Quote
Florida’s Amendment 2, which sought to define marriage as the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, is passing overwhelmingly, according to the latest results from the Florida Department of State Division of Elections
With nearly four million votes cast, the yes votes for approval had taken 63.3 percent of the vote compared to 36.7 voting against the measure. The measure also includes a provision to protect the new law from judicial review and action, though it will still likely be subject to a challenge in the courts.
A total of 153 similar measures across 36 states are at stake in this election. Perhaps the most watched will be California's Proposition 8 to put a stop to gay marriage in the state. A poll released by the Public Policy Institute of California last week showed the initiative down among voters.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/florida_marriage/2008/11/04/147750.html
It's a shame that ignorance is winning....this isn't just about marriage, which by the way, there's already the law on the books stating that it's to be a man and a woman...this is takes away the rights of anyone close, and it's sad that this is passing. This sets the state back and not forward
ahhhh I hate to hear that, hope that would have been rejectedd
Quote from: jbm32206 on November 04, 2008, 10:03:37 PM
It's a shame that ignorance is winning....this isn't just about marriage, which by the way, there's already the law on the books stating that it's to be a man and a woman...this is takes away the rights of anyone close, and it's sad that this is passing. This sets the state back and not forward
I agree with you, unfortuantely Conneticut tried the same thing, but the state supreme court overuled the legislature. Thats why I disagree with the result, but it was almost necessary to take it out of the courts hands. I dislike an active judicary
As a straight male currently living in a domestic partnership, I'm pissed. Now I have to get married...SHIT! ;D
Funny as that may sound.....it's actually true, because this will impact such relationships
Quote from: jbm32206 on November 04, 2008, 10:03:37 PM
It's a shame that ignorance is winning....
many of those same "ignorant" voters may just be handing Florida to Obama. be careful of insulting the electorate. this just shows that we are STILL a center-right country and this vote for Obama was really simply a vote AGAINST the last 8 years.
one has nothing to do with the other...
My humor was intended, but I am serious too. Passing Amendment 2 is not cool at all.
Quote from: TREE4309 on November 04, 2008, 10:09:17 PM
My humor was intended, but I am serious too. Passing Amendment 2 is not cool at all.
LOL, you better check out the common law rules in Florida you may already be married. BUt I always joke with a gay friend of mine, you know there are hundreds of guys saying to there partners, "of course I'd marry you but the government won' let me" secretly say thank god. I always say why should they be the only ones allowed to be happy!!!
Quote from: civil42806 on November 04, 2008, 10:13:39 PM
Quote from: TREE4309 on November 04, 2008, 10:09:17 PM
My humor was intended, but I am serious too. Passing Amendment 2 is not cool at all.
LOL, you better check out the common law rules in Florida you may already be married. BUt I always joke with a gay friend of mine, you know there are hundreds of guys saying to there partners, "of course I'd marry you but the government won' let me" secretly say thank god. I always say why should they be the only ones allowed to be happy!!!
As of 1968, Florida is no longer a common law state.
Quote from: TREE4309 on November 04, 2008, 10:17:03 PM
Quote from: civil42806 on November 04, 2008, 10:13:39 PM
Quote from: TREE4309 on November 04, 2008, 10:09:17 PM
My humor was intended, but I am serious too. Passing Amendment 2 is not cool at all.
LOL, you better check out the common law rules in Florida you may already be married. BUt I always joke with a gay friend of mine, you know there are hundreds of guys saying to there partners, "of course I'd marry you but the government won' let me" secretly say thank god. I always say why should they be the only ones allowed to be happy!!!
As of 1968, Florida is no longer a common law state.
Well I stand corrected!!!
which now with this passing, any domestic partnerships have lost any hope of rights
Quote from: jbm32206 on November 04, 2008, 10:18:37 PM
which now with this passing, any domestic partnerships have lost any hope of rights
Unforunately thats correct, I don't like to see this any more than you do. The situation here is make a public argument about the situation and lobby the legislature. Justify what you want, admendments have been overcome before. Argue about the unfairness of the situation and say why you think its unfair. I understand why many people voted for this admendment, because they were afraid of having the option dictated by the courts, I don't agree but I understand. If we are talking about a fundamental redefinition of what marriage means it need to be through vigourous and vocal debate, not by 9 old men setting on a pedestal.
I voted for the amendment because MARRIAGE is quite simply defined as being between one man and one woman. It always has been and always should be. Marriage is the bedrock of our reproducing society.
If two people of any gender want certain rights associated with that of a married couple, that is fine by me. I will vote FOR such a proposal.
But I will always vote to protect marriage - and obviously there is a pretty large majority that feel the same as I do.
Quote from: jbm32206 on November 04, 2008, 10:08:04 PM
Funny as that may sound.....it's actually true, because this will impact such relationships
This is false. There is no legal recognition for male-female non-married domestic partnerships in Florida either.
It's official - the amendment passed.
Bitter-sweet day. This amendment not only said that marriage should be only between a man and a woman, but that nothing else similar to it will be honored.
The pride that comes along with literally ruining people's lives and security is the most smug pile of dog shit I have ever come across.
This is why people don't can't have pride in, or faith in America. Everything is not possible in America. PERIOD.
"The pride that comes along with literally ruining people's lives and security is the most smug pile of dog shit I have ever come across."
Some feel the same way about Obama's too....
That being said the Dems really let down the people they "supposedly" represent yet again.... they came out in droves to vote for Obama, but voted for #2???!!!
I would like to see this come back, but this time take the Christians (libs and Conservatives) out of it and make it for equal legal rights and protections for partners and leave marriage out of it. It may not be the whole deal, but it is a start!
I couldn't agree more, in that it should (and hopefully will) come back before the people, leaving marriage out of it and just have it where it's understood that it's intended to ensure equal/legal rights for all.
Quote from: jbm32206 on November 05, 2008, 07:23:38 AM
I couldn't agree more, in that it should (and hopefully will) come back before the people, leaving marriage out of it and just have it where it's understood that it's intended to ensure equal/legal rights for all.
I think this would pass, and be a stepping stone.
true that. I just feel that it was made into a religious fight and it never should've been.
Quote from: Driven1 on November 04, 2008, 10:27:07 PM
I voted for the amendment because MARRIAGE is quite simply defined as being between one man and one woman. It always has been and always should be. Marriage is the bedrock of our reproducing society.
If two people of any gender want certain rights associated with that of a married couple, that is fine by me. I will vote FOR such a proposal.
But I will always vote to protect marriage - and obviously there is a pretty large majority that feel the same as I do.
well then you apparently didn't read the ammendment language very closely...not only did it expressly state what marriage is, it also stated that nothing else could be considered as its equivalent.
Isn’t homosexual marriage already illegal in Florida?
Florida has a Defense of Marriage Act. However, a YES vote on Amendment 2 prevents homosexual activists and liberal judges from legalizing homosexual marriage by striking down Florida’s state marriage law like they did in Massachusetts and in California. The people-- not judges should decide how marriage will be defined.
Isn’t a ban on gay marriage like bans on interracial marriage?
