Your homework assignment

[Couture]

Without getting into the politics of it or the blame game, something very important is happening right now in the US. Most of us weren't alive when slavery was abolished, and we missed out on the women's suffrage movement, some of use even missed the civil rights movement. In each case, it was necessary for one group of us to educate and change them minds of the rest. It was never an easy fight.

Right now on this very day there is another movement going on, just as important as the movements in days gone by. There is a class of Americans that are discriminated against. They are victimized, disowned from employment, religious institutions - even their own families. I guess you could say they have been kept in the 'closet'.

Short and sweet, the point being that it is wrong to discriminate against people based on race, sex, religion, and yes, even sexuality.

Now, I know that it feels strange and weird seeing two men or women holding hands or kissing. But, do you think it didn't feel weird for men when women first entered the workplace or voting booth? When whites had to share a seat on the bus with blacks? Watching interacial couples kiss?

My point being that it is wrong to deny homosexual couples the right to marry. It doesn't hurt anyone to allow them this right. And it is a right. By denying them this, the government is saying to the homosexual couple that even though you love one another and want to live a life together, what you are doing is wrong. We don't recognize you.

And that my friends is WRONG. It is wrong to keep people down. It is wrong to discriminate...and this is discrimination. It doesn't matter that heterosexual people are the majority. God's first rule wasn't Leviticus. God's first rule was the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

So straight or queer, it's time to let people know. We're all writers - so let's write. Writing your congressman or sentator isn't enough. It would have never worked for the other movements and it won't work now. Write your paper and tell 'em it isn't right. Once again it's time to change.

 

[gauchecritic]

I'm not exactly sure what the arguement here is. Are you saying that homosexuals should be seen as married in the eyes of God. That is clearly not going to happen. Homosexuality as far as I know is an abomination.

Or are you asking if the state should legalise gay nuptials? I'm guessing here but I'm pretty sure that, what with weddings anywhere you like and theological doctorates available on the net, then the legalities of conuptial bliss are purely a matter for the courts, as I'm sure they already have been, in terms of alimony etc.

You have it in everything but name as far as I can tell.

Gauche

 

[TheEarl]

Leviticus also sanctions taking slaves from neighbouring countries. Divinely inspired or not, some of the bible is out of date and I know a lot of Christians who are fine with homosexuality.

The Earl

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

God's first rule wasn't Leviticus. God's first rule was the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Just a quick, theological note: Old Levi was around a long time before Jesus showed up and preached the Sermon on the Mount which included the Beatitudes, such as "Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God," and the Lord's Pray, in addition to the Golden Rule.

Just a quick, semantic note: homosexuals can get married. There's a growing number of ministers, including at least one Episcopal bishop up in, I think, New Hampshire who'll perform the service. Those ministers believe such a couple would then be married in the eyes of God.

What a same-sex couple cannot do, at present, is get a legal document from any governmental authority within the United State, other than the free city of San Francisco, granting them certain benefits now given only to heterosexual couples.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Dirt Man]

Leviticus also sanctions taking slaves from neighbouring countries. Divinely inspired or not, some of the bible is out of date and I know a lot of Christians who are fine with homosexuality.

The Earl

I always get a kick out of people saying that the Bible is; "Out of date." In so much as it is the most published book around, and at the end of this book there is a warning about anyone daring to change what is written in it. Or for those who are always pulling verse out of context to try to make an invalid point. The same can be done with any book with as many stories in it as the Bible. Some books are just instant classics I guess. And no, I don't mind others choosing a life of co-consenting homosexuality as long as it doesn't adversely affect others. My sister is a confirmed lesbian, yet I don’t pull away when we kiss in greeting just because I know where her face has been recently. But I feel the same way about heterosexual lifestyles. I don't have to like something to respect someone else’s feelings about it. I am not the final judge, I am just a fellow sinner. I mean I love my fellow man, I just prefer having sex with my fellow woman. They’re a hell of a lot more interesting to talk to, and own more options to fornicate with. As for the matter of slavery, being Afro-American I think I can live with the BDSM crowds thinking on this subject as well since the intent is mostly of a loving, or sexual intent, otherwise I leave history to itself as a useful learning tool for the future.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[kellycummings]

