[SK6]

You may not like how Silver addresses you, but he has a point.

In a non-theocratic society, we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. What any religion thinks about government practices is simply what they think, and should not be used by the government to enforce morals and norms on the rest of its people.

Theoretically, that is the way our futuristic society has bastardized the meaning of the original separation of church and state. This country was founded on freedom of religion, however, it should have been worded, denomination since that is what the founding fathers meant; of course it was only applicable to those times. There is no denying it, and you made a very valid point, however ALL aspects of life is driven by the doctrines of religion and mans conviction to it.

Calvinism allowed people to reject the mainstream teachings, and took it to the other extreme, there ain't no God, or God really meant....." but the beauty of God, and Jesus' teachings is this, "You have the freewill to make a choice." Right wing Christians want to tell you your choice, and the left wing liberals want you think you made the wrong choice. Again the extremists on both sides are wrong, and to use them for framing an argument can and often does remove the objectivity of the debate and turn it into a subjective pissing match. (Like the way I worked the word piss” into the discussion? LOL!)

In all probability, in a few years, same sex unions will in all likelihood exist in some form or fashion. What’s sad however is that for the militant gay factions, that simply will not be enough. That is merely my opinion based solely on my personal observations, and should be read and interpreted as such.

Peace!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Theoretically, that is the way our futuristic society has bastardized the meaning of the original separation of church and state. This country was founded on freedom of religion, however, it should have been worded, denomination since that is what the founding fathers meant; of course it was only applicable to those times. There is no denying it, and you made a very valid point, however ALL aspects of life is driven by the doctrines of religion and mans conviction to it.

I disagree with much of this. Many of the founding fathers were deist (as close to atheist as anyone was at that point in time.) There is some argument that they may have meant "denomination" but there is also a good argument that they meant it as "religion". Certainly, they didn't mean for the Constitution to be a static document (else, why allow for amendments?) so the current meaning should be valid.

I also don't agree that all aspects of life are driven by religious doctrines. There are those that don't hold to religions. If you meant to say that religions delve into and speak on all aspects of life, then I might be inclined to agree. The way I read this though is that you feel our religious convictions work their way into how we conduct our lives. Of course, that's also for another thread.

In all probability, in a few years, same sex unions will in all likelihood exist in some form or fashion. What’s sad however is that for the militant gay factions, that simply will not be enough. That is merely my opinion based solely on my personal observations, and should be read and interpreted as such.

If current polls are any indication, that is very likely true. It seems that the younger generation are much more accepting of same-sex unions. If that trend continues, then within some time-frame same sex proponents will be in the majority. I think this is another motive to try to enshrine opposition to same-sex marriage into Constitutions around the country (although the most important motive is what others have already pointed out that it's to take people's minds off the real issues and get reactionaries to go vote Republican.) They seek to make these things harder to get rid of so that the younger generation will have more trouble in overturning these bans.

I'm not sure where you get the militant stuff, and I haven't asked about it because I didn't want to go off on another tangent, but I think that most gays will be happy when they feel as though they are equals in society, and being able to marry (or have unions) will go a long way towards this. We will have to see, however.

Peace!

There can never be enough of that.

 

[Westy]

Abuse occurs in all relationships.

What I'm saying is what I've been saying throughout this whole thread. Usually incestual and polygamous marriages are the result of abuse and duress. Thus, the government can conceivably say that they are outlawed in order to protect people from this type of abuse.

Sorry, I didn't have the opportunity to read many of your posts having a full time job and all.:biggrin:

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Sorry, I didn't have the opportunity to read many of your posts having a full time job and all.:biggrin:

OK, I admit it. I write too much. Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

 

[Westy]

OK, I admit it. I write too much. Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards recovery.

Try only typing with one hand, it will force you to use fewer words and get to the point faster. Or you might just want to post pictures to get your point across, it will certainly help out the likes of N8.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Try only typing with one hand, it will force you to use fewer words and get to the point faster. Or you might just want to post pictures to get your point across, it will certainly help out the likes of N8.

