Twelve reasons why gay people should not be allowed to get married

[Celtic_Emperor]

You may have been the "calmest" person here, but you are by far the most immature person I have ever had the misfortune of coming into contact with.

I'm done.

I'm sorry that you feel that is so. Bad deal, I guess.

 

[juggernaut]

Vlad,

Don't take this as a personal attack. You've made enough enemies here. I've been known to lead a goosepile on you in the past, I've ripped you myself, and taken some good shots. We've also had some constructive behind the scenes conversations. I say that as a setup to the most objective thing I will have said to you yet:

It's admirable that you defend yourself. You're knowledgable in alot of areas. That's admirable, too. [But that's always being overshadowed by the fact that you talk about things like you're in court. Black or white.] And it's evident you're willing to let others have their opinion - which is good - and you enjoy both sides of a debate, even if you really like to win. And when I say win, I mean make the stronger case. Some you engage don't really want engaged, so it's a battle to get them to abandon their arguement because they're really just baiting you. Having said that...

Sometimes, man, you just have to say you're sorry. It was clearly not your intention to insult Camel, Ness or anyone else. Anyone who's been around and read your past stuff should know you don't make deliberate personal insults like that. But regardless... they found it extremely insulting and hurtful. The freedom of speech in this country is awesome, but it's not a blank check to say what you want. I'm gonna clarify that, again, I don't think you were throwing daggers, but you legitimately hit a nerve here and just as admirable as everything I listed above, it'd be a great thing to see you write something like "Ladies... I'm so sorry. I obviously didn't mean to offend you. I guess that was a really bad choice of words since it got such a reaction. I was just trying to say that from my own experience living where I do, I see... blah blah blah. That's all. Again, sorry that sounded bad."

It may not even smooth things over, but the total unwillingness to apologize is where they percieve this arrogance. It's not being sorry they don't agree with you, it's being sorry for hurting their feelings. You don't have to change your opinion, but we're still dealing with emotions and this topic in particular is about an entire lifestyle and you said it yourself... it's controversial. That's okay. But what I see happened here was they got blindsided by your comment and it's not gonna work itself out to argue over who's got the will to stand and trade posts with you the longest.

I'm not saying you don't have any humility, but I will say it's not on display here. It's not a weakness to apologize. I consider it a great strength. As a Christian, I know you're not unfamiliar with putting others first and I wouldn't be surprised to find out you're a good considerate family guy. And your credibility as an insightful member is not in jeopardy by mending a few fences here.

Just a thought. I'm not commenting on your views of the topic, just the action that should follow.


EDIT: Sorry, Val, I was typing this as you responded, so if the topic has been dropped, my apologies.

 

[Dude'sonfire]

Why do I sense a surrender in your voice? I openly encourage you to say whatever it is you feel you may have to say if you think it will improve this situation. Since there is noone here acting like a moderator you are actually doing a good job. Please don't think I've ignored you. 🙂

Heh, it's cool. I don't have any actual authority here, so all I can do is give my two cents, and I did that.

I would only add, and not to anyone specific, that words are fickle things. They don't mean anything on their own; meanings are formed through a complex system of mental associations, and many of the factors involved in forming these links are very dependant on personal experience.

And so, particularly when it is *only* the words being used (without body language, tone etc) things are open to huge degrees of interpretation. Judging people to fervently on what they feel, how they think, who they are, or even what they mean (to too great a degree) based soley on words is a very dodgy business, and almost inevitably leads to the drawing of innacurate conclusions.

Also, Vlad, I have to add for the sake of balance, that using a *large* number of words often compounds the problem. I accept that you like to be clear by defining the terms you use in detail, but the more words you use, the more you open the door for misinterpretation, not the other way around.

And I didn't think you were ignoring me :happy:

 

[Dude'sonfire]

Vlad,

Don't take this as a personal attack. You've made enough enemies here. I've been known to lead a goosepile on you in the past, I've ripped you myself, and taken some good shots. We've also had some constructive behind the scenes conversations. I say that as a setup to the most objective thing I will have said to you yet:

It's admirable that you defend yourself. You're knowledgable in alot of areas. That's admirable, too. [But that's always being overshadowed by the fact that you talk about things like you're in court. Black or white.] And it's evident you're willing to let others have their opinion - which is good - and you enjoy both sides of a debate, even if you really like to win. And when I say win, I mean make the stronger case. Some you engage don't really want engaged, so it's a battle to get them to abandon their arguement because they're really just baiting you. Having said that...

