New York Gov. David Paterson’s directive that state agencies must recognize gay marriages from other states or countries was prompted by a court decision in February, the New York Times reported. But Paterson has also been a longtime advocate of gay rights, which he, unlike many of his fellow African-Americans, equates to the civil rights struggle. “I’ve wanted to be someone in the African-American community who recognizes the new civil rights struggle that is being undertaken by gay and lesbian and transgendered people,†Paterson said.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Phantom on Jail consultants straining patience
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- writerdog on Health care reform would save state money
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
- Phantom on Health care reform would save state money
229 Comments
I don’t know why this is such a hard leap for the black community to make, the parallels are so clear.
I guess if you could wear gay on the outside, maybe they’d get it.
It is really ashamed that much of the country has learned nothing from the struggles of others to get decency and civil rights and that we continue to try to deny the same to homosexuals. We need to quit it and start treating homosexuals like all other citizens are treated. They pay taxes too and their is no reason to deny them things that the rest of us take for granted.
First you have to get a few knuckleheads to understand that marriage is a right, and not a privilege in this country… I think the Court in CA has finally got it right!!
Noone has the right over another. When will they “BAN” blondes because people prefer “Redheads”? When will people stay out of eachothers bedrooms? Am I allowed to approach and watch a “Husband and Wife” in their bedroom to make sure they are doing it right? Are they going to “Ban” dating next? Pre-Marital sex is a “SIN”. I am in deep crap. I am not a virgin and I am single and have never been married. If I am not in your bedroom, stay out of mine!!! I am not a danger too myself or others!! Just to say so, I am a staight male. I will be “Banned” next though. I have slept with 2 women at the same time and they did eachother also with me. Go ahead and “Ban” me. We will stay single, by choice. Besides “Poligamy is ILLEGAL”. Please give details as to what you, the uptight perfect ass, feels is pure and wholesome for marriage, which tends to end in divorce 75% of the time anyways!!! Herbert West III, Candidate for Sheriff, Miami County Kansas, Nov 2008. west.herb@yahoo.com , http://www.wen2k.com
I agree with Chas. Herbert West III, Candidate for Sheriff, Miami County Kansas, Nov 2008. west.herb@yahoo.com , http://www.wen2k.com
“HerbertWestIII” writes –
“I agree with Chas.”
Uh-oh, “Chas.”
Perhaps you should reconsider your opinion.
—-
(And “HerbertWestIII” that was just a joke.)
Gay Marriage is not a civil rights issue. It is a subversion of the will of the people.
I am not so sure it is “the will of the people” the issue would have been settled long ago if that was truly the case. It as of yet the majority of people are at best indifference to the subject, there is no reasonable reason to deny Gays marriage. If the objection is based on scripture, they fail to remember that the Bible is directed to those of the faith. If the reason sighted is economic, that same argument would go for heterosexual marriage. If the argument is that marriage is for the purpose to reproducing, then the elderly and sterile must not be allow to marry. The reason why Gay marriage has not become legal in every state is simply numbers.
The gay, Lesbian and transgender community makes up a small portion of the population. Like Blacks it will take the majority finally running out of excuses and recognizing there is no reason to stop it except for blind fear.
I don’t think marriage is a ‘right’ but it should be a privilege that is extended to all kinds of people, whether they are gay or not. The people who really hurt marriage as an institution are those who have marriages that last only a few minutes like Brittney Spears.
Amazing.. Outlander disagrees with the California Supreme Court…
Chas
Posted June 2, 2008 at 11:12 am | Permalink
Amazing.. Outlander disagrees with the California Supreme Court…
———————
So do 46 million Hollyfornians Chas. Now, since when did disagreement become illegal? :)
A majority should be allowed to define what the definition of marriage is.
That is democracy.
RFL – and if a majority decide that blacks should slaves is that OK?
“The “majority rule” is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the “tyranny of the majority”. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Ben is confusing basic human rights that had been denied to blacks with the right to define marriage.
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is entitled to all people regardless of marital status. .
I have the right to define marriage anyway I want to and so does any gay person. However, the majority opinion in this case is what counts in a democracy since it is not a human rights issue.
Gay’s have the same rights that every heterosexual single person has. However, heterosexual singles do not receive the same level of rights as gays.
Gays are deemed special citizens since crimes against them can be defined as hate crimes and therefore carry stricter sentences.
Also, many companies extend benefits to same sex unwed partners that would be denied to opposite sex unwed partners.
Heterosexual marriages by those who enter them with the seriousness commonly associated with the term, provide a great benefit to society for a multitude of reasons. That can not be denied and is the only reason why there are benefits bequeathed by the government to incentivize such socially constructive behavior.
Gay’s have the same rights that every heterosexual single person has. However, heterosexual singles do not receive the same level of rights as gays.
Gays are deemed special citizens since crimes against them can be defined as hate crimes and therefore carry stricter sentences.
Also, many companies extend benefits to same sex unwed partners that would be denied to opposite sex unwed partners.
Heterosexual marriages by those who enter them with the seriousness commonly associated with the term, provide a great benefit to society for a multitude of reasons. That can not be denied and is the only reason why there are benefits bequeathed by the government to incentivize such socially constructive behavior.
“provide a great benefit to society for a multitude of reasons.”
Such as? And cannot a similar comittment by a gay couple do likewise?
“The right to … the pursuit of happiness is entitled to all people regardless of marital status.”
However, for some the avenue to that pursuit of happiness might be marriage (or equal union) with a loved partner.
There is no reason to deny gay marriage other than petty intolerance and “because we can.”
That’s it.
If gays were allowed to marry as are heterosexuals, it would have damn near zero effect on American society. Their numbers are so small that it amounts to no more a blip on the radar screen.
The real issue is the intolerance of the American public.
As has been stated many times, gays are the last “acceptable” target of bigotry.
It is about time we, as a society, give up bigotry once and for all.
“Such as? And cannot a similar comittment by a gay couple do likewise?”
Are you familiar with the the neighborhoods of Castro in San Francisco, Chelsea in New York City or the French Quarter in New Orleans?
Common theme:
Gay ghettos
Nobody wants to live there with their family.
Just ask farmgrrl, she would rather live with the bigots and wingnuts in Kansas then in a neighborhood that is what is is as a result depraved moral values.
Yes, I am familiar with those areas. I am also familiar with some wild hetero areas that are about as bad. I am not referring to the ‘wild side’ but rather to boring monogamous types who simply happen to be gay. I am also familiar with some of them.
“result depraved moral values.”
South Broadway?
WEll if I love two women equally and we are all three consenting adults, how can the government tell me I can’t have two wives?
Who will define legal, who will define agreeable, who will define consenting, what a mass of confusion. That is why we have laws. Will the same Supreme ct that okd this ok multiple wives?
On it’s face it looks so simple but really isn’t. That is why the vote of 46 million Californians should have been considered.
“On it’s face it looks so simple but really isn’t”
It is very simple – drop the “of the opposite sex” qualifier.
That’s it, nothing more, no other changes, end of story.
RFL, you are too stupid to live, much less to warrant a response.
Simplistic solutions for simplistic minds.
“Simplistic solutions for simplistic minds.”
Well then explain where I am wrong. The usual argument is that if you will allow gay marriage you have to allow everything.
That is a completely disingenuous debate – a smokescreen at best.
So, where am I wrong?
Well I guess because I am male and my uncle is male. But he has no income and has never qualified for SS so why can’t I marry him?
Think that is far out. Just work in insurance for a while and you will see this is a tame example.
What’s really astounding for those of us with attention spans longer than a Bill O’Reilly rant, is how the CONs brought the whole same-gender controversy upon themselves.
Remember Newtie Gingrich’s “Contract
onwith America” in 1994? Oh, the Cons were all hepped up about the so-called “marriage penalty.” They proposed more and more tax breaks for married couples which underscored CONservative social engineering as a sop to the “family values” crowd.Meanwhile, evangelical Cons were hyping their homophobia by claiming gays and Lesbians were immoral and didn’t have long-term relationships because they can’t get married.
As a result, many same-gender couples responded with logic. (Logic so frequently gets in the way of CONservative ideology.) They stepped up and said, “Give us the marriage ‘penalty.’” “Let us visit our loved one even in ‘family only’ hospital wards.” “Instead of spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to establish joint property rights, inheritance procedures, issue as a $50 marriage license just like everyone else (regardless of how we get our jollies in the bedroom).”
As long as any two consenting adults can enter into a social contract that bestows benefits and “penalties” in the tax code, in insurance law, in matters of inheritance and medical policies, it is patently discriminatory that all “two consenting adults” cannot.
Q.E.D.
“Are you familiar with the the neighborhoods of Castro in San Francisco, Chelsea in New York City or the French Quarter in New Orleans?
Common theme:
Gay ghettos
Nobody wants to live there with their family.
Just ask farmgrrl, she would rather live with the bigots and wingnuts in Kansas then in a neighborhood that is what is is as a result depraved moral values.”
RFL, very perceptive and very true. No one wants to live there except the morally deprived. And some want to extend marriage benefits to them… STUPID!
