| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/09/2005 01:35:38 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Think maybe I'll move to Texas...sounds like people with good sound values. Hooray for people with real courage! |
this type of thought is truely pathetic and sad. and for your other un-researched question about the history of marriage, there is a lot of proof that the first people in the world to make marriage laws were the ancient Egyptians.
You sound like someone who is lacking seriously in values.
Or maybe just a little bit insecure with your own sexuality.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:35:59 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Human beings will have a hard time evolving if you try to keep things going with two men together. ;^)
I suppose the liberals in this forum are all in favor of removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance?
Husband and Wife. So what are two men or two women joined in holy matrimony? It and It? He and He? Come on people. Unbelievable.
Ok - let two he/shes get together legally - sign a contract, whatever...it's still not a marriage.
Having fun yet? ;^) |
I am with you on the procreation angle..but....that ain't the only reason people get together.
I am all for people having faith in whatever god. power or greater wisdom they follow. Just don't force that singular theory or belief on the rest of us at the point of a gun. And the point of a gun is exactly what it is when the government gets involved.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 13:37:10. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:38:25 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I suppose the liberals in this forum are all in favor of removing God from the Pledge of Allegiance?
|
first, you keep saying "liberal" like it's a bad word. that tells me a lot about where you're coming from.
second, i absolutely think that "god" should be removed from the pledge of allegiance. freedom of RELIGION means that your "god" may be different from mine. freedom of religion means that i can love my country and pledge allegiance to it without vowing anything to some mythical deity.
i certainly hope none of your kids grow up and realize they are gay. and i can tell you right here and now there's nothing that you can do now to change it.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 13:41:06. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:38:45 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Originally posted by colyla:
Just a thought.....as I see most here support gay union/marriage. How about a scientific approach...the 'natural order' of the world. Men and women are the only way to procreate. (please exclude artifical insemination, surrogate, everything else, etc) To me it seems to be the 'natural' order of things. On a religious approach.....(my belief believing in God) God made man and woman to worship him and procreate. I guess it's all in how you look at it.
I understand how liberals look at it...as I was quite liberal in my younger days...as I've grown older and 'walked' in some differnet shoes I've become much more conservative. I have researched, asked questions, and reflected on different things....for my own satisfaction and to be able to explain and pass on my beliefs to my children.
Unfortunately we live in a society that is "I want it and I want it now"...along with, "well, if it feels good and I like it, accept it/change it!"...and it is that mentality which has put our nation in such upheaval... :/ |
This opinion assumes that marriage is only for the production of children. Many hetrosexual people marry and do not have children through choice so marriage cannot be purely be procreation.
Marriage is a way of officially one person commiting to another person, demonstrating their love and their intention of sharing everything and staying together for the indeterminate future. In a time when so many people appear frightened of committing, this should be applauded not derided.
If people of the same sex wish to to legally tie themselves into this form of contract in a civil ceremony, why should it be denied? Being married in a religious ceremony brings up many more problems as I can tolerate people not agreeing with homosexuality within their Church. This is a matter that each Church must decide within its own members.
Homosexuals do not affect other people's lives anymore than hetrosexuals do - as somebody else has said - what goes on in my home and my bedroom is entirely up to me and no-one else knows or should care.
P |
If you enter into the 'religious' reason for marriage, it is for the soul purpose of two people to become one with God and procreate. It is a sacrament...a covenant between two people and God.
Now enter into a marriage as a 'civil' agreement you have a completely different purpose (most of the time, not always)....a binding legal contract only (no religious reason).
So is homosexuality a natural order or not? We are given the gift of being able to discern and make choices...whereas animals are not. Just my 2 cents :)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:42:12 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
You sound like someone who is lacking seriously in values.
Or maybe just a little bit insecure with your own sexuality. |
Nope - three kids, a loving wife, and a very happy life. If you want to make this personal, try again. ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:43:51 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
...first, you keep saying "liberal" like it's a bad word. that tells me a lot about where you're coming from.
|
Well, it is kind of a bad word, IMO. Reminds me of Democrats. ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:43:54 PM · #57 |
Text of the amendment: SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
So, first they define marriage, and then they say that the state can't recognize anything that is either identical to marriage as they've defined it, or anything that is similar to marriage as they've defined it. So: no straight marriages, no straight common-law marriages, no straight civil unions, no straight anything. If it's one man and one woman, by definition, it's not allowed in Texas anymore.
BUT! "To apply (b) you need to use the definition in (a). Thus the state cannot create or recognize a legal status involving the union of one man and one woman. But it could still recognize other kinds of unions, eg same sex unions and unions involving more than 2 persons."
Whoops.
I really hope to see a judge enforce this law as written.
GO TEXAS! |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:45:13 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by colyla:
So is homosexuality a natural order or not? We are given the gift of being able to discern and make choices...whereas animals are not. Just my 2 cents :) |
If God was so perfect, why does he mess with some peoples chromosomes so that males have females or females have males?
