Prop 8

[AllergyDoc]

"Pap?"

How many U.S. states have voted that marriage is between a man and a woman? 30? All? Yes, every state that has had an opportunity to vote has voted against gay marriage. This is denying civil rights? No. Marriage is not a "civil right." Voting is a civil right. Being free of slavery is a civil right. Freedom of worship is a civil right. Marrying whomever you want is NOT a civil right.

Here we have a demonstration of the gay agenda: "shout down" anyone that doesn't agree with your position. Call them "bigots." Call them "homophobic." Say they're using "hate speech." Silence them.

This is the gay agenda: force the gay lifestyle down the throats of the "straight." If they don't like it, shut them up. Silence them. How? Call them names. Bigot. Homophobe. Whatever. Make them afraid to speak their mind. Force them to teach it in the schools. Force the Boy Scouts to allow gays in. (Tried that, but it failed.)

Teaching the homosexual lifestyle in schools is a "minor thing"? You're either naive or purposely deceptive. You know how they got it by the parents in MA? They skirted the parental notification law by leaving out discussion of bodily parts and sexual acts. That way parents didn't have to be notified that their kids were being told homosexual relationships were "normal."

Gays in California have all the rights of the "married" already. They have civil unions. Not enough, though. They want to be accepted as "normal."

Well, it's not "normal" and the vast majority of the world knows this. They are free to do whatever they wish in the privacy of their own home, in some countries, but they cannot call their "unions" marriage. At least not in California and 29 other states. Marriage is one man and one woman. Just as it has been for centuries.

[trailboss]

Doc, it doesn't matter if he is right or wrong, it's not a proper study. As Greg states, he provides no references, cites no proper studies, it has not been subject to peer review and its lacks most of the requirements for a scientific/medical paper. It is, in fact a magazine article and must be taken as such.

It is not proof of theory! As such I can not except it as a finding but take it on board as an informed opinion. Maybe pap was a bit harsh but hard fact it is not.

I can see both sides of this argument and think it comes down to the fact that even in countries where it is ingrained in law there is a lack of separation of powers here. Marriage as an institution was stolen from the church and, in the absence of any civil arrangement at the time (and of cause a total lack of the above mentioned powers) adopted as the legal form of union. This should have been fixed when the concept of separation of church and state came into being but somehow got missed.

I have big issues with organised religion (and the Vatican in particular) but I can see their point on this one. Unfortunately what they are trying to protect as a church rite is also the lawfully recognised form of union. Herein lyes the problem, to quote Black Adder.

And why should Christianity and a few other "select" religions have the monopoly? There are many religions in AU whose marriage ceremony is only recognised if the necessary bits are added and the Priest or other presiding officer is also a civil celebrant.

No, there needs to be a separation of "marriage" and "civil union" this could be easily taken care of with a short preceding before the register is signed the way many other less popular belief systems have to do things now. All it would take is this cutting of direct links between lawful union and marriage and a change of nomenclature for the process of lawful union from "marriage" to something else.

Let the church take back the concept of marriage to use as they see fit and give an legal alternative. It all comes down to semantics.

Regards,

Col.

[downtown]

Versus the conservative christian agenda of pushing your beliefs down the throats of others. The only reason you don't see homosexuality as normal is because it's featured in the bible as being a sin, or because you yourself are too naive to realize that love has no gender.

"Teaching the homosexual lifestyle in schools is a "minor thing"? You're either naive or purposely deceptive. You know how they got it by the parents in MA? They skirted the parental notification law by leaving out discussion of bodily parts and sexual acts. That way parents didn't have to be notified that their kids were being told homosexual relationships were "normal."

god forbid we teach our children tolerance and acceptance. I'm being neither naive nor deceptive when I say that I, and many more, truly believe that the only way to a better society and better relationship statistics is through open discussion by way of agreement. I'll also note that a closet homosexual christian republican is far more likely to be living a dangerous sexual lifestyle than an openly gay monogamist. So I'm not too sure what you mean by 'gay lifestyle', but your implication is negative, which means your perception of the gay lifestyle is also quite negative. Define what you believe the gay lifestyle to be, because I don't see it much different than the heterosexual lifestyle, except of course, for the fact that many have to hide it because they fear discrimination at the workplace, social settings and schools. Do you sincerely believe that by openly discussing homosexuality or allowing them to get married your kids will grow up gay? Your mailman will suddenly become gay? You?

A youth who grows up in a sexually repressive atmosphere, gay or straight, is more likely to have a morally ambiguous sexual lifestyle. Inversely, a child who grows up in an accepting environment, one where people don't call them things like ''unnatural'' or ''wrong'' would be more likely to grow up and pursue far healthier relationships.

