Honestly, what's the big deal about Gay Marriage?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/09/2004 08:14:57 PM · #376

Other then religion is there a valid argument against it?
All I've heard was:
It's just wrong
It'll ruin the sanctity of marrage
and religous reasons.

Not much of an argument for a constitutional ammendment...

03/09/2004 08:22:58 PM · #377

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
So, yes, you are correct. The bible said that, at one time, slavery was OK. But not since Christ arrived.

Ron

So our country was founded by anti-Christian heathens, who ruthlessly exploited the abomination of slavery for hundreds of years to create much of the wealth (and concommitant misery) we have today. Much the position taken by John Brown, as I recall.

I'm so glad to finally be able to cite the Bible to support one of my positions ... and look forward your demanding reparations from the Scions of the South to our sinned-against African-American brothers and sisters ....

No, actually I believe that they were neither anti-Christian nor heathens. They were just mis-guided sinners trying to make life easier for themselves at someone else's expense. ( rather like modern day CEO's ). They were just doing what seemed right in their own eyes, and in the eyes of their neighbors. Sort of like we are doing today.

What position of yours are you now able to quote the bible to support?

If reparations are to be made, then someone will have to figure out how to determine who all the slaves were, where in Africa they came from, what occupation they held when they lived there, how much land they owned, etc., what their net worth would have been had they remained in Africa adjusted for inflation, war, drought, etc., what plantation those slaves worked on, how long they worked there * a decent rate of pay, add compensation for pain and suffering, treble damanges, and then find the descendents of that plantation owner and make them pay reparations for each slave ( if they can afford to ), apportioned amongst his/her descendants. I could support that.

Ron

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/09/2004 08:31:43 PM · #378

I'll have to chew on the difference between "misguided sinner" and infidel for a while ... I was referring to your opinion that slavery was never "legal" according the Church (Anno Domini), and rather thought that it also referred somewhere to justice for the aggrieved and atonement for the sinner. Your view on reparations are not too unreasonable. It would be a monumental, but not impossible research and calculating job, par of which has already been done. Or we can just use the method CORPORATIONS get to use -- register for the class-action and everyone gets a coupon good for $10 off their next purchase/bill ... to turn around the old catch-phrase, maybe "what's good (enough) for General Motors is good for the country."

03/09/2004 08:34:29 PM · #379

Originally posted by Gaia:

Ron,
by "consenting" I mean not forced. Both must be willing to make the commitment and willing to take the responsibilities as well as the benefits.

Oh, you mean like when my 14-year old daughter said "If you get me a kitten I PROMISE that I'll feed it every day, make sure that it always has fresh water, and I'll clean the litter box every other day". You mean THAT kind of "commitment"? The kind with "responsibilities as well as benefits". I didn't FORCE her to get a kitten. She indicated that she was perfectly "willing" to make that "commitment".
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it with yours truly ( though I did get her the kitten, just the same ).

Ron

P.S. She actually DID carry out her responsibilities - about half the time.

03/09/2004 08:44:33 PM · #380

Originally posted by louddog:

Then you didn't read this ( from a prior post ):

"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has."

The full article ( The End of Marriage in Scandinavia ) is HERE

Mind you, I agree wholeheartedly that it's not much of an argument for a Constitutional Amendment. Heck, here in Florida the people voted to amend our state constitution to establish the proper treatment of pregnant sows. I didn't think that that was worthy of a constitutional amendment either. But the majority did, so it is.

Ron

sylandrix

Nikon D50

03/09/2004 11:11:47 PM · #381

Isn't it funny how we had so many rebuttals posted on this shaky article and yet its still coming up. Like talking to a wall...

Originally posted by RonB:

"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has."

03/09/2004 11:39:52 PM · #382

Originally posted by sylandrix:

Isn't it funny how we had so many rebuttals posted on this shaky article and yet its still coming up. Like talking to a wall...

Originally posted by RonB:

"MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has."

Your "so many" is actually TWO, both by the same person. One of the rebuttals said "...why should I trust an American paper reporting on a foreign issue, let alone one that carries such an obvious slant to the right?" and the other said "Seriously, why should I trust that article? How is not trusting an unverified, potentially biased source intolerant? What am I not tolerating, specifically?"
Both of the "so many" rebuttals decried the SOURCE of the article, but neither rebutted the CONTENT of the article, which, admittedly, is more difficult.
I repeated it here in response to someone who asked for an argument that did not just say "it's just wrong", "it'll ruin the sanctity of marriage", or use "religious reasons". I thought that this article filled those requirements. I presumed that the questioner had not read this entire thread, so might not have seen it before. Since you have, you may ignore it. BTW, "Shaky" is in the eye of the beholder, but thanks for your editorial opinion. You will notice that I did not offer an opinion one way or the other, but left judgement up to the reader.

Ron

03/09/2004 11:48:53 PM · #383

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'll have to chew on the difference between "misguided sinner" and infidel for a while

"infidel" is "them"
"misguided sinner" is "us"
HTH :)

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/10/2004 01:16:40 AM · #384

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'll have to chew on the difference between "misguided sinner" and infidel for a while

"infidel" is "them"
"misguided sinner" is "us"
HTH :)

Ahh ... thank you. So it's like when Barry Goldwater was asked about the fundamental difference between us (US) and the Russians (USSR), it really came down to a faith-based declaration that "we are the children of light and they are the children of darkness," which would be fine except that their side said the same thing ....

sonnyh

Canon EOS-7D

03/10/2004 01:36:49 AM · #385

Im in the US ARMY!!!!! Of course i wear my underwear on my head!!!! But I dont Smoke Man Pole!!! I Only Eat Carpet!!!!