Bans on interracial marriage were about keeping two races apart so that one race could oppress the other. Marriage is about bringing two sexes together, so that children get the unique love and nurture of both a mom and a dad. Having a parent of two different races is just not the same as being deprived of your motherâ€"or your father. Race and ethnicity are not inherent properties of marriage. Gender on the other hand is an inherent property of marriage.
What would be the harm of allowing gay marriage? How can “Adam and Steve†hurt your marriage?
The real question is how will same-sex marriage affect all of society? No society ancient or modern has ever sustained itself with a buffet like mentality when it comes to marriage and family. Same-sex marriage will subject children to a vast untested social experiment. A loving and civilized society always comes to the aid of fatherless and motherless families. But a loving and civilized society never intentionally creates fatherless and motherless families as a matter of law and public policy.
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 11:03:51 AM
Times change.
This too shall pass.
Its sad to see the hatred and intolerance in our society, but its what gives us a reason to work for a better future.
What is the difference between this (taking away someone's right to marry) and electing Obama (taking away peoples hard earned money)? I mean Obama gave an artificial cut off for the "rich" and Flordia gave an artificial cut off for what marriage means....
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 11:03:51 AM
Its sad to see the hatred and intolerance in our society
This line of "hatred and intolerance" did not work this time. Large, widespread defeat of Amendment 2. If I was on the other side of this issue, next time I would try a different strategy than attacking the voters and telling them how hateful and intolerant they are.
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 11:08:18 AM
Uptown girl. Do you have a photo of Obama burglarizing your house? It would greatly aid in the investigation of all this money that he's apparently stolen from you.
When did it happen again?
And btw, what about the guys who just carjacked you and burned your banks down?
Any idea what to do with them? Are you at least going to ask them to move out of your house?
LOL... we shall see Stephen we shall see....
btw, I don't blame Obama, I blame the people who voted against Bush to elect him.
Remember that Amendment 2 needed 60% to pass. It received 62%. Whether or not it was a decisive vote against same-sex marriage is all in how one represents the statistics.
The amendment legally accomplishes very little that was not already covered by legislative (DOMA) acts, but socially is a needless (and embarrassing) constitutional enshrinement of discrimination. It was primarily "ballot bait."
For all state constitutional amendments, voter education is sorely lacking. Few voters can adequately articulate their potential legal impacts.
And this occurred to me just now. To all the gays who want "marriage". WHY? Consider yourself lucky...you now have the SAME RIGHTs and you aren't missing out on too much except for a whole host of marriage tax penalties. ;)
Quote from: JaxByDefault on November 05, 2008, 03:09:54 PM
For all state constitutional amendments, voter education is sorely lacking. Few voters can adequately articulate their potential legal impacts.
How about putting the spotlight on the lawyers who like to wrap words around themselves so that the average voter sits there scratching their head for 5 minutes before voting.
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 01:09:47 AM
Sad day as far as that ammendment is concerned.
I suppose people voted for a while to keep black and white people from marrying each other too.
For the same reasons.
So people choose to be black or white?
Quote
Times change. This kind of namby pamby ignorance will fade away.
I think we are all pretty sure what is involved in homosexual behavior. It is aberrant and will not be enshrined into law as equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman.
Quote from: wwanderlust on November 05, 2008, 03:53:29 PM
So I won't be getting gay married...but I'll be getting a Democratic President and both houses of Congress. A wonderful consolation prize. ;D
Did you have wedding plans? ???
oh you bigot RSG!!!! ;)
Why are you posting off-topic quotes of yourself from another thread?
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 04:31:19 PM
I for one, will not respond to it at all today,
just making sure you know big guy that re-posting the same thing over and over actually IS a response. ;)
Quote
Not totally blue: Fla. bans gay marriage
BY JESSICA GRESKO
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
MIAMI -- Florida may have turned blue on Election Day, but voters in nearly every county voiced resounding agreement on one conservative measure: Marriage should be defined in the state's constitution as between a man and a woman.
The amendment banning gay marriage was part of a disappointing Election Day for gay rights advocates. Similar measures passed in Arizona as well as California, where same-sex marriage had been legal after a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year.
Same-sex marriage was banned in Florida law even before Tuesday's election, but Floridians voted to enshrine a definition of marriage in the state's constitution, where supporters said it would be even more secure.
Democrat Barack Obama may have won the state's prized 27 electoral votes, but a vote for Obama didn't translate to a vote against the amendment. Black voters overwhelmingly supported Obama and Hispanic voters favored him, but both groups - approximately a quarter of Florida voters - also approved the amendment by significant margins.
"They vote for a candidate but don't necessarily vote for a more liberal position," said Matt Corrigan, a University of North Florida political science professor.
Derek Newton, campaign manager for the group that opposed the amendment, said he believed the presidential race drew a lot of new or infrequent voters that were not educated about Amendment 2 and who voted for it rather than skip the question.
"Florida is a Southern state, which makes it naturally more conservative," said Newton, campaign manager for Florida Red and Blue's "SayNo2" campaign. "We just have a harder hill to climb."
All but eight of Florida's 67 counties voted to pass Amendment 2 by more than the required 60 percent. Counties in populous South Florida - Miami-Dade, Palm Beach and Broward - didn't give the amendment the 60 percent it needed to pass. Neither did voters in Alachua County, home to the University of Florida. Those voters, however, were outnumbered those in other counties including the Panhandle, where counties supported the amendment by margains of 70 and 80 percent or more.
Only Monroe County - which includes the Florida Keys - gave the amendment less than 50 percent support.
That Florida passed Amendment 2 is not a shock; though the 60 percent support required to pass is high, voters across the country have almost universally approved similar amendments when given the chance. Thirty states have now asked voters whether they wanted to put a definition of marriage in their constitution. Only one, Arizona, has ever rejected that amendment - and reversed course on Tuesday.
Still, Floridians voiced more approval than in other states. Sixty-two percent approved the measure, far higher than in Arizona and California where voters also passed marriage amendments. The Arizona and California amendments only required 50 percent approval to pass and did with approximately 56 and 52 percent.
John Stemberger, the state chairman of Yes2Marriage.org which had backed the amendment, also cited support from black, Hispanic and religious communities. He said that if Florida had a 50 percent threshold that a lot less "blood, sweat and tears" would have had to go into passing it.
"We're just amazed and grateful at the response," he said. "When you strengthen marriage and family you are solving so many other problems in society."
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/758471.html
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 05, 2008, 04:17:41 PM
So people choose to be black or white?
So people choose to be gay?
Quote from: Driven1 on November 05, 2008, 06:59:38 PM
Quote
Not totally blue: Fla. bans gay marriage
BY JESSICA GRESKO
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
MIAMI -- Florida may have turned blue on Election Day, but voters in nearly every county voiced resounding agreement on one conservative measure: Marriage should be defined in the state's constitution as between a man and a woman...
...John Stemberger, the state chairman of Yes2Marriage.org which had backed the amendment, also cited support from black, Hispanic and religious communities. He said that if Florida had a 50 percent threshold that a lot less "blood, sweat and tears" would have had to go into passing it.
"We're just amazed and grateful at the response," he said. "When you strengthen marriage and family you are solving so many other problems in society."
