]
Though I'm sure you feel like you're absolutely right about this, since you're shouting, I challenge you to quote a single Biblical verse that states that marriage is the exclusively for a man and a woman.
Even if it did say so, if you really want to follow what was acceptable in the Bible, we would have to legalise polygamy as well. Remember how many wives Solomon had, not to mention concubines.
(I originally posted this before reading Jon's post on page 2.)
[/quote]Though I'm sure you feel like you're absolutely right about this, since you're shouting, I challenge you to quote a single Biblical verse that states that marriage is the exclusively for a man and a woman.
Even if it did say so, if you really want to follow what was acceptable in the Bible, we would have to legalise polygamy as well. Remember how many wives Solomon had, not to mention concubines.
(I originally posted this before reading Jon's post on page 2.)
One of the sticky issues here is understanding the differences between civil and religious marriage. Despite the supposed seperation of church and state, these things have gotten strangely intertwined.
The religious leaders seem to object to the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses on the basis that it erodes their concepts, within their church, of what a union should be. Of course, no one is forcing them to perform a religious ceremony in their particular church just because two people show up with a marriage license, which merely conveys the civil rights of marriage. In fact, churches have long been turning away heterosexual couples, because the priest/pastor/clergy disagreed with the terms of the marriage, even though it was already legally recognised. (For example, my own parents were turned down simply because they wanted to be wed on July 4th, which was considered an abhorent blastphemous abomination by several clergymen.)
The fact is, however, that churches have been performing marriages between gay men for decades, long before the first civil man-man license was issued. Some liberal "mainstream" churches have done this for a time, but there are also churches founded by gays to worship the God they know loves them (for example, MCC) that have long done this. So, religious ceremonies between two men actually came first, and already exist. As such, a lot of the arguments of the religious right are nonsense. But, while such a union allows two partners to make a comittment to each other, it conveys no legal rights whatsoever.
It is often claimed that civil unions, partner registration, and certain other laws grant equivalent civil and legal rights. But, this is not always true.
In some states, which do not have civil unions, partner registration, or the like, in theory it is "only" necessary to have an attorney draw up papers granting rights of survivorship, visitorship, etc. This is a common reason cited by the right as to why any form of marriage or partnership is unneeded, with claims that the law already contains all necessary means to protect rights. However, in practice, many, many sets of such papers have to be drawn up to convery each specific right, at great expense. And heaven forbid that you and you attorney forget to think of a certain right in advance and have the papers prepared. Also, be prepared to make a stop off at your safe deposit box to pick up the papers, and have your lawyer accompany you to the hospital, when you get that call that your partner was involved in a car wreck. During the hours or days it takes you to present legal proof, someone else will be making the care decisions.
In those states that do offer partner registration or something like a civil union, things are more automatic, in that a simple and inexpensive process grants most or all of the civil rights of marriage. Or does it? Of course, the union/partnership isn't federally recognised, so there are no tax or social security advantages. But, in fact the non-equality goes a lot further. The civil rights converyed by the union/partnership apply with certainty only when dealing with government or public institutuons. Thus, you will be recognised as a spouse at the police station, and at the hospital, since healthcare providers are regulated by law, and also probably by your landlord, since rentals are regulated by law. It is less clear that you would be eligible for a family discount from a private insurance company (health, auto, property, life, etc), or even at the ticket booth at an amusement park, as these are private sector entities, that may not recognise any new, nontraditional, form of partnership or union, and are under no legal obligation to do so. So long as there is a "Separate but equal" form of union for gays, most of the private sector will have a fairly sound basis for ignoring such unions, as the burden of proof will be on the part of the gay couple to demonstrate that their union should be recognised where the private organizations policies talk about a married couple. So long as a separate category exists, it is actually quite difficult to draft a law that causes private sector entities to recognise it. On the other hand, if gay and hetero couples are joined using the same legal documents (marriage license and recording thereof), the situation is reversed. A private sector entity knows that they will be accused of discrimiation if they refuse to recognise a gay couple, and the burden of proof would be on them. Rather than facing an expensive and potentially very damaging legal battle, they would probably just recognise the gay couple.
The religious leaders seem to object to the issuing of same-sex marriage licenses on the basis that it erodes their concepts, within their church, of what a union should be. Of course, no one is forcing them to perform a religious ceremony in their particular church just because two people show up with a marriage license, which merely conveys the civil rights of marriage. In fact, churches have long been turning away heterosexual couples, because the priest/pastor/clergy disagreed with the terms of the marriage, even though it was already legally recognised. (For example, my own parents were turned down simply because they wanted to be wed on July 4th, which was considered an abhorent blastphemous abomination by several clergymen.)
The fact is, however, that churches have been performing marriages between gay men for decades, long before the first civil man-man license was issued. Some liberal "mainstream" churches have done this for a time, but there are also churches founded by gays to worship the God they know loves them (for example, MCC) that have long done this. So, religious ceremonies between two men actually came first, and already exist. As such, a lot of the arguments of the religious right are nonsense. But, while such a union allows two partners to make a comittment to each other, it conveys no legal rights whatsoever.