"This is the gay agenda: force the gay lifestyle down the throats of the "straight." If they don't like it, shut them up. Silence them. How? Call them names. Bigot. Homophobe. Whatever. Make them afraid to speak their mind. Force them to teach it in the schools. Force the Boy Scouts to allow gays in. (Tried that, but it failed)"

By definition, someone who dislikes or discriminates against someone else based on sexual orientation, is a bigot. Yes. This isn't the gay agenda, its the progressive and rationalist agenda. And yes, force those who discriminate to become accepting through means of education. I bet you know plenty of gays and don't even know it. I also believe it would be wrong for the government to force the Church/Temple, etc. to marry people it doesn't feel like marrying, but if the Church decides to violate principles of human equality which the state recognizes, then they should cease their tax-exempt status and no longer be under the crutch of the state. I refuse to tacitly financially support institutions who discriminate by way of sexual orientation.

"It's not normal and the vast majority of the world knows this"

Is this supposed to be an argument? "It's not normal because we said so!" It sounds like you're explaining that there is a social stigma attached to homosexuality without explaining how. Blacks were considered inferior to whites because lots of people said so, too. But are they? Is your implication that homosexuality as ''abnormal," also "inferior"?

"Gays in California have all the rights of the "married" already. They have civil unions. Not enough, though. They want to be accepted as "normal.""

The ridiculousness of this statement had me chuckling. "Those faggots want to be married? Well [censored] them! They can't have my bible or my gun!"

What is the gay agenda's insidious telos, if you sincerely believe there is one?

[downtown]

Doc, it doesn't matter if he is right or wrong, it's not a proper study. As Greg states, he provides no references, cites no proper studies, it has not been subject to peer review and its lacks most of the requirements for a scientific/medical paper. It is, in fact a magazine article and must be taken as such.

It is not proof of theory! As such I can not except it as a finding but take it on board as an informed opinion. Maybe pap was a bit harsh but hard fact it is not.

I can see both sides of this argument and think it comes down to the fact that even in countries where it is ingrained in law there is a lack of separation of powers here. Marriage as an institution was stolen from the church and, in the absence of any civil arrangement at the time (and of cause a total lack of the above mentioned powers) adopted as the legal form of union. This should have been fixed when the concept of separation of church and state came into being but somehow got missed.

I have big issues with organised religion (and the Vatican in particular) but I can see their point on this one. Unfortunately what they are trying to protect as a church rite is also the lawfully recognised form of union. Herein lyes the problem, to quote Black Adder.

And why should Christianity and a few other "select" religions have the monopoly? There are many religions in AU whose marriage ceremony is only recognised if the necessary bits are added and the Priest or other presiding officer is also a civil celebrant.

No, there needs to be a separation of "marriage" and "civil union" this could be easily taken care of with a short preceding before the register is signed the way many other less popular belief systems have to do things now. All it would take is this cutting of direct links between lawful union and marriage and a change of nomenclature for the process of lawful union from "marriage" to something else.

Let the church take back the concept of marriage to use as they see fit and give an legal alternative. It all comes down to semantics.

Regards,

Col.

I agree with all of the above. The entire institution needs to be dismantled and rebuild with a modern secular interpretation.

[old skool]

This topic has sparked a curiosity in me and I always love a good debate. I have done a little research and thought I would present a few additional viewpoints for consideration.

State versus Church:

Conditions:

A religious ceremony is in no way legaly binding to any party.

A legal marriage licence binds two spouses AND third parties.

Explanation:

When the two above situations conflict for any reason, the State recognizes only the legal marriage licence and not the religious ceremony.

Example:

The State will issue a new marriage licence to adulterous, divorced Roman Catholics without regard to the Church's requirement of the previous marriage being annulled.

Comments:

The State cannot possibly legally recognize every viewpoint of every religion without resulting in absolute chaos.

We cannot simply pick and choose individual religious views to be legally supported or negated without discriminating against individuals and their religious views or lack thereof.

Constitutional Concerns:

Conditions:

Subsequent to the decision of the State to issue marital unions, our government has seen fit to establish laws protecting the property and rights of individuals who choose to enter into such an agreement.

Explanation:

If one citizen chooses to enter into such an agreement with another citizen, regardless of gender, I do not see how this interferes in any way with the original purpose or intent of the government's involvement in this issue in the first place.

I base this assumption on the fact that we are all, regardless of gender, citizens and our government is charged with providing equal protection to all citizens under the law. Variations in the application and functionality of such laws based solely on sexual orientation to me is nothing more than discrimination.

Constitutionality:

Article XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Statement of intent:

If an individual is required by the State to change their very nature by definition in order to achieve equality under the law, they are not equal.

Religious and social norms/practices throughout history:

Research by the Yale historian John Boswell in the book, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, explores the historical context of homosexual marriages. His studies revealed that homosexual marriage rites have been legally sanctioned and religiously upheld for over 3,000 years in ancient African, Asian, Egyptian, Greek, Mesopotamian, Native American and Roman cultures. The social acceptance of same-gender relationships did not gain widespread condemnation until the 13th century, when religious orders stepped in and declared them immoral (Dorrell & Legal Marriage Court Cases, 1994,1996).

