ZubaZ ZubaZ

Should the feds open up benefits to married, gay couples?

Should the feds open up benefits to married, gay couples?

I heard on the news this morning that the lawyer that got gay marriages recognized in Massachusetts is bringing suit against the federal government to recognize legal marriage by the states and provide equal benefits. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/us/03marriage.html?ref=us)

I support the suit.

Over the past six years I've had the honor of officiating five weddings in Texas.  I firmly believe that the ceremonies I performed had very little to do with the state.  Each was a social or religious agreement between two people to be together forever.  The state had no place there.

Where I believe the state has a place is in a separate, legal situation recognizing a contract between these same two people for the purpose of maintaining property, securing benefits, and situations dealing with children.  The state should be there to record that a contract exists between these people.  The state should *not* call it marriage.

In my magic world, the two events would be made separate.  If your faith allowed gay marriages; great!  If it didn't; great too!  Same for your state governments.  And the federal government . .  their job is to interfere with the states as little as possible.  If a state says that a legal contract exists . . then that is that.  Recognize baby!


The following excerpts are the main provisions of the Act:

Powers reserved to the states:

No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.

Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse':

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.

 

The act itself: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104

 

 

143,348 views 375 replies
Reply #77 Top

LEAUKI POSTS# 55

The story is about hospitality. Angels came to Lot in the city of Sodom and didn't expect much hospitality but Lot insisted. Then the other townspeople came and asked to see (know) the strangers. Lot protected his guests and offered the townspeople them their way with his daughters instead. But it doesn't say anything about them wanting to see the strangers for the purpose you are thinking of.

The word is "venada3ah" and it means "and we knew" (but the "and" turns the tense around and hence it is "and we will know"). The verb "leda3at" ("to know") sometimes means "have sex with", but it depends on the context. When Abraham "knows" his wife, I know it means "have sex with". But that's where it ends. The word rarely means "have sex with" and it does require the assumption that the context is about sex to read it that way.
End of quote

KFC POSTS:

It's not about hospitality at all. Not even close.
End of quote

You are right, KFC, the Divine judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah was due in part to the sin of immorality, and sodomy in particular. In Genesis 18:20, God had already said that the sin of the cities was "exceedingly grave" and this was even before the 2 Angels showed up in Sodom that the Lord had already targeted these 2 cities for destruction. Remember v. 23....the Divine intention to "sweep away" all who lived there was what led Abraham to plead for mercy. Saying that the "exceedingly grave" sin was inhospitality is the new way, the politically correct way of presenting the great sin of Sodom. Saying it means inhospitality is an attempt to condone something that Sacred Scripture clearly condemns.

 

Leauki,

Yes, indeed, the Hebrew word translated "to know" in this verse refers to sex. To say that the townsmen simply wanted to know in the sense of merely become acquainted or meet with Lot's guests is ludicruous...especially when in v. 7, Lot responded to the initial request by beseeching the men, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly."  

leauki posts #64

I'm afraid it's the traditional rabbinic viewpoint. And I am positive that it makes a lot of sense to anyone who doesn't have an irrational fear of homosexuality.

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw this."


Rabbi Nachmanides wrote in the 13th century CE:

"According to our sages, they were notorious for every evil, but their fate was sealed for their persistence in not supporting the poor and the needy."

End of quote

KFC POSTS:

where does it say anything in there about the poor and needy? .........
Your rabbi says it has to do with the poor and needy? That makes sense to you?
End of quote

Yes, KFC, it makes sense when you take the Bible as a whole.

Ezekiel 16:49-50 and Genesis are in agreement for Ezekiel doesn't ignore the issue of homosexuality at all. Here Ezekiel addresses the sins of Israel by pointing to the sins of Sodom and links Sodom's judgment to the city's pride and luxurious lifestyle and the inhabitant's refusal to help those in need.  Ezekiel references the fact that Sodom "committed abominations" before God is no doubt a reference to the inhabitant's homosexuality, especially with the story in Genesis in the minds of Ezekiel's hearers. The Jews well understood "abomination" as a commom way of referring to sexual sin like sodomy. Lev. 18:22.

Ezekiel's reference to Sodom adds to the Genesis account. The "arrogant self-indulgence" of Sodom's citizens contributed to the sexual perversion. Ezekiel 16: 10-14 lays out Isreal's harlotries and abominations as tied to the unfaithful nation's own wealth and material blessings...luxury and arrogance can lead therefore to sexual perversion and that was the precise impact of Ezekiel's reference to Sodom.   