I've always looked at this in terms of love. If two people love each other then they deserve to be together. No one should be able to stand in the way of their happiness. It is no different than if your son or daughter marry a man/woman who you disapprove of. You may not like them but if you know they love each other you won't stand in their way. All people who are in love deserve the same respect and legal benefits. If you don't want to call it marriage, fine, call it a civil union. Whatever. Just let them be, they are in love.

 

[kellycummings]

I have one more thing to say here.
I was on a different site just now and saw several things where people had written that if gay marriages are allowed then it will be the end of the human race because procreation will stop. WHAT???????????
Has the national IQ really dropped that low?
Please tell me that not everyone is that stupid!

 

[Dirt Man]

Re: Re: Your homework assignment

I agree.

If, by some chance, same-sex marriages become legal in the United States, do you think the Mormons will push for legalized polygamy, too?

I mean the likelihood of legalized same-sex marriages might be akin to hell freezing over, and if/when that happens, maybe they'll think they have a chance to practice religion however they see fit. *shrug*

My point is, there's always someone ready to be offended at choices that seem foreign and "wrong" to them.

Well, since you did ask, here's a little history:

I don't know anywhere in the Holy Bible, or the Book of Mormon for that matter where it says that polygamy is wrong. This is also true of the Koran, and Toura. At least as far as men having multiple wives was concerned. Of course certain rules of common decensy, and manners dictated that the husband treat all of his wives with equanimity for the most part, with the first wife having a slightly higher elevated status due to being his first choice. Women, of course, were only allowed one husband at a time. I guess it was decided that since women were more loyal than men when it came to sex that it worked out better this way. And too, much later in history it would sure have cut down on the divorce rate in California, and pretty much eliminated the need for divorce lawyers there altogether. But I digress.

Homosexuality was pretty much frowned upon in the Bible's Old Testament also, but then so was fornication without the blessing of marriage. These laws are part of those added by Moses after the Hebrews insisted that he put them in there. But they are by no means God's as he only gave us Ten Laws back then, and since all of God's laws have the penalty of death for infringement, so did all of the additional Mosaic laws the Hebrews asked for, as that what sin's penalty is, eventual death of the human body. This would be that foreign, and different thing you were talking about.

As for the Sodom, and Gamorah connection, that almost always invariably gets linked with this issue by those who study the Old Testament, God nuked them for their arrogance more than anything else. They knew that there was only one God, and that he was their creator, but they refused/rebuffed his mastery over them. In effect play acting as if they were each God himself, and had no accountability to the real divinity whatsoever. In effect immatating Lucifer when he first confronted God. The same is true for why God flooded the Earth. These people acted pretty much the same way some people act even today. However after the flood God commited himself to a covenent with all of mankind not to do that again, and sealed it by creating the rainbow as a constant reminder to himself.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Remec]

Just a quick, semantic note: homosexuals can get married. There's a growing number of ministers, including at least one Episcopal bishop up in, I think, New Hampshire who'll perform the service. Those ministers believe such a couple would then be married in the eyes of God.

What a same-sex couple cannot do, at present, is get a legal document from any governmental authority within the United State, other than the free city of San Francisco, granting them certain benefits now given only to heterosexual couples.

Which, in my view and to my way of thinking, is exactly what the problem is.

The core issue is what is a marriage?

If marriage is a sacrament, or a divinely bestowed blessing by an agent of whatever god(s) this individuals in question honor, than it cannot and should not be a governmentally sanctioned bond between these individuals. Rather than define marriage in the lawbooks, they should set forth what the criteria for establishing recognition of the rights, privileges, and responsibilities that an individual may share with, pass on to, or divide among whatever other individuals they desire.

