Gay marriage

[Ozrat]

They shouldn't be allowed to raise children since that kid will suffer it's entire life and probably become homo-sexualy oriented.

In a word, no.

Weren't you listening? There's no corelation between growing up with gay parents and becoming gay yourself. Even if you did, so what? By saying that's a problem you are also stating that being gay is a problem.

Suffer their entire lives? Being raised by gay parents who truly love each other and will stop at no ends to raise a child successfully is somehow going to be more painful and emotionally scarring than living with straight parents who are abusive to their family?

It's like you didn't even bother reading and comprehending what I said in my last post.

If a marriage is supposed to be about the successful raising of a family and how much they love each other, you need to come to terms about how sexual preferance has no inherent qualities in this aspect. Surely you can't deny that a gay couple that love each other can and will raise a child better than a straight couple with problems? Sadly, there are no regulations on becoming parents, so many a child does end up being born with inadequte parenting.

Give me one legitimate reason why a loving gay couple can't raise a child better than an abusive straight couple, especially since there is nothing stopping the abusive couple from having children and there are injust laws stopping the loving couple from adopting children from abusive situations like that.

 

[Brother None]

Since this is a 21.st century and world (well most of it) is democraticly oriented i have no objectives about them living together and why not even marrying BUT not in church.

I see no problem in this either. If the American church chooses to be ruled by close-minded bigots, so be it.

But to deny gay people the right to marry or raise children is unconstitutional and immoral.

They shouldn't be allowed to raise children since that kid will suffer it's entire life and probably become homo-sexualy oriented.

What Ozrat said.

This is really silly. Same goes for what SonR said. SonR; babies need mothers, huh? Never heard of a mom running of and dad having to fend with the child on his own? Should we take the babies of those single parents too?

The whole thing is broken up because we consider heterosexuality and heterosexual couples "normal". This has no logical basis. It has a religious basis, sure, but remember, state and church are divided. There is no biological evidence to show homos are less normal than heteros, there is no sociological evidence for this either. And this makes sense, because "normal" is just a label you place on something, generally what happens the most. Luckily most progressive politicians understand the need to shed these archaic labels.

If you consider being raised by a heterosexual couple normal then sure, being raised by a gay couple is abnormal. But there are a lot more scarring abnormal situations, like Ozrat said, ranging from abusive parents to painful divorces. Should all those things be outlawed too, because they can scar a child? That's basically what you're saying.

I'm guessing from your post, Grim Reaper, that you don't know any gay couples, let alone gay couples that have children.

 

[Ozrat]

He's been to The Order, so he must know quite a few gay couples by now.

*drumroll*
[/spam]

 

[Bradylama]

Frankly, the people of Massachusets have spoken, and you know what they said? NO. This is not democratic. This is pretty silly. I cannot belive that the court had the balls to do something that spit in the face of thier people. Sometimes I think that vote pandering is a good thing.

Again, you assume that this is a Democratic nation, its not.

The United States and every state within it are Constitutional Republics. As such, politicians and judges are sworn in to uphold the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, over the will of the people. I've already explained several times why this is in affect, so I won't do so now.

According to the Massachusetts Constitution, no person may be oppressed based on their sex. Since the prohibiting of gay marriage is based on matters of one's sex, the court of Massachusetts declared it unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage. They made their decision according to the law, and I for one think they made the right one.

 

[welsh]

I really don't know what to think about this - I guess I really don't care one way or the other. I don't understand why the government even has to debate it - if they're equal citizens under the law then they really can't be denied rights that other citizens have, such as civil unions. Religious marriage is a different story, as religions don't grant equality to everyone, but I don't see how the government can deny it without criminalizing homosexuality.

If a dude is in love with another dude, and they want to get married all official-like so they can enjoy all the legal benefits of being married (i.e. income and property tax deals, survivor benefits, health insurance coverage, and so on) then more power to 'em, I say. Or somesuch. But that could just be my California bias talkin'... you know, because lots of homo-gays live out here.

The rule same applies to lesbians. And Chicago Cubs fans, another oppressed minority.

--'Boner

Well Chicago Cubs fans don’t suffer nearly as bad as Boston Red Sox fans.

According to M. Cho, on NPR this morning, married coupled are entitled to about 1049 rights, privileges or benefits on account of being married. To deny gays these rights merely because of their sexual preference would therefore mean that they are not entitled to equal rights.

Frankly, the people of Massachusets have spoken, and you know what they said? NO. This is not democratic. This is pretty silly. I cannot belive that the court had the balls to do something that spit in the face of thier people. Sometimes I think that vote pandering is a good thing.

