Gays & Marriage

[Aranian]

But you see, there's the problem. How many people, adult or otherwise, would willingly consent to such an operation? And if it's fine for an organization (or government) to mutilate its citizens, what's wrong with killing them? Of course, if you look at Clinton's response to what happened in Rwanda, then I guess we think there's nothing wrong with it.

-Evidently some people do if FC still exists in the civilized world.
-If someone wants to kill oneself, for religeon or whatever the reason, it's considered suicide. I'm pretty sure assisted suicide is illegal in most places, presumably for reasons that have nothing to do with ethics, but again, I don't think there are any laws prohibiting people from killing themselves. If there were, what would the punishment be? A life sentence?

 

[Gaucho]

-Evidently some people do if FC still exists in the civilized world.
-If someone wants to kill oneself, for religeon or whatever the reason, it's considered suicide. I'm pretty sure assisted suicide is illegal in most places, presumably for reasons that have nothing to do with ethics, but again, I don't think there are any laws prohibiting people from killing themselves. If there were, what would the punishment be? A life sentence?

I guarantee you, Aranian, there's not a woman on this planet who is willingly lining up to let some man remove her clitoris with a knife. And as for prohibiting people killing themselves, the law has a term for suicide, assisted or otherwise. It's called murder.

 

[Aranian]

I guarantee you, Aranian, there's not a woman on this planet who is willingly lining up to let some man remove her clitoris with a knife. And as for prohibiting people killing themselves, the law has a term for suicide, assisted or otherwise. It's called murder.

I think you should take a second look at the sentiment about FC in the middle eastern countries before you guarantee anything to me. Many women of the islamic culture are circumcuzed willingly. In fact, I recall a video from a high school sociology class where several islamic women were defending FC in a pannel discussion.

My only problem with it is that most circumcisions in the islamic culture take place at an age significantly lower than what I would consider "an age suitable for making such a decision".

As for suicide, I'm pretty certain that the state views a suicide as a suicide and not a murder. I'm no law buff and I have no source to verify it...but then neither did you. =)

 

[Gaucho]

I don't doubt that there are women who have submitted to the procedure without protest nor do I question your recollection of your high school sociology class. There are and will continue to be apologists for everything, even the Holocaust. To grant your point, however, I will rephrase my statement: Anyone who defends the practice of genital mutilation for whatever reason is either the victim of severe conditioning or suffering from deluded thinking.

It goes without saying that the preceding is my opinion.

As far as the legal definition of suicide is concerned, please consult the following website:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s197.htm

Fair enough?

 

[coaster]

Since the tax code penalizes the married couple and marriage is only as good as the commitment, why is this such a big issue? The smart couple, whether gay or straight, plans for their departure. Let's get back to a smaller government that doesn't interface with our personal choices. I wish I didn't have this fever!!!!

 

[teresafannin]

I think "severe conditioning" is a good point to bring up. I don't want to cast stones at any religion, but the Islamic religion & culture is totally male dominated. Women are for the purpose of bearing children. The women who defend the practice of FC most likely have no choice, it is all they know. Most instances of FC occur to very young girls & many die from infection & bleeding. There is no way these children are capable of making such a decision & I seriously doubt any adult woman would submit to it willingly. The women in the video you speak of most likely had no choice, again, in such a male dominated society, women do what they are told if they want to survive. You never hear of grooms being burned alive if their wife dies, but many women die in such rituals every year in India. Just because a practice has gone on for centuries, doesn't make it right. With all the talk of equality, minority rights, etc, women & children in most parts of the world are still treated as expendable. I know better than most how valuable life is & it should never be taken for granted. I do tend to get on a soapbox, don't I? Sorry for the rant.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

In legal terms, Marriage is looked on as a contract, one the state supports and promotes because it fosters a strong civil bond that develops a family which is the cement of all civilization.

So, to the state's mind, the question isn't a moral one, but a contractual one: will homosexual "marriages" produce strong family bonds? The argument is yes and no.

-Yes, gay relationships can last a lifetime.

-No, gay relationships do not produce children (without enormous effort).

All the arguments are relative, of course. Plenty of straight marriages break up and don't produce children, so where's their family cement value? Why should Ken and Barbie who split after two years with no kids be more worthy than Tom and Dick and their adopted son Harry?

