Happy Homosexual Couples Tonight

June 29, 2005

There are those who would argue that a civil relationship can be defined in law that is not called marriage, but that resolves the civil rights issues that typically exist in the present legal environment.

[i am trying to figure out what I wanted to say in the last sentence of the above paragraph. I figured it out, and have edited it to state what I meant to say--GM.]

You correctly point out that heterosexuals have limited rights to marry. e.g. An adult male can not marry an incompetent female. Correct.

Those who advocate homosexual marriages generally advocate that they take place within the same limitations that heterosexuals have. i.e. They ask that the playing field be evened.

Yes, I know that some would advocate some expanson of boundries. But, they are not mainstream, any more than those heterosexuals are who advocate that sex should be allowed beteeen an adult male and a minor female.

June 29, 2005

Ed. Read Greg's excellent post again.

Society provides all kinds of legal benefits to people who are married. The benefits have NOTHING to do with sexual activity.

What is your rationale for denying this to ANY PAIR OF ADULTS who decide they want to legally bind themselves in this way?

Of course it is a civil rights issue - it is a gender-discrimination issue! If we wrote such regulations in the work-place we would be guilty of discrimination.

/Bevin

June 29, 2005

Re: "On the Biblical side, the question of marriage was settled a long time ago. And so was the verdict on attempting to change that definition of marriage. We know what must be rendered to God. The question is, what about Caesar?"

I have much agreement with you on the above statement. God has settled what marriage is from the religious standpoint.

Now the question enters the civil relm. To what extent should a religious decesion be forced upon people who are not religious?

June 29, 2005

What civil rights issues?

The right to visit in a hospital? Is that a civil right, or one of hospital policy?

Insurance benefits, ineheritance--those can all be handled through legal agreements. Those legal agreements would not be a "marriage license," but the would be just as binding in their results.

None of the issues I have heard of have the least thing to do with civil rights. Not every public or private policy is a matter of civil rights.

June 29, 2005

Quote:

Those who advocate homosexual marriages generally advocate that they take place within the same limitations that heterosexuals have. i.e. They ask that the playing field be evened.

That's precisely my point. Those limitations are in fact identical.

There is no "unevenness" to be dealt with, because they are on the same ground as I am. I went through all that.

They have precisely the same right that I have. What they want is the invention of a new right, the right of persons of the same sex to marry.

What they are asking for is a change in the definition of what marriage means.

June 29, 2005

We who work in hospitals deal with such issues. Beleive me they go beyond hospital policy, to the law. They may involve the right to visit, but often go beyond that to other rights.

Inheritance rights are built into law, and wills that to not abide by those laws may be challenged and overturned. Inheritance is not as simple as you make it.

Insuranace benefits: Surely you jest. Case #1: Married heterosexual, Sam, has not lived with his wife for 20+ years. Each has lived seperate lives. But, Sam has nevere divorced. So, his legal wife participates in health benefits, and will recieve insurance benefits upon his death.

#2: Robert is extablished a homosexual relationship that has lasted for over 20 years. Yet, his domestic partner is not covered under Robert's health insurance policy, and will not have the legal protections upon Robert's death that Sam's "wife" will have upon Sam's death.

June 29, 2005

Quote:

Society provides all kinds of legal benefits to people who are married. The benefits have NOTHING to do with sexual activity.

And benefits have nothing to do with rights. By definition.

I have a right to legal counsel. I don't have a right for a business subsidy.

Quote:

What is your rationale for denying this to ANY PAIR OF ADULTS who decide they want to legally bind themselves in this way?

Two major errors. Neither I nor anyone else is denying people the right to legally bind themselves. They could draw up a living trust, wills, all sorts of legal documents that would have the same effect.

And as I've alreay pointed out ANY PAIR OF ADULTS do not have the right to marry now. Tom Cruise couldn't marry Katie Holmes until he divorced Nicole Kidman. Romantic (and other) triangles are matters of legend (see King Arthur). Thus, there are MANY PAIRS OF ADULTS so denied. Do they have a "civil right" to polygamy? Why not?

Quote:

Of course it is a civil rights issue - it is a gender-discrimination issue!