The thing is that Boston has a very large gay community which is also very affluent. Add to that all the colleges in town, and you have a lot of pressure put on the politicians and judges. I don't doubt that the majority of MA didn't want gay marriage legalized but Boston is where all the politics happen, so Boston has a disproportionately loud voice in the way the state is run. Who says we aren't living in a democracy?

Marriage is not just for anyone, it is a holy sacrament. Now, the judges these days need to be bitch slapped a million times each for stepping out of line. Aren't they supposed to be serving the people? I

Yes, a holy sacrament in which various folks have made a mockery of (Elizabeth Taylor, Michael Jackson, etc.) and which you can do by drive-through in Vegas, or via an Elvis impersonator. Yeah for sacraments!

The Court is responsible to the rule of law and the Constitution, not to the people. It is usually not a democratically elected office, but one appointed- with the goal that the law should be enforced equally, for all people. That’s why the Mass. Court applied the minimum scrutiny test for equal protection.

Damn it! Why am I the site idiot?! I hold no position of power anmaking you laugh at my, well, I guess you say it's stupidity, I say it's a weird phenomenon.

Why? Well either you were born that way or you’re just practicing. Perhaps it’s because you keep practicing.

At least being born an idiot would give you an excuse.

That's an assumption that the entire state is Catholic. The dignity of marriage isn't solely reserved towards those of the faith, you know. There are things as state marriages. Then there's commonlaw marriages.

Indeed Gunslinger- a good point. Marriage exists now as both a religious sacrament and as legal institution

You proclaim yourself to be a religious fanatic and yet you do not properly represent your faith. The church (Catholic at least) does not condemn homosexuality. There was no Vatican council in which the pope damned homosexuals. You're reading too deeply into the incident of Sodom in the Old Testament; the city was destroyed for general wickedness, not just for carnal appetites. Granted, the sanctity of marriage and even of the act of sex (according to us Catholics) is meant for love and procreation but the emphasis is on love. Genesis says "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh." Procreation is the issue but it is not the only point. God would have then said, "Go then, reproduce and fill the earth" and then have omitted the issues of faithfulness and love to one's spouse found in Leviticus.

So... You're making the claim that Catholic doctrine condones homosexual behaviour?

Indeed, from what I hear of Catholicism- it does not condemn homosexuals but sexual acts outside the bounds of marriage. In essence, any fooling around outside of marriage is a sin. (Note episode in Seinfeld where the Catholic priest tells Puddy that he is going to hell for having sex with Elaine). You are not condemn for your preference but for you willingness to act upon this. However, I find this a bit tricky. For I also recall that the desire to commit an act that is deemed sinful is also a sin. Thus the person who lusts to commit adultery in his own heart is also to be deemed an adulterer. Which is why Catholics are so caught up in the issue of sin and guilt.

But then CC might not be Catholic.

King, That one flaw is your apparent lack of effort into forming ideas that are grounded on solid infomation sources. Had you been posting claims that not only have any reality behind them and posting readily available sources with your side of the story, we would actually give what you have to say the benefit of a doubt rather than immediately proceeding to tear your argument apart methodolically word by word.

WHich makes King consistent with most of the folks posting.

If you're a jewish couple tying the knot, isn't that still considered to be a legal and appropiate marriage? Even if a couple has no religious backgrounds and followings whatsoever, they can still get married. You need to also realize that the beliefs that a married couple have nothing to do with how successful the marriage will turn out to be.

But most religions seem to accept the notion of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Why, might be due to socio-economic reasons rather than pure scripture. After all, how many religions can claim to be free of politics?

Indeed Oz, but the argument is one in which were does the sacrament of marriage reside and who should be entitled to it. According to the numbers I am hearing, while people don't necessarily support homophobia, over 59% of people are against gay marriages.

Why, I am not sure. I think there is an issue as to the question of whether gay couples can raise children. Interestingly, this is also a valid question for heterosexual couples.

Marriage stopped being a "catholic union" when there we legal rights and priviledges tied to it, from that point onwards, it was a "legal union".

Everyone is entitled to a legal union.

Y'know what that concept is called? Equality.

Frankly I'm still amazed at the fact that anyone can put question marks near this.

Didn't you recently mention that European immigrants are second-rate citizens by the social standards?

Well this is much worse. Basically, you're making gay people second-rate citizens by law. You're condemning them to a life of inequality based on their sexual preferences.

This is bigotry, pure and simple. There is no rational excuse for it.

Ouch Kharn- And actually I support gay marriages and think that failing to give gays the right to marry is hypocritical.

