gay marriage

[augustangel]

What do you guys think of the whoel gay marriage thing? I'm like totally for it. And well, all I have to say is God bless Gavin Newsom. We need more people liek him in this world.

[jamesglewisf]

I'm not for it.

[jamesglewisf]

I'm going to move this thread. The Love and Marriage forum is more about advice. This thread is really a debate on the merits of gay marriage.

[theyeti]

I'm in favor of completely legalizing same-sex marriage also. (I've been on this topic a lot the past few days so forgive me if my response isn't real detailed.... for now ;) ) Mayor Newsom acted appropriately and wisely. This is an issue that needs to get more front page coverage. I think a lot of people haven't explored their true feelings on the issue, and the more gay rights advocates can get society to do that, the better.
The way I see it, any person is one of two things:
1. Against equal rights for all, or
2. In support of gay marriage.

It's that simple.

[jamesglewisf]

That's a pretty simplistic view of things. You're either for what I want or you are against equal rights for all?

The definition of marriage is "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." Just because someone else wants to change the definition, doesn't mean we have to. It also doesn't mean that we are depriving them of rights.

It's like saying that either you believe in the people being able to marry their pet dogs, or your against equal rights for all. Either you're for 45 year-old-men being able to marry their 10-year-old-daughters, or you're against equal rights for all. Just because you believe that it is wrong for someone to marry his dog or his 10-year-old daughter, doesn't mean it is wrong. It might be wrong for you, but it's right for me.

[Alec]

I think it is wrong. I don't think it should be happening in churches, but who cares whether they get married at city hall or not. It's not my responsibility to monitor the lives of non-Christians. If the mayor wants to marry them, who cares. It's been going on in other countries for years. No one here seems to care about the other countries.

[theyeti]

Okay.... all humans then.

If you don't believe language can ever change (much less concepts or ideas), I'd appreciate it if you rephrased your arguments in a Shakespearean vocabulary.

Most countries around the world ARE depriving homosexual couples of their rights. They can't make deathbed decisions, receive insurance from a partner's employer, file joint tax returns, receive sufficient health benefits, and in many countries simply engaging in homosexual behavior is illegal!

By the way, I don't think it's very accurate to say "for (some form of marriage or another)." For example, if I'm "for same-sex marriage," it sounds like I'd rather be in a same-sex marriage than a heterosexual marriage. How am I supposed to make a fair judgement on that if I'm wired to be heterosexual? I can't. Instead of being for it, I support other forms of love and am tolerant of any mutual love there is.

[augustangel]

talkin about changing language, the spanish vocabulary isnt the same as it was 20 years ago. they take out words, they add in words but who's to say that its right or wrong? who does the changing anyways...

alot of my gay friends dont like the word "marriage" and in some ways i can see why. Historically "marriage" meant between a male and female...thats probably why its mostly called Civil Unions. i like that term better though.

but what i dont like are homosexuals being denied the same rights as heterosexuals reguarding the person they love.

ooooh {idea} ...signature change!

[Alec]

Support Disney in what?

[Outlaw TexasRed]

Originally posted by jamesglewisf
It's like saying that either you believe in the people being able to marry their pet dogs, or your against equal rights for all. Either you're for 45 year-old-men being able to marry their 10-year-old-daughters, or you're against equal rights for all. Just because you believe that it is wrong for someone to marry his dog or his 10-year-old daughter, doesn't mean it is wrong. It might be wrong for you, but it's right for me.

Nobody talks about people marrying dogs or whatever when it comes to these issues except those opposed to social change, and then only as part of an invalid "slippery slope" style argument that makes no sense.

[augustangel]

i will admit that i'm not much for violence, but President Bush ... [edited by theyeti 'cause I'm a nice guy.]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/24/national1759EST0141.DTL

and arnie too.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-02-21-gay-marriage_x.htm

:|

i just dont have any idea why people feel that way. i try to see things from their point of view, but...nuh uh. not working.

[theyeti]

augustangel, do you know of any activist groups on the internet that will be trying to fight this? (for those that didn't read the article yet - Bush's urging approval of a constitutional ban on gay marriages.) I searched briefly, but I haven't really been able to find anything yet that lets a poor student like me do anything other than read about it...

This kind of relates to the Nader thread: Like I just discussed on my blog, this virtually eliminates any inklings I had about supporting a 3rd-party candidate. Even though the chances of passing such an amendment, I believe (and hope) are extremely minimal, I don't want to take that risk. Let's not shoot bush - that's letting him off the hook, AA ;) - but we really need to get him out of office.

[jamesglewisf]

I think the reason you cannot comprehend Bush's feelings is that he operates from a different base than you do. His standard for what's right and wrong is based on his faith in God. Your standard for what is right and wrong is yourself. Those are just two different worldviews that we'll never be able to reconcile. It doesn't mean one person is evil and the other person is good. It just means we have different belief systems. That's part of the human condition. It's what makes life interesting. If we all believed things exactly the same, it would be pretty dull.

[theyeti]

Almost all major politicians believe in God, yet about half do not support this amendment. Does that make most democrats, many republicans and many independents infidels?
And even though 75-90% (depending on what source) of Americans believe in God, Gallup says only FORTY percent would favor a constitutional amendment! What does that make the other 35-50%?

God's Word has changed over the last 2,000 years, if we listen to what the Vatican has had to say. Why should anyone base their beliefs off of one system of reasoning, especially without modifying that reasoning over time? Sounds very partisan to me. It wouldn't mean that one of us is good or evil, but it would mean that one of us would consider more angles when making a decision, and therefore represent a larger portion of the general public...

Who's to say that Bush's feelings ARE based in his faith in God, anyway? I've never talked to the guy, much less about religion. Were Alaska, Iraq, and Halliburton all based in his faith in God, too?

[augustangel]

bushweed has no morals. he doesnt know whats right and wrong. he's just using religion as an excuse to get what he wants. if he really had faith in god, if he was even a fraction of good, then he wouldnt be sending america's children off to war. he started it in the first place.

if he wanted to do something based on religion or the bible, then he needs to look deeper. much deeper. he's looking on the surface. not the core. and all what he's trying to do is take away equal rights from gays and lesbians.

what they tried to do to blacks all those years ago with. people still discriminate against blacks now. we never had a black president. in 100 years they'll be doing the same thing to gays.

the president doesnt care about this country. he just has a serious grudge against someone whos p rolly locked up in a jail cell right now.

*sigh* I miss clinton. even though im not much for politics, but bushwackers got me really mad.

[Outlaw TexasRed]

Originally posted by jamesglewisf
I think the reason you cannot comprehend Bush's feelings is that he operates from a different base than you do. His standard for what's right and wrong is based on his faith in God.

This has nothing to do with Bush's standards of right and wrong; it is all about politics.

BTW your tone is very condescending and inappropriate.

A lot of people with strong beliefs in God do not believe such a thing is good. It is essentially constitutionalizing bigotry. The only other countries to do that in the last century were Nazi Germany and the Apartheid Regime of South Africa.

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by theyeti
Almost all major politicians believe in God, yet about half do not support this amendment. Does that make most democrats, many republicans and many independents infidels?
And even though 75-90% (depending on what source) of Americans believe in God, Gallup says only FORTY percent would favor a constitutional amendment! What does that make the other 35-50%?

God's Word has changed over the last 2,000 years, if we listen to what the Vatican has had to say. Why should anyone base their beliefs off of one system of reasoning, especially without modifying that reasoning over time? Sounds very partisan to me. It wouldn't mean that one of us is good or evil, but it would mean that one of us would consider more angles when making a decision, and therefore represent a larger portion of the general public...