It is often claimed that civil unions, partner registration, and certain other laws grant equivalent civil and legal rights. But, this is not always true.
In some states, which do not have civil unions, partner registration, or the like, in theory it is "only" necessary to have an attorney draw up papers granting rights of survivorship, visitorship, etc. This is a common reason cited by the right as to why any form of marriage or partnership is unneeded, with claims that the law already contains all necessary means to protect rights. However, in practice, many, many sets of such papers have to be drawn up to convery each specific right, at great expense. And heaven forbid that you and you attorney forget to think of a certain right in advance and have the papers prepared. Also, be prepared to make a stop off at your safe deposit box to pick up the papers, and have your lawyer accompany you to the hospital, when you get that call that your partner was involved in a car wreck. During the hours or days it takes you to present legal proof, someone else will be making the care decisions.
In those states that do offer partner registration or something like a civil union, things are more automatic, in that a simple and inexpensive process grants most or all of the civil rights of marriage. Or does it? Of course, the union/partnership isn't federally recognised, so there are no tax or social security advantages. But, in fact the non-equality goes a lot further. The civil rights converyed by the union/partnership apply with certainty only when dealing with government or public institutuons. Thus, you will be recognised as a spouse at the police station, and at the hospital, since healthcare providers are regulated by law, and also probably by your landlord, since rentals are regulated by law. It is less clear that you would be eligible for a family discount from a private insurance company (health, auto, property, life, etc), or even at the ticket booth at an amusement park, as these are private sector entities, that may not recognise any new, nontraditional, form of partnership or union, and are under no legal obligation to do so. So long as there is a "Separate but equal" form of union for gays, most of the private sector will have a fairly sound basis for ignoring such unions, as the burden of proof will be on the part of the gay couple to demonstrate that their union should be recognised where the private organizations policies talk about a married couple. So long as a separate category exists, it is actually quite difficult to draft a law that causes private sector entities to recognise it. On the other hand, if gay and hetero couples are joined using the same legal documents (marriage license and recording thereof), the situation is reversed. A private sector entity knows that they will be accused of discrimiation if they refuse to recognise a gay couple, and the burden of proof would be on them. Rather than facing an expensive and potentially very damaging legal battle, they would probably just recognise the gay couple.
Inwood: In regard to churches being required to allow anyone to be married in their building.
I might be wrong but I don't think at this time in the USA any church can be required to allow their building to be used for a wedding ceremony. So even if marriage is made legal for same sex couples I doubt that would change.
I don't think any church should be required to lend their building to anyone they don't wish to allow to use it. That said, if they're running a public catering hall on the side as a money making venture, then in that case I think they should not be able to discriminate in the case of the catering hall with anyone.
I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. But that's just me.
I might be wrong but I don't think at this time in the USA any church can be required to allow their building to be used for a wedding ceremony. So even if marriage is made legal for same sex couples I doubt that would change.
I don't think any church should be required to lend their building to anyone they don't wish to allow to use it. That said, if they're running a public catering hall on the side as a money making venture, then in that case I think they should not be able to discriminate in the case of the catering hall with anyone.
I believe in freedom of religion and freedom from religion. But that's just me.
hung9mike: I have to admit I haven't thought this issue all the way through, and I'm certainly not a constitutional scholar, however, but by what right does marriage have any civil recognition under the First Amendment? Churches may be free (and exclude) to marry whomever they wish, but why should the state be obligated to follow any religious group's proclamation as to who can marry and who cannot? And isn't this the heart of the radical right's argument against gay marriage?
[quote author=hung9mike link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#46 date=03/01/04 at 19:00:17] Churches may be free (and exclude) to marry whomever they wish, but why should the state be obligated to follow any religious group's proclamation as to who can marry and who cannot?[/quote]
mike..Well said!
mike..Well said!
- jonb,
[quote author=Omega77 link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#40 date=02/29/04 at 21:38:07]I TOTALLY AGREE WITH PRESIDENT BUSH THAT "SAME SEX" CAN NOT BE CALLED MARRIAGE. BY THE HOLY BIBLE MARRIAGE IS THE UNION BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN WHICH IS LIFE. SAME SEX IS DEATH NO LIFE. [/quote]
Yanno, you can move your left pinkie seven sixteenths of an inch to the left and you won't look like an idiot. If you weren't so obviously American, I would tell you that it's also just over eleven millimeters.
By 'death', I'm sure you're referring to AIDS. Well guess what? Heterosexuals have to worry about that too. And guess what else? Monogamous homosexuals don't have to worry about AIDS. Want even more good news? Lesbians never have to worry about AIDS, unless they do it while getting a visit from Aunt Flo.
BTW, you might want to check the Bible's laws on marriage. It actually says between a man and several women. And it has lots of other nice rules, such as that you can order your wife to be stoned if you don't like her. Her only defense is if Daddy produces some bloody sheets. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
Now run along and go play.
[/quote]Yanno, you can move your left pinkie seven sixteenths of an inch to the left and you won't look like an idiot. If you weren't so obviously American, I would tell you that it's also just over eleven millimeters.
