Political Crossfire Forums

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

toddytodd wrote:
I don't know if the gov't will ever 'get out of marriage' - they are, unfortunately, so involved with it (and being the gov't is lazy), that it would take too much time, energy etc. to change it. Also, many older gov't officials are from an older generation - steadfast in their beliefs, no matter the evidence (or lack of) that's available.

I'm afraid you may be right, but I like to practive NLP in these Forums: If I repeat it enough, even the most conservative person will have heard the concept, so maybe in 5 years when the law crops up, they will have less resistence.

Everyone, repeat after me! It's a Mantra!

"Marriage is for the church, Civil Union's for the Gov't"
"Marriage is for the church, Civil Union's for the Gov't"
"Marriage is for the church, Civil Union's for the Gov't"
"Marriage is for the church, Civil Union's for the Gov't"
"Marriage is for the church, Civil Union's for the Gov't"
"Marriage is for the church, Civil Union's for the Gov't"
"Marriage is for the church, Civil Union's for the Gov't"

:-D :wink:

F'losrix · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:31 pm Post subject:

John wrote: Quote: Gay marriage and gay rights, for example. Many groups (who admittedly aren't totally christian, but many if not most have christian roots and use christian ideas) are trying to make it illegal.

Illegal as in criminal? I don't think so.....I was under the impression that they wanted to keep things like they already are.
There's at least one state that makes it a misdemeanor to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple (Oklahoma).

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of the people voting for these bans are under the mistaken impression that banning recognition = criminalizing same-sex marriages. There's the matter of Sen. Brownback holding up a judicial appointment because he thinks the judge in question participated in an "illegal marriage" ceremony (even though it wasn't called a marriage nor represented as having any civil recognition). There was also a failed prosecution a few years back of two Unitarian ministers in New York for officiating at weddings of unlicensed same-sex couples.

Quote: Just because something isn't recognized by the government doesn't make it a crime. Homosexuals can get "married" (it kinda contradicts the definition of the word...but whatever)....the government just won't recognize it in ways that governments recognize things.
See above. It doesn't seem to matter whether we call it a 'marriage' or merely a 'commitment ceremony' - either way we may end up in trouble with people trying to overextend the law's reach.

F'losrix

mODULAR mAN wrote: I think in a few years we will see some big changes that will, ironically, affect very few people - except for the better.
That isn't the way things are trending, though. A number of states have banned any recognition of gay couples at the constitutional level, with more expected to follow next month and probably even more in subsequent elections.

I don't think you'll see any movement to repeal those changes gaining ground for at least a couple of decades - when a younger generation reaches the age where they may start to have a stronger influence within the government. I expect that IF there ever does come a day when not only all the states but also the federal government provides some kind of recognition to gay couples, it will take yet another couple of decades again to accomplish it.

I estimate 50 years, by which time I'll probably dead. Even if I live that long, there's a good chance my partner will be gone, since he'd be nearing the century mark by then.

Todd D. · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:34 pm Post subject:

Quote: Just because something isn't recognized by the government doesn't make it a crime. Homosexuals can get "married" (it kinda contradicts the definition of the word...but whatever)....the government just won't recognize it in ways that governments recognize things.
To that same end, however, just bcause something IS recognized and condoned by the government doesn't mean that society is under any obligation to recognize it as moral. Pre-Marital Sex, cigarettes, artificial birth control, I consider those to be immoral, but I don't think that any of them should be illegal because they involve consentual decisions between two adults. With marraige, it's much the same.

Whether you want to call it marraige, want to call it civil unions is really irrelevent. The fact of the matter is that the way committed homosexual couples in this country are treated as it pertains to en testate deaths, hospital visitation, social security, etc. is disequitous to their heterosexual counterparts. However the government wants to address that is one thing, but I'm of the opinion that something has to be done. I personally am a big fan of straight up secular civil unions as far as the government is concerned.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22949

F'losrix wrote: John wrote: Quote: Gay marriage and gay rights, for example. Many groups (who admittedly aren't totally christian, but many if not most have christian roots and use christian ideas) are trying to make it illegal.

