California Marriage Proposition

[dilvie]

I would like to share with you an email I sent to my Uncle after he circulated a letter to the family calling for support for the California proposition to constitutionally define marriage strictly between a man and a woman, as Utah did in 2004. I live in Salt Lake City, which is quite liberal and diverse, and I have had the opportunity to meet many gay men and women here. I count some of them among my best friends.

When I saw the letter being circulated to support the California proposition that would overturn a recent court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in California, I felt sick to my stomach that my own family, and the religion that I was raised in was sending a message of intolerance that would be heard by my gay friends and family. I felt a strong need distance myself from that message, and to point out to them how that message is being perceived by the gay community, and the people who love them. Below is the bulk of that email, but first, a little background.

I was raised in an LDS (Mormon) family, and left the Church as a teenager. I consider myself Buddhist / Daoist today, and my religious differences with my family are a frequent source of sadness and tension. Most of my family are active members of the LDS church, which has stated "unequivocally" that they support the constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, which would nullify legal gay marriage in California. The LDS church raised over $5 million dollars to champion the cause, and has encouraged its members to engage in a nation-wide grass roots movement to propel the ballot proposition to victory.

The wise thing for me to do in order to preserve good relationships with my family and childhood friends would be to keep my mouth shut. However, I feel strongly about this issue, and I believe that many of the LDS supporters of this initiative are in denial. The letter I initially responded to claimed that the ballot initiative would not hurt the gay community.

Perhaps they are unaware of the loved ones that their choices could affect. During this family-broadcasted email exchange last night, one of my cousins came out to the whole extended family. "I'm gay," he said. "I agree with the assertion that my sexual orientation is part of my core identity [...] kindly keep your legislation out of my personal life. Nobody has any business dictating to me such a personal affair as whom I'm allowed to marry."

If you are among those voting in California in November, or otherwise planning to take sides on this issue, please be sure of your position. This will have a tangible impact on real lives, and it is not a matter to be half-hearted about.


--

It is with love, respect, and admiration that I share my perspective on this issue. I want you to better understand my position, and I hope that it is a position that you can at least "respectfully disagree" with.

That said, if you have any doubt that this initiative is perceived in the Gay community as an attack, consider these words:

"...granting gay couples a 'separate and distinct' institution, domestic partnership, inherently asserts our inferiority as family members and citizens. It violates our core dignity. The m word matters -- not just in law, not just for the federal government, but also in our souls and psyches." - Andrew Sullivan


Telling the gay community that they cannot have the same rights that you have is divisive. It does hurt them. They feel judgment from the community in a way that has a profoundly negative effect on their self esteems, and those feelings still to this day drive gay members of religious and conservative communities to deny their own identities, and live miserable lives, thinking that nobody will ever love them for who they really are. In school, I knew a gay LDS man who faced exactly that every day, and I saw the pain that it caused him*. Everybody needs love.

If you disagree on the point that this constitutional amendment sends a message of intolerance, you're kidding yourself. Intended or not, it sends a clear message that you think that you're better than them, and that you're willing to fight to take their rights away. Being gay is far more complex than a moral choice about whether or not to shoplift a candy bar. "Gay" becomes a core component of their identity, just like your religion and your upbringing becomes a core component of yours. They don't see a separation between rejecting their "choice" of lifestyle and rejecting THEM as human beings. When they see letters circulating like the one you sent out, they don't feel your love and concern for your children and your church. They feel condemnation. They see a line drawn in the sand, and they perceive you as an enemy of their civil rights. I understand you have concerns about your children, and church rights, and those are understandable concerns, but I do not understand how that justifies putting your rubber stamp on a letter of condemnation.

So, circulate your letters and petitions. Rally the troops, but do so with open eyes, knowing full well that the gay community will see you as an angry mob coming to get them. If you're going to stand up and champion a divisive ballot measure, you might as well do it with integrity -- and that implies that you fully understand the message that you're sending, and that you stand behind it. If you believe that gays are sinners, come right out and say that they are sinners. If you believe that they should not be allowed to marry, come right out and say it, rather than divert attention from the true subject by talking about kindergarten field trips to gay weddings, and church tax exempt status.

Is that how you feel? Do you intend to assert the gay community's inferiority as family members and citizens? Do you intend to violate their core dignity? Do you intend to strike a blow to the souls and psyches of our gay brothers and sisters? What if it really was your brother, or your sister you were sending that message to? Would you still feel the same way?

If we fundamentally disagree, let us be absolutely clear about what we disagree on.

I understand and respect your choices if you have personal inspiration and personal confirmation that this ballot measure is inspired by god. I have had many spiritual experiences myself, and I would sooner give up my life than deny their importance. If you support this ballot measure with your whole being, because God himself has touched your heart, that's one thing. But to rubber stamp it out of blind faith because a press release insists that you should consider it inspired -- that I have more difficulty with. Brigham Young urged the members of the church to question him and seek personal confirmation. He cautioned against blind belief. He wanted his congregation to think, and make up their own minds -- to have faith, but to have their faith confirmed so there would be no room for doubt. If you can do that, and still stand behind the ballot measure, that's a position I can not only respect, but also admire.

Perhaps that is a high standard to meet, but if you're going to champion a cause that will have a harmful effect on otherwise good people, you should go into it with a fullness of conviction, with eyes wide open, and with sound integrity. Somehow, I doubt that all the LDS followers passing on these letters have put in their spiritual due diligence on this one. Have you?

- Eric

* My gay LDS friend is unmarried, and he believes he can never marry, because he is Gay and his religion forbids it -- not by choice. He is in the closet with his ward and his family, though I sincerely doubt that he's fooling anybody. He chooses to be celibate rather than commit the sin of gay sex. He believes he will never enter the highest degree of celestial glory because he will never have a wife. He is deeply tormented. He is also one of the most talented and generous men I know. He has devoted his life to helping others, and if anybody deserves God's love, it's him. These are just some of the social and religious pressures the gay population of Utah is burdened with. Shall we kick them while they're down?

[KC Meat]

What's this? Queers wanting to get married?! :mad: How god-damn-dare they think their relationships are ANYTHING like that of a man and a woman!! Marriage is ENTIRELY about a penis and a vagina, it does NOT take one's mind into consideration. If they don't pass this, God will surely sweep Cali into the ocean.

[GoldenGateSound]

Thanks for posting this, all kidding aside, this has seriously pissed me off as a California resident who used to live in Utah- because I know that while the Mormon Church stands up against the gay community, to the extent of this campaign and more, they've concurrently fostered a safe haven in their own state for child rapists and some of the most evil things I've ever heard of- blood atonement, baby cemeteries, etc- all this because they don't want to acknowledge the FLDS rapes and blatant abuses of human rights that go on in Colorado City and other locations like it.

Hello, Mormons being hypocritical? lol I think Utah should look in its own backyard before letting their prejudiced religious ways bleed over into California and the rest of the nation.

You want to set a moral precedent LDS members? Then stop the rapes and murders that happen to innocent people in Colorado City/HILDALE, UTAH.

[Senor Tapatio]

As a wise man once said:

We should let gay people marry each other. They deserve to be just as miserable as us married heterosexual people.

[A.D]

hyuck hyuck hyuck

[A.D]

In marriage there are 3 rings....

[KC Meat]

I wonder if I'll be alive for the moment the LDS prophet says that God has told him it's now OK to accept gays. God changed his mind about black people, so surely at some point he'll change his mind about gays once it becomes normal/accepted. If there is a God, he will allow me to live long enough to see that moment, just so I can laugh until I die.

