Homosexual marriage

[GreyMouser]

HE'S SPOKEN 'REPEATEDLY,' BUT NOT 'LATELY'....As part of the White House's drive to impress the religious right with talk about the Federal Marriage Amendment, Press Secretary Tony Snow sat down with Focus on the Family's James Dobson for an interview yesterday, which was aired today. Snow insisted that the president is not a Johnny-come-lately to the issue.

During that interview, however, Dobson pointedly asked Snow about tough allegations being raised in some conservative circles that the president had announced his support for MPA only for political reasons.

"This is an issue on which George W. Bush has been very clear over the years -- and he's spoken repeatedly about it," Snow told Dobson.

That's about half-true. Searching through White House transcripts, I found that in 2004, Bush mentioned his support for a constitutional amendment "defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and a woman" in public speeches over 100 times. In 2005? Zero. In 2006, before this past weekend's radio address? Zero.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc...ly/2006_06.php

That about expresses the real attitude of the Republican money men to the "wackos" -their term- of the Religious Right: rile them up to get their vote as required, then send them back home with a pat on the head while the serious business of divvying up the loot is taken care of.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Bluntness is welcome, Gaffer - it's flaming hate that's useless, IMO.

I hope this didn't come across as flaming hate; it was heated though.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why would you say that? Of course I believe it! What makes you think I don't? I thought I explained it very clearly; what made you think I didn't believe it?

An apology: I put words in your mouth which were suppositions on my part. I was being lazy and annoyed, a bad combination.

My understanding is that you think homosexual behaviour is wrong, in an absolute moral sense, regardless of any consequential "harm". Which is why I think that arguments about perspectives are kinda redundant. I was using the hell reference as a shorthand for that but should have spelled it out more clearly.

I think the remainder of this thread makes abundantly clear why this sort of positive definition is both discriminatory and problematic, especially when it's based on religion. Social engineering via religion is a ruthless task master.

[inked]

Ah, Canada, leading the way...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=968332188492

how to arrange your divorced parent style care when homosexual couples cannot conceive on their own ( ! who'd have thunk it?)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

and a debate on data, of all things...
Gay Marriage: Evidence from Europe? /Eskeridge v. Gallagher
[Video or podcast of a June 1 Cato Forum available at:
www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2935]

"William N. Eskridge Jr., Professor of Law, Yale University, Coauthor, Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned from the Evidence (Oxford University Press, 2006) and Maggie Gallagher, President, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Coauthor, The Case for Marriage.

As the Senate prepares to debate the Federal Marriage Amendment many scholars are looking at evidence from Scandinavia, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Some observers have argued that experience in those countries shows that legal recognition of same-sex unions leads to a decline in traditional marriage and marital child rearing. A new book challenges that analysis. William N. Eskridge Jr. and Darren R. Spedale find that the argument often advanced is inconsistent with the Scandinavian evidence. In no way, they write, has marriage in the Nordic countries suffered from legalization of same-sex unions. A close look at the data suggests that the sanctioning of gay marriage in the United States would neither undermine marriage as an institution nor harm the well-being of children. Maggie Gallagher argues that the move toward gay marriage in Europe is part of a larger marriage crisis, including a powerful trend away from marriage as a social norm for childbearing and child rearing."

[frodosampippinmerry]

The following article is a testimony from an ex-gay who doesn't think gay marriage is a good idea and told congress so

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide...ers_in_prayer/

[Jonathan]

So this "ex-gay", Kyle, was raised by Christian missionaries who taught him from the very start that homosexuality separates you from god. At 16 he came out and wanted to be cleansed of his attraction to men.

Could it be that, despite him being gay, his sexual orientation has little to do with his views on gay marriage?

[frodosampippinmerry]

And what if someone wants to marry an animal-in fact their was an article in Spiritdaily.com back in January about a woman who married a Dolphin. How far do we take this? Do we want to marry trees and rocks, brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, underage children and any other relative too? Where do we draw the line, and who has the right to decide where we draw that line?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

People should be allowed to ask for polygamy to be legalised (it's still up to lawmakers though), but that has nothing to do with gay marriage.

And I can assure you that, as a Canadian and someone who lives in a province that has legalised gay marriage, that marriage is certainly not meaningless here.

That's weird - what browser are you using? I know IE and Firefox work.