California was the first state, as far as I know, to recognize "palimony" and say that you owe certain people a share of what you may have achieved during the time you were together...married or not.

To me, you can't have it both ways. Either they're married, just not by a church or agent thereof...or by the state or agent thereof...or they are not married. Thus, either they are entitled to spousal rights and benefits or they're not.

 

[Remec]

Re: Re: Your homework assignment

I agree.

If, by some chance, same-sex marriages become legal in the United States, do you think the Mormons will push for legalized polygamy, too?

I mean the likelihood of legalized same-sex marriages might be akin to hell freezing over, and if/when that happens, maybe they'll think they have a chance to practice religion however they see fit. *shrug*

My point is, there's always someone ready to be offended at choices that seem foreign and "wrong" to them.

The official line, last I heard, from the Mormon Church was that polygamy was not recognized.

I think a larger push for such would come from immigrants belonging to various Muslim sects that still follow such practices. One man, one woman is still the norm for the majority of the world, but it is not such a norm as they would lead you to believe.

 

[Dirt Man]

I have one more thing to say here.
I was on a different site just now and saw several things where people had written that if gay marriages are allowed then it will be the end of the human race because procreation will stop. WHAT???????????
Has the national IQ really dropped that low?
Please tell me that not everyone is that stupid!

No, not everyone is that stupid.

As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Boxlicker101]

What a same-sex couple cannot do, at present, is get a legal document from any governmental authority within the United State, other than the free city of San Francisco, granting them certain benefits now given only to heterosexual couples.

Rumple Foreskin

Unfortunately, those marriage certificates in SF will certainly be ruled invalid because they were issued contrary to state law. A couple of years ago there was a referendum or initiative passed which said, in affect, the only legal marriage in CA shall be between a man and a woman. I am not sure but I believe this law has been ruled to be not unconstitutional, either in CA or in the USA or both.

I wonder about gay marriage. Would two gay men who are brothers, that is, full siblings, offspring of the same mother and father, be allowed to be married? Would this be contrary to the laws against incest? If the laws specify "man and woman", such a marriage would not be contrary. Furthermore, such a marriage would not be contrary to the historical reasons for incest laws, which were to prevent inbreeding, either.

 

[Boxlicker101]

California was the first state, as far as I know, to recognize "palimony" and say that you owe certain people a share of what you may have achieved during the time you were together...married or not.

To me, you can't have it both ways. Either they're married, just not by a church or agent thereof...or by the state or agent thereof...or they are not married. Thus, either they are entitled to spousal rights and benefits or they're not.

Is there actually a law in California recognizing "palimony" I know there was a court decision letting a lawsuit go forward and there was the Marvin vs Marvin case of a few years ago. That was a case of contractual law and the court ruled that it could not be proven that such a contract existed, and ruled against Michelle Marvin's claim of "palimony". Then it threw her a bone in the form of a $100,000 award, which was peanuts compared to the millions she was after.

 

[Guest]

I am curious

How do civil ceremonies figure into all of this?

I have no problem with folks who believe homosexuality to be wrong because of certain passages found in the Bible.

(I don't happen to agree with them, but I have no problem with their opinion.)

So, in this day and age should same-sex couples be allowed to have a church wedding blessed by a priest? That will be up to our well-educated clergy to debate forever. (And I'm sure they will.)

But a civil ceremony? How can our government decide based upon a religious ideal who should be allowed to marry in a civil ceremony?

I believe political opinions in this area are a horrific governmental imposition. Why are we allowing the government to decide our religious boundaries?

Makes me wanna go kick some ass!

AND I have to share a funny. This was posted in the GB last year, I think. I saved it 'cause it's good. I like the Biblical perspective. (I sent it to my pastors - they thought it was pretty funny, too!)



Subject: Ask Dr. Laura...
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 19:27:43 EDT

Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a U.S. radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a U.S. resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,

Joe MacDougall

 

[McKenna]

.

