Some Bright Spots About the Election

Perhaps I'm confused.  The vote tallies in Colorado are exactly the opposite of your reporting.  South Dakota voted down the abortion ban.  At this point, it seems likely that California did as well.  Washington approved doctor-assisted suicide.  The only trends that I think can really be drawn from this is that there is still high support for bans on gay marriage.  I really doubt that many people are surprised by that particular factoid. 

Did you know Obama is a heavy smoker?

He decided to quit to run for Pres.

Maybe he will ban smoking bans.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/06/obama-admits-sm.html

You have the Colorado one reversed.  They voted 73-27 to NOT define human life at the moment of conception.  And with that ALL of the ballot measures attempting to limit Abortion in any way shape or form failed, some by wider margins than others (the one in Cali is still processing at the moment but as of 11:50 EST it looks like it will fail).

Maybe you can explain this to me, and I want real reasons not talking points, why is it so wrong to allow two people who love each other to be allowed to express that love and commit to each other for life?  Why is it so wrong to allow two people who love each other to be allowed in the hospital room together when one of them is ill (possibly dieing)?  It's just something that I've never understood.

Yeah, KFC, you got it completely backwards on the Colorado vote.  73% voted down an amendment to declare that life begins at conception.

ok, yes, I guess I did read it backwards so I made a correction.  I think I'm too tired to read today.  Sorry bout that! 

But I am surprised at that Colorado vote now looking at it.  I'm also kind of surprised but not really at the same time about MA voting down the idea of eliminating state income tax.  Nearby NH doesn't have state income tax and many find that to be attractive. 

Road Trip!!!

Without having the time to just lay it all out right now (maybe later) I'll just say it's not a healthy relationship to have man with man and woman with woman.  It's not good all the way around whether it be whether we're talking about society, family, emotionally or physically not to mention it does go against the plan God put forth for all of mankind.  So morally speaking we've got a problem with this as well. 

As far as anyone being in the hospital room with another person I have no problem with that no matter the sex or the age and don't understand it from that perspective either.  I say let them do what they want but just don't let them tell us that  we have to accept homosexuality as perfectly normal and fine.  I don't want it to be legalized that marriage between a man and a man is  or a woman and a woman perfectly comparable to that of a man and a woman. 

Not everyone sees things the same way. You may not understand it but then people don't always have to or never will. In order to understand it you would have to be willing to accept it and since by your comments you don't seem to accept that the majority see marriage as a union between a man and a woman, you will never understand it.

I agree marriage should be between a man and a woman, but if the majority see it otherwise, so be it. I believe in peoples right to choose the majority vote; I also believe that everyone will eventually have to live with the consequences of their choices (good or bad).

You make it sound like this is equal rights.  It's not equal rights.  A lesbian has the exact same right as I do to marry a man.  They want SPECIAL rights.

The problem with special rights with marriage in a society that is based on man/woman marriage is that you can't stop with homosexuals.  Why then can't a man marry his sister if they both have surgery to insure they can't pro-create?  How about giving someone the special right to have more than one spouse?

The traditional family is the cornerstone of our country...our taxes, our values, etc.  Just flipping that over won't bode well for anyone, including homosexuals.

I don't really think it's SPECIAL when the same right would be extended to you.  You'd then be free to marry a woman, too, if you felt so inclined, Tova.  I wouldn't use the word special - I'd use the word broadened - since it would apply to all.

And don't take this as a sign I think we SHOULD extend those rights - I'm just saying I think it's disingenuous to say 'special', as it applies that said right would only be extended to a subset of the population.

For the record I am a fairly open minded guy.  I like to attempt to understand where everyone is coming from no matter what the issue is.  My questions in this thread are related to my attempting to gain that understanding and nothing more than that so please don't get offended by anything I might ask on here I am merely trying to gain an understanding from people and nothing more.

