Why? You do know of course that it takes an act of congress and ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures of the states to amend the Constitution. It's not like this is something he can just wake up and do right? Why are you taking it out on him?
um, he may not be able to do this by himself, but the president has one of the most powerful abilities of any single individual in the states - the right to say "no," a la veto power. so by saying this, he implies that anything coming across his desk contrary to his beliefs will be nixed, regardless of the support for it.
So, why should homosexuals get the same rights? They don't get children and they don't raise them, so why should the pay lower taxes?
not to be an "i told you so," but this is why i think that tax breaks just because you're married just doesn't make sense. adjust the tax laws to be more favorable for each individual if you must, but lowering them because of a union between two individuals has never been a good idea, in my humble opinion (plus, it might make my significant other file her taxes once in a while, too!)
And our pussy ass piece of shite press let him like usual. Another interesting thing that was buried in the article I read on this subject was that it was Bush's eighth press conference of his administration. Talk about a press dodge.
Obviously because he's pressing the issue. He's why it was a headline today. Were your objections here serious? Serioulsy.
Stating your beliefs is one thing. Pressing for legislation of said beliefs is another.
Stating your beliefs is one thing. Pressing for legislation of said beliefs is another.
However what if the state is trying to redefine what your church should believe? As I mentioned in my first post the history of marriage is with the church and religion. The state uses the word however most early nation-states were strongly identified with religion.
The state can choose to be completely religion free and that is fine, but then it shouldn't take religious words and ideas and redefine them to what the state wants them to mean. A registered civil union, with civil ceremony which confers full benefits of the current marriage solves the issue. I think the entanglement is with the word used, not the concept behind it because there are plenty of homosexual couples who live as if they are married today.
Likewise as I mentioned this civil union should be enacted for heterosexual couple who don't want to get married by a priest, or don't want to use the word marriage at all since it is so closely associated with the church and male domimated patriachal ideas.
The last thing I would add is that civil unions ought to automatically kick in after a period of time. The state ought to say that certain acts done together overtime designate you as civilally and legally joined even if the woman or (usually the cause) man doesn't wish to be thought of as so. Been living together, bought a house, and a couple of cars together, civil union by state definition.
We have several people here who can't just disagree with Bush, they have to assail his intelligence. Typical.
I think that in America, people have the right to live their lives. That being said, our government must stand for certain standards of social behavior. I have no problem at all with those who are gay, but I also don't think the government should sanction gay marriage by recognizing it. It opens up a whole host of other issues, including benefit payments, etc.
Like it or not, the majority of the population here still considers homosexulaity to be immoral, according to polling data. My position is a bit more complicated. People have a right to be gay. Though it is against my religous beliefs in general, I also believe there are many gay people who are "born that way"....
What I have a problem with is the active promotion of the gay "lifestyle" (for lack of a better term). It's like some gays are literally recruiting! I remember several years ago I was watching a promo for an updated "Ugly Duckling" movie on HBO. Of course, the Ugly Duckling was actually the Gay Duckling. One of the voice over celebs (forget who) was being interviewed and going on and on about how there was no one telling kids "it's OK to be gay". She thought was a really important message kids should be hearing. This really struck me as misguided and wrong...especially since she was talking about kids...not adults. Essentially, it's as if some gays lives are all about being gay.
If someone is gay, that's fine with me. I've known many gay people in my life. It's not a mainstream behavior though, and it shouldn't be promoted as such...which is exactly what's happening at times. The government sanctioning marriage would implicitly do so.
The state can choose to be completely religion free and that is fine, but then it shouldn't take religious words and ideas and redefine them to what the state wants them to mean.
Except that it is not a religious idea. Human coupling is universal and independent of religion. Religion is mearly the vehicle.
Your problem with the words used is rediculous. Many english words have religious roots. Advocating forcing the US government to check the etymology of every word and only use ones not at all influenced by religion is rediculous, impractical and only going to get you laughed out of the room.
Just so you know, here's what I could find on the etymology of the words involved.
Marriage: Marry entered English in about 1300 as marien `to give in marriage.' This came from Old French marier, from Latin maritare `wed, marry,' from maritus `married man or husband.' It is thought that maritus might have its source in a participle that meant `provided with a bride or young woman,' from Indo-European *mer- or *mor-.
So it doesn't look like these words have their roots in religion and therefore, according to your conditions, they can be used without regard to gender.
