Lulu2 wrote: He's stunned and speechless. (I rather LIKE it this way, don't you?)
:yh_rotfl lu-you def have a good sense of humor. right up my alley...........:wah:
Gay marriage
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
[QUOTE=Luckily, we no longer think it's a sin to or work on the sabbath
Just because you 'think' something wrong is no longer wrong, does not make it right. Not so long ago the Germans decided that mass murder was right but was it?
Just because you 'think' something wrong is no longer wrong, does not make it right. Not so long ago the Germans decided that mass murder was right but was it?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
woppy71 wrote:
Who are we "normal" people to question what other people get up to?
Because the normal majority set the norm for society. One might countenance the grotesque act of homosexuals is they kept their horrible relationships to each other but the emerging trend of trying to persuade the rest of the world that homosexuality is an equal alternative to heterosexuality is something that should be fought against.
Who are we "normal" people to question what other people get up to?
Because the normal majority set the norm for society. One might countenance the grotesque act of homosexuals is they kept their horrible relationships to each other but the emerging trend of trying to persuade the rest of the world that homosexuality is an equal alternative to heterosexuality is something that should be fought against.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: Just because you 'think' something wrong is no longer wrong, does not make it right. Not so long ago the Germans decided that mass murder was right but was it?
Well, William, what makes it wrong then? Is it a biblical thing? Is it the fact that butts are involved? What is it? I'm not trying to be funny here. And you don't have to explain yourself either. But I am inquiring.
Well, William, what makes it wrong then? Is it a biblical thing? Is it the fact that butts are involved? What is it? I'm not trying to be funny here. And you don't have to explain yourself either. But I am inquiring.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
RedGlitter wrote: Well, William, what makes it wrong then? Is it a biblical thing? Is it the fact that butts are involved? What is it? I'm not trying to be funny here. And you don't have to explain yourself either. But I am inquiring.
What makes it wrong is the fact that it is an unnatural act against which the human instinct rebels. It is not Biblical - although I believe the scriptures have something to say on the subject - and I don't see the connection with cigarette-ends.
What makes it wrong is the fact that it is an unnatural act against which the human instinct rebels. It is not Biblical - although I believe the scriptures have something to say on the subject - and I don't see the connection with cigarette-ends.
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: Because the normal majority set the norm for society. One might countenance the grotesque act of homosexuals is they kept their horrible relationships to each other but the emerging trend of trying to persuade the rest of the world that homosexuality is an equal alternative to heterosexuality is something that should be fought against.
I've always been somewhat of a nonconformist and have never accepted that majority rules thing in many instances. What's a normal majority and how was it decided they were normal? That's dangerous territory to let the mass do your thinking for you. I'm not for that at all.
I want to make it clear I'm not attacking you for your opinion because you haven't said anything I find offensive yet. I appreciate those who speak their mind even when their view is not considered politically or socially "correct." You have a right to think homosexuality is gross and horrible ,as does anyone else. For what it's worth, it's not something I often think about but when I see two women together it doesn't bother me much. I am only slightly uncomfortable. However when I see two men together, I am very uncomfortable and if they're being affectionate, I am grossed out. I have wondered why this is. I have said somewhere else on here that part of it is that I am used to seeing women show affection to people, we hug, we kiss, we touch. So seeing a woman be affectionate doesn't strike me as too odd and seeing them be more intimate only bothers me a little, but hey, I don't enjoy seeing *anyone* be overly affectionate in public anyway.
With men it could be because the US does not have a lot of shows of affection between men as other countries often do and I am not used to seeing it. However the main reason, is knowing what happens with men sexually. That disturbs me a lot. It disgusts me. I realize people are going to knee-jerk and maybe say it doesn't concern me what they do in private, et al, and that is true but I have a right to my feelings as does William. And *maybe* I can appreciate where William and people who share his opinion are coming from. I feel they have very right to be disturbed or disgusted by homosexuality regardless of what anyone else thinks about that.
However it should stop there. I don't think it's acceptable to force one's belief system onto another. Either way. I am tired of the parades and the rainbows (a symbol I love but can't use because someone may think I'm a lesbian) and the "in your face" presentation.
That said, Gays should not be denied housing, jobs, medical care, friends, social life or the basic human rights assigned to non-gays.
There is a big difference from being privately offended by gay people and holding the opinion that gayness is wrong...and being the hatred-filled nutcase waving the "GOD HATES FAGS" banner!
Lately it's been real popular to profess that gay people have every right to get married and adopt kids. While I agree with that, I know many don't for various reasons. Why is this wrong? It seems to me that gay-bashing has become a bad thing (which is good) but that bashing those people who don't support the fact of homosexuality is good. I think that's a bad thing.
I'm not talking about it being okay to discriminate against gays or about it being okay to drag one behind your pickup or otherwise cause harm to a person because they're gay. That's terrible. But I *am* saying that tolerance should work both ways.
Okay, let me hop into my flameproof suit....
I've always been somewhat of a nonconformist and have never accepted that majority rules thing in many instances. What's a normal majority and how was it decided they were normal? That's dangerous territory to let the mass do your thinking for you. I'm not for that at all.
I want to make it clear I'm not attacking you for your opinion because you haven't said anything I find offensive yet. I appreciate those who speak their mind even when their view is not considered politically or socially "correct." You have a right to think homosexuality is gross and horrible ,as does anyone else. For what it's worth, it's not something I often think about but when I see two women together it doesn't bother me much. I am only slightly uncomfortable. However when I see two men together, I am very uncomfortable and if they're being affectionate, I am grossed out. I have wondered why this is. I have said somewhere else on here that part of it is that I am used to seeing women show affection to people, we hug, we kiss, we touch. So seeing a woman be affectionate doesn't strike me as too odd and seeing them be more intimate only bothers me a little, but hey, I don't enjoy seeing *anyone* be overly affectionate in public anyway.