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/758471.html
Well congrats to Stemberger and his group! I totally feel like so many other problems have been solved, now that we have made sure gays can't get married. This should really decrease the divorce rate and I'm guessing all of the dead beat dads are just running back to their families and making society better. ::)
If Yes2Marriage wasn't just a feel good group, they would actually focus on the real issues that are destroying America's families. But that would require a lot of "blood, sweat and tears," wouldn't it? That would require becoming involved in the prisons and creating prison to home transition training. Providing parenting training and support for families who are struggling. Counseling and immense resources into adoption programs and other groups that work with Child Services. Creating communities like Hope Meadows in Rantoul, Illinois that put foster children with loving parents and seniors who mentor them (recently featured on NBC Nightly News.) It would require a huge push for school based mentoring programs and dropout prevention. The list goes on and on. I guess when the task of truly strengthening the American family looms too immense, it is easier to find things like marriage amendments to put your money and resources into. I deal with broken families and children on a daily basis. All the neglected 6 year old boy wants is someone to say "I love you," and give him a hug. He just wants to know someone cares about his well being. He wants to know he will be safe. He wants a parent who will make sure he gets to school every day so he can continue learning. Trust me, kids could care less if that person was gay or straight, male or female, black or white. So amendment supporters, pat yourselves on the back, the American family is on the mend and all because of you! ;)
Quote from: Bewler on November 14, 2008, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 05, 2008, 04:17:41 PM
So people choose to be black or white?
So people choose to be gay?
They may not choose their proclivities but they choose to act on them.
I wonder if adulterers or polygamists can get such a lobby.
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 14, 2008, 07:21:59 PM
Quote from: Bewler on November 14, 2008, 05:01:41 PM
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 05, 2008, 04:17:41 PM
So people choose to be black or white?
So people choose to be gay?
They may not choose their proclivities but they choose to act on them.
I wonder if adulterers or polygamists can get such a lobby.
Yes, but we don't legislate (or at least enforce laws) against adulterers. And as for exercising "proclivities," I take it that you've never masturbated, oh so sanctimonious RSG? Please, drudge up the argument next about if we allow gay marriage, we'll have to allow people to marry their pets--because we all know that animals are citizens and can enter into legal contracts (and only Mr. Ed can say "I do").
Regardless, the US is a country based on individual freedoms. So long as my actions do not directly abridge your rights nor cause you any direct and quantifiable damages, I should be able to do as I please. You make it sound like I choose to love men like someone would choose to play World of Warcraft or go to Star Trek conventions, or watch NASCAR.
If one wants to protect marriage, make divorce illegal before they try to keep me from making it public record that I love someone...
CIVIL ISSUE, NOT MORAL ISSUE!
Sorry but no one has the right to do exactly as the please whenever they want to do so. Marriage will not be perverted and destroyed. Leave it alone.
Marriage is not a right, it is a priviledge. It is a SOCIETAL issue and people are drawing on their morals and sense in their decision.
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 14, 2008, 11:55:52 PM
Sorry but no one has the right to do exactly as the please whenever they want to do so. Marriage will not be perverted and destroyed. Leave it alone.
Gay people have and do marry in this country yet my marriage doesn't seem perverted or destroyed. I think your right marriage won't be perverted or destroyed.
Faith, Hope and Love and the greatest of these is Love. Peace be with you.
Please dont cite the Bible as part of your argument that gay marriage should be legal. That is false and misleading as the Bible certainly does not condone sodomy.
QuoteNovember 18, 2008
Is Gay the New Black?
By Dennis Prager
"Gay is the new black" is one of the mottos of the movement to redefine marriage to include two people of the same sex.
The likening of the movement for same-sex marriage to the black civil rights struggle is a primary argument of pro same-sex marriage groups. This comparison is a major part of the moral appeal of redefining marriage: Just as there were those who once believed that blacks and whites should not be allowed to be married, the argument goes, there are today equally bigoted individuals who believe that men should not be allowed to marry men and women should not be allowed to marry women.
It is worth noting that the people least impressed with the comparison of the gay struggle to redefine marriage with the black struggle for racial equality are blacks. They voted overwhelmingly for California's Proposition 8 which amends the California Constitution to define marriage as being the union of a man and a woman.
One reason given is that blacks tend to be socially conservative. But another, less verbalized, reason may well be that blacks find the comparison demeaning and insulting. As well they should.
One has to either be ignorant of segregation laws and the routine humiliations experienced by blacks during the era of Jim Crow, or one has to be callous to black suffering, to equate that to a person not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex. They are not in the same moral universe.
There is in fact no comparison between the situation of gays in America in 2008 and the situation of most black Americans prior to the civil rights era. Gays are fully accepted, and as a group happen to constitute one of the wealthiest in American life. Moreover, not being allowed to marry a person of the same sex is not anti-gay; it is pro-marriage as every civilization has defined it. The fact is that states like California already grant people who wish to live and love a member of the same sex virtually every right that marriage bestows except the word "married."
A certain number of gay men will feel better if they can call their partner "husband" and some lesbians will enjoy calling their partner "wife," but society as a whole is not benefitted by such a redefinition of those words. Society as a whole does not benefit by removing, as California did, the words "bride" and "groom" from marriage licenses and substituting "Partner A" and "Partner B."
But hoping that the more radical gays and straights of the gay rights movement will ask "what benefits society?" before "what makes some gays feel better?" is useless.
And so, the movement appropriates the symbols and rhetoric of the black civil rights struggle when that struggle and the movement to redefine marriage have next to nothing in common. How can a seriously moral individual compare forcing a black bus rider to sit in the back of a bus or to give up his seat to a white who demands it, or prohibiting a black human being from drinking from the same water fountain or eating at the same lunch counter as a white human being, or being denied the right to vote, or being prohibited from attending a school with whites, let alone being periodically lynched, to either the general gay condition today or specifically to being given the "right" to redefine marriage for society?
The vast majority of Americans, including those who oppose same-sex marriage, know that the homosexual is created in God's image every bit as much as is the heterosexual; and acknowledge that the gay man or woman has a right to love whom he or she wants and that commitment has the right to be given legal protections.
But radically redefining the most important institution in the life of a civilization; and routinely labeling as the moral equivalent of racists every individual who does not want children regularly asked whether they will marry a boy or a girl when grown up, and who rightly fears that every traditional religious community will be labeled as a hate group -- these are not commensurate with civil rights.
Gay and straight activists who liken their demand to redefine marriage to black suffering under Jim Crow merely cheapen historic black suffering. Most blacks know this but for the sake of their political coalition won't say it. They should. Rosa Parks is in a different moral category than the protestors against Proposition 8.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/is_gay_the_new_black.html
Quote from: jaxnative on November 15, 2008, 12:13:48 AM
Marriage is not a right, it is a priviledge. It is a SOCIETAL issue and people are drawing on their morals and sense in their decision.
If marriage is a privilege, please name anyone from whom it is denied (aside from minors, obviously)!! You may call it a privilege, but if it is available to every citizen, I’d say that’s more of a
RIGHT.
