Vatican criticized for opposing UN decriminaliztion of homosexuality.
Vatican criticized for opposing UN decriminaliztion of homosexuality.
The Vatican is drawing criticism from gay rights groups and newspapers editorials after Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Vatican’s permanent observer to the United Nations, told a French Catholic news service that the Vatican opposes “a proposed U.N. resolution calling on governments worldwide to de-criminalise homosexuality.” Migliore claimed that the resolution “would create new and implacable discriminations” against opponents of same-sex marriage. Critics call that position “grotesque“:
A strongly worded editorial in Italy’s mainstream La Stampa newspaper said the Vatican’s reasoning was “grotesque”.
Pointing out that homosexuality was still punishable by death in some Islamic countries, the editorial said what the Vatican really feared was a “chain reaction in favour of legally recognised homosexual unions in countries, like Italy, where there is currently no legislation”.
Franco Grillini, founder and honorary president of Arcigay, Italy’s leading gay rights group, said the Vatican’s reasoning smacked of “total idiocy and madness”.
Every single country in the European Union has signed the resolution, which was written by France. France is due to submit the draft declaration at the UN General Assembly on Dec. 10, the sixtieth anniversary of the UN declaration of human rights.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Franco Grillini, founder and honorary president of Arcigay, Italy’s leading gay rights group, said the Vatican’s reasoning smacked of “total idiocy and madness”.
I’ll second that.
The Pope’s a POOP.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pmAhhh, the Vaticans…paladins of freedom.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pmThink of all the fathers and brothers, your holiness….
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pmAhahahaha, the Vatican opposing homosexuality. Isn’t hypocrisy some kind of sin?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:09 pmOf course the Vatican is disappointed.
They were hoping for the decriminalization of child molestation.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm“Gay” is kind of a touchy subject for the Vatican and we understand.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 pmCatholics had a lot to do with the passage of Prop 8 in California. Here’s an idea for a new proposition: since there have been, ummm, problems with Catholic priests and children, let’s change the California consitution to read that Catholic priests must stay a minimum of 100 ft away from children at all times.
Catholics: you wouldn’t argue with “the will of the majority” would you?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 pmI don’t know…..you make an old nazi your pope and then act surprised by this……
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 pmThe Red Beanie Boys really should lay off this issue- so not a winner for the group that has many, many friends of St. Dorothy among its ranks.
Agreed, Shayne @ 4, hypocritical. Grillini’s right to express disgust with it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:18 pmMaybe somebody should ask the Vatican whether they’d like to sign on to a resolution praising Iran for hanging gay men?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pmHere is the crux of the whole homosexuality issue:
It is not a crime because there is no victim.
Therefore, government should have no laws prohibiting it or its equal expression, including people entering into a legally binding relationship currently called marriage.
It “may” be a sin, that is, against the will of someone’s god. Therefore, the religious body that leads the worship of that god can have restrictions on that religion’s adherents regarding homosexual expression. However, they cannot force those restrictions on others outside of that religious establishment.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pmOK, my serious side had its say. It’s time for the snarky side.
Don’t those funny hats worn by Catholic priests look alot like a phallic symbol?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pmOooooh, can’t wait for RupturedRectum’s posts on this…
…he may still be in his “Secret” closet flogging the gay out.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pmME THINKS THOU DOST PROTEST TOO MUCH
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pmI shed the cloak of the church over 40 years ago and only regret ever having been associated with it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pmSo, homosexuality is punishable by death in some places and crimes against homosexuals are not considered hate crimes in other. Meanwhile my eight year relationship is not legally recognized so I can’t put my wife on my insurance just because we are the same gender. Nor can we file taxes together. Not to mention people who cannot adopt their partners’ biological children because they are of the same gender. Well at least we don’t have to worry about “new and implacable discriminations”; we just have to worry about the old, hateful, ignorate, and unwavering discriminations.
Yup, that seems fair.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm#12- Are we talking bishop’s miter-type hat? Oh, definitely.
An’ you know what they say about a guy with a big miter- big white lace drawers under the canonical dress to go with.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pm49erDem Says:
Catholics had a lot to do with the passage of Prop 8 in California. Here’s an idea for a new proposition: since there have been, ummm, problems with Catholic priests and children, let’s change the California consitution to read that Catholic priests must stay a minimum of 100 ft away from children at all times.
Or a proposition that requires all children attending church to carry condoms. Child safety, you know…. since you never know how many other children your priest has been with.
( yeah, a rip-off from a Bill Maher joke… )
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:32 pmI can’t really make up my mind about how to feel about this until I hear Daryll’s take on the issue.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:33 pm______
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Here is the crux of the whole homosexuality issue:
It is not a crime because there is no victim.
Therefore, government should have no laws prohibiting it or its equal expression, including people entering into a legally binding relationship currently called marriage.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
______
“I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.”
Barack Obama
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:34 pmYour point, uptighty?
How does your contextually-barren pull quote from our president-elect bear on PLC’s well-structured argument?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pmI didn’t read exclusivly into his statment…..
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pmWhere’s little d.? This thread’s right up his alley.?…Blessings
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm______
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Your point, uptighty?
How does your contextually-barren pull quote from our president-elect bear on PLC’s well-structured argument?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:35 pm
______
It’s not really that difficult to understand. He was saying that society has the right to protect the traditional structure of marriage. He does, however, favor civil unions.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pmHere’s a news flash for you, upright left: I don’t have to agree with everything Obama thinks just because I voted for him.
Just for fun, though, how about giving us a link to that Obama quote because I bet there is more there than you are giving.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pmupright left Says:
It’s not really that difficult to understand. He was saying that society has the right to protect the traditional structure of marriage. He does, however, favor civil unions.
And this is relevant to this particular post how?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pmupright left Says:
“I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.”
Barack Obama
Common in who’s culture?
In the middle east, traditional marriage was a man and a woman, and another woman, and another, and so on.
In Polynesian culture, traditional marriage was a man and a woman and a man and a woman, and so on.
In the early church marriages between same sex couples were also common, and it is still accepted by the Syrian Christian communities which still follow most of the old tenets, since breaking from the original catholic church in the early centuries…
So, common to who’s culture, exactly?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm______
Fred Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright left Says:
“I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.”
Barack Obama
I didn’t read exclusivly into his statment…..
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
______
That’s ok. The key to his statement is, “I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing…”
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmI think the Holy See’s attitude shows why there are people turning their backs on the Church in record numbers…
Unless they come up with a Buddy Christ marketing campaign …
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pmDoes anyone else wonder why many religious organizations refer to “holy matrimony” or “holy marriage”, which implies that there is also “secular matrimony” or “secular marriage”? Why can’t we just call the civil union of gay or straight couples “marriage” and those that are sanctioned by a religious organization get the additional “holy” adjective?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm______
Wayne Says:
Common in who’s culture?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:42 pm
______
You’d have to ask Obama what he meant about that. The rest of the comment, of course, is self explanatory.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:47 pm.
I see the Vatican still favors burning witches.
Not to conflate that gay people are like witches, but the policy to defend the murder of gay people because there are cultures around the world that engage in this is not a redeeming defense as to why homosexuality is necessarily punishable and is no different than the medieval practice of burning witches.
What makes the deaths of gay people around the world acceptable, in the eyes of the Vatican, that it requires some sort of defense?
Maybe Daryyl(aka RaptureReady) can parse this out for us…
… Who did Jesus condemn?
.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm_______
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Does anyone else wonder why many religious organizations refer to “holy matrimony” or “holy marriage”, which implies that there is also “secular matrimony” or “secular marriage”? Why can’t we just call the civil union of gay or straight couples “marriage” and those that are sanctioned by a religious organization get the additional “holy” adjective?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
______
Because our secular govt isn’t allowed to recognize anything having to do with religion. As Obama said, why change a basic structure of society for one group when they can be given all the things they seek, only under a different name?
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pmupright left Says:
You’d have to ask Obama what he meant about that. The rest of the comment, of course, is self explanatory.
I happen to not agree with Obama on everything, especially his telco immunity vote, even though I supported him and voted for him. But YOU were the one that quoted him to bolster your own argument, but I do see you lack the balls to stand behind your argument yourself.
Lame… just lame.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pmI’m Still waiting for the Vatican to recognize women as being equal to men in the eyes of the church. I’m not surprised by their opposition to the decriminalization of gay relationships.
When you have the head of the Catholic Church and all of the bishops and priests take a vow of celibacy, they can hardly be expected to have a healthy attitude towards the sex lives of other people. I always thought it was curious that people who choose not to engage in sex (or at least have the appearance of such) to attempt to make rules for people that do engage in sex.