Illegal as in criminal? I don't think so.....I was under the impression that they wanted to keep things like they already are.
There's at least one state that makes it a misdemeanor to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple (Oklahoma).

I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of the people voting for these bans are under the mistaken impression that banning recognition = criminalizing same-sex marriages. There's the matter of Sen. Brownback holding up a judicial appointment because he thinks the judge in question participated in an "illegal marriage" ceremony (even though it wasn't called a marriage nor represented as having any civil recognition). There was also a failed prosecution a few years back of two Unitarian ministers in New York for officiating at weddings of unlicensed same-sex couples.

Quote: Just because something isn't recognized by the government doesn't make it a crime. Homosexuals can get "married" (it kinda contradicts the definition of the word...but whatever)....the government just won't recognize it in ways that governments recognize things.
See above. It doesn't seem to matter whether we call it a 'marriage' or merely a 'commitment ceremony' - either way we may end up in trouble with people trying to overextend the law's reach.

Well, I agree with you 100% that it shouldn't be a criminal issue.

F'losrix · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:25 pm Post subject:

Todd D. wrote: Whether you want to call it marraige, want to call it civil unions is really irrelevent. The fact of the matter is that the way committed homosexual couples in this country are treated as it pertains to en testate deaths, hospital visitation, social security, etc. is disequitous to their heterosexual counterparts. However the government wants to address that is one thing, but I'm of the opinion that something has to be done. I personally am a big fan of straight up secular civil unions as far as the government is concerned.
Me too, so long as it's that way for everyone.

Speaking of death benefits, Gerry Studds' husband is being denied his federal pension:

"Dean Hara, who married former Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds shortly after same-sex marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004, has been disqualified for benefits under the so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act."

"At the time of his death Studds was receiving an estimated annual pension of $114,337.

Surviving spouses of members of Congress collect more than half of the pension for the remainder of their lives."

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/10/101706studds.htm

No doubt the bunch who have been using Studds as a whipping boy in their favored tactic of distraction in the debates about the Foley scandal are celebrating this, big time. Not that you'll get many of them to admit it.

Just think how much money we could save if we denied pension monies to the surviving heterosexual spouses of deceased Congressman.

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

F'losrix wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I think in a few years we will see some big changes that will, ironically, affect very few people - except for the better.
That isn't the way things are trending, though. A number of states have banned any recognition of gay couples at the constitutional level, with more expected to follow next month and probably even more in subsequent elections.

I don't think you'll see any movement to repeal those changes gaining ground for at least a couple of decades - when a younger generation reaches the age where they may start to have a stronger influence within the government. I expect that IF there ever does come a day when not only all the states but also the federal government provides some kind of recognition to gay couples, it will take yet another couple of decades again to accomplish it.

I estimate 50 years, by which time I'll probably dead. Even if I live that long, there's a good chance my partner will be gone, since he'd be nearing the century mark by then.

It really is sad. I wish the best for you guys. I hate to think that Fred Phelps, and people who allow his view to hold sway, will gleefully die thinking he has done his gods will, while you are - heaven forbid - trying to get the right to visit your partner in the hospital, have say in his wishes, adopt his children, etc.

It is this absolute bigotry of Xianity, in this case, that makes it an accomplice in such moral bankrupcy that I feel like punching Moderate Xians, just for not speaking out about this issue.

Todd D.

mODULAR mAN wrote: F'losrix wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I think in a few years we will see some big changes that will, ironically, affect very few people - except for the better.
That isn't the way things are trending, though. A number of states have banned any recognition of gay couples at the constitutional level, with more expected to follow next month and probably even more in subsequent elections.

I don't think you'll see any movement to repeal those changes gaining ground for at least a couple of decades - when a younger generation reaches the age where they may start to have a stronger influence within the government. I expect that IF there ever does come a day when not only all the states but also the federal government provides some kind of recognition to gay couples, it will take yet another couple of decades again to accomplish it.