 

[Guest]

 

[kellycummings]

Those were great and go right along with what I think of Dr. Laura. What a bitch!
It also goes with what I think of people who use the Bible to prove their point. I believe in the Bible but I also believe that it was written by imperfect men who would sometimes write things to serve their own purpose. These people who want to point out a particular verse to say that homosexuals are wrong need to take a long hard look at things and realize that maybe, just maybe, God didn't intend for us to take everything so literally.
Of course they won't listen to any arguments because many are so simple minded and stubborn.
I was reading on the cnn site that in SF one person was holding a sign that says God HATES homosexuals, drunkards, adulterers, etc. Last I knew, God doesn't hate anyone, he is pure love.
Dr. Laura falls into that group, what a self-serving, hate filled, ignorant piece of garbage she is.
I suppose Dr. Laura fans are gonna get on me now but that's how I feel.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Those were great and go right along with what I think of Dr. Laura. What a bitch!
It also goes with what I think of people who use the Bible to prove their point. I believe in the Bible but I also believe that it was written by imperfect men who would sometimes write things to serve their own purpose. These people who want to point out a particular verse to say that homosexuals are wrong need to take a long hard look at things and realize that maybe, just maybe, God didn't intend for us to take everything so literally.
Of course they won't listen to any arguments because many are so simple minded and stubborn.
I was reading on the cnn site that in SF one person was holding a sign that says God HATES homosexuals, drunkards, adulterers, etc. Last I knew, God doesn't hate anyone, he is pure love.
Dr. Laura falls into that group, what a self-serving, hate filled, ignorant piece of garbage she is.
I suppose Dr. Laura fans are gonna get on me now but that's how I feel.

I haven't run across too many Dr. Laura fans here, so I wouldn't worry too much. In fact, if memory serves, Sher or someone else posted a little snipit about how she's not even a real doctor. This may be wrong, but I think I heard she's some kind of Physical Therapist by trade. Who knows? All I know is that whether people like it or not, change is happening and if you don't like it you don't have to live it.

I personally would not be moved if a woman dropped to her knees and said, "Lucky, my darling, I love you with all my heart. Will you please civil union me? We can live etrnally together and even share health benefits and insurance, but we're not really married. It's all in our minds and no one will really look at it the same because I am not a man. But please do me the honor of becoming my unionized partner and let's live happily ever after."

~lucky

Even though the law states that common law marriages are just as legal and binding as actual applied for nuptials, I've asked many people if one was more binding and the unanimous response was that a church or jp ceremony meant more in their eyes than a union decided upon common law statutes.

 

[Guest]

Those were great and go right along with what I think of Dr. Laura. What a bitch!
It also goes with what I think of people who use the Bible to prove their point. I believe in the Bible but I also believe that it was written by imperfect men who would sometimes write things to serve their own purpose. These people who want to point out a particular verse to say that homosexuals are wrong need to take a long hard look at things and realize that maybe, just maybe, God didn't intend for us to take everything so literally.
Of course they won't listen to any arguments because many are so simple minded and stubborn.
I was reading on the cnn site that in SF one person was holding a sign that says God HATES homosexuals, drunkards, adulterers, etc. Last I knew, God doesn't hate anyone, he is pure love.
Dr. Laura falls into that group, what a self-serving, hate filled, ignorant piece of garbage she is.
I suppose Dr. Laura fans are gonna get on me now but that's how I feel.

I actually know the person with the sign they are referring to (the family group, actually).

I live in Lawrence, KS. In Topeka, KS (about 30 miles away) there is a family group who travels around the country spreading their hate-filled messages.

"God Hates Fags" is quite the common sign, and it is most offensive to everyone I know.

The group uses their children to help them spread their horrible message, and they tend to picket funerals of people who have died from AIDS, or known homosexuals, or anything which will give them publicity.

They actually have a website - God Hates Fags - scary as hell.

I am disappointed they are getting publicity from CNN - in Kansas no one ever puts them on the news.

