That's one argument I'll never understand

Normal? That depends on your definition of normalcy. If any practice that's engaged in by a monority of the human beings of the world is "abnormal", then I guess I'll give you that one.

Wrong? Again, depends on your definition. There's no law against being a homosexual. Yet.

But "not what God intended"?
This one I don't get. If you believe in God, then don't you think that if he created homosexuals, he must have "intended" to do so?

Does anyone remember who it was that fairly recently "came out" here? Because I'd surely like to get his input. I just can't remember what thread that was...

http://www.mediaresearch.org/BozellColumns/newscolumn/2004/col20040302.asp

Apple

Is anyone else sick of Rosie O'donnell?

Yo...right here!!


Ms. O'Donnel seems to have given herself an incredible air of self-importance lately. She seems to have taken on the Streisand frame of thought that whatever she says or does matters to anyone whatsoever.

Guess again, Rosie!!

Apple

Geoff,

I believe it was Chilltown, but don't remember which thread it was on.


TIS

Great memory, TIS, thanks!

I looked it up, and it was in the Homosexualism on T.V thread, from December.

Too bad he hasn't been posting here since Jan 30th; I hope he returns! Altho I'm fairly certain what he'd be saying anyway...

Not to bring this down to grade school humor but am I the only one that found the above statement amusing - especially regarding the topic?

Sorry to interrupt, I couldn't resist, I am just a big kid that never grew up.

You mean the "input" part? That's all I can think of. (Hmm, I mean deduce). Dirty mind on you, Bad Daddy!

Now go home and get your f'n sandbox!

Plaw

Yes it is AGAINST God's law so in my eyes it is against the law that people should live their lives by the Bible.

Diago is right it is a SIN. According to Leviticus 18:22 We are made in the image of God so therefore he did not create homosexuals. So IMHO We are not born gay it is a chosen way of life. I disagree with your opinion but you have the right to feel the way you do.

Well the main reason for sex is to reproduce. Two men and two women can have sex all they want, they’re never going to make a baby. So that’s how it’s not meant to be.

I thought you said you were a Catholic? Well if you are, you sure don’t believe the teachings of Christianity.

Mignon:

Once you selectively quote the Bible, as I've previously posted, I must assume that you, as a strict Bible follower a) are against people with crushed testicles, b) support capital punishment for people that curse or strike their parents, c) favor killing witches, d)condone slavery, e) don't eat goat fat and f) do not clip you hair at the temples.

How do you rationalize picking and chosing parts while ignoring other parts of the Bible?
====


No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord (Duet 23:2)

Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death (Ex 21:17)

Whoever curses his father or mother shall be put to death (Ex 21:18)

You shall not let a sorceress live. (Ex 22:17 )

When a man strikes his male or female slave in the eye and destroys the use of the eye, he shall let the slave go free in compensation for the eye (Ex 21:26)

You shall not partake of any fat or any blood. (Lev 3:17)

Do not clip your hair at the temples, nor trim the edges of your beard. (Lev 19:27)

So I guess you believe that masturbation is "how it's not meant to be"?

May I infer that you do not engage in that practice?

There is a political belief that you can't legislate morality. When I heard this back in the early 70s if was used in the context of legalizing marijuana. It was interpreted as meaning whatever a person wants to do to their own body should not be controlled by laws. If you want to drink to excess, take drugs, cross-dress, etc. In principle I tend to agree with this philosophy, but nothing in our society is black and white. Gray is the predominant color.

The issue of homosexuality and same-sex marriage can be considered a morality issue. But what do we have in our society to guide us in accepting it or legislating it. Besides our volumes of laws; federal, state, county, town, village, we have natural law. Closely linked we have religious laws. From these two our countries laws evolved. Homosexuality is contrary to the basic tenets of natural law; male and female have the biological uniqueness to procreate - natural law.

Marriage can be a legal and a religious union. Legally society can decide who (or what) can be married. If the majority of society believed a man could marry his dog, then laws would be enacted. Religious laws guide many people and also shape our secular laws.

This issue comes down to standards. What standards do you want to abide by or be guided by: Religious or Secular? The danger in being guided by secular beliefs is that the gray areas expand and we become a society where anything goes. In principle, you can't legislate morality, but who draws the line on decency, morality, respect and dignity?

Well, I know that I don't want my standards, or the standards of the society in which I live, to be determined by any one group's religious beliefs.

I heard a story on WINS this morning about 2 male penguins at the Bronx Zoo who were "co-habiting" in a penguin homosexual relationship. The curator or zoo director gave them a baby penguin egg, which they doted over until it hatched, and they are now raising their baby penguin.

I swear. You can't make this stuff up.

The individual draws his own line. What's moral and decent to me may not be moral and decent to you. And you can go your way, and I can go mine. That's one of the things that makes this country great.

The purpose of laws, as I see it, is to protect the members of society from those members who wish to do harm to others.

If I wish to take drugs and harm myself, that should be my business. But if I get stoned and drive my car and cause an accident that injures or kills someone else; well, we need to have a law against that type of behavior.

Hey, don`t try to be the most "mature" here either. I was just expressing my feelings through a hillarious and humorous way. You have no idea of what you are talking about. Overall, leaving your goddamn comments to yourself would be much more convenient.

Peace.

Great post, MaryCas. Especially this last paragraph!

Here's another article I found, for which I'm sure JGeoff will have a counter-response!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20040303.shtml

Apple

My counter-response is contained right within that (fairly ridiculous) article you linked to:

In Bold are direct quotes from Apple's article, cited above:


Are homosexuals the only Americans permitted to change the definition of marriage, or do people with other sex orientations have that right as well?