Any worry anyone has about the legailty of gay marriage being abused by singles marrying for profit, or locking people into unhealthy relationships, or fretting over handing children over to people not able to raise them, should understand that these things already exist, in excess, in straight marriages. And until the state starts passing "fitness for marriage" tests for straights, I don't think they should impose the same sort of criteria on gays.

There is a group called the American Association of Single People that has wised up and is no longer pushing "gay" rights, but "singles" rights, which is more inclusive and less likely to be smashed by Washington homophobes. They have a very credible, well thought out platform of ideas, all based on the legal and economic rights of singles and life partners. (I forget their web address, but you could do a search if you're interested.)

_______________________________________________

In a gentler world:

"I Roy, take thee, Zeigfried..."

 

[Renee]

So, to the state's mind, the question isn't a moral one, but a contractual one: will homosexual "marriages" produce strong family bonds? The argument is yes and no.

-Yes, gay relationships can last a lifetime.

-No, gay relationships do not produce children (without enormous effort).

I would think that both answers would have to be answered yes they are the same whether they are gay or straight.

Yes both gay and straight couples can and do last a lifetime.

And yes, Gay relationships can produce children and in the same way many straight couples either choose to or have to... let me explain:

If a straight couple were to try to conceive and for some reason they could not, yet really wanted a child, they would then go to either to an adoption agency or a fertility center. Now, Gay men can also adopt, which is the one and only choice they have... however, it will lead to having children in the same way a straight couple may choose to have children. Gay woman have the same choices as the straight couple either adopt or go seek fertility treatment such as sperm donorship. Not all fertility treatments use the eggs and sperm of the couple, many couples have either one or both partners with weak eggs and low sperm counts.. so they end up with donors.

So since all three scenarios can in fact bring children into their lives to raise into strong well rounded adults who will ensure the ongoing of life.. then I guess some religious beliefs should change their views on gay marriages. Afterall isn't the end result the same? They are in their own way being fruitful and multiplying... Or, are they saying that should a straight couple choose not to have children, or, find that they have to use fertility methods or, for whatever reason, seek adoption, they are in fact breaking their marriage contract? I have never heard of that one before but it makes you think... what would make it right in their eyes for the straight couple to do this, but not a gay couple?

Both couples straight or gay could be very strong and loving and make great parents. I know a quite a few gay couples that have been with each other a long time and truly love each other and children... I also know many straight couples who although they have been together many years, they fight like crazy and really screwed up their kids... which would you rather have raising a child? Just because you're straight it doesn't make you the perfect parent.

Or what about the straight female who does not want a male in here life yet wants a baby.. should she go to hell for seeking out a sperm donor?

I think the church should really stay out this all together. They are the ones in fact that say, God leads us in this path of life.. so who is to say, he/she didn't seek out a path to give everyone a chance to raise a child if they truly want one ... even if it was in what they call an unconventional way?

I hope this made sense... I am in a hurry and didn't have time to re-read it... sorry.

 

[Aranian]

I don't doubt that there are women who have submitted to the procedure without protest nor do I question your recollection of your high school sociology class. There are and will continue to be apologists for everything, even the Holocaust. To grant your point, however, I will rephrase my statement: Anyone who defends the practice of genital mutilation for whatever reason is either the victim of severe conditioning or suffering from deluded thinking.

It goes without saying that the preceding is my opinion.

As far as the legal definition of suicide is concerned, please consult the following website:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s197.htm

"Deluded thinking and severe conditioning" are very subjective terms and can be applicable to anyone who may not hold the same opinions as you.

Point taken about the present legal definition of suicide, but that simply raises another question about the legitimacy of the state imposing restrictions based on a judgement of morality.

 

[Guest]

I am not God.

My job, as defined by God, is to try to turn them to the Christian walk of life. I don't do that very well because I don't talk to people about God. They either see him workin in my life or they don't. I'ma bad Christian, prolly goin to hell, but whooooopee.

You are a better Christian than most, my friend. Read "Joshua", by Charles Grizone.