Bt te cat se wrds tat ave etters fr e sde f te ebard ad a ctat w sxr

I'm going back to two hands.

And I simply can't just post smilies because being like N8 would make me want to kill myself.

 

[Westy]

Bt te cat se wrds tat ave etters fr e sde f te ebard ad a ctat w sxr

I'm going back to two hands.

And I simply can't just post smilies because being like N8 would make me want to kill myself.

I didn't mean smilies, more along the lines of this.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I didn't mean smilies, more along the lines of this.

That picture is golden.

PotD.

 

[SK6]

I disagree with much of this. Many of the founding fathers were deist (as close to atheist as anyone was at that point in time.) There is some argument that they may have meant "denomination" but there is also a good argument that they meant it as "religion". Certainly, they didn't mean for the Constitution to be a static document (else, why allow for amendments?) so the current meaning should be valid.

I also don't agree that all aspects of life are driven by religious doctrines. There are those that don't hold to religions. If you meant to say that religions delve into and speak on all aspects of life, then I might be inclined to agree. The way I read this though is that you feel our religious convictions work their way into how we conduct our lives. Of course, that's also for another thread.

If current polls are any indication, that is very likely true. It seems that the younger generation are much more accepting of same-sex unions. If that trend continues, then within some time-frame same sex proponents will be in the majority. I think this is another motive to try to enshrine opposition to same-sex marriage into Constitutions around the country (although the most important motive is what others have already pointed out that it's to take people's minds off the real issues and get reactionaries to go vote Republican.) They seek to make these things harder to get rid of so that the younger generation will have more trouble in overturning these bans.

I'm not sure where you get the militant stuff, and I haven't asked about it because I didn't want to go off on another tangent, but I think that most gays will be happy when they feel as though they are equals in society, and being able to marry (or have unions) will go a long way towards this. We will have to see, however.

There can never be enough of that.

Your assumptions of the founding fathers are WAY off. There is far TOO much documentation that contradict what your saying.

And as far as religious overtones in the forming of our history, again, sorry, way off base there. Case and point, Calvinism formed the modern approach to work, through the independence of individuals, to work and earn first for there own needs, and THEN the needs of the church.

Commodity - Money -Commodity

changed to

Money - Commodity - Money

Sociology is such a fun class! However, the point is that religious influences influenced nearly all aspect of western life. Simple statement of fact.

Denial of this is hiding from the sometimes good, and sometimes painful truth. Sorry deviated a little, but it was to show a point.

however, as to not get sidetracked, i am a firm believer in equality, however I pose this, not but 30 years ago homosexuality was viewed as deviant as sex with a minor. Now, homosexuality has become mainstream. First as a "disease", and now as an alternate sexual lifestyle. I'm not judging here, again, societies views. If that is someones choice, then it is their choice to make. To argue that sex with minors is deviant and can NEVER be made legal, or another similar analogy is viewing it from only one focal lens.

Society is chaining, and choice, as far as I'm concerned is the inalienable right of the individual. encroachment upon that by anyone, gays, Christians or government upon the choice is simply being a bully. ***edit***Which is why, the original topic of this thread is on the money, the verbiage of the proposed statute, as it stands, is wrong and violates NUMEROUS rights of MANY people.***edit***

Bottom line, its a long battle for the proponents of same sex unions, and I'm concerned that it will become far uglier before the final resolution of it, whatever that may be.

I'm about burned out on this topic, I say fvck it, lets ride and then have beers!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Your assumptions of the founding fathers are WAY off. There is far TOO much documentation that contradict what your saying.

I'm not going to argue this in this thread, but I disagree.

Sociology is such a fun class! However, the point is that religious influences influenced nearly all aspect of western life. Simple statement of fact.

Denial of this is hiding from the sometimes good, and sometimes painful truth. Sorry deviated a little, but it was to show a point.

