RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Canada to Allow Same-Sex Marriage

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:


That's a one-way tunnel, man!!!



I could have been more offensive but that would have meant a longer post.

I don't hate anyone. I don't hate homosexuals.

But I don't approve of their actions.

And my conscience would not permit me not to oppose laws sanctioning such actions.

But that's just me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
I think it's safe to assume most of us are sinners here according to the Bible. What we have with homosexuality is basically a sin that doesn't hurt or harm anybody (unlike the other sins) Actually it's the act of sodomy itself that is being talked about in scripture as an abomination not the person. It goes against what he created. The thing is it's an abomination because men & women were made to get together & procreate. What would God say about the pill? Probably the same thing he said about masterbation. Thou shall not spill! Again we all seem to be in the same boat yet some have to sit in the back because their different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".

---

I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".

---

I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Danny:
I think a large part of what this argument boils down to is whether or not marriage is a solely Christian institution.

And yes it is, if you're talking about a church wedding with a priest and rice throwing and bibles and such.

But then there's simply weddings as a union by the state, which is practiced by many non-Christian heterosexual couples. The latter is what the gay marriage advocates are pushing for. Does the church have a monopoly on that? Can the bible dictate which couples the government is allowed to say 'yes, you are married, with the legal privileges and responsibilities that entails'? I don't think so.

If the bible is truly against homosexuality (I haven't done the research some of you have, so I can't say definitively... it's obviously a touchy subject), and the church takes it's instructions straight from the bible... then okay, maybe gays can't have a church wedding. As much as the homophobia inherent in that sickens me, and as weird as I find it that people take their orders from a two thousand year old book, we can't force people to change their rituals or beliefs.
But from what I've read and people I've spoken to, a church wedding's not what they want. It's just the piece of paper, the legal recognition. Which, at least in my frame of reference, constitutes a perfectly good 'marriage'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
It requires a rethink of marriage in general to say that homosexual and heterosexual couples should have the same marital rights and responsibilities. The practices of marriage as they are commonly understood in Western society today stem largely from Judeo-Christian practices based upon Judeo-Christian scriptures - which do not condone homosexuality. All I'm saying is that you can't extend the concept of marriage as we know it now to fit something contrary to the precepts upon which that concept is built and by which it has been defined for most of our society's history. You can't change such an entrenched aspect of society without having to re-write many other precepts as well - after which you're not left with much to go on anyway. If you're that intent on making homosexual and heterosexual couples equal, you may as well throw out the marriage idea entirely. At least that's my perspective.

To me, the idea of legitimizing homosexual marriages may not directly interfere with my personal life, but the impact I feel it would have on society would ultimately affect everyone. That may not be terribly politically correct or tolerant of me, but I'm sure there are more horrible things I could be guilty of. Nothing personal, really. Like I said, I don't hate anybody. I'm just not willing to condone through silence any actions I don't approve of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
Damn, I'll never understand why bible-thumpers always have to make gays "public enemy number one" amongst all sinners... sheesh!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".

---

I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matter-eater Man:
I think it's safe to assume most of us are sinners here according to the Bible. What we have with homosexuality is basically a sin that doesn't hurt or harm anybody (unlike the other sins) Actually it's the act of sodomy itself that is being talked about in scripture as an abomination not the person. It goes against what he created. The thing is it's an abomination because men & women were made to get together & procreate. What would God say about the pill? Probably the same thing he said about masterbation. Thou shall not spill! Again we all seem to be in the same boat yet some have to sit in the back because their different.

---

Good post. Damn, I'll never understand why bible-thumpers always have to make gays "public enemy number one" amongst all sinners... sheesh!

The bible should have 0 bearing on the legality of same-sex marriages, anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigOl'Willie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
Damn, I'll never understand why bible-thumpers always have to make gays "public enemy number one" amongst all sinners... sheesh!