Paul Halsall, also a historian, supports the findings of Boswell and unearthed other cultures

[Antonio]

I'm a Californian, and as of this election I've never been prouder to be American, nor more ashamed of being a Californian. Proposition 8 is bigotry. Mormons of ALL people should be tolerant of differing marriage, they had polygamy under Smith...

We split from England originally to be FREE from religious persecution, yet the extreme right thinks it needs to be forcefully injected into our laws. We are a country made up largely of Christians, but not a Christian (only) country. A little tolerance goes a long way. We've come so far, from slavery to segregation to having an African-American president. Yet we still have bigotry and backwardness running rampant.

If the Mormons want to protect marriage (they poured money into the bill), why not introduce a proposition that bans divorce? The 16,000 gay marriages that have been performed so far will stand, though undoubtedly their will now be those who challenge those in court. I'd be willing to bet that in ten years, a survey will show that more of those marriages will be together and happy than those of traditional man-woman marriages.

[onzenuub]

USA the country where you are free???????????????????????????????

[AllergyDoc]

Let the church take back the concept of marriage to use as they see fit and give an legal alternative. It all comes down to semantics.

Regards,

Col.

I agree, Col.

You guys are also right about the piece I linked to. It is an opinion piece. To me it's well thought out and reasoned. Probably because I agree with him. To those who don't agree, it's rubbish. But no amount of "studies" will convince people against their will.

In California we have a "civil union" that affords same-sex couples the exact legal equivalency of marriage. At least at the state level. Gays are not happy with that, though. They want full acceptance by the entire population, from the Federal level down the local municipalities. They want everyone to be taught that their lifestyle is completely normal.

As Antonio hinted at (sort of), marriage really started it's decline when the no-fault divorce laws passed. Marriage, as an "institution," has been on the rocks since. I'm sure a large chunk of the "Western" world could care less. What have we heard since the 60's? A marriage license is just "words on a piece of paper"? Something like that.

Much of the world still does care about marriage, though. I do. I'm on my 2nd marriage and the divorce devastated my kids. I'm sure gay couples, and the kids that live with them, are equally devastated when they split. People are people. I had a lesbian couple bring their two boys in for allergy treatment. Prior to hooking up the masculine partner, the more feminine partner was in a very abusive relationship (with a man). She reasoned, which is worse for the children? A gay relationship or one with an abusive father? (Yes, I really heard her say this.) The older boy was messed up. Endless teasing at school. Fights all the time. You know kids, they can be the cruelest people. Probably wouldn't happen in S.F., but it does around here where people are more conservative. But he could have been fat or ugly and gotten the same teasing.

Anyway. I suppose the matter will be pushed to the Supreme Court. If they agreed to take the case (which I doubt they will because it's considered a state matter, right John?) it'll come down to one judge's opinion. If he gives the nod to gay marriage it'll be one person shoving it down the throats of a nation that by and large doesn't want it. That's the way things are set up, though.

But you're right Col.

[downtown]

Would you hire a gay, AD? Would you be accepting of your son or daughter if they told you that they were gay? The dehumanization of homosexuals by the christian right still baffles me. You're basing this opinion on what? Personal experience or a book? I'm still waiting for AD to address my questions.

I will agree, though, that gay marriage threatens straight couples. If they see gays getting married, they'll obviously think marriage is tainted and want out. Common sense, right?

I'm still not sure how simply allowing gay marriage means a teacher will tell people's children to shove a [censored] down their throats. Seems like an alarmist and paranoid argument. If straights are truly comfortable and happy with their marriage, this shouldn't really be a blow. If people are to fault for anything, its jumping on the marriage bandwagon when they shouldn't be.

Edited November 7, 2008 by downtown

[AllergyDoc]

One of my sisters just kicked her husband of 15 years out while announcing she prefers women over men. She says she's not a practicing lesbian. I admit it's affected my feelings towards her. I'm being honest. I think, though, my feelings would be very similar if not the same if she had kicked her husband out because she was hooking up with a younger man or was a drug user. Those are all bad reasons to break up a family in my book.

I hire based on qualifications. appearance, and "gut feeling," like everyone else who runs a small business. I don't know how sexual orientation would come up during an interview because I wouldn't think to ask them, and asking would be illegal anyway, I'm sure. Let's say they told me or put a same-sex name down in the "spouse" blank. I would hire them if they I felt they were the best qualified and I felt they would be the best fit for my business.

My opinions are based on my upbringing and personal experience. I don't feel I'm part of the "Christian right," but even if I was, so what? They have the same right to express their opinions and vote their conscious as you and I do.

What makes someone gay? Gays would have us believe they are gay because they were born that way, just as someone is born male or female. They think it's biology, not choice. I believe there is some truth to that, but it certainly isn't the whole story.