 

Reply #78 Top

KFC POSTS:

It's not PC to bring up Sodom is it? What is the definition of Sodomy?

leauki posts:

The modern meaning (in the last few centuries) is "deviant sexual intercourse", its original meaning was "acts of wickedness" and it referred to all the wicked acts of the people of Sodom.

I believe Islam believes in the same connection between Lot and homosexuality as you do. But I'm afraid that is the revisionism. The original tale just speaks of inhospitality, it took hundreds of years to make it into a story about homosexuality and another thousand to change the meaning of the word.

End of quote

C'mon Leauki, who are you trying to fool? That Sodom was destroyed for inhospitable treatment is just not convincing. It's just an attempt to deflect away from the horror of the judgment upon homosexuality.

The word "sodomy" refers to unnatural sex acts and is derived from the name of the ancient city of Sodom.

Once you read 2St.Peter 2 and St.Jude 7, there is no legitimate way to remove homosexuality from the list of sins that doomed Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

 

Reply #79 Top

I really must have rode the short bus . . but I fail to see how a Christian story relates to the topic.

I mean . . it's sorta interesting . . but not really pertinent to the conversation, is it?  Is the arguement now that a god said homosexual sex is bad?  That makes your disagreement with same-sex marriage OK?  The government *should* be involved?

Let me rephrase for my own clarity and you can fill in:

"The state and federal governments should be involed in and prevent same-sex holy matrimony/marriages/civil unions because ____________________"

Reply #80 Top

zubaz posts:

We've gone a bit off track . . but theses things do happen.
End of quote

Sorry about that. :blush:

leauki posts# 71

What homosexuals do to each other with their consent is between them and G-d. And a path that keeps me away from judging them is certainly the right path.
End of quote

Yes, we are not to judge or speculate about the state of the person's heart or souls...that's only God's job. It's homosexuality, an objectively evil act, that is being judged and measured as unacceptable, not homosexual persons.

 

 

Reply #81 Top

I fail to see how a Christian story relates to the topic.

I mean . . it's sorta interesting . . but not really pertinent to the conversation, is it? Is the arguement now that a god said homosexual sex is bad? That makes your disagreement with same-sex marriage OK? The government *should* be involved?
End of quote

Yes to all three questions. And since God comdemns homosexuality, we therefore must do the same unless we want unhappiness and chaos.

There are certain truths or foundational principles upon which everything created by God operates. Contained in these truths and principles is a group of 3 instiutions of delegated authority established by God. Each of these is intended to guide a specific area of man's function while we live here on earth. A good understanding of these institutions will ensure the well-being of any society or government.

The first and most fundamental and essential institution of delegated authority created and established by God is the family. The second is the Church and the third is the arena of civil government.  Romans 13:1 spells it all out, starting with "Let every living soul (which means all mankind) be subject to the governing authority." The power of this earthly institution is delegated by God for a purpose and ultimately for our own good.  

St.Paul says in V. 2, "Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God  and those who resist will bring judgment upon themselves." Such authority is not absolute since it's delegated to humans who are capable of misusing it. But the one entrusted with that authority must exercise it in a manner God intended. To oppose it is to oppose God.

V. 3 says that For rulers are not a terror to good works, but a terror to evil...." So, civil authority is ordained by God to be a terror to evil.

 

 

 

Reply #82 Top

Let me rephrase for my own clarity and you can fill in:

"The state and federal governments should be involed in and prevent same-sex holy matrimony/marriages/civil unions because ____________________"
End of quote

Becasue civil authority is ordained by God to be a terror to evil.

Reply #83 Top

ElDuderino posts #60

How sacred is the institution when the divorce rate hovers around 50%? I'm sorry but I just don't buy this argument at all.
End of quote

Marriage is and will always be a sacred institution becasue it was established by God in the Garden of Paradise with Adam and Eve. It's man (the modern State) who commands marriages be declared null and void by divorce and ultimately perverts the institution of marriage.