On the other hand, the Church thinks that sex should only be used for procreation, it would follow that since gays cannot naturally procreate, that the church’s ruling would be totally consistent with their belief system.
The fact that the church is citing a possible discriminatory backlash against people who want to continue to discriminate against gay people as a reason to keep discriminating against gay people, is an amazing twist of logic.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:52 pmNow your twisting what you quoted……guess if it don’t say what you want it to you will just put words in his mouth……how quaint…..sure sounds like something a republican would do.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 pmThe biggest problem with the Catholic church is that they owe their existence to Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as the “state religion.” As a result, the Church became extremely powerful, politically and culturally over the lives of millions of people. The Church confused itself with God, and then usurped that power itself. I’m in no way slamming modern Catholics, members of each Parish. But the organization itself is deeply corrupt and has been so for centuries.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pmupright left: Because our secular govt isn’t allowed to recognize anything having to do with religion.
Yet, that is exactly what our government is doing by denying homosexuals the secular right to marry because of a particular religious dogma. You get more lame with every argument.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pmMax-1 Says:
… Who did Jesus condemn?
—-
The only people that I remember Jesus condemning were:
The MONEYchangers in the Temple ( Lobbyists in the government?)
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:58 pmand
Those that would dare to throw the first stone (the Limbaughs and Savages and Dr. Lauras of the world?)
______
Wayne Says:
I happen to not agree with Obama on everything, especially his telco immunity vote, even though I supported him and voted for him. But YOU were the one that quoted him to bolster your own argument, but I do see you lack the balls to stand behind your argument yourself.
Lame… just lame.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
______
I also voted for Obama even though I disagree with him on some issues. I happen to agree with him on this issue. I had made no argument to stand behind when I posted his comment. Additionally, a quote from Obama carries more weight and heads off arguments that only conservatives oppose gay marriage.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:00 pmLibertyLover,
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:04 pmTry explaining that to Daryyl…
Wayne Says:
So, common to who’s culture, exactly?
Well said, sir.
This is the crux of every single argument of “it’s tradition”. First off, just because it is a tradition does NOT mean that it is beneficial for individuals OR society. It just means that that is how it has been done (consider the tradition in some parts of the world of castrating girls the moment they reach puberty, and the effects of that tradition — or the Indian tradition of burning the widow alive at the funeral so she can be with her husband (against her will, if necessary)). Standing on tradition is also stating a desire to not see any change (for good or bad): hold to tradition and go in no other direction, simply BECAUSE it is tradition.
But all traditions are specific to cultures, or even subcultures or tribes. Therefore, every single tradition is a matter of PURE RELATIVISM (I guess I’m on that theme today, and won’t repost the longer version on an earlier thread). It may be YOUR tradition, but it is not other people’s tradition. Whose traditions trump whose?
And perhaps many people from the state of Utah would like to comment on the “traditional marriage”?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm______
Fred Says:
Now your twisting what you quoted……guess if it don’t say what you want it to you will just put words in his mouth……how quaint…..sure sounds like something a republican would do.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
______
No, I didn’t put words into his mouth. The words are right there in his book. Is one to assume that you discount his meaning based upon the fact that he said “most common to every culture?” That’s right up there with those who suggest that Obama lied about his religious beliefs to get votes. Obama deserves more respect than that.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pmYou juxtaposed a statement from Obama on the right of a society to “protect the traditional structure of marriage” against an argument of PLC’s about the rights of those who have committed no crime.
Your statement does not address the argument to which you responded.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pmWitch1 Says:
Where’s little d.? This thread’s right up his alley.?…Blessings
Hilarious.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:10 pmI don’t know if that pun was intended or not, but it made my day!
;-)
PB&J back atcha!
Max-1 Says:
LibertyLover,
Try explaining that to Daryyl…
—-
I’m thinking that we probably have read different Bibles…
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pmupright left Says:
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Here is the crux of the whole homosexuality issue:
It is not a crime because there is no victim.
Therefore, government should have no laws prohibiting it or its equal expression, including people entering into a legally binding relationship currently called marriage.
“I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.”
Barack Obama
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, I think Obama is WRONG on that one I agree with PLC.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:13 pmSCREW THE VATICAN!!! Why does the Vatican have “observer status” anyway? What makes that tiny, tiny, tiny theocracy worthy of such a distinction? No other religion can claim such a privilege, can they?
I could care less about “discrimination” against bigots who oppose full equality for gays and lesbians. Why does their right to conscience trump the rights of gays and lesbians?
The whole idea that one’s natural, innate sexual orientation can be “criminalized” is ridiculous to begin with. Those countries who deny equal rights to gays and lesbians – and this includes the United States!!! – must be dragged, kicking and screaming if necessary, into the modern world.
The science is in and the verdict has been passed: homosexuality is a NATURALLY OCCURING VARIANCE in the spectrum of sexuality in vertebrate species. Homosexuality has been documented in hundreds of species, and so far there hasn’t been any sign that homosexual individuals are harmful to others or that homosexuality is going away.
Reason must prevail over tradition and superstition.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pmIf gays who want to right to marry their partners are simply fighting over “a word”, as the Uptight One implies, then so are the opponents of gay marriage.
If all of the legal and material rights that accompany traditional marriage are available to gays when they enter into civil unions, then why are “traditionalists” fighting so forcefully against a simple exercise in semantics?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm“I believe that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman as the unit of child rearing most common to every culture.” – Barack Obama
Parse this carefully. Note that the emphasis is on CHILD REARING, not the happiness and welfare of the individuals involved. Since many heterosexual couples choose to not have children, or are unable to have children of their own due to infertility, it seems unfair to limit access to that “special place” to exclude specifically gays and lesbians.
I strongly supported Obama in the election and look forward to his leadership as president, but Obama is seriously wrong on this issue. I trust that his views will evolve as more information becomes available to him and hope that he takes the time to actually meet with same-sex couples to hear their stories and to understand why it is so important for there to be true equality, true equal protection for all citizens regardless of their sexual orientation.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pmOur Gov’t should ONLY recognize “Civil Unions” (between both homo & heterosexual couples). If, within your religion or personal life, you choose to define it as “marriage”, then it’s really up to you. Problem solved.
Now, can we move on to more important matters? If we make it out of this, “gay marriage” will be known as the ultimate fiddling while our planet literally burned.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pmUpright
Because our secular govt isn’t allowed to recognize anything having to do with religion. As Obama said, why change a basic structure of society for one group when they can be given all the things they seek, only under a different name?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I dont think that is much of an argument who says marriage is exclusively a religious ritual? The SC has said it is a basic RIGHT. I dont see anyone demanding every church marry people if they dont want too. Last time I got married the first pastor we went to refused to marry us unless we went to some counseling of his. I told him he was arrogant and we would go elsewhere. Churches already dont marry people they dont want to. A Justice of the Peace could marry them and the religious element is gone or the Churches that dont have a problem could marry gay couples. It doenst even make SENSE to pretend that marriage is defined by its religious component
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pmHow about criminalizing christianity?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pmupright left Says:
I also voted for Obama even though I disagree with him on some issues. I happen to agree with him on this issue.
Ahh… the troll who thought Bush could do no wrong voted for Obama… yeah…
You may agree with this issue, but you have no logical argument to justify imposing your opinion upon others, forcing them to live under them.
Running from a logical defense of your own position is a common theme with your posts.
You bigots have no right to impose your opinions and religious beliefs on others, especially when you cannot offer a good reason other than your opinion or religious belief as to why you would impose your opinion on others.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pmWhile you guys Catholic Bash Muslims hang Gays. Are you cool with that?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm1. “Islam” means “peace” – The word Islam means “submission.” When confronted, most Islamists will argue it does mean “submission,” but only to Allah. This doesn’t just apply to those who choose to embrace the Islamic faith. To the Muslim world, peace can only come when all humans submit to Allah, whether by conversion or subjugation.
2. Jihadis make up only a small percentage of Muslims – Recent polls in Indonesia indicates differently. One in ten Muslims polled supported violence against innocent people, while a third wanted the Sharia as the highest law in the land. Polls in America show 15% of Muslims support terrorism. Similar polls in the U.K. shows as many as 40% support terroristic violence and/or the Sharia. The Sharia, or Islamic Law, supports such barbaric, draconian punishments as stoning to death rape victims who cannot provide four male witnesses to the crime. So, almost half of the Muslims in this Western country want to impose Islam on all.
There are over one billion Muslims in the world. Using the most conservative number of 10% who support radical views, that leaves one hundred million Islamic extremists. A small percentage…
3. Islam forbids the killing of innocent people – This is true. However, what constitutes an “innocent person” might surprise you. In Islam, there are no innocent non-Muslims. Disbelief is a crime against Allah. Anyone who commits a crime against Allah is a legitimate target for Jihadis. “Disbelievers are an open enemy to you.” (Surah 4:101). The Qur’an commands Muslims to kill the enemies of Allah (Surah 2:191).