By 'death', I'm sure you're referring to AIDS. Well guess what? Heterosexuals have to worry about that too. And guess what else? Monogamous homosexuals don't have to worry about AIDS. Want even more good news? Lesbians never have to worry about AIDS, unless they do it while getting a visit from Aunt Flo.
BTW, you might want to check the Bible's laws on marriage. It actually says between a man and several women. And it has lots of other nice rules, such as that you can order your wife to be stoned if you don't like her. Her only defense is if Daddy produces some bloody sheets. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21)
Now run along and go play.
gigantikok: I really hope people don't skip over what I write because they hate me or have decided to tune out anything I say. I am trying to be very civil and understanding with my opinion. I hope it furthers the discussion, as opposed to creating mudslinging. I just want to be heard.
Could it be possible that Bush signed the amendment, not because he is prejudice, but because this country (as much as it has progressed in terms of equality and rights for all in the last 50 years) still isn't ready for a same sex marriage? When Massachusetts, a very openminded and liberal state, decided to legalize gay marriages it simply was not taking other states into consideration. If a gay couple got married in Massachusetts, then any state they go to after that would HAVE to recognize them as a marriage. Some states just aren't ready for that yet. As prejudice or as shitty as that sounds, it isn't fair for 4 guys to make such a ground breaking decision in Massachusetts with out taking the rest of the united states into consideration. Maybe Bush was putting a halt to that to take other states into consideration. Doesn't neccessarily mean he's out to get gay people, but how willing do you think Alabama would be to recognize a gay couple? I personally think it was a better idea to hold off on gay marriages for now, wait a few more years until the whole united states is ready to accept, and then proceed as opposed to forcing it onto people now. Baby steps, I think. You have to look at this issue with the perspective of America as a whole, not just the perspective of the pissed off, irritated, emotional, discriminated gay person. I believe that most of the rights granted to a married couple should be granted to a gay couple. I don't know if it should be refered to as "marriage" persay, but a civil union between two gay men or lesbians granted the same rights is not just ideal, it's neccessary for this nation. Unfortunately, we also have to be realistic, and understand that we are not in the most ideal location to legalize gay marriages. We aren't Amsterdam, this was a country founded on Puritan ideals. The time is right for change, but it will take a bit longer. I hope everyone has the patience to accept that, instead of becoming outraged.
Just my opinion, though. Since this is such a touchy matter, I apologize if I've offended anyone. That was not my intention, just trying to speak my mind.
Could it be possible that Bush signed the amendment, not because he is prejudice, but because this country (as much as it has progressed in terms of equality and rights for all in the last 50 years) still isn't ready for a same sex marriage? When Massachusetts, a very openminded and liberal state, decided to legalize gay marriages it simply was not taking other states into consideration. If a gay couple got married in Massachusetts, then any state they go to after that would HAVE to recognize them as a marriage. Some states just aren't ready for that yet. As prejudice or as shitty as that sounds, it isn't fair for 4 guys to make such a ground breaking decision in Massachusetts with out taking the rest of the united states into consideration. Maybe Bush was putting a halt to that to take other states into consideration. Doesn't neccessarily mean he's out to get gay people, but how willing do you think Alabama would be to recognize a gay couple? I personally think it was a better idea to hold off on gay marriages for now, wait a few more years until the whole united states is ready to accept, and then proceed as opposed to forcing it onto people now. Baby steps, I think. You have to look at this issue with the perspective of America as a whole, not just the perspective of the pissed off, irritated, emotional, discriminated gay person. I believe that most of the rights granted to a married couple should be granted to a gay couple. I don't know if it should be refered to as "marriage" persay, but a civil union between two gay men or lesbians granted the same rights is not just ideal, it's neccessary for this nation. Unfortunately, we also have to be realistic, and understand that we are not in the most ideal location to legalize gay marriages. We aren't Amsterdam, this was a country founded on Puritan ideals. The time is right for change, but it will take a bit longer. I hope everyone has the patience to accept that, instead of becoming outraged.
Just my opinion, though. Since this is such a touchy matter, I apologize if I've offended anyone. That was not my intention, just trying to speak my mind.
norseman: Interesting topic, rather than reply to any specific posting, let me offer some insight based on the postings-to-date as I live in Massachusetts, the new Gay Wedding capital of the United States. I don't offer these observations as an "expert", just someone who reads the local papers.
1. No one suddenly made it legal to hold gay weddings in Massachusetts. The highest court in the state INTERPRETED that the state constitution did not prohibit it. I guess it has been legal all along, according to the way our state laws were written. The courts simply gave the Legislature a deadline to adjust their paperwork based on their interpretation.
2. The process to ammend that same State Constitution would take years, and so far the legislature in the first vote, couldn't even agree on an amendment.
3. Speaking of the Church Wedding/ State Wedding issue, no one in government here (inlcuding the court) is requiring that churches convey the rite of marriage on any couple. You can have a State recognized marriage and not set foot in a church. Actually, one of the proposals to solve the controversy was to get the State out of the "marriage" business and simply recognize couples as entering into Civil Unions. Generally that seemed to be regarded as a game of semantics.