Well, let's see. I mentioned males and I mentioned females, all of whom have exactly the same right-- the right to marry any willing eligible member of the opposite sex. So, is there a third gender you're talking about?

June 29, 2005

Quote:

Case #1: Married heterosexual, Sam, has not lived with his wife for 20+ years. Each has lived seperate lives. But, Sam has nevere divorced. So, his legal wife participates in health benefits, and will recieve insurance benefits upon his death.

Which proves nothing. Sam could have an estranged son, whom he never bothered to disinherit, and with both parents gone, the son would inherit. In both cases, Sam had could have changed things, but did not seek legal remedy.

Quote:

#2: Robert is extablished a homosexual relationship that has lasted for over 20 years. Yet, his domestic partner is not covered under Robert's health insurance policy, and will not have the legal protections upon Robert's death that Sam's "wife" will have upon Sam's death.

Ditto with this. Many companies already have "domestic parnership" agreements. Robert could have divorced, and named Sam as the beneficiary of his estate and his life insurance.

In either case, these are not civil rights. Civil rights accrue to everyone. It may be an insurance issue, and it may even be a legal issue, but not every legal issue is a civil rights issue.

I don't have a "right" to inherit anything. I have a right to due process, I don't have a right to find love and happiness. I don't have a right to insurance. I don't have an enforceable right to own a car.

If the cafeteria serves only whites, then people of other races have a civil rights issue. If it serves only white bread, I don't have a right to wheat. Nor to any meal, if I refuse to pay for it, wear a shirt or shoes, or a whole list of other requirements.

A requirement is not automatically discriminatory.

June 29, 2005

Brother Matthews, my earlier post was not directed at you.

I have no issue with civil unions. However such unions should not be for homosexuals only. Any two individuals that want to form a civil union should be able too. Two divorced hetrosexual women with children may wish to form such a union or two widows.

I do have a problem forcing private insurance companies to forciably provide benefits for gay partners or civil partners etc. That should be a decision left up to the insurance company and its stock holders. The free market will drive that. If it is profitable to do so, insurance companies will do so. We have already seen some high profile employers like Disney and Wal-Mart do so without any legal requirement.

Yet I cannot condone homosexuality. As a member of a democracy I play a part in the laws which are made. I cannot in good conscience support a practice which God abhors.

I have lived among the homosexual community and I later ministered to them. It is a depressing reality. These people are sick with a terrible emotional illness. Some may even say mental but I am not qualified to say such. I have seen the painful lives they live. And they chase the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that isn't there. Right now that pot of gold is labeled "gay marriage". Ten years ago it was labeled "gay acceptance". It is wrong for society to pass laws which encourage these people to stay in their lifestyle. I cannot support such measures.

The homosexual is very simular to the alcoholic. They are cousins of sorts. I am so so glad that in the depths of my alcoholism society didn't tell me that I couldn't change, that I was born that way and just needed to accept it. Had I been born a homosexual instead of an alcoholic I may never have been rescued from my condition and may not today know my loving Jesus.

June 29, 2005

Ed,

perhaps you would support the opposite position. Society should completely eliminate the concept of marriage from its laws.

Examples:

The taxation category of "married filing jointly" should not exist.

The rule about not being required to testify against one's spouse should be eliminated.

The concept of a default 'will' that has your money going to your spouse should be eliminated.

No person should have medical power-of-atourney without an explicit contract.

The current marriage and divorce laws should be eliminated.

etc.

/Bevin

June 29, 2005

Agree: If civil unions are established, they should be open to heterosexuals also.

June 30, 2005

Quote:

The taxation category of "married filing jointly" should not exist.

The rule about not being required to testify against one's spouse should be eliminated.

The concept of a default 'will' that has your money going to your spouse should be eliminated.

No person should have medical power-of-atourney without an explicit contract.

The current marriage and divorce laws should be eliminated.

All of those questions hinge on the larger one, "Does marriage as it exists serve a strictly 'civil' purpose?"

I can think of several. Since marriage as we have known it promotes a number of civil goods, and its absence or breakdown contributes to civil ills, it is good public policy to encourage marriage.

Government has one main lever, and several subsidiary levers. The main lever is the exclusive right to use or threaten violence. Subsidiary to that is the ability to levy and collect taxes, and spend those proceeds.