4. The Qur’an is misinterpreted or out of context – A very common defense, Muslims will usually go straight for this one, especially when infidels use direct quotes from the Qur’an. Once, when I asked a Muslim how long “forever” meant in Surah 60:4 (see the verse at the top of this article), the response was “In Muhammad’s time.” Either Muslims have little grasp of the English language, or they choose to deceptively ignore the qualifier “until you believe in Allah.” The verse could not be clearer. But because Muslims do not want to admit the true intent of Islam, they continue to mislead and misrepresent about the Qur’an. Disbelievers are FOREVER the enemy of Allah, until they submit to Islam.
5. The Qur’an is mistranslated – This is also true. The question you should ask is how it is mistranslated. According to Arab speaking apostates, the English version of the Qur’an is less violent. One example is the word “kartillo.” It is most often translated as “fight.” But the definitions are different. The English word “fight” suggests a struggle until the enemy is overcome. The Arabic word, however, means to the death. To either die fighting or fight until you kill your enemy. When Muhammad said, “And fight [Disbelievers] until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” (Surah 2:193), he did not mean struggle against non-Muslims, resist them, or battle until victorious. He meant kill them.
6. Lying is forbidden in Islam – And how would you know a Muslim wasn’t engaging in “Taqiyya” (deceit) when they make this claim? Taqiyya is an integral part of Islam. Muhammad himself approved the use of deceit to kill his enemies.
In the Hadith Vol. 5, Book 59, #369, Muhammad needs an assassin to kill Ka`b bin al-Ashraf, a Jew and a poet who knows Muhammad is a false prophet. A man named Muhammad bin Maslama volunteers to kill Ka’b, but then asks if he could lie to Ka’b in order to lure him into a trap. From the Hadith: Muhammad bin Maslama said, “Then allow me to say a (false) thing (to deceive Ka’b).” The Prophet said, “You may say it.” Muhammad is also quoted as saying: “Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people”
In another example, Muhammad himself said: “Lying is wrong, except in three things: the lie of a man to his wife to make her content with him; a lie to an enemy, for war is deception; or a lie to settle trouble between people.” (Ahmad, 6.459. H)
And most importantly, the Qur’an itself lauds Allah as being the greatest of all deceivers (Surah 3:54 – this verse is one of those often mistranslated. Most English versions translate the Arab word as “planner” or “schemer.” The true meaning is “deceiver.”)
7. Jews and Muslims lived in peace for centuries in Islamic states – In peace? It is true there have been non-Muslims living in Islamic states for centuries. But those non-Muslims never enjoyed equal rights with Muslims. They were subjected to humiliations to conform with the Qur’an’s command that they “feel themselves subdued” (Sura 9:29). They could never exercise their religion in public. They could never disparage Islam (we see this today in Islamic states – anyone who ‘insults’ Islam, even with truthful statements, is beheaded). They lived under the Sharia, which provided discriminatory justice for the two groups. A non-Muslim who killed a Muslim, even in self-defense, was cruelly tortured and executed. A Muslim who murdered a non-Muslim for any reason faced only a monetary fine.
8. Other religions have their violent histories – Throughout history, many atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. However, it is important to distinguish between the past and the present. While other religions have acknowledged and condemned past injustices, Islam continues to this day to perpetrate acts of savagery on innocent people. It is the only religion that uses historical violence to justify modern terrorism.
9. Terrorists are not true Muslims – A popular defense for Islamic apologists. It is irrelevant if terrorists are adhering to Islamic teachings accurately or not. The ideology behind the “Religion of Peace” promotes and justifies Islamic violence. The Qur’an encourages intolerance, hatred and the destruction of all non-Muslims. Radical Muslims interpret the vile messages in this ‘holy’ book as a religious duty. By the same token, Muslims will rarely, if ever, excuse historical violence committed by self-proclaimed Christians, despite the fact Christian ideology does not promote religious violence. Hypocrisy is yet another malevolent vice of the Islamic culture. When a Christian commits a crime against humanity, it is the fault of the religion as a whole; When a Muslim commits a similar barbarous act, it is the individual’s fault, not that of the
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pmWell well… the Vatican has a Pope who wore the NAZI uniform during the WWII. What to expect from that old irrelenvant fart?!
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm______
ralph the wonder llama Says:
You juxtaposed a statement from Obama on the right of a society to “protect the traditional structure of marriage” against an argument of PLC’s about the rights of those who have committed no crime.
Your statement does not address the argument to which you responded.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:09 pm
______
Read past the crime comment:
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
Therefore, government should have no laws prohibiting it or its equal expression, including people entering into a legally binding relationship currently called marriage.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
The Obama quote follows this comment nicely.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pmHey TP, we don’t need any sleep aids at 3:23 pm.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:27 pmPeople who worry too much about other people’s sexuality, have serious sexal tendencies of what they advocate against.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pmHi Trajan.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:29 pmzmatter?
Not enough hits at your new blog?
Ralph writes: “If all of the legal and material rights that accompany traditional marriage are available to gays when they enter into civil unions, then why are ‘traditionalists’ fighting so forcefully against a simple exercise in semantics?”
Well, not all of the legal and materials rights of traditional marriage are made available via a civil union. Moreover, most parts of the country lack civil union legislation. Civil unions are the “separate but not equal” approach to marriage equality for same-sex couples. It is a half-measure, and serves only to make the concept of same-sex marriage more palatable to the heterosexual majority.
The real issue is that there are bigots out there who simply cannot and will not accept that homosexuals are equal to them under the law and that they don’t have a right to discriminate against them. The fear the “normalization” of homosexuality because their understanding of human sexuality is flawed; they still think that sexuality is a “choice”.
Gays and lesbians deserve the same rights as all other citizens, not the least of which is the right to exist and live their lives unmolested by those who hate them for simply being who and what they are.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pm______
ralph the wonder llama Says:
If gays who want to right to marry their partners are simply fighting over “a word”, as the Uptight One implies, then so are the opponents of gay marriage.
If all of the legal and material rights that accompany traditional marriage are available to gays when they enter into civil unions, then why are “traditionalists” fighting so forcefully against a simple exercise in semantics?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
______
“Traditionalists” oppose a change to a fundamental structure in our society. If civil unions give all the rights you mentioned, they achieve the stated reasons for the need for legal recognition. Yet, it’s not enough?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:32 pmGays should be allowed to marry – period. Not “enter a civil union” – marry – recognized by the state, just like heterosexuals’ marriages AND by any religious organization which wants to sanction it and make it “holy” by their definition. Right now, a religious organization cannot marry two gays. That is oppression of religious freedom.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pmUptighty, the Obama quote does not “follow it nicely”. PLC said very clearly that homosexuality was not a crime, because there are no victims. Therefore, the state had no business either regulating it or denying rights based upon that condition.
Your quote from Obama says nothing about outlawing gay marriage. It simply asserts the state’s right to “protect traditional marriage”, but neither defines traditional marriage nor explains in what ways it should be protected. It leans very heavily on the concept of child-rearing. My wife and I are unable to have children. Given the insistence that traditional marriage must be protected because of reproductive issues, one could easily make the same argument that my marriage should be invalid. Are you prepared to make such an argument?
In fact, Uptighty, all you have done is present a quote from our president-elect as if it addressed PLC’s contention (it does not) and then let that quote do all the heavy lifting for your lack of argument. You have not explained how you see the quote dealing with what PLC said, nor have you said much about your own beliefs, other than that you agree with Obama on this issue.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pmhey Barry,
Putting numbers next to individual statements of misinformation doesn’t make them any less admissions of blatant ignorance of a 6th of the world’s population.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm666lattes Says:
Our Gov’t should ONLY recognize “Civil Unions”
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I disagree. Marriage is seen as a right some citizen have, I see no reasonable argument for denying it to gay citizens
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:35 pmuptighty:
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pmthe link
You said earlier, “why change a basic structure of society for one group when they can be given all the things they seek, only under a different name?”
If “all the things they seek” are already available to them, then that “basic structure” has already been changed. The only difference is labeling.
If, however, NOT “all the things they seek” are available, or if those things can be denied at any time, then the “separate but equal” premise of your argument is specious.
Which is it?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pmThey also supported war…….they have no credibility.
Anyone who says they are against abortion because it is killing and in the same breath supports the death penalty has lost their credibility.
