Gay Marriage

[TARZAN]

Hey Jim, De Ja Vu

-Will

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by XR1stang :

Let us not forget that not too long ago that very same "time-tested legal definition of marriage" also precluded white folks marrying black folks, black folks marrying asian folks, and asian folks from marrying white folks. Also that same definition (but a little earlier in time) precluded people of different national origins from marrying each other, and let's not even bother to touch on the subject of arranged marriages. So personally I think that argument is full of more holes than swiss cheese.

You may think what you wish but your contention is completely false. First of all, one cannot compare two essentially different realities. There is simply no analogy between interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the “marriage” between two individuals of the same sex. Inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior, which describes homosexuality. Artificial barriers to marriage based on race or origin were attempts to preclude people of different races from marriage, a manifestation of past racial discrimination in America that still florishes in other parts of the world where certain races, tribes and ethnic groups are not legally allowed to intermarry. What homosexuals demand is that we radically alter the legal definition of 'marriage' to now include people who are biologically the same: homosexuals. That is absurd and the fact that homosexual activists try to sell the idea by tying it to past racial discrimination that precluded black and white races from marriage is clever but a totally false premise. As much as 'gay marriage' advocates want to believe it, there is no comparison because race is genetic and immutable but homosexuality is not.

Oh one other thing I wanted to touch on. Someone hinted at "looking at the flowers and animals" because they got it "right". I would like to point that poster to the fact that sea lions, sea gulls, grey wolves and numerous other animals have been known to have homosexual relationships. Heck, I could point you to the fact that your common domesticated dog will hump ANYTHING regardless of whether it's alive or inanimate, male or female, or even of a DIFFERENT species all together. There are also certain flowers that have been found to only propagate through the interaction of pollen from TWO female flowers of that species... oh, and what about all the androgynous/asexual species of animals/insects that are out there? Care to touch on that subject?

Yes, I do. You're simply making the case that exceptions in nature prove the rule in a lame attempt to defend the indefensible. In Homo Sapiens hetrosexuality is the norm due to simple biology. Same-sex male partners seeking something akin to normal male sexual gratification are forced to use a male anus as a (poor) substitute for the female vagina. Two females must use artificial applicances to simulate male-female copulation, proving their same-sex sexual practices are clearly unnatural. While oral and anal sex is also practiced by hetrosexuals, only a male and a female have congruent physical bodies that compliment each other sexually. Male and female humans are made to copulate, conceive and bear children, which is obvious and undisputable. Same-sex couples cannot do this and their attempts to copulate are biologically unnatural. In addition, homosexuals attraction to the same sex has never come close to being proven the result of a genetic component. All of which make the attempt to compare some animals and plants reproductive activity to human sexuality an invalid premise but one is trotted out by 'gay marriage' advocates every time, no matter how often it's shot down. Again: you are attempting to defend the indefensible.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by srv1 :

Jim, you hurt my feelings I'm going to cry now you internet bully. You wait and see, I will get my internet friends after you!

James:, a review of the messages on this thread will show that you entered it with a wild attack on me, my morals, my motives and my intelligence. I simply responded by calling you on your unwarranted belligerence and inability to tolerate dissent from what you choose to believe. No need for hostility or hurt feelings.

Just because you answer alot of questions and helped people out doesnt mean you are correct. Anyone can spout out crap. I rather be a schizo than homophobic. Well water ever floats your boat, bully I really do hope that gay marriage gets accepted across the U.S. so they can have a gay wedding right in your home town and you can chase them with your bible

James, you make this too easy.

Oh yeah just because you were administrator, moderator or aszkisser, that doesnt mean squat. That doesnt prove your knowledge or anything else for the matter. One more thing, dont talk shit about Chris. He has made one if not the best, forum on the net, than any place I have been so far and has made more friends in the past year than you probably in your whole lifetime. He has a wonderful personality something you lack highly of.

I think Dan McClain might disagree with your dismissiveness toward my contributions here. I'm sure you're convinced that Chris is a wonderful human being and a very cool guy that you all know and love. He may be for all I know. Unfortunately, that is totally irrelevant to anything that has been discussed here.