You also fail to recognize that Amendment 2 not only prohibits gay marriage, but also can easily be interpreted by the courts to strike down civil unions. If Amendment 2 didn’t call into question civil unions, I would not be nearly as upset. The fact is that the GAO has identified over 1,400 rights and legal protections that are conferred to married couples. All I want is a guarantee that I can share my partners’ medical insurance, visit him in the hospital (without the immediate family challenging me just because they’re homophobic), inheritance benefits, etc. It’s about life planning, and life sharing.
You think you’re protecting marriage from people who want to emulate it? I thought that imitation was the highest form of flattery? Apparently not…
Quote from: RiversideGator on November 05, 2008, 04:17:41 PM
It is aberrant and will not be enshrined into law as equivalent to marriage between a man and a woman.
First of all, the only things that have been “enshrined†into law are anti-gay legislation, as far as marriage is concerned. Allowing same sex couples to marry requires NO additional legislation. You may site the change in the California marriage licenses from “bride†and “groom†to “partner A†and “partner B,†but quite frankly, as long as my name is on the certificate, I don’t care which side it’s on! Yes, indeed sir, discrimination has been codified (and you may not say it’s discrimination, but
BY DEFINITION, it isâ€"“treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual meritâ€).
Additionally, I can see how African Americans, particularly those who view gay marriage as wrong or worse, would take issue with gay marriage being compared to interracial marriage of the past. Certainly, the plight suffered by slaves and subsequently African Americans up, through and beyond the civil rights movement is far more severe than anything a homosexual, especially one in 2008, has had to endure. However, when one analyzes the arguments against miscegenation and then those against gay marriage, the parallels are impossible to ignore. Hell, Jerry Falwell warned in a sermon in 1958 that miscegenation would destroy the white race.
…MORE IMPORTANTLY and telling, indeed, is that Mrs. Mildred Loving, of the case
Virginia v. Loving, the Supreme Court case which struck down all miscegenation laws, said on the 40th anniversary of the decision:
Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.MOREOVER, Coretta Scott King stated that it is indeed a civil rights issue, and said in a speech in 2003:
I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people. ... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.' I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream, to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.and…
Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriage.If two of the most important women in the civil rights movement (an expert opinion, I’d say) say that is a civil right, I tend to believe it, and perhaps the African American community as a whole should be more open minded and remember the details of their struggle, and if not agree with, at least empathize with our cause and allow us a right that is so integral to life.
Also, in Jerry Falwell's defense, later in life, he was "no 'Agent of Intolerance,'" as stated by John McCain. He even told Tucker Carlson on MSNBC when asked about working for gay rights: "I may not agree with the lifestyle, but that has nothing to do with the
civil rights of that part of our constituency." Better still, he said that equal access to housing, civil marriage, and employment are basic rights, not special rights, saying, "
Civil rights for all Americans, black, white, red, yellow, the rich, poor, young, old, gay, straight, et cetera, is not a liberal or conservative value. It's an American value that I would think that we pretty much all agree on."
If even Jerry Falwell can change his tune over the years, perhaps StephenDare is right...
Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2008, 01:09:47 AM
Times change. This kind of namby pamby ignorance will fade away.
One can only hope...
I would love to hear some responses. Perhaps I am thinking about this the wrong way?
I am all for it.
BUT, I do not want to be listed as Partner A or Partner B, that is just crazy and an infringement on MY rights! So I do not support switching bride and groom to partner A and partner B. Want to get married to a same sex partner….cool choose bride or groom period…after all that is what “marriage†is. Hell I might have voted for the ban in CA if that had been on the ticket, not because I have an issue with gay marriage, but I DO have an issue with everyone being called “partnersâ€. I am not a “partner†in my marriage; I am a bride and wife.
Equal rights=no protectionist laws. When this happens we will all have equal rights to fail or succeed in anything we do based on our own merits.
I guess we'll have to flip a coin for who gets to wear the garter... :D
Quote from: CMG22 on November 21, 2008, 11:38:05 AM
I guess we'll have to flip a coin for who gets to wear the garter... :D
Duval County has an 80% divorce rate. What exactly are people 'protecting'? Gime a break.
Really?? Source please?
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 09, 2009, 06:56:46 AM
Really?? Source please?
Ask and ye shall receive:
Pay attention to the quoted Times-Union article in the text, according to the TU the rate was 84.4%:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/1999-October/002322.html
And here is a more recent government-funded study, that pegs the divorce rate at 73%:
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/bfmpduvalch4_2003.pdf
So out of the two statistics I can find, one is 84.4% and the other is 73%. I suspect it fluctuates a bit year-to-year, but clearly the figure is around the 80% range that I quoted. So again, WTF are we 'protecting' exactly? LOL.
And speaking practically, as the member of an 'alternative' relationship who has more money than the other member, I think these crazy religious weirdos can keep their 80%-failure-rate concept of marriage anyway. I'm happy as a clam, and if things don't work out at home, well then guess what...I'm not going to lose my boat, my benz, my house, half my stuff, and have to pay two lawyers to fight over distributing my own $h!t. So ya...go ahead...throw me right into that briar patch. LOL
I mean, come on, you're gambling with everything you own at an EIGHTY PERCENT probability of losing...I wouldn't even take those odds in Vegas. So ya, everybody can 'protect' their 'traditional' marriage right into bankruptcy, meanwhile I'm laughing my azz off at the whole thing. The legal-contract concept of marriage is flawed anyway. Since when does making it all but impossible to get out of a relationship, and giving someone an entitlement to the other person's money without consideration, actually make a relationship better? That just removes accountability in the relationship from BOTH parties, and inevitably leads to problems. It's logically flawed on its face. How many times have you heard "everything was fine, until we got married...".
I guess I can see how it would bother some gay people/couples in theory, just because of the slap-in-the-face-factor, but the reality of it is the prop 2 supporters are basically saying "I've got this stinking pile of $h!t here, but guess what...YOU CANT HAVE IT...nananana". Ok, fine then. LOL. You just keep your stinking pile of $h!t then, doesn't bother me one bit. It's really laughable that anyone would want to 'protect' something that's already so FUBAR anyway.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 09, 2009, 10:17:58 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 09, 2009, 06:56:46 AM
Really?? Source please?
Ask and ye shall receive:
Pay attention to the quoted Times-Union article in the text, according to the TU the rate was 84.4%:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/1999-October/002322.html
And here is a more recent government-funded study, that pegs the divorce rate at 73%:
http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/reports/pdf/bfmpduvalch4_2003.pdf
So out of the two statistics I can find, one is 84.4% and the other is 73%. I suspect it fluctuates a bit year-to-year, but clearly the figure is around the 80% range that I quoted. So again, WTF are we 'protecting' exactly? LOL.
And speaking practically, as the member of an 'alternative' relationship who has more money than the other member, I think these crazy religious weirdos can keep their 80%-failure-rate concept of marriage anyway. I'm happy as a clam, and if things don't work out at home, well then guess what...I'm not going to lose my boat, my benz, my house, half my stuff, and have to pay two lawyers to fight over distributing my own $h!t. So ya...go ahead...throw me right into that briar patch. LOL
I mean, come on, you're gambling with everything you own at an EIGHTY PERCENT probability of losing...I wouldn't even take those odds in Vegas. So ya, everybody can 'protect' their 'traditional' marriage right into bankruptcy, meanwhile I'm laughing my azz off at the whole thing. The legal-contract concept of marriage is flawed anyway. Since when does making it all but impossible to get out of a relationship, and giving someone an entitlement to the other person's money without consideration, actually make a relationship better? That just removes accountability in the relationship from BOTH parties, and inevitably leads to problems. It's logically flawed on its face. How many times have you heard "everything was fine, until we got married...".
