DescentBB

Yes, my position is unique, but you and others on this board just paint all opposition with one big brush.

How bout showing some fairness to both sides of the issue.

I sure as hell have you down flat on that one.

CUDA wrote:

subverting the previous separate state civil aspect of marriage

you mean like when the Government is now forcing churches to perform Gay marriages?? that kind of separate state??

You wanna give us something to back that up, chief?

Top Gun wrote:

CUDA wrote:

subverting the previous separate state civil aspect of marriage

you mean like when the Government is now forcing churches to perform Gay marriages?? that kind of separate state??

You wanna give us something to back that up, chief?

here ya go CHIEF!!

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/washingt ... penalties/

February 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State has signed into law a gay “marriage” bill that will force church-owned facilities to accommodate homosexual ceremonies.......Local religious leaders have been particularly alarmed about the bill because it will force facilities owned by churches that are regularly used for marriages to be offered to homosexual couples..

and here we are in Kansas about to do the same thing.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/propose ... -weddings/

CUDA wrote: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/02/washingt ... penalties/

February 13, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State has signed into law a gay “marriage” bill that will force church-owned facilities to accommodate homosexual ceremonies.......Local religious leaders have been particularly alarmed about the bill because it will force facilities owned by churches that are regularly used for marriages to be offered to homosexual couples..

That was in the proposed bill (and you're right, it's bizarre infringement on religious freedom), but it was not in the bill that actually passed. Take a look:

The article wrote:The version of the bill that passed dropped the qualification, allowing religious groups to retain marriage facilities for heterosexual unions.

Given the coverage about it, I would expect the same to happen in Kansas if it passes at all.

The way those articles are written seem to be a bit vague on whether religious denominations would be required to perform ceremonies for homosexuals, or whether it's a case of just requiring that stuff like publicly-rentable church halls accept rentals from people of any orientation. The former certainly wouldn't stand up to any legal challenge, and the latter probably wouldn't either, which is why I'd assume it was dropped in the final bill.

CUDA, I will agree with you that Churches and religious groups should NOT be required to perform gay marriages. If liberals think that they can force that issue, they're being absolutely stupid and subverting the whole issue. Like you've said, we do also have freedom of religion in this country and I do agree with that.

Spidey, the "nut fits into the bolt, but the bolt doesn't fit into the bolt" tired old saw that's used to deny gays the right to marry is the usual trash that bigots always throw out as their reason against it. Marriage is no longer about sex or procreation, but equal rights between 2 loving people. Not multiple people, not dogs and not children.

tunnelcat wrote:Marriage is no longer about sex or procreation,

Well, at least you admit that somebody has changed the definition of marriage……

And I pretty much agree with you, so with that being said…we should revoke all benefits given to married couples based on this obsolete definition.

So if it’s a celebration of love for the sole purpose of personal happiness, then so be it…lets start treating it as such.

Spidey wrote:...in this case I feel like the state is compelled to define marriage as the public dictates.

The public is the sanctioning body via the state.

I'm not sure I'm clear on this. Why do you think the state's legal/contractual definition of "marriage" has to conform to the populace's cultural/religious definition of "marriage"?

After all, my personal definition of my "home" (family, the people who I share my life with, where I'm loved) differs from the state's definition of my "home" (legal residence).

Well Foil, you can define your home any way you want, you can define it as “where you rest your hat” the state is compelled to define it as something that applies to everyone.

My reasoning regarding marriage is this…

In this country the power the state holds is based in the people.

Therefore the state is really just a proxy for the wishes of the majority.

And, I just want to make it clear I never said the state is compelled to enforce any religious definition of marriage.

......................

EDIT:

And I also want to add…the institution of marriage does not reside within the state, it resides within the society, and therefore the society has the right to dictate what marriage will or will not be.*

Is that clear?

*(at least in this country)

It is important to remember that the US is a Republic before it is a Democracy, specifically in order to avoid such a "tyranny of the majority".