Who's to say that Bush's feelings ARE based in his faith in God, anyway? I've never talked to the guy, much less about religion. Were Alaska, Iraq, and Halliburton all based in his faith in God, too? George Bush is not Catholic. He probably doesn't listen too much to what the Vatican says.

I go to dinner and a basketball game regularly with my pastor. I did last night. He knows George Bush personally and sees/talks with him semi-regularly. Bush is a devout Christian according to my pastor.

If you are a devout Christian who believes that the Bible is the word of God, then most decisions are somehow influenced by your Biblical worldview. Obviously, which shoe to tie next isn't. Not every decision we make is a moral decision. For instance, whether or not I'm going to work for IBM or Dell isn't a moral decision, but I'll still pray that God will give me wisdom to make a quality decision.

So, can two devout Christians who seek God's wisdom for decisions still come to different conclusions on a topic? Of couse, they're humans, not robots.

Saying that you believe in God doesn't make you a Christian. I counsel people all the time who want to join our church. They believe in God, but they are not all Christians. And those that are Christians do not all have the same spiritual maturity. They're all at different places in their spiritual walk and their understanding of key doctrines and Scripture.

Becoming a Christian doesn't zap you so that you suddenly fit some profile. That's like saying that all liberals favor abortion and are against the war in Iraq. The fact that Democrats are not all exactly the same is evident from the primaries. Assuming that all Christians are identical is not any more reasonable.

If I believe that the Bible is the word of God, then I believe that it is true yesterday, today, and forever. If the Bible says X is wrong, then as long as I believe that the Bible is true, I'm not going to modify my belief that X is wrong, no matter how many reasons or explanations that you present to me. If I believe that truth is absolute, then I'm not going to waver. People might think that is close-minded. I think knowing the truth sets you free, not constrains you.

For instance, I believe that 1+2=3. I believed that 10 years ago. I believe it today. I'll believe it 10 years from now. I believe that 1+2=3 is an absolute truth. Everybody believes in some absolutes, they just don't all realize it. If there weren't absolute truths, we'd go crazy because we could never depend upon anything. I know that fire burns my unprotected skin. I rely on that truth to protect myself from getting burned by fire. Absolutes are part of life, but not everything is absolute; don't get me wrong.

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by Outlaw TexasRed
This has nothing to do with Bush's standards of right and wrong; it is all about politics.

BTW your tone is very condescending and inappropriate.

A lot of people with strong beliefs in God do not believe such a thing is good. It is essentially constitutionalizing bigotry. The only other countries to do that in the last century were Nazi Germany and the Apartheid Regime of South Africa. I'm sorry, I'm not trying to sound condescending. I said that having a different worldview doesn't make one person good and one person bad, it just makes them different. I don't see how that is condescending. It certainly wasn't my intent; in fact, I went out of my way to try to not sound condescending.

I don't see how it is constitutionalizing bigotry. The characterization of bigotry doesn't seem fair to me. Your stance takes thousands of years of belief, throws it out the door, and calls anyone who disagrees a bigot.

My analogy that I used earlier wasn't dealing with the slippery slope. It was just an example of how two people can have different moral positions that affect how they view laws.

I think my analogy about a 45-year-old man wanting to marry his 10-year-old daughter is a valid one. Someone might say, "The man is sick. Everyone knows that is wrong. He's taking advantage of a minor. It will never happen." Well, 150 years ago, that's what people probably thought about same-sex marriages. The 45-year-old would say that we are denying him his constitutional rights. His 10-year-old daughter doesn't get to make hospital or deathbed decisions for him. They don't get the same tax treatment as married people. It's just not fair. It's constitutional bigotry. It's downright rude and bigoted to call him a pedophile. Who are we to say that pedophilia is wrong? He was born that way. Why would God give him this tendency if it were wrong?

How about multiple wives? Why should polygamists be discriminated against?

I'm not saying that anyone is currently advocating these ideas, but if someone did next year, would we throw out traditional views and allow it because one opinion is no more right than another?

If you don't like those examples, pick something that you believe in your heart is wrong. How about Enron? Who is to say that lying is wrong? Who is to say that it is wrong to lie to people about their invested money or corporate profits? I think that lying is justifiable because it helps me separate greedy people from their money. I don't think there were any victims of Enron. Victim is such an over-used term. It was just the free flow of money from one pocketbook to another. I like to call it commerce. Some people like to call it the greed tax. You can't say it is wrong because it is against the law. The law is not right or wrong, it is just an opinion. If it is wrong to take money from one person and give it to another, then why is it OK to have a death tax? You are taking money from heirs and giving it to other people. How is that different from me taking all of your pension money and buying a speedboat?

You could say that Enron is a ridiculous example. Everyone knows that lying and cheating are wrong. Why are they wrong? Who says so? Is something wrong because 98% of the people believe it is wrong? Well, things are different today than they were 100 years ago. We now know that lying and cheating are not necessarily wrong. Those are such harsh words, too. They sound judgmental. I think from now on, we are going to call liars "encouragers" and cheaters "creative thinkers." Those are less bigoted terms with less historical baggage, I think.

Obviously, I'm exaggerating to make a point. That sounds ridiculous because we both believe that lying and cheating are wrong. Well, I can tell you for certain that I personally know people who believe lying and cheating are not wrong. I know someone who actually believes he has never lied. I know someone who wouldn't mind risking other people's money in an investment because she won't actually be the one losing the money. That sounds wrong to us because we both have the same opinion about lying and cheating being wrong. Mine comes from the Bible. You might say yours comes from common sense; it's obvious. Tadaaaaaa!!! We're back where we started.

You know what I like about the "Great Debate" forum? We can disagree forever and argue till we're blue in the face, and we never convince the other person we're right. So why do it? It's good to have beliefs and share them.

Again, I'm sorry if anything I said earlier sounded condescending. That's not my intent. Please forgive me.

[theyeti]

Yes, I do have what I believe to be an absolute truth: That there are no absolute truths. From my experience, there is always a (even if far-fetched) exception. And yes, I realize that this very truth is flawed, since it concludes that it has to be wrong at least once.

I don't see how it is constitutionalizing bigotry. The characterization of bigotry doesn't seem fair to me. Your stance takes thousands of years of belief, throws it out the door, and calls anyone who disagrees a bigot. Specifically, 2 thousand years of belief, which itself very well may have been designed with no other goal than to put-down rival religious groups! I don't believe anyone really sanctioned homosexuality in the Middle East or Europe until well after the time of Christ - when it was important to the people to establish firm boundaries of religion. Most likely, these boundaries didn't happen to include many homosexuals.

bigot: A person of strong conviction or prejudice, especially in matters of religions, race, or politics, who is intolerant of those who differ with him. (amer.-heritage) Stifling the rights which you have to persons different than you is quite "intolerant."

Different is a great thing. Isn't that what we're taught in kindergarten? Every one of us is unique, and we all have a right to be unique. So as long as people agree, why shouldn't polygamists (for example) be discriminated against? If everyone personally involved agrees, what harm does it pose to you or me?

Come to think if it - you're right, the example with the 45-year-old man and the 10-year old girl is a good one. If both are fully capable of making a fully educated and competent decision (which in the case of a 10-year-old is unlikely, but possible), why shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want? What difference does it make to you or me?