Sometimes, man, you just have to say you're sorry. It was clearly not your intention to insult Camel, Ness or anyone else. Anyone who's been around and read your past stuff should know you don't make deliberate personal insults like that. But regardless... they found it extremely insulting and hurtful. The freedom of speech in this country is awesome, but it's not a blank check to say what you want. I'm gonna clarify that, again, I don't think you were throwing daggers, but you legitimately hit a nerve here and just as admirable as everything I listed above, it'd be a great thing to see you write something like "Ladies... I'm so sorry. I obviously didn't mean to offend you. I guess that was a really bad choice of words since it got such a reaction. I was just trying to say that from my own experience living where I do, I see... blah blah blah. That's all. Again, sorry that sounded bad."

It may not even smooth things over, but the total unwillingness to apologize is where they percieve this arrogance. It's not being sorry they don't agree with you, it's being sorry for hurting their feelings. You don't have to change your opinion, but we're still dealing with emotions and this topic in particular is about an entire lifestyle and you said it yourself... it's controversial. That's okay. But what I see happened here was they got blindsided by your comment and it's not gonna work itself out to argue over who's got the will to stand and trade posts with you the longest.

I'm not saying you don't have any humility, but I will say it's not on display here. It's not a weakness to apologize. I consider it a great strength. As a Christian, I know you're not unfamiliar with putting others first and I wouldn't be surprised to find out you're a good considerate family guy. And your credibility as an insightful member is not in jeopardy by mending a few fences here.

Just a thought. I'm not commenting on your views of the topic, just the action that should follow.


EDIT: Sorry, Val, I was typing this as you responded, so if the topic has been dropped, my apologies.

I also read your post after my last one Val, so this will be my last, but I just have to say this:

Nerrad, you have officially been wiser that me.
...Bastard.

lol 😛

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Right now would be a good time for you to do that, for the good of the forum. This argument is going in circles and the original intent of the thread has been completely derailed, so someone needs to be the first to walk away from this before the thread has to be closed. There is no disgrace in admitting that this debate is now pointless and is doing more harm than good.

Dominoes.

They can easily be set back up in an original formation. Now how is that for an analogy?

I said what I said, and then I said it again to allow others to understand what I meant more fully. That was good for me to do that.

It is this arguing that needs to leave. I do agree with that.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Vlad,

Don't take this as a personal attack. You've made enough enemies here. I've been known to lead a goosepile on you in the past, I've ripped you myself, and taken some good shots. We've also had some constructive behind the scenes conversations. I say that as a setup to the most objective thing I will have said to you yet:

It's admirable that you defend yourself. You're knowledgable in alot of areas. That's admirable, too. [But that's always being overshadowed by the fact that you talk about things like you're in court. Black or white.] And it's evident you're willing to let others have their opinion - which is good - and you enjoy both sides of a debate, even if you really like to win. And when I say win, I mean make the stronger case. Some you engage don't really want engaged, so it's a battle to get them to abandon their arguement because they're really just baiting you. Having said that...

Sometimes, man, you just have to say you're sorry. It was clearly not your intention to insult Camel, Ness or anyone else. Anyone who's been around and read your past stuff should know you don't make deliberate personal insults like that. But regardless... they found it extremely insulting and hurtful. The freedom of speech in this country is awesome, but it's not a blank check to say what you want. I'm gonna clarify that, again, I don't think you were throwing daggers, but you legitimately hit a nerve here and just as admirable as everything I listed above, it'd be a great thing to see you write something like "Ladies... I'm so sorry. I obviously didn't mean to offend you. I guess that was a really bad choice of words since it got such a reaction. I was just trying to say that from my own experience living where I do, I see... blah blah blah. That's all. Again, sorry that sounded bad."

It may not even smooth things over, but the total unwillingness to apologize is where they percieve this arrogance. It's not being sorry they don't agree with you, it's being sorry for hurting their feelings. You don't have to change your opinion, but we're still dealing with emotions and this topic in particular is about an entire lifestyle and you said it yourself... it's controversial. That's okay. But what I see happened here was they got blindsided by your comment and it's not gonna work itself out to argue over who's got the will to stand and trade posts with you the longest.