 

How sacred is the institution when the divorce rate hovers around 50%? I'm sorry but I just don't buy this argument at all. I don't see how homosexual relationships are going to affect the stability of the family.
End of quote

The family is the firstmost fundamental and essential institution created by God. It bases are the sexual affection between a man and a woman and their nurturing relationship to any children their conjugal union produces.  Becasue the body parts don't fit, homosexuals can't produce children.

Under God, the family operating in good order is a vital element necessary for societal and cultural health. In general, both divorce and homosexuality negatively effect the proper functioning of the family and when families aren't functioning properly, welose the institution which supplies stability and the ingredients which produce social health in the larger community. The parents are responsible before God to raise, correct, love and educate their children and God has delegated authority to the parents to accomplish this.

Reply #84 Top

Really? Traditional marriage and the rearing of children has been the bedrock of civilizations since the beginning of time.

EL-Duderino posts:
So what? Why does that mean that it isn't time to change. Convential thinking for centuries was that the earth was flat, so why not expand our horizons by allowing gay marriage?

End of quote

You are confused about what marriage and family mean and their significance to keeping civilizations going.

The meaning of marriage and family isn't something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God and a wise society will do all it can to protect marriage as its always been understood. Stray from God's design and trouble, unhappiness, disorder and chaos ensues.

Reply #85 Top

It's absurd for a society to turn traditional marriage, the most ancient of institutions, the bedrock of civilizations, on its head for a few (maybe 3% of the general population) who practice a form of sexual aberration.

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

You call it an aberration but for homosexuals it isn't. For nature it isn't, chimpanzees (genetically very similar to humans) tend to be bi-sexual.

End of quote

As far as nature is concerned, since the body parts don't fit, homosexuality is unnatural.

As far as chimpanzees, in the wild, homosexuality is an exception to normal behavior. Now, in varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances and the times we most often see chimpanzees acting out homosexuality is when they are confined to zoos. Isn't the homosexuality rate much higher when people are confined to prisons?

 

Reply #86 Top

There are lots of loving commitments that aren't marriage.

EL-Duderino posts:

None that have the same legal ramifications as marriage which is where the real argument here lies.

End of quote

And rightly so. Since society's survival is tied to a thriving family firmly established in marriage, justice requires it.

Reply #87 Top

Isn't the homosexuality rate much higher when people are confined to prisons?
End of quote
I feel somewhat dirty making the reference ..  but at least I can blame the wine . . .

Any port in a storm.  ;)

OK.  Now that I'm done being 12 years old again.  Prison sex does not equal love; homosexual or otherwise.  I'm marking that up to a flawed and failed syllogism.  Move along.

Also . . in regards to parts not fitting; I do not believe that a marriage or civil union requiers sex.  I hope that my grandparents are done with that part of their lives (ewww) but are still married.  Right?

Lastly (I think), the arguement that God sanctified marriage only works if you believe in a god.  Should the state have a stance there?  Do you really, truely want teh state involved in matters of faith?  Do you really believe that civil authority is ordained by God?  All civil authority?  Throught history?

 

Reply #88 Top

sorry for being a bit late... but sodom and gemorrah? come on people, you have to be retarded to think this was about homosexuality... God wasn't even gonna do anything until after they tried to gang rape a pair of angels (who also happened to be guests, I guess rape is against the laws of hospitality)

Reply #89 Top

sex =! love. Period... gay or straight the two are not synonamous..

But consentual homosexuality and prison rape are completely different things. And also completely unrelated to the issue of gay marriage.

Saying gay marriage legitimized gay rape is as rediculous as saying hetro marriage legitimizes hetrosexual rape. It just doesn't, they are unrelated.

Reply #90 Top

Saying gay marriage legitimized gay rape is as rediculous as saying hetro marriage legitimizes hetrosexual rape. It just doesn't, they are unrelated.
End of quote
A bit crass . . but spot on!

Reply #91 Top

I stand by what I say.

The story of Sodom and Gamora doesn't mention sex, hence you have to read sex into it.

I am just not of the mindset to read "to know" as "have sex with" when both subject and object of the word are men.

We can leave it at that. I am, when it comes down to it, a literalist, and KFC and Lula tend to interpret more and read metaphors into the text. I don't know who is right, but I prefer a religion in which hospitality is regarded as more of a virtue than homosexuality is regarded as a sin.