No one is stopping gay people from starting their own institutions.

CUDA wrote:]you mean like when the Government is now forcing churches to perform Gay marriages?? that kind of separate state??

credible sourced examples, please?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:]you mean like when the Government is now forcing churches to perform Gay marriages?? that kind of separate state??

credible sourced examples, please?

Slick, CUDA cited two different examples. One in Washington (where the "fine churches who refuse to perform same-sex marriages" portion was later dropped), and one in Kansas (which is still pending, I believe). Are you asking for the links to the bill(s) themselves?

yup, and evidence that such rules were ever enforced even once. Otherwise, it becomes like the 'Sharia Law is accepted in US Courts" argument, which is to say, specious.

Jeff250 wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:@ Jeff

Sure. I wasn't speaking in terms of morality.

If your norm isn't speaking to morality, then I don't see why anyone should be normal.

If you don't see why anyone should be normal then you're basically in the same position as everyone defending homosexuality. It's not just a denial of God that enables them to push their agenda, it's a denial of healthy normality--of reality. If you can say, for instance, that a person can live a life without ever having a family and be just as happy and fulfilled as someone who has a family, then you are actually in denial of reality (aside from any considerations of intent). The reality is that a man and woman in a healthy family environment are so clearly fulfilled that it's plain to see it's what we were designed for, and it's so natural that humanity has been doing it for thousands of years (which really is a strong argument). To dispense with this understanding in order to entertain the claim that homosexuality is ok/normal/healthy is like taking a hammer to a screw and claiming that it works in all ways just as well as a drill. And you're just wrong until you start demanding that I acknowledge/accept that a hammer works just as well (which violates my sense of intellectual honesty), or start teaching my child that a hammer is an acceptable alternative and condemning him to a life of putting screws in with a hammer and having the result be considered acceptable, despite the otherwise obvious disadvantages. That's a fairly good analogy, except that in reality becoming a homosexual is a pit that one cannot easily climb out of, whereas anyone can put a hammer down and pickup a drill whenever they like, and that is why I am almost violently opposed specifically to the presentation of homosexuality as acceptable to undeveloped children. Then there is the the Bible's judgment on people who engage in homosexuality--eternal damnation separated from our creator.

The success of the homosexual agenda is a testament to the general gullibility of the masses as much as to the failure of society at large to value and hold various moral and common-sense standards against subtle subversion.

Man it's great to see someone spout out arguments without any rational basis to them whatsoever.

ST wrote:If you don't see why anyone should be normal then you're basically in the same position as everyone defending homosexuality.

Being normal can be bad. You don't want to be normal in Nazi Germany, for instance. Your argument that we should do something because it's normal isn't convincing. Being normal should have nothing to do with it.

ST wrote:If you can say, for instance, that a person can live a life without ever having a family and be just as happy and fulfilled as someone who has a family, then you are actually in denial of reality (aside from any considerations of intent).

I find this especially puzzling coming from a Christian, since Paul even says, "It is good to stay unmarried, as I do." I don't deny that raising a family is a good way to live life, but I do deny that it's the only good way to live life.

And in any case, gay couples raise families all the time.

Jeff, has anybody ever told you you could ★■◆● up a sure thing?

Jeff250 wrote:Being normal can be bad. You don't want to be normal in Nazi Germany, for instance. Your argument that we should do something because it's normal isn't convincing. Being normal should have nothing to do with it.

If you want an extreme example to clearly illustrate the kind of normal that I'm dealing with, go out and live on sunshine instead of eating and drinking. Or stop breathing. After all, being normal should have nothing to do with it, and eating, drinking, and breathing are as normal as it gets. I'm sure this sounds over the top, but it really isn't.

Also Paul said a lot more than that, and actually recommended that young widows remarry and have children.