I'm not saying you don't have any humility, but I will say it's not on display here. It's not a weakness to apologize. I consider it a great strength. As a Christian, I know you're not unfamiliar with putting others first and I wouldn't be surprised to find out you're a good considerate family guy. And your credibility as an insightful member is not in jeopardy by mending a few fences here.

Just a thought. I'm not commenting on your views of the topic, just the action that should follow.


EDIT: Sorry, Val, I was typing this as you responded, so if the topic has been dropped, my apologies.

You are not like the others, and again, it is to your credit and my good fortunate that you are here.

You bring up Christianity.

As God as my witness, I did what was right. I said something too brief, then, realizing it was too brief and may cause trouble, I went further to explain what I meant.

That it was quickly consumed by two of our ladies and taken at face value and an insult is something that is regretable, but something I do not have to apologize for.

If you ask me, not allowing someone to explain what they mean before you attack them is whats WRONG here.

I did just that regardless of the facts, and it was the right thing to do even if they were not going to listen at that moment. They were offended, and I regret that, but I do not apologize for it.

Call me stubborn if you must, but this is a no-brainer from my point of view.

This whole topic is controversial anyways, and it was already at a stage where it had evolved from just being a joking mockery of right wing extreme points of view, to it being about the nature of homosexuality (which I knew it would get into anyways; people have opinions and they want to give them).

That I made comments about butches, a part of homosexuality and how some lesbian couples interact with eachother, was not out of line, in my opinion. It would also serve as a discussion all it's own in that lesbians lack the presense of a male counterpart and how that affects the psychology of the relationship and how some lesbians may react to it.

If people can talk about breast milk and scientific research in regards to gays, I can make a single comment to another comment, in regards to the nature of a lesbian being a butch.

That I am an articulate speaker who can turn away an assault is to my benefit and the dismay of others. If they do not wish to tangle with me, they have options going into the discussions.

Like "what did you mean by that Vlad?"

Or "yeah, I noticed that too Vlad."

Or "I don't agree with that Vlad, but I do..."

There were any number of ways to react to it without feeling the need to confront me so readily.

I did all that I can do with what and whom I had to work with. To ask any more of me is unfair and a burden.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Heh, it's cool. I don't have any actual authority here, so all I can do is give my two cents, and I did that.

I would only add, and not to anyone specific, that words are fickle things. They don't mean anything on their own; meanings are formed through a complex system of mental associations, and many of the factors involved in forming these links are very dependant on personal experience.

And so, particularly when it is *only* the words being used (without body language, tone etc) things are open to huge degrees of interpretation. Judging people to fervently on what they feel, how they think, who they are, or even what they mean (to too great a degree) based soley on words is a very dodgy business, and almost inevitably leads to the drawing of innacurate conclusions.

Also, Vlad, I have to add for the sake of balance, that using a *large* number of words often compounds the problem. I accept that you like to be clear by defining the terms you use in detail, but the more words you use, the more you open the door for misinterpretation, not the other way around.

And I didn't think you were ignoring me :happy:

You're right. At no point and time was I ever disagreeing with you.

Tone of voice is absent on internet messege boards. That one detail alone can spell the difference in many situations.

They may have felt I was mocking lesbians. I was not.

The only agreeable solution for me is a two-way apology, and theirs must come first. It is only right as they interupted me, while in transition toward furthering my point and clarifying it.

If they feel this isn't something they should have to apologize for (catching me in the middle of a thought and then jumping to conclusions about it) then I shouldn't have to apologize for them taking it that way.

They're either going to admit they were wrong to be that forceful with me so quickly and that they did not have patience with the moment, or they get 0.

That is my offer.

If they don't accept it, thats their problem.

I can just as easily start talking about other homosexual things here and jumpstart this topic myself or allow someone else to do it...or allow it to die or whatever it's destiny is.

 

[juggernaut]

I'll say this then I'm done...

What happened here was an accident. You didn't mean to offend. But the fact remains that you did. And your willingness to shift the blame for it is a real head scratcher. You want an apology and you want it first? Nah. Not gonna happen. They didn't do anything wrong.

You're alone on this one, Vlad. And if I'm wrong about that, I'd love for all your supporters to show themselves here and speak up. And there's no tone of voice or expression on a face that'll make something offensive acceptable. If I told you face to face with a big smile and that your mother "wasn't all that ugly for being such a fat person", I doubt you'd be inclined to apologize to me.