“so why can’t I marry him?”
Can you marry your Aunt?
Try to remember this – just drop the “of the same sex” qualifier.”
Simple – that’s it.
Society has a perfect right to extend ‘benefits’ to those relationships it feels are of benefit and not to others. No unfair discrimination involved. None of the benefits are a right, they have been granted, and homosexual relationships do not deserve the same recognition as heterosexual marriages in societies view.
“None of the benefits are a right, they have been granted”
And who “granted” those rights? You? Congress? Fred and Wilma? Society?
What, no rights for minorities unless the majority “grants” them?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm……………….. I thought we as Americans were supposed to be better than that.
If they are “granted” to heterosexuals and not homosexuals, how can you say that it is not discrimination?
Well WS what does your simple mind say. Can I marry my uncle? If not why not? Making new rules now?
WS why do you keep saying that hetrosexuals have more rights than gay/lesbians? ANYONE can marry a person of the opposite sex. No qualifiers. Same and equal.
Actually okobs – I have been wondering about that. I don’t know how ‘more than two’ would be structured – with twi it’s just drop the qualifier as WSC notes. With three the entire thing of establishing some sort of heirarchy for inheritance etc changes.
That said – as long as consenting adults I personally have no problem with it. Except, of course, I do have to wonder about the sanity of a guy wanting TWO wives to nag him! ;)
“Making new rules now?”
Well, I already answered, Okie-dope, but let’s try again.
Big letters here……………
DROP THE “OPPOSITE SEX” QUALIFIER – THAT’S IT.
ksfarmgrrl professes to hate moral values but she obviously loves the benefits of living in a community with people who have them.
Very illogical but so is the human race.
Clark chastises bigotry so he must also chastise any law that makes it difficult for a pedophile to live in areas where children are easy prey. Such a law would be direct result of bigotry against people who claim an inbred sexual attraction for young children.
Does Clark want to live in a neighborhood commodious to pedophiles? Is Clark then a bigot?
“ANYONE can marry a person of the opposite sex.”
Sigh……………………. drop the “of the opposite sex” qualifier and you have a deal.
ANYONE can marry a person of the opposite sex. No qualifiers. Same and equal.
And, before the anti-miscegenation the same could be said of blacks – as long as they married within their race.
Ah yes, can I marry my dog? Can I marry my uncle? Can I marry my pet rock? Back to that old hootenanny.
The last I checked, two grown men can understand the agreement. Two growm women can as well. A grown man and grown woman can as well. A child can’t, a pet rock can’t, a dog can’t. If someone and thier uncle understand the agreement, then if that floats their boat. Keep on rockin in the free world.
“Does Clark want to live in a neighborhood commodious to pedophiles? Is Clark then a bigot?”
Well, it didn’t take long for stupid to rear it’s ugly head.
Pedophilia is non-consensual, it is a crime against the victim. Therefore, not wanting a pedophile around children is not bigotry, it is just protecting children. Children cannot consent.
Of course, trying to link pedophilia and homosexuality is a ridiculous strawman argument.
Pedophiles are not generally homosexuals, but they are criminals.
Homosexuality is not a crime.
Isn’t it odd that just about any discussion of removing gender (and only gender) from marriage laws spurs the Cons into fantasies of dog sex and incest?
Those ideas have to be pretty close to the surface to emerge so easily.
If the only thing that’ll prevent you from boinking your schnauzer is a constitutional amendment, perhaps it’s time to reconsider your priorities in life.
Monkeyhawk and WS while you like to demean others and willfully look the other way when others opinions are stated there is no change of law that is as simplistic as you would have us believe.
When you can’t argue your point with logic then resort to name calling and changing the subject.
This is not a simple problem as much as you would like to see it as one.
WS just take out the same sex and make your argument logically. Bet you can’t do it.
WS Clark,
At what age can a child not consent? Who determines that age?
There are many societies which do not place the same age restrcitions on when a child becomes an adult as we do.
Even in our own country we used to allow marriages to children at the age of 7.
My question is, who then determines when it is ok and not? Simple, society does.
There is no more a “right” to marriage between same sex partners than what is allowed by society or ruled by liberal courts.
Actually, it can be argued that the act of homosexuality is a crime and has been in many states for some time until recently. i.e. Sodomy laws.
Homosexuality is nothing more than a choice. I have yet to see a compelling argument for why homosexuality deserves special privledges.
I choose to define marriage as that between a man and a woman. This doesn’t make me a bigot. It is just how I define marriage.
Monkey, I’m offended. You discriminate against rocks.
“I choose to define marriage as that between a man and a woman. This doesn’t make me a bigot. It is just how I define marriage.”
But the important question is how CAESER (the state) defines it. That is why I prefer to separate the civil from the ecclesiastical.
“Nathaniel” –
Do you keep Kosher?
Ben,
We are a Representative Republic. We are ceaser. The majority of people choose to define marriage as that between a man and a woman, the laws in our country reflect that, and so far only the most liberal courts have seen differently.
MonkeyHawk,
Do you ever feel bad for being as crude and vile as you are?
I suppose not….
“WS just take out the same sex and make your argument logically.”
I already did.
Isn’t it odd that just about every discussion about the merits of extending the definition of marriage beyond the traditional one, involves shock from those in favor at the prospect at the logical result that the scope of redefinition effort can not be justifiably limited to same- sex-unrelated adults?
If marriage is re-defined, there is no basis to limit an attempt to re-define it again, and again.
Monkeyhawk, Clark and Vet are themselves bigots for resisting the idea that if marriage is re-difened once, it can be continuously re-defined to fit every conceivable genital arrangement.
I think it was just made observer. Anyone old enough, mature enough, intelligent enough to understand the consequenses of thier decision should be free to engage in the decision. Dogs can’t decide. Kids can’t decide. Rock can’t decide. Are you following me chief?
Nathaniel: I am not bound by your religious dogmas. I am “free” to be a homosexual. Guess what? I’m not going to make that choice. That makes as much sense as “choosing” to shoot my own foot. I can only infer that to farmgirl, heterosexual sex would make the same amount of sense to her.
You can define marriage how you see fit. You just can’t make your definition mandatory until you can show that two homosexual adults are incapable of understanding the consequences of their decisions.
Your point about the age being arbitrary is a valid point. Our imperfect society has chosen these ages. That would be an interesting debate.
“Actually, it can be argued that the act of homosexuality is a crime and has been in many states for some time until recently. i.e. Sodomy laws.”
Sigh, about 90% of heterosexual couples practice oral sex and 40% have tried anal sex. (Link previously posted) If sodomy were illegal, there would be ten of millions of Americans in jail.
“I have yet to see a compelling argument for why homosexuality deserves special privledges.”
The right to marry the (consenting, unrelated) person of your choice is not a privilege, it is a right.
“Simple, society does.”
Society used to think that “separate but equal” was pretty cool, too. Do you want to go back to those days?
“At what age can a child not consent?”
The “age of consent” is generally determined based on perceived maturity levels – being gay is not a matter of maturity. A “child” cannot consent, an adult homosexual can.
The “age of consent” is nothing more than a strawman argument.
WS Clark,
A strawman argument is one where I argue against something you never said as if you did or take what you said, twist it, and then argue against it.
I did neither of those.
I believe the fallacy you might have been looking for would be the Red Herring or something else.
As I have asked you before, what makes marriage a right?
“As I have asked you before, what makes marriage a right?”
And I have answered many, many times.
Because it cannot be denied to yada, yada adults of the opposite sex.
If it is a privilege, it has to be granted – who can deny the right to marriage given the above?
It is a right for heterosexuals and should be also for homosexuals.
Are you going to suggest that I am gay, now?
Actually WS your 90% number was dissed by your own link. Saying that you have tried something doesn’t mean you practice it. I smoked a cig a time or two but didn’t stick with it. Therefore I never practiced it.
In a democracy when the people speak the courts should listen. Forty six million people said no same sex marriage. A liberal court then came up with a rights argument that doesn’t hold water and overruled the will of the people.
So if less that 10% of the US population want something the other 90% don’t want is that an impasse or a defeat for same sex marriage?
“A strawman argument is one where I argue against something you never said as if you did or take what you said, twist it, and then argue against it.”
No, a strawman argument is a point that you state, that I did not make, and then you proceed to knock it down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman
Okie,
“WEll if I love two women equally and we are all three consenting adults, how can the government tell me I can’t have two wives?”
Hey Mr. Joad, if you can affort to support two families, maybe you should consider giving that money to charity. Sounds like you’ve got considerably more money and less common decency than you need. Take care of both with one check!
“Well WS what does your simple mind say. Can I marry my uncle? If not why not? Making new rules now?” “Well I guess because I am male and my uncle is male. But he has no income and has never qualified for SS so why can’t I marry him?”
Considering that many elderly heterosexual couples are doing just that, why not? Go propose to him and help him out! Go pick out a nice ring.
WS said:
“It is a right for heterosexuals and should be also for homosexuals.”
Should be because you say so? Overwhelmingly the populus of the US says no.
