Nightingale 0 #501 December 22, 2005 Quote Allong the same lines of which came first the chicken or the egg? Which came first in marrage. Political or religious? KELP... When you wrote this you were talking about getting hitched by a judge, not a priest right? Political marriage came first. "Throughout history, and even today, families arranged marriages for couples. The people involved didn't and don't have much to say about the decision. Most couples didn't marry because they were in love but for economic liasons. ... The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32). Joseph Campbell, in the Power of Myth, mentions that the Twelfth century troubadours were the first ones who thought of courtly love in the same way we do now. The whole notion of romance apparently didn't exist until medieval times, and the troubadours." Source: About.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #502 December 22, 2005 QuoteJust one change for you Thanks for that example. But to make sure you're not getting distracted, can you tell me where your original example was changed? Just to remind you, you said: Quote You should catch up on the times. Stoning went out of fashion long ago.... Where in the Bible does THAT change come from? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #503 December 22, 2005 Bill has the missing last chapter where stoning was considered unfashionable but purple sandles and beige more feminine cut robes were deemed 'de rigeur'. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #504 December 22, 2005 QuoteI have no idea how large the gay population is, but if it is significantly large and sufficiently populated with the kind of talent that employers are looking for, then I think employers would start offering same-sex marriage benefits on their own.There are notable big employers offered same-sex benefits over 10 years ago by extending partner benefits to same-sex couples. Big names including IBM and Apple. You may have seen these kind of things in the news in the past in the newspaper a long time ago (but likely you weren't paying attention, ha ha). Sometimes it was from a gay employee group campaigning, sometimes from a lawsuit, and sometimes of their own volition (by copycatting other companies partnership benefits). Not common with small businesses, due to, the gay population issue, except to comply with discrimination-related laws. Gay couples are also typically high double income families, so the gay magazines and gay newspapers are frequently plastered with housing ads, mortgage ads, vacation agency ads. Most of it from mainstream companies that don't even speciallize to gays. We are hit by heavily targetted marketing by the likes of a familiar big realtor, the local travel agency chain, online sites such as Expedia and DiTech etc. They are after the market with a profit motive with no more of the squeamishness that existed even just 10 years ago. Nationwide gay (or rather, non-straight -- as in bisexual, etc) population is often mentioned to be approximately 4-5% or so, with wide variances of opinion ranging from 1% to 10% depending on source. The 10% figure is frequently argued as an exaggeration and 1% is frequently argued as a definite underestimation. Some metro areas definitely has some gay-dense areas (well exceeding 10% by surveys), with large spikes in "gay-village" areas of major cities. You can definitely distort statistics to get 1% or 10%, the real truth is likely somewhere in between. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #505 December 22, 2005 I should clarify that 20% is from official health org statistics and seems crazily high. Until they pointed out that this includes everyone from very gay to a little bit gay TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mdrejhon 8 #506 December 22, 2005 QuoteI should clarify that 20% is from official health org statistics and seems crazily high. Until they pointed out that this includes everyone from very gay to a little bit gay In fact, 20% is an underestimation if you take a poll in say, Montreal's gay-village or New York's gay-village -- it can easily spike well past 20%. Although many cities, the gay villages are thinning out (San Francisco is one notable example with straights diluting the gay population) so gay density goes down in the village while the rest of the city goes up. But true, there are those maily-straight people who have had that one or two "experiments" (which they may not have enjoyed as much as with a woman). That can spike the figure to past 10%. In my opinion, nationally, I believe in a middling 4-5% figure (nearly squarely in the middle between the extremes). This also includes people like those in the Brokeback Mountain movie -- same-sex adultery from opposite-sex couples is actually surprisingly common. People in gay communities see it happen all the time (online dating profiles, phone, Personals -- the term is "MWM" which is Married White Male claiming to be bisexual), and it happens a lot more often covertly that don't get advertised at all. A lot of the more morally-minded gays hate it, while the less morally-minded love to take advantage of the opportunity. All controversial, I know. But that's besides the point -- I am just lending validity to the statistics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #507 December 22, 2005 QuoteHoly crap you're gonna be busy and have a lot of blood on your hands. Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT) Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT) I didn't see the point of copying the whole thing, but my reply to this is: These particular commands given in Deuteronomy were given to a specific people (Israelites) at a specific time in the past (after the Israelites had come out of Egypt & were headed towards their promised land). The idea here was to clear the area of enemies of the Israelites and remove others who might influence the Israelites to worship false Gods. It was specific for THOSE people in THAT time & place. It is not in any way clear that these particular commands (including the ones about dietary restrictions, and not wearing clothing made of two different fabrics) were intended to apply to ALL people in ALL times & places on Earth forever. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #508 December 22, 2005 Quote It is not in any way clear that these particular commands (including the ones about dietary restrictions, and not wearing clothing made of two different fabrics) were intended to apply to ALL people in ALL times & places on Earth forever. What about the ones relating to homosexuality? Those seem to keep getting repeated over and over while the others get conveniently misplaced... First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #509 December 22, 2005 you're absolutely right about that one. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #510 December 22, 2005 QuoteThere's a strong connection between clarity of writing and clarity of thought. What if the right to marry was based on intellect instead? I could see A LOT of benefits to this: by the time you're old enough to legally marry, it should be fairly obvious what your aptitudes are. If you haven't applied yourself to becoming an educated, literate person, you don't get to civically marry and thereby enjoy whatever benefits come with that. Won't matter what color, what sexual preference, what religion, or what socio-economic bracket you're in - as long as you can demonstrate the minimum required level of education / IQ / aptitude on a test / whatever... Makes a lot more sense, if you ask me. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #511 December 22, 2005 QuoteWhat if the right to marry was based on intellect instead? I wouldn't mind if the right to live were based on intellect. But keep in mind that's coming from an intelligent person :) First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #512 December 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhat if the right to marry was based on intellect instead? I wouldn't mind if the right to live were based on intellect. But keep in mind that's coming from an intelligent person :) Or breed for that matter - coming from an educated breeder... you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #513 December 22, 2005 QuoteWhy not bring in bestiality and pedophilia? And polygamists? A fair question that can be simply answered with another question. -What is a marriage?- It is a contract between two people of the required age that grants certain legal rights, such as the transferrence of real property rights. This contract can be between only two people of the required age, so it excludes animals, which can not legally enter into a contract, children who have not reached the required age, and polygamists, because the contract can be between two people only. The issue people have is that it is commonly misconstrued that marriage has some basis in religion. It does not. In the past, it was difficult to get a judge to a certain place at a certain time, as they had to travel frequently from town to town. The absence of judges to perform the legal ceremony (signing and filing of the license) caused them to give authority to religious figureheads who are readily available and supposedly trust worthy to do so. Also, most marriage ceremonies were held in church, since it served as a community gathering place and there was no such thing as a banquet hall back then. The contract requires no religious endorsement and as such, you retain a lawyer and appear before a judge to end the contract. The belief that marriage must be redefined or altered to include same-sex participants is incorrect and a result of the influence of religion on our legal system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rebecca 0 #514 December 22, 2005 Wow. Excellent post. you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AlexCrowley 0 #515 December 22, 2005 thanks narcimund, I was hoping it wouldnt require someone to point it out. TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #516 December 22, 2005 QuoteLaws != rights. You need to appreciate that difference. Did you mean to type 'not equal'? Do you mean laws cannot bestow rights? The referendums voted on in so many states were attempts to legalize same sex marriage (to make it a 'right' by passing a law specifically allowing it), and they failed. Rights can be from the Bill of Rights, the Consitution (which can be changed by voters and their elected representatives), and by normal laws. I understand that it is frustrating for liberals to be out of power, it was frustrating for conservatives also.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #517 December 22, 2005 QuoteThe belief that marriage must be redefined or altered to include same-sex participants is incorrect and a result of the influence of religion on our legal system. Then why are so many gays upset that they can't marry? Just call the governor of your state and get it fixed.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #518 December 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteLaws != rights. You need to appreciate that difference. Did you mean to type 'not equal'? Do you mean laws cannot bestow rights? The referendums voted on in so many states were attempts to legalize same sex marriage (to make it a 'right' by passing a law specifically allowing it), and they failed. Rights can be from the Bill of Rights, the Consitution (which can be changed by voters and their elected representatives), and by normal laws. I understand that it is frustrating for liberals to be out of power, it was frustrating for conservatives also. A law is not meant to GIVE a right. A law must be formed such that it protects those rights already in place. In the same notion, the Bill of Rights does not GIVE rights. It details what rights the Government may not infringe upon. and != is programming syntax for 'not equal'. <> or ne would also have been acceptable.