4. On the national stage, the issue seems to revolve around State's rights. Under existing national laws that govern "trade", individual states have to respect each other's laws, and based on this issue, a lot of states now don't want to respect the Massachusetts Constitution. It seems that Bush, our "war president" is responding to the court's interpretation of the Masschusetts State constitution by proposing to overpower it on a national level. Our own Sen. Kerry, the likely Bush challenger in the upcoming election, is not in favor of gay marriage either, but still believes in the rights of individual states to decide.
By the way, the Massachusetts Constitution was written by John Adams, and was used as the model for the U. S. Constitution.
Hope I've added some clarity to the discussions.
Personally, I'm in favor of a reasonable (not obsessive) separation of church and state. The government shouldn't (and near as I can tell, doesn't) tell the church who it must allow to marry, and the church shouldn't tell the goverment who it shouldn't allow to marry.
Thoughtfully,
Norse
1. No one suddenly made it legal to hold gay weddings in Massachusetts. The highest court in the state INTERPRETED that the state constitution did not prohibit it. I guess it has been legal all along, according to the way our state laws were written. The courts simply gave the Legislature a deadline to adjust their paperwork based on their interpretation.
2. The process to ammend that same State Constitution would take years, and so far the legislature in the first vote, couldn't even agree on an amendment.
3. Speaking of the Church Wedding/ State Wedding issue, no one in government here (inlcuding the court) is requiring that churches convey the rite of marriage on any couple. You can have a State recognized marriage and not set foot in a church. Actually, one of the proposals to solve the controversy was to get the State out of the "marriage" business and simply recognize couples as entering into Civil Unions. Generally that seemed to be regarded as a game of semantics.
4. On the national stage, the issue seems to revolve around State's rights. Under existing national laws that govern "trade", individual states have to respect each other's laws, and based on this issue, a lot of states now don't want to respect the Massachusetts Constitution. It seems that Bush, our "war president" is responding to the court's interpretation of the Masschusetts State constitution by proposing to overpower it on a national level. Our own Sen. Kerry, the likely Bush challenger in the upcoming election, is not in favor of gay marriage either, but still believes in the rights of individual states to decide.
By the way, the Massachusetts Constitution was written by John Adams, and was used as the model for the U. S. Constitution.
Hope I've added some clarity to the discussions.
Personally, I'm in favor of a reasonable (not obsessive) separation of church and state. The government shouldn't (and near as I can tell, doesn't) tell the church who it must allow to marry, and the church shouldn't tell the goverment who it shouldn't allow to marry.
Thoughtfully,
Norse
Javierdude22: Jon, I think he meant gay people cant make babies
[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#49 date=03/02/04 at 00:50:28]
We aren't Amsterdam, this was a country founded on Puritan ideals. The time is right for change, but it will take a bit longer. I hope everyone has the patience to accept that, instead of becoming outraged.
[/quote]
Yeah, and we were founded on the holy Kama Sutra...
Puritan, barbarian, narrowminded...its all a manner of perspective. Holland upto the second world war was one of the most religious countries ever. It secularized at the speed of light though, which may have been caused by the mixture of cultures, prosperity, science.
Even though most of America sees the Netherlands (we are more than Amsterdam) as a weed sandwhich with a little euthanasia on the side and extra legalized prostitution, doesnt mean the entire country supports this. I personally think we have sheep as a government, but eh...thats me.
[quote author=gigantikok link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#49 date=03/02/04 at 00:50:28]
We aren't Amsterdam, this was a country founded on Puritan ideals. The time is right for change, but it will take a bit longer. I hope everyone has the patience to accept that, instead of becoming outraged.
[/quote]
Yeah, and we were founded on the holy Kama Sutra...
Puritan, barbarian, narrowminded...its all a manner of perspective. Holland upto the second world war was one of the most religious countries ever. It secularized at the speed of light though, which may have been caused by the mixture of cultures, prosperity, science.
Even though most of America sees the Netherlands (we are more than Amsterdam) as a weed sandwhich with a little euthanasia on the side and extra legalized prostitution, doesnt mean the entire country supports this. I personally think we have sheep as a government, but eh...thats me.
grantstephens: My problem with Gay Marriage is that it is being portrayed as a Civil Rights issue. Civil Rights to me is you are being denied a right because of Race, religion, and sex (male/female), not sexual preference/choice.
For example, at one time blacks in America were counted as 3/5 an individual. Women didn't have the right to vote. Those rights were being denied, yes.
But, many men/women have changed their preference from hetero-gay-back to hetero. I've read several articles over the years about men leaving their wife to be with another man, but then later realized he loved his hetero life more and goes back to his wife. So really where is the right being denied. Those were choices he/she made.
And then where does this stop. If gay marriage is allowed, and we use civil rights as the issue wouldn't brother/sister marriages then be denied, or son/mother marriages. A man last week was put in prision for co-habitating with his daughter. Do you not think with the way the laws are going that he will be allowed to cohabitate soon? Where does this end?