America is swinging left whether you like it or not. Traditionalists have lost their way by siding with the murderous gop.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:44 pmYou guys Bash Catholics but defend Muslims. Explain?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 pmEugeneDebs,
They can still call it marriage if they want to… I don’t see how it could be perceived as someone’s right being taken away to simply have our secular Government call it by a differnt name. I don’t believe that our Government’s recognition is the ultimate criteria for labelling a relationship as “marriage” for either gays or straits… if so, I personally find that just kind of sad.
If the Catholic church doesn’t want to recognize a gay couple’s marriage, then they don’t have to and that couple doesn’t have to attend a Catholic church, but our government should stay out of it beyond recognizing anyone’s Civil Union for legal/tax reasons. Let the people (church’s, gays, bigots) privately call it whatever they want and get this argument out of Government and politics once and for all.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pmBarry Soetero Says: Nothing much.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pmFLAGGED for OT Spamming.
Hey Tranny, this thread is about the Vatican. Last I checked, no Muslims there. Dipshit.
If it’s all semantics, then could one of the gay couple call themselves a “man” and the other a “woman”, thus allowing the so-called “traditional” marriage?
No, it’s not just semantics. It is about the basic, fundamental underpinnings of our laws. Are our laws based on religious dogma or individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by their associations as long as they do not inhibit the same rights of others?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:50 pmRandomChaos,
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pmWhy do you Leftists attack Catholics, but say nothing on Islam? Explain please?
Barry Soetero Says:
You guys Bash Catholics but defend Muslims. Explain?
No.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pmBarry Soetero,
You attack us based on strawmen you’ve pulled completely out of thin air. Explain.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pmYou bash muslims and defend catholics. Explain?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pmBarry,
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pmIslam is a progressive religion. It respects the rights of women, gays and minorities. Therefore us liberals support it and are allied with it. Catholics hang Gays, make Women cover up and kill minorities.
At Think progress we stand with Islam against the evil Catholics!
I refuse to argue with an unarmed Troll.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pmI dislike Islam, just like how TP posters hate Catholics. My question is why is OK to bash Catholicism, but if Islam is bashed you guys get upset?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 pmShouldn’t we have a right to bash all religions? Why is Islam the exception.
The Vatican, and the “c”hristian right in America, uphold very specific Biblical verses to support their hate for homosexual people. They also both ignore many other verses that do not support their talking points.
Since both parties refuse to explain why they support one verse over other verses, it can only be assumed that they are allowing their prejudices to dive their selective reading of the Bible.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 pmProgressive Humanist Says: Hi, my name is Trajan and I’m an idiot.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
“Are our laws based on religious dogma or individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”
That simply (unfortunately) depends on who we’ve collectively voted into office at any given time.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pmBarry Soetero,
Are abortion clinic bombers true christains?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:59 pmA troll’s motto: Use grammar poorly and be a big prick.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pmFred,
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pmNo abortion clinic bombers are fanatics. The difference is we condemn them. Many Muslims and Leftists justify the Jihad.
My point is if its ok to bash Christians, why is it bad to bash Islam.
Please I just want an answer, that’s all and I’ll leave.
Progressive Humanist Says:@79
You forgot to Snark on/off there.
Otherwise, your speaking for youself.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:01 pmYOURSELF
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:02 pmThe Catholic church makes me violently ill!
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:03 pmScum bags, all of them!!!
______
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Your quote from Obama says nothing about outlawing gay marriage. It simply asserts the state’s right to “protect traditional marriage”, but neither defines traditional marriage nor explains in what ways it should be protected. It leans very heavily on the concept of child-rearing. My wife and I are unable to have children. Given the insistence that traditional marriage must be protected because of reproductive issues, one could easily make the same argument that my marriage should be invalid. Are you prepared to make such an argument?
In fact, Uptighty, all you have done is present a quote from our president-elect as if it addressed PLC’s contention (it does not) and then let that quote do all the heavy lifting for your lack of argument. You have not explained how you see the quote dealing with what PLC said, nor have you said much about your own beliefs, other than that you agree with Obama on this issue.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm
______
Of course the Obama quote says nothing about outlawing gay marriage. No such thing was even contemplated until some judges decided on their own to deny the will of the majority and redefine a basic structure of our society. What his quote does say is that society has a right to define the traditional family unit. Your suggestion that maybe he doesn’t mean what he obviously means is just the least bit disingenuous. He goes on to say that society shouldn’t deny same sex couples a civil union that confers rights equivalent to those of married couples.
You really can’t figure out my beliefs from the comment that I agree with Obama on this issue?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 pmMiddle eastern terrorists are not real muslims any more than abortion bombers are real christains……
We condemn catholics for their history of hatred and violence. You can’t show any evidence that Muslims are guilty of same as a religious group……what’s so hard to understand about it?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:05 pmWho cares, your username is an oxymoron and your posts reflect that the name was well chosen.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pmReally, can you show some credible evidence that your assumption is valid?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pmBarry Soetero Says,
“I just want an answer, that’s all and I’ll leave.”
Pick your choice:
1. You could potentially be well-received for bashing any religion here as long as you have well thought out reasoning or are humorous in some way. You unfortunately have based your “dislike” of Islam on misinformation and bigotry and that will not be rewarded here.
or
2. Catholics practice their form of bigotry in our country and many posters have come in personal contact with it while Muslims beliefs and customs do not happen to affect such a wide range of people who visit this site.
or
3. Because we hate America. Now phuck off.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pmOne day as I walked through the wood
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pmA troll grabbed me and had me good
He said “Agree with what I believe
And then I promise that I will leave”
So, I whacked him as hard as I could.
Barry Soetero Says:
You guys Bash Catholics but defend Muslims. Explain?
Actually I bash all religions, because religion is usually just an excuse to hate others who are different.
Organized Religion, no matter the flavor is organized hatred of others.
Islam which you hate is one of the Abrahamic religions, along with Judaism and Christianity. In other words, all 3 branches come from the same original religion, yet all 3 groups have persecuted and shed the blood of the others since they have existed, while all profess to believe in a “God of Love”. Funny that their “God of Love” started out requiring blood sacrifice of animals and people in its original incarnation. A religion that started bathed in blood that has continued that tradition killing anyone different, even their own Abrahamic brothers and sisters.
Quite a legacy for a so called “God of Love”.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pmFred,
We condemn Catholics for their history of hatred and violence. You can’t show any evidence that Muslims are guilty of same as a religious group
Absolutely!
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:10 pmThe 7th Century Jihad.
The genocide against Hindu Indians.
The Enslavements of East African Blacks.
The Invasion of Spain.
The Turkish invasion of the Balkans.
The Armenian Genocide.
The imposition of a Jiyaza Tax on Non Muslims.
Turning Churches into Mosques.
Do you want more?
______
ralph the wonder llama Says:
Which is it?
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:42 pm
______
Seriously, ralph, that argument is beneath you. They get all the rights with civil unions; marriage remains between a man and a woman and everbody is happy.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:11 pmYou unfortunately have based your “dislike” of Islam on misinformation and bigotry and that will not be rewarded here.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:13 pmThe Jihad of the 7th Century, the Turkish Invasions of the Balkans and the genocide against Hindus.
Is it bigotted to mention this.
Oh let’s not forget that Mohamed was a genocidal warlord.
______
Fred Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright left Says:
You really can’t figure out my beliefs from the comment that I agree with Obama on this issue?
Who cares, your username is an oxymoron and your posts reflect that the name was well chosen.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:07 pm
______
Apparently ralph cares since he mentioned it. The name is an oxymoron? I agree; that’s why I chose it. ;)
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pmSure, upright left, “everyone is happy”. Gays get to say that got “civil unioned” and all is well.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pmBarry Soetero Says:
So as Wayne points out, why defend any religion? They are all used by power mongers to control masses of believers and wage religious war.
I can’t see where you can go from there. I defend people who I deem to be true christains, those who don’t follow the gop standard for christianity and live according to their belief…..same for Muslims.
It’s open season on hypocrits though. Why do you defend catholics knowing what you do?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:16 pmupright left, I am not happy. The government is supporting someone else’s religious belief over mine with a government-sanctioned limit on a religious ceremony.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pmBarry Soetero Says:
Your list of offenses by Muslims is misleading(big surprise).
By your standard the nazis, South African Apartide and many other historical atrocities committed by people who just happened to be christain reflect on christianity.
You can’t just say that a crime was committed and the person was a christain/muslim and claim it was an action of the religion.
Catholics actually teach hate and were responsible for much violence…..directly as a religion throughout history. They turned their backs on the Jews during world war II as an organized religion.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 pmAh, I see our favorite pretend-progressive troll is back.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm______
Fred Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright left Says:
“Traditionalists” oppose a change to a fundamental structure in our society.
They also supported war…….they have no credibility.
