Super Duper Tuesday Politics

[nora k]

Originally Posted by jryan

But how do same sex marriages differ from conventional ones? To me the idea of marriage is based on a bond and love! Both in legal and moral standpoints that is why opposite sex couples are allowed to get married! From personal expierience, growing up with a lesbian mom and around predomanently homosexual friends! I can tell you from personal expierience that same sex couples have the same love as opposite sex couples!

To imply that same sex marriage is wrong you would have to imply this is not true! I know as a fact that Eric and Bill (although I have never met them) would have the same amount of love as you and your wife Karl!

The second objection I have to banning gay marriages is the fact that science has proven that homosexuals are born that way! They are being punished for something that is PROVEN they have no control over! This would be like saying everyone with cancer cannot be married! I do not believe homosexuality to be a bad thing such as cancer, but both one cannot choose it just happens!

That being said I was born straight but not narrow! Some would argue biblical meanings! The bible was compiled and comissioned by the roman catholic church! The stories were not written by them but they took a long stack of previously written stories and chose which ones to include and which ones not! There is one passage in the bible that talks about gays! This passage could easily be misinterpreted and you have to consider the source! There are thousands of scriptures that allude to treat others as you would like! It does not exempt homosexuals and for that matter, if you want to go by the bible than, if you give up your marriage rights, then you can ask the same! Otherwise you are treating less than you would like to be treated!


Jeremy Ryan

Jeremy, you seem pretty fantastic and it's clear that your dog rocks, but your last paragraph has some serious errors. The Old Testament was already canonized by the time of Jesus as it had been compiled through oral history and then writing over a few thousand years before any christian church brought these books together. The 27 letters that became the New Testament canonized by the Church were already considered holy texts before their canonization. It wasn't a pick and choose to suit their needs. These were texts they had already been using as a measuring stick for peoples lives and their canonization was merely recognition of this.

there are several passages in the bible that refer to homosexuals. there are too many websites to list who are ready to tell you every single one of them and why it's bad to be gay and how you should repent because if you accept jesus you won't be gay and all that ridiculous stuff that i'm always surprised is written by followers of jesus.

jesus speaks the golden rule (treating others as you want to be treated) and it's in two gospels. what's a better reference is the greatest commandment. love the lord your god with all your heart/mind/soul/strength and then look at everyone else as the same as you. and you're supposed to love god... and it becomes a neverending circle. treating others the way you want to be treated is nice, but it takes god out of the equation. this brings it to the heart of what christians should believe. and about this you're right: no one is exempted from this command.

no one.

(random note - Jesus took the GC straight out of an OT book)

perhaps the most painless solution is to say the sacrament of marriage is one thing and the declaration of marriage is something completely different. i know and dearly love a couple who have been together almost as long as i've been alive and who deserve the same recognition that sal and i get, but would never be afforded that in a church. unfortunately we're at a place where many want the two terms to be synonymous so there can be religious discrimination of a rite that doesn't need to be religiously observed, but officially recognized. perhaps in another two hundred years the tide will turn in the religious world. until then it's an argument with no quick or painless resolution.

[jryan]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I do attempt to treat others with respect, and dignity. I also expect to have to follow the rules of society, and expect others to as well. We will have to get back to this later, as this discussion is a very very long one...

Karl, there are several things I must address with this post! There are also some apologies in order on my end! First off much of the examples I give, rather all of those in which do not involve your name were not directed at you! I understand how you could come to this conclusion and apologize for that! I like you and I know that you know my opinion of you and I hold you in high regards! That has not changed!

Now on to the post: It is not a law that couples must be in love in order to get married, but that is the basis of marriage! I guess that would be the opinion of the state! In WI you must have a religious leader join you in marriage in order to do so! This would only be done if love was present! I think you can agree a religious marriage is based on love even if not all legal ones have to be! I guess the main point in the gay community is not marriage yet marriage rights! There is no reason why they should not have the same rights whether you want to call it marriage or civil unions!

Regardless what you call it has no matter, it is the rights that are being fought over and which I believe are owed to such individuals! Now on to an apology! I said that Eric and Bill had as much love as you and your wife! You were right, I am in no position to say this! I apologize whole heartedly for making this statement! What I should have said and what I was thinking was that Eric and Bill have the capability to have just as much love for each other as you to your wife! Without being in both your shoes, I really cannot say anything as a fact! I was wrong! That being said from what I hear you, Karl, love your wife and kids with all your heart! I commend this as this just helps define your great character!

From what I hear from Eric, he loves Bill with all his heart! If both of you are correct it would be my opinion that that although you would both have a different kind of love, it would be equally as strong! But to make the assumptions I did was out of line and I do apologize!