To the degree the items you list encourage, promote, and preserve marriage, in comparison to other arrangements which are less beneficial, they are wise public policy.

June 30, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Shane: if I recall correctly there are about 4-5 texts in total in the Bible about the *reasons* for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha. Of those, one or two mention sexual immorality, and the rest all mention issues of social justice and poverty. Why do we choose to emphasise the minority, I wonder?

Do I need to point out the title of this thread? Enough said.

June 30, 2005

Quote:

Actually, I am sorry that I started this thread here. It has some rude comments

It sure has, Darlene, and I didn't get to say any of them!

It has some of you people so up in arms about what kind of God we serve that I do question that God....'Cuz when some of you say that God 'abhors' homosexual behavior, I question where you got your stance on that...Yeah, I know, God does say that He "abhors" that sin, but I also know that in the same chapter thereabouts, He also "abhors" a kid [uh, for clarifications, that is a baby lamb] boiled in his mother's milk. And if God truely "abhors" this type of behavior, why didn't He put it into the 10 Commandments...After all, besides Jesus' summing up the Ten into one sentences, ie

"You shall love", and then breaking it down to 2 rules, ie "You shall love God...and ...Love your neighbor", Jesus never clarified God's stance on the homosexual position...In fact, Jesus' emphasis was on loving behavior, not controling it.

And I gotta admit that when it comes to the 10 commandments as normal human behavior, I don't see anything regarding the advocation of homosexuality....But I dont see it outlawed like adultery is...

I see this isssue as too much of an attempt to control people's behavior...And I just ain't into controling other people's behavior except when it affects my own. And even then I am cautious as to figgering out the offending behavior.....

June 30, 2005

This whole argument was well-summarized early on by this exchange:

Gently chiding David T Battler for his falsification of polling outcomes, Bravus, after pointing out what the polls, previously "cited" by DTB, actually showed, wrote:<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I can understand your argument, but it's important to base it in truth.

To which David retorted:<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I well understood before I posted the above that the figures for various polls varied; depending upon where one looks. But the polls are not the point here.

Which being translated into non-euphemistic English is,

"Truth doesn't matter to me; don't bother me with that. I want to say what I want to say. And it wasn't an accident that I ignored the actual outcomes of the polls in sum; I knew that well in advance of this. But I have other things on my mind, and those 'facts' just get in my way."

Now then, tell me three things:

1. If Scripture in its sum truly has validity, which side here wishes to embrace it in a balanced, comprehensive, inclusive way and which wants to pick and choose arbitrarily as they see fit?

2. If the goal is to win at all costs, is it worth this price? and finally,

3. How much worth can there be in a position established in this manner?

June 30, 2005

Ed Dickerson wrote:<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I don't have a right to find love and happiness.

The country which gives him succor wrote:<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

June 30, 2005

Bottom line: the only purpose in opposing same-sex civil unions that I can see is the hard-hearted desire to scapegoat one class of people and pick on them exclusively. The only purpose in scapegoating a particular class of people that I can see is to avoid confrontation with one's actual business: one's own sins, flaws and failings.

That's how I see it, as a general pattern of human behavior I have witnessed since childhood, which has nothing to do with ideology or politics. It has to do with how my parents shared the universally acknowledged truth about the bully mentality to me in other contexts. End of story.

June 30, 2005

Quote:

Since marriage as we have known it promotes a number of civil goods, and its absence or breakdown contributes to civil ills, it is good public policy to encourage marriage.

The gay community agrees with you. It is a good thing for society for two adults to have a bonded relationship.

Why are you trying to prevent some of this good thing?

/Bevin

June 30, 2005

I have the right to pursue Norm, not the right to catch.

Thanks for proving my point.

June 30, 2005

Quote:

marriage as we have known it

The gay community agrees with you. It is a good thing for society for two adults to have a bonded relationship.

"marriage as we have known it" is not any two adults in a bonded relationship.

Same-sex marriages do not and cannot provide those same benefits, and in fact, contradicts at least one, and undermines the rest. There's plenty of evidence already in Europe for this.

Homoxexuals' quarrel is not with me, but with God or evolution.

