Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 12/10/2004 View Thu 12/09/2004 View Wed 12/08/2004 View Tue 12/07/2004 View Mon 12/06/2004 View Sun 12/05/2004 View Sat 12/04/2004
1
2004-12-10 Great White North
Kanada Sez Happy People Can Get Married
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by .com 2004-12-10 03:50|| || Front Page|| [11133 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Tis the season to don their gay apparel. Fa-la-la...
Posted by Capt America  2004-12-10 9:12:20 AM||   2004-12-10 9:12:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 Personally I think this is the way to go.
Marriage is two fold, the civil law aspect of it and uiltimate the religion/belief aspect of it.

Since it's a matter of religious theology on wether or not homosexual marriage should be allowed then I say let that religion bar it in their midst.

As for the state (which is supposed to be non-religiously slanted) I think they should fill out the friggin forms, and start letting them deal with each other's debts and have to spring butt tons of money for divorce lawyers like the rest of us have to.

I think that gay divorce will do more for gender equaltiy in law than anything else.

and for this, and other more apathetic reasons, I am all for gay marriage.

Long as no religion is forced to be a part of it (against their beliefs) then I could care less.

-DS
Posted by DeviantSaint  2004-12-10 9:15:14 AM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~deviantsaint]  2004-12-10 9:15:14 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 You may have a point there. It is likely that 'butt tons of money for divorce lawyers' may make them pull the reverse in some 5 years.
Posted by Sobiesky 2004-12-10 9:26:54 AM||   2004-12-10 9:26:54 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Whatever happened to all the jolly people?
Posted by Chuck Simmins  2004-12-10 10:22:22 AM|| [http://blog.simmins.org]  2004-12-10 10:22:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Honestly, what's the big deal about two guys marrying each other....or two women marrying each other?

It makes me laugh to hear people say that gays are going to destroy marriage. Please.

The divorce rate was heading towards the sky before anyone even seriously brought up the issue. Straight people are the ones having the overwhelming majority of illegitimate kids. In most cases, both parents are free to marry each other, but they just don't want to for some reason.

Look, it's not like they are going to hog all the marriage licences (no state has a limit on the amount they issue per year), or that your wife or hubby is suddenly going to "go gay" the minute it's officially ok.

If a church doesn't want to do gay marriages, they don't have to. Churches and synagogues turn down requests for marriage ceremonies all the time. Even the ACLU won't take that case to court, and they fight for all kinds of crazy things.

And don't give me the "procreation" argument, either.....unless you were asked specifically how many kids you were going to have when you applied for your marriage licence. The state of Nevada didn't care if me and my husband were going to crank out the kids every year, or not have any at all. There were a couple ladies in line with us who would not have been able to have kids (one was in her 80's, God bless her, and beaming with happiness). If procreation was the only reason to get married, Clark County would have turned her and her groom down. They didn't.

Let 'em get married, pay taxes, settle down and have all the legal rights and responsibilities the rest of us do.
Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-12-10 11:16:50 AM||   2004-12-10 11:16:50 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Let 'em get married, pay taxes, settle down and have all the legal rights and responsibilities the rest of us do.

So the next step is adoption. And what you get are children who would otherwise grow up heterosexual, believing that bisexuality is whoopy-doo!! Well OK, if that's what you want.
Posted by Rafael 2004-12-10 4:56:12 PM||   2004-12-10 4:56:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 The 'gay' marriage issue is systematically distorted by the media. Society grants (through various mechanisms) financial benefits on married couples, which are justified on the basis married couples raise children. Gay couples (with rare exceptions) do not raise children. Gay marriage is a campaign to get the financial benefits, pure and simple. To pretend otherwise, is a lie.

Arguably the solution is to change systems such that only those who raise children get the benefits, but that requires removing benefits from a lot of people who have them now, always difficult in a democracy.
Posted by phil_b 2004-12-10 5:01:40 PM||   2004-12-10 5:01:40 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Gay marriage is a campaign to get the financial benefits, pure and simple.

I completely agree phil. Otherwise, there is nothing denied to them that a civil union can't already provide - except the approval and respect they believe they can DEMAND.

Yadda..yadda. I'm sick of "look at me" gay issues. You'd think a global war on terror against a foe that would love to publically stone, them might have shifted their focus from whining about people who say mean and hurtful things, but nooo...

I could care less what people do in their bedrooms. I'm just sick of their schreechy demands for attention. Live your lives. Eveyone doesn't need to love you.
Posted by 2b 2004-12-10 5:11:29 PM||   2004-12-10 5:11:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Most cultures, and most people, realize that the human sexual response is fairly plastic (e.g., it can be molded into any number of differing fetishes), but the plasticity of human sexuality doesn’t mean that atypical sexual response patterns are something any society should condone (toleration is a different matter). As I read Blackstone, to the extent behavior is purely private, it remains a private matter between the person and the Creator. To the extent behavior becomes public, the public behavior is subject to the Rule of Law, and the traditions and mores of society. IF HOMOSEXUALS DON’T LIKE THE GRIEF THEY GET FOR TRYING TO FOIST THEIR IMMORALITY ON SOCIETY IN GENERAL, THEY SHOULD JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THEIR DEVIANCY. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Homosexuality is, and always has been, deviant.
deviant
• adjective diverging from normal standards, especially in social or sexual behaviour.
• noun a deviant person.
This site and this site are hosted by homosexuals leaving (or trying to leave) the homosexual lifestyle, and address the issue of homosexual orientation and/or homosexuals raising kids. If these people (who have first-hand experience with the homosexual lifestyle) see problems with the lifestyle, maybe we should too.