And if somebody throws the "God tests us" or other such nonsense I will lump your answer in with all the people who said their football team won cause "God" was on their side. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:49:23 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Nope - three kids, a loving wife, and a very happy life. If you want to make this personal, try again. ;^) |
i think that's great for you and i'm really very happy. you're incredibly lucky that you were born into what the majority opinion in this country considers normality. great stroke for you.
it's obvious that you've never faced any true adversity in your life, so i can understand why you can't put yourself in someone else's shoes. still, it would be awfully nice if you'd try at least a little bit.
i'm so glad i CHOSE to be gay so that idiots who listen to rush limbaugh and drool over ann coulter can tell me what a bad person i am.  |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:49:24 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by hokie:
If God was so perfect, why does he mess with some peoples chromosomes so that males have females or females have males?
|
That is a whole new topic! Here you would be getting to a solely a religious discussion on creation, original sin, etc. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:51:06 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by colyla:
That is a whole new topic! Here you would be getting to a solely a religious discussion on creation, original sin, etc. |
Which neither I nor anybody I know here is qualified to get into, thank God for that. :-/ |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:55:15 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by hokie:
Originally posted by colyla:
That is a whole new topic! Here you would be getting to a solely a religious discussion on creation, original sin, etc. |
Which neither I nor anybody I know here is qualified to get into, thank God for that. :-/ |
Qualified? You're probably right.....I just know I've dug around and researched stuff that didn't sit right with me...I didn't understand. One of them was the exact question that you listed (or very similar) and it took me awhile to figure it out (for me, my sanity if you will!) and it made sense....but the answer wasn't forthcoming for a vvveerryyy long time. And of course....what I believe isn't necessarily what you believe, or my neighbor.....but it helps 'me' sleep at night. That anxiety crap is a killer! :)
BTW...I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh, never have, only heard of him...and I don't even know who Ann Coulter is :)
MAN!! grammer/spelling suck!!! I type faster than I think!
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 13:58:20. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 01:55:19 PM · #63 |
I've tried my damnedest to stay out of this one, but I just can't help myself either... Grrrr
What frustrates me most is people's inability or unwillingness to see the difference between a legal government endorsed "marriage" or "partnership" and a religion endorsed "marriage" or "partnership". There is supposed to be a distinct separation of religion and government in the USA - so the two arguments are completely unrelated (or should be according to the founding fathers). The rights granted to a government "married" couple provide (as previously mentioned) medical license and authority, inheritance without a will, and tax breaks. This is not a threat to anyone or any religion that I know of... Whether or not this union is acknowledged by a religious denomination or sect is a completely different story.
And yes, I am a PROUD liberal. I don't think it's a dirty word. But shouldn't this be about equal rights for every man and woman - regardless of their political or religious status? I thought that's what the USA's original founding principles were all about. Freedom to practice your own beliefs equally under the law. I don't have to agree with anyone's opinion or even the law for that matter in this country. Thankfully, we (as US citizens) still have the right to speak my mind and fight for what we personally believe.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and I thank GOD I don't live in Texas... :-)
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 13:57:24. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:02:59 PM · #64 |
You should live in our house!!!
We are politically conservative but socially liberal..talk about anxiety. That basically means, do what you want..just don't use my money to do it with. I think this translates into libertarian today
:-D
What I really get angry about is that the religous right have tried to secure such a deathgrip on conservative politics to the point that stating you have a conservative opinion on some things today is seen by many as saying you are a religous zealot...which is not the same thing. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:03:07 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Sex, politics and religion all in one thread! How can I resist!
I don't intend to spend my life deciding how other peole live, who they can love, and who they can make commitments to--it's hard enough making those decisions for myself.
But as long as the government under which I live grants special rights to people based on their willingness to commit their lives to each other, I will defend the right of any two people to make that commitment. It is a legal union. It grants two adults the right to tax breaks regardless of whether they have children in common. It grants them the right to inherit each others' property without a will. It grants them the right to make medical and legal decisions on behalf of the other when that person is not able to make those decisions themselves.
The government does not limit any adult's ability to marry based on any other criteria than gender...a trait that one does select for themselves. If the government will not recognize the peculiar nature of the contracts it will and will not honor as being flawed and allow same sex marriage, then the laws and benefits should be abolished. Individuals would then be free to form corporations to protect their economic interests and create wills, living wills, custodial contracts, etc. to cover the other benefits provided by the marriage contract which the state now recognizes for only a portion of the populace.