Have a good day!

Somehow I detect a note of insincerity in that wish but I'll have a good day anyway. I usually do.

[mustardjohn]

Anyone need a wedding dress? Look at this one

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...ayphotohosting

[PKRWUD]

James-
Thanks for the kind words (I never knew you felt that way, sniff-sniff), but it's cool.


Jim-
I really wasn't trying to twist or contort anything, and I'm sorry you see everything as a tactic. That's why I said you seem like a scared conspiracy theorist. As far as the legal similarities between gay marriages and black/white marriages, this article was in the paper the other day, and I thought it was interesting...

Another marriage ban

In dealing with gay unions, court has a precedent

By Timm Herdt
April 28, 2004

As California's Supreme Court justices move toward the day when they will be forced to confront the most unsettling civil rights issue of the day - gay marriage - they will find themselves on a path their predecessors have trod before.

One thing they will find along that path is an eloquent expression of the prevailing justification for a ban on gay marriages, written by former California Supreme Court Justice John W. Shenk.

In an opinion written in a landmark case, Shenk declared: "The right of the state to exercise extensive control over the marriage contract has always been recognized. The institution of matrimony is the foundation of society, and the community at large has an interest in the maintenance of its integrity and purity."

Shenk wrote that on Oct. 1, 1948, in defense of a California marriage law that stated "no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person to a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race."

Shenk was one of three dissenters in the court's historic decision in Perez v. Lippold, which legalized interracial marriages in California.

At the time, it was quite a radical repudiation of a cultural ethic, which, the court declared, was in utter conflict with the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment and the Declaration of Independence.

The decision came 19 years before the U.S. Supreme Court came to the same conclusion and a generation before interracial marriages attained broad social acceptance.

Perez v. Lippold has been cited by courts in Hawaii, Vermont and Massachusetts, and in each case those justices have come to the same conclusion about gay marriages that the California justices did about interracial marriages in 1948: There is no valid legal reason to tell an American citizen that he or she must exclude a class of people as potential marriage partners.

The case of Perez v. Lippold was prominent last week in the debate before the Assembly Judiciary Committee before it approved a bill to legalize gay marriage in California.

It is likely that is as far as the legislative effort will advance this year, but the debate made clear how difficult it will be for state Supreme Court justices to fashion a legal justification for a gay-marriage ban.

As San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has noted, even the most strident opponents to gay marriage seem to recognize this. If they didn't fear that the Constitution would lead courts to strike down statutes barring gay marriage, he asks, why are they proposing to amend it?

Newsom may have recklessly decided earlier this year to claim for himself the authority to interpret the Constitution, but the precedents do suggest that his legal instincts were correct.

In 1948, 30 states banned interracial marriages. In his dissent, Shenk noted, "the ban on mixed marriages in this country is traceable from the early colonial period."

The court majority firmly held that such restrictions on marriage do not hold up against post-colonial American views of personal liberty.

Andrea Perez, a white woman, and Sylvester Davis, a black man, sued Los Angeles County Clerk Earl Lippold on the grounds that his refusal to grant them a marriage license violated their right to freedom of religion.

Both were Roman Catholics, and the church had no restriction on interracial marriage. The state ban, thus, prevented them from participating in the sacrament of marriage.

The court's decision was based on broader grounds.

Intrinsic in the right of personal liberty, the court said, is "the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home, and bring up children."

Since the individual right to marry is fundamental, the justices held, "Legislation infringing upon such rights must be based on more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws."

The California Supreme Court is expected to rule this summer on the narrow question of the legality of marriage licenses issued to gay couples this winter in San Francisco.

It will likely take years before a couple of cases challenging the constitutionality of the state's gay-marriage ban move up the judicial pipeline. By then, the justices must privately hope, the issue will have somehow resolved itself politically.

