A Fuzzy Thread

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by VRM

Razor,
Morals change.

I am curious, though. What exactly is being forced on you? Nobody is making you marry a guy. I'm very curious about this one (Mike and others - feel free to jump in as well). How exactly does gay marriage affect you personally? I have two gay friends who will be tying the knot in a couple of months - how does that negatively affect you?

Steve

Steve, good question,
First: You introduced the moral issue saying that it was being forced by right wingers, I was trying to make the point that the change is happening from the left not the right. Traditional marriage has been accepted by society, hundreds of years in this country, and thousands of years by the rest of the world. Now their are those who want to redefine the basic building block of our society, the family,It is more than just a convenience thing for insurance purposes, and the like, it is taking our society in a totally different direction, that many of us believe is dangerous, in the fact that your wanting to change the foundation of our society. Their are certainly other laws that can be changed to give benefits, other than marriage laws.

Second:Making this change, of same sex marriage is going from structure, and order to nothing, that is no structure and order. We have accepted for quite some time that government was involved in the acquiring of marriage license. Now this would be totally taken away.
Their are groups that believe that brothers and sisters should be able to get married, (hold the southern jokes please), why not, what is the authority saying two men or women but may but others may not. A question like this is usually dismissed by the left, as nonsense, by rarely ever answered.

Third: This is a moral question, but as many moral questions it effects society. Just as the guy who thinks he can go around getting different women pregnant, leaving a trail of fatherless children,and saying his sexual behavior is his own business and not anyone else's. That type man is weakening the foundation, and we see the result in our headlines every day, with crime and poverty, this is a moral issue should we stay silent.

Fourth: You say morals change, I say they do not. That is the traditional Judeo-Christian view. Styles, music and taste may change, but behavioral morals do not. The great thing about our country is that we don't kill men for being homosexual, like Iran does, nor beat a women for talking to a man as they do in Afghanistan. We allow these differences, we might not like them, but their is more freedom here then is in much of the world. The Christian ethic wants to influence government the Muslim ethic wants to dominate.The Christian ethic wants to influence morality for a healthy society, not legislate theology. This is why the 10 commandments are prominently shown in the U.S. Supreme Court, held in the hand of Moses, its the influence of behavior that the commandments represent that is the morality we seek to defend.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by RAZOR

Steve, good question,
First: You introduced the moral issue saying that it was being forced by right wingers, I was trying to make the point that the change is happening from the left not the right. Traditional marriage has been accepted by society, hundreds of years in this country, and thousands of years by the rest of the world. Now their are those who want to redefine the basic building block of our society, the family,It is more than just a convenience thing for insurance purposes, and the like, it is taking our society in a totally different direction, that many of us believe is dangerous, in the fact that your wanting to change the foundation of our society. Their are certainly other laws that can be changed to give benefits, other than marriage laws.

Second:Making this change, of same sex marriage is going from structure, and order to nothing, that is no structure and order. We have accepted for quite some time that government was involved in the acquiring of marriage license. Now this would be totally taken away.
Their are groups that believe that brothers and sisters should be able to get married, (hold the southern jokes please), why not, what is the authority saying two men or women but may but others may not. A question like this is usually dismissed by the left, as nonsense, by rarely ever answered.

Third: This is a moral question, but as many moral questions it effects society. Just as the guy who thinks he can go around getting different women pregnant, leaving a trail of fatherless children,and saying his sexual behavior is his own business and not anyone else's. That type man is weakening the foundation, and we see the result in our headlines every day, with crime and poverty, this is a moral issue should we stay silent.

Fourth: You say morals change, I say they do not. That is the traditional Judeo-Christian view. Styles, music and taste may change, but behavioral morals do not. The great thing about our country is that we don't kill men for being homosexual, like Iran does, nor beat a women for talking to a man as they do in Afghanistan. We allow these differences, we might not like them, but their is more freedom here then is in much of the world. The Christian ethic wants to influence government the Muslim ethic wants to dominate.The Christian ethic wants to influence morality for a healthy society, not legislate theology. This is why the 10 commandments are prominently shown in the U.S. Supreme Court, held in the hand of Moses, its the influence of behavior that the commandments represent that is the morality we seek to defend.

Razor,
Well, you didn't really answer my question about what it does to you specifically, but I see how your concern for society as a whole affects how you view this issue. But you do bring up some other interesting points.