The whole subject of homosexuality and homosexual marriage in general is really about the deconstruction of socio-emotional cognitive concepts and schemas, and the traditions and mores honored worldwide and cross-culturally over millennia. The current “homosexual” marriage advertising campaign represents an attempt by the intellectually elite (and the intellectually dishonest) to redefine society and government in terms of their choosing -- and which happens to be pretty damn liberal.
Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 5:22:50 PM||   2004-12-10 5:22:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Rafael - the only way those kids would be bi or gay is if they already had that tendency.
I don't recall making the decision to be hetero, and my gay friends never sat down and decided to chase other guys.
There are already kids being raised by homosexuals and lesbians, and they aren't any more gay than the rest of the kids out there. You may not like to hear that, but it's the truth.

phil_b - Those are important, but not the only reasons. There are things like being legally able to visit your spouse in the hospital, being legally able to make decisions for your spouse's care, the ability of either partner to give children health insurance (one has it, the other doesn't through their job.....and the one without it is the biological or adoptive parent of the child. If they could marry, that kid would be eligible for health insurance.) Just for example.

Maybe I'm a bit more sympathetic to some of this, because my husband is not a citizen. We've had to take some extra steps we would not normally have to do if he was a citizen just to guarantee him the same rights as an American. And, yeah, it pisses me off to have to do that. But at least we (or he) can march in somewhere with our marriage license and be able to demand some rights that everyone else takes for granted.
Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-12-10 5:23:04 PM||   2004-12-10 5:23:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 The whole subject of homosexuality and homosexual marriage in general is really about the deconstruction of socio-emotional cognitive concepts and schemas, and the traditions and mores honored worldwide and cross-culturally over millennia.
Umm.....English translation for those of us not trapped in academia, please?
Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-12-10 5:31:26 PM||   2004-12-10 5:31:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 DB, the legally visiting/deciding for your spouse in hospital issue is regularly raised and has been debunked, If it occurs at all (in the USA) its rare. Otherwise, your examples involve kids which is my point.

My issue here is not so much gays want the benefits, in a democracy everyone has a right to agitate for a bigger piece of the pie, but the fact the issue is always misrepresented. Its hard to sell crass greed, so you have to dress it up as something else.
Posted by phil_b 2004-12-10 5:36:58 PM||   2004-12-10 5:36:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 phil_b - You mean straight people never get married for financial benefits only (I'm thinking Anna Nicole Smith, for example)? ;)
Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-12-10 5:40:38 PM||   2004-12-10 5:40:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 The whole subject of homosexuality and homosexual marriage in general is really about the deconstruction of socio-emotional cognitive concepts and schemas, and the traditions and mores honored worldwide and cross-culturally over millennia.
deconstruction
• noun a method of critical analysis of language and text which emphasizes the relational quality of meaning and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression.
— DERIVATIVES deconstructionism noun deconstructionist adjective & noun.
In other words, relativism versus absolutism.

With the advent of “modern thought” (about three hundred years ago, give or take a hundred) a lot of time honored traditions and concepts were relegated to the trash heap of “outdated concepts.” The “modern thought” folks were convinced of their own superiority and believed that they could do better than what was shown to have worked in the past. The funny thing is that the elites weren’t able to get the masses to go along with the program -- hence the development of the expression among elites: “the masses are asses.” One classic case of such failed attempts at social reengineering is communism.

In reality, given that the whole universe of physics exhibits absolutes and constants, the same is probably true of humanity and human character. Humanity and human character (including morality, sexual choices, etc.) are probably also governed by absolutes and constants. The current “homosexual marriage” activists are simply railing against the inevitable -- the collapse of their ideals of social reengineering. For them, it’s a hard thing to not be god.
Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 5:54:42 PM||   2004-12-10 5:54:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Whoa! Lucky you out there? Ima making a mental bookmark for Lucky. He has strong feelings has I recall.
Posted by Shipman 2004-12-10 6:01:57 PM||   2004-12-10 6:01:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Ok, cingold, nice dictionary.
However, you are conveniently forgetting all of the other "threats" to marriage that have been in the past.
One of the more recent is interracial marriage, ie. the wonderfully named Loving v Virginia case. The very idea of blacks and whites getting married had a long history of people being against it. It used to be called miscegenation, if I am correct. Critics of the practice railed about how it was going to destroy marriage and society as we know it, bring about the Apocalypse, and all other kind of horrible plagues and abominations.
Didn't happen.
Look, if you want real "traditional" marriage, then I guess polygamy floats your boat. It's been around for centuries.....it's in the Bible....and it's still practiced in parts of the world today.
It'll probably make you puke, but just because something has been accepted for generations does not necessarily make it right. Some social engineering ideas have been correct (abolition of slavery, the rights of women to vote and be treated as equals, the list goes on.)
All I am saying is that I haven't yet seen any argument that allowing two gays to marry is going to invalidate or destroy my own marriage. I keep hearing that allowing them to do what I did is going to destroy America.
Y'know what? Straight people are doing more to destroy marriage than gays ever could. We treat it as something disposable (heaven knows how many so-called Christians are on their third, or more, marriages), we don't give a damn about the kids being ripped apart while we "find a relationship that fulfills me", and somehow ol' Steve and Frank who have been together 30 years and want to make it legal disrespect marriage?
Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-12-10 6:22:45 PM||   2004-12-10 6:22:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Steve who?
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 6:25:45 PM||   2004-12-10 6:25:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Steve and Frank?!?!? Oh, in that case, congratulations!
Posted by Rafael 2004-12-10 6:28:54 PM||   2004-12-10 6:28:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 The same thing that ticks me off about gay's is the same thing that ticks me off about Muslims. I have nothing against the individuals going about living their own lives...