I estimate 50 years, by which time I'll probably dead. Even if I live that long, there's a good chance my partner will be gone, since he'd be nearing the century mark by then.

It really is sad. I wish the best for you guys. I hate to think that Fred Phelps, and people who allow his view to hold sway, will gleefully die thinking he has done his gods will, while you are - heaven forbid - trying to get the right to visit your partner in the hospital, have say in his wishes, adopt his children, etc.

It is this absolute bigotry of Xianity, in this case, that makes it an accomplice in such moral bankrupcy that I feel like punching Moderate Xians, just for not speaking out about this issue.
1) Why mention Fred Phelps? Nobody, NOBODY, takes him seriously who doesn't share his last name. I can only assume that you prefer to argue from emotion rather than intellect.

2) If you think that it's only Christians than oppose gay marraige, then you have indicated in this thread that you have no clue what you are talking about.

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

Todd D. wrote: 1) Why mention Fred Phelps? Nobody, NOBODY, takes him seriously who doesn't share his last name. I can only assume that you prefer to argue from emotion rather than intellect.

Fred Phelps claims he is a good Xian, I take him at his word. Or, am I to be a judge of who is a real Xian?

Should I mention Falwell? Robertson? Billy Graham? You?

Who is a good example of a good Xian? After all, God/Jesus killed people for being gay, so it's not a stretch to say Xianity is opposed to homosexuality.

You might be burying your head in the sand if you don't recognize that MOST opposition to homosexuality comes from the Judeo/Xian/Muslim philosophy.

Phelps is the extreme example, I used him as such, and then mentioned that Moderate Xians do little to counter the extremists of their religion.

Quote: 2) If you think that it's only Christians than oppose gay marraige, then you have indicated in this thread that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Well, I'm willing to learn. Why don't you teach me. It is my understanding that 80% of the US is Xian, and about 50% of the US (depending on the poll, and the question) is against gay marriage.

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.

What are those reasons?

I never said only Xians oppose gay marriage. Jews and Muslims do, too.
Of course, once you count them up, you have about 1-12% atheists/non-religious/other. I don't know if this is the large group that is keeping gay marriage illegal... :wink:

BTW:
http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=37

Religious Beliefs Underpin Opposition to Homosexuality

Todd D. · Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:51 pm Post subject:

Quote: Fred Phelps claims he is a good Xian, I take him at his word. Or, am I to be a judge of who is a real Xian?

Should I mention Falwell? Robertson? Billy Graham? You?
You are well aware that mentioning a man that runs a website called "GodHatesFags.com" is going to illicit an emotional reaction, no different than mentioning Stalin or Hitler. It's an appeal to emotion, which is meaningless in any honest debate.

Quote: Who is a good example of a good Xian? After all, God/Jesus killed people for being gay, so it's not a stretch to say Xianity is opposed to homosexuality.
I never suggested that most Christians are not against homosexuality, I simply stated that it's not at trait unique to Christianity.

Quote: You might be burying your head in the sand if you don't recognize that MOST opposition to homosexuality comes from the Judeo/Xian/Muslim philosophy.
Whoa, so we've gone from "Christians" to "Jews (14.6 million of them), Muslims (1.5 Billion), AND Christians (2.1 Billion)"? You've just increased the population that you are talking about by 72%! In fact, you've gone from talking about a third of the world population to well over half. That's not exactly a meaningless difference.

Quote: Phelps is the extreme example, I used him as such, and then mentioned that Moderate Xians do little to counter the extremists of their religion.
Phelps is more than just an "extreme example", he's so far off the radar it's not even funny.

Quote: Well, I'm willing to learn. Why don't you teach me. It is my understanding that 80% of the US is Xian, and about 50% of the US (depending on the poll, and the question) is against gay marriage.

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.
You are assuming that 50% is all Christian. Considering the Muslim population in this country (295 Million) alone, I would imagine that a majority of them are opposed to Homosexual marraige as well.