It is not likely that any of the current justices wants to write an opinion that, 56 years into the future, will seem to be what Shenk's 1948 dissent seems to be today: an archaic defense of the socially indefensible.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

Jim-
I really wasn't trying to twist or contort anything, and I'm sorry you see everything as a tactic. That's why I said you seem like a scared conspiracy theorist. As far as the legal similarities between gay marriages and black/white marriages, this article was in the paper the other day, and I thought it was interesting.

Once again, this is an attempt to link same-sex demands for special rights for homosexuals (to redefine marriage) with the civil rights movement that was an effort to give African-Americans their full constitutional rights, denied for centuries, and in the process, help others, including women, claim their full rights under the law. Those were true 'civil rights' movements. The same-sex 'marriage' movement is simply a legally unjustified demand for 'special rights' for one small group of people who chose to be defined by their sexuality. Blacks do not have the option of choosing their skin pigmentation but there is no genetic proof of homosexuality being innate and until it can be scientifically proven that homosexuality is truly innate and immutable, those who call for a drastic change in the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex 'couples' are simply demanding special treatment they do not deserve.

Homosexuals have all the legal benefits of society they claim to want and need, including the right to share medical and insurance benefits via new laws, power of attorney, wills and such. They now seek to reach the final step and force 'normalization' of a deviant sexual behavior on a hetrosexual society by having the law changed to recognize same-sex 'marriage' as co-equal to hetrosexual marriage. They call it a 'civil rights' issue to gain sympathy and gather hetrosexual supporters who believe supporting gay 'marriage' is so 'compassionate' and 'fair'. The advocates figure: how does this hurt me? It's a freebie. They can appear to be compassionate at no cost to them whatsoever. Tempting then, to become an advocate for same-sex marriage and burnish your sensitivity credentials in the process.

The sad fact remains that once you knock down a pillar of society such as the definition of marriage it will rapidly become corrupted by having any number of 'consenting adults' demanding they too, be legally allowed to 'marry'. The authorities will have no choice but to grant the demands because the definition of marriage will have been permanently altered. It will then mean whatever we want it to mean and thus be rendered meaning-less. In other nations where this has been tried, the marriage rate drops considerably. Co-habitation and children with permanently absent fathers abound because men and women have little incentive to legally 'marry' when the term itself has become empty and can include polygamists, relatives and of course, homosexuals. None of this is good for a stable society based on families.

Legalization of same-sex 'marriage' is a foolish and ultimately destructive concept that flies in the face of human biology and common sense. It bears no relation to the drive for 'civil rights' once fought by African-Americans who were denied a multitude of human rights because they were dark skinned - and for no other reason. African-Americans qualify - then and now - for marriage no matter what the race of the person they chose to marry because marriage only requires a man and a women, regardless of race. Segregrationists successful attempts to preclude blacks and whites from marriage were simply that: segregationist, with no basis in natural law or biology. Homosexuals do not qualify under this perfectly logical and time-tested definition (marriage requires a male and a female) that no culture has ever seriously questioned because it's simply a recognition of who we are and how we are made.

Emotional appeals to 'fairness' and against so-called 'discrimination' along with attempts to disparage the motives of those, like me, opposed to this unjustified demand for recognization of same-sex marriage with ridicule, questioning of my intelligence or trying to place the opposition to same-sex marriage on religious concepts the same-sex marriage advocate has long rejected, personally, are typical but remain devoid of intellectual honesty. I believe that championing same-sex marriage, while well-intentioned by most, is defending the indefensible and calling it a 'civil rights issue' is a total mischaracterization of the issue which amounts to a demand for special 'rights' by those who believe that calling rejections of their demands 'discrimination' will make their demands acceptable. That doesn't work for me or a majority of Americans and calling us names and trying to ridicule our motives won't help any, either, no matter who does it.

I think we've all enjoyed an interesting, informative discussion and I believe both sides of the issue have been debated fully here. I have little to add and no wish to engage in a drawn-out battle of internet stamina as to who can keep posting the longest (and saying the same things, different ways). So, I'll leave the thread at this point, confident that I've been fully heard on the issue and presented the 'other side' of gay 'marriage'to the best of my ability so I leave the thread to you, Chris, or anyone else who wishes to continue the discussion, for whatever it's worth. Thanks for the opportunity to discuss it. I'm sure we'll cross paths again.