---

I agree with this. It comes off as hate as opposed to strict adherence to doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:

"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2

"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina

"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

The quotation by Jefferson Davis, listed above, reflected the beliefs of many Americans in the 19th century. Slavery was seen as having been "sanctioned in the Bible." They argued that:

Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.
The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4
Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.

Eventually, the abolitionists gained sufficient power to eradicate slavery in most areas of the world by the end of the 19th century. Slavery was eventually recognized as a extreme evil. But this paradigm shift in understanding came at a cost. Christians wondered why the Bible was so supportive of such an immoral practice. They questioned whether the Bible was entirely reliable. Perhaps there were other practices that it accepted as normal which were profoundly evil -- like genocide, torturing prisoners, raping female prisoners of war, executing religious minorities, burning some hookers alive, etc. The innocent faith that Christians had in "the Good Book" was lost -- never to be fully regained.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".

---

I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.

---

No. You can challenge the opinions of the gay/liberal community as much as you like, and you can do it in a valid, fair, intelligent and even compassionate way.

But when you deny someone the right to do the same thing you can do, simply because they like having sex with someone of their same gender, then you are a homophobe.

---

quote:

---

Mother Jones article on Vermont court ruling, on gay civil unions:

The tall white steeple of the Cambridge United Church has been standing watch over the rural community of Cambridge, Vermont, for more than a century. The church graces the valley beneath Mount Mansfield, Vermont's highest peak... Reverend Craig Bensen ... the bearded clergyman extends a friendly greeting.

Bensen has been pastor of the Cambridge United Church for 23 years. He is also co-founder and vice president of Take It to the People (TIP), a group formed in 1997 to oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage in Vermont. So strongly does Bensen feel about the issue that he renounced his congregation's affiliation with the United Church of Christ, which he claims supports same-sex marriage. "Our congregation is about 98 percent solidly pro-traditional marriage and believes in no special rights for homosexual individuals," he asserts.


I ask Bensen how allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry or form domestic partnerships will affect heterosexual couples. He acknowledges that same-sex marriage may not affect individuals who are married, but it undermines the institution of marriage. He contends that same-sex marriage "removes any distinction for traditional marriage as the fundamental unit of society. And society will ultimately suffer because of that." He insists that "one man and one woman is the building block" of civilization.

"Gay unions given the status of law means that the state of Vermont says that motherless or fatherless families will not have an adverse effect on children." ... "That, from a developmental-psychology point of view, is a lie."
He also believes that 90 percent of gay men were sexually abused as preadolescents. I ask if he feels that same-sex marriage is an issue of civil rights. He says dismissively, "Civil rights talk is political cover for politicians who don't want to listen to what people have to say."

It is the contention of Bensen and Take It to the People that changing the rules of marriage should be the subject of popular referendum, not judicial fiat. "Being cut out of the process makes the people angry," he warns.

A February poll showed that Vermonters were about evenly divided on whether or not to allow gay couples to form "civil unions"; another poll in late April concluded that 52 percent of Vermonters opposed the new law, while 43 percent supported it. But Bensen and TIP are confident that if it were put on a ballot, voters would disapprove of civil unions. TIP, along with Vermont Catholic Bishop Kenneth Angell, suggested a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as being between one man and one woman -- thereby negating the Vermont Supreme Court ruling. The proposed amendment was killed in the state Senate in a 17-13 vote.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".

---

I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.

---

No. You can challenge the opinions of the gay/liberal community as much as you like, and you can do it in a valid, fair, intelligent and even compassionate way.

But when you deny someone the right to do the same thing you can do, simply because they like having sex with someone of their same gender, then you are a homophobe.

---

Name-calling isn't usually your style, Dave.

---

quote:

---

I don't like being slapped with labels that undermine the logic of what I've said. I've quoted Biblical verses at length to show that the Bible and homosexuality are absolutely not compatible.
Gays have rights, up to the point that they choose to stomp on someone else's religion and lifestyle.
As I've said.
Repeatedly.

