Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:31 am
Jimmy, there is many that are married and taking vows at a marriage ceromony means allot to them. For every divorced couple there is a married couple that takes those vows seriously. The question/concern isn't about marriages that fall apart or divorces or if populating is a sin or not. Its not by the way. Premarital sex is a no no but sex itself is legit once you say I do. Baptism will take care of the original sin anyway so its all covered to rock and roll once your married. For hundreds of years marriage has been a certain example of a unity between man and woman and a promise to hold and cherish and yada yada yada. To come out of the closet and say I want to be married is just the wrong way to phrase something. You can't be married. You don't fit the description and what is has meant for years. You can be Unioned or legal union as described above but don't take our word and manipulate it. Get your own description and run with it. How about I take the "N" word and assign it to something else. Would African Americans have problems with that. They sure would. Why? Because it has a description associated with it and using it in any other context is wrong no matter how you try and flip it.
Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:39 am
No Irish, they do nto fit how you see marriage, which is through your Catholic eyes.
BTW, good example of the 'n' word, but for my case, not yours:
n. Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: “You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nXXXXX” (James Baldwin).
Used as a disparaging term for a member of any dark-skinned people.
Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people: “Gun owners are the new nXXXXXs... of society” (John Aquilino).
Just goes to show you how society influences you in to thinking a word, in this case the 'n' word, only means one thing and one thing only.
You have also not touched on the subject that marriage has been around long before Catholics. It predates your belief, menaing it has taken what it was and changed it to something different.
BTW, good example of the 'n' word, but for my case, not yours:
n. Offensive Slang
Used as a disparaging term for a Black person: “You can only be destroyed by believing that you really are what the white world calls a nXXXXX” (James Baldwin).
Used as a disparaging term for a member of any dark-skinned people.
Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people: “Gun owners are the new nXXXXXs... of society” (John Aquilino).
Just goes to show you how society influences you in to thinking a word, in this case the 'n' word, only means one thing and one thing only.
You have also not touched on the subject that marriage has been around long before Catholics. It predates your belief, menaing it has taken what it was and changed it to something different.
Thu Feb 26, 2004 10:52 am
Jimmy--
Just saying you cannot expect backlash when you manipulate a word that means something to a certain amount of people. Ten years ago if you came out as a gay you got your ass kicked plain and simple. Today we are much more in touch with gay/lesbian issues. Not to say its a perfect world but the population asa whole is much more open minded than before. Below is an article from Rosie. Smacking the pres about his words. The guy is a Catholic. Thats why he is concerned. The gay/lesbian community is just setting themselves up to take a step back from the acceptance they have garnered. Backlash here it comes. That community has come so far just to trash an ideal that means much to many people. I don't get it. You think they would be more sympathetic towards the word of 'marriage' and what it means. I don't care if it has been around the world for a billion years. This is just going down in SF and it doesn't sit well with many in the US.
Who knows. Who cares anymore. This is just like everything. A neverending debate. My last thought. Every gay/lesbian should show some kind of commitment with a partner. Just don't call it marriage.
SAN FRANCISCO - Former talk show host Rosie O'Donnell (news) said she planned to marry her longtime girlfriend Thursday in San Francisco, where more than 3,300 other same-sex couples have tied the knot since Feb. 12.
AP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Rosie O'Donnell
O'Donnell announced her planned wedding to Kelli Carpenter on ABC News' "Good Morning America," just two days after President Bush (news - web sites) called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
In fact, she said the president's call spurred her to come to San Francisco, where city officials continue to perform same-sex weddings even as the legality of those marriages is being considered by state courts.
"I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president," O'Donnell said on the program. "I am stunned and I'm horrified.
"I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral. And, you know, if civil disobedience is the way to go about change, then I think a lot of people will be going to San Francisco. And I hope they put more people on the steps to marry as many people as show up. And I hope everyone shows up."
O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct magazine Rosie.
"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."
