What's the fuss about same sex marriages?

Quote:"Apparently Bush thinks it currently isn't constitutional and therefore wants to change the constitution before the issue reaches the supreme court."

If it is passed it will be a Bill of Un-Rights..The constitution has never been used to take away freedoms before.
As for those of you who keep thumping your Bible's, does it really matter since church and state are seperate? The government (and myself) care as much about what the Bible has to say on any issue as we do the Koran or Egyptian heiroglyphics. Besides, you'll find a lot more passages in the Bible about "love thy neighbor" and "JUDGE NOT LEAST YE BE JUDGED"..Luke 6.37-38, 41-42, than you will about the evils of homosexuality. Please show me where Jeasus (the NEW TESTAMENT) ever took a stand on it.
As for comparing kit cars and Ferraris to people...car's dont have rights, people do. Its understood that not all cars are made equal, but people are. Its a very aquward comparison at best. Besides, I've seen several well made kit cars that could outperform my ferrari and many others any day of the week. If its a well made and powerful kit car (gay marriage), then why shouldnt we give it the respect it deserves..you dont have to call it a Ferrari, but give it the recognition it deserves (civil unions).

 

Good point, sorry, too many beers.

 

You are right Rob Kids are innocent they learn to hate from watching adults

 

As quoted above, the first sentences of my first post and second paragraph in second post, respectively, clearly indicate I do not, as you mistakenly allege - "discriminate against homosexuals."
The "selective" subject/argument is Theology itself - who, what, where, why, when - different Bible-by-any-name religions exist.

 

This trend is very obvious. I wish, even with all they we have now, that I was born 20 years earlier. The 18-30 (MTV gen X people/ME) have a mentality that everything should to be handed to them and that life is fair. **** that, life is not fair. I see the trend going to where everyone looks at the law as "a soft law". It can and will be broken if a few disagree with it. Here in the US, it seems that minorities rule the law.

I am a fairly level headed bloke, but why should one person have the authority to change a law like that, or even bend it. I thought Mayor Newsome would be good for SF, but now I reserved judgment. My thoughts are that if the state can come to a good solution, then lets go that route, but it is a state issue and then a Federal issue, NOT A CITY ISSUE.

I personally disagree with the whole "GM" thing, but, it is not my place to judge those people. I do have gay friends that have been "married" for over 20 years. There union is special in their eyes and their friends, and they do not require or request any special attention given to them.

 

damn - that says it all right there.

 

Unfortunately it's not actually true. The 18th amendment prohibitted the sale of alcohol in 1919 and that was in effect until the 21st amendment in 1933.

Other ammendments can be interpreted as "taking away freedoms" as well. For example, the two-term limit on serving as president.

 

And I also agree with you 100%

 

Quote:"Unfortunately it's not actually true. The 18th amendment prohibitted the sale of alcohol in 1919 and that was in effect until the 21st amendment in 1933."

Yeah, I thought of mentioning the 18th amendment, but since it has been corrected I decided not to bother. Plus, we can hardly compare prohibiting alchohal and not allowing the county to become a monarchy to basic human rights.

 

Still not addressing the issue!

Why can your religion (not you in particular) allow/sponsor discrimination against the abomonation of homosexuality (lev 18:20-22) when it is perfectly happy with allowing the other abomonation of eating shellfish persist (Lev 11:10-12)? And how does your religion pick one for continued hatred of one while completely disregarding the other; under the release paul gave christians in Rom 7:6? Were you not released from ALL the laws of the old testiment, or were you only released from the laws you didn't like from the old testiment?

Please be specific: as in 1 paragraph justifying hatred of homosexualality, followed by 1 paragraph indicating the absurdaty of discriminating agains shellfish eaters, followed by 1 paragraph as to why paul released you from shellfish hatred but not from homosexual hatred, followed by 1 paragraph stating that there are no contradictions or absurdaties in the previous 3 paragraphs.

And remember, you were the one who brought Leviticus into this discussion.