Except that it is not a religious idea. Human coupling is universal and independent of religion. Religion is mearly the vehicle.
Your problem with the words used is rediculous. Many english words have religious roots. Advocating forcing the US government to check the etymology of every word and only use ones not at all influenced by religion is rediculous, impractical and only going to get you laughed out of the room.
Just so you know, here's what I could find on the etymology of the words involved.
Marriage: Marry entered English in about 1300 as marien `to give in marriage.' This came from Old French marier, from Latin maritare `wed, marry,' from maritus `married man or husband.' It is thought that maritus might have its source in a participle that meant `provided with a bride or young woman,' from Indo-European *mer- or *mor-.
So it doesn't look like these words have their roots in religion and therefore, according to your conditions, they can be used without regard to gender.
If religion is the vehicle then religion ought be left alone. Simply choose a new word and confer the same benefits. You don't call your tax a tithe. You don't call your president a pope. Likewise I could see atheists totally flipping out if they had to call these items by those words because of their religious nature. The word isn't just a word. It is associated with a religious institution. I haven't called for the government to expunge any and all words that have a religious nature so stop slippery sloping down the hill.
Likewise don't be a hypocrite yourself Giant. I know for a fact that you would not want God in the pledge, on money or things of that nature even though god can be secularly defined to mean any religious entity and likewise belief in a supreme being is just as universal as marriage.
Lastly your little definition just follows it back through other words that mean marriage. It does not show where the concept of marriage came from historically.
I think that if the religious are also confident in their beliefs, then their tradition/view cannot be assailed because the state also uses the term in a different context. So long as churches are under no obligation to marry anyone or sanction unions outside of their own criteria.
We have two distinct "Christmas" holidays, mebbe that hasn't gone so well for the christians, victims of their own success?
I've actually written a few good papers on this, but I won't "publish" them here. I will give my customary hint though, both sides are wrong, both sides do not really understand why they're wrong, and the "right" solution would leave both sides largely unsatisfied.
According to your view, 'marriage' is a word that can only be used by chistians. Unfortunately for you, the word is simply the expression in english of a natural and universal act of comitting to coupling.
religion has been the vehicle out of utility. Coupling is not a creature of religion. In fact, the opposite could probably be successfully argued.
What it comes down to is that if you want to use the word marriage in a certain way, then go ahead. But having the state dictate the direction of the english language is rediculous. Next thing we know, people like you are going to make it law that only evangelicals can call a car an auto, and everyone else has to call it a horseless carriage. Simply because evangelicals say so.
Quote:
It is associated with a religious institution.
For some reason I can't think of a single example where a non-chistian would be opposed to the word wife. In fact we use it regardless of the religion of the subject being discussed. Maybe that's because it's the english word for a woman in a couple.
Quote:
It does not show where the concept of marriage came from historically.
it's called instinct, genius. I wonder where ducks and penguins got their conception of it from historically.
So close and so far. You're looking at the wrong set of instincts for your part.
You don't know that. If someone taught it to you as fact, either in writing or vocally, they misled you.
The first place you need to begin in order to understand influence of instinct on human decision making is with the intellectualization of morality and what the defintive lines are between humans and non-humans. Without a clear deliniation between intellectualized morality and impulsive nature, something that has never been adequately addressed and possibly never will, the ability to isolate individual classifications of instinctual impulses is nonexistant.
As such, I am not specifying such classifications. All I state is that a formalized commitment (with or without a ritual) to other individuals is obviously a universal human impulse.
Now, you may have been taught a classification system for instinctual impulses and how it relates to human behavior, ritual, custom, language, etc. If so, let us know about it. I'm certainly interested in your view and its supporting evidence. These boards can't adequately handle the in-depth written discussion this topic requires so don't expect an argument in the tradition of AO. But I am certainly very interested in what you have to say. It's been a while since I've studied this and I forget the specific arguments.
It appears to me that the anti-allow crowd is afraid of legitimizing homosexuality. To me, that's no a good enough motive to prevent a gay marriage.
SDW, I applaud your willingness to be upfront about it, even though I think you're wrong.
Trumptman, I think your semantics are just that. Certainly a church shouldn't have to marry anyone they don't agree should be married, but changing the vocabulary isn't correct. That opens up problems down the road when laws, social customs or whatever spring up that offer benefits to those that are 'married' while not those that have civil unions. It's an unfair double standard in my opinion.