I get what you are saying now. You are approaching from a historical view. I'm not going to argue this either. Historically, religion has been tied up in just about every aspect of people's lives. That was certainly true up until the Enlightenment when it started to change.

however, as to not get sidetracked, i am a firm believer in equality, however I pose this, not but 30 years ago homosexuality was viewed as deviant as sex with a minor. Now, homosexuality has become mainstream. First as a "disease", and now as an alternate sexual lifestyle. I'm not judging here, again, societies views. If that is someones choice, then it is their choice to make. To argue that sex with minors is deviant and can NEVER be made legal, or another similar analogy is viewing it from only one focal lens.

I'm not going to try and predict the future, and there are small groups that push for allowing minors to have expanded sexual rights.

That said, there's certainly a difference between what 2 consenting adults do and what an adult does with a minor. That will not change.

And, if we are looking back, it wasn't too long ago that inter-racial marriages were outlawed. When people wanted to legalize those, a lot of the same arguments were made then against legalization that people are making now against legalizing same-sex marriage.

Bottom line, its a long battle for the proponents of same sex unions, and I'm concerned that it will become far uglier before the final resolution of it, whatever that may be.

I also fear that may be true. I hope it isn't.

I'm about burned out on this topic, I say fvck it, lets ride and then have beers!

A good ride sounds like fun right now. Too bad I can't at the moment. I supposed to be working.

 

[syadasti]

I get what you are saying now. You are approaching from a historical view. I'm not going to argue this either. Historically, religion has been tied up in just about every aspect of people's lives. That was certainly true up until the Enlightenment when it started to change.

Yeah if we went by historical views...the founding fathers of democracy, the Greeks and Romans, commonly married 13 year olds. Emperor Tiberius abused little boys and made them run off a cliff for fun.

The established historical views are often wrong. The ability to update our laws is an important part of modern democracy.

 

[brungeman]

Since everyone is making assumptions of my stance on this, I shall state my position. This position usually pisses everyone off, but is biblically beyond contestation. That statement in and of itself is enough to stir some sh!t. Christians, more especially the over the top zealous left wing religious types are forever condemning, judging and criticizing the gay movement. If we have learned anything from the teachings of Jesus, or better yet, Jesus’ actions, we can see that He accepted EVERYBODY, regardless of sex, status and health. For the liberal crowed, this should be the most appealing of Christianity, enough to possibly study, or at a minimum investigate Jesus’ teachings; therefore, concluding that point, Jesus said to accept EVERYONE.

Wow, imagine the over zealous Christians doing that! Accepting people for who they are! Attempting to minister to them is ok, but it is best done through actions and prayer. Conversely, I say I am a Christian, perfect I’m NOT, but I do what I can the best I can. The fact I say the word Christian immediately invokes an adversarial stance dripping with disdain and criticism, cynicism and judgment.

My own personal opinion is as it states, my own. I do not believe in gay marriage; a gay legal union, as in legal recognition thereof. One huge issue I have with the whole gay marriage thing is the militancy behind the movement. Everyone is quick to criticize Christians over their opinion, but this “do as I say not as I do” militant attitude of the gay movement is what’s really bothersome. So while Christians seem to be recruiting, the gay marriage movement recruitment efforts are just as, if not more, aggressive.

So, I do not like it, personally; however, I accept people as they are, and do the best I can not to judge. I know, and have gay friends, and while I do not believe personally in it, they remain very close friends.

I believe the wording of the legislation is not really at issue here, as the wording is rather straight forward in its design; however the issue in and of itself is the true issue. I will vote no, however, if it is not voted in, then the majority have spoken. Imagine that, a majority vote, wow, what a great new concept! LOL

The issue of separation of church and state is truly a great concept, however, again, the issue allowing the union, and the wording of the proposed statute does not have anything to with religious views. What we DO have, is an issue of the institution of marriage, which is often confused with the religious ceremonies of many different religions to recognize the legal union. One cannot say that banning gay marriages is strictly a religious stance, since MANY people do not have a religious ceremony, or are not religious, and use a justice of the peace. So from the legal point of view, the issue is the union of a couple, not the religious connotations and ceremony thereof.