But... their, often self-appointed, "representatives" saturate us with "poor me" stories about how intolerant everyone else is toward them and their beliefs and in the very process of doing so they show the most extreme intolerance to anyone whose beliefs don't jive with their own.

Take for the issue of the Boyscouts. Imagine the millions of disadvanted poor children who benefit and get great joy. But gay activists are more than happy to deprive MILLIONS of poor children the chance to participate just to prove how intolerant everyone else is. Bleh.
Posted by 2b 2004-12-10 6:36:11 PM||   2004-12-10 6:36:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Apparently, I've been a typical guy and forgot all "our" anniversaries....Ummmmm, Steve who?
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 6:37:48 PM||   2004-12-10 6:37:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 If a homosexual's personal ego can't even see his/her way clear to abide by the simplest rule of having a hetero relationship in order to be married why should society grant this tiny group an exception.

DB you 'can't see anything wrong' with granting state recognition of homosexual marriage, which is your right. So, tell me what is right about it?

And the answer is there isn't anything right about it. It is wrong. It is considered wrong by every society extant on earth from time immemorial, and it is wrong in this society as wel...

There are some things in this world which are wrong and they are immutable. Murder, rape amd robbery, all codified as wrong by law just like homosexuality until last year when SCOTUS found that everyone has the Constitutional Right or have fellatio or cunniligus, etc; The decision is wrong on the face of it because I defy anyone in the world to find the right that says that you have the right to engage in sex however you want and to have the state recognize you as a personl with special rights no one in the world can possibly ever have.

You find nothing wrong with it? Good for you. Now, find soemthing right about it. The fact is, you can't. Homosexuality is as deviant as the legal logic which made it a Constitutional Right.
Posted by badanov  2004-12-10 6:39:24 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2004-12-10 6:39:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 BTW, short and sweet on my part - marriage, no - civil union OK - adoption and raising of children no
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 6:46:44 PM||   2004-12-10 6:46:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 And what you get are children who would otherwise grow up heterosexual, believing that bisexuality is whoopy-doo!! Well OK, if that's what you want.

Yes, you are right -- the real issue is not just about some legal "right" to marriage but rather about the societal acceptance of homosexuality and bisexuality as normal and morally acceptable behaviours. And since that's indeed what I want, I think I'll keep on supporting same-sex marriages.

As a sidenote: Besides Canada, in the last weeks we've also had United Kingdom, New Zealand and Israel accepting some sort of civil/domestic unions/partnerships between same-sex couples (different terminology in each country but concept's the same). Ireland's debating it, same sex marriage in Spain is already under way, and one of the two main presidential candidates in Romania (runoff takes place on Sunday) has also vowed to legalize same-sex marriage if elected. And in the last case he used adoption as an argument in favour of same-sex marriage, not against it.

But... their, often self-appointed, "representatives" saturate us with "poor me" stories about how intolerant everyone else is toward them and their beliefs and in the very process of doing so they show the most extreme intolerance to anyone whose beliefs don't jive with their own.

That's kinda the way I feel about conservatives and their "poor-little-us" stories about everyone persecuting their traditions and wanting to destroy civilisation as-they-know-it.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-12-10 6:49:28 PM||   2004-12-10 6:49:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 In the last week we've also read that doctors can decide to kill children up to 12 yrs of age in the Netherlands, without their parents' approval or involvement.

So your point is what, Aris? That if lots of people do it it's good and right?

Pfeh.
Posted by too true 2004-12-10 6:52:54 PM||   2004-12-10 6:52:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 In the last week we've also read that doctors can decide to kill children up to 12 yrs of age in the Netherlands, without their parents' approval or involvement.

So your point is what, Aris? That if lots of people do it it's good and right?

Pfeh.
Posted by too true 2004-12-10 6:52:54 PM||   2004-12-10 6:52:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 Oh and blondie? Your little canard about marriage being on the ropes?

My parents each had two partners, Their parents had two partners. Their partners' parents had two partners. Now, that is three generations in my family which went through divorce/changes over a 100 plus year period.

Now, you are telling me becuase the statistics taking is better to account for divorces making it look worse than it ever was is your justification for allowing homosexuals the same right?

This new 'right' is closer to a lawyers' full employtment bill than to anything that could conceivably benefit society.

Homosexual marriage/civil unions is wrong on so many levels.
Posted by badanov  2004-12-10 6:53:48 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2004-12-10 6:53:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 RE: #16. Please take this in the spirit it is intended, a rant and civil discourse. : )

One of the more recent is interracial marriage, ie. the wonderfully named Loving v Virginia case. The very idea of blacks and whites getting married had a long history of people being against it. It used to be called miscegenation

LOL. That sounds terribly incriminating against those old religious zealots, don’t you think? The thing is this railing against interracial marriage was mostly an invention of the elites. They were the original eugenicists. Cattell even offered to pay people to “marry up.” Termin wanted to exterminate the Mexicans, Blacks and American Indians. These eugenicist guys were all deconstructionists. Remember that Arch-Conservative Traditionalist Book called the Bible? It is full of examples of interracial marriage -- without criticism of the practice. There is even something about “in Christ” no male, no female, no Jew, no Greek . . .