From this it sounds like your major hang up on the issue is simply the word marriage, it sounds like you would be ok with the idea of civil unions that give the same rights to gay couples as marriage does to a man and woman.  Am I correct in that?  In that case why not just call all "marriages" civil unions from a legal standpoint and let people call it whatever they want when they are talking to other people?  I guess you feel that by calling the gay couple married then you must accept homosexuality, would that be an accurate statement?

Why you have time I would like some clarification on this.  Exactly how is the relationship "unhealthy"?

Again I have to ask for some clarification.  Speficically please explain how homosexuals are bad for society, emotionally and physically, I think I know how you feel they are bad for the family.

Since I am asking about the legal definition of marriage these two points aren't relevant.  God has no place in government because it illicits the idea of religion which we both of a freedom of and a freedom from.  Also morals are subjective, what you deem as moral I may not and as related to gay marriage I don't think it is relevant to the discussion, if you do please explain why.

How is this not an equal rights issue?  For a lesbian to marry a man it would be forcing her to deny who she is as a person that isn't equal rights.  If marriage were to allow for the marriage of homosexuals that doesn't mean you would have to be homosexual to be married so please explain how this is asking for special rights?

I fail to see the analogy here.  No one is asking for the right to marry their sibling.  But to be honest who does that hurt?  Same with polygamy, as long as we are talking about consenting adults what is the problem?  Please explain your position.

It was once the cornerstone of our country's economy to own slaves or hire indentured servents, does that make either of them right?  How does allowing homosexuals to marry not bode well for anyone, including themselves?  Please explain.

Special as defined by dictionary.com..."distinguished or different from what is ordinary or usual."

To me its a special right for a lifestyle group.  I wouldn't have the same right to marry a woman because I am not socially or biologically capable.  If homosexuality can be proven scientifically then broadening the definition of marriage would be the appropriate term imo. Until then its just a special interest group.

It wasn't the cornerstone of the entire country.  (Something like 10-11 states allowed slavery or supported it with laws about returning slaves--border states).  It took a CIVIL WAR to change it.

Are you suggesting our country, in which every state has this man/woman foundation, just about every religion, our tax system, and all social structure be thrown over to give a small special interest group the right to marry just because they want it?

Ok El-D I'm back.  So what wrong with legalizing homosexual marriage?

Lots.  Marriage is defined by God and nature and a wise society will protect marriage as it was intended.  Marriage is the way our culture promotes monogamy and assures every child he has a mother and a father.  Children need a loving mother and father.  A wealth of research over the past so many years has proven this.  The most loving mom in the world cannot teach her little boy how to be a man.  The most loving man cannot teach a little girl how to be a woman. 

A gay man cannot teach his son how to love a woman nor can a lesbian teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a husband.  How do two dads help a girl when it comes to womanly things?  Unlike a mom they cannot share with her their first experience in what she's going thru.  Children need the loving daily influence of oth male and female parents to become whom they are meant to be. 

Can you imagine children of homosexual divorce go thru?  It's hard enough with a mom and a dad but what about the kid who finds himself with four moms or four dads?  Or more? 

Children do better with a mom and dad and will suffer with homosexual marriage.  Can you imagine if we continue along this track how many millions of motherless/fatherless children will be out there? 

Any two people who love each other and are committed to each other isn't the problem here.  People outside of marriage commit themselves to one another all the time for various reasons.  We don't necessarily have to call it marriage.  There are many kinds of loving commitments that are not definied as marriage.  Friends are committed to each other, a parent is committed to a child, a neighbor commited to another neighbor, grandparents are commited to their grandchildren.  All of them require a commitment but none of those commitments is called marriage. 

As far as this not being good for society look at the past.  There have been periods in history when homosexuality flourished for a time.....Sodom and Gomorrah, ancient Greece and the Roman Empire are all examples.  None of these civilizations survived.  I believe we are following suit. 

Those countries (like Netherlands and Belgium) who actually legalized "gay marriage" and gave it equal status with traditional marriage impacted families in a negative way.  The impact of this is no longer speculative.  Just look at Norway, Denmark and Sweden whose leaders embraced homosexual marriages in the 90's.  The consequences for traditional familes has been devasting.  The institution of marriage in those countries is rapidly dying with many young couples living together or choosing to remain single.  In some areas of Norway 80% of firstborn children were conceived out of marriage as are 60% of subsequent births. 

