You spelled “(ima)DUMMASS” wrong
Wow. I’ve never seen a religious person be a total prick before.
Thank you for allowing me to check off yet another life experience off.
Not trying to be a prick. However, many perhaps the majority of American believe that homosexuality shouldn’t be endorsed as a mainstream behavior. Neither should those who practice homosexuality be persecuted. Has there ever been a historical culture in recorded history that practiced homosexual marriage? Even ancient Greece which is heralded as the paragon of gay tolerance didn’t have the institution of homosexual marriage.
You’re chanting about the sadomasochistic club located in the Netherlands? How open minded of you. 
Something of a hijack, but still better than the run of the mill I’m a pious asswipe and all your queer are belong to Satan kind of response.
:douchebag smiley:
I hope you’re too cheap to become a member. I don’t really think we need another smug ass spreading a toxic version of Christian love.
Yes, the culture that brought us military units composed entirely of pairs of homosexual lovers would obviously object to health benefits, child custody, and inheritance shared equally between consenting adults. :rolleyes:
As the son of a (former) lumbermill worker, I find your “sawdust brains” comment offensive.
787,566 people (43%) in Oregon voted “No” and I was one of them.
Now, let’s get something (a hah) straight. The First Commandment is “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” One-half of the whole of the law according to Jesus Christ is “Love God.” Basically, no matter where you look, this is the most important tenant of Christianity.
The first clause of the amendment to the Constitution is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
So, just to be perfectly clear, behavior that is the cornerstone, the apex, and the core of sin (turning away from God) is expressly made legal by what is more or less the first words written down in the laws of the U.S.
So, that’s one ‘justification’ (It’s sinful!) down. I will leave ‘No one else did it!’ and ‘We don’t like it!’ as an exercise to the readers.
Must come naturally then. Reminds me of the parable where Jesus is bowling and gets a strike, and taunts the Dude and Walter viciously. No-one fucks with the Jesus, and apparently not with his crowd, if you’re any indication.
Hang on, wrong Jesus. Which one do you worship again, and aren’t you supposed to be trying to be more like him?
Um–I don’t think so. I think that a strident minority has had its way here.
I agree with Chris Matthews–Mr. Average American cannot control his job, the economy or the future–but he can control and “protect” his way of life, hence, the DOM.
It makes no logical sense–that allowing gays to marry somehow “de-sanctifies” the hetero unions in this, or any country. But the idea was bought and here we are…
In fact, the marriage that all were referring to was indeed civil marriage!
I can only shake my head once again at this country I call home. It’s sad and scarey–and I am not gay.
I’m not going to try to convince you of the immorality and inhumanity of your position. I’m too tired for that right now. I just want to ask you a couple questions. You know that there are people in this thread who have had their marriages dissolved by this decision? That this ammendment to the Oregon constitution, and similar ones that have been passed in other states, has caused immense pain and insult to homosexuals through out the nation? For whatever crack-brained reason, you think this bullshit was necessary. Fine. Whatever. Can you at least acknowledge that, necessary as you think it was, it still harms millions of people, including many people you are currently addressing? And you come in here to fucking gloat about it? This is Christian behavior to you? This is compassionate?
You should be ashamed.
Well, i don’t have much to add to this thread, except my heartfelt commiserations for those directly affected by this bullshit, and my ongoing despair at the intolerance in American society.
Let’s take you at your word and assume you’re not trying to be a prick. Let’s instead assume that this message board is ostensibly about facts, or opinions that can be justified using facts, and give you the opportunity to explain your position:
-
Why do the opinions of “the majority of Americans” supercede the desires of a minority of Americans? Since when is it the case that numbers alone validate an opinon? Do you have a basis for that opinion other than “most people think the same way?”
-
Why do you claim that homosexual couples wanting to be married is the same thing as promoting homosexuality as “mainstream behavior?” Do you believe that there is pressure for everyone else to become homosexual? Do you have evidence of people claiming that homosexuals are not a minority?
-
How is extending the same rights and opportunities to homosexuals an “endorsement” of homosexuality? How is it that your right to believe whatever you wish in any way threatened or lessened by the fact that people you don’t know are acknowledging their relationships with each other?
-
What, exactly, is the Defense of Marriage Act defending people against?