I'm obviously not a lesbian, so I can't say I was personally offended, but I am disappointed. For someone who likes to champion doing the right thing, you're just not gonna.




By the way, I don't know Vlad's mom and I'm not implying she's fat or ugly. Just an example.

 

[TheChameleon]

If they feel this isn't something they should have to apologize for (catching me in the middle of a thought and then jumping to conclusions about it) then I shouldn't have to apologize for them taking it that way.

Now, Vlad, I'm not too sure what you mean by this statement, but I believe your saying that you didn't think out your post before you posted it.

Am I correct with saying this?

But, I would say, catching you in mid-thought shouldn't be an issue. We are posting, they don't see what your typing, only what you publish. So, although you feel you have done nothing wrong, which may be the case or not, it doesn't mean that you haven't offended anybody by publishing what form of opinion you have.

Remember, we all have this "Freedom of Speech" except, we're not definately allowed our Freedom of speech here. This isn't public property, this is owned by TTC, not you, not I, we certainly do not fund this place.

The man, woman, or conglomerate that owns this website has the option of allowing us to exersize our freedom of speech on this site or not, whether we like it or not.

I won't say I agree with your statement, clearly read, or misinterpreted, but I won't say that you meant to hurt anybody by it.

I just suggest you apologize for publishing your half-thought, instead of waiting until you had a full-thought waiting to be published.

Thank you,
~Chameleon

 

[juggernaut]

That's kinda what I was going to get into, but didn't. If you put a period after a sentence, you're done with it.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I'll say this then I'm done...

What happened here was an accident. You didn't mean to offend. But the fact remains that you did. And your willingness to shift the blame for it is a real head scratcher. You want an apology and you want it first? Nah. Not gonna happen. They didn't do anything wrong.

You're alone on this one, Vlad. And if I'm wrong about that, I'd love for all your supporters to show themselves here and speak up. And there's no tone of voice or expression on a face that'll make something offensive acceptable. If I told you face to face with a big smile and that your mother "wasn't all that ugly for being such a fat person", I doubt you'd be inclined to apologize to me.

I'm obviously not a lesbian, so I can't say I was personally offended, but I am disappointed. For someone who likes to champion doing the right thing, you're just not gonna.




By the way, I don't know Vlad's mom and I'm not implying she's fat or ugly. Just an example.

Of course I'm alone, sometimes. When has that ever bothered or stopped me? Others wouldn't validate me anyways. That is something only the individual can truely do for themselves anyway. To not rely on the help of friends or supporters to bail me out is something I have learned not to do, because to completely allow that would only serve to demonstrate that I cannot help myself.

It's something I don't want either. I wouldn't want to feel like I was saved, I can do that myself and I have many times.

This was just a bad deal, an accident, as you refer to it. Today is a new day, and I am looking forward to it.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Now, Vlad, I'm not too sure what you mean by this statement, but I believe your saying that you didn't think out your post before you posted it.

Am I correct with saying this?

But, I would say, catching you in mid-thought shouldn't be an issue. We are posting, they don't see what your typing, only what you publish. So, although you feel you have done nothing wrong, which may be the case or not, it doesn't mean that you haven't offended anybody by publishing what form of opinion you have.

Remember, we all have this "Freedom of Speech" except, we're not definately allowed our Freedom of speech here. This isn't public property, this is owned by TTC, not you, not I, we certainly do not fund this place.

The man, woman, or conglomerate that owns this website has the option of allowing us to exersize our freedom of speech on this site or not, whether we like it or not.

I won't say I agree with your statement, clearly read, or misinterpreted, but I won't say that you meant to hurt anybody by it.

I just suggest you apologize for publishing your half-thought, instead of waiting until you had a full-thought waiting to be published.

Thank you,
~Chameleon

No, you are not correct in saying that.

It is very rare that I do not think before I speak, so no.

What I said was I was in transition into elaborating further. I likened that to being "in the middle of a thought". I knew what I was saying and they reacted so quickly that I was caught before I will have had the opportunity to explain further.

Further to that, I have never implied or said I have not hurt anyone's feelings. For me to deny that as a possibility would be completely stupid, as I am in no position to tell another person how they feel. I can only recommend ways of dealing with it, I cannot tell them how to feel.