Just saying you cannot expect backlash when you manipulate a word that means something to a certain amount of people. Ten years ago if you came out as a gay you got your ass kicked plain and simple. Today we are much more in touch with gay/lesbian issues. Not to say its a perfect world but the population asa whole is much more open minded than before. Below is an article from Rosie. Smacking the pres about his words. The guy is a Catholic. Thats why he is concerned. The gay/lesbian community is just setting themselves up to take a step back from the acceptance they have garnered. Backlash here it comes. That community has come so far just to trash an ideal that means much to many people. I don't get it. You think they would be more sympathetic towards the word of 'marriage' and what it means. I don't care if it has been around the world for a billion years. This is just going down in SF and it doesn't sit well with many in the US.
Who knows. Who cares anymore. This is just like everything. A neverending debate. My last thought. Every gay/lesbian should show some kind of commitment with a partner. Just don't call it marriage.
SAN FRANCISCO - Former talk show host Rosie O'Donnell (news) said she planned to marry her longtime girlfriend Thursday in San Francisco, where more than 3,300 other same-sex couples have tied the knot since Feb. 12.
AP Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Rosie O'Donnell
O'Donnell announced her planned wedding to Kelli Carpenter on ABC News' "Good Morning America," just two days after President Bush (news - web sites) called for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
In fact, she said the president's call spurred her to come to San Francisco, where city officials continue to perform same-sex weddings even as the legality of those marriages is being considered by state courts.
"I think the actions of the president are, in my opinion, the most vile and hateful words ever spoken by a sitting president," O'Donnell said on the program. "I am stunned and I'm horrified.
"I find this proposed amendment very, very, very, very shocking. And immoral. And, you know, if civil disobedience is the way to go about change, then I think a lot of people will be going to San Francisco. And I hope they put more people on the steps to marry as many people as show up. And I hope everyone shows up."
O'Donnell said she decided to marry Carpenter, a former dancer and marketing director at Nickelodeon, during her recent trial in New York over the now-defunct magazine Rosie.
"We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."
Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:24 am
Jimmy, you tell me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally and I won't have a problem with it at all.
Or better yet, you point out a homosexual SPECIES that procreates. And I'm not talking about ones that change sex naturally to preserve the race in hard times.
That's my whole problem with it. In a nutshell.
I can see the civil rights argument, and everyone deserves equal protection under the law. So can you point out one advantage that a married couple can possess insted of a couple in civil union?
Or better yet, you point out a homosexual SPECIES that procreates. And I'm not talking about ones that change sex naturally to preserve the race in hard times.
That's my whole problem with it. In a nutshell.
I can see the civil rights argument, and everyone deserves equal protection under the law. So can you point out one advantage that a married couple can possess insted of a couple in civil union?
Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:25 am
Originally posted by [ECR]Irish
That community has come so far just to trash an ideal that means much to many people. I don't get it. You think they would be more sympathetic towards the word of 'marriage' and what it means. I don't care if it has been around the world for a billion years. This is just going down in SF and it doesn't sit well with many in the US.
1) Also the entire state of Mass, not just the city of SF.
2) The gay community has thrived for centuries. 10 years ago you would not be beat for coming out. Yes, in certain areas, and that still exists today, gay bashing was more rampant. I have no clue where you got that over the last 10 years all of a sudden people accepted it. It has been accepted for thousands of years.
3) You keep mentionign what 'marriage' means. What you neglect, over and over, is to see it is what marriage means to you.
Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:31 am
Originally posted by -SV-Lantus
Jimmy, you tell me how a homosexual couple can procreate naturally and I won't have a problem with it at all.
Or better yet, you point out a homosexual SPECIES that procreates. And I'm not talking about ones that change sex naturally to preserve the race in hard times.
That's my whole problem with it. In a nutshell.
So marriage is only about reproduction? My wife and I do not intend to have children. Does that mean we don't really have a "marriage''? Many couples use fertility treatments to have a baby. They can't procreate "naturally".
Jim
Thu Feb 26, 2004 11:40 am
-SV-Lantus,
I have no idea of your point. What does making babies have to do with anything on this topic? Like Jim said, is he bad because he and his wife do not wish to have a child?
I have no idea of your point. What does making babies have to do with anything on this topic? Like Jim said, is he bad because he and his wife do not wish to have a child?
Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:13 pm
I'm not even going to take a side in the issue, other than the constitutional-political implications. The bottom line is this: what we are doing here in this thread is debating an issue, albeit in classic (read semi-retarded) internet form. If these forums were a state or nation, after listening to both sides of the issue, we or our elected representatives should be able to vote on the issue. We might decide that civil unions are something we want but same-sex marriage is not, or we might decide, as Jimmy argues, that it is absurd not to allow two men or two women to get married. That's democracy.
When a court purports to find a Constitutional right, this entire debate and the democratic process is made meaningless on this issue. (I will admit that I haven't read the Massachusetts Constitution which is what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court based its decision on, but I do not think that anything has been added recently that addresses the issue of same-sex marriage. Thus, I feel quite certain that this is an example of a new right, one that no one who wrote the document would have imagined, being read into the Massachusetts Constitution. I get the distinct feeling that you are not a strict constructionist Jimmy, but some of us are.) You may not be happy with the speed of change, but the polls I see already show majority support for civil union laws, so in anyway that matters your side is probably winning the debate. Frankly, I imagine it is only a matter of time before majorities support same-sex marriage. By trying to create constitutional rights rather than win over public support, you are seeking to impose a minority viewpoint on everyone.
Moreover, and this was my point on polygamy, by trying to create a hereetofore unknown right, you do open the door to a lot of unintended consequences. I do not think that your response addresses the polygamy issue. I think it is disingenuous to claim that the same reasoning that allows you to turn one of society's oldest institutions on its head by mandating same-sex marriage (something that has never been done before), would not allow someone else to argue quite conincingly in favor of polygamy (which several major religions and societies currently practice). Saying that it is a right of two individuals rather than "one man and twenty women" doesn't address my point. On what basis are you finding the no-more-than-two-people requirement? I don't see it except in some biased law written by religious zealots who have decided for everyone that no matter how prevalent the two-girl fantasy is among men, no man should be able to have a legally recognized relationship with more than one woman. I don't think it is a cheap shot to point this out if the debate is about whether there is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It probably is a cheap shot if we are just debating the issue with an eye toward deciding for ourselves as citizens what we think the law should be.
As for the equal rights argument, I'm sure you hate to hear it, but everyone currently has an equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex who isn't too closely related to them (again with the judgmentalism). This isn't a matter of treating everyone equally under the law; what same-sex marriage proposes is something different.
When a court purports to find a Constitutional right, this entire debate and the democratic process is made meaningless on this issue. (I will admit that I haven't read the Massachusetts Constitution which is what the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court based its decision on, but I do not think that anything has been added recently that addresses the issue of same-sex marriage. Thus, I feel quite certain that this is an example of a new right, one that no one who wrote the document would have imagined, being read into the Massachusetts Constitution. I get the distinct feeling that you are not a strict constructionist Jimmy, but some of us are.) You may not be happy with the speed of change, but the polls I see already show majority support for civil union laws, so in anyway that matters your side is probably winning the debate. Frankly, I imagine it is only a matter of time before majorities support same-sex marriage. By trying to create constitutional rights rather than win over public support, you are seeking to impose a minority viewpoint on everyone.
Moreover, and this was my point on polygamy, by trying to create a hereetofore unknown right, you do open the door to a lot of unintended consequences. I do not think that your response addresses the polygamy issue. I think it is disingenuous to claim that the same reasoning that allows you to turn one of society's oldest institutions on its head by mandating same-sex marriage (something that has never been done before), would not allow someone else to argue quite conincingly in favor of polygamy (which several major religions and societies currently practice). Saying that it is a right of two individuals rather than "one man and twenty women" doesn't address my point. On what basis are you finding the no-more-than-two-people requirement? I don't see it except in some biased law written by religious zealots who have decided for everyone that no matter how prevalent the two-girl fantasy is among men, no man should be able to have a legally recognized relationship with more than one woman. I don't think it is a cheap shot to point this out if the debate is about whether there is a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. It probably is a cheap shot if we are just debating the issue with an eye toward deciding for ourselves as citizens what we think the law should be.
As for the equal rights argument, I'm sure you hate to hear it, but everyone currently has an equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex who isn't too closely related to them (again with the judgmentalism). This isn't a matter of treating everyone equally under the law; what same-sex marriage proposes is something different.