The institution of marriage represents the very foundation of human social order.  Everything valuable sits on that base.  Institutions, governments, religious fervor, and the welfare of children are all dependant on its stability.  When it is undermined the entire superstructure begins to crumble.  Just look at what's happened to our culture in the last 35 years thanks to liberal lawmakers, the entertainment industry, the radical feminists etc.  Many of our social problems can be traced to these beginnings. 

Marriage has always been the bedrock of culture in every continent.  Right now what I believe we're seeing all over the globe is an assault on the family.  Marriage is in the crosshairs and it will prove in the long run to be devastating. 

From a Christian POV  (for those who adher to such a value system) homosexuality is called sin.  Sin always seems pleasant at the first.  That's why we get so enticed.  It seems right and good initially and only later we realized we'd been had. 

There should be a clear distinction between a secular marriage contract (to establish rights of children and property) and a sacred one. 

If two people of any sex want to form a partnership of any combination let them and let the law handle that.  And if you have sacred laws that agree or conflict  . . . more power to youto handle it.

It has been.  Not only do other species (specifically chimpanzes) engage in homosexual behavior it has also been shown on various brain scans that there is a marked difference between a heterosexuals brain and a homosexuals brain regard attraction.  I don't have specific links to provide to you but the studies have been done.

Then at one time it was "special" to have interracial marriages, aren't they legal today?  Why then should it be different between homosexual couples?

Slavery wasn't the full cornerstone which is why I included indentured servents which was widely used in the North and if you ask me was just as bad as slavery.

How is the man/woman relationship a foundation of any state or our country?  Aren't "all men created equal" shouldn't that extend to whom they love?  Religion is irrelevant as the bill of rights grants us the freedom to practice whatever religion we wish, or to practice no religion.  Our tax system is always changing so again that is irrelevant.  As for social structure I once again refer you to the times of slavery and segregation.  Just because something is the status quo doesn't make it right.

Again we are talking about a legal definition of marriage not a religious one.  Religion has no place in law or government.  If the definition of marriage is broadened to encompass homosexuals that wouldn't mean that any given religion would be forced to marry those couples.  Just like today if a Catholic church didn't want to marry a couple because one of them isn't Catholic that is completely within their rights as a church no one would force them to marry homosexual couples.  As for marriage in nature, as far as I'm aware no other species get married, some mate for life if you want to call that marriage fine but equally there are species that have homosexual relationships therefore it is perfectly natural whether you agree with it or not is an entirely different issue.

Most of the research I've seen regarding this doesn't address children of homosexual couples but rather those of single parent households.  I could be wrong but I'm not sure I buy the argument that a mother can't teach her son to be a man and a father can't teach his daughter to be a woman.

Love is not something that can be taught.  I was never taught to love my wife, I just knew how to do it instinctually.  As for a father or mother helping their children thru adolesence my father didn't really help me thru mine he was absent emotionally in part due to the untimely death of my mother.  That said I turned out pretty darn good even with a single parent for most of my life, I would imagine the same could be said for homosexual couples.  Even if marriage is defined as being between a man and woman you can't guarantee that both parents will be around for the entire childhood of their children due to deaths, divorce, etc.  So to me this argument is null and void.

I would imagine they would go thru the exact same experiences as a child with a mom and dad who get divorced.  Divorce sucks what does it matter whether you have a mother and a father or two dads or two moms or whatever.

Again you can't guarantee that every child with a mother and father will always have a mother and father.  Some will lose a parent to early death, or divorce.  It happens, that's life, this argument is null and void as a result.