I don't know why you feel the need to cite freedom of speech. Anything anyone says is a freedom of speech here. Citing ownership when I both know the owner and now how much he's paying to keep this place alive (which is nothing short of amazing) seems like a side issue, if you don't mind my saying so. I get what you're trying to say, but it's not like I'm waving around a free speech flag at some rally or demostration and am protesting something.

Your suggestion is duely noted. From my point of view I was interupted before I could finish. I had every intention of finishing what I was saying in further posts whether they had something to say or not. That it turned into a typical broken-record argument with others giving their two cents caused me to be side-tracked and deal with that as opposed to the topic of butches. I was in no position to be apologizing at that point anyway. When multiples are engaging you, multiples were engaging you. It's hard to focus your attention when several people want a piece of you and you're dealing with all of them at the same time.

If people were to bar the argument itself, and focus on the original posts, they will see that I not only corrected the error/typo but expanded upon the point, which is only basic conversation.

Once more and again, this is already a controversial topic and I don't blame anyone for having strong feelings about it either way.

If the people that are offended really feel an apology is owed, then they're going to have to ask me for it themselves, in this particular situation. To do so at the chiding of a group would not be sincere (like what you guys are doing). And honestly, the only one who would have the real reason to do that would be Camel. And I might add that while she was angry, she spoke to me in a respectable way, unlike the others. It's also a fact that she only posted once. She was not arguing with me. And though I explained myself and she may have yet to read any of that, if I was going to apologize to someone, it would only be her.

I don't owe an apology to people who choose to argue with me, because they know what they're getting themselves into and are largely bringing it upon themselves. Camel is an exception, which is why she is the only one, in my mind, that is going to get anything.

"Vlad, it would look alot better for you if you took the initiative and just apologized so she doesn't have to ask for one"

is probably what several of you are thinking. You may even think it rude.

Yet, you don't know my reason for doing it this way. You see, by her asking me for it, she has the opportunity, if she so wishes, to explain HOW I hurt her feelings. I can then tailor a sincere apology from that.

To apologize by initiative, in this situation, just because it might help me "save face" is not the right way to go as it shows I'm more concerned with how people percieve me for it than actually apologizing.

 

[nessonite1]

I know someone who does that sometimes. Refuses to apologize until the other person does so as well.
Apologies are not conditional. You're either sorry or you aren't. Someone can't withhold an apology because he feels he is owed one as well.
Also someone should not have to go seeking one out. If you're sorry, you'll say so. if you're not sorry, you won't. Without conditions and without prompting. I feel Camel is owed one, big time. Be a man and give her one of your own accord.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I know someone who does that sometimes. Refuses to apologize until the other person does so as well.
Apologies are not conditional. You're either sorry or you aren't. Someone can't withhold an apology because he feels he is owed one as well.
Also someone should not have to go seeking one out. If you're sorry, you'll say so. if you're not sorry, you won't. Without conditions and without prompting. I feel Camel is owed one, big time. Be a man and give her one of your own accord.

We're past that point, and I already know those things. I was angry. I had a right to be as well, given the nature of the argument and how it quickly became about me and less about what I said, which, given circumstances, I rectified anyways, at least technically.

You don't need to inform me of the nature of nonconditional apologies.

If she was that hurt, she will tell me she was, and I'll handle it from here. I will not assume the nature of the wound, how deep it cut, and how much of an apology is necessary. This is something that can only be evaluated by her telling me how she feels about it. As I said above "I can then tailor a sincere apology from that"

To do so now at the chiding of everyone else would not be sincere, because I'm being pushed to do it.

If you guys want the fairy tale ending you need to be patient.

 

[juggernaut]

Though I usually love your insightful, albeit longwinded posts, that has to be the most ignorant thing I've ever read on this website. I'm shocked and rather disappointed in you.

Wow.

*utterly disappointed*

That was loud and clear...and offensive...

Honestly? This needs clarification? Which part?

Camel can speak for herself. If you don't apologize, fine. But just drop this whole ignorance plea like you're not sure how she feels about it. Read it again. Since she's not pressing it, I'm not saying any more. But she may not be pressing it because she has no desire to talk to you.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I never said anything needed clarification.

"Wow" and "*utterly dissapointed*" are not conclusive ways of coming to terms with me full-circle. All it shows anyone is how she felt then, in the context of how I said it originally.

It is for that reason that I and everyone else cannot assume what she would think now. It is not a plea since I'm not looking for redemption. That would imply I've done something horribly wrong, when, if you take the exageration away from this situation, you'll see there is no horrible wrong, but an accident as you yourself admited.