Now on the fact of scientific evidence! You are correct nothing was proven, not because there were no results to conclude, but because the tests performed were never replicated! Science does however lean towards homosexuals not having control over their sexuality just as us straight people have no control! Do you really think that someone would choose to be condemned by society (in America) because of their choices? One article to exemplify the link (not proof but has potential to be proven) is one from PBS at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../nyreview.html . Some can argue the validity of say a fox news article, but I do not think there is any debate PBS is a credible source!

Either way I was not meaning that to bludgeon you! As far as the bible, I was referring to the new testament! I do however debate the validity of the old testament as well! I do believe the general philospophies and values are true, however the bible both old and new testaments, has been translated several times! When translations are made often points are missed! I believe certain things could have meant different meanings way back when the books were written or it was just translated wrong! My favorite example of how people pick and choose what they want to further their causes is this. In leviticus, old testament, it says in 18:22 "And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination.". What is also funny is that it says in 11:10-12 that eating shellfish is also an abomination! Anyone who believes that all the details of the bible are true please do strik against homosexuals! At the same time, please go protest Red Lobster for serving crustaceans!

The fact is that those who translated the Bible time and time again may not have known what a certain word meant! There is no way we can guarantee the validity of such translations! At the same time I believe the general concepts of the bible, but homosexual awareness is not a general issue. It is mentioned here and there but in snippets. I just simply meant further in my post is that the bible states treat others as you would like to be treated and alludes to it several times in different forms but still the same concept! I just simply meant that saying I can have rights and I can get married but you can't would not be treating others as you would like to be treated! You said you are different than other people so don't expect to be treated the same, however I believe homosexuals and heterosexuals are more the same than they are different! With that being said they should be treated as you would like to be treated which, in my mind includes being afforded the same rights!

Jeremy Ryan

[jryan]

Originally Posted by KSagal

I do attempt to treat others with respect, and dignity. I also expect to have to follow the rules of society, and expect others to as well. We will have to get back to this later, as this discussion is a very very long one...

Now to your last bit! I agree, from what I have seen you do attempt to treat others with respect and dignity! You say you expect to follow the rules of society but where do you outline society? As far as international society goes, in most countries homosexuals are regarded as just the same as everyone else and therefore granted the same rights! Internationally the U.S. stance on civil unions or gay marriage is rather harsh and not normal! If you are talking about society in North America you are also wrong! My friends in Canada and Mexico report that homosexuals are regarded the same as heteros!

So really you are mainly talking about the U.S. and as I hear the middle east but that is just what my uncle says (as he has been there several times)! I am not claiming this as true and would appreciate if Steven would clarify the middle east stance on homosexuals! I do know, however, in the majority of the world it is not viewed the same as here so please do clarify what exactly you mean by society! This is a very broad term!


Jeremy Ryan

[jryan]

Originally Posted by nora k

Jeremy, you seem pretty fantastic and it's clear that your dog rocks, but your last paragraph has some serious errors. The Old Testament was already canonized by the time of Jesus as it had been compiled through oral history and then writing over a few thousand years before any christian church brought these books together. The 27 letters that became the New Testament canonized by the Church were already considered holy texts before their canonization. It wasn't a pick and choose to suit their needs. These were texts they had already been using as a measuring stick for peoples lives and their canonization was merely recognition of this.

Thank you Nora for the compliment! Boris (my dog in my avatar one of the two) thanks you too! I gave him a snausage in your name! Please refer to my replys to Karl under this post as a means to address the old testoment! As far as the new testament goes I find your stance partially true! It is true all of the stories were considered holy long before compiled! I am not implying that the Roman Catholic church wrote the stories. What I am saying is that the cannonization was merely the catholic church gathering several "books" that were previously considered holy and compiling them into the bible!

I used to declare myself catholic and had several "talks" with my pastor and my grandpa (not by law but my mom's old partner's dad, whom I still keep in contact with and consider a grandpa) is a catholic deacon in Dubuque, quite possibly, the most catholically run city in the U.S. Here is the explanation I got from every pastor and my grandpa: "The Catholic church was in charge of "cannonizing" the bible. How this was done was by gathering several books considered to be holy and compiling them into one book which later became the new testament! In the process, as there were more books than would fit, many of these "holy" books were exempted from what we read as the bible today and these scriptures and books remain in Vatican City."

There is of course no proof what their criteria was for choosing which books made it in the new testament, but some were exempted! That is all I am saying and as we do not know all of what is in these books, we cannot validate every detail of the others! That was mainly what I meant Nora! Thank you for your response!


Jeremy Ryan

[BillPaxton]

he used two punctuations other than ! to end sentences in this series of posts!!! (the extra two ! in previous sentence were in in your honor JR).

BTW - I thought I was going to be unplugged through the weekend, but they stuck me with a laptop. so don't think I was lying yesterday when I said happy weekend just to get out of a conversation. oh, I mean !

[jryan]

Originally Posted by BillPaxton

he used two punctuations other than ! to end sentences in this series of posts!!! (the extra two ! in previous sentence were in in your honor JR).