I guess I can see how it would bother some gay people/couples in theory, just because of the slap-in-the-face-factor, but the reality of it is the prop 2 supporters are basically saying "I've got this stinking pile of $h!t here, but guess what...YOU CANT HAVE IT...nananana". Ok, fine then. LOL. You just keep your stinking pile of $h!t then, doesn't bother me one bit. It's really laughable that anyone would want to 'protect' something that's already so FUBAR anyway.
Those are sort of odd links, don't recognize either one of them. I did find this link from a bit better recognized source, but it describes the divorice rate per population.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/12/marrying_smarter_later_leading_to_decline_in_us_divorce_rate/
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml
Quote from: civil42806 on January 09, 2009, 12:27:21 PM
Those are sort of odd links, don't recognize either one of them. I did find this link from a bit better recognized source, but it describes the divorice rate per population.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/05/12/marrying_smarter_later_leading_to_decline_in_us_divorce_rate/
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml
If you read through the fluff and get to the mathematical bottom-line on those stats you posted, what they're actually saying is that the divorce rate per unit of population is only declining because fewer people are getting married, which naturally leads to fewer divorces. It's a skewed stat.
That's why those stats on divorces-per-XX-number-of-people are pretty much worthless. To get a true picture on this subject, you want to know what percentage of those who DO get married later get a divorce.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 08, 2009, 04:12:33 PM
Quote from: CMG22 on November 21, 2008, 11:38:05 AM
I guess we'll have to flip a coin for who gets to wear the garter... :D
Duval County has an 80% divorce rate. What exactly are people 'protecting'? Gime a break.
The fact that some marriages fail does not discredit the institution of marriage. If anything, it discredits our no fault divorce system and modern culture. The solution is not to destroy marriage by allowing all manner of perversions to be included in its definition. The solution is to strengthen marriage by making it harder to divorce, require pre-marital counseling, and to effect a general cultural shift so that marriage is as highly valued today as it was in the past.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 09, 2009, 10:17:58 AM
And speaking practically, as the member of an 'alternative' relationship who has more money than the other member, I think these crazy religious weirdos can keep their 80%-failure-rate concept of marriage anyway. I'm happy as a clam, and if things don't work out at home, well then guess what...I'm not going to lose my boat, my benz, my house, half my stuff, and have to pay two lawyers to fight over distributing my own $h!t. So ya...go ahead...throw me right into that briar patch. LOL
I mean, come on, you're gambling with everything you own at an EIGHTY PERCENT probability of losing...I wouldn't even take those odds in Vegas. So ya, everybody can 'protect' their 'traditional' marriage right into bankruptcy, meanwhile I'm laughing my azz off at the whole thing. The legal-contract concept of marriage is flawed anyway. Since when does making it all but impossible to get out of a relationship, and giving someone an entitlement to the other person's money without consideration, actually make a relationship better? That just removes accountability in the relationship from BOTH parties, and inevitably leads to problems. It's logically flawed on its face. How many times have you heard "everything was fine, until we got married...".
I guess I can see how it would bother some gay people/couples in theory, just because of the slap-in-the-face-factor, but the reality of it is the prop 2 supporters are basically saying "I've got this stinking pile of $h!t here, but guess what...YOU CANT HAVE IT...nananana". Ok, fine then. LOL. You just keep your stinking pile of $h!t then, doesn't bother me one bit. It's really laughable that anyone would want to 'protect' something that's already so FUBAR anyway.
So why are you so hot and bothered than you would even post on this topic if marriage is so obnoxious to you? You do your thing and let the rest of society do theirs.
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 09, 2009, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 08, 2009, 04:12:33 PM
Quote from: CMG22 on November 21, 2008, 11:38:05 AM
I guess we'll have to flip a coin for who gets to wear the garter... :D
Duval County has an 80% divorce rate. What exactly are people 'protecting'? Gime a break.
The fact that some marriages fail does not discredit the institution of marriage. If anything, it discredits our no fault divorce system and modern culture. The solution is not to destroy marriage by allowing all manner of perversions to be included in its definition. The solution is to strengthen marriage by making it harder to divorce, require pre-marital counseling, and to effect a general cultural shift so that marriage is as highly valued today as it was in the past.
Well I certainly appreciate your giving it the old college try, but with that said you've got to recognize that your concerns about marriage fading as an institution amount to shutting the barn door after the horse already ran off.
It's already been largely jettisoned by our society, and haggling over definitions or no-fault divorce at this late point isn't going to change that. If you remove no-fault divorce, people just won't get married to begin with, further increasing the downward spiral of the importance of marriage as an institution in our society. The paradigm shift has already happened, and it's not going away.
And I disagree that an 80% divorce rate just does nothing at all to discredit marriage as an institution. Come on, you're kidding right? What would you say an 80% divorce rate indicates, then, relative to the strength of marriage as an institution? Do you take an 80% failure rate as a positive sign?
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 09, 2009, 01:39:57 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 09, 2009, 10:17:58 AM
And speaking practically, as the member of an 'alternative' relationship who has more money than the other member, I think these crazy religious weirdos can keep their 80%-failure-rate concept of marriage anyway. I'm happy as a clam, and if things don't work out at home, well then guess what...I'm not going to lose my boat, my benz, my house, half my stuff, and have to pay two lawyers to fight over distributing my own $h!t. So ya...go ahead...throw me right into that briar patch. LOL
I mean, come on, you're gambling with everything you own at an EIGHTY PERCENT probability of losing...I wouldn't even take those odds in Vegas. So ya, everybody can 'protect' their 'traditional' marriage right into bankruptcy, meanwhile I'm laughing my azz off at the whole thing. The legal-contract concept of marriage is flawed anyway. Since when does making it all but impossible to get out of a relationship, and giving someone an entitlement to the other person's money without consideration, actually make a relationship better? That just removes accountability in the relationship from BOTH parties, and inevitably leads to problems. It's logically flawed on its face. How many times have you heard "everything was fine, until we got married...".
I guess I can see how it would bother some gay people/couples in theory, just because of the slap-in-the-face-factor, but the reality of it is the prop 2 supporters are basically saying "I've got this stinking pile of $h!t here, but guess what...YOU CANT HAVE IT...nananana". Ok, fine then. LOL. You just keep your stinking pile of $h!t then, doesn't bother me one bit. It's really laughable that anyone would want to 'protect' something that's already so FUBAR anyway.
So why are you so hot and bothered than you would even post on this topic if marriage is so obnoxious to you? You do your thing and let the rest of society do theirs.
The thing that bothers me is the mindset that we can blame other minority groups for the destruction of the institution of marriage, when if you get right down to it, it has been destroyed from within, with no help from anybody else. Excluding others won't change that.