Anyone who says they are against abortion because it is killing and in the same breath supports the death penalty has lost their credibility.
America is swinging left whether you like it or not. Traditionalists have lost their way by siding with the murderous gop.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
______
I support traditional values and I opposed the war.
Anyone who equates the life of an innocent unborn child to that of a convicted murderer has lost his credibility.
The nation is still basically moderate, but it is true that the gradual moral decline of our society will continue if that is what you mean. ;)
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pmBarry Soetero is Savage Nation AKA Gauis Baltar. he’s the guy behind Rodan and Mr. P
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pmWelp, it appears to be a Winter Break for a community college somewhere.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 pmAre we now blessed with Trajan posts for a whole month?
Great.
Way to dumb down an otherwise intellectual thread, Trajan!
Mucking foron!
Barry Soetero Says
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Many Muslims and Leftists justify the Jihad.
_____________________________________________________________
Would you mind providing some evidence of this?
I know many “leftists”, and read the writings of many others, and I have yet to come across any who “justify” violent terrorist acts by crackpots who have a rather bizarre interpretation of Islam (at least, I am assuming that by “Jihad” you are talking about the crackpots with a bizarre interpretation of Islam who go around blowing things up and killing people, including themselves). In fact, “leftists” tend to condemn violence.
I also know many Muslims, and I have not heard a single one express anything but contempt for the same violent terrorist acts.
So if you know a lot of people out there who are expressing support for horrific acts of violence, let us know who and where they are. Otherwise, STFU.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pmBarry Soetero Says:
Do you want more?
If you’re going back to the 7th Century, you’re going to open yourself up pretty wide. It opens up the First Crusade and the Siege of Jerusalem (and slaughter of all its inhabitants), the first pogroms in France and Germany at about the same time, slaughter of Jews in England in the 12th Century, the Inquisition . . .
Big mistake.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pmYou might as well come to terms with it. this is going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it. Marriage is a right and in the end the gays will win that right.
Remember it took 100’s of years for women to get the right to vote and civil rights to be enacted in this country but it did eventually happen because it’s the right thing to do…..
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pmBarry Soetero Says:
I dislike Islam, just like how TP posters hate Catholics. My question is why is OK to bash Catholicism, but if Islam is bashed you guys get upset?
Shouldn’t we have a right to bash all religions? Why is Islam the exception.
—-
This is not my fight, but here are my observations:
As a recovering Catholic, I have a right to speak my opinion of the religion. (if you call that “BAshing” so be it) I do not have extensive knowledge about Islam other than the basics and do not feel qualified to criticize it other than my opinion that most religions tend to oppress their constituents (especially women and minorities) by attempting to control their actions through mostly fear. Personally, I dislike most organized religions for this reason: they leave no room for independent thought and expect blind obedience. My God is bigger than that, he/she/it allows me to question his very existence and is not threatened by my questioning.
I say if you want to bash Islam… you have a perfect right to do so. But actions have consequences and on this blog post, the topic is not Islam, it it the actions of the Catholic Church. And your comments appear to be off-topic and are inviting derision for an extremely long post.
Perhaps TP can put up a post just for you pointing out Islam’s discriminatory actions against gays. OR, even better, you can get your own blog and rail against Islam all you want. Or you could change your name to Michael Savage and spew your hatred on the radio. Either way, makes no difference to me.
Just sayin’
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 pmupright left Says:
Seriously, ralph, that argument is beneath you. They get all the rights with civil unions; marriage remains between a man and a woman and everbody is happy.
How about this solution: the State stops participating in what people like you insist is a religious rite and no longer sanction “marriage” for anyone. The State honors civil unions between consenting non-related adults and churches get to marry whomever they want. Everybody is happy.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pmNow you done it, Trajan!
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pmWhen misshusseinmolly resorts to “STFU”, you better STFU!!!
Just saying…
______
PatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
——————————————————————————–
upright left, I am not happy. The government is supporting someone else’s religious belief over mine with a government-sanctioned limit on a religious ceremony.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
______
As far as the govt is concerned, marriage is simply a legal matter. Citing marriage as the traditional family unit and civil union as the newly recognized joining of same sex couples is not religious doctrine. Religious doctine does not generally recognize same sex unions.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:29 pmConvicted murderers are often innocent……how do you explain that to your god?
Don’t get me wrong, If I catch someone molesting a child I will kill him on the spot…..let the system deal with me. But I don’t trust any system to deal out justice.
If you weren’t a hypocrite you would be against killing period but you put qualifiers on it…..how sad and you accuse the left of deteriorating our society.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pmLibertyLover,
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pmBarry Soetero goes by nic Savage Nation over at LGF2. He’s also known as Gaius Baltar. he organized the Mr. P Rodan (Trajan( attacks last year.
Segregation was a “basic structure of our society” until some buttinsky judges decided that it was unconstitutional. I’m pretty confident that “the will of the people” was decidedly in favor of keeping the races separate, certainly in the South, when those judges stuck their noses in where they weren’t wanted.
Are you prepared to stick with your reliance on “the will of the people” in determining civil rights?
Please point out where I suggested that Obama didn’t mean what he said. This ought to be interesting.
I can figure out your beliefs, if you’re comfortable with me interpreting them from the evidence given. What I was remarking on was your reliance on someone else’s words to convey your own argument, rather than presenting an argument and using an authoritative quote to support it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pmDRxJ ,
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:31 pmBarry Soetero is Savage Nation aka Gaius Baltar.
The piss-soaked trolls on this thread are chafed and cranky — but no Daryll? WTF?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 pmLibertyLover
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:33 pmYou do realize you’re dealing with either an adolescent, or a college student, whose only goal is to disrupt.
It usually posts heavily during the summer, then disappears until the weekend or it’s “break”.
Sad actually.
I ALMOST feel sorry for it’s attention seeking disorder.
That, and his/her parent’s waste of money on it’s edumacation.
We tried to get an answer to this point earlier but as usual……issue avoided and more talking points thrown our way instead.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:34 pmUpright left, do you not see the slippery slope here? How does the government know which set of beliefs to support? You know that there are hundreds of denominations within Christianity alone. So what if the government sides with the Southern Baptists but offends the Presbyterians on another issue? Do you not see the slippery slope that this whole mess is taking us to?
With the Vatican’s stance against the death penalty, is this not hypocritical considering that homosexuality is a “crime” punishable by death in such countries as Iran?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pmgummitch Says:
exactly! I’ve been arguing this for a while, but no one wants to hear it for some reason. I truly believe that it is the only solution that will get us past this major national distraction.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pmGummitch,
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:36 pmWhy do you justify Islamic Extremism. Have Christians done wrong? sure, no doubt. But why you Leftists always make excuses for Islam?
and I’ve got this sneaky feeling that btruthful is not rhf!
Not enough ROTFL! and mean spirited, but thought provoking posts.
More likely a Trajan clone trying to get us all over to the new website.
(Guilty)
I’m going to ignore now.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pmFred did no such thing. He drew a comparison between the rigidity of those who profess to support “the Right to Life” yet whose commitment to that ideal seems somewhat flexible, depending on whose life is in question.
It’s a common characteristic of that community, one aptly demonstrated by your response to Fred.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pmDRxJ Says: and btruthful Says:
— Thanks for the info. I didn’t realize the nature of the beast. And EWWWW who can spend any amount of time at LGF??? Seriously. I have to take a shower just thinking about them.
I’ll iggy in the future.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:38 pmOK, how about this. Let’s reserve the word “marriage” for religious unions, and “civil unions” for — well — civil unions.
Anybody who wants their union to be recognized by the government (for tax purposes, Social Security, or any other legal matters) would be required to get a civil union — administered by a government official licensed to do this. These civil unions would not be performed by clergy, nor would they be recognized by religious institutions.
Anybody who wants their union to be recognized by their church, synagogue, temple, or other religious institution would be required to get “married” under the guidelines of that religion. These “marriages” would not be recognized by the government.
For many couples, this would require two ceremonies. It’s not that big a deal, and is fairly common in some other countries (Prince Rainier and Princess Grace of Monaco went through a civil ceremony as well as a religious one).
This would separate the terms “marriage” and “civil union” in a way that would have nothing to do with sexual orientation, and the distinction between the two would be easy to understand.
But if we insist upon making “marriage” a word used civilly and not just in the church, then it has to extend to everyone.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pmBarry Soetero Says:
Gummitch,
Why do you justify Islamic Extremism. Have Christians done wrong? sure, no doubt. But why you Leftists always make excuses for Islam?
Trajan! Welcome back, ya eejit.
I make no excuses for religious fanatics of any sort. I also know the difference between territorial wars and religious wars, which you seem a little shaky on.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pmbtruthful Says:
DRxJ ,
Barry Soetero is Savage Nation aka Gaius Baltar.