Look, if you want real "traditional" marriage, then I guess polygamy floats your boat

Hmmmmmmmmm. Yes that sort of thing is mentioned in the Bible. Just like the sun rises and sets, clouds are in the sky, etc. No everything in the Bible is a moral command. Quite a bit of the Bible just tells the story of what was going on at different points in human history. The actual doctrines appear to encourage one man, one woman marriages. In fact, in the New Testament, you can’t even be a deacon if you have more than one wife. In the Old Testament, Adam only married Eve -- that’s about as far back as the Bible goes . . .

It'll probably make you puke, but just because something has been accepted for generations does not necessarily make it right. Some social engineering ideas have been correct (abolition of slavery, the rights of women to vote and be treated as equals, the list goes on.)

Hahahaha. Sorry, but this is just too cliché. The Bible is what encouraged the abolitionists to risk their lives to do away with slavery (something about “the slave is my brother . . .”) and the Bible is the first place I think you’ll see a female general (Deborah). Here’s a bizarre idea. What if the Book of Genesis establishes the equality of men and women? Something about and God created them in his own image, male and female he created them.  Wow, you mean, like male alone can’t convey the qualities of the Almighty?

I RESPECT YOUR POINT OF VIEW -- but I think you’re totally wrong. The bastions of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness find their bedrock in Judeo-Christian principles and nowhere else.

Whoever said that commitment to traditional, and biblical, concepts of human morality somehow make people immune from shortcomings? I thought it was the Bible that taught that everybody falls short, but encourages all to forget what lies behind and press forward for better things. Also, whatever gave you the idea that homosexuals are some ultimate affront to morality? That’s certainly not what the Bible teaches. I’m sure there are a lot of gays out there that are better people than I am, and I wish them well. THAT SAID, THEIR DEVIANCY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SOCIETY SHOULD ENCOURAGE OR PROMOTE -- ANY MORE THAN SOCIETY SHOULD PROMOTE ANYTHING LESS THAN EXCELLENT.
Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 6:54:15 PM||   2004-12-10 6:54:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 I like little countries that do strong brave things. We should emulate them. Poor little thems are showing us the way! Thanks again!
Posted by Shipman 2004-12-10 6:55:35 PM||   2004-12-10 6:55:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 Jeebus Ship! close with /sarcasm or we'll never know WTF is going on
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 6:59:06 PM||   2004-12-10 6:59:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 badanov> you 'can't see anything wrong' with granting state recognition of homosexual marriage, which is your right. So, tell me what is right about it?

It's right that two people who commit themselves to mutually supporting and sustaining each other through better and worse, declaring themselves to be one before the world, to have this union of theirs accepted and sanctified by society.

Now, find soemthing right about it. The fact is, you can't.

I just did.

The decision is wrong on the face of it because I defy anyone in the world to find the right that says that you have the right to engage in sex however you want

Ah, there we go at the core of this debate. According to you, something needs to be granted to the peopel as a "right" before they can be permitted to do it.

According to me however, people are free to do anything you wish, UNLESS there's proper justification for why they should be forbidden to do it.

"Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

to have the state recognize you as a personl with special rights no one in the world can possibly ever have.

Not special rights. Common rights. Your only way to justify lack of same-sex marriage is if you introduce the need for childbirth potential in hetero marriages as well-- that means that someone who finds his spouse to be infertile should be able to declare the marriage null immediately. It would also means that women past the age of menopause couldn't marry. It makes a mockery of marriage, a mockery, I tell you!
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-12-10 7:05:30 PM||   2004-12-10 7:05:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Gosh, you know Aris, maybe you are right. Maybe the majority members of this Christian nation should act in the same manner and deprive all people who don't believe like they do access to public property. And the 90% of the families here that celebrate Christmas should do like they do in the Middle East and use their pulpits call for the extermination of anyone who doesn't practice their same beliefs.

as for your response, let me reply now.[ignore]
Posted by 2b 2004-12-10 7:09:56 PM||   2004-12-10 7:09:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 
Remember that Arch-Conservative Traditionalist Book called the Bible? It is full of examples of interracial marriage -- without criticism of the practice.

Much of the Old Testament is condemnation of marriages between Jews and non-Jews.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-10 7:12:03 PM||   2004-12-10 7:12:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Aris, SCOTUS took the right away from the states to regulate behavior. States have rights just like individials.

It's right that two people who commit themselves to mutually supporting and sustaining each other through better and worse, declaring themselves to be one before the world, to have this union of theirs accepted and sanctified by society.

There is no benefit, therefore no sanctity.

Ah, there we go at the core of this debate. According to you, something needs to be granted to the peopel as a "right" before they can be permitted to do it.

SCOTUS took a right away from the states. Therefore the same right can be taken from individuals. It is a dangerous precedent the court has established and the mere fact a Euro like yourself accepts it is all I need to know it is the wrong thing to do.

Remember, Aris. A right was taken from the states. Now, rights can be taken from homosexuals. Be ready for when it happens.

Way to go you, asshole. You just opened up a Pandora's box. Enjoy your life while rights are taken from you.