Some people are born with alcoholic, or addictive, tendencies. Ken Blum is the researcher credited for finding the "alcoholic gene." This is well established in medicine. But we also know that just because someone is born with that gene doesn't mean they will become an alcoholic or an addict. Many other factors will play a part on the direction they choose to take their life.

I believe this is very similar to homosexuality. Certainly many gays feel they were "born that way." My sister does, yet she's not a practicing homosexual, just as an alcoholic doesn't "have" to drink. Humans can control their urges. We do it all the time.

Teachers are in a position of authority. They can wield great power over the a young, developing mind, especially if the child's parents are neglectful at providing direction. I don't want my young children being taught that the gay lifestyle is okay, that it's normal, anymore than I want them taught it's okay, normal, to be a drunk if you feel like drinking. You may feel differently. If you have kids, you may feel it's alright to teach them the gay lifestyle is simply another choice on how one can live their life. If so, I would prefer you did that in the comfort of your own home and not in the school where my children attended.

If gay relationships are to be legally accepted as the same as traditional marriage, heterosexual relationships, then they will be taught to children in school. That's a FACT because it's happening in Mass. They skirted legal requirements for parental notification by omitting any discussion of body parts or sexual activity. Therefore, parents could not opt out.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player...ctid=1784521903

Here is the newspaper link, lest you feel the people in the video are lying:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/..._gay_storybook/

This is teachers, or, more correctly, school districts, "shoving it down the throats" of people who do not want it.

I gathered your other question was, how does this influence a child to be gay? If a child is sitting there in class, having "mixed feelings" about sex, boys and girls, etc., and their teacher teaches them being gay is the same as not being gay, it has an impact on how that child feels about his or her own sexuality.

Relating facts doesn't make one an alarmist and it shows I'm not being paranoid. Gay marriage is being taught as "okay" to very young children in MA. I'm not "okay" with that. They pretty much leave religion out of school instruction, why don't they leave marriage out as well?

I believe gays, ethic groups, whatever, should receive the same protections under the law that everyone else does. No one should have to live in fear of their life. We, in this country, all have the same basic civil rights. Marriage isn't a civil right, though. Voting is. Basic education is. We are not free to marry whomever we want. There are and always have been restrictions.

[JohnG]

Anyway. I suppose the matter will be pushed to the Supreme Court. If they agreed to take the case (which I doubt they will because it's considered a state matter, right John?) it'll come down to one judge's opinion. If he gives the nod to gay marriage it'll be one person shoving it down the throats of a nation that by and large doesn't want it. That's the way things are set up, though.

It is a state matter as long as there is no Constitutional issue. And even if there were a clear Constitutional issue (which there is not), the Supreme Court is not compelled to hear ANY case. Cases are chosen for review by the justices if they believe that there is an issue that needs clarification or that has not been correctly decided at the intermediate appellate level.

If the opponents of Prop 8 wish to seek redress in the Federal courts, they must appeal first to the Federal district court. Then the case will wind it's way up (unless all appeals are denied) the ladder. In all likelihood, the Federal district court would defer to the California Constitution, as amended. If they hear the case and grant relief, the appellate court would probably overturn. And if they did not, then the SCOTUS would probably hear the case, and overturn.

I don't know the composition of the Ninth Circuit, so I don't know if this would make it past the Court of Appeals, but if it did, and given the current composition of the Supreme Court, there is no question in my mind that any challenges to Prop 8 would fail.

On another point, I think that the gay community is not trying to "shove" anything down anyone's throat. What they would like, is to see a generation of children raised to not hate and fear homosexuals.

Even today, homosexuals suffer great emotional and physical abuse from the heterosexual community. For example, "gay bashing" doesn't refer to talking [censored] about gays, it refers to the practice of seeking out and beating homosexuals for fun. This is a common practice in the United States, as much as many people would like to deny it. If I were gay, I too would be working to increase social acceptance in any way possible, not to "shove my agenda down their throat" but rather in the hopes that perhaps a day will come when a homosexual doesn't have to suffer shame and fear for his or her physical safety, for no other reason than their sexual orientation. In fact, even though I am not gay, I was once accused of being gay in the sixth grade by a little [censored] I had a fight with. [censored] like that sticks for a LONG TIME in school - children are merciless. I got a good taste of what many young gays go through and I have never forgotten that lesson.

[AllergyDoc]

On another point, I think that the gay community is not trying to "shove" anything down anyone's throat. What they would like, is to see a generation of children raised to not hate and fear homosexuals.

Thanks for the legal confirmation. That's how I understood it but I wasn't sure.

As I said, no one should have to endure the type of behavior you're referring to.

As for what the "gay community" wants, I suppose it depends on what part of that community we're talking about. I think the vast majority of gay people just want to allowed to live their lives in peace. Surely you know, though, there is a small "radical" core that's after much more than that.