According to Blacks Law, Marriage is, “A legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Singer v. Hara, 11 Wash.App. 247, 522 P.2d 1187, 1193. Marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married, is the legal status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, or until divorced, for the discharge to each other and the community of legal duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex.”

Black, H.C.. (Ed.). (1990). Blacks Law Dictionary (6th ed)., St. Paul: West Publishing.

Bottom line, we need to be respectful of each other opinions, whether or not we may agree, we need to respect others views.

very well put, and it is your thoughts, and genuine heartfelt opinions whether they are the same or different that should be respected, and admired. Not many people take the time to analyze the reasons they feel the way they do about issues! I appreciate your explanation. It makes you wonder what the founding fathers of our states, (let alone our country) would have thought about some of the proposed laws/amendments!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Yeah if we went by historical views...the founding fathers of democracy, the Greeks and Romans, commonly married 13 year olds. Emperor Tiberius abused little boys and made them run off a cliff for fun.

The established historical views are often wrong. The ability to update our laws is an important part of modern democracy.

We were both speaking strictly from the standpoint of whether religious views have influenced aspects of society.

But, what you posted is certainly a valid rebuttal whenever someone talks about the tradition of marriage.

 

[$tinkle]

I'm not going to try and predict the future, and there are small groups that push for allowing minors to have expanded sexual rights.

That said, there's certainly a difference between what 2 consenting adults do and what an adult does with a minor. That will not change.

And, if we are looking back, it wasn't too long ago that inter-racial marriages were outlawed. When people wanted to legalize those, a lot of the same arguments were made then against legalization that people are making now against legalizing same-sex marriage.

combined with this & SK6's prev post, i hope you can see where a reasonable case can be made for some slipperly slope arguments regarding the future of marriage (the remainder of arguments - the nonplussed ones - making up the "gays are coming for your kids" arguments)

as an aside, my recollection of the FF's various religious affiliations are in line w/ SK6's. we could get a thread going for that if one doesn't exist (too lazy to search)

 

[Old Man G Funk]

combined with this & SK6's prev post, i hope you can see where a reasonable case can be made for some slipperly slope arguments regarding the future of marriage (the remainder of arguments - the nonplussed ones - making up the "gays are coming for your kids" arguments)

Yeah, except when it was inter-racial marriage that was also supposed to open up the doors to polygamy, etc. That hasn't happened.

as an aside, my recollection of the FF's various religious affiliations are in line w/ SK6's. we could get a thread going for that if one doesn't exist (too lazy to search)

I know it has been discussed before, but I don't know if it was it's own thread or not. I would participate in that thread if someone else starts it, but I don't feel like starting that thread right now. Feel free to go ahead though.

 

[$tinkle]

Yeah, except when it was inter-racial marriage that was also supposed to open up the doors to polygamy, etc. That hasn't happened.

2 points:
- i would not be surprised to find if some "alarmist" back then argued from the point of view that homosexuals were just one of many groups that would then vie for marital recognition. of course, the arguments to preserve anti-miscegenation failed in loving v virginia (how ironic is that?) for civil rights reasons, and rightfully so. that's grammatically awkward. let's try this: if this is successfully argued as a civil rights issue, it's just a matter of time before it's legal.
- just b/c it hasn't happened, does not mean it will not (or cannot) happen. again, if any group can successfully claim civil rights, then it would be reasonable to expect the right to marry would fall neatly into this

I know it has been discussed before, but I don't know if it was it's own thread or not. I would participate in that thread if someone else starts it, but I don't feel like starting that thread right now. Feel free to go ahead though.

i imagine it would quickly degrade into a google-fed pissing contest.

 

[Silver]

Refer to the aformentioned book.

You may want to read it yourself. After all, your point is that no religion condones same sex marriage. My point is that we don't live in a theocratic state, so what religions condone or condemn doesn't matter. If we lived in a theocracy, you would indeed be correct.

Then, do me a favor and read your bible. You have an ex-wife, you mentioned? I sure hope that she committed adultery and you divorced her for that reason alone. Because if you didn't, you're holding gay people who may or may not believe in the Bible to the moral code contained therein while failing to live up to it yourself.