Why not write paragraphs like this then?

paragraph1
.
paragraph2
.
etc

[frodosampippinmerry]

Name them, and I better be able to verify it. The proof of your statement's burden is on you.I on the other hand have only met contreacepting couples, including my parents, who were miserable as long as they contracepted. There is a couple on EWTN's Marriage Works perogram that testified that their marriage was falling apart. I've had classes where married couples said they felt the same way, etc, etc, etc, etc

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

AI can line up plenty of couples who are happy and contracepting too. But why? Whats the point? It doesn’t tell us anything.



You said people were looking to legalize it… The logic being well if you allow contraception then that just leads down a slippy slope to child rape. I reject that kind of gross misconception and miscatogarization.



Well I do like a good debate sure but in this case Im just countering dangerously incorrect public declarations. Im doing my civic duty.

It already has happened-Everythine Pope Paul VI predicted would happen if contraception became normative has happened and it's getting worse. The Divorce rate has gone up, Abortion has become a form of contraception, women are being treated like objects of lust instead of persons, etc, etc, etc,

[inked]

Down under says, we have a federal law that says... and local variants are not allowed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/5074294.stm

[Lotesse]

(to frodopippinwhateverthefk) "If someone wants to marry an animal? a rock?" what?? That's some sick and twisted comparison attempting, there. So, you're likening a non-heterosexual human being wishing to take part in the same freedoms and rights available to his or her heterosexual fellows, to animals? and rocks? That's pretty sick.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by frodosampippinmerry

It already has happened-Everythine Pope Paul VI predicted would happen if contraception became normative has happened and it's getting worse. The Divorce rate has gone up, Abortion has become a form of contraception, women are being treated like objects of lust instead of persons, etc, etc, etc,

Divorce has gone up, but there are many complex factors involved besides the availability of contraception. If you want to blame contraception for a rise in divorce, then you do have to point to a study backing this up.

Interviewing people (the people you know) could be part of a proper study, but you weren't doing a scientific study when you spoke with your parents and other people you know, so you weren't conducting the same survey to all involved in the study to eliminate bias. You did not publish your findings and have them reviewed by peers in your scientific field.

Therefore, while you certainly have valid feedback that might effect your own decisions, you do not have any scientific proof of anything whatsoever. In other words, there's nothing at all wrong with using your parents' and friends' experiences to shape your own decisions, but this is not evidence of anything.

Married gay couples should be the happiest of all though, since none of them would use contraception.

<edit>

If people want to marry rocks, then it's up to them to lobby their MP/Senator/whoever to enact a law that allows them to marry rocks. The law may not be passed in Parliment/the Senate, but they did exercise their right to ask. Or, maybe the law would pass and people would be allowed to marry rocks. I have a great deal of confidence in the Canadian legal system to create new laws that reflect the rights, needs, and desires of the majority of Canadians.

</edit>

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Married gay couples should be the happiest of all though, since none of them would use contraception.

heehee!!

After 3 kids, and having to deal with a chronic health issue, I'm THRILLED with our choice of permanant contraception (hubby joined the "V" club). It's wonderful to enjoy each other physically and not worry about getting pregnant. I"m sure God would give us grace to deal with a pregnancy if I ever became one of those uber-rare cases of getting pregnant in spite of a vasectomy, but IMO it's an irresponsible use of the brains and resources that God has given us to NOT use contraception at this point in time.

If people want to marry rocks, then it's up to them to lobby their MP/Senator/whoever to enact a law that allows them to marry rocks.

Exactly.

I have a great deal of confidence in the Canadian legal system to create new laws that reflect the rights, needs, and desires of the majority of Canadians.

Hey, the "majority" word!!!!

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lotesse

(to frodopippinwhateverthefk) "If someone wants to marry an animal? a rock?" what?? That's some sick and twisted comparison attempting, there. So, you're likening a non-heterosexual human being wishing to take part in the same freedoms and rights available to his or her heterosexual fellows, to animals? and rocks? That's pretty sick.

Lotesse,

Do you mean to deny to anyone who wishes to marry their dog or cow or horse or llama a licenxe based on your cultural bias against bestiality?

Nurv,
"If people want to marry rocks, then it's up to them to lobby their MP/Senator/whoever to enact a law that allows them to marry rocks. The law may not be passed in Parliment/the Senate, but they did exercise their right to ask. Or, maybe the law would pass and people would be allowed to marry rocks. I have a great deal of confidence in the Canadian legal system to create new laws that reflect the rights, needs, and desires of the majority of Canadians. "

Now, Nurv, you know very well that you only approve of majority rule when it suits your prejudices. Have you asked any rocks how they feel about this?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by inked

Lotesse,

Do you mean to deny to anyone who wishes to marry their dog or cow or horse or llama a license based on your cultural bias against bestiality?