With men it could be because the US does not have a lot of shows of affection between men as other countries often do and I am not used to seeing it. However the main reason, is knowing what happens with men sexually. That disturbs me a lot. It disgusts me. I realize people are going to knee-jerk and maybe say it doesn't concern me what they do in private, et al, and that is true but I have a right to my feelings as does William. And *maybe* I can appreciate where William and people who share his opinion are coming from. I feel they have very right to be disturbed or disgusted by homosexuality regardless of what anyone else thinks about that.
However it should stop there. I don't think it's acceptable to force one's belief system onto another. Either way. I am tired of the parades and the rainbows (a symbol I love but can't use because someone may think I'm a lesbian) and the "in your face" presentation.
That said, Gays should not be denied housing, jobs, medical care, friends, social life or the basic human rights assigned to non-gays.
There is a big difference from being privately offended by gay people and holding the opinion that gayness is wrong...and being the hatred-filled nutcase waving the "GOD HATES FAGS" banner!
Lately it's been real popular to profess that gay people have every right to get married and adopt kids. While I agree with that, I know many don't for various reasons. Why is this wrong? It seems to me that gay-bashing has become a bad thing (which is good) but that bashing those people who don't support the fact of homosexuality is good. I think that's a bad thing.
I'm not talking about it being okay to discriminate against gays or about it being okay to drag one behind your pickup or otherwise cause harm to a person because they're gay. That's terrible. But I *am* saying that tolerance should work both ways.
Okay, let me hop into my flameproof suit....
-
RedGlitter
- Posts: 15777
- Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:51 am
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: What makes it wrong is the fact that it is an unnatural act against which the human instinct rebels. It is not Biblical - although I believe the scriptures have something to say on the subject - and I don't see the connection with cigarette-ends.
William, are you being humorous or serious? Forgive me. I was trying to be delicate about anal sex. :-3
Okay if I may argue further, obviously not all human instinct is rebelling. How do we address that? Why do we assume gay people are abnormal because of this, rather than just accepting that not all sexuality is the same?
And who said it was unnatural, if we're not talking about God?
Thank you for replying.
Edited to Add: One more question please. You say it's something we should fight against. Why? It can't "rub off" on our kids or on each other so it's not a contagious disease we must be afraid of. So why must we fight it instead of letting people be at peace?
William, are you being humorous or serious? Forgive me. I was trying to be delicate about anal sex. :-3
Okay if I may argue further, obviously not all human instinct is rebelling. How do we address that? Why do we assume gay people are abnormal because of this, rather than just accepting that not all sexuality is the same?
And who said it was unnatural, if we're not talking about God?
Thank you for replying.
Edited to Add: One more question please. You say it's something we should fight against. Why? It can't "rub off" on our kids or on each other so it's not a contagious disease we must be afraid of. So why must we fight it instead of letting people be at peace?
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
RedGlitter wrote: William, are you being humorous or serious? Forgive me. I was trying to be delicate about anal sex. :-3
Over here a butt is either a barrel or a cigarette end. What you are talking about is known as buggery.
Over here a butt is either a barrel or a cigarette end. What you are talking about is known as buggery.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
RedGlitter wrote: I was trying to be delicate about anal sex.
I should not have thought it was a subject that lent itself to delicacy.
I should not have thought it was a subject that lent itself to delicacy.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: What makes it wrong is the fact that it is an unnatural act against which the human instinct rebels.
please be more specific. wearing rayon is an unnatural act. driving a car is an unnatural act. whose human instinct rebels? clearly, the homosexual's instinct is quite the opposite. homosexuality has existed as long as civilization has existed.
It is not Biblical - although I believe the scriptures have something to say on the subject - and I don't see the connection with cigarette-ends.
scripture has much to say on many subjects, and quite a few of those things are abhorent to most people today, such as stoning adulterers to death, or sanctioning the owning slaves.
the test, as always, is one of harm. other than your sensibilities - which are irrelevant - what innocent person is harmed by two homosexuals committing to a life together?
attached is an anniversary announcement that ran in our local paper. my wife cut it out to show me. it's been here on my desk for months and months now, amongst all the other clutter, but i've not found a good reason to toss it. it's very sweet in my opinion. nobody is being harmed by their union.
Attached files
please be more specific. wearing rayon is an unnatural act. driving a car is an unnatural act. whose human instinct rebels? clearly, the homosexual's instinct is quite the opposite. homosexuality has existed as long as civilization has existed.
It is not Biblical - although I believe the scriptures have something to say on the subject - and I don't see the connection with cigarette-ends.
scripture has much to say on many subjects, and quite a few of those things are abhorent to most people today, such as stoning adulterers to death, or sanctioning the owning slaves.
the test, as always, is one of harm. other than your sensibilities - which are irrelevant - what innocent person is harmed by two homosexuals committing to a life together?
attached is an anniversary announcement that ran in our local paper. my wife cut it out to show me. it's been here on my desk for months and months now, amongst all the other clutter, but i've not found a good reason to toss it. it's very sweet in my opinion. nobody is being harmed by their union.
Attached files
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: please be more specific. wearing rayon is an unnatural act. driving a car is an unnatural act. whose human instinct rebels? clearly, the homosexual's instinct is quite the opposite. homosexuality has existed as long as civilization has existed. .
Is wearing rayon an unnatural act? Do the instincts rebel against it? I think not.
Homosexuality may well have existed since the dawn of time - not that I was there to bear witness to the fact - but so has theft, cannibalism, torture, child sex..........the list is endless. That does not make it right.
Is wearing rayon an unnatural act? Do the instincts rebel against it? I think not.
Homosexuality may well have existed since the dawn of time - not that I was there to bear witness to the fact - but so has theft, cannibalism, torture, child sex..........the list is endless. That does not make it right.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: scripture has much to say on many subjects, and quite a few of those things are abhorent to most people today, such as stoning adulterers to death, or sanctioning the owning slaves.
.
I thought I had made it clear that my arguement was not based on scriptural precepts. However, since you mention it, the Bible does indeed refer to stoning and slavery. I says they are wrong. (It is always a good idea in theological matters to weigh what is said in the Old Testament by reference to the New).