If she chooses not to persue this then thats her right. I would understand either way.

And for that matter, if I do apologize, I see no reason to do it public now. It wasn't a spectacle then and it isn't now.

 

[CellarDweller]

Marriage is and should be a committent to stay together thru it all and develope an "agape" relationship (agape is the greek word for perfect love, without qualifiers or demands for anything back).

So why can't two men or two women make that commitment?

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

Let us continue this thread, shall we?

Here is a list I've created of any number of gay issues we could talk about that have something to do with the original topic. Feel free to choose one or come up with your own:

1.) Two mothers, two fathers. Good or bad?
2.) Adoption by gay parents
3.) Artificial insemination
4.) Under-the-table marriages
5.) The affects of homosexual congressman
6.) The do's and don'ts of gay rights petitioning
7.) Co-existance with heterosexuality
8.) Raising a gay child
9.) Gay rights propositional ballets
10.) How to teach tolerance in a heterosexual society

 

[CellarDweller]

Marriage, in it's original form, was created by God in order for man and woman to COMPLETE each other. It's not about a ceremony or civil union for people to celebrate, but to create a stable unit to nuture a family, to protect the woman, and make the male a true man.

As I stated above, marraige is an God-ordained union between man and woman, not meerly a 'civil union.' It has been watered down into a tradition by those who either refuse to recognize that or do their best to avoid His role in it. No wonder 50% fail. They don't have the true foundation needed to make it last.

That's just your belief.

My friend just lost her mother. Her father died 5 years ago. Her parents were married for just over 50 years. They were married by a justice of the peace, in a courthouse ceremony....no church wedding, and together raised 6 daughters. Their marriage was just as valid as any other "God ordained union".

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

That's just your belief.

My friend just lost her mother. Her father died 5 years ago. Her parents were married for just over 50 years. They were married by a justice of the peace, in a courthouse ceremony....no church wedding, and together raised 6 daughters. Their marriage was just as valid as any other "God ordained union".

I think what you're refering to is a technicality. I think he was refering to the idea that marriages were never designed to merely be a legally binding contract of sorts, that, they were ultimately more, and as such should remain as intact and unaltered as possible (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong hawkeye)

That people can live and have wonderful lives and raise wonderful children outside of a traditional marriage was never in question, since we can all appriciate the symbolic gesture. It says very little however for the legitamacy of the current laws on civil unions, since the conclusion is the system is the way it is because it serves the majority and seeks to preserve it.

No matter how one words it, it will boil down to traditionalist points of view and how they impede any alternate civil union advancements. The system is the way it is because it services the majority, not a minority.

It just so happens that this country was founded on Christian values, as well. No one is to really blame for that. If Buddhists got here first maybe things would be different.

Because of this religious influence (right or wrong) it is not just hawkeye's belief, but that of a christian nation, in that God intended marriage to be as it is though not as deluted and anal as it has become.

If people want to use the "christians have higher divorce rates" card here, then I have a counter for that as well. Although, it will then become a philosophically religious discussion, and I'm not sure thats appropriate unless necessary to the point.

 

[CellarDweller]

I think what you're refering to is a technicality. I think he was refering to the idea that marriages were never designed to merely be a legally binding contract of sorts, that, they were ultimately more, and as such should remain as intact and unaltered as possible (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong hawkeye)

I understand that.

This is Hawkeye's quote:

As I stated above, marraige is an God-ordained union between man and woman, not meerly a 'civil union.' It has been watered down into a tradition by those who either refuse to recognize that or do their best to avoid His role in it.


Go ahead, legalize a "civil union' between gays. Just don't call it marriage. It's not a marriage in the true sense. Besides, a majority of the ceremonies in the straight community aren't either. No 'agape', no true committment in many of those either. My wife and I celebrated our 18th wedding anniversary this year. We based it on more than just love. It's based on committment, as in "the "D" word is not an option."

The point in my story was that my friend's parents had a successful marriage, without a "God ordained" ceremony. If straight people can do that (and others do, not all straight people get married in a church) why shouldn't gay people get that same opportunity?