Again, you must realize that I am not suggesting that a majority of Christians do not oppose gay marraige. All I am saying is that to blame them alone is entirely innapropriate.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Fred Phelps claims he is a good Xian, I take him at his word. Or, am I to be a judge of who is a real Xian?

Should I mention Falwell? Robertson? Billy Graham? You?
You are well aware that mentioning a man that runs a website called "GodHatesFags.com" is going to illicit an emotional reaction, no different than mentioning Stalin or Hitler. It's an appeal to emotion, which is meaningless in any honest debate.

Quote: Who is a good example of a good Xian? After all, God/Jesus killed people for being gay, so it's not a stretch to say Xianity is opposed to homosexuality.
I never suggested that most Christians are not against homosexuality, I simply stated that it's not at trait unique to Christianity.

Quote: You might be burying your head in the sand if you don't recognize that MOST opposition to homosexuality comes from the Judeo/Xian/Muslim philosophy.
Whoa, so we've gone from "Christians" to "Jews (14.6 million of them), Muslims (1.5 Billion), AND Christians (2.1 Billion)"? You've just increased the population that you are talking about by 72%! In fact, you've gone from talking about a third of the world population to well over half. That's not exactly a meaningless difference.

Quote: Phelps is the extreme example, I used him as such, and then mentioned that Moderate Xians do little to counter the extremists of their religion.
Phelps is more than just an "extreme example", he's so far off the radar it's not even funny.

Quote: Well, I'm willing to learn. Why don't you teach me. It is my understanding that 80% of the US is Xian, and about 50% of the US (depending on the poll, and the question) is against gay marriage.

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.
You are assuming that 50% is all Christian. Considering the Muslim population in this country (295 Million) alone, I would imagine that a majority of them are opposed to Homosexual marraige as well.

Again, you must realize that I am not suggesting that a majority of Christians do not oppose gay marraige. All I am saying is that to blame them alone is entirely innapropriate.
Quote: Again, you must realize that I am not suggesting that a majority of Christians do not oppose gay marraige. All I am saying is that to blame them alone is entirely innapropriate.
Agreed. There are more than 'christian people' against it. But it says something that, when people talk about anit-gay marriage, christians come to mind almost immediately. Why is that? Only two options that I can see: 1) Christianity has ingrained in our collective minds that "gay is wrong" for so long that it's associated with christianity or, 2) christianity is considered the 'main religion' in the United States, and the connection is made with christianity says "gay is wrong", again.
Either one doesn't bod well for Christianity I think.

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

Todd D. wrote: Quote: Fred Phelps claims he is a good Xian, I take him at his word. Or, am I to be a judge of who is a real Xian?

Should I mention Falwell? Robertson? Billy Graham? You?
You are well aware that mentioning a man that runs a website called "GodHatesFags.com" is going to illicit an emotional reaction, no different than mentioning Stalin or Hitler. It's an appeal to emotion, which is meaningless in any honest debate.

Quote: Who is a good example of a good Xian? After all, God/Jesus killed people for being gay, so it's not a stretch to say Xianity is opposed to homosexuality.
I never suggested that most Christians are not against homosexuality, I simply stated that it's not at trait unique to Christianity.

Quote: You might be burying your head in the sand if you don't recognize that MOST opposition to homosexuality comes from the Judeo/Xian/Muslim philosophy.
Whoa, so we've gone from "Christians" to "Jews (14.6 million of them), Muslims (1.5 Billion), AND Christians (2.1 Billion)"? You've just increased the population that you are talking about by 72%! In fact, you've gone from talking about a third of the world population to well over half. That's not exactly a meaningless difference.

Quote: Phelps is the extreme example, I used him as such, and then mentioned that Moderate Xians do little to counter the extremists of their religion.
Phelps is more than just an "extreme example", he's so far off the radar it's not even funny.

Quote: Well, I'm willing to learn. Why don't you teach me. It is my understanding that 80% of the US is Xian, and about 50% of the US (depending on the poll, and the question) is against gay marriage.