But none of those commitments carry with them the legally binding rights.  Grandparents can't file their taxes jointly with their grandchildren.  A neighbor may not be allowed in the hospital room of a dieing neighbor.  When homosexual couples are commited to each other much in the same way as a married man and woman shouldn't they be afforded the same rights that a husband and wife have?  What happens if one of the partners dies?  If they don't happen to have a will made out then the surviving partner gets nothing.  In some cases the surviving partner can't even collect the life insurance from the one that died.  How is that right?

No offense but this argument is neither here nor there.  These societies didn't fall because of homosexuality.  Just because they had homosexuals doesn't mean that there was a causal relationship between the homosexuals and their downfall.

So people are choosing not to get married.  That's happening in this country.  The main reason that my wife and I got married was because it made filing taxes easier.  We both love each other and already felt married well before we actually said the vows.  Neither of us felt the need to get marriage other than the fact that it made filing taxes and other legal issues easier to deal with.  I guess I just don't see how legalizing homosexual marriage impacted the statistics that you cited.

Maybe I'm misreading this but it sounds to me that you would rather return to the 40s and 50s where the man went out to work and the woman stayed at home cooking, cleaning, and taking care of the kids.  I'm sorry I don't see our society crumbling because women have moved out of the kitchen, I think our society is stronger because of it.  We had a female running for president for crying out loud.  As for the entertainment industry, it would have no influence over our children if parents (single and otherwise) would do their jobs in educating their kids on the difference between right and wrong, but that is a topic for another thread.  Again it seems like you taking correlations and assigning causal relationships.

I think assault is the wrong term but there is the desire to broaden the definition of the family that I will agree with.  If you are ok with civil unions I don't see what there problem with just calling them all civil unions or all marriages is.

Again I am addressing the idea of marriage from a legal standpoint not a religious one.  Religion has no place in law or government, that's what our founding fathers wanted.  So you can continue to think that homosexuality is a sin, but why can't homosexuals have the same rights as you and I?

All of that said I think I definitely have a better understanding of where you come from and I thank you for taking your time to explain it.  To sum it up it sounds like you define marriage from a religious standing, because the bible says marriage is between a man and a woman it must be so legally.  As I feel that religion has no place in law or government I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on this issue but thank you for explaining your standpoint.

Well put.  Maybe we should legally change all "marriages" termed civil unions and let the various religions perform marriages.  That way all couples that wish to join in a civil union (both same sex and mixed sex) can enjoy the same rights and priviledges without offending anyone with the term marriage applied to both.

That's important! It will be the most used feature of the Obama universal health plan.

EL-DUDERINO - Help me to understand.  I find it odd that you would make the absurd claim that somehow it is unacceptable that one might guide political decisions with a particular religious outlook, that of a theist, and then demand that one uses a different religious outlook, that of the atheist. What happened to not establishing a state religion? Why do you appeal to the 2nd amendment when it comes to the Christian worldview only to throw away your argument to provide a special case for the atheist?

If the issue was whether to legalize theft or murder, would you honestly argue against the Christian that voted against the measure because of their religious beliefs and demand that they have some non-religious reason you sanction before voting?  Or what if one decided that since their religious convictions against the measure don't count in EL-DUDERINO's eyes, that they would use a non-religious means of choosing how to vote, like flipping a coin?

I for one would be glad for anyone that voted against such a hypothetical measure, whatever the reason, and I think you would too.  It sounds to me that because you are in the minority on this issue, and you don't like that the majority have religious reasons (among other reasons) for their position, thus you want to deny their freedom to act on their moral convictions.

So, people still have good values about what is really love about.

I am glad to hear this news.

Not very well either.  He bummed them off his campaign workers.

Agree 100%.

This would be a good argument, except you're missing something.  This is not about having a religious reason versus having no reason.  As someone familar with the basic tenets of the Constitution, you would know that it contains provisions intended to prohibit the establishment of a particular religious belief to the detriment of others.  If your argument is really that, from a religious standpoint, gay marriage should be banned, what about the religions that do not find gay marriage problematic?  In that case, you are privileging Christian beliefs-- and moreover not even beliefs held by all Christians-- over others.  That's pretty clearly unconstitutional.