However, this will be a big issue for the next year and already they are considering an amendment in the Constitution to say that marriage is only good for men and women. Yet again the ugly head of religion and politics mixes.

And when did I say European immigrants are second class?

And no, ducks are not entitled to equality before law. Fuck the Duck!

Kharn- I am deeply hurt and offended!

Of course it's not democratic. Remember the trias politica? Judges have to adhere to a law that's democratically written, they do not have to bend their ear to democracy, though.

Gays are equal to heterosexuals before the eyes of the law. This gives them the right to marry.

If you don't like it, you'll have to amend the constitution to no longer say you can not discriminate over sexual preferences.

I agree with your statement. It's why courts are supposed to prevent the tyranny of the majority and protect the rights of all. This is why we have criminal rights, why there is protest againt the Patriot Act, why discrimination under law is wrong.

However, Kharn, you are wrong in this- yes, you can discriminate. In fact discrimination has been a consistent historical trend.

In the US where you have that interesting mix of religiousity and politics, you have the seeds of the debate. I also think this might be one of the big divides this coming election year- a distraction of the real issues that plague the country.

No-never allow them to marry in churches since churche (and me) consider homo-sexuality abomination of nature. BUT Since this is a 21.st century and world (well most of it) is democraticly oriented i have no objectives about them living together and why not even marrying BUT not in church. BUT
They shouldn't be allowed to raise children since that kid will suffer it's entire life and probably become homo-sexualy oriented.

Again, this is an interesting question- can gays raise kids appropriately? What is the standard?

But I will also agree with you, if the church doesn’t want them to marry, than the church is not obligated to hold the ceremony for them. You can’t force a church to change its practices, because religion isn’t really democratic. Or so sayeth the Pope.

 

[welsh]

In a word, no.

Weren't you listening? There's no corelation between growing up with gay parents and becoming gay yourself. Even if you did, so what? By saying that's a problem you are also stating that being gay is a problem.

Ok, Ozrat, while I am tempted to believe you, I think we need to have some proof on this as well.

Suffer their entire lives? Being raised by gay parents who truly love each other and will stop at no ends to raise a child successfully is somehow going to be more painful and emotionally scarring than living with straight parents who are abusive to their family?

Indeed but most hetero couples are not abusive. I am not sure if most are single parent however, I am also not sure how many of these parents have gone through divorce or how that divorce has effected a child.

Again, the numbers here are unclear. It would be dangerous to make erroneous assumptions.

Surely you can't deny that a gay couple that love each other can and will raise a child better than a straight couple with problems? Sadly, there are no regulations on becoming parents, so many a child does end up being born with inadequte parenting.

Indeed, but the law also says that there should be few regulations on becoming a parent as family is a constitutional right. However, I am also not convinced that gay couples are no different than straight. From what I have seen some gay couples are very monogamous, but I also know quite a few gay singles who are rather promiscuous. Does that make a difference?

Give me one legitimate reason why a loving gay couple can't raise a child better than an abusive straight couple, especially since there is nothing stopping the abusive couple from having children and there are injust laws stopping the loving couple from adopting children from abusive situations like that.

Again, you are assuming abusive straight parents is the norm. Is it? I don’t think so.

But you are right, there is nothing against an abusive straight couple from having more children

But is marriage just about having children?

And Bradylama said-

According to the Massachusetts Constitution, no person may be oppressed based on their sex. Since the prohibiting of gay marriage is based on matters of one's sex, the court of Massachusetts declared it unconstitutional to prohibit gay marriage. They made their decision according to the law, and I for one think they made the right one.

Agreed.

And Kharn- I think this was a wonderful thread and it's been a pretty good discussion so far.

 

[Montez]

I think I need to clarify something I wrote earlier: I thought that marriages performed by the state(justice of the peace, etc.) were called 'civil unions' and 'marriage' signified religious marriage, but apparently they are different things. I just read over my first post and realized that it might not be clear that I meant secular marriage, so here it is with less confusing terminology:

I don't understand why the government even has to debate it - if they're equal citizens under the law then they really can't be denied rights that other citizens have, such as civil marriage.

Sorry if that caused any confusion for anyone. Also, like CCR I didn't realize that judges are only answerable to the constitution and not the populace, so my "Who says we aren't living in a democracy?" comment was meant to be sarcastic. [/apology in the classic sense]

Here's a question for everyone: Since homosexuality has been around since the dawn of civilization, why is it still treated as such a new and frightening concept?

 

[Brother None]

It's not a debate that's easy for me to take seriously.

Tell a Dutchman you're against gay marriages and he'll look at you as if you just said you just saw a pink elephant taking the pope anally.