[NY~Raver]

This is a moral issue. Marriage involves sacred covenants that are meant to be between male and female. It's unfortunate that in this day so many people disregard the vows that they have taken upon themselves, and make a mockery of them by committing adultery. We do not need unnatural couples adding to the mockery of marriage, which heterosexuals already have been doing for way too long.

Homosexuals already get tax benefits that should be more than enough for them. They can be just as happy or unhappy without that piece of paper. I don't believe their rights should be discriminated in hardly any instances they are people as well, and should be treated kindly and humanely. However the right to marriage should only be for a heterosexual couple.

As far as homosexuality becoming a norm in this country or anywhere else in this world well if that does happen I feel quite sad for the state of humanity. To you homosexuals on this forum please do not get your panties in a twist over my opinion it's just that, and well if you do than you can just lube it up and shove it up your ass like everything else that you should not be putting up there. ;) :2cents:

[A.D]

you're either a jackass or hilarious, I can't decide

[dilvie]

^^ Hilarious jackass? ;)

[Roto]

This is a moral issue. Marriage involves sacred covenants that are meant to be between male and female. It's unfortunate that in this day so many people disregard the vows that they have taken upon themselves, and make a mockery of them by committing adultery. We do not need unnatural couples adding to the mockery of marriage, which heterosexuals already have been doing for way too long.

Homosexuals already get tax benefits that should be more than enough for them. They can be just as happy or unhappy without that piece of paper. I don't believe their rights should be discriminated in hardly any instances they are people as well, and should be treated kindly and humanely. However the right to marriage should only be for a heterosexual couple.

. As far as homosexuality becoming a norm in this country or anywhere else in this world well if that does happen I feel quite sad for the state of humanityTo you homosexuals on this forum please do not get your panties in a twist over my opinion it's just that, and well if you do than you can just lube it up and shove it up your ass like everything else that you should not be putting up there. ;) :2cents:

Um... what tax benefits am I getting that I don't know about???


As far as your statement goes, I don't really think you know much about what you're talking about. Are you saying that a marriage is for tax purposes? And that we should "just be happy" to get a tax break?
Why do you feel that allgay people are going to break the sanctity of marriage vows and that we shouldn't be allowed to marry JUST because we'd be "making a mockery" about it. These statements definitely don't have any fact to thier value. Do you consider yourself an open minded person, sir?


I personally think that the laws on marriage could get a little tighter in one respect: people should have to know each other for a certain amount of time before they should be allowed to marry each other. At least ONE year for christ sake. The problem with marriage is that it's so EASY for anyone to just up and get hitched, like its nothing! I agree with you that the vows exchanged in marriage are very sacred and should not be taken lightly.

I do think that you miss the point that just because someone is gay, does NOT make them a raging, flaming whore of a homo (That's like me saying "ewww, i can't believe you want to put your DING in that VaChai HOLE!! That's disgusting to me" just because it's gross to me).
There are definitely quite a few gay couples that I know that should be able to marry since they've been together for so long.

[NY~Raver]

I'm sorry, but you misunderstood me. In NO way do I feel homosexuals are whores or sluts in general in ANY way. I imagine they can act just as faithful as any heterosexual couple. The point I was making with the adultery comment was that heterosexuals that commit adultery are making a mockery of marriage. Where as in my opinion if two men or two female are brought together by holy matrimony that it self is just as big of a mockery of the concept of marriage.

As far as Tax benefits to my understanding if you are a couple living together you can claim to be Domestic partners. This should give you the same tax breaks as married couples however I'm not completely positive that the breaks are the same (if they are not than they should be though). As far as the "just be happy" comment I say that because homosexual couples should receive the same financial benefits as married couples.

Domestic couples can be just as happy, and enjoy all the benefits of a married relationship without actually having to go through holy matrimony. Because in essence the sanctity of marriage is a holy thing and should be treated as such. I am sorry to tell you that homosexuality is not a righteous way of life, and people whom act in such ways should Not be allowed to be married.

Let me also make a point that I have had several homosexual friends who I find to be Awesome people! I have a high level of respect for those who are so confident in their sexuality although they must face ridicule at times. Also they were hilarious to hang out with and were Good people. I have had this discussion with my opinion of opposition towards gay marriage with them as well, and although they do not approve of my opinion they respect it just as I respect them. With that I'd like to apologize for making the rude "do not get your panties in a twist over my opinion it's just that, and well if you do than you can just lube it up and shove it up your ass like everything else that you should not be putting up there" comment it was disrespectful. Sometimes I feel the need to throw in snide comments to defend certain points of mine which I know is absurd because my point should be able to defend it self. I need to personally work on this character flaw of mine.

Once again this is only my opinion, and in my opinion opinions have very little value if not worthless.

[Roto]

I'm sorry, but you misunderstood me. In NO way do I feel homosexuals are whores or sluts in general in ANY way. I imagine they can act just as faithful as any heterosexual couple. The point I was making with the adultery comment was that heterosexuals that commit adultery are making a mockery of marriage. Where as in my opinion if two men or two female are brought together by holy matrimony that it self is just as big of a mockery of the concept of marriage.

As far as Tax benefits to my understanding if you are a couple living together you can claim to be Domestic partners. This should give you the same tax breaks as married couples however I'm not completely positive that the breaks are the same (if they are not than they should be though). As far as the "just be happy" comment I say that because homosexual couples should receive the same financial benefits as married couples.

Domestic couples can be just as happy, and enjoy all the benefits of a married relationship without actually having to go through holy matrimony. Because in essence the sanctity of marriage is a holy thing and should be treated as such. I am sorry to tell you that homosexuality is not a righteous way of life, and people whom act in such ways should Not be allowed to be married.

Let me also make a point that I have had several homosexual friends who I find to be Awesome people! I have a high level of respect for those who are so confident in their sexuality although they must face ridicule at times. Also they were hilarious to hang out with and were Good people. I have had this discussion with my opinion of opposition towards gay marriage with them as well, and although they do not approve of my opinion they respect it just as I respect them. With that I'd like to apologize for making the rude "do not get your panties in a twist over my opinion it's just that, and well if you do than you can just lube it up and shove it up your ass like everything else that you should not be putting up there" comment it was disrespectful. Sometimes I feel the need to throw in snide comments to defend certain points of mine which I know is absurd because my point should be able to defend it self. I need to personally work on this character flaw of mine.

Once again this is only my opinion, and in my opinion opinions have very little value if not worthless.

I can live with that. You are most definitely entitled to your opinion. I appreciate the apology too.
Are you, by chance, a religious person?

[NY~Raver]

I can live with that. You are most definitely entitled to your opinion. I appreciate the apology too.
Are you, by chance, a religious person?

Religious not as much as I'd like to be. Spiritual yes. I believe in God and his son Jesus Christ. I have had spiritual experiences in my life that I cannot deny.

I'd also like to clarify a little more my opinion of gays because it Must seem quite harsh. Let me start by saying you guys/girls that I have met are good people. I personally haven't met any nasty gay guy (in terms of attitude) so far to date (yes I know they are out their though). I have an extremely High level of respect for you guys. I cannot even begin to comprehend the amount of ridicule and persecution you must face in your lives. For that I am sorry that you face such things. You have every right to be happy and should be allowed live in such a way that you are happy. I understand that it's not always a complete cognitive choice your sexuality. In no way do I feel gays are going to Hell. The guys I have met so far are quite friendly and seem to have a great concept of who they are, and that is very admirable. So please do not get the wrong idea that I am a gay basher in any way. Live and let live I personally believe. Just when it comes down to certain aspects of life that have spiritual beginnings I feel not all ways of life should be incorporated into them.

You guys drink your cup and I'll drink mine. :tea:

[GoldenGateSound]

http://sistawife.com/YesOnHATE.gif

http://sistawife.com/YesOnHATE.gif

[Roto]

^^ Awesome hahahaaa!!