If I believe that the Bible is the word of God, then I believe that it is true yesterday, today, and forever. If the Bible says X is wrong, then as long as I believe that the Bible is true, I'm not going to modify my belief that X is wrong, no matter how many reasons or explanations that you present to me. If I believe that truth is absolute, then I'm not going to waver. People might think that is close-minded. I think knowing the truth sets you free, not constrains you.If there is a God, I'd hope he isn't so lazy as to give us hethens one message, two thousand years ago, and not change or at least clarify anything since. Maybe it is a big code as the conspiracy theorists suggesting and He's just waiting for us to crack it? I doubt it, since we're trying to crack the Bible code in english, which wasn't even close to the original language... ugh, I can't stand those guys!

There is a vast canyon of difference between absolute truth and intelligent decisions. I don't touch my hand to fire because the last time I did, I got burned. But I have absolutely no evidence that the next time I do, I'll get burned. And I also know that people can walk over hot coals and enjoy it.

If anyone thinks knowing one truth sets you free, I urge you to try exploring several possibilities in addition to what you were brought up with - talk about freedom! I'll bet you'll find it refreshing and enlightening. If one path through the forest is that beautiful, think about how great the scenic route must be!

You know what I like about the "Great Debate" forum? We can disagree forever and argue till we're blue in the face, and we never convince the other person we're right. So why do it?Very rarely will you sway the other person in a debate.... but very often will you convince the lurker listening quietly from around the corner.

[augustangel]

it would be nice if gay civil unions held the same benefits as gay marriages, but it doesnt. i just found out that today *sigh* but when u think of the word "marriage" you think of heterosexuals.

its so funny, i dont know what to think on the wording. i'm supposed to know, but i dont. :|

[augustangel]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/02/26/state1350EST0073.DTL

im confused. so what exactly is his view on gay marriages?

[theyeti]

That he isn't smart enough to get involved in debate about any real issues. It's Arnold, after all! Does anyone actually expect him to be anything more than a talking head?

What he's projecting is that while he doesn't approve of same-sex marriage, he doesn't think a consitutional amendment is the answer. Which happens to be the beliefs of the majority of Californians.

[augustangel]

is gay marriage legal in canada? i mean with all the benefits of marriage and stuff.

[theyeti]

It varies from province to province. In general, they get a lot better benefits than the United States at the moment. There's a great summary here: http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/canada.html

[augustangel]

*sigh* its a really good thing im not in a relationship. better yet, a serious one. i would die if i couldnt marry her. legally. with all the benefits. and then if somethin came up she'll have to testify agaist me in court cuz theres no legal reason why she cant. like what happened to Rosie O'Donnell

{mad} and why cant anyone look at it like that? grrrrr




=^.^=

[theyeti]

Oh my gosh -

I was looking for news in Africa about Aristide (http://frappydoo.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=29198#post29198) and came across this:

Torture of Egyptian Gays Turns Systematic (http://www.afrol.com/articles/11415):A new study on the Egyptian government's purge against homosexuals shows that the torture is used systematically. The crackdown started in 2001 is still ongoing and has turned into a permanent government campaign against homosexuals.
...
The human rights group [Human Rights Watch in New York] found that Egyptian police "routinely torture men suspected of homosexual conduct." The report cites testimonies of victims telling how they were bound, suspended in painful positions, burned with cigarettes or submerged in ice-cold water, and subjected to electroshock on their limbs and genitals. Numerous testimonies in the report accuse Taha Embaby, head of Cairo's Vice Squad, of direct participation in torture.

[augustangel]

:| lovely




what do u think the verdicts gonna be on gay marriage? think theyre gonna ban it? or allow it?

either way, the US is overrated. so much for patriotism. i'm movin to Canada.

[jamesglewisf]

LOL!

I don't think it will get banned by federal law or amendment. It's too hard to accomplish it.

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by theyeti
Oh my gosh -

I was looking for news in Africa about Aristide (http://frappydoo.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=29198#post29198) and came across this:

Torture of Egyptian Gays Turns Systematic (http://www.afrol.com/articles/11415): I heard about this on the radio this morning. That's pretty sick.

[augustangel]

i think i put too much cayenne pepper in my raamen. moist, waterless raamen, that is.

the younger generation is more tolerant of gays and lesbians. so maybe its an old thing.

but i really do hope they legalize it. and i hope bushweed gets kicked in his...anyhoo, yeah.

what do u think should happen, james? are u for or against? i dunno what u said before, but..ya.

[jamesglewisf]

I mentor a man each week. This morning we looked at the attributes of God. He does not change. Because He is perfect, he cannot get better or worse. He cannot become more informed or more enlightened.
He is perfectly loving. He cannot love his creation any more or any less than he does right now.
He is perfectly just and fair. All of his judgments are righteous and true.
He is perfectly merciful.
He is perfectly trustworthy. He cares about what is best for his creation.
He is sovereign and omnipotent. Ultimately, he is in control of everything.
He is omniscient. He has total knowledge. He will never learn anything new or improve in his understanding.
He speaks only the truth. He never lies.God has spoken about homosexuality very clearly in the Bible. If you want to know what he said, read this thread: http://www.frappydoo.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131

I can't be in favor of something that God is against. That doesn't mean I hate people are who are in favor of gay marriage. I wish them no ill-will. Quite the opposite. I pray for them that God will richly bless their lives and bring them to a knowledge of himself.

My responsibility as a Christian is to inform you of what God has to say in the Bible, and the rest is up to you and God. I'm not worried about whether or not gay marriage gets approved or not, but I am not in favor of it.

[augustangel]

the main thing is about the whole gay marriage this is, well, how would you feel if you were lawfully denied marriage to the person you love? i mean, thats what it is. love sees no gender. its abstract, not concrete.

and plus, u cant really know for sure, what he said because he didnt write the bible. yes, the same bible that condones slavery. the same one that subjugates women. but thats just how i see it.

So how can u really know if he's against it or not? Darlin, if god didnt want gay people on the earth, we wouldnt be here. Everything happens for a reason, well most. And I really do hope they legalize gay marriage. Marriage is a human right. And a man and a woman in love is no better than 2 men or 2 women in love. That I know for sure.

But i do hope that peoples mentaltiy about certian issues changes within the next 20 years.
:|
I'll be OLD in the next 20 years! {eek}
Just like Madonna, *takes a bow*
*sings theme song from I Dream of Jeanie.*

[theyeti]

Originally posted by augustangel

But i do hope that peoples mentaltiy about certian issues changes within the next 20 years.
:|
I'll be OLD in the next 20 years! {eek}
Just like Madonna, *takes a bow*
*sings theme song from I Dream of Jeanie.*


So the real question here is, do you believe in life after love?

I think a lot of attitudes will change in the next 20 years, AA. Not all by any means. It takes many generations for any big social change to take place. It'll be our children who really decide where we're headed.

[augustangel]

So the real question here is, do you believe in life after love? {confused}

Well, the gay and lesbian community has come so far since the 1969 Stonewall riot. I mean, so much things have changed. But not everything. I know there will still be discrimination against us 60 years from now.

but ur right, it is up to the young people. And i do think the future will be more tolerant. People more and more people are coming out of the closet. its not just 1 in 10 anymore. its 1 in 7. They cant ignore that. Lots of children are being brought up to be more accepting.

Usually, the homophobics i know and hear of are, well, mostly religious. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever. its just somethin about those mainliners that stays gray. But some other religions have open arms.

My Wiccan friends are more accepting of me that some of the Christians i know.

So its probably a religion thing. I may be wrong.

[theyeti]

So the real question here is, do you believe in life after love?It's a Madonna song ;)

I didn't really know anything about Stonewall before.. here's wikipedia about it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots)

[augustangel]

1. if someoen guess what topping i had on my pizza *hint hint:chicken n cheeze*, u'll be on my good list. Meaning that at Thanksgiving I'll tell the easter goblin to put a lump of rusty copper in your christmas bowl.