Even today, if you commit adultery in parts of the Middle East, you get stoned. In England we do it the other way round. First we get stoned and then we commit adultery........)
.
I thought I had made it clear that my arguement was not based on scriptural precepts. However, since you mention it, the Bible does indeed refer to stoning and slavery. I says they are wrong. (It is always a good idea in theological matters to weigh what is said in the Old Testament by reference to the New).
Even today, if you commit adultery in parts of the Middle East, you get stoned. In England we do it the other way round. First we get stoned and then we commit adultery........)
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: the test, as always, is one of harm. other than your sensibilities - which are irrelevant - what innocent person is harmed by two homosexuals committing to a life together?
attached is an anniversary announcement that ran in our local paper. my wife cut it .
The acid test is to ask yourself: If I had a son, would I want him to be homosexual, marry a black, etc. It is surprising how many closet liberals advocate one thing but draw back when it affects them personally.
attached is an anniversary announcement that ran in our local paper. my wife cut it .
The acid test is to ask yourself: If I had a son, would I want him to be homosexual, marry a black, etc. It is surprising how many closet liberals advocate one thing but draw back when it affects them personally.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: Is wearing rayon an unnatural act? Do the instincts rebel against it? I think not.
Homosexuality may well have existed since the dawn of time - not that I was there to bear witness to the fact - but so has theft, cannibalism, torture, child sex..........the list is endless. That does not make it right.It doesn't make it wrong, either.
What makes it wrong, William? You haven't addressed that. If you have, please give me a link, because I missed it.
Homosexuality may well have existed since the dawn of time - not that I was there to bear witness to the fact - but so has theft, cannibalism, torture, child sex..........the list is endless. That does not make it right.It doesn't make it wrong, either.
What makes it wrong, William? You haven't addressed that. If you have, please give me a link, because I missed it.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: The acid test is to ask yourself: If I had a son, would I want him to be homosexual, marry a black, etc. It is surprising how many closet liberals advocate one thing but draw back when it affects them personally.
Having a child with Downs Syndrome is a blessing. Generally, they are always happy and optimistic. With the slightest contact, they can brighten anybody's day. They are permanent children, God's little clowns. They are special.
If I had a son, would I want him to have Downs Syndrome? Not on your life, but that doesn't make me want to condemn them, either.
"marry a black"?? William, I just saw this little show of your claws. I'd be happy to discuss this in a different thread, if you have the balls.
Having a child with Downs Syndrome is a blessing. Generally, they are always happy and optimistic. With the slightest contact, they can brighten anybody's day. They are permanent children, God's little clowns. They are special.
If I had a son, would I want him to have Downs Syndrome? Not on your life, but that doesn't make me want to condemn them, either.
"marry a black"?? William, I just saw this little show of your claws. I'd be happy to discuss this in a different thread, if you have the balls.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
Accountable wrote: It doesn't make it wrong, either.
What makes it wrong, William? You haven't addressed that. If you have, please give me a link, because I missed it.
I was addressing your assertion that because it had been extant since the origin of man, it must be right.
What makes it wrong, William? You haven't addressed that. If you have, please give me a link, because I missed it.
I was addressing your assertion that because it had been extant since the origin of man, it must be right.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
Accountable wrote: Having a child with Downs Syndrome is a blessing. Generally, they are always happy and optimistic. With the slightest contact, they can brighten anybody's day. They are permanent children, God's little clowns. They are special.
If I had a son, would I want him to have Downs Syndrome? Not on your life, but that doesn't make me want to condemn them, either.
"marry a black"?? William, I just saw this little show of your claws. I'd be happy to discuss this in a different thread, if you have the balls.
I wasn't talking about condemnation but if I had been I would say it is the Downs syndrome that would be condemned, not the person suffering from it. In the same way it is homosexuality that is wrong, not necessarily the person who is born a homosexual. There is a difference.
The question of wanting your chldren to marry a black (or a homosexual, etc) is a very pertinent one. Many people claim to be advocates of racialm equality until it affects them personally. Nor is it a question of claws - the statement did not necessarily reflect an opinion.
You cannot get rid of racial equality (for example) by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist.
If I had a son, would I want him to have Downs Syndrome? Not on your life, but that doesn't make me want to condemn them, either.
"marry a black"?? William, I just saw this little show of your claws. I'd be happy to discuss this in a different thread, if you have the balls.
I wasn't talking about condemnation but if I had been I would say it is the Downs syndrome that would be condemned, not the person suffering from it. In the same way it is homosexuality that is wrong, not necessarily the person who is born a homosexual. There is a difference.
The question of wanting your chldren to marry a black (or a homosexual, etc) is a very pertinent one. Many people claim to be advocates of racialm equality until it affects them personally. Nor is it a question of claws - the statement did not necessarily reflect an opinion.
You cannot get rid of racial equality (for example) by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: I was addressing your assertion that because it had been extant since the origin of man, it must be right.I don't care what you were addressing. You said homosexuality is wrong; others asked why, more than once. You haven't answered that question, as far as I know. If I'm wrong, please give me a link. If not please address what makes homosexuality wrong.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
Accountable wrote: I don't care what you were addressing. You said homosexuality is wrong; others asked why, more than once. You haven't answered that question, as far as I know. If I'm wrong, please give me a link. If not please address what makes homosexuality wrong.
Because it is an offence against the sensibilities in the same way that eating excrement would be. If homosexuality was not wrong, we would not be discussing it.
Because it is an offence against the sensibilities in the same way that eating excrement would be. If homosexuality was not wrong, we would not be discussing it.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: Because it is an offence against the sensibilities in the same way that eating excrement would be. If homosexuality was not wrong, we would not be discussing it.We discuss lots of things, both pleasant and unpleasant. Eating excrement is disgusting for some, apparently not for others (yuck), but it's not illegal.
Try again.
Try again.
Gay marriage
SnoozeControl wrote: I would hope that most parents wish health and happiness to their children.