This fight is just beginning.
Posted by badanov  2004-12-10 7:14:26 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2004-12-10 7:14:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 Much of the Old Testament is condemnation of marriages between Jews and non-Jews. Much? Good grief, give me a percentage. I'll be surprised if it's in the teens. Oh, BTW, that's a religious issue -- not racial. Anyone could become a Jew, regardless of race.
Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 7:15:02 PM||   2004-12-10 7:15:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#35 So your point is what, Aris? That if lots of people do it it's good and right?

Nope -- only that very soon anti-same-sex marriage folk won't be able to use the supposed common traditions of mankind as an argument, nor will they be able to claim that all societies find same-sex marriage evil and abhorrent. Very soon now, most free and democratic societies will find the possibility of same-sex marriage normal.

And since mere tradition is the main argument against same-sex marriage, you've put your money on the wrong horse. Atleast with both the death penalty *and* abortion there are actual differing moral philosophies justifying each position.

With same-sex marriage however it's just a "Waaaa! Same-sex marriage is new and so strange and it scares me - I want to return to my comfort zone". Either tradition or religion. No secular self-consistent moral argument seems to exist, which is what makes the anti-samesex-marriage position doomed to failure.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-12-10 7:15:02 PM||   2004-12-10 7:15:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#36 
As for the New Testament, it doesn't really encourage marriage of any kind. The authors expected that the world would end any day. In those circumstances, marriage was rather irrelevant. The main idea was, if you absolutely must have sex, then go ahead and get married, but the better of us will endure these last few days until Judgment Day.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-10 7:17:09 PM||   2004-12-10 7:17:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#37 With same-sex marriage however it's just a "Waaaa! Same-sex marriage is new and so strange and it scares me - I want to return to my comfort zone".

You'd have to be a moron to believe that homosexuality is new.

Oh wait.. Better rephrase that, Aris, or you might lose your Eurostan decoder ring.
Posted by badanov  2004-12-10 7:18:33 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2004-12-10 7:18:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#38 
Much? Good grief, give me a percentage.

Start reading and keep reading. You'll get the idea pretty quit. It's practically the main theme of the Old Testament.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-10 7:18:36 PM||   2004-12-10 7:18:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#39 With same-sex marriage however it's just a "Waaaa! Same-sex marriage is new and so strange and it scares me - I want to return to my comfort zone". Either tradition or religion.

jeez I feel stoopid arguing with a Greek about historical tradition (/give in to superiority). I shoulda known you'd accept dropping the soap was a societal norm. My answer: civil unions and keep it outta my face, but no perpetuating it
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 7:19:29 PM||   2004-12-10 7:19:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#40 
I meant to say, You'll get the idea pretty quick.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-10 7:19:55 PM||   2004-12-10 7:19:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#41 I'VE GOT AN IDEA! Let's take the dictionary, and redefine all the terms. Gay no longer means happy, it means same-sexual. Marriage is no longer a religious sacrament, it's, it's, it's, a social benefit package. **//SARCASM OFF** Ect., ect., ect.

First rule of rhetoric. Define the terms. That is all the deconstructionists are doing. They want to remake society in an image of their own chosing. They want to play god. They want to ignore and flaunt the absolute and constant metaphysical rules of the universe. Take a clue from communism, social reengineering doesn't work.
Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 7:20:39 PM||   2004-12-10 7:20:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#42 As for the New Testament, it doesn't really encourage marriage of any kind. The authors expected that the world would end any day. In those circumstances, marriage was rather irrelevant. The main idea was, if you absolutely must have sex, then go ahead and get married, but the better of us will endure these last few days until Judgment Day

Mike you're an idiot. Confusing not-encouraging an established tradition for accepting its' trampling? Jeebus....
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 7:22:01 PM||   2004-12-10 7:22:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#43 Can't we all just get along?
Posted by Rodney Queen 2004-12-10 7:22:14 PM||   2004-12-10 7:22:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#44 I'd suggest you two get a room to discuss us neanderthals
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 7:23:00 PM||   2004-12-10 7:23:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#45 2b> "Maybe the majority members of this Christian nation should act in the same manner and deprive all people who don't believe like they do access to public property"

Mmm, are you arguing against yourself? Because that's not a sarcastic representation of *my* argument, it's a sarcastic representation of the anti-gay rights argument, where because gays are a tiny minority they supposedly can have no marriage rights.

badanov> States have rights just like individials.

Oh no. States have rights just like *governments* have rights. Don't forget for a moment that the individual states are just a different level of government, and that they are *NOT* individuals. Only individuals are individuals with inalienable rights. Never states.

The real big deal isn't the division of powers between the federal government and the states, but rather the protection of the private individual from the interference of the government as a *whole*. And if the federal government prevented the state government from imposing tyranny on the individuals that's for the *good* of individual rights.

SCOTUS took a right away from the states. Therefore the same right can be taken from individuals

BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT, BULLSHIT. Individual rights have nothing in common with state rights. Only statists think that a person's (inalienable) rights and a government's rights (granted only by the consent of the governed and restricted) are at all comparable at all.

Government rights and individual rights are the *antithesis* of each other.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-12-10 7:25:31 PM||   2004-12-10 7:25:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#46 As for the New Testament, it doesn't really encourage marriage of any kind. The authors expected that the world would end any day. In those circumstances, marriage was rather irrelevant. The main idea was, if you absolutely must have sex, then go ahead and get married, but the better of us will endure these last few days until Judgment Day NOT TRUE. PETER (THE ROCK) WAS MARRIED. SEVERAL OF THE APOSTLES HAD “BELIEVING WIVES.” EVEN PAUL, WHO WAS CELIBATE, SPOKE OF MARRIAGE AS A GIFT EQUAL TO HIS GIFT OF CELIBACY. Mike, you don’t know what you are talking about.