They are all sockpuppets of the name-changing, schizophrenic, willful idiot that once called himself Mr. P here at TP.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:40 pmaka Gaius Baltar
What a frackin’ waste of a good handle…
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:42 pmupright left, you are wrong. Defense of marriage laws specifically define marriage as between a man and a woman, thereby, denying a religious organization that would support gay marriage the right to perform a religious ceremony uniting a gay couple in marriage. “Marriage” is the term used by the government and it is also a specific religious sacrament (right along side communion, baptism, and other ceremonies depending upon the particular religious doctrine). The concepts are enmeshed. “Civil unions” will not result in separation of law and religious doctrine.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pmInteresting that in claiming an argument is “beneath me”, you choose to copy-and-paste only my final line, and not the argument itself so that others may more easily judge whether my argument is a reasonable one or not.
For their benefit, I will repeat the argument that you judge “beneath me”:
You said earlier, “why change a basic structure of society for one group when they can be given all the things they seek, only under a different name?”
If “all the things they seek” are already available to them, then that “basic structure” has already been changed. The only difference is labeling.
If, however, NOT “all the things they seek” are available, or if those things can be denied at any time, then the “separate but equal” premise of your argument is specious.
Which is it?
I see you did not even choose to address my argument, simply dismissed it without further comment and restated the sentiment that I had dissected.
Please explain how extending the right of marriage to gay and lesbian couples in any way threatens the “basic structure of society”. Will straight couples no longer be able to marry? Will their property rights be altered? Will their right to have a church wedding recognized by the state be destroyed?
How exactly would such a development threaten this basic structure?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
I’d agree but for one reason. You also have to stop all writers and recipe creators to stop using the phrase: “the perfect marriage of… ” ie salty and sweet, or light and dark, or style and substance or any combination of competing situations, etc.
If the word “marriage” can be used to describe a union of any two things, then it is just a word. And a rose by any other name…
Separate but equal is not equality. Never was.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pmBarry Soetero Says:
Gummitch,
Why do you justify Islamic Extremism. Have Christians done wrong? sure, no doubt. But why you Leftists always make excuses for Islam?
You keep repeating yourself over and over again, Barry/Bakltar/Mr.P/trajun/or WTF you are calling yourself in this moment of time.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:48 pmIf you keep that up, then people will actually know how much of an ignorant, f_cking nutcase you really are. The more you post, the more you reveal of yourself.
gummitch and missmolly, your idea is something I have argued for as well, with one caveat. “Marriage”, as a religious term and practice, must not be restricted by the government to only heterosexual union. I should be able to start a church that performs marriages for homosexuals to sanctify their civil union if I so desired.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pmY’know, I kinda miss Mr. Pee. This new crop of trolls doesn’t have much panache.
But I especially miss Mr. President’s Tube Sock.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm666lattes Says:
aka Gaius Baltar
What a frackin’ waste of a good handle…
Gaius Baltar was the bad guy, the traitor in Battlestar Galactica. Original, this troll is not. Nucking futz, but not original
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:50 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
gummitch and missmolly, your idea is something I have argued for as well, with one caveat. “Marriage”, as a religious term and practice, must not be restricted by the government to only heterosexual union. I should be able to start a church that performs marriages for homosexuals to sanctify their civil union if I so desired.
Hell yes! “Marriage” shouldn’t be defined by the government at all.
I have to tell you, though, I’m pretty fringe on the subject of relationships. I think anyone who ever took a cultural anthropology course would have to be, because humans have had a lot of definitions of “traditional marriage” over the centuries. I see no reason why people shouldn’t be allowed to experiment as they choose: polygyny, polyandry, line marriages. Heck, what’s the harm?
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm______
Fred Says:
You might as well come to terms with it. this is going to happen and there is nothing you can do about it. Marriage is a right and in the end the gays will win that right.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
______
Of course it’s going to happen. And who said I’m trying to do anything about it? If I’m asked to vote on it, obviously, I’ll vote against it. But that’s the extent of it. As I said, the decline will continue.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:55 pmDRxJ Says
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Now you done it, Trajan!
When misshusseinmolly resorts to “STFU”, you better STFU!!!
Just saying…
___________________________________________________________
LOL — I admit I don’t resort to that very often. But my patience really wears thin when “facts” that are pure fiction get used to bolster a weak argument. Especially ones that have been debunked, disproven, easily shot down, and don’t even make any sense in the first place.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pmPatrioticLiberalChristian Says:
““Marriage”, as a religious term and practice, must not be restricted by the government to only heterosexual union.”
That’s exactly it. The Government should stay away from any term besides “Civil Union” (or some other decided upon term besides “marriage”) and let the Private/Religious sector work out the rest.
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:57 pmgummitch Says
December 2nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I see no reason why people shouldn’t be allowed to experiment as they choose: polygyny, polyandry, line marriages. Heck, what’s the harm?
_________________________________________________________
It really doesn’t harm anyone, but could have some effect from a legal standpoint. Limiting a legal civil union/marriage to only two participants makes a fair amount of sense. Social Security, retirement benefits, health insurance, etc. can provide some fairly good arguments for limiting each person to only one spouse.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pmYou are wrong again. The decline has ended and now we move forward for a change.
FDR said a conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs that refuses to walk forward……you define that conservitive.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:05 pmHey Barry Soetero, if it makes you feel any better, I’m a lefty who doesn’t like Catholicism OR Islam. I think they’re both a big steaming pile of misogynistic, nonsensical dogma which has caused the world a lot of misery and pain without giving back much in return. I think that the human condition would be a lot better off without any of this crap.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:07 pmI am amazed that this thread has reached almost 150 posts without the aid of Daryll or bitblt.
Uptighty and Twajie have made this happen all by themselves. Well done.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:09 pmI myself am sort of bummed by that…
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pmFor those who may be homosexual but don’t want to be…
http://www.lovewonout.com/
and
http://www.citizenlink.org/FOSI/homosexuality/overcoming/A000007628.cfm
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
bitblt, if you’re sexually confused you should experiment.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 pmbitblt:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pmwhat if I am heterosexual but don’t want to be. I assume if one works the reverse must as well. Am I correct on that?
dbadass Says:
bitblt:
what if I am heterosexual but don’t want to be. I assume if one works the reverse must as well. Am I correct on that?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
No. You’re not correct on that, but thanks for giving bit an easy rhetorical question.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pmbitblt’s aggressive championing of “homosexual conversion” services may lead one to wonder whether bit was once a successful client of such a service…
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 pmWhy is it that sexual conversion can work in one direction but not the other?
Does this mean that the perceived “threat” of homosexuals “recruiting” young converts is an urban myth?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pmAnd if it was a rhetorical question, why did bit bother answering it?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:30 pmHi bit:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pmIf I am incorrect can you explain whay. Logic says that these should be a reversible reaction. As always I would also ask why bit refuses to entertain the possibility of biochemistry? bit seens reasonably intelligent. Is it that bit ’s intellect is being shackled somehow?
Does this mean that the perceived “threat” of homosexuals “recruiting” young converts is an urban myth?
—-
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:31 pmI like this line of thinking ralph. You da man!
ralph the wonder llama Says:
bitblt’s aggressive championing of “homosexual conversion” services may lead one to wonder whether bit was once a successful client of such a service…
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
These groups being “aggressively championed” by bit, work toward removing homosexual attraction, not toward developing homosexual attraction.
Believe this falls way short of “aggressive championing,” RTWL.
Seems to bit that it’s worth noting in a thread like this that there are people who claimed to have freed themselves from the homosexual life-choice.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:34 pmOkay so if we use the premise that a heterosexual can not be coerced into being a heterosexual and if we acknowledge that homosexuals exist, does it follow that somebodies god or gods made them that way? If so than I would have to assume that god or gods wasn’t all that uptight about all of this
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pmCongrats to bitblt for successfully suppressing his natural urges and constructing a different life acceptable to himself based on selective readings of a 2000-year old collection of stories. It’s a good trick if you can do it.
How’s it working out for Rev. Haggard. I heard he jumped ship. bitblt, is the good pastor still gay or has he just decided to pray harder? I figure you’re following the case.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pmThe Vatican is as usual, behind the times in every respect. From celibacy in the priesthood to women as priests, contraception for reasons of increasing the catholic population, womens rights, including the ludicrous statements made by this latest pope such as these.
“No one will be in heaven unless they go through the holy Roman Catholic church.” Here is a good one, the Vatican have their own airlines. Last year the pope said this. “Anyone who uses the Vatican airlines with be allowed to claim an indulgence for the after life.” And in case you do not know what an indulgence is, it was given by an earlier Pope to those men going to fight in the crusades. This would cover anyone they killed. It was also paid to the church by the families of people at war etc. Pay your way to heaven. Evidently it greases the wheel in that church.