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.
You are assuming that 50% is all Christian. Considering the Muslim population in this country (295 Million) alone, I would imagine that a majority of them are opposed to Homosexual marraige as well.

Again, you must realize that I am not suggesting that a majority of Christians do not oppose gay marraige. All I am saying is that to blame them alone is entirely innapropriate.

I was speaking about gay marriage laws in this country. However, i can go as far to say that gay marriage in other countries is also, primarily, led by the Religionists. You will find that "Secular societies", inasmuch as they exist, are more lenient towards equal rights in general, and gay marriage specifically.
And, no I don't assume all 50% are Xian. I would bet, though, that more than 85% of that 50% are Xian.

(Did you see the link I provided?)

I am claiming that the gay marriage resistence comes primarily from the religious in our country, so much so, that I would think its a given that the 1-15% (I waver b/w these numbers because they are unclear.) "others" probably have little problem with gay marriage.

i'll tell you what. I think we agree. Most people are Xian in the US, most of the resistance against gay marriage is from the Xians - not exclusively - but most.

If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.

I am making that claim that it is primarily Xian philosphy that is resistant to the idea of gay marriage, and they are the largest group in the US.

(Let me put it this way: if Xians, as a group, declared homosexuality NOT a sin, or NOT bad in the eyes of God; gay marriage would be legal tomorrow).

PLease give me a reason against gay marriage that doesn't include some connection to the Xian concpet of homosexuality being a negative thing.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

mODULAR mAN wrote: Todd D. wrote: Quote: Fred Phelps claims he is a good Xian, I take him at his word. Or, am I to be a judge of who is a real Xian?

Should I mention Falwell? Robertson? Billy Graham? You?
You are well aware that mentioning a man that runs a website called "GodHatesFags.com" is going to illicit an emotional reaction, no different than mentioning Stalin or Hitler. It's an appeal to emotion, which is meaningless in any honest debate.

Quote: Who is a good example of a good Xian? After all, God/Jesus killed people for being gay, so it's not a stretch to say Xianity is opposed to homosexuality.
I never suggested that most Christians are not against homosexuality, I simply stated that it's not at trait unique to Christianity.

Quote: You might be burying your head in the sand if you don't recognize that MOST opposition to homosexuality comes from the Judeo/Xian/Muslim philosophy.
Whoa, so we've gone from "Christians" to "Jews (14.6 million of them), Muslims (1.5 Billion), AND Christians (2.1 Billion)"? You've just increased the population that you are talking about by 72%! In fact, you've gone from talking about a third of the world population to well over half. That's not exactly a meaningless difference.

Quote: Phelps is the extreme example, I used him as such, and then mentioned that Moderate Xians do little to counter the extremists of their religion.
Phelps is more than just an "extreme example", he's so far off the radar it's not even funny.

Quote: Well, I'm willing to learn. Why don't you teach me. It is my understanding that 80% of the US is Xian, and about 50% of the US (depending on the poll, and the question) is against gay marriage.

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.
You are assuming that 50% is all Christian. Considering the Muslim population in this country (295 Million) alone, I would imagine that a majority of them are opposed to Homosexual marraige as well.

Again, you must realize that I am not suggesting that a majority of Christians do not oppose gay marraige. All I am saying is that to blame them alone is entirely innapropriate.

I was speaking about gay marriage laws in this country. However, i can go as far to say that gay marriage in other countries is also, primarily, led by the Religionists. You will find that "Secular societies", inasmuch as they exist, are more lenient towards equal rights in general, and gay marriage specifically.
And, no I don't assume all 50% are Xian. I would bet, though, that more than 85% of that 50% are Xian.

(Did you see the link I provided?)

I am claiming that the gay marriage resistence comes primarily from the religious in our country, so much so, that I would think its a given that the 1-15% (I waver b/w these numbers because they are unclear.) "others" probably have little problem with gay marriage.

i'll tell you what. I think we agree. Most people are Xian in the US, most of the resistance against gay marriage is from the Xians - not exclusively - but most.

If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.