That's the fallacy of all this "protective" routine, it's complete B.S., because what are you protecting? Something that's FUBAR anyway...
I actually agree with Chris. There is no sanctity left in marriage. It has been made a mockery of by our society, and it has become like some sort of club that we exclude gays from. I have some gay friends who are in very committed meaningful relationships who I can find no logical reason to keep from marrying.
Will there be bad gay marriages? You bet. What makes that any worse than whats going on?
Gator,
i think you forget by preventing the gay cats to marry, you also prevent the IRS from collecting marriage penalty tax from them. totally unfair to the straight cats that chose to marry. ;)
on a serious note, marriage as an institution is associated with many legal rights. The most important part is the assumed "package deal". I am no legal expert but I can see the "package" is the base for many basic rights such as: file tax as a family, visiting rights, custody and more. The gay couples should have as much rights as straight couples to be recognize as a "package". What do they do in their private is not the concern of anyone outside the package.
Marriage as an institution is good or bad is not the concern of the argument. It is really cold to swim in the ocean right now. However, if it is OK for the straight to swim then gay should be allowed to swim too. If the swimmer gets drown, catches cold or has a good time is not related to the sexual orientation.
If we are interested in the sanctity of marriage, we should focus on pre-marriage education such as require parties who decide to enter marriage passing an exam about the responsibilities of marriage and mandatory engagement period for which they stay on an island by themselves for survival test for a year ;D ;D ;D
Well I'm a strong supporter of the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry. Why should they be the only ones allowed to be happy ;D
QuoteNever let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
- Isaac Asimov
Saw this on google quotes and thought it might provoke some thought for some ideal logs.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 09, 2009, 01:50:33 PM
Well I certainly appreciate your giving it the old college try, but with that said you've got to recognize that your concerns about marriage fading as an institution amount to shutting the barn door after the horse already ran off.
It's already been largely jettisoned by our society, and haggling over definitions or no-fault divorce at this late point isn't going to change that. If you remove no-fault divorce, people just won't get married to begin with, further increasing the downward spiral of the importance of marriage as an institution in our society. The paradigm shift has already happened, and it's not going away.
Not at all. I reject the concept that the future is simply a path towards more and more licentiousness. History also casts doubt on this idea as there appears to be more of a pendulum with culture as the sinfulness of one era is followed by morality in another era and vice versa. For example, the worst excesses of the Roman era were eventually supplanted by the new religion of Christianity and the somewhat libertine 1700s were followed by the relative chastity of the Victorian era. Our future also might just as easily involve a rejection of the degrading popular culture of today in favor of a celebration of what is right and good.
QuoteAnd I disagree that an 80% divorce rate just does nothing at all to discredit marriage as an institution. Come on, you're kidding right? What would you say an 80% divorce rate indicates, then, relative to the strength of marriage as an institution? Do you take an 80% failure rate as a positive sign?
1. 80% is not the correct divorce rate for the United States. This is a bogus number you are using to make things appear worse than they are. Having said that, the divorce rates appear to be about 40-50% for those who get married and are far too high. There is also always room for improvement.
2. According to the CDC, the rough numbers are for every 4 people who got married in 2005 a little less than 2 got a divorce:
QuoteNumber of marriages: 2,230,000
Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
I have also heard reports of the divorce rate falling even further in 2008, even accounting for cohabitation.
3. The fact that a 3,000 year old institution has some problems is not an argument for perverting the very meaning of the institution. It is an argument for strengthening the institution.
4. Your entire argument reeks of sour grapes. You say the institution is worthless and is merely excrement yet you seem compelled to post lengthy essays attacking marriage. Frankly, IMO homosexuals are not doing themselves any favors by attacking normal society.
Oh, but RSG--your argument above as well as throughout the rest of this thread reek of someone who mistakes moralism for morality. The only thing that thought like yours accomplishes is protecting the sanctimony of marriage, not its sanctity (regardless of what may or may not be left of that).
Sure, the pendulum may swing as a culture moves from times of excess to times of conservatism, but the idea of liberty for all is something that should pervade our culture despite any swing of the pendulum.
I believe you are simply prejudiced against anything you do not consider "normal." The trouble with that prejudice is that it is not your position to say what truly is normal. Even if it were, everyone here in the US of A are guaranteed equal rights, normal or queer (in the broad sense), so long as one's behavior does not demonstrate a severe pathology.
While we're on the subject of normal vs. queer (in the broad sense), one cannot judge sexual orientation or human sexuality in general as one's behavior deviates from arithmetic mean sexuality. Determining normalcy based on an arithmetic mean is practical when judging variation in something simple like body temperature--not when judging something as complex as who and how someone may raise my body temperature... 8)
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 11, 2009, 11:20:14 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 09, 2009, 01:50:33 PM
Well I certainly appreciate your giving it the old college try, but with that said you've got to recognize that your concerns about marriage fading as an institution amount to shutting the barn door after the horse already ran off.
It's already been largely jettisoned by our society, and haggling over definitions or no-fault divorce at this late point isn't going to change that. If you remove no-fault divorce, people just won't get married to begin with, further increasing the downward spiral of the importance of marriage as an institution in our society. The paradigm shift has already happened, and it's not going away.
Not at all. I reject the concept that the future is simply a path towards more and more licentiousness. History also casts doubt on this idea as there appears to be more of a pendulum with culture as the sinfulness of one era is followed by morality in another era and vice versa. For example, the worst excesses of the Roman era were eventually supplanted by the new religion of Christianity and the somewhat libertine 1700s were followed by the relative chastity of the Victorian era. Our future also might just as easily involve a rejection of the degrading popular culture of today in favor of a celebration of what is right and good.
QuoteAnd I disagree that an 80% divorce rate just does nothing at all to discredit marriage as an institution. Come on, you're kidding right? What would you say an 80% divorce rate indicates, then, relative to the strength of marriage as an institution? Do you take an 80% failure rate as a positive sign?
1. 80% is not the correct divorce rate for the United States. This is a bogus number you are using to make things appear worse than they are. Having said that, the divorce rates appear to be about 40-50% for those who get married and are far too high. There is also always room for improvement.
2. According to the CDC, the rough numbers are for every 4 people who got married in 2005 a little less than 2 got a divorce:
QuoteNumber of marriages: 2,230,000
Marriage rate: 7.5 per 1,000 total population
Divorce rate: 3.6 per 1,000 population (46 reporting States and D.C.)
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
I have also heard reports of the divorce rate falling even further in 2008, even accounting for cohabitation.
3. The fact that a 3,000 year old institution has some problems is not an argument for perverting the very meaning of the institution. It is an argument for strengthening the institution.
4. Your entire argument reeks of sour grapes. You say the institution is worthless and is merely excrement yet you seem compelled to post lengthy essays attacking marriage. Frankly, IMO homosexuals are not doing themselves any favors by attacking normal society.
My stats were local, yours are national. Additionally, you are relying on a faulty stat, because comparing the number of divorces per X number people is a non-sequitur, when there is no corresponding stat for how many of those people are actually married. Your stats are misleading. Mine actually address the question at hand.