BTW - I thought I was going to be unplugged through the weekend, but they stuck me with a laptop. so don't think I was lying yesterday when I said happy weekend just to get out of a conversation. oh, I mean !

I do have an ever changing way of using the punctuations! This is because I have much passion for what I say! I believe when you feel so passionate it deserves a good ! or !!. I do understand most people my age are not as passionate about such things but I figure that is there problem! Thank you for pointing this out Bill! By the way, laptop, yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KSagal]

Oh, so so much to say... So little time.

Originally Posted by jryan

Karl, there are several things I must address with this post! There are also some apologies in order on my end! No apology needed but I do appreciate the offer. First off much of the examples I give, rather all of those in which do not involve your name were not directed at you! I understand how you could come to this conclusion and apologize for that! I like you and I know that you know my opinion of you and I hold you in high regards! That has not changed! I commented on your points for clarification, but thank you for the kind words.

Now on to the post: It is not a law that couples must be in love in order to get married, but that is the basis of marriage!This is still your opinion, as it surely makes sense to you. I do not necessarily agree. I guess that would be the opinion of the state! Actually, NO. You are wrong here, as the state is very clear as to what the requirements are, and that is not one. All the things the state requires are spelled out, so there are no questions. In WI you must have a religious leader join you in marriage in order to do so! I am no expert on Wisconsin, but most states allow for a justice of the peace, and also for a judge to be able to marry people. Also, a papered and registerd captain of a vessel is usually able to marry people as well. Are you saying that your state does not recognise these unions? I have not heard of any other state where these provisions are not allowed. This would only be done if love was present! One should hope. I think you can agree a religious marriage is based on love even if not all legal ones have to be! Again, I do not. Until recently, it was not even discussed. Most religions have a far longer history of arranged marriages, and those based on commerce than love. I believe the accepted presumption is that the parties would eventually learn to love each other. Untill less than a century ago, most bride and groom sets barely knew eachother. I guess the main point in the gay community is not marriage yet marriage rights! Here you are dead on, in my opinion. I do not think it is about love at all, but money. I know this sounds cold, but it is so. By the way, the vast majority of hetero marriages until this last century were also all about the money. Women without dowreys were hard to marry off, and a man who could provide for his wife was a catch, an unemployed nobody was a bad choice, even if he was very artistic, or a really nice guy. There is no reason why they should not have the same rights whether you want to call it marriage or civil unions! I have said something similar many times, but I do call legal unions as civil unions, and marriages as something else. I have also several times expressed that a civil unions are the only thing that the government should be able to officiate, and those unions are not gender specific in my mind. How the money is devided is a legal decision that should be in the hands of the adults involved. HOWEVER, once people start laying claim to my tax dollars, I want far more oversight than is currently being applied. For me, that oversight is also far from being gender specific, and neither is the abuse of the tax dollars stolen gender specific.

Regardless what you call it has no matter, it is the rights that are being fought over and which I believe are owed to such individuals! This is clearly your opinion, and you are surely welcome to your own opinions, regardless if I concur or not, which I do. There is a reasonable argument if this is a right or not. There have to be some rules. Can two brothers, who love each other get married? Can a brother and sister? An aunt and neice? A man and his granddaughter? Etc. there are rules that have to exist. Clearly, where I may set a particular cut off and where you would set it may not be the same... In many parts of this country, cousins are considered marriable, and in other places, they are not. Now on to an apology! I said that Eric and Bill had as much love as you and your wife! You were right, I am in no position to say this! I apologize whole heartedly for making this statement! What I should have said and what I was thinking was that Eric and Bill have the capability to have just as much love for each other as you to your wife! Without being in both your shoes, I really cannot say anything as a fact! I was wrong! That being said from what I hear you, Karl, love your wife and kids with all your heart! I commend this as this just helps define your great character! I do feel you went a bit too far here, claiming facts you do not know to be facts, but I also believe that Eric and Bill have a loving relationship, based on what I know. I was not offended, but neither do I compare relationships of this sort, neither of us are qualified to do so. Let's let it be that we both think that both houses are full of love, and not quantify it further.

From what I hear from Eric, he loves Bill with all his heart! If both of you are correct it would be my opinion that that although you would both have a different kind of love, it would be equally as strong! But to make the assumptions I did was out of line and I do apologize! Again, I feel it was inapropriately stated, but not necessarily wrong. I don't even know that I would go so far as to say a different kind of love, as I do not compare this and that, and would suffice to leave it at that.