I cannot even begin to comprehend the amount of ridicule and persecution you must face in your lives. For that I am sorry that you face such things.
Yeah, kinda. Not really much though. It seems to me the biggest problem I run into is people who feel like they "don't get it".
I'm super happy with who I am and everyone I know, including my highly LDS family, love and support me and my partner no matter what. In this day and age the majority of people seem to be okay with homosexuality (or at least don't let it bother them), so ridicule and persecution not so much.

I'm all good, yer all good. :happy:

WERE ALL GOOD!!

[GoldenGateSound]

I don't want to isolate you per se, but I do think you represent a lot of other peoples' opinions so... I'm gonna throw in here-


Religious not as much as I'd like to be. Spiritual yes. I believe in God and his son Jesus Christ.

You also believe in Freedom of Religion right? All people being created equally? Not "except those immoral gays"... I mean, you realize that this nation was founded on the very principle of religious freedom, live and let live, correct? How can you justify your beliefs being the only ones that should be legally honored? That your definitions of words like "marriage" are the only ones that have merit?



You have every right to be happy and should be allowed live in such a way that you are happy. I understand that it's not always a complete cognitive choice your sexuality. In no way do I feel gays are going to Hell. The guys I have met so far are quite friendly and seem to have a great concept of who they are, and that is very admirable. So please do not get the wrong idea that I am a gay basher in any way. Live and let live I personally believe. Just when it comes down to certain aspects of life that have spiritual beginnings I feel not all ways of life should be incorporated into them.

You guys drink your cup and I'll drink mine. :tea:

:confused:

"Just when it comes down to certain aspects of life that have spiritual beginnings I feel not all ways of life should be incorporated into them."

Love is not for you or me to decide for people. It just isn't. Marriage isn't "holy" to an atheist couple is it? Yet the word appears on their union contract, atheist couples get "married" under the same laws and rights legally as Christians, yet they don't consider it a holy union in any way so should you take away the rights of them to marry as well?

It's fine to feel the way you do, but the right for your fist ends at my face, legally speaking. What you're saying with a yes Prop 8 is that your rights trump other peoples' rights, thus your moral fist is landing on their proverbial face.

If you were the minority, wouldn't you want the same right to be married as you have now? What if the situation was reversed and the people making laws said you were "unnatural" (a very degrading term) and made it impossible for you to do the one thing most important to you? Get married to the one you love...

Why should other people be able to decide what's right for you or me? We're in the same country, we should enjoy the same rights as citizens.

[KC Meat]

Solution: since heteros have basically ruined the sanctity of marriage to begin with, remove the word "marriage" and make EVERY union a "Civil Union."

[Roto]

I applaude said solution :)

[NY~Raver]

I don't want to isolate you per se, but I do think you represent a lot of other peoples' opinions so... I'm gonna throw in here-



You also believe in Freedom of Religion right? All people being created equally? Not "except those immoral gays"... I mean, you realize that this nation was founded on the very principle of religious freedom, live and let live, correct? How can you justify your beliefs being the only ones that should be legally honored? That your definitions of words like "marriage" are the only ones that have merit?



:confused:

"Just when it comes down to certain aspects of life that have spiritual beginnings I feel not all ways of life should be incorporated into them."

Love is not for you or me to decide for people. It just isn't. Marriage isn't "holy" to an atheist couple is it? Yet the word appears on their union contract, atheist couples get "married" under the same laws and rights legally as Christians, yet they don't consider it a holy union in any way so should you take away the rights of them to marry as well?

It's fine to feel the way you do, but the right for your fist ends at my face, legally speaking. What you're saying with a yes Prop 8 is that your rights trump other peoples' rights, thus your moral fist is landing on their proverbial face.

If you were the minority, wouldn't you want the same right to be married as you have now? What if the situation was reversed and the people making laws said you were "unnatural" (a very degrading term) and made it impossible for you to do the one thing most important to you? Get married to the one you love...

Why should other people be able to decide what's right for you or me? We're in the same country, we should enjoy the same rights as citizens.

Love and marriage is correlated, but are not one in the same. You do not have to be married to be in love or vice versa. In regard to atheists they may not consider it holy that does not take away from the fact that it is. Just because they don't recognize it as just that does not mean they should be barred from it.


In my opinion the right to marry should only be for heterosexual couples just as the right to freedom is only to law abiding citizens or the right to consume alcohol is for people who are of an age that should be able to make responsible decisions.

The title of a civil union sounds to be quite appropriate for homosexual couples. That way they can receive the same financial benefits and every other benefit that a married couple does except the title of marriage.:2cents:

[Drew]

although it may be your own personal opinion, once you vote on your opinion it is no longer an opinion and is a becomes a political position. this is the problem with moral issues, because people have a difficult time stepping out of their moral background to see a secular purpose for controversial topics.

this is the problem that i have with the moral majority, in that they like to pass legislation that will have no affect on them whether or not it passes, such as gay rights, the stupid utah liquor laws, and dance curfews... wtf.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Since this is a religious moral problem, congress should have no business legislating based on the religious morals, because not every religion shares the same moral code, and there is no secular purpose for this legislation other than to discriminate against a certain group of people.

To say that this violates the "sanctity" of marriage assumes that the only valid form of marriage is the traditional christian view. While many other religious groups see the joining of couples in marriage an equally sacred event, including quakers, methodists, and anglican christians.

In all honesty, i don't think that any marriage should be recognized by our government, and i agree with kc's statement that they should all be legal civil unions.

But it is my opinion that while marriages are recognized by the state, that recognition should be allowed for any citizen regardless of sexual orientation.

While people may disagree about the morality of it, whether they like it or not, it is violating their civil rights as citizens to discriminate against them in this manner.

[NY~Raver]

I am not personally voting on this matter, and the point you make is valid. I completely agree with KC's solution. If a couple wishes to change their civil union into marriage it should be done within their religious establishment. So until they do make it as such they should offer same government recognition and benefits to both homo and hetero couples just different titles.

[GoldenGateSound]

Love and marriage is correlated, but are not one in the same. You do not have to be married to be in love or vice versa. In regard to atheists they may not consider it holy that does not take away from the fact that it is. Just because they don't recognize it as just that does not mean they should be barred from it.


In my opinion the right to marry should only be for heterosexual couples just as the right to freedom is only to law abiding citizens or the right to consume alcohol is for people who are of an age that should be able to make responsible decisions.

The title of a civil union sounds to be quite appropriate for homosexual couples. That way they can receive the same financial benefits and every other benefit that a married couple does except the title of marriage.:2cents:
^ So you still think you and your definitions are better than other people and theirs? Wow. Not that I thought I'd change your mind, but that's just inconceivable ignorance.

In my opinion, the right to marry should be taken away from people like you who equate religion and morals, and who choose to narrow the meaning of love and union into a definition small enough to fit in your bible pocket. You really can't see that your definition of marriage is hateful? Separate is not equal under the law, and the GLTB community isn't separate from the society you live in. Plain and simple.

You sound brainwashed to me. Again, no offense.

[GoldenGateSound]

although it may be your own personal opinion, once you vote on your opinion it is no longer an opinion and is a becomes a political position. this is the problem with moral issues, because people have a difficult time stepping out of their moral background to see a secular purpose for controversial topics.

this is the problem that i have with the moral majority, in that they like to pass legislation that will have no affect on them whether or not it passes, such as gay rights, the stupid utah liquor laws, and dance curfews... wtf.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Since this is a religious moral problem, congress should have no business legislating based on the religious morals, because not every religion shares the same moral code, and there is no secular purpose for this legislation other than to discriminate against a certain group of people.