And after making my point logically, four posters ignoring the logic of what I've said come right back, ignoring the above, and call me a homophobe, or equivalent nonsense.

I already said, REPEATEDLY, as many here have ignored and forced me to repeat, that I support gays' right to have some kind of life-partner gay union equivalent of marriage, so long as they don't drape it in Christianity, and doing so attempt to pervert the meaning of Christianity and the Bible ITSELF.

Gays in a democratic society have a right to their lifestyle.
Christians in a democratic society have a right to their lifestyle.

But the concept of gay marriage interferes with that balance, and urinates on the basic teachings of Christianity. (and yes, yes, I know other religions and cultures have marriage traditions as well, and I already covered that as well, in detail, for those who will bother to read the last two topic pages.)

I don't expect insults and sweeping generalizations from you, Dave.

Although they're par for the course for OMEGA MAN (a.k.a. The SENSITIVE Gourmet, a.k.a. Wilder Midnight, a.k.a. Star-butted sneetch, a.k.a. Matt Kennedy.) His comments are, as usual, completely unworthy of response.

Matter Eater Man, and Danny, raise issues slightly less offensively, but still regurgitate the same sweeping statements about conservatives and Christians ( even as they bash Christians and conservatives with closed-minded "hate" stereotypes, for allegedly using the same type of sweeping generalizations they accuse Christians/conservatives of making about gays. The difference is, it has already been proven in this topic that gay ideology attempts to re-write and corrupt the Bible, and how this relates directly to the absurd concept of gay marriage, especially in a Christian mask)

I've answered those accusations in detail already, and disproven them.
As has Captain Sammitch in his posts.

I mean geez, why don't you guys actually read what we've said before making these kind of statements?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:


Matt, you're diminishing your near-legendary level of likability as a newbie poster.

We've been over pretty much everything you said in exhaustive detail. And we (most of us) were just about to reach an understanding. This does not help matters at all.

I'm sure you have many wonderful nuggets of previously-unheard truth with which to enlighten us, and this dragging already-resolved points of discussion out for yet another unnecessary review is just a phase. But please attempt to be constructive in your statements - there has been enough bashing of conservatives and liberals alike in here as it is.

I usually enjoy what you have to say. Don't spoil your track record as a largely objective, helpful poster by tossing out wooden, party-line, obscenely tired statements that will only lead to another round of broken-record liberal-vs.-conservative shouting matches.

I wouldn't get after you unless I really wanted to hear what else you have to say.

---

Hey, I admit that I didn't get very far into reading this thread (I read about 2 pages worth yesterday, I guess) before I jumped in with my 2 cent's worth--- I was just responding to your earlier writings in this thread, that's true. But while I'm pleased as punch that you like me so well, Cap'n--- it makes me feel all warm and woogly inside, it really does --- if you still stand by those words that I quoted then I have to respectfully stand by MY responses to said quotes.

Forget the bible, forget "tradition", forget any other half-baked excuse that tries to justify continued discrimination against gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians should be afforded the same rights and benefits (not "special rights" as so many willfully obtuse people like to call them, but EQUAL rights) as heterosexuals. Period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Danny:
Let me clarify that it was never my intention to bash Christians or conservatives. I said I found it silly to take your orders from an old book, but that's me. I find it silly. If someone else wants to, more power to them. No skin off my nose. As long as they don't use it as justification for attacking others.

__________________________________________
My feelings exactly.

--- Matt K.


And DaveTWB, I don't think anyone wants to drape anything in Christiantiy. The goal here is state sponsored marriage, not church weddings. Which I believe are two separate things.
Being married in the eyes of the government, and being married in the eyes of God, are not the same thing.

---

I agree. (We think so alike that we must have been separated at birth, Danny--- maybe a wild pack of Australian Dingoes carried me away as a baby and then I was found and adopted by American tourists on vacation in the land of OZ? )

quote:

---

WASHINGTON (CNN) – The Supreme Court struck down a Texas ban on gay sex Thursday, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.