 

[sgtfrantz]

The debate of gay marriage reminds me of this group in England called "Christian Voice" which claims to be all full of love and compassion for fellow human beings yet believes that homosexuals should be lawfully persecuted and even goes on to call homosexuality a disease in which they offer the "cure" (of course I'm sure there's a large evangelical sized fee involved). Anyway they came down to Bournemouth (where I live) once to protest against homsexuality in the police force (I really don't know how you can argue that you need to be straight to join the police) and have even set up a seperate anti-gay website to support their backwards views. Fortunately Bournemouth is a liberal town with many gay people so these fascists didn't get the support they had prayed for.

Anyway hats off to the satire in this thread, was a good read. Personally I believe gay marriage is an absolute right of the people, to me marriage is basically a commitment between two lovers which does not require the involvement of any religion. If you start prohibiting things on the basis of a certain religion then you go against the whole purpose of democracy which is supposidly "freedom". You can't make people follow the laws of the religion that you follow, that's just plain wrong, if you follow a religion, fine by me, just don't be an ass and impose it on everyone else.

There needs to be a wider seperation between church and state.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

I understand that.

This is Hawkeye's quote:



The point in my story was that my friend's parents had a successful marriage, without a "God ordained" ceremony. If straight people can do that (and others do, not all straight people get married in a church) why shouldn't gay people get that same opportunity?

The answer is simple. It's because we live in a society that services the majority, as I said. It's about conserving the rights of the majority by not allowing the definition to be editted.

It's not that you shouldn't be allowed, it's that you won't. End of story, for now. I don't remember who said it (I think several people did), but even they admitted that marriage for gays is a long way off and that when it comes right down to it, people vote against it.

The only way is to change these people's minds is the way the abolitionists changed people's minds.

You NEED people in HIGH places who are themselves not gay, and you lack that, as far as I know. Rallies and what not just piss anti-gay people off, and they spite you come voting time.

It's actually pretty cruel that the typical american does not vote, and therefore is somewhat indifferent about their own american destiny, but suddenly gives a damn when the word "gay" is mentioned.

 

[Celtic_Emperor]

There needs to be a wider seperation between church and state.

I'm not sure how far into the future people are willing to look beyond the problem of solving the homosexual rights dilemma, but you are aware of what would happen if Church and State were two completely different entities with their own unique sovereignty, right?

The country is slow to completely remove the two for very real fears. That the two are still intertwined with eachother is the only assurance we have.

 

[Cbarton]

That's just your belief.

My friend just lost her mother. Her father died 5 years ago. Her parents were married for just over 50 years. They were married by a justice of the peace, in a courthouse ceremony....no church wedding, and together raised 6 daughters. Their marriage was just as valid as any other "God ordained union".

You are making a couple of leaps of logic that I did not (intentionally, anyway) imply. The CEREMONY means nothing. God ordains THE RELATIONSHIP! It's the mindset of the couple. The phrase "Till death do us part" is taken much to lightly by people. Back then, people actually MEANT IT! My wife and I had the same mindset, unlike a high percentage of the current generation. Divorce was rare and hard to get back then. Today, I think it's waaay to easy to get married OR divorced. I am of the belief, like many clergy are, that pre-marital counselling should be requiered. As a man of faith, I have rarely seen a marriage survive long term without (1) A concrete committment by the bride and groom as in "Divorce is not an option and the word will not be spoken) (2) A firm religious foundation, for God created and ordained marriage (and yes, I have seen couples of other faiths with long-term marraiges, but they were well versed in their faiths as well, but that's for a different dicussion than this) (3) A long term outlook on the relationship and life. God can ordain a full-blown, fill-the cathedral, wedding-cake with layers to the ceiling wedding as much as a quick elopement to the local JP.

I am very skeptical about this push for 'gay marriage" because the prevailing motive I see promoted in the "drive-by" media for the past 5 years or more. The big push is not over 'the ordained relationship" but the right to get employer benefits, tax breaks, and the like. Now, I am NOT accusing Camel of this motive, but ever since this idea began to be promoted 5 or more years ago, THAT was the primary reason pushed in the press. This, combined with the flood that will hit the divorce courts as I mentioned above, makes me very skeptical of the many arguements I have heard from the other side of the arguement.

That's just your belief.

Is it my belief? Yeah, you bet it is! Just because it is and I'm a religious conservative, it should be just as valid as any other, and not just waved off as "That's just your belief..." and automaticaly disvalued (as I took your comemnt to mean, if not, then I apologize for the interpretation). Unless, of course, as Orwell said, "some are more equal than others.." as people of my stance are usually treated...