Homosexual marriage

[Count Comfect]

About Massachusetts and gay adoption - this is not the action of the "homosexual lobby" to shut down the Catholic Charities, it is the action of the Catholic Charities to declare that they will no longer follow the laws of the state of Massachusetts. As the article Inked posted specified, they had previously placed some children with gays; they then announced they would cease to do so. It is the clear wish of the people of the state of Massachusetts that NO state-funded/sponsored/licensed group be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The Catholic Church wishes to be state-licensed but not follow the rules the state has set up. There is no forcing out of the Catholic Church - in fact, there was amazing tolerance, since for years they have been skirting the law. It was their own decision to publicly refuse to follow the laws of the state wherein they were acting. It is perfectly legitimate to ask that the law be changed, in general. Or even to have asked for the exemption in the first place. But to ask that the Catholic Church be allowed to simply ignore the laws of Massachusetts, publicly announcing that intent, is absurd.

About the quotation from Matthew - I see Elfhelm's point. Yes, there should be no divorce between a man and a woman, from that passage. But to say that there shall be no marriage BESIDES that of a man and a woman is an extrapolation that need not be made. I could imagine saying the same words as are in Matthew about male-female marriage in a state with both heterosexual and homosexual marriage. I know that was not the context of his speech, for there was no gay marriage in Judea, but the words do not preclude it.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by inked

And, if you don't like the law, change it. And if the law you like is under attack defend it.

Unless the votes go against what Elfhelm wants, then what?

What Elfhelm wants is for America to be a shining bastion of freedom in the world. Elfhelm wants to have a reason to be proud of his country. Elfhelm wants America to live up to the hopes of its founders. Elfhelm knows that those who practice intolerance because they are instructed to do so by their religious leaders will always exist. He wants them to lose every vote. Yet the fact remains that they almost always win. So he knows that he must persist in espousing freedom and hang on to the vision of a wonderful country where people don't have to hide in fear of being beaten to death because they are black or gay or women of ill repute. Elfhelm wants to see a little more Love in this world, and a lot fewer religious leaders encouraging their followers to deprive others of the same rights they themselves enjoy.

While I await the very reasoned reply, and I will certainly read it, I find that I have said all that I can say on this topic. I can perform marriages in Oregon. When Oregon permits it again, I will perform gay marriages. Peace.

[Rían]

Let's get specific - do you think that I, personally, "practice intolerance because [I am] instructed to do so by [my] religious leaders"?

Just curious.

And re "rights" - as I said to Maggie (IIRC), if she cannot point out a place in our government's laws that specifically says that homosexuals have certain rights, then they're on the same playing field as the rest of us (which is as it SHOULD be!) And at that point, the people in society determine who they think is eligible for the institution of marriage, based on what each person thinks is right and good for society. Unless you are willing to say anyone can define marriage any way they want to, then you're doing the same thing that I am. I carefully and thoughtfully and lovingly consider what I think marriage should be, and then I support my decision though my vote and any other means I think appropriate (such as rational, polite discussion here).

People are not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater - is that taking away their rights? No, it's based on a determination that to do so is harmful to society. And in my careful, thought-out opinion, based on hundreds if not thousands of hours of thought and study, marriage should be between one man and one woman, age 18 or above, related farther out than first cousin, and currently not married to anyone else. You have the same description that I do except the first part. (Personally, I think it should also not take place until they have gone through premarital counseling, but I don't think I"ll press for legislation for that - I think it's impractical.) You, too, are putting restrictions on marriage.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

What Elfhelm wants is for America to be a shining bastion of freedom in the world. Elfhelm wants to have a reason to be proud of his country. Elfhelm wants America to live up to the hopes of its founders. Elfhelm knows that those who practice intolerance because they are instructed to do so by their religious leaders will always exist. He wants them to lose every vote. Yet the fact remains that they almost always win. So he knows that he must persist in espousing freedom and hang on to the vision of a wonderful country where people don't have to hide in fear of being beaten to death because they are black or gay or women of ill repute. Elfhelm wants to see a little more Love in this world, and a lot fewer religious leaders encouraging their followers to deprive others of the same rights they themselves enjoy.

While I await the very reasoned reply, and I will certainly read it, I find that I have said all that I can say on this topic. I can perform marriages in Oregon. When Oregon permits it again, I will perform gay marriages. Peace.

I may be more disappointed than amused, but I will try to be amused if you really think I respond the way I do because of the instruction of religious leaders. I am engaged in a struggle in my beloved Episcopal church because the leaders have so egregiously erred in this matter! So, we have differing religious views about marriage. I can buttress mine with data about the nature of marriage across societies whereas the position you take has no historical precedent. Not even in ancient Greece or Greece in New Testament times.