No wonder you are in the army -- you are too crude and ignorant to do anything else.

03/10/2004 01:37:24 AM · #386

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by ScottK:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
I'll have to chew on the difference between "misguided sinner" and infidel for a while

"infidel" is "them"
"misguided sinner" is "us"
HTH :)

Ahh ... thank you. So it's like when Barry Goldwater was asked about the fundamental difference between us (US) and the Russians (USSR), it really came down to a faith-based declaration that "we are the children of light and they are the children of darkness," which would be fine except that their side said the same thing ....

Uh, not really. English is too ambiguous (and I don't help much).

What I was trying to indicate was that "infidel" is a term used when dividing us vs. them - the infidels are the "them". Sort of like your Goldwater analogy.

"Misguided sinners", by contrast, applies to all of us. "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

I assumed (maybe incorrectly so) that your comment was meant to imply that you actually thought they could or should be used interchangably.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/10/2004 02:55:16 AM · #387

Who is doing the misguiding? I thought we were all free to make our own choices, and given the knowledge of right and wrong through divine scripture. The only really popular writings attributed to the Devil (The Devil's Dictionary) were written by a satirist (not satyrist, well, maybe...) around a hundred years ago.

I'm still waiting for people to start living according to Jesus' precepts instead of killing each other over the issue of His divinity or the absolute correctness of THEIR interpretation of the Word of God.

Brooklyn513

Sony DSC-F505

03/10/2004 03:01:36 AM · #388

What does it really matter. Why should straight people be the only ones to suffer thru divorce? good luck to you all, gay straight whatever...

03/10/2004 03:55:00 AM · #389

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Hmmm. Uh, ok. Far as I can tell you're just arguing for the sake of being contrary, so I'll leave it at that.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/10/2004 04:12:04 AM · #390

I'm arguing because, as someone raised to value the scientific method, I have problems when presented with self-contradictory statements, and then being told that it's "just so" or that it "can't be understood," or "you must take it on faith."

LOGIC says that if God is "unknowable" and beyond the understanding of humans, then all that supposedly "divine" writing is perforce the imperfect attempt of humans to describe the indescribable, and no more the "gospel truth" than any other statement made by anyone anywheres. I mean, the Four Gospels don't even agree with each other in substantial detail -- they can't all be "true" unless you throw out all of mathematics and logic and accept that 1=2.

Nowadays, when someone says "God told me to ..." we generally give them psychotropic drugs and commit them for observation and therapy. Yet, how can WE know that it's not REALLY God calling with an urgent update ... or that maybe we could have avoided the Crusades and the Inquisition if only someone had slipped St. Paul a little Thorazine.

Message edited by author 2004-03-10 04:15:29.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/10/2004 04:21:28 AM · #391

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Case 1: Person B wants to marry Person A and the State says "sure, no problem."

Case 2: Person C wants to marry Person A and the state says "you can't because you are a man/woman."

THAT is unequal application of the law based solely on a person's gender.

03/10/2004 04:50:40 AM · #392

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I'm arguing because....

All nice. Logical I'm sure. But totally unrelated to my comment. Maybe you're just on a roll...?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/10/2004 05:04:19 AM · #393

No ... just I've been up since 6:30 am (now 2:00 am the next day) and I have to get up in four hours and I have NO ENTRIES this week and so nothing to click on except the forum threads. Hopefully I'll regain a greater degree of coherency tomorrow ....

Gaia

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

03/10/2004 09:02:53 AM · #394

RonB,

Why have you focused on my use of the words "consenting" and "commitment?"
Do you really not understand what I was trying to say, or just wanting to argue my belief?

Tamron AF 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II for Canon

03/10/2004 09:23:32 AM · #395

Originally posted by Gaia:

RonB,

Why have you focused on my use of the words "consenting" and "commitment?"
Do you really not understand what I was trying to say, or just wanting to argue my belief?

I would never argue with anyones belief, if they could provide rational reasoning to support it. And that doesn't mean that I have to agree. And I'm not arguing with your BELIEF. And I DO understand what you MEAN. It's just that this issue will end up being decided in the courts, and in LEGAL matters those very words will have very precise meaning and the courts WILL focus on their legal definitions. I'm just trying to point out that if those very terms were to be codified, we would be bound by them. I'm just wondering if you could/would support the legal interpretations of those terms.

Ron

Gaia

Canon EOS-30D

03/10/2004 09:29:03 AM · #396

Thanks for clarifying Ron. As to legally interpreting the meaning of "commitment" and "consenting", I don't feel qualified. I agree with you regarding the difficulty of codifying terms and being bound by them.

03/10/2004 09:46:15 AM · #397

Originally posted by Gaia:

You're welcome, Gaia. For what it's worth, my concern with the codification of those words is because those are the very words used by organizations like NAMBLA ( The North American Man/Boy Love Association ) to gain legal standing to support their position that "consensual" sexual relationships between men and (young) boys is OK. If you don't believe it, a visit to their web site will do wonders in raising your level of concern as well.

Ron

sonnyh

Canon EOS-7D