I don't think by any stretch on the imagination tha Nazi Germany was considered normal. More like everybody going along for fear of reprisal. The bible has clearly defined how God feels about homosexuality. The same way he feels about liars, slanderers, cowards, thieves, and fornicators. It is unseemly behaviour that leads to huge social upheaval. This is how I feel about the homosexual. I don't care. It's their life and God's choice what He does with them. I treat them as any other and try not to think about the rest. Christians should not go about trying to define sin. It is clearly defined already and we are all susceptible and only the Holy Spirit should bring about conviction of conscience. He knows what He is doing

flip wrote:I don't think by any stretch on the imagination tha Nazi Germany was considered normal. More like everybody going along for fear of reprisal.

I believe that this is almost certainly closer to the truth. Funny that.

Love the boy! He rocks!

ST wrote:If you want an extreme example to clearly illustrate the kind of normal that I'm dealing with, go out and live on sunshine instead of eating and drinking. Or stop breathing. After all, being normal should have nothing to do with it, and eating, drinking, and breathing are as normal as it gets. I'm sure this sounds over the top, but it really isn't.

I'm not saying that some things we should do aren't normal. I'm saying it's a bad argument for why we should do things. If someone I knew did have an eating disorder, then my argument to them wouldn't be that they should eat more because it's normal. It would be because an eating disorder harms your physical health.

flip wrote:I don't think by any stretch on the imagination tha Nazi Germany was considered normal.

I guess you can quibble about that example, but do you think that there are no examples of times when something people shouldn't do was normal? What about today even?

Heh, I think it's normal that people do things they shouldn't do. It's why I hope for some kind of restoration. I firmly believe in a Creator and I firmly believe that my understanding and perception is limited. I would not try to define any human behaviour as normal, if you mean normal as being "correct." I think it is normal for people to react out of fear and panic, but it's not the best way to react. I think it's normal for people to lust after the opposite or same sex, but without constraint it leads to atrocity.

Let me stop here and make a point. I think it's an injustice to contrast humans and animals except maybe on a purely biological basis. We have far superceded all other species in our reasoning and emotions and I think any contrast made is insulting to both sides of the debate. That said, I think "ideal" behaviour takes a far-sighted view and assures no harm is done. Even years later. I, like you, am not sure "normal" is something that can really be defined, but I do think repercussions are obvious indicators.

This is a commentary by New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard, on Obama, marriage, the Constitution and federal and state law.

Obama, Same-Sex Marriage, and State Law

For the record, and to clear things up with Jeff250, I would not try to use "normal" as a lone qualifier in justifying behavior. However where normal over a long period of time is demonstrably also good/beneficial, and where specific deviations from that norm result in the loss of those aspects that are good/beneficial, it is useful to point it out, and that's what I'm doing.

There is no normal, only statistically significant types of group behavior. Society or social groups determine what they think is normal, usually to the detriment of their lesser members through forced conformity or banishment.

Homosexuality is not detrimental to the human race either. They're a relatively small percentage of the total of population, that even though they don't contribute to procreation, still contribute to society in other ways. Most of our best art, fashion and entertainment is from gay people.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:For the record, and to clear things up with Jeff250, I would not try to use "normal" as a lone qualifier in justifying behavior. However where normal over a long period of time is demonstrably also good/beneficial, and where specific deviations from that norm result in the loss of those aspects that are good/beneficial, it is useful to point it out, and that's what I'm doing.

You shouldn't use "normal" as any qualifier. If you think that someone living a gay lifestyle can't live a good life, then actually argue that point. Even if you're right and living a gay lifestyle is harmful, then the takeaway message would be that you shouldn't live a gay lifestyle because it's harmful, not because it's abnormal.

And here's the thing...if you're going to assert that a gay lifestyle is "harmful" in the legal sense, you're going to need to do so with hard evidence, i.e. peer-reviewed scientific studies. That's what's required to make the case for a "compelling state interest" in limiting the issuance of marriages to opposite-sex couples.

tunnelcat wrote:This is a commentary by New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Leonard, on Obama, marriage, the Constitution and federal and state law.