Now before anyone starts to call me homphobic and things like that, I grew up in a household of lesbians, my uncle George is Gay, I grew up in the Bay Area where this pretty much all started, and I have no problem conversing with you guys here (many gay men) and I even think some of you are handsome and have great shlongs (Doesn't mean I'd sleep with you though).
So basically I'm saying that I'm for Man/Woman marriage.
Here's a link if anyone is interested in some reading -
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01&v=PRINT
You're all my freinds here and I appreciate the sexual conversations about big shlongs.
For example, at one time blacks in America were counted as 3/5 an individual. Women didn't have the right to vote. Those rights were being denied, yes.
But, many men/women have changed their preference from hetero-gay-back to hetero. I've read several articles over the years about men leaving their wife to be with another man, but then later realized he loved his hetero life more and goes back to his wife. So really where is the right being denied. Those were choices he/she made.
And then where does this stop. If gay marriage is allowed, and we use civil rights as the issue wouldn't brother/sister marriages then be denied, or son/mother marriages. A man last week was put in prision for co-habitating with his daughter. Do you not think with the way the laws are going that he will be allowed to cohabitate soon? Where does this end?
Now before anyone starts to call me homphobic and things like that, I grew up in a household of lesbians, my uncle George is Gay, I grew up in the Bay Area where this pretty much all started, and I have no problem conversing with you guys here (many gay men) and I even think some of you are handsome and have great shlongs (Doesn't mean I'd sleep with you though).
So basically I'm saying that I'm for Man/Woman marriage.
Here's a link if anyone is interested in some reading -
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF03H01&v=PRINT
You're all my freinds here and I appreciate the sexual conversations about big shlongs.
grantstephens: [quote author=norseman link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#50 date=03/02/04 at 06:19:32] Our own Sen. Kerry, the likely Bush challenger in the upcoming election, is not in favor of gay marriage either, but still believes in the rights of individual states to decide.
I'm confused with Kerry, because on Sunday he said he's for State's rights, but when Texas was having that issue with Sodomy, Kerry was one of the 1st to deny state rights. Seems as though he's on every side of the issue. ???
I'm confused with Kerry, because on Sunday he said he's for State's rights, but when Texas was having that issue with Sodomy, Kerry was one of the 1st to deny state rights. Seems as though he's on every side of the issue. ???
lacsap1
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 201
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 32
- Points
- 348
- Age
- 46
- Location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
First of all, I want to say that I love LPSG and the good open debates like this..isn't internet great....progress of modern world....... hint hint !?
=======================================
Jav, thank you for your Dutch "correction" :-/
...
Grantstephens, you're saying that you are for Man/Woman marriage only because of...........otherwize also son/mother or brother/sister marriages will follow?
Sorry, but this sound like seeing lions on the road.
Can't you really not see the Civil Rights/Discrimination issue at all after reading the benefits between hetro / home couples ? Please don't use your sentimentality concerning religion in this matter and try to see the fairness in Civil Rights/Discrimination aria.
...
Speeking about religion;
When the Vatican City launched its "Regarding Proposals for Unions Between Homosexual Persons" document last month, there were fears that the gay community would be facing a backlash in rights.
The document, which called on Catholic politicians to repeal laws that may lead to gay marriages, was expected to lead to countries moving away from legislation that could give full equality and legal recognition to same sex relationships.
And while Canada is facing continuing obstacles in its attempt to legalise gay marriage it looks like
GW Bush also received a call from the Vatican City!?
Gigantikok, please don't see this just as a Dutch thing;
When it comes to social policy in Europe, there is one hard-and-fast rule: where the Netherlands innovates, the rest of the continent imitates. Having already decriminalized soft drugs and euthanasia, Holland became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriages on April 1, 2001.
Other countries have been quick to follow in the Netherlands footsteps. In late March last year, the Belgian Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a law giving gay couples almost the same nuptial rights as heterosexuals. In France, Germany and most Nordic countries, gays and lesbians have extensive civil union rights, and last month the British Queen Elisabeth sparked a storm of wondering by granting gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual ones.
So we can see that this not just a Dutch thing but whole of Nothern Europe is working on it.
========================================
"The soul has no gender." -Queen Christina of Sweden
=======================================
Jav, thank you for your Dutch "correction" :-/
...
Grantstephens, you're saying that you are for Man/Woman marriage only because of...........otherwize also son/mother or brother/sister marriages will follow?
Sorry, but this sound like seeing lions on the road.
Can't you really not see the Civil Rights/Discrimination issue at all after reading the benefits between hetro / home couples ? Please don't use your sentimentality concerning religion in this matter and try to see the fairness in Civil Rights/Discrimination aria.
...
Speeking about religion;
When the Vatican City launched its "Regarding Proposals for Unions Between Homosexual Persons" document last month, there were fears that the gay community would be facing a backlash in rights.
The document, which called on Catholic politicians to repeal laws that may lead to gay marriages, was expected to lead to countries moving away from legislation that could give full equality and legal recognition to same sex relationships.