WS Clark,
If next week, a majority of society didn’t want to have marriage anymore and voted for Representatives to do just that, and change the laws…
There would be no more marriage.
Are you gay? Been hiding in that married life of yours?
The only thing I would say about you, not suggest, is that you are an ignorant vile pig. One of the biggest problem posters on this blog or any other since day one.
Gay? Nah….
Well Jed with you can’t argue logic then argue nonsense. I can tell you are a liberal because you already have one hand in my pocket. Give it to charity. I do a lot of that but you still didn’t address the argument.
The uncle argument is one you will see over and over again. What then happens to our SS system which is already suffering because only Al Gore knows where the lock box is and he has the only key.
WS Clark,
You brought up the age of consent. I simply went on to show that it is society which defines what that is.
I didn’t attempt to knock down something as if you had said it. Which is what a strawman argument is.
Your ignorance continues…
“Overwhelmingly the populus of the US says no.”
An overwhelming portion of the populous thought “seaparate but equal” was really cool, too.
Wanna go back there?
“Are you gay? Been hiding in that married life of yours?”
Not married, but I do frequently enjoy the affections of women.
“The only thing I would say about you, not suggest, is that you are an ignorant vile pig.”
Coming from you, I consider that a major compliment. I would think that there was something wrong with me if you actually liked me.
“I simply went on to show that it is society which defines what that is.”
For the obvious reasons – to protect children. Gays do not need to be protected from themselves.
“You brought up the age of consent.”
I didn’t bring up the age of consent issue – I merely used the term “consenting” since gay bashers always want to bring up marriage between animals, rocks, trees as a reason to be against gay marriage.
“Your ignorance continues…”
Yeah, you are right up there with Einstein and Stephen Hawkings, Price.
WS you are the one bringing up the rock and animal argument. Man you are pretty dense. Just write off the majority. Kick the voters to the curb. WS says they are wrong. Who over told you you were god. Your head must be huge.
When laws are written they are very specific. Definitions will have to be established. Yours are so generic you could drive a Mack truck through them. Just ignore the world WS has spoken.
“WS you are the one bringing up the rock and animal argument.”
Actually no – it was someone else up thread, but it was you that suggested that you wanted to marry your Uncle.
“Just write off the majority.”
In 1954, the majority thought “separate but equal”was cool.
In 1875, the majority thought women should not be allowed to vote.
In 1800, the majority was in favor of enslaving African Americans.
Do you want to go back to those days of “majority rules?”
“Yours are so generic you could drive a Mack truck through them. ”
What is “generic” about dropping the “of the opposite sex” qualifier?
Easy – opposite sex, same sex – equal rights.
WS Clark,
What does homosexual marriage have to do with civil rights, Women voting, or slavery?
Talk about reaching…
How do you tell someone is a homosexual without asking them or them telling you?
“What does homosexual marriage have to do with civil rights, Women voting, or slavery?”
Sigh, the reference was in regard to the will of the majority. Damn.
The justification for banning gay marriage was “it is the will of the people.”
Well, there have been many issue that were the “will of the people” that we now reject.
Wanna kill some Indians and collect a bounty?
“How do you tell someone is a homosexual without asking them or them telling you?”
Although I believe that homosexuals are born gay, just what the Hell difference does it make?
Really.
OKOB. I brought up the rock/animal/uncle satire. Not WS. Sorry WS. I didn’t intend to get you dragged into that.
Now if we want to play democracy with a little d, (i.e. “write off the majority” I think you said) let’s do that. But you don’t get to pick and choose when the majority rules (gay marriage) and when it doesn’t (say….Iraq war) Now do you really want to go down the slippery slope of mobocracy?
“Nathaniel” asks me –
“MonkeyHawk,
Do you ever feel bad for being as crude and vile as you are?”
And the only thing I can find in this thread is my question to “Nathaniel,” “Do you keep Kosher?”
That’s “crude and vile”?!
To answer you, “Nathaniel.” No I don’t feel all that bad about that. Do you have something else in mind?
“Actually WS your 90% number was dissed by your own link.”
That is about stupid, Okie-dope. Are you suggesting that the vast majority of heterosexual couples do NOT regularly engage in oral sex?
No WS I am saying you are only great in your own mind and your arguments don’t hold water. I simply said the link you gave disproved your own assertion.
Make of that what you will but as for your question about what the majority of people do in their bedrooms I don’t know that any more than you do.
That issue with “uncle” is fairly easily solved… It comes under two consenting, unrelated, adults… pretty much leaves out dogs, cats, kids, and rocks, too..
Oh Pope so now you want to discriminate against the people in Arkansas.
Seriously the Uncle issue was an example of the type of problems we would have in redefining marriage. This from a party who doesn’t even know what is is.
OKOB — The obvious point is that marriage does not need to be re-defined… Just make it what it is — two consenting, unrelated adults… Period… End of discussion… The only need for re-definition is in the minds of people like YOU and others here who want to continue on a discriminatory bent, till you get what you think you want… The CA Court has now ruled that the majority of people who passed that earlier law, voted in something that is not constitutional… THAT is why we have courts!!
What would happen if a majority of people would at some point in infinity vote on a referendum to make it illegal to have blonde hair?? Same principal… different subject area… Same result… The courts would call in not constitutional…
And for that I can only say Hallelujah!!
“Are you suggesting that the vast majority of heterosexual couples do NOT regularly engage in oral sex?”
Lots of it. Until you get married.
Damn wedding cake!
This one pro-sodomy fanatic, New York’s adulterer-in-chief, decided all by himself to run amok and strike down as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.
Any state without a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state Constitution could fall victim to such an intolerable oligarchy.
That’s right fleetwood. If I don’t get married oral sex, NOBODY does.
“I am saying you are only great in your own mind and your arguments don’t hold water.”
Show me how my arguments don’t hold water – specifically.
And a question for the gay bashers here – that includes you Newman……..
If homosexuality is not illegal and sodomy is not illegal, how can homosexual marriages be illegal?
Shouldn’t you gay haters be pushing for a Constitutional Amendment to make sodomy illegal?
Shhhhh Clark — Dont give em any ideas!! LOL
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/06/gay-rights-directives-prompted-by-court-convictions/#comment-361860
Parkay — you post has nothing at all to do with gay marriage!! Could you possibly be any more dense??
WS and pope if you don’t agree with you why would you be automaticly a hater. Many people have nothing against gays/lesbians but have very good reasons in their opinion not to make same sex marriage legal.
It is very easy for you to call others haters. That doesn’t strengthen your argument just makes you look very intolerant of those who differ with you.
youre just flaming now OKOB knock it off!!
“Many people have nothing against gays/lesbians but have very good reasons in their opinion not to make same sex marriage legal.”
I heard almost those same flaming words used about black people when I was growing up right in this City of Wichita… They dont sound any more logical now than they did then… They used to say, Yea, we have nothing against blacks… we just dont want them peeing in our pot, or riding in the front seats of our busses… They are just fine if they know their place…
NOW we have to hear just almost the same filthy CRAP coming out of the ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE A$$holes…
I’m sorry people… THIS NATION is better than that kind of bigotry!! And if it isnt?? Then just maybe, Rev. Wright had it right to begin with!!
BTW, OKOB — There is no Pope posting here… Get that straight, eh?? Youre not funny at all!! Bigotry takes out the humor of whatever you think you got!!
“but have very good reasons in their opinion not to make same sex marriage legal”
And those reasons are?
Tradition? – Slavery was a “tradition.”
Children? – Not all heterosexual couples have children.
Ick factor? – No one asked you to watch or join in.
Morality? – Homosexuality is not illegal.
The Bible? – The Bible demands many things of us that are ignored – pork, slavery, farming, etc – either advocate following ALL the rules or don’t be selective.
The will of the people? – It was the will of the people that women not be allowed to vote or own property. Should we go back to that?
So, what are these reasons you speak of?
I’m curious now OKOB. What would your rationale be for keeping same sex marriage from being legal?
I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I will assume you are being reasonable. What are these “very good reasons” you speak of?
You aren’t funny either Chas. So just get a grip and don’t make anymore stupid statements that give others the in on razing you. There are many blacks that don’t like the gay rights movement to hook onto the black issue. They feel and many agree with them that black is something you are born with. Not so being gay. They think this diminishes the civil rights movement.
” transferring fishing licenses between spouses.”
HORRORS! Some poor fish might get caught by a gay person!
Vet as I said upthread there are reasons not addressed here that have never been explored. How do you let same sex spouses start to receive SS benefits for instance without opening other relationships to this. Who decides who is eligible? Do we prorate the years they have been together. How much of a drain would this put on a system panting for survival now? Many other questions are much more complicated. It isn’t the simple issue you Chas and WS would try to make it.
All you all can do is holler bigot, hater you know the words. No logical diologue just ranting that solves nothing.
“Many other questions are much more complicated.”
The SS issue doesn’t hold water since it is likely that both partners have paid into the SS fund.
No one has suggested that other relationships be opened up for marriage, as has previously been noted.
So what are these other questions that need to be answered?