The subject is a pretty offensive one, too. As I remember it, my aunts (as in aunt and her wife) were the first gay couple to marry in their province, and a hard bone it was to chew too. They still have no children, by choice. Don't know if they want to, it's up to them. I love my aunts, too. They went through a tough time to make their choice. Yay them. Boo anti-gays.

I'll take the thread as seriously as I can, but you'll excuse me if I just revert to swearing, loudly at times.

Here's a question for everyone: Since homosexuality has been around since the dawn of civilization, why is it still treated as such a new and frightening concept?

A tough question to answer, but I can name two things just from the top of my head:

1. Opression. Homosexuality has been brutally opressed in the West since the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity. It is something that is considered filthy and unclean, because that's what Christians have been saying for the past two millenia.

Christianity gave us many good things. This, like anti-semitism, is one of Christianity's lesser inheritances.

2. It deviates from the norm. Homosexuality can probably only be fully accepted in a society where the larger portion of the population practices it (or bisexuality), like Ancient Greece.

EDIT: well, I could've sworn this message was longer to begin with, ehehehe.

Oh, nevermind, forget it.

 

[welsh]

Montez- Yes, I see your point.

Well to be honest, in some areas judges are elected. This is not true of the federal court, but some local jurisdictions elected their judges, magistrates and justices of the peace. But that is a matter of local law.

From what little I know, and this coming from a gay couple that had a marriage contract in Mass, they can enter into a contract between each other that is like a marriage in terms of the responsibilities and rights, but this is typically an ad hoc arrangement. That people can have civil marriages and be gay probably has more to do with the ceremony than the actual legal effect.

Legally, gay marriages are not recognized by law in the US. Why, well part of it has to do with the level of scrutiny they are given.

Under the US system of Equal Rights, the idea is that people will not be treated different depending on the class of group they are in. But some classes have suffered more prejudice than others based on different qualifications. Thus discrimination based on race, ethnicity and national origin are normally given higher protection (and law make class-based distinctions are given higher scurtiny) than others. So for instance discrimination based on race is regarded higher scrutiny than legal discrimination based on gender or age. Interestingly mental handicap gets probably the lowest level of scrutiny- rational basis.

Which was the standard used by the Mass court. Why? Because gays have not been recognized as a class that has suffered consistent or a history of discrimination.

Bullshit?

Ah, well that's were the problems begin. You see, quite a few years ago there was a case Hardwick v. Bowers that said that gay relations was sodomy and as such was morally outragious to the majority of states, and thus criminal. THis case upheld a Georgia (I think) rule that said that sodomy was illegal- thus gay relationships based on sodomy were subject to criminal sanction, and you could kiss off gay marriage.

That changed last year when the Court reversed the Bowers decision.

Why are gays treated with such prejudice- well historically they weren't. But I would think that much of the discrimination goes with the notion of abstinance in religion of any sexual act. Since people who are hetero were unlikely to follow that practice for long- I mean we are natural creatures with a biological imperative that is hard to ignore) the prejudice came down on gays.

Thus the problem. For gays are probably a minority and such are an easily identifiable "Other." More importantly, for most folks, the notion of sexual identity is a central aspect of their own sense of self. The notion that someone might threatened that sexual identity with alternative ideas leads to the creation of "US" vs. "Other" categories.

Well, anyway, that's my vibe on it.

 

[Ugly John]

Who cares? Frankly I don't care what you suck as long as I don't have to smell your breath

i could not have said it better myself.

as for the rest of the thread tl-dr.

 

[Rusty Skull]

I wasn't refering to their love & care.Far from that.
I was talking about that one question that will annouce the begining of kid's unavoidable suffering.
Kids in his class (let's say 4.th class) when they are old enough to "figure out" his family will ask him this "Who is your mother and who is your father?"

 

[welsh]

Well, UJ, I tell you why it worries me.

For one thing, this looks like it will be a divisive issue in an election year. One can pretty much count that most of the religious right will say "gay life is blasphemy" and that will resonate with Christian right voters.

A counter argument would be something like, "there is a division between church and state, and one's civil rights should not depend on what one's religious views are."

To which the right will argue- "Yeah well, maybe it should. After all our notions of what is morally right comes from our judeo christian values and those say being gay is wrong. And if there is a division between church and state on what is moral and what is not, well maybe we should rethink that division."

At the same time, its these types of arguments that distract us from the bigger issue- why is the average American joe less well off now than he was say 30 years ago. Or, why don't more of us have good jobs, or, should we go to war with countries because our president says its in our national interest, or should a president be held accountable if he lies to us about why we go to war, spending our tax dollars looking for weapons that are not there, and then leaves us in a quagmire of a conflict on the other side of the world.