 

I did not "bring" Leviticus into the discussion. You will note that on my first post - #86, neither Leviticus or any Biblical reference to Homosexuality itself was cited. See posts #87 & 88 - The quotes (without Book, Chapter, Verse reference) by ernie and C. Losito, respectively, preceded my second post (#90) which acts only as the point of reference (Hey, guys, the verses you brought up are in Leviticus) for those who followed my first post with verses from their own memory. They brought it up, I didn't. That's that.

In terms of Theology, the reasons for one aspect/verse/creed of a Testament, Old or New to be "accepted" by one offshoot or another of Christianity, Judaism, Catholicism, this-that-and-the-other are many. It would be ridiculous for me to try to differentiate between what is acceptable to one church or another. Shellfish, whether they're Gay or Straight Oysters, Lobsters or Crabs, let alone other differences are lines drawn between innumerable Houses of Worship.

However, one must understand what Concordances are. What is said in the New Testament has Concordances in the Old Testament. That Concordance in the Old Testament may have a Concordance which is not cited in the New Testament, but by it's very connectivity to the first Concordance in The Old Testament, is or is not, a Concordance to the New Testament. These are the basics of that which divides a Baptist Church on one street from another just down the road (Themselves "belonging" to different, larger Associations) - let alone Churches which are different in far more than name.

However one looks at it though, Biblical indications are clear that Marriage itself, was Biblically cited in Testaments Old and New as being between Man and Woman. I must remind one and all, that the key point of discussion here on F-Chat, let alone anyplace else worth it's salt - (not hatred as you've erroneously maintained). This remains as it was - a friendly discussion.

There is no condemnation of Homosexuality itself within the framework of verses pertaining to Marriage. But, there is exclusion of Man>Man, Woman>Woman. For those who get hung up on semantics, the necessity of Biblical Texts to spell out every single if/and/or/but is preposterous. One must also take into consideration that the framers of the Constitution never foresaw that Common Sense would be thrown out the window. The equation then, as it was in Biblical times, as it is now:

Marriage = Man + Woman.

Since the monkey wrench has been tossed through the same window Common Sense got tossed out of by Mass., New Mexico and in particular, the City of San Francisco (Not the State of California, which clearly defines Marriage as between Man and Woman) - this Amendment seeks to state as clearly in the Constitution as it does in the Bible - Marriage = Man + Woman, thus restoring Common Sense. Remember, One Nation Under God.

To reiterate: I understand what is meant by the sacred texts (Law of God) and what followed (Law of Man).

I understand that just as the framers of the Constitution could not have foreseen that...
- after hundreds of years without the definition of Marriage being just as unquestioned as it was for the thousands of years that preceded the Constitution itself, that those who ignore the big picture, the greater good, the sacred text, seek to divide and conquer - to be part of the inclusion by exclusion of Common Sense, Biblical Law which preceded Law of Man, dotted i's, crossed t's -
...the Constitution would need an Amendment that says, Marriage=Man+Woman. Same as it ever was.

 

How did gay marriage come to this????????? Now that were saying there is no such thing as God; I have to chime in. The fact of the matter is that most scientist believe in God……why?……….. because it makes more sense than anything else does. Example: Let’s say we all came from 2 GIGANTIC rocks hitting each other
1. Were did the rocks come from?
2. How did they option this incredible velocity?
3. How did they get on the right path to hit each other?
4. How did everything fall into place so perfectly?
5. I could go on and on.

In the law of miracles 9,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miracles would have to transpire if there wasn’t a God and 1 thing would have to be a miracle if there is a God. (because God made it happen) It doesn’t take a scientist to figure this one out.

 

It pretty cut and dry that the people opposed to equal rights for gays are pro-discrimination. This isn't about history, framers of the constitution or anything else. Just equal rights.

If you care to look at the founders of our country and say they had all the good common sense, does that mean that slavery should be re-established and womens rights should go away? Maybe the slave owners were right, give blacks rights and that leads to worse things; like women getting rights, and now gays may get rights too. What is this country coming too? We need to do away with equal rights and get back to equal but seperate. Amen brother!!