The justices voted 6-3 in striking down the Texas law, saying it violated due process guarantees.

The case was seen as testing the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws in 13 states. The justices reviewed the prosecution of two men under a 28-year-old Texas law making it a crime to engage in same-sex intercourse.

John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner were arrested in a Houston-area apartment in 1998 by officers responding to a neighbor's false report of an armed intruder. That neighbor wrongly claimed a man was "going crazy" inside the residence. Police crashed into Lawrence's home and discovered Lawrence and Garner involved in a sexual act. They were arrested, jailed overnight and later fined $200.

"It was sort of like the Gestapo coming in," said Lawrence after a court appearance.

The men's lawyers had said that if the convictions were upheld, their clients would be prevented from obtaining from certain jobs and they would also be considered sex offenders in several states. The Texas law, they told the court, gives gay Americans second-class status as citizens.

"I feel like my civil rights were being violated," said Garner, "and I don't think I was doing anything wrong."

Lawrence and Garner were charged under Texas' "homosexual conduct" law, which criminalizes "deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex." Although only 13 states now criminalize consensual sodomy, a Texas state appeals court found the law "advances a legitimate state interest, namely, preserving public morals."

Landscape has changed since 1986 ruling
The last time the Supreme Court addressed the issue of was in 1986, when the court upheld a Georgia anti-sodomy law. Since then, much has changed in U.S. culture, say gay rights supporters, including changes in public attitudes and the fact that such laws are rarely enforced.

"The state should not have the power to go into the bedrooms of consenting adults in the middle of the night and arrest them," said Ruth Harlow of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, a gay-rights group representing the two Texas men.

"These laws are widely used to justify discrimination against gay people in everyday life; they're invoked in denying employment to gay people, in refusing custody or visitation for gay parents, and even in intimidating gay people out of exercising their First Amendment rights."

Lambda cited recent U.S. Census figures showing about 600,000 households with same-sex partners, 43,000 or so in Texas.

Texas prosecutors argued the government has the right to enforce public morality. Supporters of the Texas law say states have long regulated behavior deemed "immoral," including gambling and prostitution.

"The government has a legitimate interest in helping preserve not only public health, but public morals as well," said Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, which filed a legal brief backing Texas. "The mere fact that this behavior occurs in private doesn't mean the public doesn't have a stake in these behaviors."

The 1986 Supreme Court ruling, Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld a Georgia state law that effectively made homosexual sexual behavior a crime. In 1998, however, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned that state law.

The late Justice Lewis Powell, the deciding vote in the 5-4 Bowers decision, said afterward that he probably made a mistake with his decision on that case.

State laws have existed for more than a century
State sodomy laws have been on the books for a century or more, and generally define the act sodomy as "abnormal" sex, including oral and anal sex. Such laws were on the books of every state as recently as 1960.

Legal experts on both sides of the issue acknowledge such laws are rarely enforced, but can serve to underpin a basic message of morality in society that courts and government have supported.

The 1986 Bowers case focused on the right to privacy. By the time of Bowers, only half the states carried criminal sodomy laws, and now only a fourth do.

In a 1996 decision, Romer v. Evans, the court voted 6-3 to overturn a Colorado amendment that barred local governments from enacting ordinances to protect gays.

The case has entered the national political debate, stirred by recent comments from Sen. Rick Santorum. The Pennsylvania Republican told The Associated Press in May, "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery, you have the right to anything."

Santorum defended his remarks but some fellow Republicans distanced themselves from them.

The case is Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, case no. 02-0102).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

I read "tradition and policy" as "homophobia".

---

I read "homophobia" as daring to voice an intelligent opinion that bucks the opinion of the gay/liberal community, and being falsely labelled a "hater" of some kind, to undermine dismissively the logic and intelligence of those views.

---

No. You can challenge the opinions of the gay/liberal community as much as you like, and you can do it in a valid, fair, intelligent and even compassionate way.