Start reading and keep reading. You'll get the idea pretty quit. It's practically the main theme of the Old Testament. .ALSO NOT TRUE. WHY DON’T YOU TRY IT, RATHER THAN ME HAVING TO TRY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE. READ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND GIVE ME A PERCENTAGE.
Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 7:25:43 PM||   2004-12-10 7:25:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#47 
The simple fact is that the following is a false statement:

It [the Bible] is full of examples of interracial marriage -- without criticism of the practice.

It's especially false when you look at the Bible comprehensively. The Old Testament as a whole is furiously opposed to Jews marrying non-Jews. The New Testament as a whole does not encourage marriage of any kind; it treats marriage as a kind of weakness.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-10 7:27:14 PM||   2004-12-10 7:27:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#48 WHY DON’T YOU TRY IT, RATHER THAN ME HAVING TO TRY TO PROVE A NEGATIVE!

ahhhhhhh another trapped in the MS web
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 7:27:55 PM||   2004-12-10 7:27:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#49  "Waaaa! Same-sex marriage is new and so strange and it scares me - I want to return to my comfort zone". You'd have to be a moron to believe that homosexuality is new

You have to be blind to read "same-sex marriage" as "homosexuality".

But on another matter I'm intrigued -- what the fuck do the rest of you think about badanov's idea that supposedly taking rights away from the states is exactly the same as taking rights away from individuals?

The funny think is that it's me who's been accused as the statist, when it's little conservative morons like badanov who've been the statist fascists all along.

The fight is just beginning, badanov, indeed, as you said. Your kind once supported "state rights" that in reality meant slavery, now your kind is supporting "state rights" that means forbidding homosexuality. Everything is about the state for you, badanov, nothing is about the individual.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-12-10 7:30:20 PM||   2004-12-10 7:30:20 PM|| Front Page Top

#50 Only individuals are individuals with inalienable rights. Never states. The real big deal isn't the division of powers between the federal government and the states, but rather the protection of the private individual from the interference of the government as a *whole*. And if the federal government prevented the state government from imposing tyranny on the individuals that's for the *good* of individual rights.

Yoiu quoted the `10th Amendment. It specifically mentions the states. The individual states have certain rights not enumerated in the Constitution. Says it right there in the document.

But now SCOTUS, thanks to gay folks, just said rights that states have can be taken from them. Therefore individual rights can as well. It is how the US constitution works.
Posted by badanov  2004-12-10 7:30:48 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2004-12-10 7:30:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#51 
PETER (THE ROCK) WAS MARRIED.

He and any other married disciples probably got married before they became disciples of Jesus.

READ THE OLD TESTAMENT AND GIVE ME A PERCENTAGE.

I have read the Old Testament. That's why I know what' I'm talking about. The Old Testament is absolutely saturated with disapproval of Jews marrying non-Jews. I'd say 90% saturated.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-10 7:31:01 PM||   2004-12-10 7:31:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#52 The fight is just beginning, badanov, indeed, as you said. Your kind once supported "state rights" that in reality meant slavery, now your kind is supporting "state rights" that means forbidding homosexuality. Everything is about the state for you, badanov, nothing is about the individual.

Aris, the states do have rights. That is why states can take the federal government to court. If they didn;t have rights or standing they couldn't.

And this has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with what indivuals can do as individuals and what states can do as states.

I can tell I am winning trhe argument coz Aris is calling me a moron and he is trying to change the subject racism/slavery.
Posted by badanov  2004-12-10 7:33:58 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2004-12-10 7:33:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#53 I'd say 90% saturated.

read: I haven't got a clue
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 7:34:59 PM||   2004-12-10 7:34:59 PM|| Front Page Top

#54 Wow, Aris and Mikey tag teaming. This thread's guaranteed triple digits. Sorry I had to go out for dinner and am now so pleasantly sated that I'll miss this one.
Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-12-10 7:42:41 PM||   2004-12-10 7:42:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#55 Aris, the states do have rights. That is why states can take the federal government to court.

Ofcourse they do have rights. *Governments* as a whole have rights -- rights given them through the mandate of the people.

But what happened in this case is that one branch/level of the government (the federal level) decided that government as a whole (regardless of whether federal or state level) DOESN'T have a certain right.

Government therefore *reduced* its scope. And it increased the rights of the individuals.

I can tell I am winning trhe argument coz Aris is calling me a moron and he is trying to change the subject racism/slavery.

I also called you a statist fascist btw. And it's the exact same subject -- thinking that "state rights" are inalienable, and caring not a damn about individual rights.

And I quoted the ninth amendment, not the tenth. And the ninth amendment doesn't say anything about the states.

And as for "winning the argument" you already lost it when you attacked me of opening the Pandora's box. LOL! Oh yeah, I've never heard that tired fear-based cliche before from people attacking same-sex marriage.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-12-10 7:43:31 PM||   2004-12-10 7:43:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#56  Wow, Aris and Mikey tag teaming. This thread's guaranteed triple digits. Sorry I had to go out for dinner and am now so pleasantly sated that I'll miss this one.