 

You've mentioned this twice now, but I still don't see how it supports your stance. If the benefits and legal protections only went to those wives that didn't draw a paycheck, or if adopted children couldn't be claimed as a dependant by anyone, I guess that would make sense from a certain point of view. However, I don't see anyone fighting to further limit benefits to male/female couples with one or more biological children. Why is that? It sure looks like someone wants to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm sure that if this is true, its only because gay couples CAN'T get married, and this is a bureaucratic workaround. If they could get legally married, I'm sure that eligibility would vanish; they'd be treated the same as any other couple under the marriage laws already in place. So in effect, if someone really wanted to make sure that gays don't get any "extra" rights, they should support legal gay marriage. It'd be much simpler to administer that way.

Welcome to the big city. Hospitals are hard pressed to deny a spouse access, but denying extended family and friends is done all the time, if the patient's condition is severe enough. Even aside from visitation, without spousal rights, a gay partner often has no say in the patient's care (when to pull the plug or approve additional procedures). In the widely reported 2001 dog mauling case in San Francisco, the victim's partner initially couldn't even file a wrongful death lawsuit, because under the law at the time, she had no qualifying relationship to her partner of 7 years. That's just not right.

There's nothing wrong with a little morality, but there is something seriously wrong with enforcing it through legislation. By your own admission, using the moral code that some follow, you and your fiance' have been "living in sin" for 4 years now. If your "amoral" behavior meant that you could never get married in the eyes of the law, would you have a problem with it? Or would you say that its nobody else's business and its between you and your God? So, who are you to dictate what is moral and what isn't? The bible's pretty clear on the Thou shalt not kill part, there's no exception for bad people in the middle east. Who does Bush think he is, dictating morality? Legislation based on morality should be limited to those circumstances that pose significant harm to others, as in the case of pedophilia or murder. Can you explain how a married gay couple is any more of a threat to society than you and your fiance' are?

When the new gay liberal majority rises up and tries to abolish heterosexual marriage, I'll join you in calling them intolerant. I'll concede that some of the P.C. liberals can be pretty intolerant as well, but I don't understand how that is in any way relevant to the topic at hand.

 

I'm quite sure that some scientists believe in one god or another, but they do not humanize it so much as most religions do today. I'll go with your argument and say "god", not in a biblical or any other orthodoxed religion terminology, created "stuff". That stuff, it wasn't born with age and can be traced back to a certain time. That particular time, might have been a big bang. It could have been two rocks; it could have been just one blowing up. But that particular god, not a being-created-and-debated-god, would have to create it. That god, wouldn't necessarily need to put it in motion.

You should read through the whole thread and not get too personally strayed away with the religious comments, unless you want the government to control how you pray or preach on a day to day basis.

 

From the New Testament the book of Romans 1:18 - 32

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

Can't argue with a bible thumper. Maybe we should just burn the constitution and replace it with the bible. Then the christians could live happily knowing they have forced their ways on everyone else.

 

From the New Testament 1 Corithians 6:9-11

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

So, its alright to have the "gays" force their lifestyle on everyone else???

 

Quote:"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

Well I guess that should take care of just about everyone. Your telling me you've never been drunk, taken something that wasent yours, been greedy (there goes everyone in America), slandered against someone or cheeted someone on a deal? Wow, call the pope, were gonna need the papers to declare a saint. Hey, maybe you really have never done anything in that quote above, but does that give you the right to judge others (Judge not least ye be judged)?
Besides, in the church I was raise in (the Catholic) I was taught that if you ask a priest for forgiveness, it shall be given.

 

Looking for some comments from the Attorneys....

One argument that keeps getting made is that gay/lesbian partners have no say in the other's health care. Isn't that problem really more related to the couple not taking the legal steps beforehand to make such an arrangement? I.e., can't any person assign "Power of Attorney" to another person to give them complete access and control over their health care status/decisions?

Same question for wills/survivorship -- is there some reason that a couple, regardless of genders, can't establish a legal relationship virtually identical to "marriage"? (Ignoring that health care benefits can't be extended to a non-married spouse without extra cost -- although this, unfair IMO, benefit is mostly still only available to married hetrosexual couples in the public-sector workforce IME.)