At last a whiff of sanity..:-6
At last a whiff of sanity..:-6
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
Accountable wrote: We discuss lots of things, both pleasant and unpleasant. Eating excrement is disgusting for some, apparently not for others (yuck), but it's not illegal.
Try again.
I doubt if there are many people for whom the ingestion of excrement would be desireable. Homosexuality is not illegal but as for the legality of the other, trying serving it up in a restaurant.
Try again.
I doubt if there are many people for whom the ingestion of excrement would be desireable. Homosexuality is not illegal but as for the legality of the other, trying serving it up in a restaurant.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
SnoozeControl wrote: I would hope that most parents wish health and happiness to their children.
I am sure they all do but that is not the issue. If homosexuality is on a par with normality as some in this discussion appear to believe, then presumably they would have no qualms about selecting homosexuality for their children, were such a thing possible.
I put it to you that none would for the reason that it would inhibit the chances of happiness - possibly health too - of their children in adult life.
I am sure they all do but that is not the issue. If homosexuality is on a par with normality as some in this discussion appear to believe, then presumably they would have no qualms about selecting homosexuality for their children, were such a thing possible.
I put it to you that none would for the reason that it would inhibit the chances of happiness - possibly health too - of their children in adult life.
Gay marriage
Accountable wrote: Which is why I think the gov't should erase all definition and reference of marriage from its books. It's not a legislative thing.
When I was working, there was a man I knew who was married and seemed very religious as he could not celebrate any sort of holiday. I think it was LDS. Anyway he told me more than once the government should have no say about marriage as in issuing licenses. I think the original intent of issuing marriage licenses was so you had to get a blood test to make sure you did not have any VD. Maybe to stop marriage of too closely related people, I dont know. But now I look back maybe the reason he was against mariiage licenses was because some branches of the LDS like Warren Jeffs group believed in polygamy and in marriage to underage children.
Here in Oklahoma they had a law when I first moved here that said no mixed marriages. One black man who was married to a white woman while in another state, wanted to divorce and the state would not grant a dicvorce as they said they did not recognize the marriage.
When I was working, there was a man I knew who was married and seemed very religious as he could not celebrate any sort of holiday. I think it was LDS. Anyway he told me more than once the government should have no say about marriage as in issuing licenses. I think the original intent of issuing marriage licenses was so you had to get a blood test to make sure you did not have any VD. Maybe to stop marriage of too closely related people, I dont know. But now I look back maybe the reason he was against mariiage licenses was because some branches of the LDS like Warren Jeffs group believed in polygamy and in marriage to underage children.
Here in Oklahoma they had a law when I first moved here that said no mixed marriages. One black man who was married to a white woman while in another state, wanted to divorce and the state would not grant a dicvorce as they said they did not recognize the marriage.
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: I am sure they all do but that is not the issue. If homosexuality is on a par with normality as some in this discussion appear to believe, then presumably they would have no qualms about selecting homosexuality for their children, were such a thing possible.
I put it to you that none would for the reason that it would inhibit the chances of happiness - possibly health too - of their children in adult life.
Homosexuality may not be the norm in this culture but there have been other cultures where it has been normal and even encouraged to be bisexual or homosexual. I lisited some examples earlier in this thread.
Human beings do not engage in sexual activity simply for reproductive reasons. They do it for a variety of reasons including the physical expression of loving feelings for another person. Homosexuality is a preference and probably has a number of causal factors possibly including genetics. I doubt it is a concious or moral decison any more than heterosexual desire. I really could care less what the Bible , Qu'ran or any other old scriptures have to say about it. You are making a moral judgement William and using a book full of conflicting moral judgements to back up your claims.
I have two boys .I tell you in all sincerity I don't care whether they are homosexual, interracially marry or are asexual as long as they are decent and loving human beings. That is my only goal for them.
I put it to you that none would for the reason that it would inhibit the chances of happiness - possibly health too - of their children in adult life.
Homosexuality may not be the norm in this culture but there have been other cultures where it has been normal and even encouraged to be bisexual or homosexual. I lisited some examples earlier in this thread.
Human beings do not engage in sexual activity simply for reproductive reasons. They do it for a variety of reasons including the physical expression of loving feelings for another person. Homosexuality is a preference and probably has a number of causal factors possibly including genetics. I doubt it is a concious or moral decison any more than heterosexual desire. I really could care less what the Bible , Qu'ran or any other old scriptures have to say about it. You are making a moral judgement William and using a book full of conflicting moral judgements to back up your claims.
I have two boys .I tell you in all sincerity I don't care whether they are homosexual, interracially marry or are asexual as long as they are decent and loving human beings. That is my only goal for them.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Gay marriage
the trouble with these long posts is I can never be bothered to read all the pages, so hope no-one else has made a similar point.
Me and my pal Sally are considering getting married when we've both become widows - hopefully not for another 20 years or so. It's common sense for a couple of widows to share a house, but if there's a means of some sort of civil contract to ensure security of the one remaining should one person die, why not enter into it. There will be no sex involved - she's not my type.
there are a pair of elderly sisters in the UK fighting a case about inheritance tax on their family home should one of them die, as they say the law is prejudiced in favour of homosexuals.
And in this overpopulated world, homosexuals are doing the rest of us a favour if they don't reproduce and place further strain on scarce resources.
Me and my pal Sally are considering getting married when we've both become widows - hopefully not for another 20 years or so. It's common sense for a couple of widows to share a house, but if there's a means of some sort of civil contract to ensure security of the one remaining should one person die, why not enter into it. There will be no sex involved - she's not my type.
there are a pair of elderly sisters in the UK fighting a case about inheritance tax on their family home should one of them die, as they say the law is prejudiced in favour of homosexuals.
And in this overpopulated world, homosexuals are doing the rest of us a favour if they don't reproduce and place further strain on scarce resources.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
Okie wrote: When I was working, there was a man I knew who was married and seemed very religious as he could not celebrate any sort of holiday. I think it was LDS. Anyway he told me more than once the government should have no say about marriage as in issuing licenses. I think the original intent of issuing marriage licenses was so you had to get a blood test to make sure you did not have any VD. Maybe to stop marriage of too closely related people, I dont know. But now I look back maybe the reason he was against mariiage licenses was because some branches of the LDS like Warren Jeffs group believed in polygamy and in marriage to underage children.