 

[lala]

long winded but you could try to read it,.. (*pout*)

so we have two issues- (in my little world)

state sanctioning-

as for state sanction, gays want the right to recieve alimony checks like eveyrone else! (that was my funny for the post, laff damnit! )

but seriously folks, at the point that we're at we should know better,... what am i saying? we still swear on the BIBLE in court, and to inaugurate our president, a position that has not once been held by a woman (even though the highest position in government in some of these gov'ts you've been bitching about have!) hell we get bibles in our hotel rooms, you get the idea.

if anyone thinks we've separated church from state they need to reevaluate the situation,...

with that said, i think government should allow gay marriage. i also think the government should set aside all religiously flavored activities. until we fully separate church and state church will color state decisions. and as long as it does, it will be that much harder to get any secular activity like this support from the government.

spiritual ritual/ceremony-

obviously religious sects (large and small) have the right to enforce whatver moral standards they want within their congregation (etc) i will not ask any private group (even if i disagree with them) to change their policies to go against a basic part of their structure. i think gays have a right (like anyone else not belonging to an organized religion) to find a spiritual ceremony that suits them and doesn't use/twist/etc current traditions.

when (if) i get married it may be just that- something created to suit my beliefs (i don't want to lie and say i would follow a faith that i can't just to get married) but i don't think there are that many gays wanting the christian world to change a behavior based on something written in their scripture (the bible is not like constitution, you can't vote to change it,... another funny,..)

alright, that's my view, at east i'm not the only long winded one (for once!)

thanks bye

 

[Siren]

Worth repeating

 

[Sonora]

I tried to post this this morning, but the server must have been down for a while.

My dictionary's primary definition of marriage is: The social institution by which a man and woman are legally united and establish a new family unit.

It says nothing about religion. You can be (obviously) legally married without doing it in a church. The church is only a 2nd CHOSEN part of the commitment. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with being legally married. NOTHING.

Warning--Rant follows:
I personally have no use whatsoever for the 'church' and all it's BS. They are as bad as politicians when it comes to bending and breaking the 'rules' that they choose to follow and the ones that they think only others should follow. All religion is is a "warm and fuzzy feeling" when things don't go your way ("it must be god's will"), you're scared (god is with me, I'll be OK) and a way to explain those things that seem unexplainable (how did we all get here). People, there is no more a christian god than the was a Zues, Apollo, or Pele. It's a well perpuated myth. One that is continued either by force or fear. Rant's over (for now).

Gays and lesbians should have the right to legally marry. They should be afforded every benefit (and tax) as hetero married couples.


As for FC and being done on willing adult women, I'd bet it happens more than some of you might think. Even in 'civilized' countries like the US. Check this out (it does say thatit is not the same as in Africa or Middle Eastern countries): http://www.bmezine.com/glossary/ **I just realized that you'll have to look it up yourself. Click on the "F" and it will take you to the correct page to click on FC.

 

[Unclebill]

Originally posted by Laurel
Here's two points to ponder:

1) Should you force a moral code upon an organization? Should the Catholic Church be pressured into accepting gay marriages? Should the Boy Scouts be made to accept homosexuals? Should the KKK be made to accept blacks into their ranks? Should those who practice female circumcision of their infant children be pressured into abandoning the practice?

2) Would you back state-sponsored protection for gay couples, so that gay partners could enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples?

Should you force a moral code upon an organization? NO!, not on anyone, group or individual, the single exception being one's own child(ren).

Should the Catholic Church be pressured into accepting gay marriages? NO!

Should the Boy Scouts be made to accept homosexuals? NO! [See below regarding right of free association]

Should the KKK be made to accept blacks into their ranks? NO! [although I find this mental image amusing, a la Blazing Saddles!]

Should those who practice female circumcision of their infant children be pressured into abandoning the practice? YES! This comes under the heading of child abuse (physical mutilation, i. e., female genital mutilation] and would not be tolerated by any rational, moral, civilized human being. And, BTW, I apply the same rationale to male genital mutilation, i. e., circumcision.

Would you back state-sponsored protection for gay couples, so that gay partners could enjoy the same legal rights as straight couples? NO! Rights is innate and applicable only to the individual. There is no such thing as group rights. Any benefit conferred from membership in any group is a privelege or benefit, not a right since it is not and cannot be applicable to all people. The concept of freedom entails the right of freedom of association which means that it is morally wrong to compel association with those with whom you disagree.

For example: As an athiest belonging to a group of athiests, as a group I would not welcome someone religious as a member of that group because they do not share my values and beliefs. We do not have common values and thus to compel our association is ludicrous and a violation of my right of free association. However, I might be friends and associate with this person under a different shared interest or value, e. g., computers, numismatics, etc.