What you're saying is that there's only X number of divorces per XXX people, but that's meaningless. The only thing that matters is X number of divorces per XXX number of MARRIED people. Duh. The national divorce rate, according to your source, is at least 50%. Still not odds I'd take, when I'm betting everything I own. And locally, the rate is closer to 80%. Lol. You have to compare apples to apples.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2009, 10:21:21 PM
My stats were local, yours are national.
Your "local stats" come from dubious sources. The first one appears to be a quote of a 10 year old Times-Union article although the original article is not linked. So, the information contained therein is not current and may not have even been accurate in 1999.
The second one is from an article on public schools which says:
"Duval County School District serves a challenging student population whose adult population has a 46% functional illiteracy rate. Additionally, the population has a divorce rate of 73%, a poverty rate of 17%, and a mobility rate of almost 40%, which is approximately 7% higher than the state’s mobility rate."
What is the source of this stat? For what year is it? Is the population referenced just the parents of the Duval County public school kids in 2001? It is not at all clear from the article so the source is really not clear and therefore not credible.
QuoteAdditionally, you are relying on a faulty stat, because comparing the number of divorces per X number people is a non-sequitur, when there is no corresponding stat for how many of those people are actually married. Your stats are misleading. Mine actually address the question at hand.
What you're saying is that there's only X number of divorces per XXX people, but that's meaningless. The only thing that matters is X number of divorces per XXX number of MARRIED people. Duh. The national divorce rate, according to your source, is at least 50%.
Apparently you either did not read my post or have reading comprehension issues. My post clearly cites the most recent statistics available from the CDC listing the national divorce rate and the national marriage rate per 1000 total population. As the marriage rate is over twice the divorce rate, it stands to reason that less than half of all marriages end in divorce. This stat is crystal clear. What did you say? Oh yes. Duh...
And, again, the success of marriage at present is not the issue. Despite current high divorce rates, the institution is nonetheless a valid one and is the foundation of civilized society whether or not you choose to admit it for reasons of personal sexual predilection. Marriage also has been more successful in previous times in this country and is more successful today in other cultures. The problem today is our open sewer culture which celebrates depravity. Once that situation is improved, the marriage rate will also improve.
QuoteStill not odds I'd take, when I'm betting everything I own.
You do not have to marry a woman (provided you could convince one to marry you) although that is your right just like everyone else.
Let's drop the sour grapes routine now, shall we. ;)
Quote from: CMG22 on January 12, 2009, 06:26:38 PM
Oh, but RSG--your argument above as well as throughout the rest of this thread reek of someone who mistakes moralism for morality. The only thing that thought like yours accomplishes is protecting the sanctimony of marriage, not its sanctity (regardless of what may or may not be left of that).
Was this something you read on a bumper sticker? Really, that is a truly meaningless statement.
QuoteSure, the pendulum may swing as a culture moves from times of excess to times of conservatism, but the idea of liberty for all is something that should pervade our culture despite any swing of the pendulum.
Liberty does pervade our culture. But this does not now and never has meant gay marriage. Sodomy itself was just recently decriminalized after being illegal for the entire history of the Republic. Such "progress" is actually a symptom not of liberty but is instead a victory for libertine values which have proven devastating for societies throughout human history.
QuoteI believe you are simply prejudiced against anything you do not consider "normal." The trouble with that prejudice is that it is not your position to say what truly is normal.
You are right. It is not my position. But it is clear from thousands of years of human history that homosexual behavior is aberrant just as is criminal behavior and other dysfunctional behavior - all of which is injurious to society.
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 13, 2009, 11:49:30 PM
Was this something you read on a bumper sticker? Really, that is a truly meaningless statement.
Not a bumper sticker--I take credit for that one. Your beliefs on marriage reek of false righteousness--aka sanctimony.
QuoteYou are right. It is not my position. But it is clear from thousands of years of human history that homosexual behavior is aberrant just as is criminal behavior and other dysfunctional behavior - all of which is injurious to society.
Even if we ignore historical evidence, just because there is a common thread of error throughout global cultural development exists, it does not mean we cannot acknowledge it in the present and move forward. People for thousands of years thought the Earth was flat, and that there were four elements, etc. Popular beliefs throughout history do not make current beliefs fact.
However, history does not support your argument, even if it were sound. Although it is a poor example, pederasty was practiced in every ancient culture of note--in both the west, and the east. It continued through the ages in different forms; in some areas was accepted as late as the 19th century. There is even
debate on whether Luke 7:1-10 and Matthew 8:5-13 refer to a pederastic relationship--but I know how you feel about using the Bible against you. Also, and do spare me the Catholic bashing, but even Pope Julius III was believed to have had engaged in pederasty with his adoptive nephew. So too did many other figures of note throughout history.
Ignore pederasty. There are still many examples of homosexuality throughout history. Plato's
Symposium describes an army of same sex lovers to defend the city state. There was the Sacred Band of Thebes. Hercules had male lovers, as did Achilles with Patroclus and Alexander the Great with Hephaestion.
There are so many other examples of homosexuality, transvestism, and the like through the ages and across cultures that one could write many books on the subject.
For you to dismiss homosexuality as aberrant simply because it hasn't existed out in the open within cultures ruled by Christian morality does
NOT make it aberrant or dysfunctional.
Speaking of Christians making sodomy illegal (a tenet of your argument), the primary sin of the city of Sodom was not specifically homosexual sex until so interpreted by Justinian I of he Byzantine Empire in the 500s CE. He cited this as a basis to create anti-homosexual laws used to prosecute political enemies for whom no other charges could be drawn. :)
Are you honestly attempting to argue that the historical rarity of wealth and/or education has any connection to whether or not homosexual conduct should be celebrated or condoned today? I am not sure that I would accuse someone else of being "boneheaded" if I were making such a fatuous argument. :D
Quote from: CMG22 on January 14, 2009, 01:09:03 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 13, 2009, 11:49:30 PM
Was this something you read on a bumper sticker? Really, that is a truly meaningless statement.
Not a bumper sticker--I take credit for that one. Your beliefs on marriage reek of false righteousness--aka sanctimony.
Sanctimony doesnt really seem to apply here.
Quotesanc⋅ti⋅mo⋅ny
1. pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctimony
What is pretended, affected or hypocritical about my position? I am not homosexual myself, I am married, and I am a student of history who is aware that all successful and healthy cultures and all religions have considered homosexual behavior immoral and have taken steps to limit homosexual behavior. So, I am sorry but your attempted put down does not fly here.
Quote
QuoteYou are right. It is not my position. But it is clear from thousands of years of human history that homosexual behavior is aberrant just as is criminal behavior and other dysfunctional behavior - all of which is injurious to society.
Even if we ignore historical evidence, just because there is a common thread of error throughout global cultural development exists, it does not mean we cannot acknowledge it in the present and move forward. People for thousands of years thought the Earth was flat, and that there were four elements, etc. Popular beliefs throughout history do not make current beliefs fact.
What exactly is your point with this passage except to present the logical fallacy of a false analogy? Thinking the world is flat (it clearly is not) is not the same thing as thinking that embracing homosexuality is not conducive to having a healthy society (it clearly is).