WS you are very naeive in your stupidity. In many instances the reason this union is wanted is because one of the participants hasn’t paid into SS. True love is great but benefits are better. Ask yourself why people who put down marriage on a regular basis would fight so hard for something they distain.
OKOB: I attacked your reasoning. I didn’t call you hater. All I have done is show you my view on what is necessary for a marriage to be valid, and tell you that majority rule is a two edge sword that you might want to stay away from.
The SS argument may be pragmatic, but I wouldn’t consider it reasonable. It is also not pertinent if civil unions are considered. Even the most conservative voter won’t begrudge civil unions among gays. That alone opens pandora’s box regarding SS. This argument seems to be merely about the word marriage.
“bth” –
I think you’ve discovered the Cons’ real reason for opposing same-gender marriage:
“HORRORS! Some poor fish might get caught by a gay person!”
Then again, “Catch and Release” is anti-libertarian governmental oppression.
America is already doomed.
BTW WS poligomists have long labored to make this a recognized marriage. You really don’t get out much do you?
“In many instances the reason this union is wanted is because one of the participants hasn’t paid into SS.”
Absolute bullshit.
“True love is great but benefits are better.”
Horsecrap.
And……………………………..
So what are these other questions that need to be answered?
“WS you are very naeive in your stupidity.”
At least I am smart enough to spell “naive.”
Unlike you.
“You really don’t get out much do you?”
Yeah, I do, but what the Hell difference does that make?
If the poly folks want legalized multiple partner marriages, let them do their own lobbying.
Go for it.
And, this is how you spell polygamists, not “poligomists.”
“okobserver” asserts –
“…poligomists [sic] have long labored to make this a recognized marriage.”
Actually, no.
In fact, one of the reasons the Warren Jeffs cult (the FLDS) is in the headlines is how they’ve played the system.
The first marriage is recognized by the state, but the church-sanctioned “sister-wives” have to be treated by the government as single unmarried mothers with dependents eligible for ADC benefits, food stamps, etc.
Don’t try to trot out the polygamy distraction to a simple issue of “two consenting, non-related, adults.”
“I think you’ve discovered the Cons’ real reason for opposing same-gender marriage”
Damned fish, always wanting equal rights.
“WSClark” imparts wisdom of the ages with –
“Damned fish, always wanting equal rights.”
You’re so right.
I don’t care if they’re bass, so long as they don’t flaunt it.
And just wait ’til them critters insist we pronounce “crappie,” the way they really want it!
I guess we have lost Okie-Dope – he must be working on those “Many other questions are much more complicated.”
Or, he just got his ass kicked in a debate and has chosen (!) to slink off into the fading light.
Okie,
” Give it to charity. I do a lot of that but you still didn’t address the argument.”
By charity I didn’t mean buying your pastor a new Armani suit, I meant actually helping out your neighbors.
You accuse me of being a liberal, and if you mean by that that I acknowlege that we’re all in the same boat and that cannibalism isn’t an option, then I plead guilty. Other than that, you don’t know diddly about me.
Since nobody outside a few wacko christian cults is demanding that you marry someone you don’t want to, I can’t see why you’re concerning yourself with opposing people who want to get married. In fact, it’s amusing to no end that you people who are so concerned with unmarried sex and the state of marriage are the ones fighting tooth and nail the very people who are confirming their position on the value of marriage!
LLTVET,
It is about the word “Marriage.” Gay people are well aware of the history of the weasel term “separate but equal,” and know that to accept anything less than full equality is to accept a second-class citizenship. They aren’t about to fall for that.
The SS argument is full of crap… There are numerous hetero couples where one never paid into SS… Doesnt seem to effect who gets what with them… Same rules apply for ALL!!
That ends that crock of crap objection!!
Okie-Dope apparently has lost his nerve – can’t answer the questions as to his statement – “Many other questions are much more complicated.”
Waiting for those “complicated questions.”
Could be waiting a long, long time.
You’re right Clark… cause there arent any!!
WS,
“I guess we have lost Okie-Dope – he must be working on those “Many other questions are much more complicated.”
Or, he just got his ass kicked in a debate and has chosen (!) to slink off into the fading light.”
Don’t worry, he’ll be back as soon as he figures out how to spell his new nic.
LOL Jed!!
Jed posts;
“…and know that to accept anything less than full equality is to accept a second-class citizenship. They aren’t about to fall for that.”
Jed, as usual you need to wake up to the facts as they exist, and quit living in your pseudo, alternate world.
It doesn’t matter ONE HOOT whether they “fall for that” or not…IT’S THE LAW!
Fortunately, you might remember, Kansas has a Constitutional Amendment that passed by over 70+% which defines the term marriage in law at the highest level.
Society can define marriage, and assign benefits to it, according to the laws that it establishes. Nothing is discriminatory about it. Both men and women can marry someone of the opposite sex as that’s the way marriage is defined, and again, there is no discrimination because it is open to all.
Homosexual relationships, for whatever benefit they may or may not give to the individuals is totally beside the point, as they are NOT considered beneficial to society and consequently are not given recognition or benefits.
Jed, you might be the type that derives great romantic fulfillment from your hand but society is not going to recognize a marriage and grant joint tax filling schedules to the ‘two’ of you. That doesn’t mean you ‘two’ can’t be very happy…but no marriage and no benefits granted.
Got it?
Boxer — It’s all nothing but legalized bigotry… And when the Courts wake up to that fact, it will be legal in all 50 states… Get over it… Bigotry will NOT reign supreme, in this land of the Free and home of the Brave…
IF it does, then everything Rev. Wright said is very true!!
“but no marriage and no benefits granted.”
What are you afraid of, Box Head, gay recruitment?
Ummm Boxer, since when is a “hand” a consenting, unrelated, adult?? Hmmm???
Boxer writes: “…there is no discrimination because it is open to all.”
WRONG — Open to all heterosexuals… NOT open to ALL PEOPLE… And that is discrimination!!
Chas,
Whatever…I could care not a whole lot less what you think and say, meaning no offense, just fact.
What many here fail to realize is that society can in fact make judgments as to terms, law, benefits and the list could go on and on.
I couldn’t care less if two men or two women want to share their lives and fortunes, it’s none of my business. But, I live in this society too, as do a majority that feel there is nothing of benefit for society to recognizing single sex unions and many of us further feel they are most destructive to individuals and society. And that’s strictly in the secular realm. I won’t even start on the religious/spiritual realm which of course categorically, unequivocally condemns homosexuality as Sin.
PEOPLE = Consenting, unrelated adults :-)
That depends on which spiritual/religious realm you might be in… And, no gay couple being married is any threat to you or your family… NONE… NADA… That is such an empty vacant argument, its almost not worthy of mentioning it..
No threat to any part of society either!! And you cannot show one proof as to what threat it is, since there are none!!
Narrow minded bigotry is sure killer of a free State/Society.
“Open to all heterosexuals… NOT open to ALL PEOPLE”
NO…IT’S OPEN TO ALL PEOPLE! They may well choose not to enter into a traditional marriage because of preference, but that’s their choice. People make choices all the time that effect what happens to them, and the benefits they realize. The law only recognizes heterosexual marriages. Now you may not agree, but you are not in the majority on this and as a result the law is the way it is.
Then the law is unconstitutional… Because by YOUR definition, marriage is NOT open to all people… only to heterosexual people… And that in itself is bigotry, and discrimination…
See, Boxer, here’s the problem in a nut shell:
Sinclair Lewis quotes
“When facism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Sinclair Lewis quotes (American Writer, 1885-1951) …
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/when-facism-comes-to-america-it-will-b…
Oh yea, and fortunately, not everyone in this country is bound by your religious perspectives and interpretations… And that is as it should be… :roll:
“Chas
Posted June 2, 2008 at 9:02 pm | Permalink
PEOPLE = Consenting, unrelated adults”
Hey Chas,
All people are not adults.
No kiddin… Thats a reference to what I said earlier, dummy!!
American — you can flame all you want.. just try not to burn down the Blog… And right now, you got a pretty hot one trying to get started… So, why not just stop it before you even get started!!
Marriage is open to all people. Some, being homosexual, may make a personal choice not to enter into a heterosexual marriage, that’s fine, prudent probably. But they aren’t restricted from doing so, or being discriminated against. The term and the benefits bestowed by law and society are reserved for traditional heterosexual marriages.
That’s the law and I agree with it and will argue for maintaining it.
It’s been fun…got’a run.
God’s Design for Marriage
Find the key to making your marriage flourish — just as God designed.
by Carol Heffernan
It’s easy to think that only “other people” get divorced. That your own marriage is somehow immune to heartache, infidelity and fights over who gets the house, the car, the dog. After all, how many of us would walk down the aisle if we believed our relationships would end up in divorce court?
Truth is, no relationship comes with a lifetime guarantee. Even men and women who grew up in stable homes, who attend church and consider themselves Christians, who promise “until death do us part,” can have it all fall apart.
As Christians, we know that applying biblical principles to marriage will give us a stronger foundation than those of our unbelieving friends and neighbors. We know this, but what are we doing about it? In other words, what makes a marriage “Christian”?
According to author Gary Thomas, we’re not asking the right questions. What if your relationship isn’t as much about you and your spouse as it is about you and God?