What I've gathered from this discussion is, marriage is an issue that should be left out of schools, period. Perhaps it should be nothing more than a religious rite. Everyone can get "married" wherever they wish, by whomever they wish, but then they must get licensed by the state. The only thing the state should care about is their own licensing procedures. They would be two separate and distinct events, but called by different names: the religious event "marriage" and the civil event, "whatever." The churches get left alone to marry whomever they will, depending on their own laws, etc., with no possible challenges to their tax status.

[JohnG]

Perhaps it should be nothing more than a religious rite. Everyone can get "married" wherever they wish, by whomever they wish, but then they must get licensed by the state. The only thing the state should care about is their own licensing procedures. They would be two separate and distinct events, but called by different names: the religious event "marriage" and the civil event, "whatever." The churches get left alone to marry whomever they will, depending on their own laws, etc., with no possible challenges to their tax status.

Good solution.

[AllergyDoc]

Hmm. Well, I don't really want to get into the middle of this.

I will say that marriage is not a right. Of course it isn't. The problem is that the State government has decided to make a legal union between two adults that is called marriage. This legal union has nothing to do with religion in any regard. You don't need to be religious to get one. The State can't force Churches to marry people and the Church can't force the state to grant or revoke the legal union.

What is guaranteed by the Constitution is equal rights for all people under the law. Since the law allows for legal unions (marriage), they have to provide them equally. This is what the CA SC upheld.

I just read your post, old skool. Well put and to the point. (Not overly verbose like my posts.)

However, you didn't take into account that even though the state must provide "equal rights" for all, the state still places limits on the groups available for this protection. Adults can't marry children. You can't marry a relative. You can only marry one person. You can't marry an animal. Restrictions are placed on who gets what rights. Society makes judgments like this all the time. It has to. The discussion is, who gets protected under what laws?

[JohnG]

I just read your post, old skool. Well put and to the point. (Not overly verbose like my posts.)

However, you didn't take into account that even though the state must provide "equal rights" for all, the state still places limits on the groups available for this protection. Adults can't marry children. You can't marry a relative. You can only marry one person. You can't marry an animal. Restrictions are placed on who gets what rights. Society makes judgments like this all the time. It has to. The discussion is, who gets protected under what laws?

You CAN marry a fake watch forum however.

I know a bunch of people who have done it.

[AllergyDoc]

You CAN marry a fake watch forum however.

I know a bunch of people who have done it.

I can't get away from these places...

My eyes are red from staring at the damn computer screen.

I get out of bed in the morning and my first thought is, "What watch do I want to wear today?" Then I pick my wardrobe around the watch.

I pass on the cleavage to get a peek at the watch.

I look at myself in the mirror to see what my watch must look like to everyone else.

[onzenuub]

I can't get away from these places...

My eyes are red from staring at the damn computer screen.

I get out of bed in the morning and my first thought is, "What watch do I want to wear today?" Then I pick my wardrobe around the watch.

I pass on the cleavage to get a peek at the watch.

I look at myself in the mirror to see what my watch must look like to everyone else.

Doc, whatever you do, never pass on the cleavage.

[ChipSlap]

"Useless" Says who? Now that's funny to me... Allergy Doc I have read that article and several more that all state essentially the same thing. I haven't heard a sensible argument yet that can explain away several thousand years of tradition (marriage between one man & one woman).

One man/one woman is not necessarily the only traditional form of marriage. How many wives did King Solomon have? And he was alleged to have been favored by Yahweh with great wisdom. Maybe the Bible is saying that having hundreds of wives is the wisest way to live.

Posters who have suggested a strict separation of civil and religious marriage IMHO have a point. But, it would have to be done at the Federal level so gay civil unions would become marriages for tax and immigration purposes. That would be the only way for them to be truly equal without being separate.

I've tried to think of ways that gay marriage would harm hetero marriage, but can imagine none. I have several multiply-divorced Krazy Konservative Kristian relatives who have damaged traditional marriage far more than any gay people I know.

[old skool]

I just read your post, old skool. Well put and to the point. (Not overly verbose like my posts.)

However, you didn't take into account that even though the state must provide "equal rights" for all, the state still places limits on the groups available for this protection. Adults can't marry children. You can't marry a relative. You can only marry one person. You can't marry an animal. Restrictions are placed on who gets what rights. Society makes judgments like this all the time. It has to. The discussion is, who gets protected under what laws?

This thread has prompted me to do a little research as it is a compelling intellectual discussion.

There are limitations to our rights when they harm other people. Freedom of speech is one that is affected in this manner and there are others as well. We don't limit the free speech of people we find objectionable however, simply for this reason.

Two consenting adults is the answer to your question. I won't bother to discuss the issue of incest because it is a tangential discussion that could easily overwhelm the key points of this discussion. I will simply say incestuous marriages were widespread throughout recorded history. I place no moral judgment on this fact, simply putting it out there as I don't believe history in and of itself to be an overriding argument of value.