With regard to structure - there were no laws changed in MA to allow gay marriage. Some people tried (and still try) to change laws to eradicate it in MA.

I agree about the deadbeat dad types. I also don't like spousal abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, street gangs, and a lot of other things like that. I think the bulk of gays who want to get married are honest and decent people who are looking for stability. And I also suspect that many of them would be better parents than those deadbeat dad/abusive types. And since they cannot reproduce on their own they might make a perfect place to put kids who might otherwise have ended up as abortions.

It would seem that you are OK with allowing laws to give gay couples certain legal rights that are the equivalent of the legal rights associated with marriage. Calling those legal rights by the term 'marriage' only then becomes a religious or emotional need. I could care less about the religious need - religions are private entities and I do not want to legislate them. The emotional need is identical to straight couples, therefore I have no problem calling a set of legal rights 'marriage' as far as the legal aspects are concerned. Calling it the same thing for legal purposes will eliminate any possible advantage or disadvantage for one group or another.

I understand the argument regarding other types of marriages. Many people who are in favour of gay marriage do ignore potential problems with other types of marriage. I think it is because they do not understand the issues. The reasons are scientific; it is a proven fact that humans have all kinds of offspring problems when close relatives breed. It is 'morally' wrong because humans noticed thousands of years ago that kids of brothers and sisters usually came out sorta screwed up.
As for polygamy - Having 1 wife keeps me plenty busy - having more would probably kill me (though death by multiple girlfriend might be something fun to try). However, there are financial and legal reasons to not allow this. Group marriages would not qualify for the same legal benefits because trying to split spousal rights and benefits between multiple people is just not the same as with a single partner.

Morals do change.
The Bible says that gays can be killed simply for being gay. So 2 thousand years ago 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is gay'.

350 or so years ago people were killing 'witches' right here in the good ol' USA. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is a witch'.

150 years ago people were killing black people simply because they were black. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is black'.

60 years ago people were killing Jews, Gypsies, gays and a whole bunch of other people. That was viewed as morally acceptable by a lot of people.

Today, we shalt not kill, unless you happen to be Palestinian, Communist, Muslim, or whatever - then it is not so much a big deal because they belong to a different group than we do, and everybody knows that they are not quite as human as we are. I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but we do tend to get a bit cavalier about wiping out a bunch of people we have never met.

'Traditional' marriage has changed through the years as well. A few decades ago it was against the law in the US for a white person to marry a black person. Mormons were allowed to have multiple wives until the late 1800s. Less than 100 years ago half of a married couple could not even vote. India has a different set of marriage laws for a variety of religions. Humanity is constantly evolving (well most of humanity), and even those morals that seem set in stone get tweaked every so often. I would rather we make those tweaks based on the founding principles of this country rather than one group or anothers religious beliefs.

Steve

[cobra de capell]

[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by VRM

Razor,
Well, you didn't really answer my question about what it does to you specifically, but I see how your concern for society as a whole affects how you view this issue. But you do bring up some other interesting points.

With regard to structure - there were no laws changed in MA to allow gay marriage. Some people tried (and still try) to change laws to eradicate it in MA.

I agree about the deadbeat dad types. I also don't like spousal abuse, drug/alcohol abuse, street gangs, and a lot of other things like that. I think the bulk of gays who want to get married are honest and decent people who are looking for stability. And I also suspect that many of them would be better parents than those deadbeat dad/abusive types. And since they cannot reproduce on their own they might make a perfect place to put kids who might otherwise have ended up as abortions.

It would seem that you are OK with allowing laws to give gay couples certain legal rights that are the equivalent of the legal rights associated with marriage. Calling those legal rights by the term 'marriage' only then becomes a religious or emotional need. I could care less about the religious need - religions are private entities and I do not want to legislate them. The emotional need is identical to straight couples, therefore I have no problem calling a set of legal rights 'marriage' as far as the legal aspects are concerned. Calling it the same thing for legal purposes will eliminate any possible advantage or disadvantage for one group or another.