To say that this violates the "sanctity" of marriage assumes that the only valid form of marriage is the traditional christian view. While many other religious groups see the joining of couples in marriage an equally sacred event, including quakers, methodists, and anglican christians.

In all honesty, i don't think that any marriage should be recognized by our government, and i agree with kc's statement that they should all be legal civil unions.

But it is my opinion that while marriages are recognized by the state, that recognition should be allowed for any citizen regardless of sexual orientation.

While people may disagree about the morality of it, whether they like it or not, it is violating their civil rights as citizens to discriminate against them in this manner.

Thank you. Well said.

[dilvie]

Solution: since heteros have basically ruined the sanctity of marriage to begin with, remove the word "marriage" and make EVERY union a "Civil Union."

I'm right there with you. Churches can "marry" whomever they like, or refuse to marry whomever they like, and the government has no say in it.

Civil unions can be a separate issue, sought at the courthouse and granted to everybody on equal terms.

Problem solved, right?

[KC Meat]

The more I think about it, the more I'm in favor of my smartass comment. Haha.

As far as the state is concerned, every union should be a civil union. If somebody wishes to include their union with their religion, they can then have their church deem it a marriage, but the marriage would ONLY be part of whatever church they joined. I also think that the churches should be VERY strict on divorces. If people want to bitch and moan about the sanctity of marriage, well then their church, who defines marriage, should make them hold to their vows of "...till death do us part." I'm pretty sure most everybody will agree that marriage was defined by and belongs to religions. The state has no right to force this religious definition upon every person.

[Mizz Nici]

KC Meat and I are married and we were not married in a church or by a religous person. If anything we were married by aliens. :D

[A.D]

As that law goes into place, domestic violence will be at an all time high

[Blacksunshine]

I have to make my own damn marriage certificate, cuz I dont like the way that mine reads...hahah a year and a half later...I'll prolly never do it ;)


Back on topic....I cant stand that everyone has to get their thought on everyone else...I dont even know why we have to vote on this shit...There is clearly no seperation between church and state if we have to vote on this kind of thing.

Im' getting sick of this place, it's judgement, it's opinions (I dont mean UTR...i mean this entire damn country)

It all drives me insane. The day you deny someones happiness, is the day I should deny you yours...unfortunately I will never allow myself to yeild that kind of power...so vote I guess I will...JUST to keep my peace.

I just dont see how you could vote for something, or against something that dosn't even affect you. And if the law passes that gays cant marry...I will give up even more hope on humaity then I had before.


Sorry for my negativity, I'm fucking sick of this shit. It makes me wanna cry :(

[KC Meat]

KC Meat and I are married and we were not married in a church or by a religous person. If anything we were married by aliens. :DIt's true, the actual alien term for "marriage" can't be spoken or written using letters, so we just say we're "married" to keep things simple.

[Kaos]

Ohhhh boy, the " gay marrage " can of worms has been reopened ehhh....

i really wish this one could be put to rest, but it never will.

people, regardless of preference, personality, or other ideals, are all the same, we all have a heart, we all have a brain ( well, some of us do ) Lungs, kidneys and such.

My personal opinion, is that " gay " is wrong, That does not mean i am against gays or gay marrage. It ONLY means i feel that " gay " is not for me.

I say to each his ( or her ) own, if you are or choose to be gay, do so, if you are or choose to be straight, do so. It is your right to " pursue happiness " and the government has no right to state who has rights in this regard and who does not.

I dont agree with gay marrage, but i certainly will not put my name on anything that denies others who do agree with it, because i would be very upset ( not to mention violently aggressive ) if someone attacked me simply for a personal lifestyle choice i made that was mine to make in the first place.

The only thing at risk, in allowing gay marrage, is the degree of control the religious organizations have over their flocks and herds. according to most religions, " gay " is evil, yet what about the evils we see everyday occuring INSIDE religious organizations, the Bishops and the Choirboys, the FLDS, Female Circumcision in middle eastern and african nations, Religion in itself is evil as far as im concerned, religion is the oldest doctrine of fear based control.

My idiot mother, really only gave me 2 bits of advice in my entire life, that have stuck with me as being honestly good advice.

the first

" Dont Marry a Woman till you have lived with her for a while, because you wouldnt buy a car without testdriving it first "

and

" Live and let live "

Allowing them to marry, will quickly and quietly allow this whole debacle to slip into the past. the longer they deny people this right, the longer it will be on the forefront of the publics scrutiny.

But again, this means the government has to admit to being wrong, and we all know how often they admit that.

We have a better chance of God comming down from on high, and demanding gays be allowed to marry, then waiting the government out on that admission.

[NY~Raver]

^ So you still think you and your definitions are better than other people and theirs? Wow. Not that I thought I'd change your mind, but that's just inconceivable ignorance.

In my opinion, the right to marry should be taken away from people like you who equate religion and morals, and who choose to narrow the meaning of love and union into a definition small enough to fit in your bible pocket. You really can't see that your definition of marriage is hateful? Separate is not equal under the law, and the GLTB community isn't separate from the society you live in. Plain and simple.

You sound brainwashed to me. Again, no offense.

I don't feel my views are better or worse than anyone else's. That is why I wouldn't vote on this subject. I never once denied that homosexuals could not love one another or that they should not be allowed to be together. I feel they should be allowed to be domestic partners(or whatever the state wishes to call it). Maybe you should do some research where the idea and marriage came from. If you actually did you would see that it does in fact have religious beginnings. That is why those who are not in line with those beliefs (I'm talking before Christianity so this encompasses most religions) should not be allowed to have the title of marriage (although marriages should be done by religious establishments not the state). Just as not every person should have the right to be a minister or a rabbi without the proper beliefs and training.

As far as me being brainwashed I wasn't brought up with a religious background. All washing of my brain have been done by my own hands, but thanks for recognizing how clean and clear my thoughts are.;)

If I fell in love with an animal and decided to have sex with it would it be okay in your opinion for me to marry such an animal? Because in my opinion homosexuality is just as natural as that. Again, no offense. Sexual intercourse was biologically designed for reproduction of the species. Not just for physical pleasure. Physical gratification is just a side effect and motivational tool so that we as a species go through with such an act. Plain and simple.

[A.D]

I don't feel my views are better or worse than anyone else's. That is why I wouldn't vote on this subject. I never once denied that homosexuals could not love one another or that they should not be allowed to be together. I feel they should be allowed to be domestic partners(or whatever the state wishes to call it). Maybe you should do some research where the idea and marriage came from. If you actually did you would see that it does in fact have religious beginnings. That is why those who are not in line with those beliefs (I'm talking before Christianity so this encompasses most religions) should not be allowed to have the title of marriage (although marriages should be done by religious establishments not the state). Just as not every person should have the right to be a minister or a rabbi without the proper beliefs and training.I don't want to just simply cut and paste it here, for fear of opaz calling me out again, but if you read through the history of marriage via the wikipedia article, you'll find that marriage wasn't even thought of as a religious ceremony until 1545.
There are plenty of notes in that article that go back and forth on whether it was thought of as okay to call a same sex union a marriage, but that's not the point I'm trying to make, just simply stating that Marriage hasn't always been a religious act


If I fell in love with an animal and decided to have sex with it would it be okay in your opinion for me to marry such an animal? No that wouldn't be the same, because there would be no way of knowing whether or not that animal wanted to be your husband/wife/sexual partner

[GoldenGateSound]

I don't feel my views are better or worse than anyone else's. That is why I wouldn't vote on this subject. I never once denied that homosexuals could not love one another or that they should not be allowed to be together. I feel they should be allowed to be domestic partners(or whatever the state wishes to call it). Maybe you should do some research where the idea and marriage came from. If you actually did you would see that it does in fact have religious beginnings. That is why those who are not in line with those beliefs (I'm talking before Christianity so this encompasses most religions) should not be allowed to have the title of marriage (although marriages should be done by religious establishments not the state). Just as not every person should have the right to be a minister or a rabbi without the proper beliefs and training.