And while Canada is facing continuing obstacles in its attempt to legalise gay marriage it looks like
GW Bush also received a call from the Vatican City!?
Gigantikok, please don't see this just as a Dutch thing;
When it comes to social policy in Europe, there is one hard-and-fast rule: where the Netherlands innovates, the rest of the continent imitates. Having already decriminalized soft drugs and euthanasia, Holland became the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriages on April 1, 2001.
Other countries have been quick to follow in the Netherlands footsteps. In late March last year, the Belgian Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a law giving gay couples almost the same nuptial rights as heterosexuals. In France, Germany and most Nordic countries, gays and lesbians have extensive civil union rights, and last month the British Queen Elisabeth sparked a storm of wondering by granting gay couples the same legal rights as heterosexual ones.
So we can see that this not just a Dutch thing but whole of Nothern Europe is working on it.
========================================
"The soul has no gender." -Queen Christina of Sweden
tomarctus: [quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#52 date=03/02/04 at 12:54:33]My problem with Gay Marriage is that it is being portrayed as a Civil Rights issue. Civil Rights to me is you are being denied a right because of Race, religion, and sex (male/female), not sexual preference/choice.[/quote]
You are wrong there. Being denied equal rights due to sexual orientation (not preference) is most certainly a civil rights issue.
It is not a "preference". It is an orientation.
If other people want to argue and fight for different marriage arrangements then that will be the start of a different movement, not a continuation of this one.
It didn't all start in the Bay Area, either. Gay/Lesbian history in the United States involves many, many other cities. Even Los Angeles is distinguished by numerous firsts, the list is extensive.
(Wouldn't sleep with you, either, but that's because I prefer to have sex with men who want to enjoy my company, and who are gay or at most, bi.)
You are wrong there. Being denied equal rights due to sexual orientation (not preference) is most certainly a civil rights issue.
And your point here is what? Denial of equal rights to gays is just hunky dory?
Having a homosexual orientation is not a choice. Accepting it is a choice. A homosexual person can engage in a heterosexual act yet remain gay. A heterosexual can engage in a homosexual act yet still remain heterosexual.
It is not a "preference". It is an orientation.
It stops when same sex couples get married legally. There is, and never was, a slippery slope. Never. Those arguements are used to incite fear, revulsion and opposition.
If other people want to argue and fight for different marriage arrangements then that will be the start of a different movement, not a continuation of this one.
And some of my best friends are straight, too! But really, please understand that the issue is a simple equal rights issue. Clear, simple, fair.
It didn't all start in the Bay Area, either. Gay/Lesbian history in the United States involves many, many other cities. Even Los Angeles is distinguished by numerous firsts, the list is extensive.
(Wouldn't sleep with you, either, but that's because I prefer to have sex with men who want to enjoy my company, and who are gay or at most, bi.)
And you're for gay or lesbian what? Cohabitation? Shacking up? If not marriage just what do you want same sex couples to do?
Thanks you for that and for complimenting some of the schlongs, even those of gay men. I felt compelled to send this long response for the sake of debate and dialogue. I mean no offense.
lacsap1
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2002
- Posts
- 201
- Media
- 2
- Likes
- 32
- Points
- 348
- Age
- 46
- Location
- Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Amen, tomarctus....
========================================
"Many people cling to the idea that homosexuality is a choice, because otherwise the bible would seem illogical. Why would God decree as immoral something that was out of one's control? One couldn't imagine a biblical passage suggesting people are immoral because they are tall or blonde or brown-skinned." -Robert L. Steinbeck
========================================
"Many people cling to the idea that homosexuality is a choice, because otherwise the bible would seem illogical. Why would God decree as immoral something that was out of one's control? One couldn't imagine a biblical passage suggesting people are immoral because they are tall or blonde or brown-skinned." -Robert L. Steinbeck
grantstephens: I hope my message didn't come out as religious. And one thing I'm not trying to do is sway any one elses thinking, just giving mine. That's all. I don't feel that lpsg is really the place to influence political/social topics, but to discuss issues dealing with large schlongs. 8).
And Tom, I'm not offended at all by your stance and lifestyle. We just have different beliefs about if being gay is a civil rights issue. I'll vote my way, you'll vote yours and then we'll smile because we can be deepthroated unlike all those unlucky guys that can't.
lapsac1=pascal I'm not as eloquent as you with my writing, even though I penned a book a few years back, I hope the mother/son issue wasn't the only one that stuck. If it was--my bad. But, I just don't agree with Gay Marriage being a Civil Rights issue. And one more thing--can you rub your nipples with your penis. It's huge man. My regards.....
Earlier their was a post regarding conservatives not being for state rights all of a sudden and saying that's hypocritical, but as we all know liberals have flip flopped also on this issue, just ask Kerry.