What your religion does is up to you and those who think like you...unless, of course, your a Mormon who wants to practice polygamy. But that's probably a topic for another day. |
I thought this was so well stated that I just wanted to reiterate it and say I fully agree. But, KaDi, you probably meant to say that gender is a trait that one does NOT select for themselves. :)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:06:02 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
... i'm so glad i CHOSE to be gay so that idiots who listen to rush limbaugh and drool over ann coulter can tell me what a bad person i am. |
In the FWIW column...I've lived in numerous places over the years, Michigan (Detroit), Illinois (St.Louis), California (Los Angeles), Tennessee, and Virginia. My employment has exposed me to many people of various walks of life. I can include people of many nationalities, and races as friends and yes, I've even had some gay and lesbian people I would include in that list.
I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan, don't know who Ann Coulter is. I'm a conservative Republican (and will vote for a Democrat if they are a better candidate as in the recent governor race), and generally I try to be a good person overall (doesn't always work I guess).
I don't care if you're gay or straight personally. My opinion (and that's just what it is) is I believe strongly in a marriage being that of a man and woman - period.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:09:03 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I thought this was so well stated that I just wanted to reiterate it and say I fully agree. But, KaDi, you probably meant to say that gender is a trait that one does NOT select for themselves. :) |
Thank you! And, yes, "does not" was my intention.
(It probably got goofed up when I edited out "cannot"--didn't want to get into the medical choices being made. One of my relatives was born hermaphrodite--selected sex is female and encouraged by hormone therapy--but her gender is clearly male. Go figure.)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:11:53 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't care if you're gay or straight personally. My opinion (and that's just what it is) is I believe strongly in a marriage being that of a man and woman - period. |
But you DO care. You care enough that you think that gay couples should be banned from marrying each other. Even if they love each other and want to spend their life together.
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:15:31 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't care if you're gay or straight personally. My opinion (and that's just what it is) is I believe strongly in a marriage being that of a man and woman - period. |
But you DO care. You care enough that you think that gay couples should be banned from marrying each other. Even if they love each other and want to spend their life together. |
Agreed. If you don't care if someone is gay or straight, glad2badad, why do you care whether or not they're married. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:15:56 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I had to put this thread on ignore for a while because I was afraid of what I might say...but I'll just say that while I support the right of any civil union or marriage when two people are in love (straight, gay, bi, whatever) I think you should realize it's not JUST Texas...to be ashamed to be a Texan for the homophobic mentality that the majority of voters here and in all other states exhibit is wrong.
Please don't give my state...the place I was born, the state where 3 previous generations of my family were born... a bad reputation over something that is not merely a Texas problem. It's a problem much bigger than Texas, and that's pretty damned big.
I hope this doesn't turn into some big ol' Dixie Chicks vs. Toby Keith brawl now. ;) |
No offense taken...I have lived here in Texas all my life and several generations of my family have too. Many of them love this state and proudly claim to be Texan...and I still love them as much as I always have and always will. What I don't like, is the conservative leaning in this state and others in the union. No biggie, just a matter of preference. It has nothing to do with family. Just because I don't like Texas politics doesn't reflect on my family pride. No brawls, only conversation;-) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:16:21 PM · #71 |
Oh so many ways to state things...
If you're gay and happy great. Good for you. If you want to be "married"...sorry, don't believe it's correct since (I repeat) I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. Can't state it any clearer. It's an opinion - MY opinion.
Now if you want to twist it some more be my guest. ;^)
Originally posted by jonr:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't care if you're gay or straight personally. My opinion (and that's just what it is) is I believe strongly in a marriage being that of a man and woman - period. |
But you DO care. You care enough that you think that gay couples should be banned from marrying each other. Even if they love each other and want to spend their life together. |
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:17:10 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by SJCarter:
I thank GOD I don't live in Texas... :-) |
I promise, not ALL Texans are hateful, bigoted, narrow-minded homophobes...really! :)
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:17:54 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
If you want to be "married"...sorry, don't believe it's correct since (I repeat) I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. Can't state it any clearer. It's an opinion - MY opinion. |
Why do you hold that opinion?
|
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:19:17 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by laurielblack:
I promise, not ALL Texans are hateful, bigoted, narrow-minded homophobes...really! :) |
I know... I actually have a lot of open-minded Texan friends. :-) |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 02:20:23 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Only interesting if you are a religious person! Why should the religious beliefs of some affect the lives of non-religious people? Is it impossible to have a civil marriage in the USA?
If the two homosexuals who wish to marry are religious and want a religious ceremony then there is a problem. otherwise I can't see why it is illegal!
P |
As glad2badad says look up the origins of marriage and you will have your answer. Marriage is a "religious" as you put it, ceremony not a civil one. The problem is not that someone else's religious beliefs are affecting someone else its that historical facts go against the institution of homosexual marriages.
On a side note I find it sort of humorous that so many people are upset that homosexual individuals can not engage in a religious ceremony. If they want to be joined in a civil union then create one for them and stop trying to change a historically proven ceremony into the definition that fits only for man and woman marriage. A quick search on the internet or in the Bible will give you all the history you need on the origins of marriage.
This argument wouldn't even exist with out religion and religion wouldn't exist without a God and the Bible.
|
|