I wish you the best.

[PKRWUD]

You used to ridicule people that wanted to leave a thread topic if you still had something to say.

The sad fact remains that once you knock down a pillar of society such as the definition of marriage it will rapidly become corrupted by having any number of 'consenting adults' demanding they too, be legally allowed to 'marry'. The authorities will have no choice but to grant the demands because the definition of marriage will have been permanently altered. It will then mean whatever we want it to mean and thus be rendered meaning-less. In other nations where this has been tried, the marriage rate drops considerably. Co-habitation and children with permanently absent fathers abound because men and women have little incentive to legally 'marry' when the term itself has become empty and can include polygamists, relatives and of course, homosexuals. None of this is good for a stable society based on families.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet. Any "man" that wouldn't be a responsible father and marry his child's mother, simply because he feels that the act of marriage has been tainted by gay people being allowed to do so is beyond ridiculous. He puts more value in his version of what the word means than in the well being of his child and it's mother. And you want to blame that on gay marriages. Oh my God, Jim. You can't be serious. I've given you valid, legal reasoning, and you come back with that. You know what, you come up with scientific "proof" that everyone is born heterosexual, and maybe some folks will agree to let your amendment go forward so that you can custom taylor things to suit your beliefs. You can't do it because the simple fact is that some people are born homosexual, whether you like it or not. If you are too afraid to admit this fact, then that's your personal issue. Heterosexuals are no better than homosexuals, and vise-versa. You are still going on the idea that homosexuals are bad, and even refer to their behavior as "deviant". Who the hell died and gave you the right to decide what kind of sexual behavior between legal American citizen adults is deviant? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's deviant. What makes this a great country is that someone like you, with a very narrow view of what is and is not acceptable, cannot dictate your beliefs over the masses. This country offers equal rights to all, INCLUDING their consensual sexual behavior among adults. There are a few oddball 19th century laws that haven't been overturned yet in a few remote southern counties, which every man I know has broken (including you, I'd be willing to bet), but by and large, sexual behavior between consenting adults is a matter of choice, and whether or not you agree with it doesn't make any one form better, or more or less deviant than the other.

Homosexuals do not qualify under this perfectly logical and time-tested definition (marriage requires a male and a female) that no culture has ever seriously questioned because it's simply a recognition of who we are and how we are made.

That's a nice theory, but the justices have already spoken. Again, "Intrinsic in the right of personal liberty,the court said, is "the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home, and bring up children."

Since the individual right to marry is fundamental, the justices held, "Legislation infringing upon such rights must be based on more than prejudice and must be free from oppressive discrimination to comply with the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws."

Individual means individual, it does not mean man and woman.

I can't believe I'm having this argument.

I wish you and yours nothing but the best as well, Jim. I truly hope 2004 is your best year yet.

Take care,
~Chris

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by PKRWUD :

You used to ridicule people that wanted to leave a thread topic if you still had something to say.

I had hoped you had matured to the point where you could rest on your prior comments and not use my leaving the thread as a vehicle for a snide comment. But no. That isn't going to happen, I see. You are who you are. So be it.

That is the most ridiculous thing you've said yet.
Any "man" that wouldn't be a responsible father and marry his child's mother, simply because he feels that the act of marriage has been tainted by gay people being allowed to do so is beyond ridiculous.

Tell that to the Dutch, where same-sex marriage has been legal for some time and marriage rates are down, noticably. As it is, in America, the percentage of (hetro) couples cohabitating has increased near-exponentially over the past decade. Once you take the sanctity and specialness out of marriage by calling almost any adult coupling 'marriage' you will inevitably weaken it in many ways. Playing games with the legal definition of one of the basic building blocks of society and expecting this will 'make no difference' is naive - and ridiculous.