The problem as I see it is that people have their own personal views about what is "right" or "wrong." They are subjective and some people wish to limit rights or control behavior of others based on those judgments. Across the world there are societies whose cultural norms may be hard for you or I to understand. There is plenty of in-fighting among the various religions that exist currently and other religions that are no longer practiced. I know for a fact that you can't legislate morality. Our country has a history of trying and failing to do just this.

Unless the behavior of another adult impacts your own life, liberty or pursuit of happiness, I feel it is best to simply mind one's own business. I don't spend any of my time worrying about what other adults are doing in their free time. I am sure many would do things that I disagree with or would find to be highly objectionable. But I am very glad to live in a country where I can live my own life as I see fit without undue intervention from the government.

FWIW, even the religious argument is in my mind not relevant to the discussion of legal equality since we don't have a state sponsored religion. We have freedom for all religions and for those who do not wish to have a religion. The Episcopal Church, for one, allows gay ceremonies and acknowledges gay unions. There is at least one legal battle currently underway in which a gay couple was married by the Church but the state they live in will not honor their marriage.

Religious tolerance is a very important freedom in America.

In his Letters on Toleration John Locke advanced two main arguments:-

On an ethical basis no Church has the right to persecute anyone as alike with civil society the joining of a church does not prejudice other "natural" rights which remain inviolable. The direst sanction a church should have against those who strained its powers of acceptance should be expulsion.

On a rational basis Locke argued about the practical impossibility of any Church being absolutely certain that it was THE vehicle of truth. Human knowledge and brains are limited, faith is typically speculative and mysterious, certainty in matters of faith is thus perhaps impossible to achieve and hence persecutions are very much less acceptable than open-minded exchanges of ideas where all may hope to gain a more true grasp of faith related issues.

The greatest threat to religious freedom is religion's institutional intrusion into the control of the state and individual Christians. There is a chain of important events leading to the discovery and establishment of a government which allows religious freedom, and religion which does not try to impose its will by force or mental coercion on the government nor any other religious society or individual. We say "religious toleration demands religious freedom" because the loss of freedom means that only one viewpoint is tolerated. John Locke implied that those who cry toleration the loudest cannot be trusted with the control of religious freedom.

It may be interesting to note that in 1948, California was the first state to forbid a prohibition on interracial marriage, but the U.S. Supreme Court did not conclusively strike down such barriers until 1967.

Of relevant discussion are the principles of democracy:

Majority Rule, Minority Rights

On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights.

The government has seen fit to create a legal vehicle by which two consenting adults can establish a legal framework that includes 1,049 benefits and protections. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

[downtown]

One of my sisters just kicked her husband of 15 years out while announcing she prefers women over men. She says she's not a practicing lesbian. I admit it's affected my feelings towards her. I'm being honest. I think, though, my feelings would be very similar if not the same if she had kicked her husband out because she was hooking up with a younger man or was a drug user. Those are all bad reasons to break up a family in my book.

I hire based on qualifications. appearance, and "gut feeling," like everyone else who runs a small business. I don't know how sexual orientation would come up during an interview because I wouldn't think to ask them, and asking would be illegal anyway, I'm sure. Let's say they told me or put a same-sex name down in the "spouse" blank. I would hire them if they I felt they were the best qualified and I felt they would be the best fit for my business.

My opinions are based on my upbringing and personal experience. I don't feel I'm part of the "Christian right," but even if I was, so what? They have the same right to express their opinions and vote their conscious as you and I do.

What makes someone gay? Gays would have us believe they are gay because they were born that way, just as someone is born male or female. They think it's biology, not choice. I believe there is some truth to that, but it certainly isn't the whole story.

Some people are born with alcoholic, or addictive, tendencies. Ken Blum is the researcher credited for finding the "alcoholic gene." This is well established in medicine. But we also know that just because someone is born with that gene doesn't mean they will become an alcoholic or an addict. Many other factors will play a part on the direction they choose to take their life.

I believe this is very similar to homosexuality. Certainly many gays feel they were "born that way." My sister does, yet she's not a practicing homosexual, just as an alcoholic doesn't "have" to drink. Humans can control their urges. We do it all the time.

Teachers are in a position of authority. They can wield great power over the a young, developing mind, especially if the child's parents are neglectful at providing direction. I don't want my young children being taught that the gay lifestyle is okay, that it's normal, anymore than I want them taught it's okay, normal, to be a drunk if you feel like drinking. You may feel differently. If you have kids, you may feel it's alright to teach them the gay lifestyle is simply another choice on how one can live their life. If so, I would prefer you did that in the comfort of your own home and not in the school where my children attended.