But when you deny someone the right to do the same thing you can do, simply because they like having sex with someone of their same gender, then you are a homophobe.

---

Name-calling isn't usually your style, Dave.

---

I think I haven't been clear, sorry, Dave. Its not my style. I wasn't name calling. I was calling it as I see it. You'll note I hadn't been involved in the Christian debate - it had no interest to me until I read Batwoman's post. The comment was directed against the comment that "tradition and policy" should stifle the right to a gay marriage.

---

huh? Which post are you talking about? I've barly contributed to this thread becase DTWB has been doing a good job of explaining things, not to mention the fact that I keep missing everything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:
...Forget the bible, forget "tradition", forget any other half-baked excuse that tries to justify continued discrimination against gays and lesbians. Gays and lesbians should be afforded the same rights and benefits (not "special rights" as so many willfully obtuse people like to call them, but EQUAL rights) as heterosexuals. Period.

---

Why?

I have heard plenty of people say that homosexuals and heterosexuals should have the same rights. You all seem to be very committed to that perspective (which I can respect, as I generally abhor compromise on issues of this magnitude), to the point that it's basically accepted as gospel (okay, could have chosen better words there) and anyone who disagrees immediately raises a red flag in your minds.

I am just genuinely curious as to what exactly makes that postulate true. What's your reasoning behind that? We would probably all feel more comfortable once both sides explain exactly why they feel the way they do.

This 'because homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals' line is starting to feel like a 'just because' explanation, which IMO isn't too much of an explanation at all. Perhaps if the supporters of gay rights would at least attempt to justify their position, it would be easier to come to a real understanding of the issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

If I was a career criminal, would I be allowed to be a practicing Christian? Of course. Could I be married in a church? Sure.

If I was a drug abuser, would I be allowed to be a practicing Christian? You bet. Get married in a church? Yep.

If I was a disgraced politician, would the Church close its doors to me? No, it would not let me down. Could I get married in a church? No problem.

So, the Church will accept a sincere oath of marriage from criminals, drug addicts, and betrayers of the public trust, but it will not accept the same sincere oath from gays?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave:

Homosexuality has no victims. It is on the same level as being black or white, a Pistons fan or a Lakers fan, a drinker of beer or of wine. You can choose to love a man, or a woman, or both. There is no harm to anyone. I know gays who have contributed to society in many positive ways, who are successful in their fields, who are leaders in the community.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Danny:


DaveTWB, your argument implies that people who have had sex should not be allowed to be married. Or people who have looked at pornography. "No, I'm sorry, you can't be married. You coveted your neighbour's wife."
These things are apparently against the word of the bible. Therefore, by your logic, allowing those guilty to be married would undermine the Christian church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Danny:


Your argument also continues to rely on the presumption that the institution of marriage, and the Christian church are inextricably linked. I contend that such is not the case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Kennedy:

MY posts aren't worth responding to, dear Wonder Davey? Well, I feel the same way about the tiresome, devisive tripe that's coming out of your repulsive blow-hole as well. But since Typhoid Dave is handing you your ass debate-wise ...

---

The high ratio of insults in your posts, coupled with the absolute vaccuum of anything meaningful you have to say, make every debate I've seen you jump into devolve to a foodfight of insults that derails any meaningful and intelligent discussion.
Insults and nonsense that your last several posts, including what's quoted above, demonstrate quite well.

I think it's for others to decide if Dave is"handing [me] my ass debatewise..."
I think I'm holding my own quite well, as are several others. While I respect Dave's alternative perspective, I don't think he or anyone else has come anywhere close to disproving what I've said here.

I have no animosity toward Dave.
I definitely do toward you. You contribute nothing worthwhile to these or any other debates, beyond hurling insults and egging people on toward ugliness who share your liberal views.

I'd rather talk to the grown-up liberals here, who can intelligently and respectfully express their views.