So where is the surprise regarding the Popes view on anything? The Pope is made for political reasons. It is an election by men in the back rooms of the Vatican just like any political process. The Pope is elected for his ability to follow Catholic doctrine. God is not involved in any of this. Stupidity in this church is institutional. The ultimate boys club.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:36 pmSeems to bit that it’s worth noting in a thread like this that there are people who claimed to have freed themselves from the homosexual life-choice.
So you’re pro-choice?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:38 pmralph characterizes bit as “aggressively championing” this movement because of bit’s frequent plugs for services of this type on threads dealing with homosexual issues.
ralph wonders if bit would include prominent figures such as the Fabulously Reverend Ted Haggard among those who “claim to have freed themselves from the homosexual life-choice”.
And ralph also notices that bit failed to acknowledge ralph’s initial conjecture.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 pmYeah, folks like yourself who think living a double life is acceptable. Never mind science….I know you have no faith in it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 pmthere are people who claimed to have freed themselves from the homosexual life-choice… and then committed suicide.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 pmdbadass Says:
Okay so if we use the premise that a heterosexual can not be coerced into being a heterosexual and if we acknowledge that homosexuals exist, does it follow that somebodies god or gods made them that way? If so than I would have to assume that god or gods wasn’t all that uptight about all of this
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
You’d make more of an impression on bit if you claimed evolution caused homosexuality. Believe this would also be an easier sell.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 pm49erDem thinks bitblt is gay…. not that there’s anything wrong with that.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:41 pmThere are many fine people who have freed themselves from the Cathaholic lifestyle of bigotry and delusion.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pmbitblt Says:
Seems to bit that it’s worth noting in a thread like this that there are people who claimed to have freed themselves from the homosexual life-choice.
You do know that psychiatrists say that people referring to themselves in the 3rd person is a sure sign of insanity, right?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pmReligion poses unwarranted mental torture to people that have a different set of wiring in their brains. Sad that humans haven’t evolved enough to understand this collectively.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm161:
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pmObviously hetersosexual is supposed to be homosexual. Sorry but it seems that those two are easily reversible well atleast if one is willing to join a cult
bitblt: “You’d make more of an impression on bit if you claimed evolution caused homosexuality. Believe this would also be an easier sell.”
OK, we’ll take that as a tacit admission that you cannot explain the fact that your god evidently created some gay people.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:43 pmBarry Soetero Says:
I am only going to answer the begginings of your bigotry because really we have heard all this hate Islam brainwashed idiocy before
1. “Islam” means “peace” – The word Islam means “submission.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You are WRONG. In semetic languages if the consonants of a word are the same they have the same root. Like the word for regular peace SaLaaM and the word iSLaM. The word means peace. More accuratly it means the peace that comes through submission to God. That is a type of PEACE not a type of submission.
2. Jihadis make up only a small percentage of Muslims – Recent polls in Indonesia indicates differently. One in ten Muslims polled supported violence against innocent people,
There are over one billion Muslims in the world. Using the most conservative number of 10% who support radical views, that leaves one hundred million Islamic extremists. A small percentage…
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As will I and I am not a Muslim. Tell me what is meant by Jesus saying If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
Did he literally mean you have to hate your mother and father? Sacred literature is easy to take out of context. Levitican law calls for stoning disobedient children to DEATH. Read Joshua, Kings anc Chronicles it called for killing every man woman and child. You are a bigot. You WANT to hate Islam but I HAVE a Koran and it isnt a book of hatred. Taking these verses out of context both within the book and within the times it was written is just a hatchet job. I KNOW Muslims who are among the most generous, God loving people I have ever met. I notice you dont mention the verses that say directly that people of the book, that is Christians and Jews are both good and bad and should be treated as such or that they have nothing to fear on the day of judgement from Allah if they are good people or THAT THERE MUST BE NO COERCION IN RELIGION. What is your point. Trying to start a Holy War and end the world? Lets find and deal with extremist violent Islamic terrorists. We dont need a holy war to do it. In FACT that will make it harder if we radicalize more Muslims and make them think the radicals are right and we want to destroy NOT the terrorists but Islam. Good job by the way being a useful idiot and HELPING the radicals convince moderate and decent Muslims that we hate them all. Your bigotry and hatred isnt helping ANYONE.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pmbitblt Says:
Seems to bit that it’s worth noting in a thread like this that there are people who claimed to have freed themselves from the homosexual life-choice.
Please link evidence that such conversions actually work, not your conjecture.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:44 pmmisshusseinmolly Says:
It really doesn’t harm anyone, but could have some effect from a legal standpoint. Limiting a legal civil union/marriage to only two participants makes a fair amount of sense. Social Security, retirement benefits, health insurance, etc. can provide some fairly good arguments for limiting each person to only one spouse.
If lawyers can manage to sort out the complexities of corporate flim-flam they can certainly sort out a simple three-way. I mean, what about wills, probate, all that. It’s rarely as simple as one death, one recipient.
Lawyers should be lining up to push this through Congress!
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pmYou’d make more of an impression on bit if you claimed evolution caused homosexuality. Believe this would also be an easier sell.
—-
Why? If one is inclined to believe in any god or gods why can’t it be possible that a god or gods might not really give a rat’s ass about the sexual behavior of that god or god’s own creation? Besides if said god or gods are so darned powerful and if it or they have such a friggin problem with homosexuality why don’t they just take them out with some lightening bolts or something?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:45 pmOnce again, bit fails to respond to a reasonable straightforward question.
bit is proving to be a disappointment.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:46 pmbitblt Says:
Seems to bit that it’s worth noting in a thread like this that there are people who claimed to have freed themselves from the homosexual life-choice.
There are people who claim to have freed themselves from heroin, too and yet five months later . . .
Sexuality is not a “choice”. That’s your first mistake.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:46 pmI wonder who bit thinks is going to champion the religious rights agenda now. The gop promised but did nothing. If I were a religious person who voted for the gop I would be very upset with them these days.
Maybe larry craig will take up the fight again…..
bit, how does it feel to be on the wrong side of everything all of the time? I mean, every EU member of the UN signed on to the resolution against what you believe in.
Sometimes you should reflect on what it means when everyone is wrong except you…….
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pmOnce again, bit fails to respond to a reasonable straightforward question.
Give him an easy rhetorical question and bit is all over it.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pmbitblt Says:
And for those of YOU who are ignorant BIGOTED MORONS and dotnt want to be read the Upanishads
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmoh and bit
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:50 pmYou would make much more of an impression if you could explain talking snakes, females being made from ribs, the genetic bottlenecks associated with two boys and populating a planet with only their momma available and a chick getting knocked up without actually doing it and a whole lot of other zany shit. I’ll exempt you from a bush which not only talks but does so while on fire.
Barry Soetero Says:
You guys Bash Catholics but defend Muslims. Explain?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There is a lot of bashing of religion here. As a far lefty Christian it sometimes makes me quesy. I think both Islam AND Catholicism need to get over their gay phobia.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:57 pm666lattes Says:
EugeneDebs,
They can still call it marriage if they want to… I don’t see how it could be perceived as someone’s right being taken away to simply have our secular Government call it by a differnt name. I don’t believe that our Government’s recognition is the ultimate criteria for labelling a relationship as “marriage” for either gays or straits… if so, I personally find that just kind of sad.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Supreme Court has labelled marriage NOT civil unions as a fundamental right. I see no reason to deny THAT basic right to gay citizens
If the Catholic church doesn’t want to recognize a gay couple’s marriage, then they don’t have to and that couple doesn’t have to attend a Catholic church, but our government should stay out of it beyond recognizing anyone’s Civil Union for legal/tax reasons. Let the people (church’s, gays, bigots) privately call it whatever they want and get this argument out of Government and politics once and for all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No one I know is demanding Catholic Churches marry anyone they dont want to. I dont see why THEY ought to be defining marriage for all citizens. I dont see why it ought to be up to THEM in a secular country. The SC says its a right why deny it to gays. It really is that simple. Catholics are free to see things however they want they just dont get to say that is how we ALL must see it. The rights of unpopular minorities are supposed to be protected in America marriage has already been defined as a right it shouldnt be denied to gays.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:02 pmbitblt Says:
You are calling it a CHOICE AGAIN. Which you cannot POSSIBLY show is true. You do this because you are ignorant and a bigot. You WANT to be a bigot and need this to be taken as true as cover. You ARE a bigot and I dont accept faith based arguments to give you cover for being an ignorant bigot
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:05 pmBarry Soetero Says:
Islam itself NEEDS no excuses. It is a fine religion. The extremists GET no excuses and I havent seen any here. Did Christianity need excuses for the Crusades, the Inquisitions, for Jim Jones or Koresh? NO it is a logical fallacy to blame the message for the messenger. YOU keep making that mistake and if its TRUE you are a Wienerdog worshipping Savage fan then you have most likely been infected by his bigotry and insanity. The man is demonstrably insane and in dire need of a Haldol/Thorazine cocktail
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:09 pmEugene, I suspect bit is sincere in his belief that sexuality is a choice, because I surmise that bit has been through one (or more) of these “heterosexual re-education camps” and desperately NEEDS for his sexuality to be a choice. Otherwise bit is condemned to a life of desiring partners of the same sex, and there’s not a dang thing he can do about it.