Originally posted by teresafannin
My answer to #1 is no.I personally don't see how you can force a moral code upon a group.It is too difficult to legislate morality.[/B]

The problem is, Teresa, that it's all too easy to legislate morality. Look at the plethora of laws which are written specifically for that purpose. Of course, enforcement becomes a tad more problematic and these laws then become denigrated to selective enforcement which denigrates the idea or valid and proper laws. Legislating morality creates a set of laws which in essence define Political Crimes, e. g., gambling, drug use, possession and sale, prostitution, etc.

As to the question of marriage in general, a few months back Dr. Laura posed a question along vaguely the same lines. I responded with the following (to which I never received a response):

Regarding your moral question of the day with respect to government legitimizing marriage between two (or more) people of unspecified gender, the following is my judgement with the basis for said judgement.

A legitimate government in a free society has but one legitimate purpose: to protect the rights of its citizens. To do so, government is and must be the primary legitimate arbiter in the use of force with the exception of immediate self defense of oneself or one's family and property.

Therefore, legitimately, government is an instrument of force. In order that a citizen's rights cannot be violated by the government, government may only legitimately use force in a retaliatory action. The initiator of force is the criminal. The retaliatory use of force is defensive and thus non-criminal.

It is critical to understand the principle illustrated above since it is germane to the following judgement.

Marriage is a relationship born of social and religious origins. Since there are numerous social and religious attitudes and philosophies, until one is PROVEN (and by this I mean in accordance with the scientific method) correct and all others then necessarily proven invalid, it is clearly outside the province of government to select any religious or social custom as law.

For government by law, i. e., by fiat, to declare that the social relationship of marriage confers on those who choose it certain benefits and privileges is absolutely immoral. This is discriminatory and is forbidden to a legitimate government. The reason is that government, an instrument of force, is used by some to imposed a specific custom on all as though it were correct. The means of selection is by majority rule; stated more bluntly, by the gang with the most power, i. e., by mob rule. This is immoral at best and criminal at worst.

For a religious organization or for individual citizens to disapprove, scorn, segregate, or treat as outcasts those who choose to deviate from their accepted tenets is completely acceptable SO LONG AS the initiation of force either overt or covert is not used to attempt to gain compliance.

As an example, as a businessman, should you choose not to deal with a couple "shackin' up" as you so eloquently put it, you are entirely within your right. For example, you are not obligated to rent a room or home to them, to sell them food or fuel, or to provide any other service in which you may deal. If you choose to speak to them about it and try to convince them to comply with your beliefs, you are also within your rights.

If you can enlist the cooperation of others to the same ends, you (and they) are within your (their) rights as a free man (men) in a free society to do so.

When you begin to attempt the use of force, e. g., intimidation by threat, physical harm by your action, etc., your have exceeded your right to freedom of choice and action and have crossed the line from acting within your rights to the status of criminal.

Therefore, the answer to your question regarding the reunited siblings who are reunited not aware of their genetic relationship being allowed to marry, it is not the province of a legitimate government to make that determination. Nor is it within the legitimate authority of government to coerce religious organizations (or any other for that matter) to permit or perform said marriage.

 

[Latina]

The issue with the Boy Scouts was that, yes, they can choose to keep gays out of their organization, BUT--they hold weekly meetings in public schools, and they camp-out in state and nationl parks, where such disrimination is CLEARLY illegal. They also accept government funds and government tax breaks to keep their organization going. The courts gave them two choices:

1. Continue to exclude gays, but accept NO government funds, give up their non-profit tax exemption, and never meet AS AN ORGANIZATION on any government-owned land (individual boy scout leaders could camp with their families in national parks, of course, but the entire troop cannot camp there together), or:

2. Stop discriminating against gays.

It costs a LOT of money to run the boy scouts, and the government is their biggest contributor. They may file appeals, but given those two choices, which of these two options do you think they will ultimately choose?

-- Latina

 

[Unclebill]

Laurel, see what you started!

… where such disrimination is CLEARLY illegal.

You're allowing yourself to be taken in by the prevalent idea that because it's illegal, it's wrong. (If you're in some states, oral sex is illegal. Is it wrong?) Discrimination in and of itself is not bad. Everyone does it everyday. Any time you choose, you discriminate. If you choose relish instead of onions on your hot dog, you're discriminating. Wrong? No, merely choosing. Why can the Boy Scouts not choose the people to be scout leaders? By your rationale, they should be forced to accept child molesters as well. The rationale is exactly the same when you peel away the 'let's all feel good about ourselves' veneer and address the underlying principle.