2. No, I dont believe in life after love cuz love dont live here anymore, just emptiness and memories *tear*.

3. I'ma big confused on something. But then again, since I'm off my medication, everythin confuses me....blah. Here goes.

Kerry is against gay marriage but he supports civil unions with all the benefits of marriage. So that makes me think. Is it all about the terminology? Hisotirally, marriage has been between a "man" and a "woman." So then, why not give gays and lesbians their own word? Union. Marriage is a union. Between a "man and woman." Civil Marriage for heteros and Civil Unions for gays and lesbians. But then again, I think it is a bit better. It makes it easier to distinguish whos gay and whos not lol.

1 in 7, remember that.

Also remember, that right now, the time is 3:54pm in the afternoon and Josh Groban's You Raise Me Up just started.

But anyhoo. It probably is about terminololgy. At least for Kerry. I dunno what kind of lobsters stuck in the bushman's pants :| but anyhoo. Im doin a million different nothings right nwo that includes sucking on a small strawberry jolly rancher and staring at a 20 fl oz bottle of Fruit Punch Powerade.

So I will be jettin.

Ciao Ciao

[Lisa]

Um - wow. This is a thread I didn't expect to go this way, for some odd reason. Personally, I am completely against gay marriages. Marriage has always been, ever since man has recorded history, between a man and a women. Sure it has been perverted by poligamy and other things at times, but marriage has always been about a man and a woman. I don't believe it should be changed.

I have to agree with something James said earlier, that the difference in oppinion often stems from a basic belief in God, Elohim, Yeshuah - a belief in Him or not. Either you believe in what He says and accept the Creators Word or you make up your own to suit yourself and those around you.

Truth is truth, right is right - 'relative truth' is a farse. Not everything is black and white, but this, IMHO, is.

I stand behind President Bush 110% He is our leader by popular vote (no matter what you may say, he did get the majority of votes to win his seat) and he has been selected, as Clinton was, by God to lead our country at this specific time. I did not support Clinton's ways in the least, but he was who God choose for whatever reason.

This WAS one nation under God, founded on His principles in His Word. It is now a sad state, because we've turned from Him. We will fall from being a major world power and China will be the lead world power shortly, as predicted by my grandfather who grieves at the state of our nation (and is NOT a believer, btw). We will go the way of the Roman Empire, how sad. :(

Lisa

[CuriousG]

I think I would support it if it was deemed as some sort of civil union. These individuals live their lives as couples, so maybe a lawful document granting them some sort of unity. Even men and women who aren't officially "married" can be considered common-law married after a certain amount of time. I don't think that this should be made an issue regarding the church. It's not like these people are going up to the local church door, banging on it and saying let us get married. Since there is a separation of church and state, the church can choose to recognize whatever marriages they want. The government doesn't have to endorse gay marriages, so give them a formal document recognizing a union within the household for tax purposes, etc. What's the difference? Like I said, these couples live together as a joined union anyway. Most of the debate stems from the definition of marriage, which I believe still is between a man and a woman. However, I don't see any problem allotting for a civil union of two people who are going to be together anyway. Being gay isn't a crime, so why should we make a piece of paper that says a gay couple is joined together against the law?

[theyeti]

You are right CuriousG, we live in a country where church and state are separate. That makes this NOT a religious issue, but a governmental issue. Many people are frustrated when religion is brought up as an argument - I am one of them. If we were debating a religious text, great - but for religion to be used in a social issue carries a prerequisite - that all people involved adhere to it. No one form of Christianity has a majority, even in the United States. In fact, only 75% of US citizens are considered to be adherently Christian - and do 75% of the people you know even attend church on a consistent basis? Unlikely.

One of the most renowned writers on the topic of gay marriage is John Boswell. I think I'm going to try and find some of his books... the one I came across first was Same Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679751645/qid=1078870440//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/103-1960972-3728647?v=glance&s=books&n=507846).

What Boswell and many other historians have concluded is that homosexual marriages have not only been widely accepted, but legally and religiously sanctioned for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. I had been under the impression that Christianity, in particular Catholicism, had tried to stomp out homosexuality in the centuries following Christ. Boswell says the Catholic church did not frown upon homosexuality until the 1800's!
Marriage has NOT always been about a man and a woman. The only way to make this argument is to look at certain parts of history but not others, or to distort the information to serve your own purpose. In thousands of years, have humans never experimented with homosexuality? Even if it wasn't a genetic impulse, no one has tried it in thousands of years up until now? And what reason would any have to oppose it, prior to today's politicized world?

A word about traditions: Traditions change. You cannot realistically expect that what was true yesterday, last month, last year, last thousand years, last ten thousand years, to be true today. If you have lived any significant amount of time, you know this to be true. It's why dad's memory isn't quite as good as it used to be, why it seems like people aren't as nice to each other anymore, why little Johnny's school doesn't let them have a Christmas tree in the classroom, and why groups of people that once were repressed are gaining the courage to step forward. Tradition may be comfortable, but do we really want to stay in that lazy-boy the rest of our lives?

I am not surprised at all that so many people believe in human rights. With time, the number of people who realize that traditions do change will increase - this I am confident of. I am also confident that most people want to do what is best for their fellow men and women. Sometimes people's thoughts are stuck in a rut. But if we don't make a conscious effort to get out of that rut, soon we'll be left behind. Modern religions aren't stupid. Most of them know that in order to survive over time, they've got to change as society changes - religion is only one component of society. But in the civil rights era, they're facing a challenge: will their constituents change with them? Or stick with what their mothers and father taught them decades ago? Ironically, if many people choose the latter, it seems religious institutions are headed for a cliff. If they choose the former, the religion is no longer it's former self... it just has the same name. People have been choosing the former for thousands of years.

The logical conclusion? Make a decision based on today's facts, not yesterdays. Turn your mind into a sponge. Squeeze out what you've been taught, and absorb everything around you. What you've got now is a ripe view of society instead of a musty collection of interpreted, analyzed, and twisted bits of info from years gone by.

sorry to break the zen-ish mood - yes, i do realize that cher sang that.... whatever. I was close! ;-)

[augustangel]

ah, yes, Lisa! thanks for reminding me why i'm not a Christian. *sigh* :|

and I personally believe that Bush is the worst thing that happened to the US.

and tell me....when you said this country turned away from god, were you referring to all the pork eaters in the country?



song of the moment : Christina Aguilera's Beautiful. even though Madonna's still the Queen.


i did something insanely stupid last night.

i thought by bangs were uneven. so i cut it. it was more uneven. and i cut it again. and now its even. but its really really short.

maybe..just maybe i should put some powder in it and go run around naked in my neighbourhood.

um...can i say that?

and i can get a couple possible outcomes...

1) they can lock me up.
2) they can s cream at me to go home
3) they can pay me

or they can take me to the salon to fix my poor hair. but whatever it is, i'll stop boring you 1/4th to demise. tootles!!!!

[augustangel]

but then again, thats just me. ive always thought that way lol. my parents are strict christians.

song of the moment : rod stewart's version of can't take that away.

and i'm smelling vinegar. why am i smelling vinegar? i'm losing it! *cries*

[Lisa]

Um - we raise pork. As well as beef and lamb and poultry - all for consumption. It's the Jews who consider pork unclean, because the Torah says so (and oddly enough, you may say, modern medicine agrees that the 'unclean' animals are the least healthy - interesing that "someone" thousands of years ago knew that?). This country is in the state it is because Christians have sat on their hands and let life pass them by. That's just exactly what happened to the Jews in Judges, Samuel (1 & 2) and so on. It's not new, but it's still tragic.