Now on the fact of scientific evidence! You are correct nothing was proven, not because there were no results to conclude, but because the tests performed were never replicated! Science does however lean towards homosexuals not having control over their sexuality just as us straight people have no control! I am sorry, I just do not agree with this. You could offer some evidence of this, but will not find any difinitive work, for every item in this direction, you will find another in that direction. Do you really think that someone would choose to be condemned by society (in America) because of their choices? yes I do. In some circles it is very fasionable, but beyond that, there are many choices that people make that do not seem to be the simple or common path. One article to exemplify the link (not proof but has potential to be proven) is one from PBS at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../nyreview.html . Some can argue the validity of say a fox news article, but I do not think there is any debate PBS is a credible source! I have read, and fully agree that PBS has been sued far more often for intentionally presenting false information as news, and clearly has a much sketcher history when it comes to honesty, and acuracy. I unfortunately do not have that article available right now, so I will offer that as hearsay. I do know that there have been more than one regional executive from PBS who has been removed and had significant legal troubles because of the abuse of power they demonstrated while in the employ of PBS. YOU are right, there is very little debate that PBS is not a credible source at all. NO debate here.

Either way I was not meaning that to bludgeon you! As far as the bible, I was referring to the new testament! I do however debate the validity of the old testament as well! I do believe the general philospophies and values are true, however the bible both old and new testaments, has been translated several times! When translations are made often points are missed! I believe certain things could have meant different meanings way back when the books were written or it was just translated wrong! I am not a biblical schollar at all, but I believe that those with strong belief feel that the Bible is the word of God, and that He oversees that there are no mis-intreptations. I will not go further. My favorite example of how people pick and choose what they want to further their causes is this. In leviticus, old testament, it says in 18:22 "And with a man you shall not lie with as a man lies with a woman; it is an abomination.". What is also funny is that it says in 11:10-12 that eating shellfish is also an abomination! Are you aware that a large portion of Jews keep kosher, which prohibit shellfish among other dietary rules? The dietary rules for practicing Moslums also prohibit shellfish. So do many orthodox Christians. Pork is also taboo. A couple quick stories...

During the Crimean war, I believe (I am sure better historians will correct me) there was a real problem with the British forces and their new firearms. It seemed their bullets at the time (very early rifles) were encased in fat or grease, to stop them from getting damp and not working. The local conscripted armies were largely moslem, and refused to handle the munitions, and many lives were lost. It is a fact that some people have shown that they would rather die than break those rules you were just talking about.

The Middle east has been a hotbed of terrorism for a long time. One famous British (they had colonised much of the region) had a requirement to quell an uprising of locals and terrorists of the day, back in the 1800s. In order to deal with the suiside bombers of the day, he would take any of the enemy who was killed in an attack, and woudl wrap them in a pigskin (possibly with a lobster, I don't know) and burry them. This was supposed to deny them access to heaven. It worked, and that particular group could find no more bombers, because then believed that burrial would deny them the afterlife. Here they beleived those rules more than not just life itself, but more than death itself...

Several years ago, while Israel was building it's security wall, there was a common practice for homoside bombers to take out busses. Some were transit busses, some were school busses... After a while, I saw a program on how the busses started to be outfitted with ham hanging in the bus. THe point was, if a bomber were to blow themselves up at that bus, the pork bits would get on their corpses, and all of the sudden those bombings stopped. I did see it on television, but I have no idea if this is true or not...

Anyone who believes that all the details of the bible are true please do strik against homosexuals! At the same time, please go protest Red Lobster for serving crustaceans! I do not keep kosher, but also have never eaten there...

I was eating with some friends once about 20 years ago. I knew the woman, and worked with her, and we were both in our late 20s. One day she invited me to dinner with her and her husband and children. We went to a restaruant. At the restaurant, they told me that they keep kosher, but that they did not expect me to. (I had already had dinner at their home other times, and the meals were kosher, but it does not matter here...)

I was not thinking about it, and ordered lobster. In those days, it was common for a waitress to tie a lobster bib to the person who ordered the lobster... I never cared for it. When she started to offer me the service of that bib, I was hesitant, but the kids (8 and 10) seemed curious, so I did the whole thing. I thought it was the bib, but when I got the lobster, it turned out to be that...

It was the first time those kids had ever seen anyone eat anything like that. I do not know the first time you ever saw anyone eat a crab or a lobster, but it is an event. These kids were completely enthralled!

The fact is that those who translated the Bible time and time again may not have known what a certain word meant! There is no way we can guarantee the validity of such translations! At the same time I believe the general concepts of the bible, but homosexual awareness is not a general issue. I must disagree. There are some very significant items in the Bible about that topic. Lott and his wife were major players in one story of Sodom and Gemorrah. It is mentioned here and there but in snippets. I just simply meant further in my post is that the bible states treat others as you would like to be treated and alludes to it several times in different forms but still the same concept! I just simply meant that saying I can have rights and I can get married but you can't would not be treating others as you would like to be treated! You said you are different than other people so don't expect to be treated the same, however I believe homosexuals and heterosexuals are more the same than they are different! I agree with this. People of character have much more in common with each other than just their sexual orientations. With that being said they should be treated as you would like to be treated which, in my mind includes being afforded the same rights!