QuoteHowever, history does not support your argument, even if it were sound. Although it is a poor example, pederasty was practiced in every ancient culture of note--in both the west, and the east. It continued through the ages in different forms; in some areas was accepted as late as the 19th century. There is even debate on whether Luke 7:1-10 and Matthew 8:5-13 refer to a pederastic relationship--but I know how you feel about using the Bible against you. Also, and do spare me the Catholic bashing, but even Pope Julius III was believed to have had engaged in pederasty with his adoptive nephew. So too did many other figures of note throughout history.
Ignore pederasty. There are still many examples of homosexuality throughout history. Plato's Symposium describes an army of same sex lovers to defend the city state. There was the Sacred Band of Thebes. Hercules had male lovers, as did Achilles with Patroclus and Alexander the Great with Hephaestion.
There are so many other examples of homosexuality, transvestism, and the like through the ages and across cultures that one could write many books on the subject.
Pederasty is "practiced" today also in some segments of society. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
And, are you comparing adult homosexual relations to man-boy abuse? Both are deviant practices, I agree, but clearly the abuse of minors is far worse. In any event, the fact that a deviant sexual behavior occurred in the past is not an argument that it should be celebrated today or that such relationships should be made an equivalent of standard marriage today as all deviant and improper sexual behaviors have also occurred in the past. There is nothing new under the sun, my friend.
Oh and BTW no serious Biblical scholar would agree with you that the Bible condones pederasty. That is frankly absurd on its face.
QuoteFor you to dismiss homosexuality as aberrant simply because it hasn't existed out in the open within cultures ruled by Christian morality does NOT make it aberrant or dysfunctional.
If the fact that the sex act is unhealthy, does not aid in the production of offspring and is reviled by the vast majority of people both today and in the past does not make it aberrant and dysfunctional, I dont know what does.
QuoteSpeaking of Christians making sodomy illegal (a tenet of your argument), the primary sin of the city of Sodom was not specifically homosexual sex until so interpreted by Justinian I of he Byzantine Empire in the 500s CE. He cited this as a basis to create anti-homosexual laws used to prosecute political enemies
hahaha. Interesting rewriting of the Bible. What is your source? gay.blogspot.com?
Finally, I have not made Christianity of "tenet of my argument". You did. There are many many non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage and sodomy generally.
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 13, 2009, 11:35:32 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on January 13, 2009, 10:21:21 PM
My stats were local, yours are national.
Your "local stats" come from dubious sources.
Yes, that Times-Union is just such a "dubious" source...
LOL
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 13, 2009, 11:49:30 PM
Liberty does pervade our culture. But this does not now and never has meant gay marriage. Sodomy itself was just recently decriminalized after being illegal for the entire history of the Republic. Such "progress" is actually a symptom not of liberty but is instead a victory for libertine values which have proven devastating for societies throughout human history.
Yes, and since we're talking about stupid laws in Texas, then walking your pig on the street on Sunday is illegal. It also is illegal to shoot a buffalo from a second story window of a hotel. But not any other floor. It's also illegal to take more than 3 sips of beer while standing. *yawn*
If you want to go back and start talking about 150 year-old laws and what little sense they make, then at least let's discuss the whole picture shall we...
Yet another false analogy. Those clearly frivolous laws are not analogous to the bans on sodomy and gay "marriage". BTW, you can make the same "argument" in favor of lifting the ban on bigamy, child abuse, drug use, murder, etc, etc. It would be just as specious then too.
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 17, 2009, 12:22:17 AM
Quote from: CMG22 on January 14, 2009, 01:09:03 AM
Quote from: RiversideGator on January 13, 2009, 11:49:30 PM
Was this something you read on a bumper sticker? Really, that is a truly meaningless statement.
Not a bumper sticker--I take credit for that one. Your beliefs on marriage reek of false righteousness--aka sanctimony.
Sanctimony doesnt really seem to apply here.
Quotesanc⋅ti⋅mo⋅ny
1. pretended, affected, or hypocritical religious devotion, righteousness, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sanctimony
What is pretended, affected or hypocritical about my position? I am not homosexual myself, I am married, and I am a student of history who is aware that all successful and healthy cultures and all religions have considered homosexual behavior immoral and have taken steps to limit homosexual behavior. So, I am sorry but your attempted put down does not fly here.
Oh, it does indeed fly (and my commercial pilot license makes me the expert on this matterâ€"thanks for the metaphor :)).
From your same source:
Quoteaf⋅fect⋅ed â€"adjective
1. acted upon; influenced.
2. influenced in a harmful way; impaired, harmed, or attacked, as by climate or disease.
How is your religious devotion and/or righteousness affected? One can only guessâ€"perhaps by some demonic spirit? My guess would be the same one that occupies Fred Phelps.
If we really want to get into the words though, I suppose sanctimonious was not the best word. Perhaps supercilious? ...at least in your heterosexuality relative to homosexuals.
QuoteOh and BTW no serious Biblical scholar would agree with you that the Bible condones pederasty. That is frankly absurd on its face.
Please do not put words in my mouth sir. I said there is
debate on whether or not Luke 7:1-10 and Matthew 8:5-13
refer to a pederastic relationship. Though I am curious if by “serious Biblical scholar,†you mean someone who studies the Bible which they already believe is THE word, as currently written in the KJV. Or does it more correctly mean someone who studies the Bible from a literary stance: as a story written by people with their own biases, describing things that occurred many decades (if not centuries) before they lived, using their ancient vernacular, and to finally be translated before its meaning can even be considered by you and I?
QuoteIf the fact that the sex act is unhealthy, does not aid in the production of offspring and is reviled by the vast majority of people both today and in the past does not make it aberrant and dysfunctional, I dont know what does.
Unhealthy? I would say that most any sex act offers physical exercise, which would certainly not hurt the average American. Please do articulate yourself as to its health detriments.
Aid in the production of offspring? I suppose we should reenact the sodomy laws, and also disallow oral sex, masturbation, male-female anal sex, and contraceptives? Forbid sterile people from having sex at all? If you really want to use that as an argument, you must follow through with all of it, Sir.
Reviled by the vast majority of people today and in the past? Data please.
Quote
QuoteSpeaking of Christians making sodomy illegal (a tenet of your argument), the primary sin of the city of Sodom was not specifically homosexual sex until so interpreted by Justinian I of he Byzantine Empire in the 500s CE. He cited this as a basis to create anti-homosexual laws used to prosecute political enemies
hahaha. Interesting rewriting of the Bible. What is your source? gay.blogspot.com?
Thanks for the idea. I checked it out. It’s simple, but kind of funny. Anywho. No, actually not. Check out Ezekiel 16:49-50. I would say that sums it up well. Now, check out Justinian’s NOVEL 141.
If you really wanna stick with the story of Sodom being about homosexuality though, you have to wonder why he later
impregnates both of his daughters. Better to smite people who have relations with no chance for reproduction, rather than to stop
inbreeding, huh?
QuoteFinally, I have not made Christianity of "tenet of my argument". You did. There are many many non-religious reasons to oppose gay marriage and sodomy generally.
What non-religious reasons are there to oppose gay marriage and sodomy? Enumerate them for me, please? (Do not include “people don’t approve of it.†People have disapproved of many things in the past, which we now see as completely wrong.
Objective things, only.)