Our nation, the USA, was founded on Biblical principles. The separation of church & state took place because of the abuse the church & state relationship in England, among other countries. It was to protect the church, not to protect the state.

If I remind you why you are not a Christian - please tell me why that is? I'm just curious (and btw - I don't get the e-mail notifications anymore for some reason, so I don't know when there's a response these days).

I am not going to argue history - I've studied it myself. I am not going to dive into my books to find information to suit my own perspective either, because that is always possible in any situation.

The question was asked what we think of gay marriages - I answered. Insulting me and others by calling me narrow minded and poking at me with "thanks for reminding me why I'm not a Christian" don't provoke me. Like water off a duck's back.

I don't expect non-Christians to behave like Christians, but it sure grieves me to know that my chidren and grandchildren will grow up in a "less than" country. *sigh* After all my grandfathers and great-grandfathers, even my great-grandmothers, gave of their lives for this country - it's going to pot anyway. How sad.

BUT YHVH is still bigger than this country and His ways are higher than our ways, so there is hope. There is always hope!

Lisa

[augustangel]

But the Christian Bible says that eating Pork is wrong...and I've seen it..it also prohibits getting drunk. But we can talk about bible errancy and stuff in another thread. (i'll post later. if i can.)

I'm sorry if I offended you. Its just that most of the Christians I know, my parents included, think the same way. Not entirely, but in just some areas. Lots of Christians I know, I say that they don't think for themself. Religion does for them. But then again, thats just my opinion and I'm only one person. But everyone interperets everything differently. The bible included.

I do agree with the whole seperation of church and state, though.

I was watching this movie on TBN a couple months ago. It was talkin about a world where "Lucifer" ruled the worled, but it was not at all hellish like what the bible says. So it made me think. ('m rambling again now) If the world really was like that, then I wouldnt have a problem with that. Well in a way, it kind of is, but not entirely. I forgot the name...blah. anyhoo, yeah

I apologize again if I offended you. i usually try to fight everything lol.

I tried Christianity once and I did not agree with it one bit. So sometimes I say that I'm spiritual with no religion attached, whatever that may mean.

TaTa:D

[CuriousG]

I think the whole situation is a matter of opinion. People who are against gay marriage shouldn't be deemed as untolerant, and those who are for it shouldn't be considered immoral. That's why we live in this country. The people are allowed to have their opinion and voice it accordingly regardless of the value system on which is what was based. If someone is opposed based on their Christian belief, that's their right. How are you going to tell them they have to accept something that's contrary to the way they have been taught and raised by all their life. This is the same way their parents and their parents before them where brought up. That's why we have all these problems in the middle east. These people live their lives according to their religion and how it has been passed down for generations. Who is anyone to say what is right and wrong, it's all a matter of opinion. Because one person's views are not based on religion, does that make them right, absolutely not. At the same time, relious based views are not necessarily wrong because they are religious in nature. This entire country was founded on religous principles no matter what anyone feels about any religion. The whole situation is a giant paradox. The government is not supposed to legislate morality, but inherently all laws are based on morals and ethics. You could go on forever arguing this, but you could never determine who was "right" persay.

[theyeti]

Well said.

In the interests of staying on topic.... for a religious discussion, head on over to the religion area, or to debate it, start a new thread in the debate area. This thread is for what you individually think about gay marriage - not pork, not religious interpretation, not our country, not what our hair is like at the moment;).

[augustangel]

yeah, CG. i get what ur saying, but I always get extremely defensive. Its different when you're on the recieving end and get boiling lava coated fireballs thrown at you.

I just say this one thing: what if it were you?

i believe in freedom of opinion, but darlin, the world is changing. Like they say, out with the old, in with the new. The younger people are generally more tolerant of life itself. And thats a good thing.

And as for religion, some beliefs are inhereted. Meaning that if they were taught something since they were a child, t hey grow to believe it as adults, though not all.

Sometimes i try to see things from more than one side, even though that may be hard to believe, based on my previous posts, but like i said. i get really defensive. thats why id prefer this time more than 10 years ago. each year gets better for gays and lesbians and maybe one day, everyone wont have such a problem with it.

oh, one more thing. even though they say theres a line b/w church and state in this country, its really not.

in court, they have to swear on the bible. money says 'in god we trust' .

you say that this country was founded on religious principles, that may be true but times have changed. people have changed. ( and so has the dsm .{eek} )

hmmm..thats prolly why everyones movin to Canada...{rolleyes} lol

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by theyeti
In the interests of staying on topic.... for a religious discussion, head on over to the religion area, or to debate it, start a new thread in the debate area. This thread is for what you individually think about gay marriage - not pork, not religious interpretation, not our country, not what our hair is like at the moment;). Ditto.

:) The only thing I would add is that if there is something in your background that makes you believe a certain way, for instance, being gay or being a Christian, feel free to share it. Just don't get the thread off-topic by debating the merits of religion when we are really debating the merits of gay marriage. We don't really police what people say here as long as it is said nicely, but it is preferable to stay on-topic.

Let's forgive each other for whatever has been said in earlier posts and stick to the topic of gay marriage. :)

[CuriousG]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to get off topic, I was just trying to make a statement regarding foundations on which the two sides of this argument are based. I think augustangel hit on part of what I was trying to say as well. We can argue the separation of church and state, but the line is very skewed. There are a lot of gray areas, but enough about religion. I do have to disagree with augustangel on something important. You say that times change, which is true, but change is subject to how we want it to happen. Just because someone decides they want to have a gay marriage, doesn't automatically mean that society should have to change and accept this. If there became a trend where people decided they could sell their children to other people and it became common, does that mean we should change and have to accept it? Maybe that's a bad example, but hopefully you understand the point I'm trying to make. Just because something exists or is in practice, doesn't merit that thing being accepted. We have the right to mold our society and change as we deem fit and necessary. Society is not at liberty to change just because time has progressed, and since all of the sudden something has been practiced for that much longer it doesn't necessarily deem it appropriate. There should be reasons and popular support for such things. My whole little rant here is not necessarily a knock on gay marriage, but a rebuttal to the claim that society is obligated to change because people feel that the progression of time automatically constitutes things previously unacceptable to now be acceptable. If this were the case, how would you draw a line. Society must keep itself in check.

[xpac]

Actually I have never, and still don't understand how a person is sexually attracted towards the same sex. I have tried looking at it at a Gay's point of view, but still, I can't, I just can't find ANYTHING sexually attractive looking at a male..no matter how handsome or what ever he is, I never get sexually attracted towards a male (I am a male by the way). So, according to me, Homosexuals are abnormal people.

Just imagine this world, where every male starts marrying males, there would be no kids and finally the world would come to an end. God I'm scared.

[augustangel]

xpac, i cant look at a male and feel sexually attracted to them, so we're on the same boat. ;)

but homosexuality doesnt just include males. theres also females.

but if everyone in this world was the same, then darlin, that would be abnormal.

geez. am i like the only gay person on this forum?

and also theres somethin i dont understand.

Just imagine this world, where every male starts marrying males, there would be no kids and finally the world would come to an end. God I'm scared.

just because soemthin applies to 1 out of 7 people, it doesnt automatically apply to all 7 out of 7. if u havent noticed, theres a huge difference. by 6 actually. god im annoyed.

and according to the christian bible, the worlds gonna come to an end anyways, so what are u worried about?

i swear if its like this in 5 years or 10 and i cant marry the one person i care about most in this world, i'd totally freak out. and i'm still movin to Canada. i hope. blah.

song of the moment : none

scent of the moment: Jergens Daily Care Lotion with Cherrry Almond Scent.

grrrr

hmmm {evil}, come to think about it, i prolly am the only gay person on this forum. i hope not though.

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by augustangel
song of the moment : none

scent of the moment: Jergens Daily Care Lotion with Cherrry Almond Scent.
This is what theyeti was talking about when he said to stay on topic. Please keep your posts relevant to the topic. It's not that the information shouldn't be posted anywhere. It just doesn't belong in a thread about gay marriage.
grrrr

hmmm {evil}, come to think about it, i prolly am the only gay person on this forum. i hope not though.
I have no idea if you are the only gay person on this forum. Unless the only thing you want to discuss is gay issues, it shouldn't really matter. [There's nothing wrong with wanting to discuss gay issues, but non-gays at some point might stop participating out of lack of interest. It's like if you were the only NASCAR fan and couldn't get anyone else to discuss NASCAR.] And it certainly doesn't matter to us what your sexual preference is. We just want you to participate and start new interesting threads (just like you have been). I am certainly glad that you are here. :)

[theyeti]

xpac, neither can I. But not everyone is like you or me are. I don't see how anyone could be attracted to some females either, but apparently they are. All our minds work differently... anyone who's ever had a mental "disorder" (I would be referring to myself) knows this.

And no, all heterosexuals would not disappear because homosexuals are allowed to marry. But let's just suppose we all would become gay or lesbian because I think far-out theoretical arguments are fun sometimes. Almost every other animal (w/ the exception of some monkeys maybe?) derives no pleasure from procreation. They do it to reproduce, not for fun. We would be able to do the same, thus staving off armageddon once again.

AA, I don't know if you're the only gay member here or not. But it definitely doesn't matter. And we're growing, so who knows, maybe some more will join.

[xpac]

How about lets just keep it to something called freindship? I mean I have a lot of freinds, both male and female. But I don't really have to prove my freindship by having sex and marrying with them. Freinds can have fun, couples can have fun too. The difference is that Freinds love each other, care for each other, just like couples do, but they don't have sex, they don't stay to gether under one roof. If someone is really that addicted to his freind, he can simply live in his freinds house instead of marrying him. In case of females this might be different, if a male is in freindship with female, and he loves her by heart and sexually, they can marry.

[augustangel]

James, when i post, i post whatever's on my mind. in order. and having a very very ADD mind, it wanders. and as it wanders, i type that. so i could be talking about a topic and slide into somethin else briefly, and back on topic. thats just me. lol its not that confusing. well, probably, to some.

but now on topic...(i think)..and i happen to like talkin about gay issues. i try to see where other people are thinking. even though its kind of hard to accept it. i live in my own world. a very unrealistic world. or so ive been told. i see nothing wrong wtih gay topics. homosexuality is very, very old. but acceptance of it is very, very new. the reason i made that comment about me being the only gay person on forum is because it seems like i'm the only person here thats cleary bothered most peoples inability to accept it. even like i said, acceptance is relatively new.


and xpac, i dont know what ur talkin about with addiction. no one said anythin about addiction. Just like in any other romantic relationship, its more than just friendship. sure its included, but not just. but you are right, u dont see.

i understand heterosexual relations just as i do homosexuals, even though im' not heterosexual. and not just because the world we live in predominately hetero. just as with other topics, i try to see where the other person is coming from. sometimes it doesnt seem that way. but with my poor brain, i seldom reach a conclusion.

grrr. now i'm upset.

[augustangel]

but i am glad this 'discussion' is 4 pages long so far.

[xpac]

Why is it that only homosexuals can be homosexuals? And hetrosexuals can't turn into homosexuals? I'm a hetrosexual. But I tried to be a gay for some hours maybe. I went to some porn sites, looked up gay porn...and I never got turned on. Not that because I would have been thinking "No xpac, you're not gay." but I don't simply understand how Homosexuals can find something sexually attractive in their own sex. Should I read some books on Human body? Or in simple words, being gay is natural or it is something because of things going on in your mind. Another thing I think is that homosexuals do not get the chance to have sex with the opposite sex so they try having it the easy way by finding someone who also never had sex with the opposite sex and wants to have sex not with himself (masturbating) but wants to have with someone else with him?

Sorry for my bad English. And lol, look at the number of times I've said sex in my post's last few lines. ;)

Oh no! Augustangel is turned on after looking at me! *runs* (no offense or anything..just kidding :P)

[theyeti]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Why can only homosexuals be homosexuals? {confused}

Why is anyone attracted to anyone? A heterosexual male isn't attracted to all females, nor vice versa. And there are also people who are attracted to both sexes. And there are many people who don't get turned on at all by porn. I don't think it's possible to "turn into" anything, although with the way science is going maybe I shouldn't say that...

Whatever the case, marriage (and love) is about a lot more than sexuality.

[augustangel]

Darlin, you cant just change your sexual orientation. If u can't change ur ethnicty, or your natural eye color, how is s/o any different? If you looked at gay porn, that doesnt mean a thing. You didn't get turned on because you're brain doesnt work that way. You cant understand because you never experienced it. I mean, if you're a duck you can't ever try to be a rabbit. Quack. :| Just how some gays dont know how heterosexuals can be attracted to people of the opposite sex. Reading on the human body isnt going to change your feelings. In some cases some homosexuals can fall for someone of the opposite sex, but you cant choose you fall in love with. I've never fallen for a guy. Maybe one day in 20 years I will, but not because I chose it, but because it happened. Like you, you're most likely gonna fall for a female. You can't chose that. Blame your brain. Sure, I can tell if a guy's cute, but it doesnt mean I wanna jump in bed with him. Some het guys I know would die ebfore they ever admit that they think a guy's cute. It doesnt mean theyre gay. Its like, some het guys try to live up to the whole "male macho" thing society put down. That just sucks. I think society's the number one killer.

theyeti is right. Marriage and love is about more than sexuality.

i think its more about your ability to love someone more than yourself and want to spend your life with them. it shouldnt matter what theyre sex is .

grrr. doesnt 1 in 7 mean anythin? Thats alot!

[jamesglewisf]

Originally posted by augustangel
grrr. doesnt 1 in 7 mean anythin? Thats alot! I really didn't want to get into this, but you keep quoting this 1 in 7 stat. The only stat that I could find with some degree of respectability is not even close to yours. In fact, according to an amicus brief (legal document) filed by the gay and lesbian community in Lawrence versus Texas (2003), your number of 14.29% is 5.95 times higher than the most widely accepted number. I got my percentage off a document from last year that was created by many gay and lesbian groups working together, so don't think I just found some right-wing website to quote from. This comes from http://www.hrc.org/.

Here is a shortened list of the organizations that filed the brief: Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians & Gays; National Center for Lesbian Rights; Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders; Gay & Lesbian Alliance against Defamation.

You can read it here: http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Issues/Privacy_Issues/lawrence_brief.pdf

They said:The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population indentify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann et al., The Social Orgnanization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay mena and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.This is a legal document created by the gay and lesbian community on an issue before the Supreme Court. If they could have ethically used a higher number, I'm sure they would have.

The university of Chicago says the same thing: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/issues/American_Sexual_Behavior_2003.pdfFew debates have been so contentious as the controversy over the sexual orientation of Americans (Billy, et al., 1993; Stokes and McKiran, 1993; Michaels, 1997; and Swann, 1993). The gay and lesbian communities have long adopted 10% as the portion of the population that is homosexual.5 On issues relating to definitions and terminology see Bevier, Chiasson, and Hefferman, 1996; Doll and Beeker, 1996; Gonsiorek and Weinrich, 1991; Michaels, 1997; Rietmeijer, et al., 1998; Kennamer and Bradford, 1998; and Rankow, 1996. However, a series of recent national studies (Table 8A) indicate that only about 2-3% of sexually active men and 1-2% of sexually active women are currently engaging in same gender sex (see also Anderson and Stall, 2002; Black et al, 2000; Butler, 1998; Horowitz, Weis, and Laflin, 2001; and Sell and Becker,
2001).It would give you more credibility to use statistics that are widely accepted and backed up by research.