If gay relationships are to be legally accepted as the same as traditional marriage, heterosexual relationships, then they will be taught to children in school. That's a FACT because it's happening in Mass. They skirted legal requirements for parental notification by omitting any discussion of body parts or sexual activity. Therefore, parents could not opt out.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player...ctid=1784521903

Here is the newspaper link, lest you feel the people in the video are lying:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/..._gay_storybook/

This is teachers, or, more correctly, school districts, "shoving it down the throats" of people who do not want it.

I gathered your other question was, how does this influence a child to be gay? If a child is sitting there in class, having "mixed feelings" about sex, boys and girls, etc., and their teacher teaches them being gay is the same as not being gay, it has an impact on how that child feels about his or her own sexuality.

Relating facts doesn't make one an alarmist and it shows I'm not being paranoid. Gay marriage is being taught as "okay" to very young children in MA. I'm not "okay" with that. They pretty much leave religion out of school instruction, why don't they leave marriage out as well?

I believe gays, ethic groups, whatever, should receive the same protections under the law that everyone else does. No one should have to live in fear of their life. We, in this country, all have the same basic civil rights. Marriage isn't a civil right, though. Voting is. Basic education is. We are not free to marry whomever we want. There are and always have been restrictions.

"the gays would have us believe" Clearly not alarmist or paranoid language. I stand corrected.

Perhaps you should examine the situation though a more objective viewpoint.

Being a drunk is not comparable to being a homosexual. I feel really bad for your sister because it will be unlikely she'll see any sincere support from you because of your bigotry. She's being treated as a bad person because she's following her heart and would rather be who she is than live a lie. I do agree with old school, when homosexuality is DISCUSSED in school, it's to counterbalance the negative messages that children are receiving from home. By avoiding conversation on body parts or sexual acts, the concept of homosexuality can be discussed in classrooms objectively without alluding do anything which may trigger parental consent, yes. What then should a teacher do if they're discussing life skills, current events, or relationships say when the students ask about homosexuality? Gay isn't a secret, it will come up. By addressing the issue rather than making it a taboo, especially in youngsters, they would be far less likely to hold negative opinion, like yourself, of homosexuality. Education is the way to prevent gay-bashing. Education is the way to allow those who ARE gay, to live without fear of bodily harm.

How can you possibly deny being a bigot when you freely admit you think of gays as lesser?

I do have a problem with the christian right shoving their beliefs down the throats of those who don't want them, yes. Its dangerous because it RESTRICTS the ability of others to do so as they choose, versus ENABLING others, as the so-called gay agenda does. If you really have a problem with the way your children could possibly be taught, perhaps you should register them in a private religious school, I'm sure those are hotbeds of acceptance and understanding.

I see the connection you're trying to make with the alcoholic gene, but I'n not understand the parallels. Alcoholism is clearly a negative personal attribute, but homosexuality? Are homosexuals bad people? Why should homosexuals ''control their urges''? You're skirting your actual opinion of homosexuality here. Why can't homosexuals be homosexual, why must hey pretend? I suppose you'll never truly understand until you're a member of the oppressed.

[AllergyDoc]

You're skirting your actual opinion of homosexuality here.

Skirting? I haven't been clear about my "actual opinion" of homosexuality? Let me be clear, then.

I believe it's an aberrant behavior, unnatural to the species.

Clear enough?

You're so free with the term, bigot. Do you even know what it means?

bigot

One entry found.

Main Entry:

Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot

Date: 1660

: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

I don't hate homosexuals. I do disapprove of their behavior.

However, I've noticed you seem to hate the "Christian Right." In fact, you use the same language when talking about them that I do when talking about the radical homosexual movement, language you seem to think makes me a bigot.

You're a bigot, aren't you? You hate the Christian right. They're members of a group. You're intolerant of them. And you hate them. You'd love to see them get kicked off TV, wouldn't you? Kicked off the radio. Silence them because you don't like what they say.

You're full of hate and intolerance. It shows in your writing.

Are homosexuals bad people?.

Some are. Some aren't. Same as any other group. Are member of the "Christian right" bad people?

You're just as bigoted and prejudiced as anyone else. You just think your bigotry is justified.

Now, I'm going to reread old skool's post to see if I can make heads or tails of it. I'm not a legal scholar.

[AllergyDoc]

The problem as I see it is that people have their own personal views about what is "right" or "wrong." They are subjective and some people wish to limit rights or control behavior of others based on those judgments.

This is the crux of the matter. We, as a society, decide what is right or wrong, what behavior we will tolerate and that which we won't. But it's not always based on behavior that infringes on the rights of others.

How does polygamy infringe of the rights of others? You said "consenting adults." What about 2 men and 3 women, all consenting adults, that want to get "married"? Doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. By forbidding them marriage, are you taking away their basic civil rights? If you say no, why not? If you feel denying gays marriage is taking away their civil rights, how is this any different?

When you change the definition of marriage that has stood for centuries, you risk starting down a slippery slope. Some slopes are slippery.

The answer is, we, as a society, have decided what is acceptable behavior and what is not. We exclude groups.