He puts more value in his version of what the word means than in the well being of his child and it's mother. And you want to blame that on gay marriages. Oh my God, Jim. You can't be serious.

Save the puerile dramatics for someone who is impressed with them, Chris. They're wasted on me.

've given you valid, legal reasoning, and you come back with that.

You gave me the standard talking points for same-sex marriage Chris, nothing more, and I've responded with a host of valid and cogent answers for my point of view, most of which you ignore, totally, and try to find one point that you assume is weak and then hammer it. Nice try, buddy.

You know what, you come up with scientific "proof" that everyone is born heterosexual, and maybe some folks will agree to let your amendment go forward so that you can custom taylor things to suit your beliefs. You can't do it because the simple fact is that some people are born homosexual, whether you like it or not. If you are too afraid to admit this fact, then that's your personal issue.

Oh, Chris, you're so off here. Homosexuals demand that they be accorded the legal right to marry and call it 'discrimination' when it's refused. They try to co-opt the black civil-rights movement to do it but, as I explained in great detail - and you were quite careful to ignore - homosexuality is not close to race because race is determined by genes and homosexuality is not. That, whether you and the other same-sex advocates agree with it or not, is a scientific fact, Chris. Not my opinion. A fact. Your side just yells: we ARE SO born that way!!! I say: fine, prove it, scientifically, and I'll join the same-sex marriage side. You can't do it, Chris. That you are too 'afraid' to admit this fact - a scientific fact, at that, is apparently your 'personal issue'.

Heterosexuals are no better than homosexuals, and vise-versa. You are still going on the idea that homosexuals are bad, and even refer to their behavior as "deviant". Who the hell died and gave you the right to decide what kind of sexual behavior between legal American citizen adults is deviant? Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's deviant.

Chris, you make this too easy for me. First, the same-sex marriage issue isn't about who is 'better'. That's junior-high school thinking and pure emotion with no basis in reality. It isn't about 'liking' or not liking people and for you to attempt to reduce the argument to that level is indicative of the inherent weakness of the whole argument for permitting same-sex 'marriage'. Homosexual sex is termed 'deviant' because it deviates from normal male-female sexual behavior, as I patiently explained - and again, that you carefully ignored in your reply.

What makes this a great country is that someone like you, with a very narrow view of what is and is not acceptable, cannot dictate your beliefs over the masses. This country offers equal rights to all, INCLUDING their consensual sexual behavior among adults.
There are a few oddball 19th century laws that haven't been overturned yet in a few remote southern counties, which every man I know has broken (including you, I'd be willing to bet), but by and large, sexual behavior between consenting adults is a matter of choice, and whether or not you agree with it doesn't make any one form better, or more or less deviant than the other.

See above reply. Also, despite your blustering about it, I never said homosexual sex acts between consenting adults should be illegal (under a 2003 Supreme Court ruling, they aren't), only that we should not alter the legal definition of marriage because one group of people, homosexuals, simply say we should. It isn't about whether I find homosexuality 'acceptable' but whether I believe that America should change the legal definition of marriage. I do not, and for logical, sound reasons, all of which I've described and explained to you - and which you have carefully ignored and insisted on continuing to debate this issue even after we've said all we really have to say. Now you're devolving into personal attacks and name-calling, which I'm willing to hand right back to you but which I know you don't really want to get into, Chris. Do you?

That's a nice theory, but the justices have already spoken. Individual means individual, it does not mean man and woman.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court justices, in a 5-4 vote, handed down an interpretation of the state constitution that you happen to agree with. That does not make it correct. 'Negros' were once ruled to be seven-eights human by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bet you wouldn't have agreed with that, Chris, so don't try to pretend that a slim majority of liberal state judges settle the issue. They, like you, are playing the 'discrimination card' and trying to sell the idea that since marriage is fundamental to society (true) any adult who wants to be married to another adult must be allowed, legally, to do so, regardless of gender and to not allow it is 'discrimination'. The ruling flies in the face of logic, not to mention human biology. The majority of the residents of Massachusetts disagree, for good reason, and that is one of the most politically liberal states in the union, having both John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy as it's Senators. That should tell you something about this foolishly biased ruling, written by a woman judge who was a featured speaker at a gay rights conference in the not too distant past. By the court's interpretation, anyone can do almost anything in Massachusetts and call it a 'right'. That's wrong.