Obama, Same-Sex Marriage, and State Law

It would seem Obama is really gay after all:

They kind of worded that title wrong. Obama is married to a female last I heard.

OK, now I know where they got the headline. It was the morphing of a previous quote by Toni Morrison in reference to Bill Clinton.

Wikipedia-Bill Clinton wrote:In 1998, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison called Clinton "the first Black president".

tunnelcat wrote:They kind of worded that title wrong. Obama is married to a female last I heard.

Being married to a female doesn't mean he ain't gay...

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:They kind of worded that title wrong. Obama is married to a female last I heard.

Being married to a female doesn't mean he ain't gay...

That wink at the end of wood's comment means he's speaking from experience.

Isaac wrote:

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:They kind of worded that title wrong. Obama is married to a female last I heard.

Being married to a female doesn't mean he ain't gay...

That wink at the end of wood's comment means he's speaking from experience.

In a way, yeah. In college I dated a very attractive blond swedish girl who married a guy that she had 2 children with. One day I found out thru a mutual friend that she divorced the guy because he was gay. So there

If it wasn't for 3 things, I would be gay

My issue is that I think that people (not just gay people, but in general) identify too closely with their preferences, appearance, and habits. People on both sides tie rejection of actions with rejection of a person. Everyone does objectionable things, and at the same time everyone ought to be valued as a person. We call people gay and pedophiles and thieves and charismatic as if the words contained the sum total of their being, choosing to neglect the fact that it only represents a piece of the puzzle. On one hand, people mess up by treating others as if they were inferior, on the other hand, people mess up by acting like I have to accept people's "gayness" to be able to accept them as a fellow human being with equal status.

Perhaps there's a lesson in that for some people, Snoopy, but I think you project a degree of decency onto the gay "rights" movement that for the greater part is not there. They want what they do to be accepted. Therein lies the problem.

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:They kind of worded that title wrong. Obama is married to a female last I heard.

Being married to a female doesn't mean he ain't gay...

No, Obama ain't gay. If he were, he'd be so self-loathing that he'd be actively fighting against anything gay. Kinda like Ted Haggard. Preaching against it, while he was secretly doing it on the sly, or Larry Craig, passing laws against what he was secretly doing on the sly.

You've got it wrong ST. Gays aren't necessarily fighting for acceptance, they know certain people will always hate them and that's the way life is. What they want is freedom from PERSECUTION and BIGOTRY. There's a difference.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Perhaps there's a lesson in that for some people, Snoopy, but I think you project a degree of decency onto the gay "rights" movement that for the greater part is not there. They want what they do to be accepted. Therein lies the problem.

Yeah man, being accepted for the way you're wired is a really awful thing.

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Perhaps there's a lesson in that for some people, Snoopy, but I think you project a degree of decency onto the gay "rights" movement that for the greater part is not there. They want what they do to be accepted. Therein lies the problem.

Yeah man, being accepted for the way you're wired is a really awful thing.

Maybe in some cases accepting the way you're "wired" isn't such a good idea. However I was referring to action, which you changed into predisposition to accomplish your sarcasm. That kind of a twist is pretty blatant for someone of your intellectual standing, isn't it? I said they want what they DO to be accepted. I have sympathy for people who may have a certain disposition toward homosexuality, and I believe that there is help for it, but anyone should know that its pretty screwed up for a guy to go after another guy. It's something to be ashamed of. No one likes to live with shame... but when you start saying it's fine then you've got a whole new problem.

TunnelCat wrote:Gays aren't necessarily fighting for acceptance, they know certain people will always hate them and that's the way life is. What they want is freedom from PERSECUTION and BIGOTRY.

Where's that violin music coming from? Freedom from persecution is well and good, but when you say they know that people will "hate" them, but they want to be free from bigotry, that's a contradiction unless you devise a legal means to suppress the people who "hate" them. And don't ★■◆●ing redefine acceptance in the middle of the argument. They ARE fighting for acceptance.