Hmmm. Wonder whose off and trying to force what upon whom? Why not move to a EU country or Canada where they can force you to have this?
Of the people/by the people/for the people/it's a vote thang!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/u...gin&oref=slogin

unless it is NOT a vote thang:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/po...DA4MWMyMGI0YWM=

some rights are more equal than others: even in Canada:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06050807.html

or

http://www.civitatensis.ca/archives/2006/05/08/1317
“..gay Edmonton teacher Kathy Da Silva…. is opposed to parents having some control over their children’s education.” May we observe that some militant proponents of same-sex behaviour and ideology prefer anti-democratic attitudes and activities, which if– applied in return– would elicit howls of protest. The rainbow swastika, is it? … (civitatensis)

[Elfhelm]

Sorry, Rian. I do believe that you have spent hundreds even thousands of hours arguing against gay marriage, but I wouldn't call that thinking about the issue.

Repeated exageration and misrepresentation is the only argument I see.

I am not talking about guys marrying their dogs. I am not talking about performing marriages between a tsitsi fly and Beta Centauri. I am talking about two people who are in love, who already live committed lives together, who struggle with the same familial issues the rest of us deal with on a day-to-day basis.

You are denying them the right to marry. You are denying them the right to adopt. And you are doing it only because you think the Bible tells you to.

But the Bible does not tell you to deny people their rights. It gives you the opinions of many different people on many different topics, and it's not always right. Some of those people think that certain classes of people, priests, Sadducees, have special privileges and special responsibilities.

America holds one virtue above all others. FAIRNESS. Fairness mean only one thing: the same laws for everyone. If the majority votes to have privileges for a racial majority, for instance, the courts will overturn it. Because FAIRNESS (equal application of the law) takes precedent over majority rule.

You get one vote. Your scripture doesn't get to trump my vote. And even if your special interest group manages to vote in special privileges for your group, it can be overturned.

You say your opinion is somehow motivated by love, yet you also say love motivates people to do wrong things. So take your own advice. Claiming love is not a good enough justification.

I said I was done, but you asked a question. So I replied. Please accept my statement that I am done and stop asking me leading questions. Meet me on a different thread to talk about something else, please. There is so much more to life and to this messageboard than this pointless argument.

One law for all, that's all I'm asking for. And that law can't be that some people are special while others don't get to enjoy the same privileges.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Oliver Wendell Holmes

Deep-seated preferences can not be argued about

This might apply here.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

You say your opinion is somehow motivated by love, yet you also say love motivates people to do wrong things. So take your own advice. Claiming love is not a good enough justification.

Well spoken.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Sorry, Rian. I do believe that you have spent hundreds even thousands of hours arguing against gay marriage, but I wouldn't call that thinking about the issue.

I read this right before I left to get the kids from school. I'm back now and still extremely upset about this.

It seems to me that you're saying I'm lying, and that is very troubling (as well as insulting) to me. If I tell you that I've spend hundreds, maybe even thousands of hours thinking about the issue, I would think you'd give me the courtesy of believing me. I didn't claim that the "arguing" (which I would characterize "discussion", at least on my part, because my purpose is not to argue, it's to discuss) was the thinking. What I mean by "thinking" is reading differing viewpoints and considering them. You can't see me thinking. If you just choose to not believe me when I say something, well, where does that get us? Seems to me that discussing the issue is better than not discussing the issue, and seems to me that both sides should give each other the courtesy of believing what the other person says, or else there can be no discussion.

I am not talking about guys marrying their dogs. I am not talking about performing marriages between a tsitsi fly and Beta Centauri. I am talking about two people who are in love, who already live committed lives together, who struggle with the same familial issues the rest of us deal with on a day-to-day basis.

I know you're not talking about dogs, etc. But I am pointing out that the only basis your viewpoint can stand on is that you think you should go by what you think is right, so I'm pointing out that logically, other people should be able to go by what they think is right, which in the case of some people (like perhaps PETA members) might mean marrying their dog in all sincerity. After all, wouldn't it be considered species snobbery to deny it? And what right would you, given your worldview, have to deny a fellow person something that they really want?

What grounds do you logically have to deny a person who wants to make up their own definition of marriage, no matter what it is? If you deny them their opinion, aren't you doing the same thing that you claim I'm doing?

OTOH, my viewpoint. based on (yes!) thousands of hours of thought and study, is that there is a higher authority than people, and He knows what works because He designed it, and therefore it's right to go by what He says about the matter. And it's NOT just a matter of "because the Bible says it." I don't just pick up any random book and go by what it says. It's more like this: In the course of my career in radar, I wrote technical manuals for some systems that I actually designed. If someone had to use the system, don't you think it's reasonable for them to do something in the manual that I, the designer, wrote? Or would you sneer at them because they did something "only" because it was written in the book? It all depends on who you think wrote the book. It is eminently sensible to do something in a book if you have reasonable cause (which I do) to think it's written by a loving, omnipotent designer. It's ridiculous to do something because it's written or spoken just anywhere.