June 30, 2005

Re: "I have the right to pursue Norm, not the right to catch."

Sorry, you do not have the right to persue Norm, or any other preson. That is illegal under stalking laws in many places. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/crazyjacky_seilchensmiley1.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/oops.gif" alt="" />

June 30, 2005

Quite humorous. Next time I'll punctuate more carefully.

But I thought "gay rights" was precisely about my right to pursue Norm.

June 30, 2005

Quote:

Same-sex marriages do not and cannot provide those same benefits, and in fact, contradicts at least one, and undermines the rest.

What benefit doesn't it provide?

Which undermines marriage more?

(a) Gays getting married

( Heterosexuals getting living together without getting married

/Bevin

June 30, 2005

Quote:

Which undermines marriage more?

(a) Gays getting married

(

Heterosexuals getting living together without getting married

Which causes a boat to sink faster?

(a) a torpedo that breaks the keel

( an internal explosion that breaches the hull

Answer: Since they all cause the boat to sink, why not do all three and sink the boat faster?

If you want to keep the boat afloat, you don't encourage any techniques that will sink it. You certainly don't explicitly approve of a pollicy which will make thing worse.

The "which damages marriage more" argument is exceedingly weak, because it concedes in the premise that gay marriage does in fact weaken marriage.

It's also weak to argue that since other destructive behaviors are allowed, we ought to authorize more such behaviors.

Polygamists could (and do) make the same argument. Is it better for one man to marry four wives and divorce three, or for him to marry all four and stay married?

The real problem is simply the term "gay marriage."

Abraham Lincoln once asked, "If you call a cow's tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have?" Someone answered, "Five." To which he replied, "No, just four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

One man and one woman can experience a union which is simply impossible in any other combination. That's Biblilcal, that's biological, that's anatomical.

Monogamous marriage provides for a stable and healthy society, and that has been demonstrated repeatedly throughout history.

Does it do that all by itself? Of course not. A healthy heart doesn't guarantee a healthy body. But an unhealthy heart endangers the whole body.

A healthy marriage institution doesn't guarantee a healthy society. But make it unhealthy, and society will suffer.

That the absurd notion of "gay marriage" would be taken seriously by any significant number is an indication of how sick society has already become.

June 30, 2005

Most well-intentioned liberals that advocate gay rights simply do not understand the issues homosexuals deal with. Giving a homosexual what they desire is like giving a thirsty man a glass of urine. The homosexual is not in a state of mind to know what is best for him or her. However God does know. It is foolish for anyone to trust sinful human desires over the expressed will of God. That is what everyone does that trys to advance the homosexual agenda.

Homosexuals should be treated in the same way that alcoholics are treated. Both are sinners dealing with sinful addictions. God longs to bring both types of people into His church. Christ loved both types so much that He died for them and sends His Spirit to labor for their souls.

Nature cries out against both types of sin. Man and woman are made to compliment each other not only sexually but emotionally and spiritually as well. A relationship between two people of the same sex can never equeal that of two of the opposite sex. Nature will not allow it. Gays do long to have what hetrosexuals have in marriage but the civil government cannot make that possible. It is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Anyone that compares it to eating goat meat cooked in milk has no grasp of the issue at all.

The drive of self-preservation is the most basic of all drives and large consumptions of alcohol is nothing more than slow suicide. Alcohol deprives the brain of oxygen and impairs judgment. Yet the alcoholic seems to believe that happiness is to be found in the solution that is actually destroying life. An insanity simular to the homosexual seeking happiness from a same-sex relationship.

Mental health professionals that have treated both report that alcoholics and homosexuals are among the most self-centered and selfish individuals they have treated. It is little wonder they have such struggles with grasping the gospel. (myself included)

Sign In

Happy Homosexual Couples Tonight

Recommended Posts

Gregory Matthews

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

bevin

Gregory Matthews

there buster

there buster

Gregory Matthews

there buster

there buster

Dr. Shane

bevin

Gregory Matthews

there buster

Dr. Shane

Neil D

NormF

NormF

Nicodema

bevin

there buster

there buster

Gregory Matthews

there buster

bevin

there buster

Dr. Shane

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity