![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]") |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
 Posted - February 25 2004 : 05:22:48 AM
|
Poll Question:
Should same-sex marriages be legal?
|
|
|
report to moderator
|
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 25 2004 : 08:41:48 AM
|
Since marriage is defined in the Bible, as well as by case law, as the union between the man and a woman I feel that the whole 'debate' is a no-brainer. The title "Gay Marriage" is as much an oxymoron as "Homophobe". Although the left tries to legitimize both words, it continues to go against logical thinking, much like their chop-logic concerning foreign policy (but that is the subject of another thread).
That being said, even though I am against such bastardization of a sacrement, not to mention the bedrock of our republic, I still do not like the idea of the federal government sticking their nose into what should be a state issue. However, if it is a civil union that a same sex couple would wish to engage in, I would be in favor of that.
My final vote is as follows:
Same Sex Marriage - NO
Same Sex Civil Union - YES
Federal Involvement - NO
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
report to moderator  |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 25 2004 : 09:58:14 AM
|
I totally agree with the Sarge's Final Vote, BUT do you call it "logical" to assume everyone that has "chop-logic foreign policy" is FOR gay marriage?? By "left", do you mean anyone that is a democrat is FOR gay marriage? Can't say I follow that one!
GG  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lady Ann
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 20 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 25 2004 : 3:08:21 PM
|
I am of the opinion that no governmental agency in the United States should have the authority to issue a "marriage" license, in that marriage is a union created and defined by religion, with very few religions agreeing on the terms and conditions that constitute "marriage". The state can authorize what amounts to a contractual agreement between two people committing each to certain rights and respnsiblities to each other under the law and providing for penalties in the event of breach of that contract. There is nothing even remotely "spiritual" about it, nor will you find any state's canon of divorce and family law chronicled in the Bible or any other religious tract (or vice versa). Here in the enlightened State of Florida, where gay persons are barely recognized under the law as human, let alone allowed to "marry" or adopt children, we attorneys have been getting around the law for years for our gay clients, preparing and recording contracts which created the same obligations and contained the same penalties as the law provided, enforceable not under the "Dissolution of Marriage" statute (that is what the chapter is titled governing marriage) but under contract law, which is just as enforceable. The one thing we could not do was mandate that employers grant benefits to the same sex couples...fortunately many openminded and openhearted companies and corporations, major employers in Florida, like Disney and Universal, have granted such benefits without such actions being mandated by law. As for adoption, Florida happily allows single parents to adopt (therein shooting in the foot the legislative argument that gays should not be permitted to adopt because a child needs an on site mother AND a father), so most of my gay clients have simply adopted as single parents.
In short, the government should get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and leave it to religion to decide who can or cannot get married within each sect and under what conditions (hey, aren't there, even today, religions that forbid men and women from marrying each other...if they are of different races, or religions or social classes?) Government should limit itself to those rights and obligations that are contractual...this must be the so-called "civil unions"; I say "so-called" because I've not heard anyone give a clear definition of exactly what a civil union is. And in any event, under secular law (i.e. that not established by a church or a religion), all persons should be treated equally. ALL persons...not just ones approved of by Christians. One of our country's basic principles is the separation of church and state, and I believe our Founding Fathers truly meant just that, in its simplest form. They may have in the majority been Christians (although I think historically most of them practiced Humanism rather than any specific Christian sect), but they didn't appear to grant Christians or Christian religious beliefs any special powers or privileges under the Constitution. The prejudices of religious thought (whether we deem them to be "right" or "wrong")should not be paramount in determining the law of this land or of any of its separate states.
That all being said, in answer to the questions you must be asking yourself, no, I am not a Christian and no, I do not always vote Democrat (actually, I vote for the person I feel is most qualified to do the job, and that runs about 50% for each party, with the occasional Independent thrown in!). |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 25 2004 : 3:43:57 PM
|
quote:
By "left", do you mean anyone that is a democrat is FOR gay marriage?
No, that is why I didn't use the word democrat. I was refering to one's ideology, not political party. For instance Sen. Zel Miller is a democrat but he is most certainly on the ideological 'right' and Sen. Olympia Snow is a republican but she is on the ideological 'left' (or a RINO as we call them, Repupublican In Name Only). Pretty easy stuff to follow...
quote:
BUT do you call it "logical" to assume everyone that has "chop-logic foreign policy" is FOR gay marriage??
Once again, that is not how I phrased my statement, but to answer your question, let me ask one. How many of the prominent 'politicos' who voice a favorable opinion on "Gay Marriage" also support the foreign policy of the current administration?
quote:
I say "so-called" because I've not heard anyone give a clear definition of exactly what a civil union is.
That is pretty easy, just look at legal 'partnerships' in business and you will find all the precedence you require.
quote:
One of our country's basic principles is the separation of church and state, and I believe our Founding Fathers truly meant just that, in its simplest form.
I can't find that one in either my copy of the U.S. Constitution or The Federalist Papers, it is the recent (20th century) interpretation of the former by activist judges which gave us the mythical 'separartion of church and state'. What we have is freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Ours is a nation founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs, as much as some out there would like to conviently forget, but the founding fathers did believe that we should also allow other faiths to practice their beliefs without fear of persecution. That is where the First Admendment of the U.S. Constitution comes from, and what it truly means.
The arguments will have better foundation than these, to even get me to think about a change of opinion. Sorry folks...
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Gadget Girl
Gatherer of Gathering Gadgets
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 25 2004 : 4:54:18 PM
|
How do you see me trying to change your opinion, Sarge?
In the first part of my statement I said I agreed with you! Geez! I simply felt you were "lumping" folks...again...instead of treating them as being capable of having totally individual opinions on separate issues.
Ann, thanks for posting your thoughts about contracts. I agree that this is not an issue that government should deal with.
Hannity asked an interesting question last night...what if three people wanted to get married? Just food for thought.
GG  |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lady Ann
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 20 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 25 2004 : 4:56:44 PM
|
So what does it mean when Article XIV, Section I, of the Bill of Rights states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws." I don't see within this language an agenda that limits equal protection or privileges or immunities to those we determine, via our particular religious dicta, to be morally correct and deserving of such protection, privileges and immunities. Historically the definition of "persons" that have been so entitled has evolved from "male Caucasions who own property" to "male Caucasions" to "males of the Caucasion and Black races" to "males of the Caucasian, Black and Asian races" and so on (females were sort of grandfathered in sometime in 1920's). Today we do not legally forbid interracial marriage...which until the mid 20th century was not only illegal in most states, but deemed illegal because the Bible justified such a prohibition (just like the Bible was used as a justification of slavery until the Civil War era).
As hard as I look, I just can't find anywhere in the Bible or the Talmud a provision that states that persons of the same sex who live together and love each other are not entitled to the same rights, privileges and immunities granted other citizens under American law. Those tomes may declare that persons who engage in sexual relations with persons of the same sex are committing a sin and are therefore "immoral", but then so are those who commit murder...and our laws allow murderers to marry, divorce, adopt and do just about anything else permitted to "citizens" (voting privileges and the licensing for certain occupations are denied for limited situations in some states to convicted felons, but notably NOT the right to marry...any old felon can do that!)
I simply want my fellow citizens to enjoy the same rights and privileges under our law that I have...without color of religiously ordained prejudices based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, height, hair and eye color, physical or mental limitations, age, or any of those other classifications which may make one different from the Judeo-Christian standard. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 25 2004 : 5:42:04 PM
|
quote:
In the first part of my statement I said I agreed with you! Geez! I simply felt you were "lumping" folks...again...instead of treating them as being capable of having totally individual opinions on separate issues.
What I was doing was basing my opinions on the 'collection' of evidence. Which brings me back to my last question, how many politicos who are speaking out in favor of "Gay Marriage" also support the foreign policy of the current administration? I already know the answer to this, and it proves my point. No lumping here, just obsevation and factual reporting of the same.
quote:
So what does it mean when Article XIV, Section I, of the Bill of Rights states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws."
Which is where civil unions or partnerships come into play, you just reinforced my original statements. Thank you.
quote:
As hard as I look, I just can't find anywhere in the Bible or the Talmud a provision that states that persons of the same sex who live together and love each other are not entitled to the same rights, privileges and immunities granted other citizens under American law...
First off, the Bible (or Talmud for that matter) does not recieve its authority from any code of man. However, I can point to instances where marriage is defined in the Bible:
(1 Corinthians 7:2-4 KJV)
(2) Nevertheless, {to avoid} fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. (3) Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. (4) The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
(Genesis 2:18 KJV)
(18) And the Lord God said, {It is} not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
(Genesis 2:24 KJV)
(24) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
(Proverbs 18:22 KJV)
(22) {Whoso} findeth a wife findeth a good {thing}, and obtaineth favour of the Lord.
...I do find anything about "a man leaving his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his husband". My point remains unchallenged.
quote:
I simply want my fellow citizens to enjoy the same rights and privileges under our law that I have...without color of religiously ordained prejudices based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, religion, height, hair and eye color, physical or mental limitations, age, or any of those other classifications...
If you look in the Bible, you will find numerous examples of prohibitions against the sins of racisim, sexisim and so on, but "Sexual Orientation" is not in the same bracket as race, sex, creed, color or condition. If that were the case, pedophiles, pederasts, zoophiles and other deviants could all claim the protection of the government to not only protect but to endorse their behavior |
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 25 2004 : 8:20:57 PM
|
quote:
...I do find anything about "a man leaving his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his husband". My point remains unchallenged.
What I meant to write was "I do not find anything about a man leaving his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his husband"
Sorry about the additional post, but with only 100 minutes to correct typos after posting, it was necessary.
|
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Lady Ann
Pioneer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 20 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 26 2004 : 09:28:28 AM
|
| After re-reading these posts, I think for the most part we AGREE. Civil unions can be granted and sanctioned by the government for gay persons but not marriage. I would carry it this one step further: leave the civil unions to the state and the sacrament of marriage to the churches. The "marriage" granted under state law today is in no way a sacrament and should never be considered thus. It is ONLY that marriage santioned by religion (in whatever form, manner and circumstances that religion dictates)that is sacramental. And that definition differs from sect to sect. If you ask a Roman Catholic, a Southern Baptist, an Episcopalian, a Unitarian or a member of the Metopolitan Church what is required for marriage you will get a different answer from each, yet all are Christian. And then there are those of us who are not Christian who have a concept of marriage that is not based on Biblical text but on other sources elemental to our faith. All are valid, within the context of our religions...and that's where the sacrament of "marriage" should remain...within our faiths. Leave the contractual stuff to the state, but let it be open and available to all citizens. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
 Posted - February 26 2004 : 11:15:51 AM
|
I'll not leap into this discussion except to say that I believe marriage as a civil matter and marriage as a religious matter are entirely separate. We need to remember that not everyone in this country is Christian, and thus they don't all subscribe to the same ideas of marriage and commitment as outlined by the Christian faith or scriptures.
Just let me offer to the discussion an excellent essay I received in e-mail this morning from "Sightings," an online journal of religious and moral essays offered through the Martin Marty center for Religion and Culture at the University of Chicago. It outlines some of the arguments that have been presented here:
Sightings 2/26/04
Marriage Matters
-- Arthur E. Farnsley II
Several mainline Christian denominations are worried about gay marriage. Should the church bless a union between adults of
the same gender? Can the church bless a union that the government does not recognize?
President Bush is also worried about gay marriage. On Tuesday he responded to the ongoing pairings of same-sex couples in
San Francisco and asked Congress for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. In doing so, he seeks to shore up and
defend “the most fundamental institution of civilization.”
If “gay marriage” is the question, then “gay” must be the issue, because “marriage” is collapsing in the U.S. no matter what the
President, the courts, or the mainline denominations think.
The numbers are stark. In the 1960 census, 78 percent of US “households” were composed of married couples. As late as
1970, 70 percent were. In 2000, only 52 percent were. By 2010, we can reasonably assume that unmarried households will
have displaced married ones as the domestic unit of choice.
In 2000, 11 million people told the census that they were living with an “unmarried partner” -- as opposed to a roommate or
some other co-habitator. For the record, the total number of unmarried partners rose 72 percent from 1990, and ten-fold
from 1960, according to the 2000 census (as parsed by www.unmarried.org). About 11 percent of those were living with a
partner of the same sex.
The effect that the decline of two-parent homes has on children is well known. According to www.childstats.gov, 68 percent
of kids live with two parents, so nearly one-third do not. Since 1980, the percentage of births to unmarried women have
almost doubled, from around 18 percent to approximately 33 percent. For African-American women, that figure is about 70
percent. Read that again: more than two-thirds of African-American children are born to unmarried women.
This is hardly a simple matter of culture or lifestyle choices. Only 10 percent of all children with married parents live in
poverty. Half of children in female-householder homes do. Among African-Americans, the corresponding figures prove the
point: 13 percent of kids living with married parents are impoverished, compared to 55 percent of children in
female-householder homes.
If marriage is eroding and kids are suffering, why the fuss about gay marriage? Because we insist on linking the moral and
religious foundations of the institution with the legal, contractual ones. And sadly, too many people flail quixotically at the
former because they have failed miserably to promote or enforce the latter.
What if we envisioned marriage in two parts? First, as a civil union and second, as a moral and religious union. Every couple
(composed of consenting adults) who wishes to be joined could form a contractual bond in which both parties assume fixed
legal commitment to, and responsibility for, the other. The state would recognize and enforce this legal contract as “marriage”,
though we could always find a different word for it if necessary. The state could also enforce child support by both parents as
a contractual obligation that had nothing to do with whether the parents were “in love” or thought of themselves as married. |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
daire
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 26 2004 : 12:43:31 PM
|
Bush, IMO, brought the issue of marriage between two men or two women up now because it's election year. Adding an amendment like that would be discrimination. There's a statement on employer documents saying they don't discriminate against an applicant on the basis of "race, creed...sexual orientation" -- why should we with the Constitution? The Bible should have NOTHING to do with reasons to make an Amendment or law, since we have that thing called Separation of Church and State.
If they want to or must re-define the meaning of marriage, they should word it as a union between two adult people and not even mention gender. Marriage is a state of being, and don't feel a couple (f/m, m/m or f/f) should be required to get a license to marry.
I feel everyone has a right to pursue happiness, just like the Constitution states, and if that is with another man or woman, so be it. Nothing (no matter how many excuses there may be) gives anyone the right to force others how to live their lives and be happy.
If a same-sex couple gets married...who does it hurt? No one.
Does anyone suffer? No.
Bush has wrecked the economy, sent us to unnecessary war, among other things and I'll not vote for any Republican, even if it means voting for a dead Chihuahua.
|
daire
_____________________________________
"I do not call myself subject to much at all."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 26 2004 : 4:35:58 PM
|
quote:
After re-reading these posts, I think for the most part we AGREE. Civil unions can be granted and sanctioned by the government for gay persons but not marriage.
You are right Lady Ann, we do agree on the majority of the issue, and as I said there is case law backing the idea of civil union between people or entities.
quote:
What if we envisioned marriage in two parts? First, as a civil union and second, as a moral and religious union. Every couple
(composed of consenting adults) who wishes to be joined could form a contractual bond in which both parties assume fixed
legal commitment to, and responsibility for, the other.
This should be a matter for the citizens of the individual states to decide. Then it would be up to to each state to conclude if such unions/marriages are benificial or detrimental to their own social/economic situation.
quote:
The effect that the decline of two-parent homes has on children is well known. According to www.childstats.gov, 68 percent
of kids live with two parents, so nearly one-third do not. Since 1980, the percentage of births to unmarried women have
almost doubled, from around 18 percent to approximately 33 percent. For African-American women, that figure is about 70
percent. Read that again: more than two-thirds of African-American children are born to unmarried women.
This is correct, and the African-American community has suffered for it. Just take a look at crime rates, unemployment, SAT scores, highschool graduation rates, and so on. Contrary to some radical feminist thought, the male is needed for effective parenting even after conception. It doesen't 'take a village' to raise a child, just a loving and supportive mother and father to guide the young man/woman on the right path.
quote:
What if we envisioned marriage in two parts? First, as a civil union and second, as a moral and religious union. Every couple...The moral and religious component of “marriage” would then be a second piece, separate and non-compulsory, with each
religious tradition enforcing its own canons of eligibility.
Mr. Farnsley is missing the whole point, that being there are reasons why marriage is licensed by state entities. First, a licensed marriage provides legal documentation for the owners of businesses to provide benefits to the spouse/children of an employee. Secondly, society recognizes that such unions are beneficial to the community at large in both procreation as well as providing for a stable foundation for a community. The union between a man and woman is universally regognized as the norm throughout the world, and therefore does not require interpretation. The above cannot be said for the "marriage" of same sex couples.
quote:
Bush, IMO, brought the issue of marriage between two men or two women up now because it's election year. Adding an amendment like that would be discrimination.
No, he brought it up because of the actions of people like the mayor of San Francisco. As to it being discrimination, th |
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - February 26 2004 : 6:39:28 PM
|
My opinion, for what it's worth ...
Family - I mean REAL family: Mother, Father, Children - is the basis of society. ALL societies. [And, I might add, IMO, its apparent crumbling the cause of many, if not most, of society's ills.] Homosexuality cannot naturally bring about family. Marriage is about family. Thus, I cannot support anything that condones the act of homosexuality in terms of marriage - "civil" or otherwise. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Scott Bubar
Colonial Militia
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 07:04:43 AM
|
| I think I'll just sit on the fence. |
~~Aim small, miss small. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Doc M
Great Quack Healer of the Frontier
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 11:56:53 AM
|
*Stay on fence. Stay on fence. Don't get into this.* Oh hell!
Ricardo, are you really saying that only the standard Father
Mother Child family can be considered valid or "real"??????
So...couples that can't have children or choose not to are
not real? Couples who adopt aren't real? Single parent families--
not valid? The many grandparents who are taking over the primary
care of their grandchildren...also not real? Loving people of any
gender who also have children but do not fall into your "guidelines"
are not to be considered "families"???? Nope, nope, nope. Don't buy
it, no way Jose. And speaking of Jose, count me in on the dead
Chihuahua ticket!
Doc M |
| report to moderator |
|
|
richfed
Sachem
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 13 2002
Status: offline
Administrator |
Posted - February 27 2004 : 12:43:26 PM
|
When family was "invented," shall I say, it was Mother, Father, Children. Nobody can deny that. All those situations you mention, Doc, are "situations" out of the "norm," but - at least most of them - are NATURAL. Mother dies, Father scoots [or vice-versa], other FAMILY intervenes. Or, those incapable of having children choosing to adopt. All fine. All families. But, to sanction - marriage - again - the basis & core of family - for those who clearly God did not intend to bear children in the natural order of things - based on the SAMENESS of their sex - is corruption-of-the-theme, nothing less.
Not going to win any popularity contests, I guess, but I believe what I believe because I believe it ... not to win friends.
No fence for me on this one. No brainer. |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Kaylynn44
Mohicanite
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 13 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 27 2004 : 1:13:55 PM
|
Not going to win any popularity contests, I guess, but I believe what I believe because I believe it ... not to win friends.
Rich,
You know that you are the most popular guy on the block.  The reason that I respect your opinions, even though most of the time mine are entirely different, is that you state the way that you feel and that is that. You don't try to demean or ridicule someone for their opinions. That means alot!!!
Kay |
~ An Infinite Zephyr~
Some things never end
As long as goodness exists
Winds shall always soothe
www.cloudsbooks.com
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
daire
Colonial Settler
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
November 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 1:25:52 PM
|
quote:
As to it being discrimination, that is still open for debate, you cannot prove that it is a condition of birth as opposed to a choice (And therefore not a civil rights issue).
Um, we have the right to choose what creed/faith/religion we follow, right? You can't prove that's a condition of birth, but yet discrimination based on one's faith is not tolerated. I don't see how that is different. I grew up going to Religious Edu. classes in the Roman Catholic Church, but I've made the choice not to be a follower.
Neither can you prove that a person being bad or good is a condition of birth. Nor liberal or conservative. Nor any other number of things.
quote:
The Constitutional Amendment may be needed eventually, but I do not believe it should be the first course of action. As to your assertions that 'The Bible should have nothing to do with it', I have said before that this nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values and the constitution was framed by the same laws by our creator. In order to have a free society, there must be guidelines which do not need to be codified, the founding fathers knew this. As to 'Separation of Church and State', I have already addressed this myth, and I challenge you to find those words in the Constitution.
I never said it was in the Constitution; but the term has been heard by everyone. Regardless of that or what this country was founded on, I don't feel religion should play a part in government. I don't even feel "In God We Trust" should be on our money, not everyone Believes. Granted, that doesn't prevent me from using it, we all need money.
quote:
These are just your subjective opinions, there is a whole country out there besides you, that would be offended and basing such 'feelings' on past practice, that should be enough.
I know there's an entire country besides me, but there are things that offend me, but you don't see me lobbying for Amendments and restrictions. While people are offended and don't agree with homosexual/alternate lifestyles, it doesn't injure theire way of life - physically, financially, their relationships... If we regulated things because people will feel hurt, we wouldn't be able to do or say anything.
quote:
Let's get real daire, your facts are skewed on both the war and the economy. This statement tells me that you are a person who does not let the facts get in the way of something that 'feels right'(If I am wrong, then just present the facts supporting your statements about the war and the economy). As to how you were going to vote, well I would wager that your decision was made even before the 2000 Election.
Isn't the idea of restricting homosexual marriages based on what people think 'feels right' according to individual beliefs, religious beliefs, etc.?
Well, I haven't heard any significant reports of found/harbored WMDs... Yes, Saddam was a tyrant and needed to be deposed, but IMO it could have been done differently. How? Who knows. No one but those in the military and government have all the available facts to make a determination on that.
Available jobs are down, at least in my area. In the past I have done job searches where there were pages of results (internet |
daire
_____________________________________
"I do not call myself subject to much at all."
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Doc M
Great Quack Healer of the Frontier
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 1:33:50 PM
|
Just to be clear, my "fence" is the viewing fence, not the "don't
know what I think about this" fence. *LOL!!* I'm not out to change anyone's core beliefs. I'm WAY too busy feeding, watering, and occasionally weeding my own, thank you.
I will say that I get awfully nervous when terms like "unnatural"
and "corruption" are used in arguments. I tend to think that whatever
power runs the Universe might have a broader and more inclusive world view than we give Him/Her credit for. At least I hope so, 'cause otherwise I'll be toasting a hell of a lot of marshmallows for a
looong time when it's my time to go!
Doc M
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 1:41:56 PM
|
I'll just put it all out on the table here so I can get on with my day...
First of all, put me firmly in the dead chihuahua voting bloc as well.
second of all, while we all love to romanticize the "traditional" nuclear family, mother-father-child/children, the fact is that many, many people emerge scarred from "traditional" nuclear families because one or both of the parents was abusive, had substance abuse problems, etc. I'd rather see a child (or children) being raised by two supportive same-sex parents than than stuck in an abusive albeit "normal" family.
I'm a Christian to the core but I don't believe God or Jesus or whoever you prefer to name the Higher Power condemns two people who love each other. Sorry, I just don't.
and I guess I'm subjective on this because two of my best friends in the world are gay women. They are in loving, committed relationships that have lasted 10 years. They hold good jobs, volunteer in their communities, and are just plain good, kind, loving people who if they chose to be would make terrific parents. So far that has not been their choice, but I'm sorry, I don't care what anybody says, I do not believe in any way, under any laws or creed, that if they chose to be parents to a welcomed, loved child, that they would in any way be doing something wrong or perverse. They would be two people who love each other,loving a small human being who needs ... beyond anything else in the world...people there to love them and support them and show them what can happen when love is what a household is built on.
There. That's my piece. I've said it.
I leave you with a line from the guy who is the focus of "The Passion..." (see my feelings on that in another post..._)
"A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.
Jesus Christ (John13:34) 
christina |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 1:45:31 PM
|
Forgot to add one thing. Call it marriage or civil unions, I also don't see why these loving couples can or should be denied the same rights as other loving, long-term couples. And hearing people talking about wanting to mess with our Constitution just burns me up.
Christina |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
Doc M
Great Quack Healer of the Frontier
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 17 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 2:40:32 PM
|
Thanks for the eloquent post, Christine! And as Jose the
Dead Chihuahua always says, "El Woof!!"
Kissys!
Doc M |
| report to moderator |
|
|
SgtMunro
Soldier of the King
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
September 23 2002
Status: offline
Donating Member |
Posted - February 27 2004 : 4:56:36 PM
|
quote:
Um, we have the right to choose what creed/faith/religion we follow, right? You can't proove that's a condition of birth, but yet discrimination based on one's faith is not tolerated. I don't see how that is different. I grew up going to Religious Edu. classes in the Roman Catholic Church, but I've made the choice not to be a follower.
Daire, who or what you lay with is not the same as one's faith. I'm Sorry but you failed to make your point.
quote:
I never said it was in the Constitution; but the term has been heard by everyone.
Yes, and a lie repeated enough does not make it true.
quote:
I know there's an entire country besides me, but there are things that offend me, but you don't see me lobbying for Amendments and restrictions.
I was using that as an example of giving the "left" as dose of their own tonic. They are the ideology of "The right not to be offended", remember the 'Hate Speech' and 'Sexual Harrasment' codes on college campuses? These abominations are examples of where the crime is defined by the 'victim', instead of statutory or case law.
quote:
Isn't the idea of restricting homosexual marriages based on what people think 'feels right' according to individual beliefs, religious beliefs, etc.?
No Daire, it is basing it on civil case law, and the norm.
quote:
Well, I haven't heard any significant reports of found/harbored WMDs... Yes, Saddam was a tyrant and needed to be deposed, but IMO it could have been done differently. How? Who knows. No one but those in the military and government have all the available facts to make a determination on that.
Available jobs are down, at least in my area. In the past I have done job searches where there were pages of results (internet/newspaper/what-have-you) and they are significantly reduced now.
Daire, your 'economy' may be in the dumper, but nationwide the GNP for the 4th quarter of 2003 was 8.2% (The highest in 20 years) and the latest unemployment stats are around 5.5% (About what it was during Clinton's 'booming' economy). As to the WMD rut you are in, well, I have debunked that myth here, many times before, and I will not waste my time again unless you have more evidence than just parroting the DNC party line ("What about the WMD's? Where are they?").
quote:
First of all, put me firmly in the dead chihuahua voting bloc as well.
second of all, while we all love to romanticize the "traditional" nuclear family, mother-father-child/children, the fact is that many, many people emerge scarred from "traditional" nuclear families because one or both of the parents was abusive, had substance abuse problems, etc. I'd rather see a child (or children) being raised by two supportive same-sex parents than than stuck in an abusive albeit "normal" family.
I have heard this before, and what usual |
Serjeant-Major Duncan Munro
Capt. Thos. Graham's Coy.
42nd Royal Highland Regiment of Foote
(The Black Sheep of the Black Watch)
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
-Or-
"Recruit locally, fight globally." |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Christina
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
May 27 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 6:00:03 PM
|
Points well taken, Sarge. At this point is where I concur with the essay I posted yesterday. What I want for my friends --and others like them - is to have the same protections and rights any other loving, committed couple would have in the CIVIL realm -- benefits, custody, etc. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that on this issue I would be satisfied if in the CIVIL, secular, non-religious realm all committed couples could receive the same rights. I would never attempt to force upon a RELIGION, however, the definitions they should be able to have for what they deem a marriage and what they bless or don't bless at their individual altars. I'm not idealistic enough to believe that everyone will ever agree from a spiritual or religious point of view with my opinions, and that is just the way life is. As for gay or same sex marriage, my friends -- and other same sex couples -- currently have a choice of several denominations that will bless the union in a ceremony. As for the state and the country "blessing" marriages -- well, I don't think that should be their business. On the civil level, a couple should be a couple should be a couple...
I would be satisfied with civil unions as long as there were not a constitutional amendment regarding this issue, and as long as efforts to avoid homophobia and condemnation were also part of the package.
Christina |
See this face? This is the face of a woman on the edge.
Whoopi Goldberg, "Jumping Jack Flash"
|
| report to moderator |
|
|
securemann
Deerslayer
USA
Bumppo's Patron since [at least]:
July 08 2002
Status: offline
|
Posted - February 27 2004 : 6:30:43 PM
|
| I see that Scripture is being used here to explain a certain action.Here's the real answers for anyone who cares to read them: Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:24-32.Yes,Jesus said to love one another but to interpret that as including unnatural vice is way off the mark. I'll just leave everyone with the above readings.Remember,I didn't write this stuff! |
| report to moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
|
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.8 seconds |
 |
|
Gay Marriages?