Here in Oklahoma they had a law when I first moved here that said no mixed marriages. One black man who was married to a white woman while in another state, wanted to divorce and the state would not grant a dicvorce as they said they did not recognize the marriage.
I didn't know you needed a blood test to get a marriage licence. As for polygamy, any man who wants more than one wife (at the same time) wants his head examining.
The age of consent is an interesting question. In Britain it is (I think) 16 and it is probably the same in most parts of the civilised world. Yet it was not always so. The age of the heroine in the world's best-known love story was 13 - and she was pressed to marry because her contemporaries had been married for more than a year and had children. I believe the second wife of Richard II was about the same age.
Here in Oklahoma they had a law when I first moved here that said no mixed marriages. One black man who was married to a white woman while in another state, wanted to divorce and the state would not grant a dicvorce as they said they did not recognize the marriage.
I didn't know you needed a blood test to get a marriage licence. As for polygamy, any man who wants more than one wife (at the same time) wants his head examining.
The age of consent is an interesting question. In Britain it is (I think) 16 and it is probably the same in most parts of the civilised world. Yet it was not always so. The age of the heroine in the world's best-known love story was 13 - and she was pressed to marry because her contemporaries had been married for more than a year and had children. I believe the second wife of Richard II was about the same age.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
[QUOTE=Tigerlily]Me and my pal Sally are considering getting married when we've both become widows - hopefully not for another 20 years or so. It's common sense for a couple of widows to share a house, but if there's a means of some sort of civil contract to ensure security of the one remaining should one person die, why not enter into it. There will be no sex involved - she's not my type.
But why go through the formality of a wedding? Why not just share the house?
But why go through the formality of a wedding? Why not just share the house?
Gay marriage
RedGlitter wrote: I've always been somewhat of a nonconformist and have never accepted that majority rules thing in many instances. What's a normal majority and how was it decided they were normal? That's dangerous territory to let the mass do your thinking for you. I'm not for that at all.
I want to make it clear I'm not attacking you for your opinion because you haven't said anything I find offensive yet. I appreciate those who speak their mind even when their view is not considered politically or socially "correct." You have a right to think homosexuality is gross and horrible ,as does anyone else. For what it's worth, it's not something I often think about but when I see two women together it doesn't bother me much. I am only slightly uncomfortable. However when I see two men together, I am very uncomfortable and if they're being affectionate, I am grossed out. I have wondered why this is. I have said somewhere else on here that part of it is that I am used to seeing women show affection to people, we hug, we kiss, we touch. So seeing a woman be affectionate doesn't strike me as too odd and seeing them be more intimate only bothers me a little, but hey, I don't enjoy seeing *anyone* be overly affectionate in public anyway.
With men it could be because the US does not have a lot of shows of affection between men as other countries often do and I am not used to seeing it. However the main reason, is knowing what happens with men sexually. That disturbs me a lot. It disgusts me. I realize people are going to knee-jerk and maybe say it doesn't concern me what they do in private, et al, and that is true but I have a right to my feelings as does William. And *maybe* I can appreciate where William and people who share his opinion are coming from. I feel they have very right to be disturbed or disgusted by homosexuality regardless of what anyone else thinks about that.
However it should stop there. I don't think it's acceptable to force one's belief system onto another. Either way. I am tired of the parades and the rainbows (a symbol I love but can't use because someone may think I'm a lesbian) and the "in your face" presentation.
That said, Gays should not be denied housing, jobs, medical care, friends, social life or the basic human rights assigned to non-gays.
There is a big difference from being privately offended by gay people and holding the opinion that gayness is wrong...and being the hatred-filled nutcase waving the "GOD HATES FAGS" banner!
Lately it's been real popular to profess that gay people have every right to get married and adopt kids. While I agree with that, I know many don't for various reasons. Why is this wrong? It seems to me that gay-bashing has become a bad thing (which is good) but that bashing those people who don't support the fact of homosexuality is good. I think that's a bad thing.
I'm not talking about it being okay to discriminate against gays or about it being okay to drag one behind your pickup or otherwise cause harm to a person because they're gay. That's terrible. But I *am* saying that tolerance should work both ways.
Okay, let me hop into my flameproof suit....
I think you put it very well. While I am not gay, I know some people who are gay and most are very bright and talented. I cannot understand how they can feel as they do about other people of the same sex but its apparent they really do so who am I to say its wrong. I hate for people to use the arguement that the Bible says it is wrong. Men wrote the Bible and men write laws and rules and often men are wrong. When the bible is used to write laws that is wrong. There are people here who pay taxes and do not believe in our Bible but do bleieve strongly there is a power over us all. Some people here do not believe in any God at all. But they have to abide by our laws and pay our taxes. I know people say this nation was founded by people who believe in our God and that most people here believe in our God but I do not feel everyone should have to believe in our God if they do not wish to.
I want to make it clear I'm not attacking you for your opinion because you haven't said anything I find offensive yet. I appreciate those who speak their mind even when their view is not considered politically or socially "correct." You have a right to think homosexuality is gross and horrible ,as does anyone else. For what it's worth, it's not something I often think about but when I see two women together it doesn't bother me much. I am only slightly uncomfortable. However when I see two men together, I am very uncomfortable and if they're being affectionate, I am grossed out. I have wondered why this is. I have said somewhere else on here that part of it is that I am used to seeing women show affection to people, we hug, we kiss, we touch. So seeing a woman be affectionate doesn't strike me as too odd and seeing them be more intimate only bothers me a little, but hey, I don't enjoy seeing *anyone* be overly affectionate in public anyway.