-
Why are the practices of ancient Greece and other cultures in the past at all relevant to us, in 2005 America (and Canada, and the UK, and the rest of the world)? Are we expected to do nothing more or less than the ancient Greeks did? Is humanity not permitted to advance? Even ancient Greece which is heralded as a paragon of democracy didn’t have the institution of a representational democracy; and yet the United States among others tried it and it’s worked out pretty well.
-
No one is denying that homosexuality is different, that it’s not “normal,” that homosexuals will always be a minority group. How does one justify that “different” automatically equals “bad?” What, exactly, is the threat? What, exactly, is the behavior that you are refusing to endorse? The union of two consenting adults in love?
Yes, the Canadians, Belgiums, and the Dutch, soon to be joined by the Spanish, and most likely the Swedish and the French. Possibly the South Africans and even the Cambodians, if they listen to what their king thinks. Or do “historical culture[s] in recorded history” have to be thousands of years old or something?
Okay fine, don’t answer! Gosh!
As if he’d actually respond. Your reasonable questions burned out his subtle fire and brimstone drive.
Well, I think that people like Faith Is Good should be barred from using the name “Christian” for their belief system, since they don’t have bishops in the Apostolic Succession (like Gene Robinson) who carry the authority of the apostles authorized by Jesus to carry on His work. They’re like judges not elected by the people or appointed and ratified by elected leaders who set themselves up as authorities over others.’
How about a constitutional amendment that restricts those who can speak about what God wants to the ones who can show they have His authority transmitted down to them?
Yeah, I’m being a little more than slightly ironic there, but the principle is the same: somebody thinks they know God’s wishes for others, so they want to impose it on them by force of law. What would you say, Faith? Become Catholic, Orthodox, ECUSA, or ELCA, or shut up? It’s only fair: I can prove to you that you don’t have authority to speak in His Name; all you have to do is grant my premises about the need for apostolic succession. Just like you expect the gay people to accept your premises about whether or not God approves of their love.
Go to hell you fucking wanker.
I’ll take a stab, although I don’t believe my position is quite the same as his.
I agree that the opnions of most Americans are not relevant for this issue. But the opinions of a majority of Oregonians (Oregonites?) is certainly relevant, because the issue of what marriages may be legally solemnized in Oregon is a matter of Oregon law. And in Oregon, as in all the United States, self-government is a notion accorded great importance: sovereign power rests, ultimately, in the people: that’s what we settled in 1776.
Of course, in our federal system, state law is supreme in its area; federal law - and the US federal Constitution - is the supreme law of the land. Where state and federal law conflict, federal law triumphs.
In the case of same-sex marriage, there is no federal law conflict, so Oregon’s duly-enacted law is indeed supreme in Oregon.
I cannot imagine any person becoming gay because same-sex marriage exists. Same-sex marriage, if legal, would not create any undue pressure. If same-sex marriage does promote homosexuality as “mainstream,” I’m at a loss to see what the negative effects of this would be.
The approval of same-sex marriage is, I think, fairly characterized on some level as an endorsement of homosexuality - or, in the alternative, at least as an official stand against the opprobrium that has traditionally accompanied the public view of homosexuality.
I think it’s named to indicate a defense of the traditional definition of marriage, not to indicate defending people against anything.
Legally speaking, it’s relevant because a fundmental right - defined as a right firmly rooted in traditon and history - is protected by the federal constitution. Same-sex marriage is not firmly rooted in tradition and history. This argument is advanced not to suggest we should never proceed beyond the ancient Greeks, but simply to say that the federal constitution is silent.
I endorse it. I think it’s short-sighted and foolish to do otherwise. But I endorse it a matter of state law, not federal law, and ideally as a matter of legislative innovation, not judicial action. Because to do otherwise does violence to our notions of self-government.
Thanks for the clarification, Bricker. I apparently was mistaken. See, when I read Faith is Good’s post starting “As a Catholic…” I assumed that he was defending a civil rights issue on religious grounds, which is something else that we all settled we’re against back in 1776. I was unaware that “As a Catholic…” actually meant “As a firm supporter of states’ rights vs. federalism…”
I’m being sarcastic out of frustration, Bricker. How many times does the same argument have to get repeated before somebody breaks out of the loop and gets at the real issue? Whether it’s local statutes, state constitution, a so-called “Defense of Marriage” amendment, federal law, amending the US Constitution – that’s just a question of scale. The core issue, and my core question, remains the same: why do people keep falling back on the insistence that “majority rules” is validation for an unjust situation? Why do people keep trying to deflect arguments with talk of slippery slopes and states’ rights, and instead ask: is this fair, is it right, is this the type of situation our legal system was developed to maintain?