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnnyD 0 #519 December 22, 2005 QuoteQuoteThe belief that marriage must be redefined or altered to include same-sex participants is incorrect and a result of the influence of religion on our legal system. Then why are so many gays upset that they can't marry? Just call the governor of your state and get it fixed. As I said, the polluted hand of religion has touched our legal system and the courts will not recognize the contract without being expressly forced to. Before I get taken off track about the polluted thing, I say that because there are many positives about religion, one of which is not its intermingling with our legal system or government. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #520 December 23, 2005 Quote The referendums voted on in so many states were attempts to legalize same sex marriage (to make it a 'right' by passing a law specifically allowing it), and they failed. Rights can be from the Bill of Rights, the Consitution (which can be changed by voters and their elected representatives), and by normal laws. I understand that it is frustrating for liberals to be out of power, it was frustrating for conservatives also. Again, you're arguing that the majority of the people are necessary to grant rights. That's exactly in opposition to founding principles for our nation. The Surpreme Court ruling in 1967 covers this question. People have the right to marry other people. Basic human right. How long will it take for the SC and our country to accept this - we'll see. It would seem to be less than 20 years. Could be less than 5. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Channman 2 #521 December 23, 2005 Are we still on the topic of men packing chocolate. Hey keep this behindclosed doors. Extend some special rights i.e. Marrage to those who wish to engage in this life style, not sure what their being denied that can't be resolved by a will, power of attorney, joint bank accounts and listing their partner or partners as Benificiaries on investments and such. Having two close friends that are gay, I've had my struggles excepting the life style, don't approve of it in the least but I also like my friends very much. So I find myself struggling with this from time to time. I'm still very firm on NO to Marriages, thats between a Man and Women only. But I'm still very firm concerning my friends that if any of the two needed help requiring my time or money I'd be there offering what im able to give. Just not able to give them my blessing if they every chose to ring wedding bells. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #522 December 23, 2005 Quotenot sure what their being denied that can't be resolved by a will, power of attorney, joint bank accounts and listing their partner or partners as Benificiaries on investments and such. A lot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #523 December 23, 2005 OK, how about just saying that laws can determine what is legal and not legal. Wasn't it true that the mayor in S.F. for a while was granting same sex marriage licenses against state law, with a court later stopping him by ruling that he did not have that authority to change state law? If Californians want to change the law they can. A constitutional amendment could clearly establish it as a right for the whole country, or clearly deny the right. Lawmakers had the wisdom to pass the civil rights act instead of leaving the issue to the courts. It seems that our lawmakers don't have the guts needed/too afraid to actually pass a law concerning such hot button issues, so we have unelected judges in effect passing laws by making rulings on specific cases with specific circumstances. Our legislators should do their job and take the credit or blame for their actions.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #524 December 23, 2005 Quote Wasn't it true that the mayor in S.F. for a while was granting same sex marriage licenses against state law, with a court later stopping him by ruling that he did not have that authority to change state law? Somewhat true. Newsome argued that CA's law requiring equal protection trumped the state law against marriages, and permitted them to force the issue. It is still pending in court, though the initial action has been to stay the marriages. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 3 #525 December 23, 2005 QuoteQuotenot sure what their being denied that can't be resolved by a will, power of attorney, joint bank accounts and listing their partner or partners as Benificiaries on investments and such. A lot. Indeed. A lot. If you know anything about federal tax law, you would understand that the gift tax laws and the death tax laws are written to favor spouses. There are no legal documents that'll get you around those laws. Currently the exemptions are pretty large, but everything may change five years from now. And there are presumptions in the law that apply to spouses that do not apply to couples of either sex who are living together. I did a quick google and came up with this: "As of 1990, 6 million to 14 million children in the United States were living with a gay or lesbian parent." In a heterosexual relationship, it is presumed that upon the death of one parent, the child will remain with the remaining biological parent. In the case of a homosexual couple, this is not the case. Even with a written direction from the deceased custodial parent, the non-custodial parent has no legal claim to the child that would trump the claim of a blood relative. It might all turn out okay, depending on the judge assigned to the case, but there are no guarantees. There are so many rights that we simply assume for ourselves, because we've always had them. Those without those rights have a different perspective. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