Meanwhile, the legislators of Massachusetts are going to hold a referendum to change this distortion of the Massachusetts constitution so badly used by biased judges pushing an agenda. No wonder special-interest groups run to the liberal courts when they know they can't get their ridiculous ideas passed by legislators, answerable to the citizens. Judges, appointed for life, can hand down these absurd rulings with no personal consequence and make drastic changes in the laws of society and do great damage to that society while the people have no voice. That isn't democracy and the fact that most of our bad laws came to us this way is also telling.

I can't believe I'm having this argument.

You're preening as some caring, compassionate lover of freedom is getting tiresome, Chris. You wanted to continue the discussion so don't complain about it. I'm more than willing to drop it at this late date - I've made my case - but you apparently won't let it go. Why? I'm not going to agree with you (nor you with me) and launching personal attacks on each other do nothing to sell our point of view, so why keep the debate going? Let your points speak for you and stop trying to beat this to death. I've made it clear that I have little interest to further engage in this thread but I won't allow you to call me 'ridiculous' and attack me and my positions with no reply. I ask you now to knock it off.

I wish you and yours nothing but the best as well, Jim. I truly hope 2004 is your best year yet.

Take care,
~Chris

A great way to finally end this discussion once and for all.

[silver_pilate]

Ahhhh.....this type of thread brings back some fond memories...


My 2 cents if anyone cares....

Sufice it to say that I oppose legalizing same-sex marriages. Why? Well, I'm morally opposed to homosexuality. I believe it is wrong. Yep, I said it. It's WRONG. That's what I believe and that's what I stand for.

Even not counting for all of the religious reasons that I oppose homosexuality, nature itself selects against it. XR1stang points to examples in nature of homosexual acts. Guess what. If you take all of those "homo" creatures and put 'em together in furry animal marriages, guess how may kiddo's they'd have. Yep, you guessed it. Not a one. Of course, that is if some crazy wacko furbie court doesn't give them someone elses normal animal baby to raise in an abnormal way.

In nature, if a male critter digs doing it with another male critter for whatever reason, that male critter will not be able to reproduce. That is the entire idea for the male-female scheme on this earth. We're not mushrooms. We gotta hook up with the other sex to contribute to the furthering of our species. Homosexuals contribute nothing to our race except crazy butt-lovin' (or whatever the ladies are calling it now days).

On this issue of the definition of marriage....

The institution of marriage has its very beginnings in the church. The idea is to create a stable family unit for having and rearing children. It should not even be a decision of the state to determine what marriage is. If some queer folk want to live together as a couple, fine. Go ahead. It won't bother me. But IT'S NOT A MARRIAGE!!!

That's pretty much all I've got to say.

Good to see you guys again.

--nathan

[bigred90gt]

As defined by Websters Dictionary:
marriage - 1. The state of being married: wedlock. 2. The act of marrying or the ceremony of being married. 3. Close union.

marry - 1. to take as a husband or wife. 2. to unite in matrimony. 3. to become closely united.

matrimony - 1. marriage

husband - a man who is married.

wife - a married woman

(all above definitions came from websters dictionary)

I dont know about y'all, but I see no where in the definition of the word marriage that requires it to be a man and a woman.

silver_pilate - Are you married? Have you ever had sex? Did you do so with the intentions of having a kid, every time you did so? If not, your argument (and everyone else who says it is not right because they cant reproduce) is invalid. Period.

The institution of marriage has its very beginnings in the church. The idea is to create a stable family unit for having and rearing children. It should not even be a decision of the state to determine what marriage is. If some queer folk want to live together as a couple, fine. Go ahead. It won't bother me. But IT'S NOT A MARRIAGE!!!