Jeremy Ryan

Many might argue that getting married is not a right but a privilege. Others may argue that since we are really talking about money and how it is considered, that if the state wants to encourage some behaviour that it sees as productive with tax advantages, and discourage other behaviour that it sees as counter productive by not offering those tax advantages, it has the right to do so.


I will not argue any more at this point. My fingers are tired.

[jryan]

Originally Posted by KSagal

Oh, so so much to say... So little time.




Many might argue that getting married is not a right but a privilege. Others may argue that since we are really talking about money and how it is considered, that if the state wants to encourage some behaviour that it sees as productive with tax advantages, and discourage other behaviour that it sees as counter productive by not offering those tax advantages, it has the right to do so.


I will not argue any more at this point. My fingers are tired.

Yes Karl, I agree with you, enough has been said here and we will just have to agree to disagree on several things! I also think we agreed on just as many though! Let me talk about two significant things in which I agreed with you on, therefore, we will avoid arguing this point any more but coming to common ground!

The first is that it is a very silly occasion the first time you watch a human eat lobster or crabs! Funny correlation here though! The first time I saw someone eat such foods it was my uncle Ron! My uncle Ron is, like you, Jewish! Just a funny correlation!

The second is that I completely agree with you that if civil unions ever were legalized there would need to be boundaries! In my opinion the best way to do this would be to mirror the state's policy on marriages! I personally think that incest should not be allowed not so much because of the moral implications but because of the implications on the kids! There is a lot higher chance of birth defects and I do not feel any child should be put through such a thing if it is at all avoidable! I believe WI has a great law, which, limits marriages to third cousins or less relation! This may even be a little too close, but that's just my opinion! Either way, if the civil unions ever go through, I do agree there will need to be boundaries set! Thank you Karl!!!!!!


Jeremy Ryan

Originally Posted by nora k

... (t)he Old Testament was already canonized by the time of Jesus as it had been compiled through oral history and then writing over a few thousand years before any christian church brought these books together. The 27 letters that became the New Testament canonized by the Church were already considered holy texts before their canonization. It wasn't a pick and choose to suit their needs. These were texts they had already been using as a measuring stick for peoples lives and their canonization was merely recognition of this.

Actually, Nora, "pick and choose" is EXACTLY what it was when it came to compiling the New Testament, just as it was the Old Testament. The early Church called for submissions of Gospels; many were rejected (later to appear as "The Gnostic Gospels."

Originally Posted by Catholic Encyclopedia

The New Testament was not written all at once. The books that compose it appeared one after another in the space of fifty years, i.e. in the second half of the first century. Written in different and distant countries and addressed to particular Churches, they took some time to spread throughout the whole of Christendom, and a much longer time to become accepted. The unification of the canon was not accomplished without much controversy (see CANON OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES). Still it can be said that from the third century, or perhaps earlier, the existence of all the books that today form our New Testament was everywhere known, although they were not all universally admitted, at least as certainly canonical. However, uniformity existed in the West from the fourth century. The East had to await the seventh century to see an end to all doubts on the subject. In early times the questions of canonicity and authenticity were not discussed separately and independently of each other, the latter being readily brought forward as a reason for the former; but in the fourth century, thecanonicity was held, especially by St. Jerome, on account of ecclesiastical prescription and, by the fact, the authenticity of the contested books became of minor importance. We have to come down to the sixteenth century to hear the question repeated, whether the Epistle to the Hebrews was written by St. Paul, or the Epistles called Catholic were in reality composed by the Apostles whose names they bear. Some Humanists, as Erasmus and Cardinal Cajetan, revived the objections mentioned by St. Jerome, and which are based on the style of these writings. To this Luther added the inadmissibility of the doctrine, as regards the Epistle of St. James. However, it was practically the Lutherans alone who sought to diminish the traditional Canon, which the Council of Trent was to define in 1546.

Originally Posted by nora k

there are several passages in the bible that refer to homosexuals. there are too many websites to list who are ready to tell you every single one of them and why it's bad to be gay and how you should repent because if you accept jesus you won't be gay and all that ridiculous stuff that i'm always surprised is written by followers of jesus.

There are two that refer "overtly" to male homosexuals; Leviticus 18:22 and a passage of "Paul's Letter to the Romans." It is also this passage that is used to bolster, by some, the rejection of female homosexuals. There are other passages that have been used to disparage homosexuals based on the interpretation of the person citing those passages. Funny, though, how if homosexuality was such a problem, and such a loathsome sin... how Jesus didn't have a thing to say about it, isn't it? Adulterers? Yep, Jesus got them covered. Blasphemers? Them, too. Thieves, murderers and other social degenerates? Yep... got 'em all.

Fags? Hmmmm..... strange. Not a single word. Except, of course, Paul's Letter to the Romans, written decades after and being, essentially, a "Oh, He said it. He sure did. I heard Him." hear-say testimonial.