And Tom, I'm not offended at all by your stance and lifestyle. We just have different beliefs about if being gay is a civil rights issue. I'll vote my way, you'll vote yours and then we'll smile because we can be deepthroated unlike all those unlucky guys that can't.
lapsac1=pascal I'm not as eloquent as you with my writing, even though I penned a book a few years back
, I hope the mother/son issue wasn't the only one that stuck. If it was--my bad. But, I just don't agree with Gay Marriage being a Civil Rights issue. And one more thing--can you rub your nipples with your penis. It's huge man. My regards.....Earlier their was a post regarding conservatives not being for state rights all of a sudden and saying that's hypocritical, but as we all know liberals have flip flopped also on this issue, just ask Kerry.
tomarctus: [quote author=grantstephens link=board=99;num=1077501486;start=40#57 date=03/02/04 at 14:54:54]I hope my message didn't come out as religious. And one thing I'm not trying to do is sway any one elses thinking, just giving mine. That's all. I don't feel that lpsg is really the place to influence political/social topics, but to discuss issues dealing with large schlongs. 8).
And Tom, I'm not offended at all by your stance and lifestyle. We just have different beliefs about if being gay is a civil rights issue. I'll vote my way, you'll vote yours and then we'll smile because we can be deepthroated unlike all those unlucky guys that can't.[/quote]
grantstephens:
On the politics issue:
I know you and I will vote our respective ways. Thank you for realizing my comments were civil discourse, debate and conversation/persuasion. If we sat together over a period of days and weeks we would bend each other's opinions, in a good way, of course.
I believe you when you say you are gay comfortable, but I'm surprised you still consider gay orientation a preference. Can you honestly tell me when you decided to prefer being straight? If changing preference and behavior is so easy do you think you could have sex freely with other hot men, sucking their cocks, letting them suck yours, kising them, rimming them, fucking them, getting fucked? If not, why do you think it would be easy for a gay man or lesbian woman to behave in heterosexual sex? Let's be honest. You never chose to be straight. I never chose to be gay.
Once again I disagree with one of your statements. LPSG is a place to discuss current and political events, especially on "Et cetera, et cetera". The large penis support is covered in most other topic categories.
On the big cock issue:
I agree, too, about being able to be deepthroated, even with both balls. There are advantages to being small, or decent, or large-average, that the full-figured-man will not experience. That is, however, something to be respectful of.
Many of my cyber acquaintances here say they have huge dicks ( I have yet to meet any in LPSG person, so all I have is their word. Photos can lie and no one has ever agreed to met me and prove his size, much less have sex). They, and ohers, express problems with length (cervix related), girth (vagina, and oral-sex related), clothing ( briefs, and concealment related, overall massiveness ( all the prior reasons in addition to rejection and relationship related).
I simply don't face a single issue related to being "too big". I don't want the problems, but would accept maybe a few of them if I received equivalent pleasures of being hung huge.
Politics again:
Straight people have the two major parties and the other smaller parties to choose between. Gay people only have one major party, the Democrat, to chose, alomg with the minor parties. The Republican party has, in it's platform, language that is explicitly anti-gay. In addition, the Republican leadership has elected to exploit as much anti-gay sentiment as possible to compete for victory in November. That means eight more months of gay talk. We could all do without that. On both sides. I hate that the Democrat party promises gays more than is realistic to deliver and ends up falling short or, worse, turning hypocritical. I hate even more the villification of gay and lesbian citizens of the USA by the Republican party.
Marriage again:
I don't want heterosexual marriage for myself, ever. I didn't even when I was with my partner of 10 years, only legal protections for our joint assets. I prefer a totally different gay dynamic and social structure. I'm content to be a minority as long as I have equal rights and protections. Don't villify, or mollify me. Don't pander to me. Just let me live my life freely.
Fot the gay couples who do want marriage and the 1,049 or so Federal and State marriage rights, I support that 100%. Nothing now will change my mind for that support of wht my friends want. The past year of Washington DC politics has made the improtance of this Civil Rights issue painfully clear.
For the first time since the 1960's and early 1970's I feel a strong passion to figh for a world of peace, equal rights, liberty, and so much else I hold dear.
Lastly:
If someone isn't interested in a political discussion here just move on to another post or subject. Easy and painless and free.
And Tom, I'm not offended at all by your stance and lifestyle. We just have different beliefs about if being gay is a civil rights issue. I'll vote my way, you'll vote yours and then we'll smile because we can be deepthroated unlike all those unlucky guys that can't.
[/quote]grantstephens:
On the politics issue:
I know you and I will vote our respective ways. Thank you for realizing my comments were civil discourse, debate and conversation/persuasion. If we sat together over a period of days and weeks we would bend each other's opinions, in a good way, of course.
I believe you when you say you are gay comfortable, but I'm surprised you still consider gay orientation a preference. Can you honestly tell me when you decided to prefer being straight? If changing preference and behavior is so easy do you think you could have sex freely with other hot men, sucking their cocks, letting them suck yours, kising them, rimming them, fucking them, getting fucked? If not, why do you think it would be easy for a gay man or lesbian woman to behave in heterosexual sex? Let's be honest. You never chose to be straight. I never chose to be gay.
Once again I disagree with one of your statements. LPSG is a place to discuss current and political events, especially on "Et cetera, et cetera". The large penis support is covered in most other topic categories.