And, as of this date, all states that have voted on defining marriage as being between one man and one woman have passed those initiatives. Obviously, the majority of our citizens don't think the same sex unions are marriage.

[downtown]

I don't hate the christian right as people, but I have zero intellectual respect for them. There's a difference between hate and intellectual respect. But I do agree with your above post.

I'm not gay, but homosexuals have never tried to take anything away from me. I am, however, an athiest/agnostic, and have had to deal with intolerance from many so-called christians my entire life. It's clear that not all christians are hell-bent on restricting the rights of others, but then again, I wouldn't classify those types as "conservative right-wingers". Being a christian, however, isn't something you're born with. It's something you choose. People choose to be intolerant and disrespectful. It's odd how I linked the two, but I haven't seen as much press from the "Mormon's for gay rights" movement, so...

Hypothetically of course, if you can tell me with a straight face that the Earth is 3000 years old while holding high influence in federal and state politics and then condemn homosexuals as being 'evil' and 'deserving of what comes to them', then yes, I do think it possible that you could be a bad person. Misguided at the very least. I'd like to say that such people are merely ignorant; products of their parents and upbringing. Because ignorant means that if they were educated they could be elevated above such prejudices and absurd beliefs. It would be horrible to think that someone knew all of the above and still chose to believe that some people are less deserving of certain rights and privileges than others simply on account of birth. It isn't American.

Freedom of speech does not cover hate speech. There is a line to be drawn. Positive rights are not the same as negative rights. If some ann coulter or jerry fallwell believes it to be appropriate to go onto national broadcast and say that violence or discrimination against these minority groups is morally sanctionable, then yes, I have significant problem, as I'm sure you would as well. What frightens me is not that these wackjobs are speaking their minds, but that there is a hefty chunk of the population easily duped by them. Not stupid- ignorant.

The rationalist progressive movement gives rights, the christian right restricts or removes them. This is obvious to anyone who thinks rationally, and when I say "rationally", I mean people who think objectively for themselves after weighing the different points of view and not alluding to an absurd book which refers to talking snakes and flying space people. I'm sick and tired of having to constantly defend a rationalist perspective from irrationalist ''faith''. It should be the other way around. Unfortunately the C students hold all the power...

The definition of bigot you gave is perfect. You're demonstrably prejudice against homosexuals. Likewise, I am demonstrably intolerant against those who make it their job to knock down others- the christian conservative right-wing movement- which has finally had their grip loosened on US federal politics tuesday. There needs to be a direct and equal opposite to right-wing christian cultism. The reason they harbor so much power is because rationalists tend not to resort to theinsidious tactics the right-wingers use. Left wing pundits and politicians aren't as blood-thirsty. They rely on ''facts'' and ''books''. Ridiculous , I know.

The reason I'm attacking right-wing christianity so viscously here is because that's more-often-than-not the voice of intolerance. In order to preserve their perfect christian nation, whereby all non-christians and gays are either removed or reduced to second-class citizens, they devote tremendous amounts of time and energy to affecting politics, directly and indirectly. So you're wrong when you claimed I'd love to have them off the air. I think it makes great comedy. Couldn't write half the [censored] they come up with. BUT, I would like for them to have significantly less influence over their listenership.

Try and wade through what Old skool wrote so clearly and succinctly. He presents points I'm not clear enough to think of at the moment.

[Luthier]

I can't get away from these places...

My eyes are red from staring at the damn computer screen.

I get out of bed in the morning and my first thought is, "What watch do I want to wear today?" Then I pick my wardrobe around the watch.

I pass on the cleavage to get a peek at the watch.

I look at myself in the mirror to see what my watch must look like to everyone else.

It's serious, Doc...

[downtown]

There are numerous academic attacks on polygamy. Mostly they describe the abusive power relationships within these multiple-partner marriages. By having a single man at the head and numerous women below, a power structure of dominance and submission is created thereby rendering the women in the relationship subject to psychological and often physical harm. It objectifies women.

Also, those in the relationships, such as the children or one of the wives who are being abused, are highly discouraged from going to the police. Most practitioners of polygamy are in extremist religious sects which rely heavily on brainwashing and psychological manipulation.

Some academics even argue that the idea of divorce is merely a serialized form of polygamy.

However, what is at stake are the traditional notions of what constitutes a "family". For instance, up until the emancipation proclamation, white slave-owning households often had multiple-relationship families, whereby the patriarch would have a wife and numerous african american women as mistresses. The children resulting from these relationships would literally be servants to the white family, sometimes living under the same roof, but more often being confined to separated shacks. The black children would be genetically tied to the white children, yet be of a different race-based class, permanently in servitude of their literal white brothers. This was often considered a normal family in the South.

Popular does not equal right.

Gay marriage and polygamy are apples and... used car parts. Completely different.

Edited November 8, 2008 by downtown