Instead of asking why we have struggles in the first place, the more important issue is how we deal with them.
In Sacred Marriage, Thomas has not written your typical “how to have a happier relationship” book. Rather, he asks: How can we use the challenges, joys, struggles and celebrations of marriage to draw closer to God? What if God designed marriage to make us both happy and holy?
Viewing Marriage Realistically
“We have to stop asking of marriage what God never designed it to give — perfect happiness, conflict-free living, and idolatrous obsession,” Thomas explains.
Instead, he says, we can appreciate what God designed marriage to provide: partnership, spiritual intimacy and the ability to pursue God — together. So, what does Thomas think is the most common misconception Christians have about marriage?
“Finding a ’soul mate’ — someone who will complete us,” he says. “The problem with looking to another human to complete us is that, spiritually speaking, it’s idolatry. We are to find our fulfillment and purpose in God . . . and if we expect our spouse to be ‘God’ to us, he or she will fail every day. No person can live up to such expectations.”
Everyone has bad days, yells at his or her spouse, or is downright selfish. Despite these imperfections, God created the husband and wife to steer each other in His direction.
Thomas offers an example: “When my wife forgives me . . . and accepts me, I learn to receive God’s forgiveness and acceptance as well. In that moment, she is modeling God to me, revealing God’s mercy to me, and helping me to see with my own eyes a very real spiritual reality.”
While it’s easy to see why God designed an other-centered union for a me-centered world, living that way is a challenge. So when bills pile up, communication breaks down and you’re just plain irritated with your husband or wife, Thomas offers these reminders to help ease the tension:
God created marriage as a loyal partnership between one man and one woman.
Marriage is the firmest foundation for building a family.
God designed sexual expression to help married couples build intimacy.
Marriage mirrors God’s covenant relationship with His people.
We see this last parallel throughout the Bible. For instance, Jesus refers to Himself as the “bridegroom” and to the kingdom of heaven as a “wedding banquet.”
These points demonstrate that God’s purposes for marriage extend far beyond personal happiness. Thomas is quick to clarify that God isn’t against happiness per se, but that marriage promotes even higher values.
“God did not create marriage just to give us a pleasant means of repopulating the world and providing a steady societal institution to raise children. He planted marriage among humans as yet another signpost pointing to His own eternal, spiritual existence.”
Serving Our Spouse
He spends the entire evening at the office — again. She spends money without entering it in the checkbook. He goes golfing instead of spending time with the kids. From irritating habits to weighty issues that seem impossible to resolve, loving one’s spouse through the tough times isn’t easy. But the same struggles that drive us apart also shed light on what we value in marriage.
“If happiness is our primary goal, we’ll get a divorce as soon as happiness seems to wane,” Thomas says. “If receiving love is our primary goal, we’ll dump our spouse as soon as they seem to be less attentive. But if we marry for the glory of God, to model His love and commitment to our children, and to reveal His witness to the world, divorce makes no sense.”
Couples who’ve survived a potentially marriage-ending situation, such as infidelity or a life-threatening disease, may continue to battle years of built-up resentment, anger or bitterness. So, what are some ways to strengthen a floundering relationship — or even encourage a healthy one? Thomas offers these practical tips:
Focus on your spouse’s strengths rather than their weaknesses.
Encourage rather than criticize.
Pray for your spouse instead of gossiping about them.
Learn and live what Christ teaches about relating to and loving others.
Young couples in particular can benefit from this advice. After all, many newlyweds aren’t adequately prepared to make the transition from seeing one another several times a week to suddenly sharing everything. Odds are, annoying habits and less-than-appealing behaviors will surface. Yet as Christians, we are called to respect everyone — including our spouse.
Thomas adds, “The image I use in Sacred Marriage is that we need to learn how to ‘fall forward.’ That is, when we are frustrated or angry, instead of pulling back, we must still pursue our partner under God’s mercy and grace.”
Lastly, Thomas suggests praying this helpful prayer: Lord, how can I love my spouse today like (s)he’s never been loved and never will be loved?
“I can’t tell you how many times God has given me very practical advice — from taking over some driving trips to doing a few loads of laundry,” Thomas says. “It’s one prayer that I find gets answered just about every time.”
While other marriage books may leave us feeling overwhelmed, spotlighting our shortcomings and providing pages of “relationship homework,” Sacred Marriage makes it clear that any couple can have a successful, happy and holy marriage.
With a Christ-centered relationship, an other-centered attitude and an unwavering commitment to making it work, your marriage can flourish — just as God designed.
Gary L. Thomas is a writer and the founder and director of the Center for Evangelical Spirituality, a writing and speaking ministry that integrates Scripture, church history, and the Christian classics.
Carol Heffernan is the online editor for broadcast programming at Focus on the Family.
Boxer = Facist Bigot!!
American, that is absolutely wonderful, IF someone happens to share those beliefs… If not, it makes no sense at all!! Do you by chance understand that very basic concept of Freedom of Religion??
“God created marriage as a loyal partnership between one man and one woman.”
I guess Jacob, and Solomon, and numerous others got a reprieve, huh??
I just watched a GREAT show on Sundance called “For the Bible Tells Me So”. Sane people should watch it.
Wingnuts and christian bigots would be advised to skip it. Your heads will explode.
“And the truth shall set you free” indeed.
Why is it that if you don’t agree with someone, you call them a bigot?
I am trying to be civil here, are you?
Chas,
You ought to know the truth about Jacob and Soloman and their relationship with God.
It isnt because I disagree.. it’s because bigotry is bigotry… I dont happen to agree with bigotry… If somebody wants to be a bigot, then so be it… but at least they can admit it up front… and save future arguments…
Chas,
Do you believe in those words?
Solomon and Jacob are PROOF that if God intended marriage to be between one man and one woman (which I would question) — then God changed God’s mind at least TWICE… Guess thats a whole different can of worms… eh??
Am nearly everything in that piece can be attributed to a gay marriage as well.
I disagree, though, that Christian marriages can be stronger, yeah any marriage can be stronger if you both are focused on something else.
The strongest marriages come from the most liberal states. Now explain that.
Apparently we liberals have found the secret, its compassion and loving someone with compromise, accepting what comes, and not controlling our spouse.
and the sex is good for it too.
But of course, Solomon and Jacob are irrelevant to this discussion anyway…
So, American, Flame on if you must… just dont burn the place down!!
I agree PMama…
It’s appears to me that the movie failed then kfg. If the movie was to point out that some exploit the Bible to their own desires and interpretation, then the movie was a success.
If you took away from the movie that all Christians are bigots, then the movie failed.
If you took away from the movie that it was an interpretation from a point of view, then you are a success.
American,
Did someone like the farmer call you a bigot?
Well, if so…I outrank you. I am a “Facist Bigot!!”, at least according to Chas.
It tickles me to no end to be called that by someone with opinions like Chas, ha.
big·ot
n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
So are you also bigoted because you are intolerate of my disagreement with your’s and other’s ideas?
Chas
Posted June 2, 2008 at 9:59 pm | Permalink
It isnt because I disagree.. it’s because bigotry is bigotry… I dont happen to agree with bigotry… If somebody wants to be a bigot, then so be it… but at least they can admit it up front… and save future arguments…
———————–
Chas branding some one with a name like ‘bigot’ is an attempt to gain a higher moral ground.
However, when one uses it like weapon to bludgeon someone’s intellectual views about a subject, then the words becomes a ‘flame’ and is ineffective.
Surely, you can make your points without invoking the use of the word.
If not, then you have yielded your position or moral wisdom to one of incoherent foolishness.
Right, Boxer… I talk freedom and equality for ALL people… You talk bigotry and discrimination against those you dont want to be equal to you… And you think you are the great American??? Y”ea, sure, right!! What a joke you are!! And the courts will soon be telling you what a joke you are in more states than CA, and Mass….
I talk about defending the Constitution… You and those like you talk about destroying it… with bigoted, discriminatory laws…
James, a bigot by any other name, is still a bigot… And when they prove it daily, well, I guess they must acknowledge their position…
Let them vote in California then, and Kansas, and all the midwest and the south and everywhere, and let us make it a constitutional amendment then, that a marriage is between a man and a woman.
I have no doubt of the outcome.
Then when it passes, then will all that don’t agree with you be bigots then?
That amendment will go down as unconstitutional just like the CA law has done already… It doesnt matter how many people approve it… If it is unconstitutional, it will not be approved by the Courts… That is why we HAVE a judicial branch… to control the kind of mass feeding frenzy you just proposed…
IF America passes such an amendment, then The Rev. Wright will be proven CORRECT in his assessment…
And they will not be bigots because they disagree with me, or I disagree with them… They will be bigots because, well, thats what they are!! Unless of course, they decide to re-write the definition… LOL
BTW, it has to first pass the House and Senate… and that aint gonna happen…
has
Posted June 2, 2008 at 10:13 pm | Permalink
James, a bigot by any other name, is still a bigot… And when they prove it daily, well, I guess they must acknowledge their position…
————————————–
No Chas, the word loses its effectiveness if you continually use it as a point of argument.