 

Reply #92 Top

Well, I for one support gay marriage.  God wiping out Sodom and Gamora? Fairy tales.  Satan? Fairy tales.  Gay marriage destroying civilization as we know it?  Utter lunacy.  I usually keep my atheist thoughts to myself.  But when some on this thread post their religious dogma as infallable fact, well... it just comes out.  Apologies to Zubaz if this post causes unnedded contention in your thread.

Reply #93 Top

Apologies to Zubaz if this post causes unnedded contention in your thread.
End of quote
No apologies needed.  Without a belief in a god, many things can appear more clear (or clear-cut).

When you take away dogma and disgust and just being "different", same-sex couples aren't that different from what we have now.

Reply #94 Top

God wiping out Sodom and Gamora? Fairy tales. 

End of quote

No, ancient legend.

 

Satan? Fairy tales. 

End of quote

Yes.

 

Gay marriage destroying civilization as we know it?  Utter lunacy. 

End of quote

Yes.

 

I usually keep my atheist thoughts to myself.

End of quote

No, you don't. You make it very clear that you are arguing from the assumption that there is no god and that hence we have to figure this out ourselves. The problem with that position is that it won't prevent us from figuring out that gay marriage is wrong and that all gays should be executed immediately.

The belief in a loving god reminds us that we cannot just do to others whatever we have the power to do to them.

 

Reply #95 Top

TALTIMER POSTS:

sorry for being a bit late... but sodom and gemorrah? come on people, you have to be retarded to think this was about homosexuality... God wasn't even gonna do anything until after they tried to gang rape a pair of angels (who also happened to be guests, I guess rape is against the laws of hospitality)
End of quote

So now the argument is that the sin here in Genesis is not homosexuality per se, but rape..violence forcing sexual activity. Could be for don't the men after being rebuffed by Lot fully intend to brutilize Lot's guests? Bottom line is they were homosexuals who wanted sex with Lot's visitors.

LEAUKI POSTS:

I stand by what I say.

The story of Sodom and Gamora doesn't mention sex, hence you have to read sex into it.

I am just not of the mindset to read "to know" as "have sex with" when both subject and object of the word are men.
End of quote

That they wanted "to know" means they were after sex becasue Lot immediately offered his daughters to the men (itself a disgraceful act), which would otherwise be inexplicable.

Lula tend to interpret more and read metaphors into the text.
End of quote

While Scripture is filled with metaphors, this story in Genesis when read in its full context is not a metaphor. It tells of God's judgment and should be a lesson to us.

Those who interpret Genesis and see the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as one of inhospitality rather than of homosexuality are looking at it through smoke and mirrors. Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for inhospitality. This is typical way of explaining away of an embarrassing biblical passage to fit the modern homosexualist, hedonist agenda.  

 

 

 

Reply #96 Top

That they wanted "to know" means they were after sex becasue Lot immediately offered his daughters to the men (itself a disgraceful act), which would otherwise be inexplicable.

End of quote

It is inexplicable to Europeans, not to middle-easteners. Back in the day women were considered property. Judaism changed that, but it was the standard way. (That's why a man could "marry" several women but not vice versa.)

I disagree with your reading that "to know" means "to have sex with" in a context where both subject and object are men. Offering daughters (aka property) was an acceptable way to deal with what would have been a breach of hospitality if it had been allowed to happen. It's disgraceful, certainly, but only according to Jewish standards, not by the standards of the Canaanite and Aramaean tribes (including Lot, an Aramaean who had crossed over the Jordan river) that lived in Sodom back then.

 

While Scripture is filled with metaphors, this story in Genesis when read in its full context is not a metaphor. It tells of God's judgment and should be a lesson to us.

End of quote

It's not a metaphor, as you say. It doesn't mention sex and it's not a metaphor for sex.

 

Those who interpret Genesis and see the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as one of inhospitality rather than of homosexuality are looking at it through smoke and mirrors. Sodom and Gomorrah weren't destroyed for inhospitality. This is typical way of explaining away of an embarrassing biblical passage to fit the modern homosexualist, hedonist agenda.  

End of quote

Can you explain in detail please how the Talmudists of the second century and Rabbi Nachmanides of the 13th century were influenced by or hoping to advance the "modern homosexualist, hedonist agenda"?

 

 

 

Reply #97 Top

VarekRaith posts:

Gay marriage destroying civilization as we know it? Utter lunacy. I usually keep my atheist thoughts to myself. But when some on this thread post their religious dogma as infallable fact, well... it just comes out.
End of quote

As far as infallible...there is only one truth and truth is in possession. On the question of whether or not homosexual "marriage" destroys civilizations, I believe it does and you believe it doesn't. Only one of us has the truth.