With men it could be because the US does not have a lot of shows of affection between men as other countries often do and I am not used to seeing it. However the main reason, is knowing what happens with men sexually. That disturbs me a lot. It disgusts me. I realize people are going to knee-jerk and maybe say it doesn't concern me what they do in private, et al, and that is true but I have a right to my feelings as does William. And *maybe* I can appreciate where William and people who share his opinion are coming from. I feel they have very right to be disturbed or disgusted by homosexuality regardless of what anyone else thinks about that.
However it should stop there. I don't think it's acceptable to force one's belief system onto another. Either way. I am tired of the parades and the rainbows (a symbol I love but can't use because someone may think I'm a lesbian) and the "in your face" presentation.
That said, Gays should not be denied housing, jobs, medical care, friends, social life or the basic human rights assigned to non-gays.
There is a big difference from being privately offended by gay people and holding the opinion that gayness is wrong...and being the hatred-filled nutcase waving the "GOD HATES FAGS" banner!
Lately it's been real popular to profess that gay people have every right to get married and adopt kids. While I agree with that, I know many don't for various reasons. Why is this wrong? It seems to me that gay-bashing has become a bad thing (which is good) but that bashing those people who don't support the fact of homosexuality is good. I think that's a bad thing.
I'm not talking about it being okay to discriminate against gays or about it being okay to drag one behind your pickup or otherwise cause harm to a person because they're gay. That's terrible. But I *am* saying that tolerance should work both ways.
Okay, let me hop into my flameproof suit....
I think you put it very well. While I am not gay, I know some people who are gay and most are very bright and talented. I cannot understand how they can feel as they do about other people of the same sex but its apparent they really do so who am I to say its wrong. I hate for people to use the arguement that the Bible says it is wrong. Men wrote the Bible and men write laws and rules and often men are wrong. When the bible is used to write laws that is wrong. There are people here who pay taxes and do not believe in our Bible but do bleieve strongly there is a power over us all. Some people here do not believe in any God at all. But they have to abide by our laws and pay our taxes. I know people say this nation was founded by people who believe in our God and that most people here believe in our God but I do not feel everyone should have to believe in our God if they do not wish to.
Gay marriage
why not let happy ,loving gay partners adopt? look at the track record in the usa now. broken homes. latch key kids. drugs, alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy, incest.............it;s not like the heterosexuals got it right by any means.
point is, people point fingers and judge others when as a whole , there are problems far greater than who we choose to love as adults.
point is, people point fingers and judge others when as a whole , there are problems far greater than who we choose to love as adults.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: Is wearing rayon an unnatural act? Do the instincts rebel against it? I think not.
in your own words, "Just because you 'think' something wrong is no longer wrong, does not make it right." i find the wearing of rayon to be abhorent.
Homosexuality may well have existed since the dawn of time - not that I was there to bear witness to the fact - but so has theft, cannibalism, torture, child sex..........the list is endless. That does not make it right.
again, you ignore the test of harm. i guess when there's one test that makes your argument fall apart, it generally is best to ignore it.
in your own words, "Just because you 'think' something wrong is no longer wrong, does not make it right." i find the wearing of rayon to be abhorent.
Homosexuality may well have existed since the dawn of time - not that I was there to bear witness to the fact - but so has theft, cannibalism, torture, child sex..........the list is endless. That does not make it right.
again, you ignore the test of harm. i guess when there's one test that makes your argument fall apart, it generally is best to ignore it.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: The acid test is to ask yourself: If I had a son, would I want him to be homosexual, marry a black, etc. It is surprising how many closet liberals advocate one thing but draw back when it affects them personally.
no, as i keep pointing out, the acid test is harm. but keep trying.
no, as i keep pointing out, the acid test is harm. but keep trying.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: Because it is an offence against the sensibilities in the same way that eating excrement would be. If homosexuality was not wrong, we would not be discussing it.
again, by all means - i recommend that you do not enter into a homosexual relationship, or eat excrement. by all means! what either has to do with you however i have yet to see a clear explanation. that it offends your sensibilities is immaterial. as i said, i find the wearing of rayon to be abhorrent. i have no desire to interfere with anyone elses wearing of rayon, nor have i any desire to ban the wearing of rayon. if wearing rayon trips your trigger, it doesn't hurt me, or anyone else, so go for it. i may quietly recoil if someone wearing rayon brushes up against me, but that is far from causing harm.
again, by all means - i recommend that you do not enter into a homosexual relationship, or eat excrement. by all means! what either has to do with you however i have yet to see a clear explanation. that it offends your sensibilities is immaterial. as i said, i find the wearing of rayon to be abhorrent. i have no desire to interfere with anyone elses wearing of rayon, nor have i any desire to ban the wearing of rayon. if wearing rayon trips your trigger, it doesn't hurt me, or anyone else, so go for it. i may quietly recoil if someone wearing rayon brushes up against me, but that is far from causing harm.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
Gay marriage
Pointing out (ONCE AGAIN) that ample evidence of same-sex relationships exist in many other species, including our nearest genetic relatives, the bonobos. It is NOT ''unnatural''...in fact, it seems to be as natural as nature.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
Okie wrote: I think you put it very well. While I am not gay, I know some people who are gay and most are very bright and talented. I cannot understand how they can feel as they do about other people of the same sex but its apparent they really do so who am I to say its wrong. I hate for people to use the arguement that the Bible says it is wrong. Men wrote the Bible and men write laws and rules and often men are wrong. When the bible is used to write laws that is wrong. There are people here who pay taxes and do not believe in our Bible but do bleieve strongly there is a power over us all. Some people here do not believe in any God at all. But they have to abide by our laws and pay our taxes. I know people say this nation was founded by people who believe in our God and that most people here believe in our God but I do not feel everyone should have to believe in our God if they do not wish to.
I don't see the point you are trying to make. I don't think anyone in this debate has attacked homosexuality from the standpoint of scriptures alone. I don't uinderstand the connection between paying taxes and believing in God. Taxes are paid to maintain services that require a subsidy but are available to believer and non-believer alike.
The men who wrote the Bible and those who enact laws are generally men of high education and experience and whilst they may get things wrong, the probability is that they will get less things wrong than the rest of us.