I understand the argument regarding other types of marriages. Many people who are in favour of gay marriage do ignore potential problems with other types of marriage. I think it is because they do not understand the issues. The reasons are scientific; it is a proven fact that humans have all kinds of offspring problems when close relatives breed. It is 'morally' wrong because humans noticed thousands of years ago that kids of brothers and sisters usually came out sorta screwed up.
As for polygamy - Having 1 wife keeps me plenty busy - having more would probably kill me (though death by multiple girlfriend might be something fun to try). However, there are financial and legal reasons to not allow this. Group marriages would not qualify for the same legal benefits because trying to split spousal rights and benefits between multiple people is just not the same as with a single partner.

Morals do change.
The Bible says that gays can be killed simply for being gay. So 2 thousand years ago 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is gay'.

350 or so years ago people were killing 'witches' right here in the good ol' USA. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is a witch'.

150 years ago people were killing black people simply because they were black. So 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is black'.

60 years ago people were killing Jews, Gypsies, gays and a whole bunch of other people. That was viewed as morally acceptable by a lot of people.

Today, we shalt not kill, unless you happen to be Palestinian, Communist, Muslim, or whatever - then it is not so much a big deal because they belong to a different group than we do, and everybody knows that they are not quite as human as we are. I'm being a bit sarcastic here, but we do tend to get a bit cavalier about wiping out a bunch of people we have never met.

'Traditional' marriage has changed through the years as well. A few decades ago it was against the law in the US for a white person to marry a black person. Mormons were allowed to have multiple wives until the late 1800s. Less than 100 years ago half of a married couple could not even vote. India has a different set of marriage laws for a variety of religions. Humanity is constantly evolving (well most of humanity), and even those morals that seem set in stone get tweaked every so often. I would rather we make those tweaks based on the founding principles of this country rather than one group or another's religious beliefs.

Steve

Steve,
The reason I didn't give an answer to your question was that its irrelevant, how it effects me personally, my opposition is how it effects society as a whole, just as I don't vote with my wallet, when deciding on a candidate.
You speak to an emotional need for gays the same as hetros, I couldn't care less for either groups emotion needs, and certainly don't want that as the guiding force on how to make the laws of the land.
You are still making decisions for the polygamist, and as far as close relatives, what is one is sterilized, so no offspring, what do we say to their marriage then?
As far as "thou shalt not kill", "you do err not knowing the scripture", the penalty of breaking many of the commandments was death, and the point being, homosexuality was not approved.
350 years ago in one small New England town, one preacher lead a group of town people to kill 21 women,for witchcraft, although tragic, it hardly set a standard of accepted accepted morality.
150 years ago the killing of blacks, was condemned by the majority and those guilty were of a vigilantly mentality.
60 years ago hundreds of thousands of brave Americans, along with British, Australian, French and others gave their lives to save the Jews, Gypsies, gays.
Today the Muslim, Communist, are strangers just as the Nazi, and Japs were in the 1940's. No we don't know them but if they want to fly planes into our building, wipe out Israel, their ours enemies and we will wipe them out. But I suppose by your statement we need to met them first them wipe them out.
Humanity is fighting the same battles it did 500 years, 1000 years, 3000 years ago. If it is constantly evolving why, is the battle field the same?
The principles of the founding Fathers were over whelmingly based on the Judeo-Christian principles. From the writing of John Locke on government, who also authored a commentary on the book of Romans, and the ideals of Mayflower Compact, in 1620 that favored a elected representative government, as they found in Exodus 18:25,26.
We do not need the government approval of same sex marriage, it is bringing in the religious views that you abhor, but it the religious view of the secular left that wants to rewrite the law, and shove it in our face, to make change as they see fit, and not follow the traditional founding principles that you said we should follow.

[bomelia]

Morals do change.
The Bible says that gays can be killed simply for being gay. So 2 thousand years ago 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' would have had the caveat 'unless the person is gay'.

Yes Steve, they do. But principles do not.

[cobra de capell]

Here's an interesting response to the Miss California flap over her comment that gay marriage isn't the way to go.....responding to Perez Hilton's comments....

My Apology to Perez Hilton
by Mike Adams
Thursday, April 30, 2009

Good afternoon, Perez. I’m sorry I haven’t yet taken the time to write you in response to your little flap with Miss California. I’ve been down in South Carolina spending the last few days with a beautiful woman who is opposed to gay marriage. I hope that doesn’t offend you. In Hollywood, that’s called bigotry. In South Carolina, it’s called “normal.”


http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeA...&comments=true