Which would you consider worse as a human being?
A)A Bible carrying, KKK clansman, known to have participated in violent rallies, has participated in assaults on blacks and homosexuals and threatens people with physical violence if they don’t leave their community because of their belief.
B)A person when asked a question about homosexuals that states the Bible teaches it is an abomination, therefore a sin.
Now, according to your definition Chas, both can be called Bigots.
When does one exactly decide on calling someone a bigot just because they believe differently and lump them in the same category as a violent person who acts out on hate?
Does person B bring along hate with his belief or is it just a belief?
Well — Time to go for now….
Good night; Good luck; God bless –
Whatever you conceive God to be!!
Blessings ALL!!
So mote it be!!
Tha court will be overidden in CA,
by a popular re-vote,
and the people should decide the outcome,
not an oligarchy,
which is what you propose,
and that is not democracy!
You are being led down a primrose path,
Chas,
and do not understand this country, or what freedom stands for!
My my Chas…you seem to be losing it again.
Don’t take these discussions so seriously. You are entitled to your decadent views and I to my, shall we say, more traditional, practical, moral views.
My nic is Boxlock, in reference to a beautifully functional shotgun action, but your continual use of ‘Boxer’ also delights me with it’s rather rugged connotation of confrontation. Thanks, I’ll wear it.
American, I don’t usually read long posts, which your’s above by by Carol Heffernan verged on, but WOW, that was great. It conceptualized exactly what marriage was created to be, and should be to be fully realized as God intended. Thanks for posting that. I’m copying and sending to my married kids.
James — Person B would only be a bigot, if he/she tried to force his beliefs on others, by law, or by violence and/or force… as in Person A….
People are always entitled to their religious beliefs… ALWAYS…. Just not entitled to make their religious beliefs into LAWS for the NATION… and for those who dont share those beliefs…
American
Posted June 2, 2008 at 10:24 pm | Permalink
Tha court will be overidden in CA,
by a popular re-vote,
and the people should decide the outcome,
not an oligarchy,
which is what you propose,
and that is not democracy!
You are being led down a primrose path,
Chas,
and do not understand this country, or what freedom stands for!
======================================
You are wrong on a huge number of points, but I dont have the time nor the energy to spell it out for you tonite… Perhaps another day…. Nite now!!
“…that is not democracy!”
Well, well, well — Since we dont live in a democracy, that would be good… We live in a representative republic… Or have your kind decided to change that too??
Now, I really am out of energy for tonite…
Deal with it later!!
Chas
Posted June 2, 2008 at 10:26 pm | Permalink
James — Person B would only be a bigot, if he/she tried to force his beliefs on others, by law, or by violence and/or force… as in Person A….
People are always entitled to their religious beliefs… ALWAYS…. Just not entitled to make their religious beliefs into LAWS for the NATION… and for those who dont share those beliefs…
—————————-
So in the California case, who are the bigots?
The 46 million who voted to uphold the California law on the definition of marriage.
or
The Supreme Court of California who overturned the the vote for the definition of marriage.
Accordingly, and to your own admission that if one uses force, even by law to force their beliefs on someone else then they are bigots.
It appears to me, that in both cases, both the 46 million people in California and the Judges on the Supreme Court of California fit your definition of being bigots because they did by force of law to alter the path of one’s beliefs.
Therefore, the decision by the Supreme Court of California was made by bigots, that is, according to your definition.
Chas,
If you really understand God’s Word, then you will surely know that the reason Solomon fell, was because he mis-used what God granted to him. He asked for wisdom above all else and God gave him that, and God because of His Grace, gave him riches and earthly glory.
But what was Isael’s outcome due to the fall of Solomon’s life?
Israel was allowed to be overridden and taken into captivity.
And what was Jacob’s demise Chas?
Can you answer me that?
Boxic,
“Fortunately, you might remember, Kansas has a Constitutional Amendment that passed by over 70+% which defines the term marriage in law at the highest level.”
Enshrining bigotry in the state constitution is a recycled tactic that the segregationists tried 50 years ago, and it didn’t work then either, but you bigots are big on reruns. It’s only a matter of time before homophobia is where racism is now; an underground hatred that most of you wouldn’t admit to in public. If you don’t believe that, go ask an an average high school class about gay rights and remember that they are they will all be voters in just a few years. The only question is how many more people will have to suffer and die in the meantime.
Just fiddling around with the numbers and figured that the 46 million number I’ve been batting around is approximately 15 percent of the population of the United States.
That’s one big state. :)
Then I looked up the population of California and the population is about 36 million.
I picked up the 46 million number from someone’s else’s post, a mistake on my part.
I’ll try to find the real numbers of the election later on.
I am surprised and oddly proud(?) of KFG. I fully expected her to toss around the ole “BIGOT”/HOMOPHOB” like she was seeding a lawn. Thank you KFG. Instead, however it was Cheerleader Chas throwing down the big “B” in his own honorable, compassionate, Shepard way….oh yeah I forgot LOL ROFLMA and miscellaneous ALlCaPS and quick fire !!!’s..
I only use the word democracy as what I mean as a representative democracy or a democratic republic.
But leave it to you to be overly technical and nit-picky, because you have no argument.
This nation was created of the people, for the people and by the people.
The 3 branches of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial are below the people and should serve the people, their employers.
People often ask where in the Bible it talks about homosexuals, here’s one passage.
Of course, if people reading the passage have no regard for the Bible or worried about ascending into heaven, then they have no worries.
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Don’t you know that evil people will not receive God’s kingdom? Don’t be fooled. Those who commit sexual sins will not receive the kingdom. Neither will those who worship statues of gods or commit adultery. Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts.
“Fortunately, you might remember, Kansas has a Constitutional Amendment that passed by over 70+% which defines the term marriage in law at the highest level.”
“Enshrining bigotry in the state constitution is a recycled tactic”
That really gets to you doesn’t it Jed?
I suppose it would me too if I knew that kind of a majority was against my point of view and the law.
And Jed…the traditional definition of marriage will not pass away. It is God’s creation and His definition so it will always be a big part of societies, or Caesar’s, as well, if Caesar is to remain standing anyway.
“No Chas, the word loses its effectiveness if you continually use it as a point of argument.
“Which would you consider worse as a human being?
“A)A Bible carrying, KKK clansman, known to have participated in violent rallies, has participated in assaults on blacks and homosexuals and threatens people with physical violence if they don’t leave their community because of their belief.
“B)A person when asked a question about homosexuals that states the Bible teaches it is an abomination, therefore a sin.
“Now, according to your definition Chas, both can be called Bigots.
“When does one exactly decide on calling someone a bigot just because they believe differently and lump them in the same category as a violent person who acts out on hate?
“Does person B bring along hate with his belief or is it just a belief?”
James McCluer offers us the basic fallacy of conservatives. One is either A or B. It is possible that the alternatives are some of A and some of B – these things are dimensional – and a false dichotomy is not necessary.
But if one is a rigid anally retentive conservative, one has to be A or B. Got it.
Good luck in your world [sic].
Boxic,
“And Jed…the traditional definition of marriage will not pass away. It is God’s creation and His definition so it will always be a big part of societies, or Caesar’s, as well, if Caesar is to remain standing anyway.”
“Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”
-George Wallace-
“Those who commit sexual sins will not receive the kingdom. Neither will those who worship statues of gods or commit adultery. Neither will men who are prostitutes or who commit homosexual acts.”
LOL Well, there goes the whole state of Nevada… at least most of it… Notice, James, that there are sins other than homosexual acts, that are included in the same passage… Do we have laws against worshipping statues of gods?? And, as for the men who are prostitutes, that DID commit homosexual acts… They were TEMPLE prostitutes… Go check that one out good…
Paul was fussing about those who wanted to be part of the church, but refused to stop working in the pagan temples… Lets be sure to keep this in its proper context…
Steven Davis, I still see you are rolling in your bitterness towards me since that time I called you out on being deceptive about our meet up.
So be it, the bitterness will eat you alive. Me? I’m over it and do not drink bitter tea because I have a choice on how to act out on the rest of my life.
Careful on using names here Steven Davis. Your buddy Junior has now been outed and his glory days of ‘having an advantage’ over people is over.
The outing occured from one of your own Steven Davis. Aren’t you really proud?
No offense Chas, but your interpretation of the Bible from a Christian point of view is highly suspect and for me, I think you interpret for purely selfish motivation.
So forgive me Brother Chas, while I ignore your spin on the Bible.
I dont much care if you want to argue with 2,000 years of Bible scholarship… You be my guest… I will stick with the historical as well as contemporary commentators… You might try checking out Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, or Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible… Those are two fairly standard works… You wont find me in disagreement with them… And you can take that to the bank… So, flame on Brother James… It is what you do the best! LOL
Well Brother Chas,
I was providing one source from the Bible on homosexuality.
It appears to me that you have stirred the dung into the campfire and didn’t like the smell.