Then I ask you this: Why do you have to have the approval of the state to enter into a LEGAL marriage? Its not a moral marriage, its not a religuios marriage, but it IS a LEGAL marriage. Without that little piece of paper called a marriage liscense, you ARE NOT married. When people decide to end the marriage, you dont semply move one person out and call it done. You have to go to COURT (not church) and LEGALLY divorce.

I'm with those who say, it effects me in no way, shape, form, or fashion.

[StangFlyer]

Interesting comments I get in email these days...

Subject: This makes me sick

Anonymous (as in made a fake address) AOL user:

First, I could care less if anyone that visits this website is gay. Second, why in the WORLD do we need to talk about GAY marriage on a car website? Why? I suggest lets stick to talking about cars.

Obviously the reader is offended... so, what would be your (those here debating) reaction to this offender readers correspondence.

[82 GT]

Homosexuality is a disease in my opinion and should be dealt with the same way.....find a way to get rid of it!!
If this offends anyone I don't care. It 's my opinion and you may not always like it.
I don't sugar coat anything and I don't intend to start now.

[jaxter1]

Hey, it's a no-brainer. Civil unions, "life partners", shared benefits, I guess that's all there legally already, isn't it? But..... Marriage? Well....that's been the tradition of religious rituals worldwide for many millenium, bringing procreative partners into the fold....and at heart most of the religions, at the core moral base they not only see fixated buggery/bullldykery as unnatural (usually symptomatic of incipient-to-developed moral/ character sickness, actually) but surely not worthy of a 'sanctified union'. No Muslim would do this- no real Jew-nor any Christian who's read Scripture at all. Even Bhuddists and Amerinds would walk away ashamed, let alone Aboriginals or 'Pagans'. It's a legal battle for faggotry. I'm married to a woman...I resent anyone attempting to cheapen a thing I hold in great reverance. Why force something that's universally condemned as a religious issue? Take your civil unions and go away, sez me. Leave marraige alone, no-one's god would have a union like that. Show me one religion that approves, in its doctrine, that gays should be wed, or has it in it's history. I'll show you a road paved to hell w/stupid intentions.

[bigred90gt]

Originally posted by jaxter1
Hey, it's a no-brainer. Civil unions, "life partners", shared benefits, I guess that's all there legally already, isn't it? But..... Marriage? Well....that's been the tradition of religious rituals worldwide for many millenium, bringing procreative partners into the fold....and at heart most of the religions, at the core moral base they not only see fixated buggery/bullldykery as unnatural (usually symptomatic of incipient-to-developed moral/ character sickness, actually) but surely not worthy of a 'sanctified union'. No Muslim would do this- no real Jew-nor any Christian who's read Scripture at all. Even Bhuddists and Amerinds would walk away ashamed, let alone Aboriginals or 'Pagans'. It's a legal battle for faggotry. I'm married to a woman...I resent anyone attempting to cheapen a thing I hold in great reverance. Why force something that's universally condemned as a religious issue? Take your civil unions and go away, sez me. Leave marraige alone, no-one's god would have a union like that. Show me one religion that approves, in its doctrine, that gays should be wed, or has it in it's history. I'll show you a road paved to hell w/stupid intentions.

That might be a decent argument, if laws were based on religion. But they arent, and its not. This is not a religious/moral debate, so throw out all the talk of how much your gods would hate it. No one cares. This is a legal issue, and last I remember the seperation of church and state was still big in this country. So, go to church and gay bash all you want, but, remember that laws cant be created on a religious backround in this country.