For the government to discriminate is TOTALLY and COMPLETELY WRONG! But the government is a unique entity in that it MUST see all people as indistinguishable, i. e., they have the same rights and are afforded the same protection by the law. The constraint on government is not legitimately applicable to the individual or to an organized group of individuals who have no authority to use force except in self-defense.

For the government to decide they MUST accept into their ranks those with whom they do not choose to associate is a criminal behavior on the part of government.

… give up their non-profit tax exemption …

Why? Have they suddenly become a for-profit organization? This is another example of courts and judges promoting an agenda. And in the IRS code is a convenient bludgeon to use in gaining coercive compliance.

… and never meet AS AN ORGANIZATION on any government-owned land (individual boy scout leaders could camp with their families in national parks, of course, but the entire troop cannot camp there together)…

The individuals who comprise this organization have the right to use of "public facilities" by virtue of their individual rights, not by virtue of their affiliation with any group. There can be no legitimate prohibition of their use of such facilities whether the use is in association and affiliation with the group or not. For government to discriminate because they act in association in a non-criminal manner is WRONG and DESPICABLE because the government is discriminating against the individual citizen and thus cannot perform its legitimate function which is to see all citizens as indistinguishable and thus provide them equal protection.

.…2. Stop discriminating against gays …

The most egregious form of government oppression, i. e., your beliefs and non-criminal behaviors are not acceptable (politically correct), therefore, we, the institute charged with protecting your rights, declare that your rights are not to be respected because they offend someone and as the government agent, force will be used to suppress your right to freedom of association.

The Boy Scouts are not persecuting homosexuals, they are merely choosing to NOT TO ASSOCIATE! Homosexual activists via the courts are seeking to persecute the Boy Scouts by FORCING association where it is not desired and yet you express support for this point of view. And the courts and ACLU are aiding and abetting in the effort. I suggest you reevaluate your premise as to who is wrong here.

For an example closer to home, let's suppose that I desire to have sex with you but you choose not to participate. Since you have discriminated against me, I take you to court, charge that you have discriminated against me, and have the court order that you have sex with me. By the rationale cited above, that is perfectly legitimate don't you think, since both are dealing with the right to freedom of association? And since it is legitimate, you were wrong to refuse in the first place. The principle involved is precisely the same.

.… It costs a LOT of money to run the boy scouts, and the government is their biggest contributor. They may file appeals, but given those two choices, which of these two options do you think they will ultimately choose? …

First, I'd like some hard evidence of your declaration regarding government being the largest financial supporter of the Boy Scouts. Let's say I'm skeptical.

Second, the Scouts are as entitled to money the government has seized by force, i. e., STOLEN, as is anyone else, be it welfare recipient, corporate welfare, foreign dictator, or whomever. I agree that the Boy Scouts should not receive government funds. However, that is consistent with my beliefs that NOONE should receive government funds unless they are employed by the government to provide a specific service! People who legitimately receive government funds are military personnel, police, judges, and their attendant clerical and logistics personnel. Grudgingly, I must include elected political office holders also but they have elected to pay themselves FAR MORE than they will ever be worth! And they should receive NOTHING from government funds once they leave office.

The fact that these ASSHOLES have set themselves up with a pension system funded out of my pocket that pays them as much or more in retirement as while 'serving' just pisses me off. They are THIEVES!

 

[teresafannin]

Latina, I would be interested in knowing what Council of the BSA you are involved with. I would love the name of a contact out there that I could speak with. Feel free to email me. I would like to try to obtain some of that government money for my Scout Council, we are struggling to provide a good program for the boys in our area. We get nothing from the federal government or the state government. The majority of funding we have is from private individuals who have set up trusts to benefit the scout council & the people like me who pay for the opportunities to work with kids. 90% of the Scout Troops & Cub Scout Packs I have worked with in the past 10 years meet in churches or private homes & I am part of one of the biggest councils in the US. It costs money to keep public schools open after hours & we can't afford it. Cub Scout groups are only allowed to camp in BSA owned camps, this has been a rule for as long as there have been Cub Scouts. On the rare occasions that a Boy Scout troop camps in state or national parks, they are required to pay a fee, just like everyone else. Due to insurance concerns, within the next 5 years, Boy Scout troops will also be required to camp on BSA property & the vast majority of Scout troops are following this policy now. In virtually every appeal to a higher court, the Scouts have been found to be a non-profit,private organization. I would be very interested as to where you got your information about the government funding, I can find nothing about it in my files & notebooks that deal with both local & national scouting policies & procedures.