That homosexuality was not what we are dealing with now… That was “religious” prostitution… very common in that time… And those people wanted to be part of the church, but didnt want to give up their “other” jobs…. Paul was telling them they couldnt have it both ways…
In that form of homosexual practice, there was not even an attempt at establishing a relationship between two adults… NONE… Strictly business… and, in their weird way, also strictly worship… Go read up on it, and you will see what I am talking about… I’m very tired… I am quitting for the night… Maybe later!!
Chas,
If I may point out, that wonderfully charitable christian term, temple prostitution, had nothing to do with prostitution in any current sense of the word; it had to do with the offering of one’s seed to the temple and to the god, and was undertaken with the utmost solemnity and not with any sense the usual christian visions of orgiastic revelrey.
Also, the homosexual acts referred to in Deuteronomy and echoed centuries later by Paul were not the love relationships that are currently at issue, but were pagan rituals of the time in which Canaanite priests engaged to assume the powers of both sexes at once. In other words it was considered by the Hebrew writers as a violation of the prohibitions against ritual magic. Unfortunately, christian morality concerns itself with only with the act and not with the concept, and so usually misses the mark, too often with disastrous results.
Hey Jed,
Maybe you should take heed. The following scriptures remind me of your arguments.
2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
2 Tim 4:4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
2 Pet 2:1 [NIV] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Pet 2:2 [NIV] Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
2 Pet 2:3 [NIV] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
“#
Jed
Posted June 2, 2008 at 11:06 pm | Permalink
Boxic,
“And Jed…the traditional definition of marriage will not pass away. It is God’s creation and His definition so it will always be a big part of societies, or Caesar’s, as well, if Caesar is to remain standing anyway.”
“Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!”
-George Wallace-
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Jed, you nailed that one with one stroke!
Have I told you lately how much I love your posts?
farmer,
Segregation is not addressed by God like homosexuality.
Not even related.
Your “HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAH!” reminds me of a Jackass’s whinny.
I watch this on going discussion (rant?) concerning the gay issue and it seems many believe that gays made a conscious decision to go that direction, and they thus belong in the rear of the bus, or more likely, under said bus.
I just don’t get that “argument”. Are “those” people to be rounded up at and put over “there”, for everyone’s “good”?
gster, posts;
“I watch this on going discussion (rant?) concerning the gay issue and it seems many believe that gays made a conscious decision to go that direction, and they thus belong in the rear of the bus, or more likely, under said bus.”
Of course not ‘gster’, they are to be valued as a human beings and a creation of God, like everyone else.
The exact causes for an individuals sexual orientation is unknown, but homosexual acts are just that…acts, they are behaviors, and that IS CONDEMNED by GOD and importantly for the sake of this discussion is deemed of no value to society and unworthy of the term marriage or the societal granted benefits of marriage.
Boxlock- Would that be all “Gods”, or just yours?
‘THE GOD’ gster….THE GOD!
What are you pagan with multiple gods, or do you consider yourself to be god.
Your’s is a ridiculous comment.
While I support gay marriage, I also support the will of the people. Californians spoke. The court ignored it.
and that IS CONDEMNED by GOD
Might be good for a Sunday sermon, but I personally feel it does not have a place in policy.
“Boxlock” –
Do you keep Kosher?
Do you worship the same God as the radical Muslims? Allah?
Sol, the courts are here to protect the constitution. State courts protect and enforce constitutional provisions for their states, and the federal courts do the same for the US Constitution.
The courts also protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. No doubt, if put to a vote, interracial marriages would be illegal, separate but unequal would be set in law, and just about EVERYONE would be denied equal justice and equal protection under the law.
I think the founders knew this, and thus set the US Constitution in place to prevent tyranny and persecution, for whatever reason. I forget how many so called americans think the first amendment should be repealed.
How would you feel if gun haters were in the majority (and that isnt far fetched for the future) and they just passed laws taking away guns, just because “they want to” as some wingnuts here say.
Wouldnt you be glad that the courts can step in and say “no, the constituion guarantees it” and would strike down those “majority” rules?
I just love how some folks cling to the constitution.
Except when they dont.
…and given the long term trends of participation in organized religion, it wont be long before the majority of americans belong to no organized church. And give the “popularity” and downward membership trends of the Catholic church, they are a prime candidate for public disapproval.
So… if the anti catholics have a majority, and they vote to make the catholic religion illegal…
We’ll just call it the will of the people and thumb our noses at the constitution?
OK by me.
Just listen to boxlick and american, etc. whine about guns and god, and it gives you some idea as to their real fears….
And you KNOW they’d be running to the courts and whining to them if a majority of the voters did something they didnt like.
Like banning god and guns.
Hell, I’d even go for banning god, guns AND gays just to watch their heads explode on the first two.
And to see how fast they could sprint to the courts seeking redress…
Heh Gster! Name that tune!
“Pretty good, not bad, I cant complain. But actually, all them gods and just about the same”.
Judges who rule in the wingnuts’ favor = Good!
Judges who rule against wingnuts = Activist and Bad!
I understand your point Farmie. I have to shoot up your example though. If the state overruled the 2nd amendment, then I’d be screaming from the rafters – “If you take away the 2nd, then why not the 16th too???”
It is a tough call for me. I have no problems with gay marriage. I don’t think the federal government should be involved and it should be a state’s decision. The people voted and said ‘No’. The court overruled that.
I haven’t invested the time to look at the opinions of the Supremes, so I won’t comment on that. I guess it becomes a needs of the few outweigh the desire of the many.
It isn’t right to single out or exclude folks based on sexual preference. I guess I would challenge the California congress to pass a law that outlaws gay marriage based on anything other than ‘religious’ principles. If they could not, then gay marriage should be allowed.
If you take this route, you have accountability. The congress is left with the burden of proof. If they come to a decision that does not sit with their constituents, then their seats are in jeopardy.
I’m on your side on this. Just have issue with how things went. It isn’t my state. It may set a precedent for my state, but I really don’t care if Michigan allows gay marriage. Hell I’d even vote to allow it here. But to have a state’s voice heard, then some appointed lawyers strike down that voice, smacks a little fascist to me.
KFG- FYI- I’m Druid Reformed; we worship Hybrid (Beetle Resistant) Norwegian Blue Spruces. It’s sort of a counter-wiccan thing!
Sol, I know you are not my enemy on this, or anything else :)
“But to have a state’s voice heard, then some appointed lawyers strike down that voice, smacks a little fascist to me.”
Did you think it fascist when they struck down the Jim Crow laws? Or when they struck down segregated schools?
My point is, the courts are there to seek redress and to enforce constitutions. They are there to resolve conflicts between mob rule laws and constitutions.
And that’s what the Californians did. They passed a law that was in conflict with their constitution. And the law was struck down.
That’s what would happen if a law was passed, by the majority, to outlaw catholicism. It would be struck down as in conflict with the constitution.
I’m all for states deciding their own issues, but states have NO right to violate constitutions.
That’s why we have three separate and equal branches of government. It works well, as long as all three branches are EQUAL.
And they do their jobs.
They passed a law that was in conflict with their constitution. And the law was struck down.
but states have NO right to violate constitutions.
Agreed and agreed. I don’t know the Cali constitution nor the judge’s opinions. I’ll accept that though. I would just rather have seen the congress debate this and try to find a reason to ban gay marriage with out bringing ‘religion’ into it. I think that might have set better with everyone. When they could not find a non-religious reason to ban it, then move forward, pass the legislation to provide for gay marriage.
Got it sol!
Gster, HEHEHEHEHEH!
Just wanted to be the 200th post. Happy bi-cen-postial.
Jed
Posted June 3, 2008 at 2:17 am | Permalink
Chas,
If I may point out, that wonderfully charitable christian term, temple prostitution, had nothing to do with prostitution in any current sense of the word; it had to do with the offering of one’s seed to the temple and to the god, and was undertaken with the utmost solemnity and not with any sense the usual christian visions of orgiastic revelrey.
Also, the homosexual acts referred to in Deuteronomy and echoed centuries later by Paul were not the love relationships that are currently at issue, but were pagan rituals of the time in which Canaanite priests engaged to assume the powers of both sexes at once. In other words it was considered by the Hebrew writers as a violation of the prohibitions against ritual magic. Unfortunately, christian morality concerns itself with only with the act and not with the concept, and so usually misses the mark, too often with disastrous results.
======================================
Yep — And that is precisely the point I tried to get “Regular” to see last nite… But, in the words of a song, “There is none so blind, as he who will not see.”
“There is none so blind, as he who will not see.”
That’s funny considering the Gov. in the header.
This is a brilliant column by a brilliant columnist, Anna Quindlen.
“The more likely you are to know someone who is gay, the more likely you are to support gay marriage. The opposition is aging out.”
http://www.newsweek.com/id/139423/page/2
I would challenge those opposed to gay marriage to read it.
Boxic,
“Hey Jed,
Maybe you should take heed. The following scriptures remind me of your arguments.”
You really don’t want to get the message. I am not now nor have I ever been a christian. Yes, I’ve read the bible. I’ve also read the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Eddas, Das Capital and Alice in Wonderland. Quoting scripture from whatever source don’t cut no ice with me. If you want to argue with my posts, rationality and human decency will get you a whole lot further than mindlessly dropping lines from whatever “authority” you happen to be clinging to for intellectual protection. God gave you a head. Either he screwed up royally or you’re refusing to use it for whatever reason. Either way you have my pity.