The comparison to theft or murder is misleading, as it subtly implies gay marriage is somehow comprable.  Until you can demonstrate that it is, this is a bad analogy.

If you can't come up with any basis for criminalizing theft or murder than religious reasons, you have a problem.

I'm not sure when people decided that, because someone is in the minority on an issue, they must be wrong.  And further, any arguments they make should be automatically discounted because "the majority has spoken."  Fortunately, democracy is an ongoing process, as some people seem to have forgotten, and discussion and debate between informed citizens is vital to maintaining the health of our country's political system.  If a person believes the majority is wrong on a given issue, they should feel free to speak up and question it, rather than be silenced.

I don't think this statement is misleading at all.  Homosexuality has always, in the past, been  considered a sin or deviant behavior until most recently. 

It's only been fairly recently that we've chosen (for the most part) to get this deviant behavior accepted as an alternative lifestyle.  In fact Homosexuality was on a list of psychological disorders as late as 1973.  Robert Spitzer who was the President of APA during the 70's  was instrumental in getting homosexuality taken off the list only to recant years later saying he made a mistake. 

All we've done is move it from the sin list to the acceptable lifestyle list. 

Why is it not ok to murder and steal?  Where did we get that from?  What set of principles did we draw from to get our rules and laws? 

It all started with the 10 commandments.  So like it or not...our country was founded on moral Christian principles and there is a truckload of evidence in the history books (not revisionist) to prove it. 

I'm confused.  Didn't you also argue that there were ancient societies in the past that tolerated and accepted homosexuality?

True.  But that doesn't mean is was right.  There were reasons why it was taken off the list.  Frankly, I'll go with the American Psychological Association as a whole on this one, rather than the one individual Spitzer, given that his "recantation" was based on non-random sampling procedures, and was basically discredited by any reliable peer review.

I've studied constitutional history, including the Founders.  I can safely say that there are at least some scholars, conservatives even, who think the opposite.  Personal letters of Jefferson, for instance, reveal that he held Jesus to be not divine but mortal.  So suffice to say, it isn't as self-evident as you make it sound.

Make me the argument that homosexuality is as harmful as murder.  Please.

Like it or not we live in a secular society.  Our constitution is set up in that manor.  Our founding fathers recognized that letting religion be involved in government or laws is a bad idea, it was part of what they were rebelling against in the first place.  I am not argueing for an atheistic viewpoint I am merely stating that using "god says being homosexual is a sin" is an invalid argument when dealing with the legal standing of marriage.  Your god may claim that homosexuality is a sin but anothers god may say that homosexuality is worthy of death, and another may say that homosexuals should be put on a pedistal.  Should any of those positions be made into law, of course not.  That isn't puting atheism into law but keeping religion out of the law.

Again I would argue that one shouldn't use religion to base any legal viewpoint.  Be against theft or murder for some other reason, because it has a victim that is obviously hurt in both cases perhaps.  If you use religion to help you decide what is right and wrong that's fine but it shouldn't be the sole basis of any legal standing because we have a constitutional protection from that religion interfering in our lives.  One religion may say that theft is wrong and should be punished by the removal of a persons fingers or hands, another may say that it is wrong and warrants only a slap on the wrist, while still another may say that theft is ok in certain circumstances.  How does the law pick which religious view is the "right" one?  You can't therefore there must be some other rationale for making something illegal and picking the punishment for the crime.

As for being in the minority on a position, it was once the majority opinion to not allow blacks to vote.  It was once the majority opinion to not let blacks use the same water fountains as whites.  It was once the majority opinion to not let women vote, it was once the majority position to not let women work.  Simply put the "majority" isn't always right.  That doesn't mean that I am right on any given issue which is why I strive to understand where everyone is coming from so that I can make an informed decision and modify my opinions as I aquire new information.  My assertion here is that because we have a freedom of religion and a freedom from religion in this country then we cannot use religion as the sole basis for a legal decision.  If you want to think that homosexuality is a sin that's fine but that doesn't mean that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married.