As far as me being brainwashed I wasn't brought up with a religious background. All washing of my brain have been done by my own hands, but thanks for recognizing how clean and clear my thoughts are.;)

If I fell in love with an animal and decided to have sex with it would it be okay in your opinion for me to marry such an animal? Because in my opinion homosexuality is just as natural as that. Again, no offense. Sexual intercourse was biologically designed for reproduction of the species. Not just for physical pleasure. Physical gratification is just a side effect and motivational tool so that we as a species go through with such an act. Plain and simple.

It's ok to disagree. Hell, I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone felt the same about everything, what would be the point?

That said, I also enjoy a healthy debate, and you've put yourself out there for that, haven't ya? lol I'll give you props, it can be a hard thing to say you believe a certain way and then have to back it up. Your logic still completely escapes me though. (Don't worry I do admit when I'm wrong and I change my views on things quite frequently.)


That is why I wouldn't vote on this subject.
Correct me but you can't vote on this issue because it's on the California ballot, not Utah's.


I feel they should be allowed to be domestic partners(or whatever the state wishes to call it).
Well, California voters DO call 'it' marriage and so I keep wondering why everyone else feels the need to keep that from spreading- that's the point of individual states' rights.


Maybe you should do some research where the idea and marriage came from. If you actually did you would see that it does in fact have religious beginnings. That is why those who are not in line with those beliefs (I'm talking before Christianity so this encompasses most religions) should not be allowed to have the title of marriage....
Technically then you're saying you think marriage should be a malleable term. You agree historically speaking that despite religious majorities changing over time, 'marriage' has been the term used to describe unions. So by your supposed logic, as society (and thus the religious or now acknowledged 'spiritual' majority) embraces new situations under the term that the institution itself should also remain. Otherwise the word 'marriage' would have changed from religious group to religious group and from country to country right? Yet it has remained the same for thousands of years, why should it change now to suit the Christian minority? Christians are NOT the majority view in the world.


As far as me being brainwashed I wasn't brought up with a religious background. All washing of my brain have been done by my own hands, but thanks for recognizing how clean and clear my thoughts are.;)
My experience has taught me that those who think for themselves don't regurgitate confused religious morals without being able to back them up. You haven't backed anything you're saying up- for example-


Sexual intercourse was biologically designed for reproduction of the species. Not just for physical pleasure. Physical gratification is just a side effect and motivational tool so that we as a species go through with such an act. Plain and simple.
Plain and simple. What about scientific relevance? The world is not lacking in humans if you haven't noticed, yet we continue to have sex, by your logic as soon as an area hit its peak population everyone would stop having intercourse. Laughable. You're speaking on religious grounds even if you're not aware that it's an undercurrent to your argument, it is.
If you do your research, you'll find multiple studies that point out biological differences in humans via their sexual behavior and things like birth order, external hormone exposure, inner ear development and more. Homosexuality in humans obviously has it's place in nature or it simply wouldn't exist. The fraternal birth order statistics suggest that as more males are born in a given family, the less need there is for all of them to pro-create to proliferate the species. Freud believed that we were all born with both sexual tendencies and that society generally forces us to choose one or the other. Then you have the ever debatable Kinsey scale.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale)


If I fell in love with an animal and decided to have sex with it would it be okay in your opinion for me to marry such an animal? Because in my opinion homosexuality is just as natural as that.
Wow, again. You came up with that opinion without any help from someone on a moral high horse? Ok. Now you have to define 'natural'. Is natural a bad thing, like "Mosiah 3:19" or is natural something that occurs in nature? Because homosexuality is completely natural if you look at it from the point of existing in nature. If you try to say it's not natural because humans 'shouldn't' do those things, you're denying the reality around you and just wishing it wasn't so, correct? How is that helping anything? Just curious. I really actually think I could learn a lot from you if you could explain yourself and your points in more detail or with more sited information.

:couch2:

[GoldenGateSound]

^ I forgot the best part, yes, marry an animal. As soon as you find one that can enter into a legal contract. I want to see that, sounds better than the waterskiing squirrel!

http://www.riehlworldview.com/photos/uncategorized/twiggy_1.jpg

[NY~Raver]

It's ok to disagree. Hell, I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone felt the same about everything, what would be the point?

That said, I also enjoy a healthy debate, and you've put yourself out there for that, haven't ya? lol I'll give you props, it can be a hard thing to say you believe a certain way and then have to back it up. Your logic still completely escapes me though. (Don't worry I do admit when I'm wrong and I change my views on things quite frequently.)


Correct me but you can't vote on this issue because it's on the California ballot, not Utah's.


Well, California voters DO call 'it' marriage and so I keep wondering why everyone else feels the need to keep that from spreading- that's the point of individual states' rights.


Technically then you're saying you think marriage should be a malleable term. You agree historically speaking that despite religious majorities changing over time, 'marriage' has been the term used to describe unions. So by your supposed logic, as society (and thus the religious or now acknowledged 'spiritual' majority) embraces new situations under the term that the institution itself should also remain. Otherwise the word 'marriage' would have changed from religious group to religious group and from country to country right? Yet it has remained the same for thousands of years, why should it change now to suit the Christian minority? Christians are NOT the majority view in the world.


My experience has taught me that those who think for themselves don't regurgitate confused religious morals without being able to back them up. You haven't backed anything you're saying up- for example-


Plain and simple. What about scientific relevance? The world is not lacking in humans if you haven't noticed, yet we continue to have sex, by your logic as soon as an area hit its peak population everyone would stop having intercourse. Laughable. You're speaking on religious grounds even if you're not aware that it's an undercurrent to your argument, it is.
If you do your research, you'll find multiple studies that point out biological differences in humans via their sexual behavior and things like birth order, external hormone exposure, inner ear development and more. Homosexuality in humans obviously has it's place in nature or it simply wouldn't exist. The fraternal birth order statistics suggest that as more males are born in a given family, the less need there is for all of them to pro-create to proliferate the species. Freud believed that we were all born with both sexual tendencies and that society generally forces us to choose one or the other. Then you have the ever debatable Kinsey scale.... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale)


Wow, again. You came up with that opinion without any help from someone on a moral high horse? Ok. Now you have to define 'natural'. Is natural a bad thing, like \"Mosiah 3:19\" or is natural something that occurs in nature? Because homosexuality is completely natural if you look at it from the point of existing in nature. If you try to say it's not natural because humans 'shouldn't' do those things, you're denying the reality around you and just wishing it wasn't so, correct? How is that helping anything? Just curious. I really actually think I could learn a lot from you if you could explain yourself and your points in more detail or with more sited information.

:couch2:

Well with all of that I'd like to first thank you for now actually forcing me to think thoroughly about this issue. Second In NO way do I wish to change your view or anyone else's view on this matter.

You are correct I cannot vote on it because I am not a resident of California, but on that note nor am I a resident of Utah. I'm still considered a New York resident until next year. The point was even if I could vote on it I wouldn't.

Yes I feel the title of marriage should only be used to describe a heterosexual union. All other unions should be titled differently. In no way have I brought Christianity into this though only spiritual beginnings. That includes Judaism Hinduism Buddhism as well as Christianity. To my understanding none of these religions embrace homosexual unions (I have not researched that so I do not state that as fact though).

