I don't believe it! Someone tell me how can people seriously be threatened by gay marriage? How can people not want other people to be happy?
quote: "God created us male and female. The marriage of man and woman is the foundation upon which God chose to build family life. When family life is eroded, human rights are jeopardized, not protected." ~ Bishop John McCormack of the Diocese of Manchester
Dagnabbit, all these people want is to get legally married! They're already living together how is getting married worse? And the picture next to the article, it was these two women who are going to get married in May, they looked so happy! I can't believe that so many people are trying to stop them!
I'm also angry that the paper assumed that the state of NH was criticizing gay marriage. Granted many of the government officials don't like the idea at all, but I feel that I'm not being very well represented if this is how they respond to issues like this. It's the NH government that is criticizing gay marrage not the people. I can't wait till I'm old enough to vote.
posted
I don't know what I expected Bok, I've lived here all my life so I guess I just hadn't noticed it until now.
Posts: 3420 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagnabbit, all these people want is to get legally married! They're already living together how is getting married worse? And the picture next to the article, it was these two women who are going to get married in May, they looked so happy! I can't believe that so many people are trying to stop them!
Unfortunately, as I see it, happiness does not enter into the formula for some.
Glad my ancestors were from Vermont...I think.
Posts: 440 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The interesting thing is that gay marriage really doesn't erode family life or even impact the lives of heterosexual folks in any significant way at all. This has got to be one of the strangest contraversies yet.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love how we're supposed to have separation of church and state and the elected officials are quoting the Bible when speaking against gay marriage.
And yes, NH is overwhelmingly conservative. But the whole STATE isn't criticizing gay marriage. I know I'm certainly not.
I have a friend in Mass who has been engaged to her girlfriend for a year...and now they can get married. I'm happy and excited for them! Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, gay marriage is not a big deal! Straight folks end up drunk in Vegas how many times? All exageration aside, they should just let people get married if they want to. A lot of gay people have been together for about 20 years. That counts as marriage to me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, as I see it, this issue will be among the things that people look back upon our era and sort of smirk about how silly and old-fashioned we must've been back at "the turn of the century."
It is our generation's version of Woman's Suffrage, IMHO.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bah. The whole concept makes no sense. I'm glad someone is standing up to the political lobbies.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Er...sorry, Mack. You'll wish I hadn't, though.
To begin with, I consider "marriage" to be definitionally between a man and a woman. Therefore homosexual marriages, properly speaking, make no sense.
More objectionably, I consider it my duty as a Christian to oppose homosexual unions, whether or not they are called marriage, until such time as someone successfully convinces me that the Scriptures do not forbid homosexual sex. No one has yet come close.
I don't "object", per se, if nonChristians attempt to institute such a custom; I feel bound to oppose them, but I bear no hard feelings. But when Christians (or anyone else whose religion prohibits it) come out in favor, I consider this hypocrisy.
The whole situation is complicated by the problem that I have never been able to find a broader principle behind the prohibition. (My friends at Harding were no help; perhaps I should have asked some professors, but I was concerned about squicking them out.) That makes the matter all the more uncomfortable to discuss and leaves me without much hope of convincing anyone. Thus the terseness of my irritable initial response to this thread.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I really don't care what gay men/women do. They want to get married? More power to 'em. Everyone deserves a chance to be happy and live the life that was given them.
Who are the people in any state to say someone isn't allowded that chance at marital bliss?
Posts: 2064 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Notwithstanding what they think in New Hampshire, Massachusetts is moving forward nicely albeit with uncharacteristic sniping among the justices of the supreme court. Then again there is going to be one heck of a fight in congress when Bush proposes his Constitutional amendment "Protecting the Sanctity of Marriage." Absolute foolishness.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, lots of intolerance out there tonight (not on here, but in the news).
Ohio just passed a law banning gay marriage (the 38th state to do so), and has gone the extra "family building" step in denying marital benefits to the worker's unmarried partners.
His quote is laughable at best at his attempt to make this sound like a good thing...
quote: Taft, a Republican, denied assertions that the law promotes intolerance. He said the new law would send a strong positive message to children and families.
"Marriage is an essential building block of our society, an institution we must reaffirm," he said.
quote: But when Christians (or anyone else whose religion prohibits it) come out in favor, I consider this hypocrisy.
Well, maybe for marriages in a Christian Church yes. Not all marriages are valid in God's eyes. Do you think getting married by Elvis in Las Vegas is a good holy marriage? Nope. Sorry to offend anybody who was, but unless that Elvis is a minister/priest/pastor ect, it's not what God considers to be marriage.
I can see your point Maccabeus, but if they want to just be legally married, that's not against the bible. If they wanted to be married into a church however, that's a whole new can of beans to me.
But since most would agree the Bible says gay sexual relations is sinful, and not being married doesn't mean they haven't already commited gay sexual acts, then what further harm could creating civil union be? They want it to show that they believe they love each other (they believe that, not necessarily me), and possible tax benefits.
Now what they do behind closed doors is their business, and you and I might consider it sinful, but try not to judge them too badly, because you are their equal in God's eyes.
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's this thing called separation of church and state. If the government is all pissy about prayer being out of school, then using any scriptural basis for denying gays the right to marry is incorrect.