Matsu, I just wish you'd make a case either way so there were something to discuss.
What I have a problem with is the active promotion of the gay "lifestyle" (for lack of a better term). It's like some gays are literally recruiting! Essentially, it's as if some gays lives are all about being gay.
If someone is gay, that's fine with me. I've known many gay people in my life. It's not a mainstream behavior though, and it shouldn't be promoted as such...which is exactly what's happening at times. The government sanctioning marriage would implicitly do so.
It's these kinds of comments that just make me sick. This idea of "promoting the gay lifestyle" drives me nuts. No one ever uses the term "promoting their heterosexual lifestyle", which in fact permeats every single form of marketing and advertising on an daily, hourly basis.
My brother and I grew up in the same house, with the same hetero parents, went to the same Catholic church, were preached to by the same priests and played with the same group of friends on the same playground. He's gay. I'm not. There's was no vast gay mafia actively RECRUITING! Even when he slowly came to the realization that he was different and bagan hanging around with other homosexual friends, no one was actively trying to "recruit" me into their club. And I hang out with these fine folks.
The problem with Bush's statements, to me and only me, is that he made a huge statement that he was going to do his best to get the laws changed which would openly and actively discriminate against a large percentage of his own population. Wow! A United States President admitting that he's going to discriminate against HIS OWN PEOPLE! I find this absolutely amazing that in the year 2003 we have our President along with several right-wing Senators trying to change legislature to make it impossible for "gays and lesbians" to use civil rights as a legal argument.
Bill O'Reilly recently stated on his TV show that he doesn't want to have to explain to his children about homosexuality if he and his family happen to sit in front of a gay couple holding hands (or god forbid...kissing!...shock..gasp). To me, this is absolutely absurd and a complete dereliction of his fatherly duties. My children had to watch 9/11 live, in real-time. I didn't like it, but I had to explain to them about the realities of the world. To keep your children in the dark about homosexuality is absurd. If your children hear the clinical explaination from their parents, then they shouldn't worry about "gay recruitment" should they? I've educated my daughter repeatedly about the perils of smoking and now she actively promotes the "quit smoking" campaign on her campus.
The following is an actual conversation that happened at work yesterday:
Quote:
stupid neanderthal co-worker: hey check out cnn.com
me: whoa, thats a shame
snc: what do mean? Thats great, this is a step forward.
me: ummm what?
snc: they have no reason to get married. only men and women who want to have children should get married. Thats the whole point of marriage - to have kids!
me: My wife and I didn't get married to have kids. In fact, we choose not to have any kids.
snc: Fine, but you got married for religious reasons.
me: Um no. Where did you get that idea from?
snc: You got married by a priest didn't you?
me: Yeah but thats not the point. We got married because of this thing called love. You know, we wanted to show that we were "commited" to each other.
snc: Whatever. The point is, the divorce rate will rise dramatically if they allow same sex marriages.
me: (holding back my rage) Please explain.
snc: Thats all that gays care about! (he's getting enraged now) They just want to get it on! They'll just keep moving on to the next partner!!!
me: That is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard! Are you nuts?! I can't believe you even think that. Why do you think they want to get married? Because they care about each other, are committed to each other and deserve the same benefits and rights that any other married couples deserves. How does it even affect you in the slightest?!
snc: Bullshit! You're so nieve. They're all perverts. It affects me because I have to see it and live around it. What am I supposed to tell my kids? How am I supposed to explain those people to them?
me: Umm how about teaching them to be tolerant of all people?! Is this 1903 or 2003?
snc: People were smarter in 1903! They had it right.
me: I guess we should take away women's right to vote or black's civil rights too?
snc: Oh you think you're so modern and righteous!!! This is crazy! (storms out of room).
me: (too shocked to even say anything)
Romanian Co-Work with thick accent (turns to me and says): It is tough, some people will never understand.
This is coming from a guy that has lived in Philadelphia his whole life and is not religious. It makes me embarrassed to be a member of the same species
Isn't reality TV fascinating? We have shows like "Joe Millionaire", "Meet My Parents", "Who Wants to Marry My Father", "For Love or Money" and one and one and on.