Yes there is not a lacking of humans, but we still can fit many many more on this earth. Also your point of reaching a peak would make us stop procreating I believe to be false. I don't believe that we as a species have the urge to reproduce completely through cognitive desires. I believe it is instinctual. We are biologically hard wired to want to have sex. That way our species is guaranteed to live on. In no way do I believe that once their is enough of us here that our instincts turn off. We are probably very similar to a virus in this way that we will continue reproducing no matter what the circumstances until our host (earth) can not support us as a species (we exhaust it's resources). I believe it's the nature of human beings to embrace pleasure wherever it can be found. However we as human beings have been blessed with a level of cognitive abilities to choose what is the morally right and wrong thing to do.

I can easily go out and physically capture a weak female, rape, and than kill her if I chose to. I choose not too because it is my belief that acting in that way is morally wrong. However you could argue that it is natural to do such things because it's in my ability to do such an act. So with that point I wish to retract my use of the word natural in all my arguments. From this point on I will use morally correct. You could argue that rape would be okay and natural for males who are not physically desirable to the females of our species thus to guarantee their seed be carried on they should be allowed to force themselves upon females.

In regards to male homosexuals if it were the biological design of a male to be able to go though anal penetration than the walls would not tear when entry was first made. The anus would have a way to self lubricate it self just as a females vagina naturally becomes lubricated when aroused.

All points I can make based on marriage that it should be between male and female would come from biblical sources. So seeing as I imagine the majority of this board do not believe in such things I will not site them.

[GoldenGateSound]

By saying that you would abstain from voting if given the opportunity, however, you do ultimately agree that to the act of passing some sort of legal bar to deny anyone "marriage" is also morally incorrect... since a lot of your references are biblical, that makes your viewpoint on the matter remain in the confines of religion and morality, not science and politics.

The social contract in America is changing, the Judeo-Christian fabric is deteriorating one person at a time as things that are wrong with religion become more apparent in society. You're an example of that phenomenon. So am I.

I think it's important to be able to disagree politely, so thanks because I've enjoyed the discussion. I think you can and should maintain your own identity spiritually, (even religiously) speaking without infringing on the rights of others- because while conformity is necessary in many aspects of a society functioning, it's also the thing that divides us due to stereo-types and fear.

Rep given.

[A.D]

vaginas tear...trust me.

[GoldenGateSound]

rofl Ok, I decided not to go into that aspect of his argumentation, but only out of fear.

[Roto]

^ I forgot the best part, yes, marry an animal. As soon as you find one that can enter into a legal contract. I want to see that, sounds better than the waterskiing squirrel!

http://www.riehlworldview.com/photos/uncategorized/twiggy_1.jpg

OMg I'm marrying that squirrel!!!! :buttrape::buttrape::buttrape:

[NY~Raver]

^^ You stay away from my squirrel boyfriend that butt is all mine.

[NY~Raver]

By saying that you would abstain from voting if given the opportunity, however, you do ultimately agree that to the act of passing some sort of legal bar to deny anyone "marriage" is also morally incorrect... since a lot of your references are biblical, that makes your viewpoint on the matter remain in the confines of religion and morality, not science and politics.

The social contract in America is changing, the Judeo-Christian fabric is deteriorating one person at a time as things that are wrong with religion become more apparent in society. You're an example of that phenomenon. So am I.

I think it's important to be able to disagree politely, so thanks because I've enjoyed the discussion. I think you can and should maintain your own identity spiritually, (even religiously) speaking without infringing on the rights of others- because while conformity is necessary in many aspects of a society functioning, it's also the thing that divides us due to stereo-types and fear.

Rep given.

I feel that they should not be denied the ability to be recognized as a union thus benefitting just the same as a hetero marriage. So although it is my opinion they should not be allowed the title of marriage if that is all that is available to them than they should be able to have it (That way the state can recognize them. The spiritual part of the issue would be taken up in the afterlife if such issues would even matter at that time).
I would like you to elaborate on what you meant by the "Judeo-Christian fabric is deteriorating one person at a time" statement. Especially seeing as you classfied yourself and I in that. I don't understand what you mean by that, but seeing as I did not have a large religious background I really am not aware of the state of organized religion besides the basic knowledge that I assume everyone knows about. I have recently been investigating the LDS culture and I do find some things fascinating. When I compare certain things from the Book of Mormon to the bible things do seem to be connected such as the book of nephi 1 and 2 with parts of genesis.

I hope I did not offend any homosexuals on this board. That was not my intention. I was just stating my belief. Live and let live I strongly believe. I personally have committed sins of sexual immorality such as relations before marriage, so it would be hypocritical of me to 'cast a stone' at you guys for your choice of sexual preference. Maybe one day I'll run into some of you at a rave, dance party, and starting feb 1st I'll be at the bars. I'd be glad to have friendly conversation and throw one back with you guys. As I stated before I have had gay friends and they were really cool people to chill with.

I am also quite glad that we could have this healthy debate I personally did enjoy it as well. What would this world be without oppisition. It would be a pretty boring and emotionless filled world I believe.

Rep given.

[KC Meat]

If I fell in love with an animal and decided to have sex with it would it be okay in your opinion for me to marry such an animal? Because in my opinion homosexuality is just as natural as that.I would still like an explanation on this. I'm always amused that people taking your side of this issue try and compare homosexuality to somebody falling in love with an animal. It's not even the same ballpark. Comparing two willing humans to a human and a creature that doesn't even have the same cognitive abilities as a human? Then again, situations like this are commonly my fault for expecting rationality and reason from religion.


Again, no offense. Sexual intercourse was biologically designed for reproduction of the species. Not just for physical pleasure. Physical gratification is just a side effect and motivational tool so that we as a species go through with such an act. Plain and simple.You're partially right. Sexual intercourse (reproduction) was brought about to ensure variability in the genome by combining two into one. If it was purely about reproduction, then everything would be asexual, which would probably be a lot easier for women (budding vs pushing out teh baby). If you'd like to discuss whether or not human sexual behavior is in accordance with what is natural, then you're going to have to start an entire different discussion on what exactly is "natural" for the human species. You seem to be going down the route of comparing human behavior to that of lower species, those who act primarily out of survival, but to do so is actually to deny the human species of what naturally comes to them. It's also pretty contradictive when considering the fact that most christian religions place humans on a platform in god's eyes when compared to animals. Last time I checked, humans have souls and animals don't. Don't claim religion on this subject, then compare human behavior to those deemed lower than humans by the same doctrine.

Anybody who has taken psychology (and many who haven't) will attest to the fact that human sexual behavior plays a role in the mental well-being of a person. Humans aren't stupid animals who are only concerned with reproduction. There's a LOT more going on up in our head than the "reproduction plain and simple" point of view. Unless you feel that all the stuff going on up in our head at any given time, as well as our ability to have those types of thoughts and feelings, is "unnatural," then I don't really see how you can claim anything about what is natural vs what isn't when it comes to humans interacting with each other.

[NY~Raver]

I would still like an explanation on this. I'm always amused that people taking your side of this issue try and compare homosexuality to somebody falling in love with an animal. It's not even the same ballpark. Comparing two willing humans to a human and a creature that doesn't even have the same cognitive abilities as a human? Then again, situations like this are commonly my fault for expecting rationality and reason from religion.