 

 

Reply #98 Top

there is only one truth

End of quote

And may I ask you one question...

Who has that one truth?

1. G-d, the Creator of the world Who refrains from giving us proof for even His existence let alone the exact mechanism of His doing.

2. You.

 

Reply #99 Top

The Jews well understood "abomination" as a commom way of referring to sexual sin like sodomy. Lev. 18:22.
End of quote

Leviticus refers a lot of things as abominations, not just homosexuality.  It claims that eating shellfish is an abomination for example.

Yes to all three questions. And since God comdemns homosexuality, we therefore must do the same unless we want unhappiness and chaos.
End of quote

But the government is supposed to be secular in nature.  Once you start involving government in religion (and vice versa) bad things start happening.

Marriage is and will always be a sacred institution becasue it was established by God in the Garden of Paradise with Adam and Eve. It's man (the modern State) who commands marriages be declared null and void by divorce and ultimately perverts the institution of marriage.
End of quote

So you agree that the institute of marriage is already perverted by allowing divorce.  So why not allow gay marriage, or civil unions if the word marriage bothers you?

The family is the firstmost fundamental and essential institution created by God. It bases are the sexual affection between a man and a woman and their nurturing relationship to any children their conjugal union produces. Becasue the body parts don't fit, homosexuals can't produce children.
End of quote

I still don't see how this impacts the stability of the family.  So what if they can't produce their own children, aren't their plenty of kids out there who need to be adopted into loving homes?  What makes them unfit parents?

The meaning of marriage and family isn't something that each new generation is free to redefine. Marriage is defined by God and a wise society will do all it can to protect marriage as its always been understood. Stray from God's design and trouble, unhappiness, disorder and chaos ensues.
End of quote

What about those of us who don't believe in god?  Why are we to be bound by your rules?

As far as nature is concerned, since the body parts don't fit, homosexuality is unnatural.
End of quote

How can you argue that something that occurs in nature is unnatural?  By definition if it happens in nature it is natural.

As far as chimpanzees, in the wild, homosexuality is an exception to normal behavior. Now, in varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances and the times we most often see chimpanzees acting out homosexuality is when they are confined to zoos. Isn't the homosexuality rate much higher when people are confined to prisons?
End of quote

Wrong, just plain wrong.  I have seen video footage from multiple studies done (shown on the discovery channel) where they saw chimps in the wild having sex with members of the same-sex all the time.  In fact it appeared that the only reason they had heterosexual sex was to procreate, otherwise they has sex with members of the same sex.

And rightly so. Since society's survival is tied to a thriving family firmly established in marriage, justice requires it.
End of quote

Last time I checked we have absolutely problems with low population growth and overflowing orphanages so this is just not true.

So now the argument is that the sin here in Genesis is not homosexuality per se, but rape..violence forcing sexual activity. Could be for don't the men after being rebuffed by Lot fully intend to brutilize Lot's guests? Bottom line is they were homosexuals who wanted sex with Lot's visitors.
End of quote

Homosexuals are not all rapists and not all rapists are homosexual so to draw that conculsion is absurd.  What does it matter if they were homosexuals or not, if you want to interpret sex from this I would have to agree with Leauki that what they are trying to do here is rape which I would agree is a sin (if I were religious).

Reply #100 Top

Quoting Zubaz, reply 79
I really must have rode the short bus . . but I fail to see how a Christian story relates to the topic.I mean . . it's sorta interesting . . but not really pertinent to the conversation, is it?  Is the arguement now that a god said homosexual sex is bad?  That makes your disagreement with same-sex marriage OK?  The government *should* be involved?Let me rephrase for my own clarity and you can fill in:"The state and federal governments should be involed in and prevent same-sex holy matrimony/marriages/civil unions because ____________________"
End of Zubaz's quote

 

The state and federal governments should be involed in and prevent same-sex holy matrimony/marriages/civil unions because ____________________Should NOT be anymore involved than allowing Homosexual Marriage the same as Heterosexual Marriage. Equal rights. Period.

Two people in a bed is already a crowd....I wouldn't want the Federal/State Gov'ts. in addition.