Since they're pro-homosexual, maybe they're just trolling for a threesome. :o)
Posted by badanov  2004-12-10 7:44:23 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2004-12-10 7:44:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#57 Mike, just for you, a couple short examples about the Old Testament not being racist, and the New Testament not downplaying marriage. But, I really think you should try reading the Book before leaping to wild conclusions about it.
Ru 4:13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she was his wife: and when he went in unto her, the LORD gave her conception, and she bare a son. BUT, BUT, BUT RUTH WAS A MOABITE, NOT A JEW -- WASN’T THAT WRONG? HOW CAN SHE BE AN ANCESTOR OF KING DAVID WHEN MIKE TELLS ME THE OLD TESTAMENT PEOPLE HATED NON-JEWS?

Jos 6:25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. Mt 1:5 And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; BUT, BUT, BUT RAHAB WASN’T A JEW, SHE WAS JUST SOME HARLOT WHO HID THE SPIES -- WASN’T THAT WRONG? HOW CAN SHE BE AN ANCESTOR OF KING DAVID WHEN MIKE TELLS ME THE OLD TESTAMENT PEOPLE HATED NON-JEWS?

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. BUT, BUT, BUT MIKE TOLD ME THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT PEOPLE DOWNPLAYED MARRIAGE -- ISN’T HONORING MARRIAGE A STRANGE WAY TO DOWNPLAY IT?

1Ti 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith . . . Forbidding to marry . . . BUT, BUT, BUT MIKE TOLD ME THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT PEOPLE DOWNPLAYED MARRIAGE -- ISN’T EQUATING FORBIDDING TO MARRY WITH APOSTASY A STRANGE WAY TO DOWNPLAY MARRIAGE?

Eph 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. BUT, BUT, BUT MIKE TOLD ME THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT PEOPLE DOWNPLAYED MARRIAGE -- ISN’T THE ADMONITION TO MUTUAL LOVE AND RESPECT BETWEEN A HUSBAND AND WIFE A STRANGE WAY TO DOWNPLAY MARRIAGE?
Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 8:02:58 PM||   2004-12-10 8:02:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#58 Aris, your protestations about my fascism notwithstanding, you should know that states and ggovernments in the US all regulate behavior, good behavior and bad. They do it through proscriptions or maybe through tax policy, but make no mistake there is such a thing as rights that are involved in that. The states have the right to impose taxes, and pass laws 'not enumerated' in the Constitution. That is a right, amoungst many many others and it has exactly nothing to do with the issue of slavery. That fact in no way makes me a fascist either for pointing it out or for supporting the rights of states.

I understand your need to trash my country because of long past mistakes but we don;t even try to deny we were some bad people in some of our policies, albeit in the long, long distant past. But this country has evolved into soemthing much better and we want to keep it improving. I seriously doubt that by denying homosexuals their now Constitution right to use their genitalia is ways others than what is right and proper will change what our nation is.

Now, homosexuality has nothing to do with race. It has to do with behavior, for ultimately it is their very behavior that distinguishes a homosexual. And it is behavior that the states and the federal government seek to regulate, whither by tax policy or by proscription or some other means.

But for all the canards you use, for all the attempts to change the subject, for all the irrelevent arguments you try to throw nothing changes the fact that homosexuality is a behavior. It is imminently changable behavior and it is desireable that that behavior be changed to heterosexual behavior. It is desireable because it is a goal of society to demonstrate the behaviors that the states seeks to encourage.

You have to understand my point of view. If a homosexual lacks the judgement necessary to help society along by marrying and raising a family, what does that refusal say about that person's judgement? Do we want to grant them a right by virute of their behavior, and to tell the rest of society that the governemnt now believes that homosexual behavior is a beneficial as heterosexual behavior?

Aris, get a clue. You want to throw arguments at me that have nothing to do with homosexuals seeking the right to have their unions condoned by governments and that is just aint happening. It won't change my mind and you are simply antagonzing this debate.
Posted by badanov  2004-12-10 8:13:21 PM|| [http://www.rkka.org/title-boris.gif]  2004-12-10 8:13:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#59 #51 PETER (THE ROCK) WAS MARRIED. He and any other married disciples probably got married before they became disciples of Jesus.

Probably????!!!!! Huh? Read the Early Church Fathers. Marriage is a cool thing. There are even whole Church services where people get married -- dating way back to the beginning of the Christian Church. The Bible and the Early Church often spoke about how the relationship between God and his people was like a relationship between a husband and a wife. For a proof text in the New Testament, how about this:
“My answer to those who are judging me is this. Have we no right to take food and drink? Have we no right to take about with us a Christian wife, like the rest of the Apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1Co 9:3-5 BBE)
So, Paul could have married a wife -- he just didn’t, and that was OK, too.
Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 8:15:49 PM||   2004-12-10 8:15:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#60 I understand your need to trash my country because of long past mistakes

Don't be again absurd. I am *praising* your country when it moved to stop itself from having homosexuality be illegal (when you attacked it instead). And three of your fifty states offer either same-sex marriage or civil unions -- California seems soon to follow, and so may Washington State so that may soon be five states.

Yeah, USA may be behind large chunks of Europe and the rest of the Anglosphere but it's still more progressive than most of the rest of the world. So yay, America.

And it is behavior that the states and the federal government seek to regulate, whither by tax policy or by proscription or some other means.

Behaviour must be forbidden only when it's *harmful* behaviour. People have still not managed to argue any innate harmfulness in homosexuality. Other than that it's "icky" ofcourse. Or that it doesn't lead to breeding children.

"homosexuality is a behavior."