Jed, you may want to pick up a course on reading comprehension. Appears you skimmed through those books without a thorough understanding.
Reggie,
You of course don’t get it, so I’ll make it plainer and see if that helps. I didn’t read the bible to find god, I didn’t need to; I read the bible in an attempt to understand the concerns of the christians around me. Unfortunately it didn’t help much. Most of them are simply using the bible to justify their own prejudices rather than coming to a greater understanding of the world and people in it. More’s the pity.
“Your buddy Junior has now been outed ”
What did you call me gay somewhere?
I’m not. But it isn’t a choice. Just setting the record er…straight. Given your rampant homophobia it at least seems likely that you might be gay and projecting your own self loathing on others. But from what I’ve seen elsewhere, that would be the least of your issues.
Of course there weren’t blogs back then. But I’m sure that before desegregaion or the end of slavery or women’s suffrage there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how those things would make the sky fall.
The sky is a little dirtier since and for entirely different reasons. But it’s still up.
Acceptance of the gay lifestyle has made leaps and bounds and just in my lifetime. And I’m one of the youngest posters here.
Gay marriage is going to be a reality. Know why?
It doesn’t hurt anybody who isn’t LOOKING to be offended.
Most posters here will live to see it. And if SOME of them have their heads explode it is little loss to the rest of us.
WS,
Thanks! That was a good, well thought through article. I would disagree with her contention that a Kitchen-Aid Mixer with dough hooks is always an appropriate wedding gift. Some people don’t cook and the gourmet chefs already have the industrial model.
Jed posts;
“Either way you have my pity.”
Jed I don’t need your pity, I don’t want your pity, as I have no respect for you or what you think and say…at all. So no, I am not taking any message from you.
And you do not set the rules for discussion or argument with me you arrogant imbecile.
Jed, I consider you an idiot, and too stupid to ever realize it.
Good News: California Marriage Amendment Qualifies for November Ballot
“California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today certified the state marriage-protection amendment for the November ballot. The measure would amend the state constitution to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
“The response from the people of this state has been unprecedented in support of marriage’s legacy, by responding with an all-out volunteer signature campaign,” said Ron Prentice, CEO of the California Family Council and chairman of the ProtectMarriage.com coalition sponsoring the amendment. “We’re so grateful to the over 1.1 million voters who signed the marriage petition.”
On May 15, the California Supreme Court overturned Proposition 22, declaring a right to same-sex “marriage.” Family advocates have asked the court to delay its ruling until the people vote in November.
“Passing this amendment is the only way for the people to override the four supreme court judges who want to redefine marriage for our entire society,” Prentice said.
ExxonMobil Resists Homosexual Agenda
by Jennifer Mesko, managing editor
“Gay and ‘transgender’ activists are targeting corporate America to bring about widespread cultural change.
For the ninth time, shareholders of Exxon Mobil Corp. have made the commonsense decision to give all employees the same rights.
ExxonMobil is the only Fortune 50 corporation and the only major oil company that has not adopted special rights based on sexual orientation and “gender identity.” It also does not provide benefits for same-sex partners.”
ExxonMobil needs to be thanked for its brave stand.
“ExxonMobil needs to be thanked for its brave stand.”
Hmmmmmmm, I smell a boycott coming.
Boxic,
Ooh! Flames!
By the way, I wasn’t setting any rules for debate, just offering a bit of fatherly advice.
WS,
I doubt that a boycott of Exxon will make a difference. Before long they won’t have a product to sell anyway, and all of their employees, gay and straight will be entering the job market.
Jed again shows incredible ignorance, referring to Exxon.
“Before long they won’t have a product to sell anyway, and all of their employees, gay and straight will be entering the job market.”
EXXON, Multi-national group of companies, active in fuels, lubricants, chemicals and polymers for a wide range of consumer, technical and industrial markets.
Mobil Corporation is the parent of Esso, Mobil and ExxonMobil companies around the world. ExxonMobil is an industry leader in almost every aspect of …
Jed, your weak predictions really don’t amount to anything.
“ExxonMobil is an industry leader in almost every aspect of …”
Leave it to you, Box Head, to celebrate a company that practices discrimination and seems proud of the fact.
WS,
Exxon is a focused company bringing many benefits to many many people around the world. They are too productive and busy to waste time being P.C. just to make jerks like you happy.
Our personal 2000+ shares of stock are doing quite well as well. I’m quite pleased with the performance, as are many entities, public and private, who have invested their employees retirement programs in the stock among other things.
“They are too productive and busy to waste time being P.C. just to make jerks like you happy.”
I could care less on a personal level – I just wonder how their gay and lesbian employees feel.
Just curious, Box Head, cross your religious reasons off the list and tell us why you are virulently anti-gay.
You certainly wouldn’t want to push your religious views off on the rest of society, so just give us your secular reasons.
Boxic,
It’s simple economics really. When the price of petroleum-based products rises beyond the means of their customer base, they will adapt or collapse, and they’ve gotten too big to adapt. A good analogy would be the railroads, the giants of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They were so heavily invested in past technology that they were unable to adapt to the highway system of the mid 20th C., and the passenger rail business collapsed and the freight traffic fell catasrophically. In recent years they have managed to recover slightly and may recover more as the price of diesel fuel rises, but they will never regain their former dominance.
Exxon set itself on an entirely predictable course toward such a collapse decades ago. It may survive in some capacity, but will never again see its former market and they know it. The exhorbitant profits they’re enjoying will go for dividends to satisfy its shareholders and maintain its share price, and so can’t be invested in future technology. Bye bye Exxon, going the way of the dodo.
“Recover slightly”, WHAT????
The railroads are doing great, running hard, adding track. Even the Wizard of Omaha, Buffet, is investing heavily in railroads.
But you are very correct, they saw themselves in the railroad business, and not the transportation business. It killed a few and hurt them all. But oil was cheap and trucks could to it efficiently, now oil is expensive and railroads are much more efficient.
About Exxon, no one can know for sure, you may be right, more likely wrong. They employ some quite capable engineers, in large numbers, and though they are heavily invested in present technology they are well aware of the future, more so than you I would venture to say Jed. And they are diversified into many technologies not just making gasoline and diesel. I’m not ready to sell stock yet.
I tell you one thing, the stupidity of the congress questioning them as they did, making fools of themselves, shows how much our ‘leaders’ know about it. And if they start manipulating we are sunk. The economy will suffer and we will not get new technologies.
Boxic,
All I can say is that I’m certainly not planning on investing longterm in Exxon. If you think it’s hot, go for it! It’ll more than likely cure your opinion of the welfare system.
Boxlock,
Sorry to lose you to bigotry. I, at one time, thought you had a reasonable narrative to add to discussions. But, it is clear now, that is not the case.
I will miss you. Good luck in the world you live in. You will need it, my poor, sad friend.
WS, now that’s one of the most reasonable and inviting invitations to a discussion I have had around here in a long while. And, if it’s sincere and not another attempt to bash I will think about it and respond. But not tonight. I am tired, seriously, and have to work tomorrow. So it’s going to have to wait. I have posted on the ’secular’ reasons I object to gay marriage in the past, you may have missed, or more likely simply dismissed them.
I don’t care if someone is gay, I really don’t. I don’t wish them harm, ever. But society is entitled to grant benefits to those activities and institutions it so decides to. To those things like traditional marriage and not homosexual relationships, right or wrong, but in this case I am convinced right, that benefit society along with those things about traditional marriage like reproduction, nurturing, families values, and on and on. Granted there are so many problems, and exceptions to a norm, but in general the traditional marriage offers benefits to society. That’s not to say same sex unions don’t benefit the particular individuals themselves, though that is another legitimate debate I’m not addressing here. Nor should they be condemned from a secular standpoint necessarily, but it isn’t marriage, and it doesn’t qualify for marriage benefits.
Whoa, there I go…I’m not going with it tonight, I can’t even see the screen any longer.
Good night and thanks for the civil question if you intended it as such.
It was intended to be civil, Boxlock.
Steven,
Don’t mourn too much, I’m quite comfortable with my thoughts and feelings.
I am not as caustic in person by the way, but I refuse to get pushed around here by those with seemingly no moral codes. And, when I express mine, getting slammed for it. I simply have decided for awhile to push back. That is until I lose interest in this whole scene and find something more productive to occupy my time.
But thanks for your concerns.
Boxic,
“And if they start manipulating we are sunk. The economy will suffer and we will not get new technologies.”
You mean like the advances in accounting we got from Enron?
zagiytul vxaehjbd mhpnqt htjyp wvgmlacph cbvkoq vyclrzxs
fcnsdtw zwtnrsj pijzu jbgfaeuqs etpslf zembqvh cxuysl
kzxug gbekljvq ezgrjdmh qtcbpdeu wkvg wude wvcyk
ojckpaxmt icnbum yxriok ywsioan njsdarq mtzaue rbdwl