Yet, those same people who use Leviticus 18:22 as a spear against homosexuals completely ignore the other "Laws" of Leviticus; they do not, for example, sell their daughters into slavery. Nor do they stone their children to death for disrespect. They do not take the widowed spouse of their sibling(s) as a second, or third, or fourth, etc., spouse. Women are no longer locked away in a private chamber during their "time of the month," nor do they undergo a ritual cleansing prior to being allowed to re-join society. The overwhelming majority of them eat pork and/or crab, clams and lobster. The majority also wears polyester clothing... or wool/cotton blends. I'd bet good money they've had cheeseburgers, or a hamburger and a milk shake. And, I know, for a fact, they weren't standing outside University of Phoenix Stadium last Sunday, waiting to stone to death the Giants and Jets for touching the skin of a pig.

It's all "pick and choose," and, unfortunately for me, the only one they've opted to choose is Leviticus 18:22. And why are all the others routinely ignored? Because "Jesus' arrival" somehow revoked them - that in the teachings of Jesus those laws were reversed.

Originally Posted by nora k

jesus speaks the golden rule (treating others as you want to be treated) and it's in two gospels. what's a better reference is the greatest commandment. love the lord your god with all your heart/mind/soul/strength and then look at everyone else as the same as you. and you're supposed to love god... and it becomes a neverending circle. treating others the way you want to be treated is nice, but it takes god out of the equation. this brings it to the heart of what christians should believe. and about this you're right: no one is exempted from this command.

Perhaps in the confines of your church and spiritual beliefs. But by law? No one is REQUIRED to adhere to this "command." Funny, isn't it, how people like the late Jerry Falwell and the still-living Pat Robertson seem to forget this "commandment"? They seem to have a problem with the whole "Presume not to know the mind of God" teachings, too.

...snip...

Originally Posted by nora k

perhaps the most painless solution is to say the sacrament of marriage is one thing and the declaration of marriage is something completely different. i know and dearly love a couple who have been together almost as long as i've been alive and who deserve the same recognition that sal and i get, but would never be afforded that in a church. unfortunately we're at a place where many want the two terms to be synonymous so there can be religious discrimination of a rite that doesn't need to be religiously observed, but officially recognized. perhaps in another two hundred years the tide will turn in the religious world. until then it's an argument with no quick or painless resolution.

Which is exactly what I said in an earlier posting. The civil contract of marriage, between two persons and the government, cannot be limited to two persons of opposite gender by a government which also takes the stand there must not be any discrimination based on gender in the dealings of the government.

If the government wishes to introduce "parenthood" into the equation, then they must recognize those same-gender couples who do have children, as many of us do. I have an ex who has a now 17 year old son; my ex has had custody of his son since his son was 5. Thought my ex and I were together only a year - we made great friends, crappy partners - I could not love his son any deeper than I loved my own son. To this day, I get updates on the kid - though now that he works after school, owns a Jeep Cherokee, has himself a girlfriend and is taking the SATs in a month, I guess he's not really "a kid" anymore. My ex and his current partner have been together for over 10 years, and that partner also has custody of his son. The two kids are as close as brothers, and only a year apart in age.

My ex is a Canadian national. He and his partner are, legally, married.

According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (as declared in the Bill of Rights), their legal marriage should be legally recognized in this country.

It's not. When they are in the United States, they are, simply by virtue of stepping over an invisible line, really, really good friends.

According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, if Bill and I were to go visit Karl and, while we were there, get ourselves a license, find ourselves a judge, and tie the knot, as long as we're visiting Karl, we're legally married.

When we come home to Arizona (or, in a few months, Atlanta), we're not. Despite the fact the Full Faith and Credit Clause states that any and all civil contracts valid in one state are valid in every other state. Without that clause, if someone wanted to get out from under alimony, or child support, or even credit card bills, all they would have to do is move to another state... and any and all contracts in any other state would be immediately void. So, say you went to Sam's Club and bought an i2 for $4699, authorizing that amount to be charged to your credit card. Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, INC (or Sam's Club), if their corporate offices were not in your state, could charge your card anything they wanted; they would not be bound by the "contract" of the advertised price.

Some time ago, back in the late 70s/early 80s, the Full Faith and Credit Clause was put to the test. The State of Texas (dang! Them again!) changed their marriage law, so that Texas was no longer a community property state. In the initial change, though, the law also decreed that any divorce that awarded alimony from a Texas resident to an out-of-state ex-spouse was voided if that alimony was awarded in a court outside of Texas jurisdiction. The law was almost immediately reviewed by the Supreme Court; that aspect of the law was thrown out, citing the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

And, finally, for those who claim who, and more importantly, who does not get to enter into a civil contract of marriage is a "State's right's" issue... you're right. It USED to be.