Thu Feb 26, 2004 12:52 pm
What's wrong with polygamy?
Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:01 pm
Originally posted by Ralph Wiggum
As for the equal rights argument, I'm sure you hate to hear it, but everyone currently has an equal right to marry a member of the opposite sex who isn't too closely related to them (again with the judgmentalism). This isn't a matter of treating everyone equally under the law; what same-sex marriage proposes is something different.
Interesting point. I never really thought of it that way before. Everyone does have equal rights. You can marry whoever of the opposite sex you want;) If same sex marriages were banned, they'd be banned for everyone.
Of course it's not as cut and dry as that, but what is?
Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:02 pm
Originally posted by Chacal
What's wrong with polygamy?
Feeling guilty Chacal?
Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:11 pm
Originally posted by Xenius
Interesting point. I never really thought of it that way before. Everyone does have equal rights. You can marry whoever of the opposite sex you want;) If same sex marriages were banned, they'd be banned for everyone.
Of course it's not as cut and dry as that, but what is?
No, it is not as cut and dry. That is like saying slavery is back, and since all African Americans are now slaves, they are all equal.
Doesn't add up at all.
Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:22 pm
Jimmy do you actually read before you go blathering off like that?
If you had actually read my comment you would see that I was arguing for your "civil rights" ideal. They don't need to call it marriage to have the exact same rights that married couples do.
I personally don't care what you and your boyfriend think. You don't need to challenge the concept of mariage. Its nothing more than another way "to strike one for the cause" "to get it out into peoples consciouness" "to make people aware and accept us" (that can actually come from many a fringe group).
That is the only reason people are making an issue out of it.
If you had actually read my comment you would see that I was arguing for your "civil rights" ideal. They don't need to call it marriage to have the exact same rights that married couples do.
I personally don't care what you and your boyfriend think. You don't need to challenge the concept of mariage. Its nothing more than another way "to strike one for the cause" "to get it out into peoples consciouness" "to make people aware and accept us" (that can actually come from many a fringe group).
That is the only reason people are making an issue out of it.
Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:25 pm
Originally posted by JimmyTango
Might be smart, but damn ignorant and biased.
Jimmy, I'll be the first to defend your right to state your opinions on a subject, but could you possibly do it in a civil way where you DON'T assume that anyone who has an opinion differing from your own is "damn ignorant and biased"? I'd suggest that it's rather detrimental to your own argument to launch personal attacks on your detractors.
Originally posted by JimmyTango
Because it is about the love of two people, not one man and 20 women.
This same BS has been spewed everytime someone has to fight for civil rights. People start nitpicking, and blow it into something it is not.
Those same people are proved wrong over time, that they were scared out what was about to happen and just started spouting off nonsense to scare anyone they could.
I beg to differ, but this has only been about "the love of two people" since the issue of actual, legal marriage between homosexuals arose. It's obvious that for centuries, "marriage" has been defined solely as being between one man and one woman, whether for love or not. It is only now that "marriage" has been redefined (or attempted to be redefined) to be "between two people." I submit that logically, if we're willing to alter it to be "between two people," then we must also be willing to accept it when it's between any two people (brother and sister? first cousins? Mother and son?) and eventually between "more than two people."
I also take issue with the fact that marriage has or requires "love" to be involved. Of course, we all know that oftentimes, marriage takes place because a man and woman love each other, but "love" is not a legal requirement, nor is it enter into the legal meaning of marriage at all. Strictly speaking, marriage is a contractual relationship between a man and woman that binds them together as a legal entity. It also entitles them to certain privileges, including property rights to the other's property, probate rights to a deceased person's estate, rights to health benefits, tax advantages, etc.
These rights are universal in the U.S.- they don't really vary from state to state. Why should North Carolina, a state that's passed a marriage law defining marriage as being only between a man and woman, be forced to offer marriage benefits to a gay couple who were married in San Francisco? The two positions are in direct competition with each other, so one must prevail. That's why this is an issue of federal jurisdiction - only with federal action can the standard be set.
Thu Feb 26, 2004 2:02 pm
I can't wait to DC. A debate, a few drinks and paintball. Could be explosive.