On the big cock issue:
I agree, too, about being able to be deepthroated, even with both balls. There are advantages to being small, or decent, or large-average, that the full-figured-man will not experience. That is, however, something to be respectful of.
Many of my cyber acquaintances here say they have huge dicks ( I have yet to meet any in LPSG person, so all I have is their word. Photos can lie and no one has ever agreed to met me and prove his size, much less have sex). They, and ohers, express problems with length (cervix related), girth (vagina, and oral-sex related), clothing ( briefs, and concealment related, overall massiveness ( all the prior reasons in addition to rejection and relationship related).
I simply don't face a single issue related to being "too big". I don't want the problems, but would accept maybe a few of them if I received equivalent pleasures of being hung huge.
Politics again:
Straight people have the two major parties and the other smaller parties to choose between. Gay people only have one major party, the Democrat, to chose, alomg with the minor parties. The Republican party has, in it's platform, language that is explicitly anti-gay. In addition, the Republican leadership has elected to exploit as much anti-gay sentiment as possible to compete for victory in November. That means eight more months of gay talk. We could all do without that. On both sides. I hate that the Democrat party promises gays more than is realistic to deliver and ends up falling short or, worse, turning hypocritical. I hate even more the villification of gay and lesbian citizens of the USA by the Republican party.
Marriage again:
I don't want heterosexual marriage for myself, ever. I didn't even when I was with my partner of 10 years, only legal protections for our joint assets. I prefer a totally different gay dynamic and social structure. I'm content to be a minority as long as I have equal rights and protections. Don't villify, or mollify me. Don't pander to me. Just let me live my life freely.
Fot the gay couples who do want marriage and the 1,049 or so Federal and State marriage rights, I support that 100%. Nothing now will change my mind for that support of wht my friends want. The past year of Washington DC politics has made the improtance of this Civil Rights issue painfully clear.
For the first time since the 1960's and early 1970's I feel a strong passion to figh for a world of peace, equal rights, liberty, and so much else I hold dear.
Lastly:
If someone isn't interested in a political discussion here just move on to another post or subject. Easy and painless and free.
grantstephens: Hey Tom,
OK, you believe being gay is an orientation and I believe that it is a choice made by an individual. That we can agree to disagree on. If there is clear cut scientific proof that being gay is a genetic disposition than I would be inclined to agree that this is a Civil Rights issue, but if this is still an argument of Orientation vs. Choice shouldn't that be clarified by the scientific community 100% before this became a Civil Rights issue?
Is there conclusive scientific eveidence that being gay is an orientation - in essence a minority race? At this point, I have seen many conflicting studies arguing both ways (no pun intended).
Just like the abortion issue---is a fetus a baby? Again conflicting studies and no conclusive evidence. That is why I support pro-life because until the gray area becomes black and white, I will not cross the line and take a potential life unless I know 100% it's not a life. I'm not trying to make this an abortion debate, but I'm trying to use the same methodology here.
Blacks are black. Women are women. Men are men. That can be scientifically proven. If being gay is a scientific disposition, than I would agree that gay marriage is a Civil Rights issue, but until then I can't support it as a Civil Rights Issue.
Now, I'm not againts gay couples enjoying all the same benefits as hetero couples. I'm againts using this as a Civil Rights issue. Tom, if you meet the man of your dreams and decide that you want to live the rest of your life with him, my blessings. And I believe that all benefits that my wife and I receive financially and legally should be shared by you too I just don't see this as a Civil Rights issue because there's to much gray area here.
I have another question. Do you think the Gay Marriage issue will favor the democratic party or the republican party in the upcoming elections?
OK, you believe being gay is an orientation and I believe that it is a choice made by an individual. That we can agree to disagree on. If there is clear cut scientific proof that being gay is a genetic disposition than I would be inclined to agree that this is a Civil Rights issue, but if this is still an argument of Orientation vs. Choice shouldn't that be clarified by the scientific community 100% before this became a Civil Rights issue?
Is there conclusive scientific eveidence that being gay is an orientation - in essence a minority race? At this point, I have seen many conflicting studies arguing both ways (no pun intended).
Just like the abortion issue---is a fetus a baby? Again conflicting studies and no conclusive evidence. That is why I support pro-life because until the gray area becomes black and white, I will not cross the line and take a potential life unless I know 100% it's not a life. I'm not trying to make this an abortion debate, but I'm trying to use the same methodology here.
Blacks are black. Women are women. Men are men. That can be scientifically proven. If being gay is a scientific disposition, than I would agree that gay marriage is a Civil Rights issue, but until then I can't support it as a Civil Rights Issue.
Now, I'm not againts gay couples enjoying all the same benefits as hetero couples. I'm againts using this as a Civil Rights issue. Tom, if you meet the man of your dreams and decide that you want to live the rest of your life with him, my blessings. And I believe that all benefits that my wife and I receive financially and legally should be shared by you too I just don't see this as a Civil Rights issue because there's to much gray area here.
I have another question. Do you think the Gay Marriage issue will favor the democratic party or the republican party in the upcoming elections?