But in 1967, the United States Supreme Court changed all that. Marriage rights were a state issue; in 1967 the USSC heard the case of Loving v. Virginia, in which a married couple of mixed race (Caucasian female/Black male), who faced imprisonment in the state of Virginia for being married argued those laws (miscegenation laws) violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights. The Court, in its decision, stated that "marriage is a basic civil right," and that, as such, individual states "may not restrict" access to that right by legal adults. The Court further ruled that restrictions MAY be placed where, to allow the marriage, would do immediate harm TO ONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE MARRIAGE... for instance, multiple marriage(s), incestuous marriage(s), or in those cases where to permit the marriage COULD cause harm to a third party, using the example of first-cousins marrying, producing a child, and that child being physically and/or mentally unhealthy due to the close genetic relationship of the parents.

So, in 1967, the USSC took marriage rights away from the individual states and elevated it to a federal right. States may make marriage LAW, but they may not determine marriage "rights."

I hope I've been non-offensive in my language and attempts to educate in this situation.

The right to marriage is not something I pursue for myself; I'm actually wanting to protect Bill. It's only a matter of time before my heart simply stops and, honestly, each and every day I'm alive is a day I'm not supposed to have had. I should have been burnt up and poured into an urn a long, long time ago. But sooner than later, the luck is going to run out, and I'm going to, unintentionally, inflict a pain on Bill unlike he's ever experienced He's going to be hurting and vulnerable. He's not going to be fully himself for a long time. And he's certainly not going to be in any shape to fight.

But I know my family. I have one sister, one year older than me to the day, who will drop everything and rush to Bill's side to help him. I have three other sisters and a couple of parents who will drop everything and rush to see an attorney.

I do not want him to go through that.

[nora k]

Originally Posted by Eric Payne

Actually, Nora, "pick and choose" is EXACTLY what it was when it came to compiling the New Testament, just as it was the Old Testament. The early Church called for submissions of Gospels; many were rejected (later to appear as "The Gnostic Gospels."


There are two that refer "overtly" to male homosexuals; Leviticus 18:22 and a passage of "Paul's Letter to the Romans." It is also this passage that is used to bolster, by some, the rejection of female homosexuals. There are other passages that have been used to disparage homosexuals based on the interpretation of the person citing those passages. Funny, though, how if homosexuality was such a problem, and such a loathsome sin... how Jesus didn't have a thing to say about it, isn't it? Adulterers? Yep, Jesus got them covered. Blasphemers? Them, too. Thieves, murderers and other social degenerates? Yep... got 'em all.

Fags? Hmmmm..... strange. Not a single word. Except, of course, Paul's Letter to the Romans, written decades after and being, essentially, a "Oh, He said it. He sure did. I heard Him." hear-say testimonial.

Yet, those same people who use Leviticus 18:22 as a spear against homosexuals completely ignore the other "Laws" of Leviticus; they do not, for example, sell their daughters into slavery. Nor do they stone their children to death for disrespect. They do not take the widowed spouse of their sibling(s) as a second, or third, or fourth, etc., spouse. Women are no longer locked away in a private chamber during their "time of the month," nor do they undergo a ritual cleansing prior to being allowed to re-join society. The overwhelming majority of them eat pork and/or crab, clams and lobster. The majority also wears polyester clothing... or wool/cotton blends. I'd bet good money they've had cheeseburgers, or a hamburger and a milk shake. And, I know, for a fact, they weren't standing outside University of Phoenix Stadium last Sunday, waiting to stone to death the Giants and Jets for touching the skin of a pig.

It's all "pick and choose," and, unfortunately for me, the only one they've opted to choose is Leviticus 18:22. And why are all the others routinely ignored? Because "Jesus' arrival" somehow revoked them - that in the teachings of Jesus those laws were reversed.

Perhaps in the confines of your church and spiritual beliefs. But by law? No one is REQUIRED to adhere to this "command." Funny, isn't it, how people like the late Jerry Falwell and the still-living Pat Robertson seem to forget this "commandment"? They seem to have a problem with the whole "Presume not to know the mind of God" teachings, too.

...snip...


Which is exactly what I said in an earlier posting. The civil contract of marriage, between two persons and the government, cannot be limited to two persons of opposite gender by a government which also takes the stand there must not be any discrimination based on gender in the dealings of the government.

If the government wishes to introduce "parenthood" into the equation, then they must recognize those same-gender couples who do have children, as many of us do. I have an ex who has a now 17 year old son; my ex has had custody of his son since his son was 5. Thought my ex and I were together only a year - we made great friends, crappy partners - I could not love his son any deeper than I loved my own son. To this day, I get updates on the kid - though now that he works after school, owns a Jeep Cherokee, has himself a girlfriend and is taking the SATs in a month, I guess he's not really "a kid" anymore. My ex and his current partner have been together for over 10 years, and that partner also has custody of his son. The two kids are as close as brothers, and only a year apart in age.

My ex is a Canadian national. He and his partner are, legally, married.

According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution (as declared in the Bill of Rights), their legal marriage should be legally recognized in this country.

It's not. When they are in the United States, they are, simply by virtue of stepping over an invisible line, really, really good friends.