You are denying them the right to marry. You are denying them the right to adopt. And you are doing it only because you think the Bible tells you to.

You're also denying certain groups the right to marry. And for the millionth time - NO, I am NOT doing it "only because [I] think the Bible tells [me] to." But sadly, I've found that no matter how many times I explain, most people will fall back on this tired old false claim.

But the Bible does not tell you to deny people their rights. It gives you the opinions of many different people on many different topics, and it's not always right.

Well, that's certainly one opinion. Mine is different. But they're both opinions. I'll go with mine, thank you. I think everyone should go by their own opinion.

America holds one virtue above all others. FAIRNESS. Fairness mean only one thing: the same laws for everyone.

Then I hope you'll vote for taking ALL restrictions off of marriage. But I doubt if you will - I think you'll continue to do the SAME THING that I do - vote for the description of marriage that you think is right, based on your opinion. And this means some restrictions.

You get one vote. Your scripture doesn't get to trump my vote.

Yes, I get one vote, and so do you. That's no news. Of course "my scripture" doesn't get to trump your vote - why should it?

You say your opinion is somehow motivated by love, yet you also say love motivates people to do wrong things. So take your own advice. Claiming love is not a good enough justification.

Yes, I think love is not perfect, and saying something is done because of love should not be the sole decision-making criteria. That's why I consider the question from many angles and then make my best decision.

I said I was done, but you asked a question. So I replied. Please accept my statement that I am done and stop asking me leading questions. Meet me on a different thread to talk about something else, please. There is so much more to life and to this messageboard than this pointless argument.

It's up to you if you post or not, Elfhelm. But if you post, then it's up to me if I respond.

One law for all, that's all I'm asking for. And that law can't be that some people are special while others don't get to enjoy the same privileges.

Then vote for ALL restrictions to be taken off of marriage. You act no differently than I do on this matter. We just have different subsets of the population that we think should be allowed to marry, that's ALL that is different.


Feel free to not post - it's your choice, and I understand your frustration because I feel it, too - but I felt like I needed to respond to your post, so I did.

Believe me, I wish this wasn't an issue. But I don't think things should be avoided merely because they're difficult.

[Rían]

And to repeat something again that I think is absolutely critical -

YES, I know we're talking about people. YES, I know that this discussion can give pain to many good, kind, loving people. It gives a lot of pain to me, btw, yet I keep at it.

I could just shut my mouth and save myself getting falsehoods and insults thrown at me and just vote for marriage as being one man and one woman. But IMO, that is LESS loving than sticking my neck out on this thread and trying to explain my viewpoints. See, me just keeping quiet is like me watching good, kind, loving people eat something that I know is harmful to them, but they don't know it's harmful, and doing nothing about it.

I may be WRONG about homosexuality being harmful, but me being on this thread, where I'm called intolerant and other such insulting and false names, is MUCH more an act of love and concern for all the wonderful people involved than me just being quiet. It's easier for me to be quiet; it's also less loving.

If you guys who support homosexuality think that Christianity is a wrong worldview, then it would be MUCH more loving for you to try to lovingly and thoughtfully convince me of that than it would for you to be quiet. It's the same thing.

Feel free to doubt my intelligence, my opinions, etc., but please do not say that I'm unkind or unloving - it's simply not true.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

About Massachusetts and gay adoption - this is not the action of the "homosexual lobby" to shut down the Catholic Charities, it is the action of the Catholic Charities to declare that they will no longer follow the laws of the state of Massachusetts. As the article Inked posted specified, they had previously placed some children with gays; they then announced they would cease to do so. It is the clear wish of the people of the state of Massachusetts that NO state-funded/sponsored/licensed group be allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation. The Catholic Church wishes to be state-licensed but not follow the rules the state has set up. There is no forcing out of the Catholic Church - in fact, there was amazing tolerance, since for years they have been skirting the law. It was their own decision to publicly refuse to follow the laws of the state wherein they were acting. It is perfectly legitimate to ask that the law be changed, in general. Or even to have asked for the exemption in the first place. But to ask that the Catholic Church be allowed to simply ignore the laws of Massachusetts, publicly announcing that intent, is absurd.

About the quotation from Matthew - I see Elfhelm's point. Yes, there should be no divorce between a man and a woman, from that passage. But to say that there shall be no marriage BESIDES that of a man and a woman is an extrapolation that need not be made. I could imagine saying the same words as are in Matthew about male-female marriage in a state with both heterosexual and homosexual marriage. I know that was not the context of his speech, for there was no gay marriage in Judea, but the words do not preclude it.

So, why not apply the same logic to the militancy of gays of either gender to change the law about marriage, CC?