You're partially right. Sexual intercourse (reproduction) was brought about to ensure variability in the genome by combining two into one. If it was purely about reproduction, then everything would be asexual, which would probably be a lot easier for women (budding vs pushing out teh baby). If you'd like to discuss whether or not human sexual behavior is in accordance with what is natural, then you're going to have to start an entire different discussion on what exactly is "natural" for the human species. You seem to be going down the route of comparing human behavior to that of lower species, those who act primarily out of survival, but to do so is actually to deny the human species of what naturally comes to them. It's also pretty contradictive when considering the fact that most christian religions place humans on a platform in god's eyes when compared to animals. Last time I checked, humans have souls and animals don't. Don't claim religion on this subject, then compare human behavior to those deemed lower than humans by the same doctrine.

Anybody who has taken psychology (and many who haven't) will attest to the fact that human sexual behavior plays a role in the mental well-being of a person. Humans aren't stupid animals who are only concerned with reproduction. There's a LOT more going on up in our head than the "reproduction plain and simple" point of view. Unless you feel that all the stuff going on up in our head at any given time, as well as our ability to have those types of thoughts and feelings, is "unnatural," then I don't really see how you can claim anything about what is natural vs what isn't when it comes to humans interacting with each other.

Yes animals do not have the same cognitive capabilities as a human, but they still have basic cognitive abilities. When you state two willing humans you must be implying that in the instance of bestiality the animal must be un willing. I would imagine that is false. I unfortunatley in my past have been shown a disturbing film where a dog mounts a female and has intercourse with her. The dog was not forced in any way. So in this instance the dog and the human were being sexually gratified. So you could than give to the notion that the relationship is deeper than the sick twisted act of letting the dog sleep with the female. You can easily argue that the dog's company makes the female happy and vice versa. You could say that besides have an actual conversation and fully understanding each other's thoughts that all desires of a relationship are filled. They can spend time together, sleep together, and even do recreational activities together. The dog would even protect the female if she was in danger. So the female can state that she is in love with the dog, and by the actions and behavior of the dog you could say the dog is in love with the female.

This entire relationship is Morally incorrect, but you could argue that is natural because it physically could happen. So because the female and the dog are happy in this situation should we as a society feel that it's okay?

If you read in a later post that i wrote I retracted the use of the word natural to Immoral or something along those lines.

Oh and as far as animals being concerned with reproducing I imagine that they are not concerned with that much. I would imagine they are being driven to sexual intercourse by the same means we are. It feels good. As far as animals having emotions we can not deny that animals do or do not have emotions. I'm pretty sure I've seen my pets happy, angry, and depressed.

[Roto]

I've seen gay dogs you know.

[KC Meat]

Yes animals do not have the same cognitive capabilities as a human, but they still have basic cognitive abilities. When you state two willing humans you must be implying that in the instance of bestiality the animal must be un willing. I would imagine that is false. I unfortunatley in my past have been shown a disturbing film where a dog mounts a female and has intercourse with her. The dog was not forced in any way. So in this instance the dog and the human were being sexually gratified. So you could than give to the notion that the relationship is deeper than the sick twisted act of letting the dog sleep with the female. You can easily argue that the dog's company makes the female happy and vice versa. You could say that besides have an actual conversation and fully understanding each other's thoughts that all desires of a relationship are filled. They can spend time together, sleep together, and even do recreational activities together. The dog would even protect the female if she was in danger. So the female can state that she is in love with the dog, and by the actions and behavior of the dog you could say the dog is in love with the female.I think you're confusing "willing" and "habit." I didn't say that animal/human intercourse would have to be "unwilling". Just b/c an organism does something w/o being forced doesn't mean it was doing it b/c it thought about it first. Actually thinking about one's actions with respect to how it will affect the other person is what would separate "human willing" from "dog willing." I could tell a trained dog to attack a stranger, and it would do it. I could then tell human to do it and they'd ask me why.

A dog humps your leg. Did the dog do it b/c it really loves you and wants to have sex with you, or does it do it b/c of instinctual habit? Is the dog a slut, b/c it humps the leg of almost everybody it meets? Does humping both male and female legs make the dog bisexual? If you're going to equate the dog's intercourse with the woman as being fully aware of his actions (willing), as a human would be, then the questions I've asked are relevant.

I'm not sure I fully understand your argument about what defines an intimate relationship. Are you saying that the dog and the girl could be considered to be in a relationship b/c they enjoy each other's company, spend time together, have sex together (technically), do recreational activities together, and the dog would instinctually protect it's owner? Is that the fundamental basis for which you would define an intimate human/human relationship? You said excluding them having a conversation and actually understanding each other's thoughts, but I'm pretty sure that's a pretty big part of a human's relationship to other humans. Homosexuals actually DO have conversations, and CAN understand each other's thoughts. You can't exclude two vital parts of an intimate human relationship and try to call it comparable. If you completely remove the sex from the situation, would you call the relationship you have with a dog, as an owner, the same as you would have with your best friend?


This entire relationship is Morally incorrect, but you could argue that is natural because it physically could happen. So because the female and the dog are happy in this situation should we as a society feel that it's okay?Again, you'd be equating a human/human relationship to a dog/human relationship. Are you saying that a homosexual and a dog are pretty much the same thing, or that through simplistic argument, one could show that a dog has just as many cognitive abilities and deserves the same rights and considerations as a homosexual? Do you view dogs as equal to you? I know Christianity doesn't. In order for your argument to work, you have to exclude certain aspects of a human/human relationship. We're not talking about an almost-human-if-I-explain-it-a-certain-way/human relationship, we're talking about a human/human relationship.

You can't condem a homosexual relationship by claiming that honoring that type of relationship would give way to something even worse, a beastiality relationship. You can't logically compare a human to an animal by saying we both have basic cognitive abilities. The fact still remains that humans have MORE cognitive abilities than animals, that's why we are where we are, and they're where they are. The relationships we have with one another are far more complex than any relationship a human could have with an animal. This is where the "show me an animal that can enter into a legal contract" argument comes into play. Yea, the animal can feel happy, sad, scared, protect it's owner, and play fetch with it's owner, but it doesn't have any concept of itself in relation to the world, the past, and the future.

Honestly, the argument that honoring homosexual relationships could pretty much give way to or is comparable to honoring beastiality relationships is extremely disturbing to me. People who say this actually think that a homosexual relationship is comparable to somebody having sex with an animal? I'm sorry, but that's beyond disturbing with relation to how they view the homosexual relationship, what they equate/compare it to, and what that says about how they're thinking about and treating another human being.


Oh and as far as animals being concerned with reproducing I imagine that they are not concerned with that much. I would imagine they are being driven to sexual intercourse by the same means we are. It feels good.Now you're saying that the primary drive for sexual intercourse isn't for reproduction, it's pleasure?

[NY~Raver]

Okay I will admit that comparing the two relationships is a bit unfair. Like if i were to rate it on a scale of immorality where 1 is the most immoral and 10 your acting completely moral I would rate bestiality a 2 (only right above child molestation) and gay marriage more like a 5/6ish. I just couldn't come up with another type of immoral relationship. Your points are quite valid though, so I will conceed on that matter.

As far as do I believe the primary drive for sexual intercourse is for pleasure well I believe so. I think there are more people are out there having sex for pleasure than with the actual thought of reproducing. I believe that to be the Cognitive drive. Where the pleasure we derive from it is really just hard wired into us so reproduction is ensured. I do not know if you would call that the non-cognitive or instinctual drive or what, but I think you understand my point.

[GoldenGateSound]

I feel that they should not be denied the ability to be recognized as a union thus benefitting just the same as a hetero marriage. So although it is my opinion they should not be allowed the title of marriage if that is all that is available to them than they should be able to have it (That way the state can recognize them. The spiritual part of the issue would be taken up in the afterlife if such issues would even matter at that time).
I would like you to elaborate on what you meant by the \"Judeo-Christian fabric is deteriorating one person at a time\" statement. Especially seeing as you classfied yourself and I in that. I don't understand what you mean by that, but seeing as I did not have a large religious background I really am not aware of the state of organized religion besides the basic knowledge that I assume everyone knows about. I have recently been investigating the LDS culture and I do find some things fascinating. When I compare certain things from the Book of Mormon to the bible things do seem to be connected such as the book of nephi 1 and 2 with parts of genesis.