According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, if Bill and I were to go visit Karl and, while we were there, get ourselves a license, find ourselves a judge, and tie the knot, as long as we're visiting Karl, we're legally married.

When we come home to Arizona (or, in a few months, Atlanta), we're not. Despite the fact the Full Faith and Credit Clause states that any and all civil contracts valid in one state are valid in every other state. Without that clause, if someone wanted to get out from under alimony, or child support, or even credit card bills, all they would have to do is move to another state... and any and all contracts in any other state would be immediately void. So, say you went to Sam's Club and bought an i2 for $4699, authorizing that amount to be charged to your credit card. Without the Full Faith and Credit Clause, INC (or Sam's Club), if their corporate offices were not in your state, could charge your card anything they wanted; they would not be bound by the "contract" of the advertised price.

Some time ago, back in the late 70s/early 80s, the Full Faith and Credit Clause was put to the test. The State of Texas (dang! Them again!) changed their marriage law, so that Texas was no longer a community property state. In the initial change, though, the law also decreed that any divorce that awarded alimony from a Texas resident to an out-of-state ex-spouse was voided if that alimony was awarded in a court outside of Texas jurisdiction. The law was almost immediately reviewed by the Supreme Court; that aspect of the law was thrown out, citing the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

And, finally, for those who claim who, and more importantly, who does not get to enter into a civil contract of marriage is a "State's right's" issue... you're right. It USED to be.

But in 1967, the United States Supreme Court changed all that. Marriage rights were a state issue; in 1967 the USSC heard the case of Loving v. Virginia, in which a married couple of mixed race (Caucasian female/Black male), who faced imprisonment in the state of Virginia for being married argued those laws (miscegenation laws) violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal rights. The Court, in its decision, stated that "marriage is a basic civil right," and that, as such, individual states "may not restrict" access to that right by legal adults. The Court further ruled that restrictions MAY be placed where, to allow the marriage, would do immediate harm TO ONE OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE MARRIAGE... for instance, multiple marriage(s), incestuous marriage(s), or in those cases where to permit the marriage COULD cause harm to a third party, using the example of first-cousins marrying, producing a child, and that child being physically and/or mentally unhealthy due to the close genetic relationship of the parents.

So, in 1967, the USSC took marriage rights away from the individual states and elevated it to a federal right. States may make marriage LAW, but they may not determine marriage "rights."

I hope I've been non-offensive in my language and attempts to educate in this situation.

The right to marriage is not something I pursue for myself; I'm actually wanting to protect Bill. It's only a matter of time before my heart simply stops and, honestly, each and every day I'm alive is a day I'm not supposed to have had. I should have been burnt up and poured into an urn a long, long time ago. But sooner than later, the luck is going to run out, and I'm going to, unintentionally, inflict a pain on Bill unlike he's ever experienced He's going to be hurting and vulnerable. He's not going to be fully himself for a long time. And he's certainly not going to be in any shape to fight.

But I know my family. I have one sister, one year older than me to the day, who will drop everything and rush to Bill's side to help him. I have three other sisters and a couple of parents who will drop everything and rush to see an attorney.

I do not want him to go through that.

good grief you wrote a lot. it's fantastic, but there are so many words!

i don't want to dissect this incredible post line by line so you're getting it all here at the bottom. i cannot agree with you more on almost everything but the canonization of scripture. i'm going to have to go with dr. harbin, my OT/NT survey prof, on this one. sorry. deuterocanonical/apocryphal writings are still valued writings, even though not part of the canon. hell, i know rick warren fans who hold ol' ricky as high as jesus. but that won't ever make him part of the bible. his words line right up with biblical thought, but they're just not going to be canonized.

i'd have to check my bible on this one but i think the romans verse is in chapter one and it's the "where woman will lie with woman as if they were men and then everyone is punished for their error" one. there are other overt references in the OT and NT that can be traced back to the greek to explicitly describe passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts . but i'm not here to talk about those, b/c i'm totally on your side.

and i did specifically said christ followers are the ones who are supposed to be following and believing this command. that's supposed to include falwell and robertson and dobson. isn't that sad? i'm not on your end having to deal with the ammo that bigots shoot at you, but am on the side of the liberal minded christian who affirms tolerance so i'm apparently destroying any semblance of righteousness that the gospel is supposed to hold. it's like i'm unrolling the condom for you. and christians do believe that a new covenant was created when jesus was crucified. but it sure does get tricky when we say that we don't stone adulterers anymore but that god still thinks homosexuality is an abomination... they're two verses apart in leviticus!

and if i could read this incredibly verbose thread i could have just said,"and eric said everything else so i'm done!"

oh, also, you probably mentioned this, but the lack of tolerance toward gay marriage is always under the guise that allowing homosexuals to marry would cause a cascade of immoral unions to be allowed, potentially leading to something as terrible as "a movie about gay cowboys winning a major movie award."