For males, 2.8% is 1 in 36. For females, 1.4% is 1 in 71. If you use 2000 census data (http://www2.census.gov/census_2000/datasets/100_and_sample_profile/0_United_States/2kh00.pdf) for total males and total females, the percentage in total becomes 2.09 % or approximately 1 in 48.

[theyeti]

Yeah, I don't think it's as high as 1 in 7. But 2% is probably a little low. At this point in time, I bet there's still a lot of people who either a) don't feel comfortable about their sexuality or b) force themselves to pretend to be heterosexual when really they aren't (this would mostly be older people). Heck, when I was a little kid - not very long ago - I didn't even know there was such a thing as being attracted to your own gender. For people born 30, 40 years ago, it would be extremely difficult to accept the fact that you weren't wired like society said you should be, and to deal with that.

My best estimate would probably be, at the moment, 4 or 5% tops tho. And of course that depends on where you are.

[augustangel]

oh well

i might have been wrong. oh well. thats life.

all i know is that i read it some where a while back and i stuck with it.

[augustangel]

but then again, u never know. society makes people deny themselves. so you can never really know.

[theyeti]

Some people in the legislature here in Minnesota have introduced a bill to put a constitutional amendment up to the voters. On Monday there was a huge anti-gay rally, and today there was an even bigger rally in support of gay marriage.

I even wrote my senator! And he wrote back!

From MN Senate Majority Whip Steve Murphy:

Thank-you for your very insightful letter regarding the proposed constitutional amendment. I wish that more people could hear your voice of compassion when considering whether or not to support such overtly discriminatory initiative. It is unfortunate that this issue has taken front and center stage when so many people are out of work, can't get into college, are excluded from health care and are losing their homes because they no longer have a job. As an elected official, I am utterly baffled by the venomous attacks on those of us who do not support this amendment. This past week, the anti-gay crowd was at the Capitol. They were rude, disruptive and even physically abusive to our staff. It was a pathetic display.

I had a couple other legislators write back to me... even a Republican who sounded like he agreed with me.

As for the bill itself, it passed our House (which is R controlled) but will likely get stalled in a Senate (which is D controlled) committee.

[Outlaw TexasRed]

Originally posted by augustangel
geez. am i like the only gay person on this forum?

hope not though.

You ain't.

[theyeti]

The newspapers here ran a couple polls lately on gay marriage and the constitutional amendment debate. It's about evenly split in the state, depending on how the questions are worded. The University did a poll too, and the results among college students are different... about 70% felt that gay couples should have the right to marry. The national average is closer to 60%.

Also, women were a lot more likely than men to be supportive of the rights of homosexuals. I wonder why this is... Males might tend to feel threatened from it perhaps?

I'm trying to post about this on my blog right now but it's being a real pain and won't publish yet...

[jamesglewisf]

I think you might have your stats backwards. http://www.gallup.com/content/default.aspx?ci=10960Sixty-one percent of Americans in the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted March 5-7, say that marriages between homosexuals should not be recognized as legally valid, while 33% say they should be. The current responses are statistically no different from responses obtained in four separate Gallup Poll surveys conducted since October 2003.

From a longer-range perspective, the current level of opposition to legalized same-sex marriage is little changed from responses in surveys that stretch back to 1999, with the exception of one survey in June 2003 in which opposition dropped slightly, to 55%.

[theyeti]

The polls I was talking about were just from Minnesota - here (http://www.duluthsuperior.com/mld/duluthsuperior/news/8374062.htm) and here (http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2004/04/09/9171).

According to Yahoo's latest... http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040411/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_poll_8
LOS ANGELES - Most Americans oppose gay marriage and many believe homosexuality is "against God's will," but otherwise consider themselves tolerant of gays, according to a Los Angeles Times poll.

By a margin of 55 to 41 percent, those polled agreed with the statement that "if gays are allowed to marry, the institution of marriage will be degraded."

About half favored a U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman, while 42 percent opposed it, according to the poll published Saturday on the newspaper's Web site.Aargh. What's "about half?" 42% is about half!

Also from Yahoo/LA Times, Acceptance of Gays is rising among younger americans. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2026&ncid=2026&e=3&u=/latimests/20040411/ts_latimes/acceptanceofgaysrisesamongnewgeneration)Among those in the 18-to-29 age group, 71% said legal recognition of same-sex marriage is inevitable. These young Americans were more than four times as likely to support same-sex marriage as those over 65, the poll found.

...

Within the 18-to-29 age group, 44% supported same-sex marriage — against 10% of those 65 and older. Among liberals, slightly more than half endorsed marriage for gays and lesbians. For conservatives, the figure was 7%.

...

In The Times poll, 60% said they would be upset if their child were gay or lesbian — down from 73% in a national poll in June 2000. In a 1983 poll, the figure was 90%.

About a third in this latest survey said homosexuality is something people are born with, while 14% said it was something that develops because of the way people are raised, and 35% called it a lifestyle preference. Twenty years ago, 16% said gays were born that way.

These kinds of polls are so hard to get accurate data from - they're good general indicators, but not much else. In the Star Tribune poll, they asked constitutional amendment question two different ways and saw a 20% flip-flop. In the Times poll, it looks like the wording was just as vague. "Same-sex marriage is inevitable?" What exactly does that mean, and how can you accurately judge anyone's opinion from their answer to that question? "Endorsed" marriage? And "Lifestyle preference?" Well, if they're born with it, I think that would most likely be their "lifestyle preference" as well!

[India-Ink21]

No. My opinion.

[theyeti]

Why?

[India-Ink21]

Because it's how I feel in my heart. And for religious reasons that I won't debate on this or any forum.

[theyeti]

Well, outlining some thought process would make your opinion appear stronger, but I won't pester you. and we do have a religion-only area if you want to go over there. :)

[India-Ink21]

I don't need to worry about making my opinion stronger or trying to justify myself. It's just what I believe. I try not to get involved in debates or anything of the sort. That's why I avoid most Christian forums, it seems all they like to do is argue.

[Nise]

Well, isn't this a touchy subject area. I just have to put my 2 cents in. I am in total 100% agreement with Jim. Bush is a man that follows a much different set of standards than most. It's called GOD's word. Theyeti-- the bible God's Holy word has NOT changed in 2000 years. It is the same today as it was 2000 years ago and will be the same 2000 years from now!!!! God's word has unfortuanately been placed in a box in the deepest corner of American culture and belief. People somehow think that God's word no longer applies to them. That they can make decisions such as living certain lifestyles. And that just because they are different from the "norm" everyone must bow down and move aside and allow their lifestly to take presidence over what is "truly" right. Not simply my belief but God's Word as a guideline for our lives. Our very blessed country is on a path of back-sliddenness. I don't think that Gay and lesbian's should not have equal rights. I don't think God would want them to be mistreated but at the same time I don't think that he is smiling down on them and warmly accepting a behavior that he tells us is a sin,
(just as I sin in others ways..I know he isn't smiling down on me for those behaviors)because he clearly states that his intention was for a man and woman to be joined together. I mean that literally, spiritually and legally. You are to become one in his eyes. I don't believe that it's possible for GOD to see a Gay couple as one in his eyes...legally, physically or spiritually!! So as you can see I am not for gay marriage...I am not for changing the wording of house bills to conform to some that want to change it to fit their particular needs. I am for President Bush!! 110% as a matter of fact. He is a man of convictions and a man of God. I pray that he remains in office. I am a Christian! I believe that we should love one another as Christ loved us, but I also know that we are not doing that as a country (myself included). But loving one another does not mean bending Gods words to fit our lifestyles. (Well maybe that was a dollar's worth instead of 2 cents) haha.