Do people serve the law, or does the law exist to serve the people? All the people, not just most of them? I know next to nothing about the intricacies of law and issues of federalism vs. states rights, no more than what I learned in high school civics. So why is it that those who are trained in this stuff do nothing more than keep reminding me that The Constitution Is Important, as if that were something that I’m arguing against? Why aren’t they instead using their background to propose a real solution to the problem?
We all understand that the marriages were invalid according to the law, thanks. We’re saying, “Hey you know what? This really sucks! How do we fix it?” And the answer we’re getting is, “You don’t, because that’s the way it is.” Why is the law the way it is in the first place? What justification is there for it? How is it changed, if not through judicial intervention (which is supposedly “judicial activism”)? How can we expect our representative legislatures to overturn an unfair law, when we are well aware that we’re in the minority, we’re well aware that voters – whether they’re the people of Oregon or the people of the United States – are under no obligation not to base their vote on their personal religious beliefs, and that that situation is what created the unfair laws in the first place?
And that’s not a fair characterization.
Let’s not mince words – the “opprobrium that has traditionally accompanied the public view of homosexuality” is that homosexuals are irresponsible hedonists who are violating the natural order by indulging in their own lustful worldly behavior because they are unable to remain chaste and celibate.
And the people who are specifically objecting to the stereotypical “gay lifestyle,” by saying that they are rejecting promiscuity in favor of a long-term monogamous relationship, are the ones who are punished by people who are grossed out by the icky butt sex.
All that’s just what makes opposition of same-sex marriage so patently stupid – it’s punishing the people who are already mostly on your (general “your”) side. On a higher level, though, people need to start recognizing their civic duty and stop seeing their vote as a chance to speak out on their personal moral beliefs. Morality-based legislation simply doesn’t work; Prohibition proved that. You don’t fix the evils of demon booze by outlawing all alcohol – you allow personal use of alcohol, you restrict the cases where one person’s over-indulgence inflicts on another person’s safety or comfort. And then, in the personal sphere, if that’s what you believe, then you encourage people not to drink. Same with drug laws, sex laws, laws about religion.
I, not as a gay man but as an American and a Christian, have to vote in favor of lots of things that I’m personally morally opposed to. Because I am bound by civic duty to recognize that my personal beliefs don’t extend to other people. My vote isn’t an endorsement of behavior, but an endorsement of the freedom of behavior. It’s not a statement that people have no personal responsibility to do the right thing; it’s an affirmation of people’s personal responsibility.
So many people who object to SSM based on religious grounds are talking out of both sides of their mouths. They say that it’s not their place to judge homosexuals, but they’re not going to endorse them, either. That’s hypocritical and morally bankrupt. If it’s truly not your place to judge, then simply don’t judge – don’t appoint human, mortal law in dominion over what you claim to be God’s law.
That doesn’t explain people like kanicbird, who took the time to tell a homosexual poster that that poster’s marriage was “an insult” to her (I’m assuming “her”) marriage. It doesn’t explain how here marriage is any way affected by someone else’s, or why it’s perfectly acceptable to insult a homosexual marriage, but hers was beyond reproach.
Nor does it explain how fighting for the right to marry does anything but strengthen the institution of marriage. And those who insist that marriage is about nothing more than fucking and making babies, are guilty of insulting and defiling the institution of marriage 1000 times more than the tired old “Britney Spears” example, much less the cases of couples who have been together for years if not decades, and are exposing themselves and relationships to public scrutinty and judgement and condemnation and legal wrangling, simply for the sake of being able to acknowledge and celebrate their relationship.
Same argument you’ve made a dozen times before, so it gets the same response I’ve made a dozen times before: if it’s so transparently clear according to tradition and history that marriage is about the sex of the participants, then why are the so-called Defense of Marriage amendments so recent? Why is it that the marriage laws already in place, our “tradition” as you put it, don’t make the “man and woman” bit explicit? Why is it that attempts by conservatives to introduce this distinction into existing laws, are seen as “defense,” while attempts by homosexuals to have exactly the same thing that everyone else has and has had for centuries, is seen as a new thing, a bold new attack on tradition?