I wasn't refering to their love & care.Far from that.
I was talking about that one question that will annouce the begining of kid's unavoidable suffering.
Kids in his class (let's say 4.th class) when they are old enough to "figure out" his family will ask him this "Who is your mother and who is your father?"

Indeed, kids will suffer for this. But then kids might also be punished by their peers if they have a black dad and a white mom? Does that mean we should outlaw inter-racial marriages? Kids will be called "dot head" if they are Indian in a non-indian school. Should that mean we should segregate schools? If the kid gets beaten up because dad is home, cooking dinner and taking care of the house, while Mom is out working a 50 hour week, should that mean we should change the rights of men and women?

If the history of our country has shown that discrimination against gays exist because of their sexual preferences, and if we can accept that systematic discrimination based on sexual preference violates their equal rights as citizens, than shouldn't we, as a society move beyond that?

 

[megatron]

On a side not, is anybody here from a country where "burning a fag" still means something besides the hate crime?

England: Burning a cig..smoking I suppose, though most people say smoking instead of watching one burn but whatever d00d

I don't mind if a bunch of fags have an orgy in the middle of the street while smoking cigarettes, eating meat and doing whatever the fuck they want. Married or not. So long as nothing splatters against me, do what you want mate. So long as you can live with the consequences, bearing in mind that most people are close-minded nazis that think kids are some kind of easy-influenced monkeys or something. So were they once, that's why they're assholes now. I think we should show kids all kinds of life, if they don't feel like it because they're too happy running around outside then the government needs to watch clockwork orange HUH!

so yea. fuck em all, it doesn't matter.

 

[Gwydion]

Indeed, from what I hear of Catholicism- it does not condemn homosexuals but sexual acts outside the bounds of marriage. In essence, any fooling around outside of marriage is a sin. (Note episode in Seinfeld where the Catholic priest tells Puddy that he is going to hell for having sex with Elaine). You are not condemn for your preference but for you willingness to act upon this. However, I find this a bit tricky. For I also recall that the desire to commit an act that is deemed sinful is also a sin. Thus the person who lusts to commit adultery in his own heart is also to be deemed an adulterer. Which is why Catholics are so caught up in the issue of sin and guilt.

But then CC might not be Catholic.

The official Catholic position is that homosexual sex is disordered, a sin. I was asking Gunslinger the clarify his position, not whether this was true.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Now I lost interest in this a while ago, but I am curious, did that one gay bishop get allowed to do whatever it is he wanted to do by the Pope?

 

[Gwydion]

Now I lost interest in this a while ago, but I am curious, did that one gay bishop get allowed to do whatever it is he wanted to do by the Pope?

That's the Anglican church, not the Catholic church.

 

[Paladin Solo]

Ahhh, right. My bad. Anyways, was he allowed to be a bishop/priest/reverand?

 

[Gwydion]

Yeah, I guess so. There was some talk that it might cause splits within the Anglican church or the Episcopalian church (The branch of the Anglican church that the bishop belonged to) but I don't believe anything like that has happened yet.

 

[welsh]

Indeed, from what I hear of Catholicism- it does not condemn homosexuals but sexual acts outside the bounds of marriage. In essence, any fooling around outside of marriage is a sin. (Note episode in Seinfeld where the Catholic priest tells Puddy that he is going to hell for having sex with Elaine). You are not condemn for your preference but for you willingness to act upon this. However, I find this a bit tricky. For I also recall that the desire to commit an act that is deemed sinful is also a sin. Thus the person who lusts to commit adultery in his own heart is also to be deemed an adulterer. Which is why Catholics are so caught up in the issue of sin and guilt.

But then CC might not be Catholic.

The official Catholic position is that homosexual sex is disordered, a sin. I was asking Gunslinger the clarify his position, not whether this was true.

Gwydion- note the above discussion- Your question was whether Gunslinger was making a claim that Catholicsm condones homosexual behavior.

Any sex outside of marriage is a sin. At the same time the Catholic Church does not ban homosexuals from attending church, but does feel that the act of homosexual sex is a sin.

Your question- does the catholic church condone homosexual behavior- No. Just as it does not condone heterosexual behavior outside of marriage. Does it condone homosexuals- no- homosexuals are welcome to practice Catholicism, just as many Catholics are sinners, and yet should avail themselves of the sacrament of penance and confession.

 

[Gwydion]

Welsh, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. That does not it any way contradict what I've written.