[CobraJet428]

Interesting arguments abou this topic. I stand against the idea of gay marriage obviously because of my religious beleifs as do some others who have stated their opinion on this board. I beleive that the traditional family is still the best environment for the raising of children. I believe in the beginnging it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. I do not hate people who are gay, but I do not have to accept nor approve of the lifestyle. That is my free choice. You do not have to accept my opinion.
And as far as "separation of church and state " is concerned,
that concept was coined by Thomas Jefferson based on the way he viewed the 1st ammendment of the US Constitution which DOES state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof." The constitution nowhere contains the phrase "separation of church and state" but it is implied by the "establishment clause" of the 1st ammendment. What the framers of the constitution wanted to prevent was excessive entanglement between politics and religion and to not have an official state church like many European countries had (France:Roman Catholic, England:Anglican,etc.) It never intended for religion to be ignored in any type of lawmaking. Do you think for a moment that laws against murder aren't based on Judeo-Christian ethics found in the 10 Commandments? Religion has shaped our legal system and every legal system in the world in some way or another and will continue to do so, like it or not.

[Mr 5 0]

Originally posted by Dan McClain :

Interesting comments I get in email these days...

Obviously the reader is offended... so, what would be your (those here debating) reaction to this offender readers correspondence.

The debate isn't over whether anyone here happens to be 'gay' or not, it concerns 'gay marriage', currently a very hot topic in the ongoing culture wars. Most of the discussion has been pointed but generally civil. We do have rules here. The Blue Oval Lounge is a place where Mustang lovers - who are assumed to have a life outside of the drivers seat of their cars - can discuss non-car topics if they wish. The operative phrase here is: if they wish. Participation is optional. If the subject 'offends' you don't open the thread. While everyone has a right to their personal opinion as well as the right to defend and explain it, no one is forced to read posts they don't like or care about. Other members may find it very interesting; more so than discussing the virtues of this or that rear end ratio for the thousandth time. That's why we have multiple and varied forums on the messageboard; to better serve all of our members. If that offends anyone, they should re-assess their sensitivity threshold because it's probably set WAY too high.

That would be my reaction.

[Stang_Girl617]

My opnion of the gay marriage debate is... If it doesnt concern you... why let it bother you. Some people choose to pursue a gay relationship (not meaning this in a offensive way). But if that kinda relationship isnt your personal choice why even let it bother you. That is just my very own personal opinion on the marriage debate.

[mustardjohn]

Taking the lead form 5.0's last post...

"The debate isn't over whether anyone here happens to be 'gay' or not, it concerns 'gay marriage', currently a very hot topic in the ongoing culture wars."

Many here are too young to remember the Viet Nam War or the reasoning behind fighting it. A much discussed line of reasoning was the "Domino Theory". By that theory if we did not stop communisn in Viet Nam or Southeast Asia other dominos would fall and it would spread further from China.

Gay marriage reminds me of this in a cultural sense. If permisive behavior gos unchecked, it will spread to many areas that today would seem to be unaffected by Gay Marriage. So the cultural war is fought on that battlefield to hold back the wholesale change out of cultural values that have been/are the norm. Other battles lost have been school prayer, etc. Many casualties have been piled up in places like Political Correctness and Excessive Tort litigation.

So althought the current battle may not affect you directly, as was said of Viet Nam, the war if lost will have an impact.

The current fight in Middle East is much more threatening than Viet Nam seemed to be but I am sure there are those that would say let the middle east folk do what they want to it doesn't affect me. The threat to cultural norms is in some ways very similar.

[Stang_Girl617]

A question about the last post:

Are you comparing Gay Marriage to the DOMINO THEROY!! I am so dissapointed in some of the people on this website. How can one persons personal sexual preferance upset you so much. Just because someone is gay doesnt mean that if people see or associate with the person that they will become gay to *if that makes sense* If you are so scared that you or the rest of the population may be pursuaded by the gay population that just shows that you are infact uncomfortable with your sexuality. If you believe you are heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual whatever your choice may be (personally i would never be in a homosexual relationship) then being associated with a gay or bisexual person shouldnt affect you in any way. You shouldnt be a follower be a leader. Your decison should not be based on what john doe did. And if it is then that just shows what a weak person you are. Once again... if it doesnt affect you WHY WOULD YOU EVEN CARE! im not saying gay marriage is right... but if 2 people are happy, why bother them. They have rights too.

[Capri306]

Show me two homos that can together create a child and they can get married all they want.

Until then, they can shut the ****** up.

Case closed.