No kidding! Who is she, or anyone, to deny a person's sincere love of animals? You hear of people setting up trust funds for their cats; why not let them marry their cat? Seriously!!!!! Why not?

Seriously. Why not? It seems like it's just a cultural bias to me.

There are some serious animal lovers out there! And we've already heard that inability to procreate is NO excuse, so why not let them marry?

Seriously, what good, logical reason do you guys have? This is a serious question. Why should your opinion trump someone else's when it comes to their sexuality?

[Insidious Rex]

Because a cat is incapable of giving legal consent? And sexual relations with a cat is considered animal abuse? Do we still not understand the difference between legally consenting and otherwise yet?

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Divorce has gone up

And you know what? HOORAY!

Every day I thank the absence of Lord that I am not married to my first wife any more.

Marriage, legal contract and that. You can't have a contract between parties if one of them is unable to give legal consent.

As you all know, I was going to marry my marrow. However, I have since discovered that it is homosexual and made a nice soup instead.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Because a cat is incapable of giving legal consent? And sexual relations with a cat is considered animal abuse? Do we still not understand the difference between legally consenting and otherwise yet?

Yeah, what the heck you guys! RÃ*an and Inked, I know you two are intelligent adults, you know what consent is and that animals can't give it.

This should end all ridiculous and illogical comparisons between bestiality and homosexuality, right?

Gaffer, I agree. I don't see why divorce is a bad thing. Divorce is an end to something that clearly wasn't working! (But really, I know precicely nothing about divorce.)

Incidentally, I always employ two methods of contraception and I'm incredibly happy. (We were talking about that in this thread right?)

Should we have a thread about contraception?

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by inked

Now, Nurv, you know very well that you only approve of majority rule when it suits your prejudices. Have you asked any rocks how they feel about this?

Well, majority rules isn't always appropriate.

But I haven't heard what rocks have to say about this, because oh em gee, they can't talk!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by inked

Lotesse,

Do you mean to deny to anyone who wishes to marry their dog or cow or horse or llama a licenxe based on your cultural bias against bestiality?

you, then, Inked support this bestiality liberality of both thought and act?

No?

Else, what be your point exactly?

Speak plainly sir! As a man and a christian, the forked tongue is truly the devil's work. No call here to be anything but straight forward and honest of thought and mind. ( i say this generally you understand )


Also, one would think, having read the post, rather that her point was that the apparent link made between the validity or not of homosexual relations and that of human / animal or human / inanimate objects, clearly for any right thinking person, regardless of their views on this subject, is quite frankly not a valid one.

If you wish to defend in all seriousness the moral right(s) of human / beast sexual relations or those of humans and rocks, ... please do.

If not ... then please refrain from such cheap jibes that are, in truth, Inked, beneath you.

best, BB

(and yes, i do understand your underlying point ... but with the best will in the world, to a neutral observer you are rather implying that the poster you quote is effectively a hypocrite - therefore either please say this honestly and openly, or please do all the mooters a favour and decease from such posts as these which are frankly, below you: you a working Professional and a Christian man...)

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

No kidding! Who is she, or anyone, to deny a person's sincere love of animals? You hear of people setting up trust funds for their cats; why not let them marry their cat? Seriously!!!!! Why not?

Seriously. Why not? It seems like it's just a cultural bias to me.

There are some serious animal lovers out there! And we've already heard that inability to procreate is NO excuse, so why not let them marry?

Seriously, what good, logical reason do you guys have? This is a serious question. Why should your opinion trump someone else's when it comes to their sexuality?

again - either you are honest and serious about this dear Ri, or you are not being serious and more importanly not being honest about this.


which is it?

before God almighty here and now, you and Inked wish to swear to me that and all the mooters here that you advocate legally and morally humans having sexual relations with animals?

Or that you support and advocate human / animal marriage?

but you are against homosexuality or homosexual marriage?

If not - then again out of respect for all the mooters here, please do not bait other mooters who in all fairness made a valid point without any personal rancour on this occasion to anyone else.

Do to others as you would have them do onto you.

I personally am a big beleiver in this.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

There are some serious animal lovers out there! And we've already heard that inability to procreate is NO excuse, so why not let them marry?

Seriously, what good, logical reason do you guys have? This is a serious question. Why should your opinion trump someone else's when it comes to their sexuality?

"Because the bible and the morality taught by the bible says it's wrong"?
Really, I'd rather see someone - who doesn't think two loving people of the same sex should have the right to marry - answer this question.