(I did a search on that, and it looks like you had a pretty crazy woman for a wife. I'm sorry about what happened, but that doesn't change the biblical implications for you. If it's any consolation, you obviously know by now that I think you're in the clear )

 

[Old Man G Funk]

2 points:
- i would not be surprised to find if some "alarmist" back then argued from the point of view that homosexuals were just one of many groups that would then vie for marital recognition. of course, the arguments to preserve anti-miscegenation failed in loving v virginia (how ironic is that?) for civil rights reasons, and rightfully so. that's grammatically awkward. let's try this: if this is successfully argued as a civil rights issue, it's just a matter of time before it's legal.
- just b/c it hasn't happened, does not mean it will not (or cannot) happen. again, if any group can successfully claim civil rights, then it would be reasonable to expect the right to marry would fall neatly into this

Well, then I guess those people were right about mixed-race marriages. It was a gateway civil right that is leading to more serious civil rights (a la pot to cocaine). The only sane thing to do is go back and re-outlaw inter-racial marriage. That's, of course, the other problem with the slippery slope.

i imagine it would quickly degrade into a google-fed pissing contest.

I suspect we would have to make a pact to be respectful, etc. If we had an impartial moderator, that would help. I suspect that you are right, however, that we would not be able to keep it from degrading rather quickly.

Maybe what we need is multiple threads that spring up when one thread degrades. Like locusts we could descend on a thread and discuss, and if it broke down we get up and move to the next thread.

 

[SK6]

(I did a search on that, and it looks like you had a pretty crazy woman for a wife. I'm sorry about what happened, but that doesn't change the biblical implications for you. If it's any consolation, you obviously know by now that I think you're in the clear )

Wurd! and thanks. I still say, lets ride an' have beers....

***Edit***For clarification for others who may not know: Yeah, the ex died of an alcohol and prescription drug overdose. I left her prior to that due to her violence and alcohol. Now, hows this for irony. She was fighting stage 4 inflammatory carcinoma of the left breast. I had to rescue my son of off a street corner in Richmond because she was apparently spending nights in a crack house with my son. All of this unbeknownst to me. She ended up living on the streets, scrounging for cash for booze. I begged, pleaded, prayed for her to get help prior to our parting. She lied in court, and to the state, so that's why I was in the dark. It wasn't until I found out through a friend of mine that conditions were such as they are, and was able to locate my son, have the ex's crackhead boyfriend arrested for assault & Battery, but not before I dropped his ass in self defence.

THE sob story ends in a happy marriage to an awesome woman, and my son, almost 17 JUST got his drivers license this past Saturday. Point, life CAN be good! and for me, is! ***End Edit***

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Wurd! and thanks. I still say, lets ride an' have beers....

***Edit***For clarification for others who may not know: Yeah, the ex died of an alcohol and prescription drug overdose. I left her prior to that due to her violence and alcohol. Now, hows this for irony. She was fighting stage 4 inflammatory carcinoma of the left breast. I had to rescue my son of off a street corner in Richmond because she was apparently spending nights in a crack house with my son. All of this unbeknownst to me. She ended up living on the streets, scrounging for cash for booze. I begged, pleaded, prayed for her to get help prior to our parting. She lied in court, and to the state, so that's why I was in the dark. It wasn't until I found out through a friend of mine that conditions were such as they are, and was able to locate my son, have the ex's crackhead boyfriend arrested for assault & Battery, but not before I dropped his ass in self defence.

THE sob story ends in a happy marriage to an awesome woman, and my son, almost 17 JUST got his drivers license this past Saturday. Point, life CAN be good! and for me, is! ***End Edit***

I'm sorry for your travails, and I'm glad to note that things have turned out well in the end.

 

[$tinkle]

THE sob story ends in a happy marriage to an awesome woman, and my son, almost 17 JUST got his drivers license this past Saturday. Point, life CAN be good! and for me, is! ***End Edit***

my favorite part.

man.
wow.
damn.