I am making that claim that it is primarily Xian philosphy that is resistant to the idea of gay marriage, and they are the largest group in the US.

(Let me put it this way: if Xians, as a group, declared homosexuality NOT a sin, or NOT bad in the eyes of God; gay marriage would be legal tomorrow).

PLease give me a reason against gay marriage that doesn't include some connection to the Xian concpet of homosexuality being a negative thing.
Quote: PLease give me a reason against gay marriage that doesn't include some connection to the Xian concpet of homosexuality being a negative thing. Good luck with that. I have been asking this very question for quite sometime and have yet to see an answer that doesn't revolve around "because the Bible says so".

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22949

Believing that Christians are inherently bigots.....by definition...makes you a bigot.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

John wrote: Believing that Christians are inherently bigots.....by definition...makes you a bigot.

If this is true, than Christians are bigots - as is everyone.

John · Joined: 02 Jun 2004 Posts: 22949

toddytodd wrote: John wrote: Believing that Christians are inherently bigots.....by definition...makes you a bigot.

If this is true, than Christians are bigots - as is everyone.

What? :?

mODULAR mAN · Joined: 13 Oct 2006 Posts: 852 Location: censored

John wrote: Believing that Christians are inherently bigots.....by definition...makes you a bigot.

Believing that people who believe Christians are bigots, are bigots, makes you a bigot.

This fun. Can you come over and play? :lol:

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

mODULAR mAN wrote: John wrote: Believing that Christians are inherently bigots.....by definition...makes you a bigot.

Believing that people who believe Christians are bigots, are bigots, makes you a bigot.

This fun. Can you come over and play? :lol:

This is spiraling out of control!
"Someone, make it stop - please!" :shock:

Todd D. · Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 11:31 am Post subject:

Quote: I was speaking about gay marriage laws in this country. However, i can go as far to say that gay marriage in other countries is also, primarily, led by the Religionists. You will find that "Secular societies", inasmuch as they exist, are more lenient towards equal rights in general, and gay marriage specifically.
And, no I don't assume all 50% are Xian. I would bet, though, that more than 85% of that 50% are Xian.

(Did you see the link I provided?)

I am claiming that the gay marriage resistence comes primarily from the religious in our country, so much so, that I would think its a given that the 1-15% (I waver b/w these numbers because they are unclear.) "others" probably have little problem with gay marriage.

i'll tell you what. I think we agree. Most people are Xian in the US, most of the resistance against gay marriage is from the Xians - not exclusively - but most.

If you have evidence to the contrary, post it.

I am making that claim that it is primarily Xian philosphy that is resistant to the idea of gay marriage, and they are the largest group in the US.
Alright, that makes sense. We do agree I think.

Quote: (Let me put it this way: if Xians, as a group, declared homosexuality NOT a sin, or NOT bad in the eyes of God; gay marriage would be legal tomorrow).
That's a tough issue. It would certainly be more popular, but there are plenty of things that are "not" sins in the eyes of God that our society still considers to be illegal, most notably drugs and paedophelia.

Quote: PLease give me a reason against gay marriage that doesn't include some connection to the Xian concpet of homosexuality being a negative thing.
I am against the government being involved in marraige at all. I think it's deplorable that you have to seek their permission to marry your spouse in the form of a "marraige license", pay the "marraige penalty", and all that. It's simply poor Public Policy to discourage marraige in that sense (it's punishing a concept that we consider "good"). If they do want to be involved in it, they should remain in the sphere of civil unions, and legislate it as such.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5146 Location: Boston, MA

mODULAR mAN wrote:

Maybe they are Xian but opposed to gay marriage for non-religious reasons.

What are those reasons?

I never said only Xians oppose gay marriage. Jews and Muslims do, too.
Of course, once you count them up, you have about 1-12% atheists/non-religious/other. I don't know if this is the large group that is keeping gay marriage illegal... :wink:

If opposition to Gay marriage is Christian or religion based, why then on what grounds is it opposed in institutionally in China, Japan and the old Soviet Union (And today's Russia)?