I don't see the point you are trying to make. I don't think anyone in this debate has attacked homosexuality from the standpoint of scriptures alone. I don't uinderstand the connection between paying taxes and believing in God. Taxes are paid to maintain services that require a subsidy but are available to believer and non-believer alike.
The men who wrote the Bible and those who enact laws are generally men of high education and experience and whilst they may get things wrong, the probability is that they will get less things wrong than the rest of us.
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
Lulu2 wrote: Pointing out (ONCE AGAIN) that ample evidence of same-sex relationships exist in many other species, including our nearest genetic relatives, the bonobos. It is NOT ''unnatural''...in fact, it seems to be as natural as nature.
What animals get up to is immaterial (although I am told you are overstating your case) since we are of a higher order.
What animals get up to is immaterial (although I am told you are overstating your case) since we are of a higher order.
Gay marriage
The men who wrote the bible were highly educated? I see? And from which university did they graduate? Aren't they the ones who told the little tale about Noah? Noah....the guy who collected, kept safe and then returned all those interesting Australian animals?
And by whose terms are we a "higher order?" We're part of the Family Hominidae, as a matter of fact.
And by whose terms are we a "higher order?" We're part of the Family Hominidae, as a matter of fact.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: in your own words, "Just because you 'think' something wrong is no longer wrong, does not make it right." i find the wearing of rayon to be abhorent.
Your dislike of rayon as an idividual does not make rayon-wearing wrong. If, on the other hand, an overwhelming proportion found the wearing of rayon istinctively repugnant then it would be a different matter.
again, you ignore the test of harm. i guess when there's one test that makes your argument fall apart, it generally is best to ignore it.
It does an extraordinary amount of harm because to place a homosexual relationship on an equal footing with marriage (and I do not recognise the validity of homosexual 'marriages') weakens the estate of marriage and brings it down to the level of an ordinary relationship. Thus it loses its sanctity.
Your dislike of rayon as an idividual does not make rayon-wearing wrong. If, on the other hand, an overwhelming proportion found the wearing of rayon istinctively repugnant then it would be a different matter.
again, you ignore the test of harm. i guess when there's one test that makes your argument fall apart, it generally is best to ignore it.
It does an extraordinary amount of harm because to place a homosexual relationship on an equal footing with marriage (and I do not recognise the validity of homosexual 'marriages') weakens the estate of marriage and brings it down to the level of an ordinary relationship. Thus it loses its sanctity.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote:
It does an extraordinary amount of harm because to place a homosexual relationship on an equal footing with marriage (and I do not recognise the validity of homosexual 'marriages') weakens the estate of marriage and brings it down to the level of an ordinary relationship. Thus it loses its sanctity.
how are you harmed by that?
It does an extraordinary amount of harm because to place a homosexual relationship on an equal footing with marriage (and I do not recognise the validity of homosexual 'marriages') weakens the estate of marriage and brings it down to the level of an ordinary relationship. Thus it loses its sanctity.
how are you harmed by that?
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
Lulu2 wrote: The men who wrote the bible were highly educated? I see? And from which university did they graduate? Aren't they the ones who told the little tale about Noah? Noah....the guy who collected, kept safe and then returned all those interesting Australian animals?
And by whose terms are we a "higher order?" We're part of the Family Hominidae, as a matter of fact.
I doubt if you would understand the answer, so there is little point my offering one.
And by whose terms are we a "higher order?" We're part of the Family Hominidae, as a matter of fact.
I doubt if you would understand the answer, so there is little point my offering one.
Gay marriage
Yes, not being of "a higher order," I suppose not! :wah:
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: how are you harmed by that?
It harms society as a whole. The causes of much of what you see around you - as someone else has pointed out - has been due to the erosion of the marriage balance and the last thing society needs now is something that weakens the estate further.
It harms society as a whole. The causes of much of what you see around you - as someone else has pointed out - has been due to the erosion of the marriage balance and the last thing society needs now is something that weakens the estate further.
Gay marriage
In answer to William Ess - security. For the same reason I married my husband once I was pregnant with our child - to ensure my rights, and my child's, should anything happen to him, so his daughters by his first marriage would have no claim on our house.
It's outrageous how people behave when there's a death, and there's property involved. You need to take every precaution, especially when you're old.
It's outrageous how people behave when there's a death, and there's property involved. You need to take every precaution, especially when you're old.
Gay marriage
Yes...the stories of long-time partners who were shoved aside by (formerly) estranged relatives who came to pick the bones of the deceased are legendary. Even with careful estate planning, some "rights" are conferred only through legal partnership.
My candle's burning at both ends, it will not last the night. But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!--Edna St. Vincent Millay
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
William, you seem to have some chronic problems with quoting correctly. in your last post, the following text appeared:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anastrophe
Your dislike of rayon as an idividual does not make rayon-wearing wrong. If, on the other hand, an overwhelming proportion found the wearing of rayon istinctively repugnant then it would be a different matter.
again, you ignore the test of harm. i guess when there's one test that makes your argument fall apart, it generally is best to ignore it.
i'm quite sure i didn't write the portion beginning "Your dislike of rayon", though i did write the last paragraph.
when quoting others, you can break apart sections of the quotes by simply embracing portions within the quote tags. because the software will interpret them as actual quotes, i'm reproducing the tags with spaces between each character -
[ q u o t e=p a u l ]
my name is paul
[ / q u o t e]
please use more care when quoting, as it does real harm to the converstation when people are either misquoted, or text they didn't write is suggested to be a quote.
i would generally recommend using the enhanced editor, which can be configured in settings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anastrophe
Your dislike of rayon as an idividual does not make rayon-wearing wrong. If, on the other hand, an overwhelming proportion found the wearing of rayon istinctively repugnant then it would be a different matter.
again, you ignore the test of harm. i guess when there's one test that makes your argument fall apart, it generally is best to ignore it.
i'm quite sure i didn't write the portion beginning "Your dislike of rayon", though i did write the last paragraph.