 

[Remec]

I personally would not be moved if a woman dropped to her knees and said, "Lucky, my darling, I love you with all my heart. Will you please civil union me? We can live etrnally together and even share health benefits and insurance, but we're not really married. It's all in our minds and no one will really look at it the same because I am not a man. But please do me the honor of becoming my unionized partner and let's live happily ever after."

There's an article about Melissa Etheridge in one of the magazines I get this week that had a great quote. I may not remember it verbatim, but it was basically like this.

(Asked about her wedding to her girlfriend)

"It looked like a wedding, it felt like a wedding, it cost like a wedding. We're married."

<g>

And that's what counts in the long run...what you feel like and what you decide between you, not necessarily what's between you and the state or the insurance companies...although it would be nice if they would catch a clue...

Me and my wife celebrate two anniversaries each year. We had planned out a big celebration, invited friends and family, got two ordained friends of ours to perform the service I wrote, and then her ex drug his heels in getting the last bit of paperwork delivered to the court which meant the earliest she'd have permission to get legally married was 30-90 days after we'd scheduled the ceremony.

Well, since my friends (as it turned out) weren't currently licensed to perform weddings, we had them conduct the ceremony which I revised to be a celebration *of* our wedding and impending marriage...and then went to the JP exactly 6 months to the day and had the real thing performed.

 

[Guest]

. . . ~lucky

Even though the law states that common law marriages are just as legal and binding as actual applied for nuptials, I've asked many people if one was more binding and the unanimous response was that a church or jp ceremony meant more in their eyes than a union decided upon common law statutes.

I loved our church wedding and wouldn't change a thing. But I have friends who chose the civil route (one due to finances, another due to extreme haste because of job issues) and they are no less married (in the legal sense) than my husband and myself.

Legally, the church isn't necessary to marry. (Not for taxes, not for insurance, health benefits, property rights, wills, etc.)

And our friends? One couple is now talking about having a church ceremony to celebrate an upcoming anniversary because she always wanted the church aspect. The other couple doesn't give a damn either way.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I loved our church wedding and wouldn't change a thing. But I have friends who chose the civil route (one due to finances, another due to extreme haste because of job issues) and they are no less married (in the legal sense) than my husband and myself.

Legally, the church isn't necessary to marry. (Not for taxes, not for insurance, health benefits, property rights, wills, etc.)

And our friends? One couple is now talking about having a church ceremony to celebrate an upcoming anniversary because she always wanted the church aspect. The other couple doesn't give a damn either way.

I agree and that was the point I was attempting to make and apparently failed in doing so. I was meaning that if I ask a stranger which union is more acceptable or what have you, one being a marriage with a justice of the peace or a minister or whomever in the "planned fashion", and the other being a common law situation where they are essentially 'deemed' wed after a certain period of time (six months, here and a shared bank account). In most people's eyes, the common law situation was less acceptable/meaningful.

Even though they knew it was just as binding and legal as any other kind of union listed, for some reason the planned aspect and moving through the legal channels and proclaiming their union, as it were, means more to the general populus. I think it's asinine and happen to believe that marriage is a simple word that means a union between two people who love each other.

If I hear, "Sandy and Chris are getting married!" from a friend who is describing people I don't know. My first thought is not, "Hmm, I wonder if Sandy is the guy or if Chris is the guy." I don't feel the need to know if it's two men, two women or one of each. I instantly say, "Wow! That's wonderful. I hope they will be very happy." It makes no difference to me that their gender might not match up with public opinion, it matters to me that they love each other and are commiting to that love.

I agree, that no matter how it comes about it is just as meaningful in the legal sense, but what are we so afraid of with the word marriage meaning love instead of man/woman?

~lucky

 

[destinie21]

All I want to ask is wh do people always fall back on the bible when it comes to gay marriges? What is that all about if you want to go by the good book (which I'm not saying is out of date) Then why don't we make laws against premarital sex and fornication and hell why not even thoughts of coveting your neighboors wife after all the bible preaches against it all. and if I'm not mistaken according to the bible a sin is a sin.