You're welcome to your beliefs, macc, but they shouldn't be the beliefs of the government, as yours are from the perspective of your religion. Since our government isn't supposed to support any one religion, denying gays the right to marry IS the government allying with a religion.
You can do your duty, and the government theirs, but never the twain shall meet.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where is it...Switzerland? Wherever it is, it has this policy that civil unions of any kind are only recognized when performed by the equivalent of a justice of the peace. This could be complete bunk, I just heard this in passing about how this country is the only one where you can get married in the LDS temple immediately after this civil ceremony, because of this law.
Even if it is bunk, it might not be a bad idea. Instead of using the term "civil union" for only homosexuals (which Mass. said was unconstitutional), use it for every couple. Voiala, instant generality. I mean, a couple can, in the eyes of the law, be "united" and then do religious ceremony apart from that. The legal rights are in full effect, and we have complete seperation of church and state.
I don't think homosexuality is right, but what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is none of my business and not my place to judge. I just hope we can compromise if compromise is possible.
posted
Meanwhile in Iowa, "U.S. Rep. Steve King, six state lawmakers, and the Church of Christ of Le Mars and its pastor sought...to block the divorce...[of]...a marriage between two women."
quote: Also, isn't NH the state that was chosen as the site for the Libertarian invasion?
yes.
quote:There's this thing called separation of church and state. If the government is all pissy about prayer being out of school, then using any scriptural basis for denying gays the right to marry is incorrect.
No pray in school, and so is the modern interpretation of that, the less modern was backed by christian scripture. The inablity to Purchase whiskey on Sunday in PA is an example of this.
As for the intial intent of this, I really coundn't care less, sure let them get married. The argument about the term marrige means this and not that, is stupid an pointless, the fact that we are even having that argument is proof that the term's defintion is not fixed, but fluid like every other word in english. The main benifit (possible spirtual, faith, etc issues aside) is legal.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, as I see it, this issue will be among the things that people look back upon our era and sort of smirk about how silly and old-fashioned we must've been back at "the turn of the century."
It is our generation's version of Woman's Suffrage, IMHO.
I'd figured that people in the future will see this as being similar to the fight for black people to have equal rights as everyone else.
Posts: 851 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'd figured that people in the future will see this as being similar to the fight for black people to have equal rights as everyone else.
I find that to be a wildly ridiculous statement. Comparing what modern homosexuals go through to what African-Americans went through in the time when they were expected to sit in the back of buses. When they were given substandard education. When they were required to relieve themselves in a less-than-sanitary restroom facilty.
Do homosexuals go through this? If I remeber right, I saw a homosexual couple on a bus in front of me last week, I see them in my classes in college, and they use the same restrooms I do. I'm a heterosexual. How's that unequal?
Do homosexuals experience this?
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Funny, I said similiar, not "exactly like".
Now, I highly doubt that we'll start seeing gay people being treated as property, but IMO, denying someone the right to marry, or to receive benefits from a partner is a gross violation of human rights.
To me, that's along the lines of what minorities have been denied by law in the past. If you don't see it the same way, oh well.
posted
A writer at First Things magazine (I tried to find a quote online but, alas, their site has only selected articles available for display) mentioned the beginnings of the present-day incarnation of homosexuality in the priesthood, or the "lavendar mafia".
Anyway, the writer said that in the 1960's, due to a great deal of pressure from gay rights groups, openly gay men were, for the first time, permitted to enter and remain in the Roman Catholic priesthood.
The objections people raised were met with the arguments that, with the dropping levels of men entering seminaries, that gay,devout men would help uphold the priesthood, at the very least in numbers. And that people who objected to gays entering the priesthood were hateful towards gays. That the very idea that gay priests would ever be a danger to children was ridiculous and alarmist.
Of course, now the Roman Catholic priesthood is recieving a scouring, both from within and without. Of course, it's not only because gay men are priests; Richard John Neuhaus (FT's editor-in-chief) believes that it's a general sexual permissiveness throughout the church that has allowed the molestation of children continue even in a time when society frowns upon it.
I'm not saying that being gay means you're a child molestor. Just pointing out that, according to this magazine (I have to go by this since I'm not a Catholic myself) many Catholics who were around in the 60's regret lowering their standards for what seemed like, at the time, perfectly reasonable and harmless reasons.
Though, looking around, I can see y'all have your minds made up and there might not be much point in my dissension. Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, that's strange, as the 60's had at least two things of note with relation to catholic priests. One was a increasing tendency of many catholic priests to leave the priesthood and get married, and the other was that in 1961 the vatican banned people with "evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty" from serving in the priesthood, who had not previously been banned as all that was expected was celibacy.
So I think whatever article you read isn't particular authoritative, and is letting itself be blinded by its own bias.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:11 out of 46 Protestant ministers charged in 1990 with criminal sexual abuse had prior convictions
This site suggests the rate of arrests, at least, is higher among catholics for sexual abuse of children, but it should be pointed out that both media and police attention has been drawn to Catholics, and that this does not include statistics for general abuse and so isn't a complete picture of "abusiveness" by any means:
It also has an interesting statistic relevant to this discussion, though:
quote:Information on the marital status of Protestants, gleaned from newspaper accounts so therefore incomplete, showed that at least 43% were married.
(that is, Protestants convicted of molesting children).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