Yes, homosexual sex is a behaviour. But I think the state has no business forbidding behaviour that isn't harmful.

If a homosexual lacks the judgement necessary to help society along by marrying and raising a family, what does that refusal say about that person's judgement?

It probably says that he doesn't think people are cattle to be bred, and that human beings serve other functions than just bearing young.

But as for having a family and raising children, that's what the whole issue of adoption rights for same-sex couples is all about, I think.

You want to throw arguments at me that have nothing to do with homosexuals seeking the right to have their unions condoned by governments and that is just aint happening.

Sure it is happening -- as I said: all over the world, such unions are being condoned by governments. In the United States itself, 3 states down, 47 to go. And a majority of Europeans I think lives in countries that recognize or are preparing to recognize same-sex marriages or atleast civil unions. Here you go.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-12-10 8:32:11 PM||   2004-12-10 8:32:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#61 hmmmm - wait'll they adopt Sharia. Chop-chop
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 8:40:58 PM||   2004-12-10 8:40:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#62 Good point Frank. This discussion is all well and good, but looks like it will all be for naught (for the Euro community that is).
Posted by Rafael 2004-12-10 8:45:43 PM||   2004-12-10 8:45:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#63 Sharia seems more likely to be declared on North America first, the way I see it. All that "regulating behaviour" because it "isn't desirable", according to badanov.
Posted by Aris Katsaris  2004-12-10 8:48:17 PM||   2004-12-10 8:48:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#64 
WHEN MIKE TELLS ME THE OLD TESTAMENT PEOPLE HATED NON-JEWS?

I didn't say that. I said the Old Testament said that Jews should not marry non-Jews.

THE NEW TESTAMENT PEOPLE DOWNPLAYED MARRIAGE -- ISN’T HONORING MARRIAGE A STRANGE WAY TO DOWNPLAY IT?

The New Testament mentions marriage several times. It mentions the issue of circumcision many, many more times and with much, much more interest.

Marriage was tolerated. It wasn't really criticized. Those people who got married were not condemned for it. It didn't matter much. Very soon the world would end, so marriage was just a temporary state until then.

In the following centuries, of course, the Church developed strong encouragement and guidelines for marriage. Most of the people who wrote the New Testament, however, did not encourage people to get married and did not think it was an important part of life in the remaining days. Whether or not men should get circumcised in the remaining days was much more significant.
.
Posted by Mike Sylwester 2004-12-10 9:42:14 PM||   2004-12-10 9:42:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#65 No, Mike Sylwester, you're just plain wrong. Try citing some support for your lame positions.
Posted by cingold 2004-12-10 10:13:03 PM||   2004-12-10 10:13:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#66 Cingold? Could you be a little more clear? Please present evidence and footnotes why....... (ACCCCKKKKK!!!!!)

LOL
Posted by Frank G  2004-12-10 10:35:07 PM||   2004-12-10 10:35:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#67 Oh my dear sweet God, this has gotten strange.
First of all, badanov, whatever two legal-age, consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is none of the damn government's business. I don't care what you and your church believe. It is a matter strictly between those two people and whichever deity they choose (or not choose) to worship. I'll be damned if some legislator is gonna tell me what I can and can't do with my husband. Deal with it.
And, yeah, I do happen to think that so-called Christians marrying and divorcing over and over again is a disgrace to Christianity. We have a real doozy in my own state legislature. She's been married five times. She's never been widowed, always divorced. She was always trying to get legislation passed to protect "the family" from things like sex toys. Her own family is a friggin' train wreck, but she's going to protect mine? I think not.
And for once, I'm agreeing with Mike Sylwester and agreeing again with Aris.
Wow.
I don't know the specific Bible verse, but I recall that St Paul wasn't too cool on the whole idea. Wasn’t there a verse that said(I'm paraphrasing here), "tis better to marry than to burn", meaning more or less, "if you can't control your lust then ok, go get married"?
Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-12-10 10:53:29 PM||   2004-12-10 10:53:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#68 BTW, cingold, nothing personal. ;) I respect your right to your opinion, and whatever way you want to read the Bible. I just disagree with how you interpret it.
Ain't it great to live in a country where we can debate this instead of shoot each other?
Now, excuse me, you wonderful people, but I got a hot date I'm late for. ;)
Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-12-10 11:05:21 PM||   2004-12-10 11:05:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#69 I am all for gay marriage. Long as no religion is forced to be a part of it (against their beliefs) then I could care less.

Here here! A most salient point
Posted by WingedAvenger 2004-12-10 11:09:05 PM||   2004-12-10 11:09:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#70 I am all for gay marriage. Long as no religion is forced to be a part of it (against their beliefs) then I could care less.

Here here! A most salient point
Posted by WingedAvenger 2004-12-10 11:09:14 PM||   2004-12-10 11:09:14 PM|| Front Page Top

04:07 on1117
03:52 on1117
00:15 Darth VAda
00:10 tipper
23:31 Darth VAda
23:14 VRWconspiracy
23:13 .com
23:09 WingedAvenger
23:09 WingedAvenger
23:06 WingedAvenger
23:05 Desert Blondie
23:03 WingedAvenger
23:03 OldSpook
22:58 Barbara Skolaut
22:55 Pappy
22:53 Desert Blondie
22:49 Don
22:43 ST
22:41 Frank G
22:37 someone
22:35 .com
22:35 Frank G
22:30 Frank G
22:25 Sock Puppet of Doom









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com