At least, if bit thinks it’s a choice, he can tell himself that he only desires c*ck because he’s weak.
That’s ralph’s theory, anyway.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:12 pmMakes since that the Vatican would oppose the UN’s actions. Look Priest are still molesting kids and the Vatican is still killing babies made by Priest. All this talk is just a front for thier sexual activity. Look men will be men and always have a need for sex. The Vatican had a yard for buried infants aborted by woman/nuns. Pope’s as far back as Leo were gay and had sex with boys and men as it is well written. So the Vatican should stick to trying to get woman to stop using birth control pills as 99.99 per cent still do.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:16 pmOh great, so one of my gay friends calls and by the time I get off the phone the parties over. BTW: while I had him on the phone I told him to just knock it off and stop being gay. I also said that being gay is totally like gay. He told me to f uck off. I suggested that god would make him not be so friggin gay. He said he had spoken with god and god had apologized for that whole Huckabee confusion but assured him being gay was A-Okay. He said that god is pretty cool and just wants people to do their thing and while doing so the only real rule god wanted enforced was the one about being nice to one another
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:40 pmEugeneDebs Says:
“The Supreme Court has labelled marriage NOT civil unions as a fundamental right. I see no reason to deny THAT basic right to gay citizens”
Gays would still be allowed to marry. I’m not sure you’re understanding me. The only difference is that the Government will no longer be recognizing anything besides a Civil Union for legal/tax reasons. Why should our Government be forced to recognize a religious institution?
“No one I know is demanding Catholic Churches marry anyone they dont want to. I dont see why THEY ought to be defining marriage for all citizens.”
The problem is that “Marriage” already has different definitions to different people and each of those definitions are valid within their own belief systems so in order to remain respectful of these belief systems, our Government needs to abandon the term completely, start from scratch and clearly define a Civil Union as the only legally recognized relationship with the legal benefits that it entails. If that couple, or their church choose to call it “marriage” then they would remain to have every right to do so. That will not be taken away.
Maybe the point we’re not touching on is that the simple fact is that many on the right will NEVER shut up about gays “redefining marriage” as long as it is Government sanctioned. If we take that aspect away, they will at least only be justified in b!tching about it in private because “marriage” will be defined by each person privately. Perhaps this is a compromise, but I believe it is one that emphasizes equality and would allow us to move on to more important issues. That’s my goal, anyway. I really can’t stress that enough.
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:44 pmDRxJ, Yep! on purpose, you were the only one that noticed I think..Hay, great to read you here…Blessings
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:55 pmbitblt Says:
dbadass Says:
bitblt:
…. but thanks for giving bit an easy rhetorical question.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Rhetorical questions do not require an answer.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:35 pm______
Fred Says:
uptighty:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defended his belief in same-sex civil unions March 2 by referencing Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and then implicitly criticizing those who view Romans as a binding teaching on homosexuality.
the link
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:39 pm
______
He said essentially the same thing in the link you provided as he did in his book including this:
“I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” he said, referring to unions that grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. “I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:37 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
bitblt Says:
dbadass Says:
Does this mean that the perceived “threat” of homosexuals “recruiting” young converts is an urban myth?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Now that’s a rhetorical question!
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 pmyeah that’s why bit elected not to answer that one…
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:40 pm666lattes Says:
You are right I misunderstood your point. As long as gays can marry I dont care if the Gov only recognized civil unions. I dont see how that could come about since the SC has spoken on the marriage being a right thing. I certainly dont think we ought to base policy on what will shut up the vocal rightwing. They will never shut up about ANYTHING. They are STILL WHINING about Vietnam and how we gave up when we were just about to win. They are unhinged.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:53 pmbitblt Says:
Seems to bit that it’s worth noting in a thread like this that there are people who claimed to have freed themselves from the homosexual life-choice.
I’ll take your word for it that converts exist, despite lack of evidence but usually, these “converts” get married to some unsuspecting person and then the “converts” allow temptation get the better of them exposing said unsuspecting spouse not only to an unfaithful spouse, but also the possibility of STD’s. Of course, the “convert” is full of self-loathing and may even dabble in drugs to hide the pain of his choices.
Why a “convert” would want to place him/herself and said spouse in such a position, I have to question.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:54 pmI have sort of forgotten. Where does Ms. Clinton stand on gay marriage again?
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:54 pmSo please explain the nature of this “basic structure of society” that must not be altered, if a separate-but-equal structure already exists, duplicating its legal and material features? Seems to me that this is a pretty good example of a difference in name only, and thus hardly indicative of a unique “basic structure of society” that must be protected.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pmI love when the Pope’s henchmen bleat.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:42 pm______
ralph the wonder llama Says:
So please explain the nature of this “basic structure of society” that must not be altered, if a separate-but-equal structure already exists, duplicating its legal and material features? Seems to me that this is a pretty good example of a difference in name only, and thus hardly indicative of a unique “basic structure of society” that must be protected.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
______
The nature of the basic structure of society in question is marriage, which means a man and a woman. (Didn’t we just go over that?) The difference between that and a same sex couple is quite obvious to most folks.
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:49 pmIf a civil union confers all the rights of a marriage, why insist on changing what marriage means? It’s supposed to be all about the rights, isn’t it? Or was that a lie all along? ;)
______
republicans hate facts Says:
upright left Says:
He said essentially the same thing in the link you provided as he did in his book including this:
“I believe in civil unions that allow a same-sex couple to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other,” he said, referring to unions that grant all the legal benefits of marriage, minus the name. “I don’t think it should be called marriage, but I think that it is a legal right that they should have that is recognized by the state.
I don’t really CARE what Obama says, bigotry is bigotry, and denial of rights to gay people based on some outdated fantasy beliefs of a bunch of religious freaks like you is no different than outdated terrorism based on religious freaks by you. It all stems from the same insanity brought on by morally, intellectually and emotionally deficient TARDS like YOURSELF! F**k off you bigoted piece of sh*t.
December 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
______
Hey, bud, how’ve you been? Sorry about that whole HRC thing. But it’s great that you’ve been able to jump on the Obama bandwagon. Except, of course, that comment about Obama being a bigot. He didn’t base his comment on religion, but the fact that marriage between a man and a woman is the basic family unit common to most cultures. So what kind of bigot does that make him, a sexual orientation bigot? Oh well, it doesn’t really matter why he’s opposed to it, only that he is. So does HRC being SOS make everything better? ;)
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:00 am“marriage, which means a man and a woman.”
Remember when the meaning of mouse ment a rodent? Not only do meanings change but whole new usages arise. It’s okay. Relax.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:01 am______
dbadass Says:
“marriage, which means a man and a woman.”
Remember when the meaning of mouse ment a rodent? Not only do meanings change but whole new usages arise. It’s okay. Relax.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:01 am
_____
Sure meanings change, sometimes for the good, sometimes not. I’m perfectly relaxed, thanks, come what may. ;)
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:48 am______
republicans hate facts Says:
It makes HIM the SAME KIND OF BIGOT YOU ARE – an IGNORANT ONE!
Hillary at least has SOUGHT EQUAL RIGHTS for Civil Unions, and PROMISED to fight to have it voted in.
December 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 am
______
Dang, bud, you are absolutely right! Obama’s support for civil unions makes him an ignorant bigot while Hillary’s support for civil unions is worthy of praise. I completely missed that! Thanks bud. ;)
December 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 amHypocrisy, vanity and sympathy for the facist regimes are and have been the political environment of the vatican and other traditional religions for as far as history can bring us; these are all seeds of war and social injustice …..homosexuality on the other hand is an individual issue that has never created any war nor social injustice…you make your own assessment on the face value of the vatican intervention for wanting to keep homosexuality a crime…
December 5th, 2008 at 2:48 amThey cover up pedophilia and their leader is a former Nazi, one would think . . . oh I forgot, they believe in magic too. Never mind.
December 5th, 2008 at 11:46 am