The United States of America is the only country in history to have defined itself as Judeo-Christian. While the Western world has consisted of many Christian countries and consists today of many secular countries, only America has called itself Judeo-Christian. America is also unique in that it has always combined secular government with a society based on religious values.

This sense of mission is why more Americans have died for the liberty of others than any other nation's soldiers.

It is why those who today most identify with the Judeo-Christian essence of America are more likely to believe in the moral worthiness of dying to liberate countries — not only Europe, but Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. That is why America stands alone in protecting two little countries threatened with extinction, Israel and Taiwan. That is why conservative Americans are more likely to believe in American exceptionalism — in not seeking, as President Bush put it, a "permission slip" from the United Nations, let alone from Europe. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0304/prager_2004_03_30_04.php3

Think about that last paragraph for a minute. There are more than Jews and Christians in this country, yet they make most of our decisions. As more and more individuals grow discontent with religion per se, they form their own values and create undercurrents that then become part of the mainstream society. It leads to a phenomenon that is rare in the rest of the world, Americans are often married to partners of a different faith or religious background, and that has created a unique tolerance and even genuine bridges are built between groups who in other countries still bomb each other over religious differences.

And it reaches into other aspects of our life- a good example of this is the insurance industry seeing the cost effective nature of preventative treatments and thus paying for acupuncture, a formerly mocked predominantly Eastern practice. It works and so it's been recognized by Western medicine- even if only for financial reasons.

Cause and effect. We have a lot to gain by being tolerant with each other on these delicate matters that could potentially divide us. When we make laws that backslide to the separate but equal mentality (think Rosa Parks) we are no different than those who allowed slavery and we risk losing the very thing that makes us worth looking up to as a nation anymore- our diversity.

[NY~Raver]

Very interesting. I do appreciate you elaborating on that. I will ponder on that matter. Thank you.

[jake edwards]

http://www.jacobedwardshirley.com/aboutme/blog/entry/entry-041.html

Is marriage really a covenant of God?
Historically it's not likely that marriage was created as a bond between a man and a woman in the eyes of god. The original institution of marriage has been perverted time and time again to for what we see it as today. Look at your ring. Does it have a diamond on it? Did you know that the tradition of a diamond on a ring is the result of an ad campaign from De-biers, aimed at soldiers coming home from the world war? Your diamond is the result of capitalism at it's best. If a common tradition like the diamond ring can be perverted into the institution of marriage buy a sacrilegious force such as a corporation, what else can alter societies traditional way of functioning?

Many anthropologists believe 4,000 years ago that groups of people lived together, as many as 30 to a group, with multiple male leaders and multiple women shared by them. Monogamy did not exist in many of these groups. When a woman bore a child, it may have sometimes been difficult to know who the biological father was. When these hunter-gatherers started to settle, stable arrangements started to be made. "The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies joining one woman and one man dates about 2350 B.C. in Mesopotamia" but has very little to do with love or with religion. The reason these marriages took place was to guarantee that a man's children were truly his biological heirs.

The first 'institutional' codes for marriage were written in the Hammurbic Laws (circa 1760 BC) Law 137 states that in event of divorce, the man has to refund the dowry, suggesting marriage as a financial transaction. The Levitical marriage codes, from which we Westerners inherited our marriage codes, are direct line descendants of the Hammurbic Laws.

In the betrothal ceremony in ancient Greece, the father would say 'I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring" while handing over his daughter. Ancient Hebrew men were free to have several wives. The biblical character Jacob had two wives, Leah & Rachel. Married Greeks & Romans were free to have sex with concubines, prostitutes and male teenagers. In the case that the wife failed to produce offspring, the husband could return their 'faulty product' in exchange for a new one.

In mediaeval Europe marriage was an economic institution that affected the proprietary rights of the parties and the woman was likely expected to work for the man. Russian Soviet law recognizes marriage as economic insurance as either partner is required to support the other if they are unable to work. Even in the ever popular story Pride & Prejudice, marriage was a tool to gain wealth, power and status in society. The story portrays marriage for love as rebellious and against the norm.

The Arab Observer states that marriage was originally recognized as a 'generational property transfer.' Ever wonder why adultery is more frowned upon the woman than man? (Think about the Odyssey. Odysseus travels the world sleeping with women while trying to prevent other men from sleeping with his wife.) This way of thinking is due to the fact that originally the woman was seen as property. What about cultures that ask for dowries? It's an exchange of property - a woman for a dowry. "The emphasis on virginity has *nothing* to do with sexual purity & everything to do with making certain that man isn't going to marry a woman who is *already* pregnant with the child of another man"

At the council of Trent (circa 1563) the afterthought of the sacramental nature of marriage was written into canon law. By the eighth century marriage was widely accepted in the Catholic church as a sacrament, or a ceremony to bestow God's grace, long after marriage's history as property exchange.

Some scholars argue that the French invented the concept of marring for love in the middle ages largely for literature and story telling. The stories of the knight who felt intense love for someone else's wife and had to woo her by praising her graceful features, rather than take her by brute force. Stanford historian Marilyn Yalom argues that bringing love into the concept of marriage is a indirectly acted as a tool to give the woman more leverage as a human. Wives no longer served as property but love meant the man had to give something back in order to deserve the woman.

When North America was first being colonized, a husbands dominance was recognized in a legal doctrine called 'coverture,' which absorbed the wife's identity into the husbands. The marriage meant that the husband legally represented himself and his wife as one official public representative. In the 1920's when women won the right to vote, the marriage there after represented two full citizens. In the 1970's, U.S. law recognized marital rape, which up until that point in history was ridiculous because the man owned the woman and could do with her as he pleased.

It is incorrect to say marriage is a 'commandment by god.' The original purpose of marriage, to assure the man's biological heirs are known or as an exchange of property, has been perverted into a 'commandment by god' by more recent society. It has become a habit of our culture to believe that god has asked us to marry. An article written in 1936 states "Social habits have a strong tendency to become true customs, that is, rules of conduct in addition to their being habits. A habit may develop into a genuine custom simply because people are inclined to disapprove of anything which is unusual."

Originally marriage was blatantly a matter of economics. We as westerners now believe that marriage is about love. To say that marriage has anything to do with god is a post justification to hide it's less than romantic history.



In addition; What about marriage between two parties other than one man and one woman?

Polygamy was practiced in many parts of the world when the U.S. nation was first being formed. Today polyandry is still practiced in Nepal.

Gay marriage is rare in history but did exist. The Roman emperor Nero (circa A.D. 54-86) married men in formal ceremonies twice. Gay marriage became so popular that in the third century the same debate we are having today, regarding gay marriage, arose. A popular criticism to a union between two men was it's inability to produce offspring. Offspring production was the main purpose of marriage at the time. In the year 342 Romans outlawed homosexual unions.

Yale history professor John Boswell points out several bits of evidence that shows homosexual unions recognized by the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches in the 13th century. The Greek Orthodox ceremony of 'Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex union' grants the participants 'grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.'

*http://www.oldandsold.com/articles10/marriage-1.shtml
*http://thearabobserver.blogspot.com/2007/02/origin-of-marriage.html
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi
*http://www.islandmix.com/backchat/f9/origin-marriage-50901/
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matron_of_honor#Matron_of_Honor

[GoldenGateSound]

I love the internet.

[NY~Raver]

Very interesting.