[CuriousG]

Originally posted by India-Ink21
I don't need to worry about making my opinion stronger or trying to justify myself. It's just what I believe. I try not to get involved in debates or anything of the sort. That's why I avoid most Christian forums, it seems all they like to do is argue.

Remember though, you are posting in a forum under the heading of "The Great Debate" so this is an area for people to express opinions and in fact debate.

As far as the issue with gay marriage, I would have to say that even though I am a Christian and have some issues with gay marriage, I have to separate those views from legislature. If we are in fact supposed to have a separation of church and state, then you cannot legislate based on religious premise. These individuals are not knocking on the door of the church asking to be married, they are knocking on the door of the courts. I think they should be able to have a "civil union" that recognizes their relationship, not necessarily a "marriage" which I feel carries the religious connotation. Many people who are agnostic or atheistic get "married" all the time. When they receive their marriage license from the local courthouse, it is not really carrying the religious undertones with it. If you deny gay couples the right to marriage based on religion, then you would have to deny anyone who is not deemed a Christian the right to marry as well.

[theyeti]

Nise, I agree that for quite a long time the Bible (and, ergo for Christians, God's Holy Word) has been a stable, absolute document. Translations into different languages put the exact meaning of its words in doubt at times, depending on which language or translation you use. However in the majority of cases the effect this has on meaning is probably negligible at best.

The problem I have with the Bible, when it used for the sake of argument, is in which parts of God's Word we should follow. A literalist would follow every single passage to a T, but most Christians are not literalists. It seems to me that many religious persons use religious texts to argue for or against one thing, such as gay marriage, while ignoring a different part of the text in regards to another issue. In this instance, what method is used to determine which parts of the text apply and which do not?

Most opponents of homosexual marriage, to the best of my knowledge, don't actively apply words such as "…women should remain silent in churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission..." or "When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. … If a man lies with her and her monthly flow touches him, he will be unclean for seven days..." to their lives as much as they apply the passages that state homosexuality is sinful. It would seem to me that there are many more women than homosexuals in the world today, and at least in the Western World we tend ignore passages about women and inflate passages about homosexuals. Why?

(I realize this is all irrelevant IF you believe in the separation of church and state - but since such a large percentage of Westerners are Christian, a good answer would probably help me understand the opposition viewpoint more.)

[Grimey]

Originally posted by India-Ink21
I don't need to worry about making my opinion stronger or trying to justify myself. It's just what I believe. I try not to get involved in debates or anything of the sort. That's why I avoid most Christian forums, it seems all they like to do is argue. You're in luck. This ain't a Christian Forum. There are a number of Christians here, but there are a lot of non-Christians too.

You can stay out of those type debates and still have a lot of fun here. They get kinda old to me too. :)

[India-Ink21]

Oops, I didn't realize this was a actual debate thread (even though it said "Great Debate"). There are so many opinions. Even though I'm a Christian, I cringe when there are numerous opinions being discussed, I'm always afraid of an argument. I never argue my beliefs or try to convert them, that's why my friends like me.

[theyeti]

Personally, I enjoy debate because I'm always afraid that what I've believed and continue to believe might be wrong... I would never want to go through life wondering if there was some piece of new information I didn't consider, or a different angle of thinking I didn't use. This can be avoided, I think to a large degree, by taking part in debate and discussion, and for me it is reassuring knowing that the probability of my opinions and beliefs being the right ones for me and for the world is high.
The people whom I respect the greatest are those who are always willing to reconsider even their most basic beliefs, and, if necessary due to the passing of time and the emergence of new information, change them. And I hope people respect me for that as well.

[India-Ink21]

That's great for you. I would never change my gut belief system because of some debate. There are a lot of people who have a basic belief system who don't want to change it. That's part of who we are whether we're respected or not.

[CuriousG]

Someone's opinion can never really be wrong. It's just what you believe to be true. It's completely subjective, so in a sense it can never really be right either, it's just yours. Hmmm, philosophical point for the day.

[theyeti]

No, I'm not saying someone's opinion can necessarily be wrong. But it can be wrong for you as an individual. An opinion can be incompatible with your system of beliefs without you knowing it.

For example... suppose you believe in capital punishment - but you also believe strongly that everyone should have the right to live if they haven't committed a crime. If you never knew that some people are wrongly convicted and later found to be innocent, you wouldn't even consider changing your opinion - which is what you might do if you had that bit of information.

Or, suppose you're a member of a certain religion, but in the future when a new issue comes to light, discover that the teachings of that religion are different from what you had thought and what you want to believe. That's what's happening with many Methodists right now.

So, I think an opinion can be wrong - BUT ONLY in the mind of the individual holding the opinion.

[KalenElendil]

Man that is deep. But I would have to go with Yeti on this one. Isn't it great to debate.

[theyeti]

Well, the count is at 1.

That one is Massachusetts. They became the first state to legally allow gay marriage at midnight. Officials in Cambridge began acccepting couples then; other cities have to wait until licensing offices open this morning. There's expected to be several out-of-state couples getting married also. Gov. Romney dug up a 1913 law "prohibiting non-residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their marriage would be "void" in their home state." It hasn't been enforced in 80 years and several clerks say they won't enforce it now, although some will.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/17/mass.gay.marriage/index.html

At the stroke of midnight, thousands of people broke into cheers as city clerks in Cambridge issued the first marriage license applications to to gay and lesbian couples.

Hams and Shepherd were the first couple to fill out the paperwork.

The crowd around Cambridge City Hall began throwing rice and singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" as couples streamed through the front door and into the clerk's office.

One male couple carried a sign reading "49 years together" with pictures of their children and grandchildren on the back.

Once the applications are in hand, couples will either have to wait three days, or seek a waiver of the waiting period from a judge, before they can get a license to marry. The decision on whether to grant a waiver is up to each individual judge.Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com): Free to Marry: Historic Day Arrives (http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/articles/2004/05/17/free_to_marry/), RI, CT Atty. Generals expected to decide on MA nuptials (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/05/17/ri_conn_attorneys_general_expected_to_decide_on_mass_nuptials/)Attorneys general in Rhode Island and Connecticut are expected to release opinions today about whether same-sex marriages from Massachusetts should be recognized in their states, decisions that could intensify the controversy over the status of out-of-state gay couples seeking to wed here.

Some local officials in Massachusets believe that if Rhode Island or Connecticut decide to recognize gay couples married in the Bay State, more communities here will be emboldened to allow nonresidents to receive marriage licenses.

Provincetown, Somerville, and Worcester officials have already said that any same-sex couple, instate or out-of-state, would be eligible for a marriage license so long as the couple sign an oath attesting that they know of no legal impediment to marriage in their home state. The officials say they will not further scrutinize or screen the applicants.

[jamesglewisf]

This will just be political fodder for Republicans who want to bash John Kerry and the liberal state he hails from.

BTW, it's time to close this thread. We don't usually leave debate threads open for six pages. It makes it too arduous to follow the debate. Please feel free to start another one if you aren't done.

The same goes for two other threads in this forum which I will close.