when quoting others, you can break apart sections of the quotes by simply embracing portions within the quote tags. because the software will interpret them as actual quotes, i'm reproducing the tags with spaces between each character -
[ q u o t e=p a u l ]
my name is paul
[ / q u o t e]
please use more care when quoting, as it does real harm to the converstation when people are either misquoted, or text they didn't write is suggested to be a quote.
i would generally recommend using the enhanced editor, which can be configured in settings.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
anastrophe wrote: William, you seem to have some chronic problems with quoting correctly. in your last post, the following text appeared:
Quote:
Originally Posted by anastrophe
Your dislike of rayon as an idividual does not make rayon-wearing wrong. If, on the other hand, an overwhelming proportion found the wearing of rayon istinctively repugnant then it would be a different matter.
again, you ignore the test of harm. i guess when there's one test that makes your argument fall apart, it generally is best to ignore it.
i'm quite sure i didn't write the portion beginning "Your dislike of rayon", though i did write the last paragraph.
when quoting others, you can break apart sections of the quotes by simply embracing portions within the quote tags. because the software will interpret them as actual quotes, i'm reproducing the tags with spaces between each character -
[ q u o t e=p a u l ]
my name is paul
[ / q u o t e]
please use more care when quoting, as it does real harm to the converstation when people are either misquoted, or text they didn't write is suggested to be a quote.
i would generally recommend using the enhanced editor, which can be configured in settings.
Sorry. I can be a little hamfisted with a keyboard at times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anastrophe
Your dislike of rayon as an idividual does not make rayon-wearing wrong. If, on the other hand, an overwhelming proportion found the wearing of rayon istinctively repugnant then it would be a different matter.
again, you ignore the test of harm. i guess when there's one test that makes your argument fall apart, it generally is best to ignore it.
i'm quite sure i didn't write the portion beginning "Your dislike of rayon", though i did write the last paragraph.
when quoting others, you can break apart sections of the quotes by simply embracing portions within the quote tags. because the software will interpret them as actual quotes, i'm reproducing the tags with spaces between each character -
[ q u o t e=p a u l ]
my name is paul
[ / q u o t e]
please use more care when quoting, as it does real harm to the converstation when people are either misquoted, or text they didn't write is suggested to be a quote.
i would generally recommend using the enhanced editor, which can be configured in settings.
Sorry. I can be a little hamfisted with a keyboard at times.
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: It harms society as a whole. The causes of much of what you see around you - as someone else has pointed out - has been due to the erosion of the marriage balance and the last thing society needs now is something that weakens the estate further.
heterosexuals have screwed up the sanctity of marraige quite fully. if heterosexuals can't seem to get it right, who are they to suggest that homosexuals won't be able to?
as has been hashed out endlessly, marraige is two things, in the modern world: it is a spiritual union consecrated by faith, and it is a contractual matter arbitrated by the state. the two things bear no connection. none. as long as the state maintains the fiction that a piece of paper imprinted with names on it somehow sanctifies a union - rather than being of equivalent value to a deed to four square centimeters of the moon's surface - then this matter will continue to be pounded upon as a matter of public policy. the problem can be neatly - and properly - corrected by making *all* unions as codified by the goverment, Civil Unions. the government does not consecrate marraiges. so they should stop pretending that they do. *nobody* gets a marriage "license".
those who wish to have their union acknowledged before god and their peers, may continue to do so. those churches that do not recognize homosexual unions as valid will always be free to reject consecrating such unions. those churches that believe their god does sanctify unions between those of the same sex, may will always be free to consecrate such unions. in either case, if two people wish to enter into a contract as recognized by the government, for purposes of clarifying management of estates, taxes, hospital visitation, etc, then they may do so.
heterosexuals have screwed up the sanctity of marraige quite fully. if heterosexuals can't seem to get it right, who are they to suggest that homosexuals won't be able to?
as has been hashed out endlessly, marraige is two things, in the modern world: it is a spiritual union consecrated by faith, and it is a contractual matter arbitrated by the state. the two things bear no connection. none. as long as the state maintains the fiction that a piece of paper imprinted with names on it somehow sanctifies a union - rather than being of equivalent value to a deed to four square centimeters of the moon's surface - then this matter will continue to be pounded upon as a matter of public policy. the problem can be neatly - and properly - corrected by making *all* unions as codified by the goverment, Civil Unions. the government does not consecrate marraiges. so they should stop pretending that they do. *nobody* gets a marriage "license".
those who wish to have their union acknowledged before god and their peers, may continue to do so. those churches that do not recognize homosexual unions as valid will always be free to reject consecrating such unions. those churches that believe their god does sanctify unions between those of the same sex, may will always be free to consecrate such unions. in either case, if two people wish to enter into a contract as recognized by the government, for purposes of clarifying management of estates, taxes, hospital visitation, etc, then they may do so.
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
anastrophe
- Posts: 3135
- Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 12:00 pm
Gay marriage
William Ess wrote: Sorry. I can be a little hamfisted with a keyboard at times.
i'd like to make it clear that that post was meant entirely in a helpful vein, aside from whatever differences we express here or elsewhere!
i'd like to make it clear that that post was meant entirely in a helpful vein, aside from whatever differences we express here or elsewhere!
[FONT=Franklin Gothic Medium][/FONT]
-
William Ess
- Posts: 339
- Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:15 am
Gay marriage
[QUOTE=anastrophe]heterosexuals have screwed up the sanctity of marraige quite fully. if heterosexuals can't seem to get it right, who are they to suggest that homosexuals won't be able to?
It is not heterosexuality that has weakened marriage but other influences. There has been a tendency since the middle 1960's to debunk the various elements that had held society together. Unfortunately in ridiculing these things out of existence, no-one gave any thought to their replacement.
It is not heterosexuality that has weakened marriage but other influences. There has been a tendency since the middle 1960's to debunk the various elements that had held society together. Unfortunately in ridiculing these things out of existence, no-one gave any thought to their replacement.