If it's sauce for the goose&gander, why not for the goose&goose or gander&gander? By this logic, no one should be attempting to change the laws in existence for 200+ years. Gays should never have tried to change the laws, they just should have obeyed them, right?

[The Gaffer]

Saucy gander alert: the CC is obeying the rules on adoption; so do gays re: marriage. The CC is at liberty to pursue a change in the rules on adoption; so are gays re: marriage.

EDIT: I think you're kind and loving, Rian. However, I think that the consequences of your views on gay marriage aren't. I'd like to make it clear that it's not a personal attack though.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by inked

So, why not apply the same logic to the militancy of gays of either gender to change the law about marriage, CC?

If it's sauce for the goose&gander, why not for the goose&goose or gander&gander? By this logic, no one should be attempting to change the laws in existence for 200+ years. Gays should never have tried to change the laws, they just should have obeyed them, right?

I'm not arguing that laws can't change. Here are my two (main) points of difference between the situation of the Catholic Church and that of gays.

1) Different situation, in that gays are not declaring that they will not comply with the law while asking for the exemption. The Catholic Church said FIRST, "we won't follow this law," and only THEN "can we change it?" They won't follow the law if the law doesn't change.

Gays are saying "we want to change the law." They're obeying it right now.

2) The rights involved are different. The right to raise a family, as expressed in the right to adopt, is not the same as the right to refuse service to someone. The former trumps the latter, in my opinion.

[brownjenkins]

Thanks for answering my question so completely Elfhelm.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

EDIT: I think you're kind and loving, Rian. However, I think that the consequences of your views on gay marriage aren't. I'd like to make it clear that it's not a personal attack though.

Thanks, Gaffer

Originally Posted by Count Comfy

Gays are saying "we want to change the law." They're obeying it right now.

How can they NOT obey it? That's not even an option!

and re "We won't follow this law" - don't liberals typically praise that attitude if it's about a law they think is wrong?

[Count Comfect]

How can they NOT obey it? That's not even an option!

Not true. They could not obey it the same way that mixed-race couples did not obey the miscegenation laws in the Old South. Find someone who will do the ceremony, start signing up as a married couple on official records, and see if someone challenges you.

and re "We won't follow this law" - don't liberals typically praise that attitude if it's about a law they think is wrong?

For a nice, long discussion of that issue, read MLK, Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail. For a short discussion from my point of view, read my previous post re:hierarchy of rights. The "I won't obey" attitude only goes for things like speech, equality of treatment, etc.

[inked]

gay marriage, feminism, sexism, and polygamy........oh, My!

Public policy considerations:http://www.janegalt.net/

[Elfhelm]

I don't see why you don't start a thread about fat people. They choose to be fat. Gluttony is a sin. You don't want your kids to grow up fat. It's harmful to yourself to be fat. Most societies have traditionally reviled fat people. In every way, everything said by the Christians here against gay people can be said about fat people. But to go as far as to say that fat people should have their rights taken away and not be allowed to marry would be rude. Think about it.

Note, this thread was started by the Christians here, not by the gay people. Every attempt by a tolerant person to explain why we should be tolerant, why America should set an example of non-discrimination for the world, has been met by (supposedly loving) excuses to continue the intolerance. For shame.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Note, this thread was started by the Christians here, not by the gay people. Every attempt by a tolerant person to explain why we should be tolerant, why America should set an example of non-discrimination for the world, has been met by (supposedly loving) excuses to continue the intolerance. For shame.

It was the same with interracial marriage a few decades back. People tend to resist change and the only real solution is time.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

gay marriage, feminism, sexism, and polygamy........oh, My!

Public policy considerations:http://www.janegalt.net/

Originally Posted by janegalt

In a way, that's a silly headline: obviously you can oppose polygamy while supporting gay marriage, just as you can be a libertarian blogger who makes fun of lobbyists despite the fact that your father's salary as the head of a trade association put you through college. But can you find a solid public policy wall that will keep the polygamists from hijacking your arguments to advance their cause?

That's a good argument for why the government should get out of the marriage business entirely. We have no business endorsing marriage at all, but by defining it as a man and a woman with no other conditions, we allow even a convicted murderer on death row to get married. Even the media's favorite example of one of the worst fathers ever, Scott Peterson, could get married and possibly even have a child.

We selectively choose to define one aspect of the morality behind the union (one man, one woman) while ignoring all the others: are they good parents? should they have children?

If we don't impose morality upon heterosexual marriages, how can we impose it upon any other kind?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Note, this thread was started by the Christians here, not by the gay people.

This thread is an offshoot of the gay/les/bi thread, which was started by someone who called herself a bisexual - the marriage aspect was such a big part of the thread that some people wanted it moved to another thread, so that's what happened.