Here's why I ask that question. Suppose a woman and a horse appeared before San Francisco County Clerk Nancy Alfaro applying for a marriage license, or it might be a man and a sheep. What argument might the County Clerk have for not issuing them a marriage license?

After all, the woman or man might say, "Our definition of marriage includes animals, plus my horse or my sheep will be eligible for my employee health care benefits and my inheritance at my death." It would appear that a denial of a marriage license would be sufficient grounds for a discrimination lawsuit. After all, animals have rights as well as humans.

Yeah, animals have rights, but they are not people, and don't have the same rights as people do. Denying an animal the right to marry a human, and then saying that it's grounds for a lawsuit because we've violated the animal's rights is just plain ridiculous. Animals don't have the right to vote, do they?

And, guess what? If someone decided thay wanted to marry a horse, or the previously mentioned duck, why should anyone care? If someone chooses to spend their life married to a non-human partner, it doesn't affect me or my life one iota, so I really don't care.

But there are other possibilities. Some people might feel that the definition of marriage should be expanded so as to include group marriage. What argument would the San Francisco County Clerk have against the issuance of a marriage license to three, four or 10 men or the like number of women who wanted to marry?

Again, as mentioned in a previous post, the Mormons believe in Polygamy. Christians don't. Why shouldn't consenting Mormons, or anyone else for that matter, be permitted to enter into a polygamus relationship? That's their religious belief. Sure, it's not Christian, but so what? They are consenting among themselves to live their life that way. Why should anyone care?

....the tobacco zealot's agenda whereby they started out demanding non-smoking sections on airplanes -- then no smoking altogether, then no smoking in airports, then no smoking in restaurants and so forth, until what we have today.

Had the anti-smoking zealots revealed their full agenda upfront, they might not have even been successful in getting no smoking sections on airplanes.

No smoking rules are fine with me.

The difference, and it's a big one, is that smokers, unlike people who marry ducks or horses, do affect my life and infringe upon my right to breathe fresh air when I'm on a public conveyance such as an airplane, or in a public place like a restaurant.

And I'm a smoker, too.

The argument that same-sex couples can't enjoy benefits that heterosexual couples enjoy is an issue that can be readily resolved. For example, if employers provide $200 worth of medical insurance a month, they can simply add $200 in cash to their employees' paychecks and let them decide how it's spent. Other rights same-sex couples claim they're denied can be achieved through contracts.

It's about more than legal rights and benefits and contracts.

It's my personal preference that people be able to conduct their lives in any manner they please. Tolerance doesn't require approval, only non-interference. Tolerance also doesn't require recognition of what one might call himself. A man and a man might call themselves married, but I'm not obliged to recognize it as such anymore than my calling myself the King of Siam should require that you recognize me as such.

Finally...something I agree with.

JGeoff and plawrence...great responses from both of you! I'm disappointed though, that amongst all the 'direct quotes' neither of you included the final sentence of the article:

"If it were possible for previous generations of Americans to know about this marriage controversy, they'd probably be embarrassed and shocked, and might ask, "What in the hell has happened to America?"

AppleOnYa

OK, What if a man wants to marry his own sister?
Or how about a grandfather who wants to marry their own granddaughter?

Now another question, what if a pair of connected Siamese twins want to marry each other or better yet if they each wanted to marry someone else?

Come to think of it do Siamese twins have one or two health insurance plans. If one twin kills a person does the other have to serve jail time too?
(Blame this on my old man- he has to put his two cents worth of humor in here)
Sure humor keeps thing mello.

And the other flip of the coin. What about Common law rights. When you live with someone for so long they become a Common Law Spouse? (This may not be in every state.)

You know after a while there is an exception for every rule or law ever made. It always seems that someone is being effected in a negative matter.

People must remember that laws and rules are made for a reason. To protect the majority They will not be perfect for everyone or every so called group.

Hell, they make new laws ever day just to correct one small little problem that may only happen once. They do it just to close loopholes and try and stop all gray areas which is impossible.

The way of the land is voting. So let them come forward, be recognized and someone start the process of changing things thru the system. The people, (ALL the people) will have a right to vote and that is the way things are done.

Now there's one sentence we can agree upon

What, exactly, would the majority be "protected" against if there was a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages?

Pops has a great sense of humor: I wish he'd come back

Animals shouldn't even be brought up in this arguement. I was earlier joking when I mentioned animals. For a legally binding contract to exist - which means marriages in this case both parties must be in capacity. They cannot be drunk, in unsound mental health and must have full awareness of what is going on. That must include animals.

I know it happens, but it cannot be seen as a legally binding contract.

Sorry- Laws are made to Govern the population and settle problems that one group of people seem to have with another. The majority getting \ wining their way after the voting process has taken effect.

I will pass that message to the old man. I think he may have forgotten his password after all this time. But don't tell him I said so. I am just guessing tho.

Times change.

Previous generations might have the same comment when they found out that slavery had been abolished and women now have the right to vote.

The embarrassment, to my way of thinking, is not that people of the same sex wish to marry.

The embarrassment is that the President of The Unite States has proposed that we have a constitutional ammendment to prohibit it.

Depends upon how you look at it. In my opinion (which of course is the correct one), he is not attempting to prohibit marriage, but to protect it.

And will somebody pleast tell me, WHO is fathersson's old man?????

Regards,
Apple

Plawrence,

Yes times may change but IMO not necessarily for the better.

I think the problem is lack of tolerance or respect for people that aren't exactly like us.

Why do we need laws to "settle problems" when there wouldn't be any problems to begin with if people simply minded their own business?