Where are all these people bitching and complaining about preserving the sactity of marriage and why aren't they concerned about this? They're so afraid that allowing homosexual monogomous couples from getting married or engaging in civil unions, but they're complete mute when it comes to all these reality TV shows that, in my opinion, are doing far more damage to the institution. Is our opinion of marriage so low that we make these programs "must see TV". Or are we just threatened by the gay and lesbian legitimization agenda? I believe it's the latter.
If it weren't for that one little line buried deep in that little book we all love to quote, then there would be absolutely no excuse to openly and actively discriminate against this minority group. Period. This behavior is not tolerated anywhere else in our society. Except this issue.
The President says he won't judge, but he'll label it a "sin". Sounds like judgment to me. Heck, that bible also says I can sell my daughter after she turns 14 years of age...do you think I could fetch a good price for her?
Normally I lurk - but not post in AO, since I don't have the time to engage in the extended "wars" that take place here.
But I've heard this "Conservative Christians Divorce More..." claptrap too often to let this one pass unanswered.
Aside from those with an axe to grind with the Church, most everyone will agree that many people take their faith for granted, until something really bad happens. And when they need that solace or strength in the face of adversity, they look to the church in the neighborhood they passed by so often.
Divorce, to most people, is a kicked-in-the-face, run-over-by-a-bus kind of hurt. It's no surprise that, in this society, the multitudes of people who are going through that kind of pain are sitting in a church pew.
Thus, it's only obvious that if you show up on Sunday and ask how many people have been through a divorce, you'll get a higher percentage than the general population. I'm surprised it's not three times the national average.
If your point, giant, is to prove that marriage isn't the exclusive domain of the church, why is it the first place people go when it begins to fall apart? Nobody goes to City Hall for marriage counselling.
oops for you frank777. go read what I linked to. Your assumptions are wrong on every count, from your inaccurate characterization of the study to the unfounded assumption that religious commitment is a result of divorce. The paper even cites a christian source for research opposing the latter and instead demonstrating that ~90% of divorces amoung these christians happens after the conversion.
Here's one more instance of big intrusive government into peoples' private and personal affairs....strange..cause conservatives are supposed to be against big government, no? Or are they "anti-big government only when it's convenient for them?
The Vatican came out with the anti-gay marriage pronouncement at the same as Bush did. Coincidence? Maybe the White House and the Pope are trying to make amends after the butting heads re. going to war in Iraq.
Comments
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3108349.stm
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Why? You do know of course that it takes an act of congress and ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures of the states to amend the Constitution. It's not like this is something he can just wake up and do right? Why are you taking it out on him?
um, he may not be able to do this by himself, but the president has one of the most powerful abilities of any single individual in the states - the right to say "no," a la veto power. so by saying this, he implies that anything coming across his desk contrary to his beliefs will be nixed, regardless of the support for it.
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
So, why should homosexuals get the same rights? They don't get children and they don't raise them, so why should the pay lower taxes?
not to be an "i told you so," but this is why i think that tax breaks just because you're married just doesn't make sense. adjust the tax laws to be more favorable for each individual if you must, but lowering them because of a union between two individuals has never been a good idea, in my humble opinion (plus, it might make my significant other file her taxes once in a while, too!)
He also dodged the hell out of the question.
And our pussy ass piece of shite press let him like usual. Another interesting thing that was buried in the article I read on this subject was that it was Bush's eighth press conference of his administration. Talk about a press dodge.
Originally posted by bunge
Obviously because he's pressing the issue. He's why it was a headline today. Were your objections here serious? Serioulsy.
Stating your beliefs is one thing. Pressing for legislation of said beliefs is another.
Stating your beliefs is one thing. Pressing for legislation of said beliefs is another.
However what if the state is trying to redefine what your church should believe? As I mentioned in my first post the history of marriage is with the church and religion. The state uses the word however most early nation-states were strongly identified with religion.
The state can choose to be completely religion free and that is fine, but then it shouldn't take religious words and ideas and redefine them to what the state wants them to mean. A registered civil union, with civil ceremony which confers full benefits of the current marriage solves the issue. I think the entanglement is with the word used, not the concept behind it because there are plenty of homosexual couples who live as if they are married today.
Likewise as I mentioned this civil union should be enacted for heterosexual couple who don't want to get married by a priest, or don't want to use the word marriage at all since it is so closely associated with the church and male domimated patriachal ideas.
The last thing I would add is that civil unions ought to automatically kick in after a period of time. The state ought to say that certain acts done together overtime designate you as civilally and legally joined even if the woman or (usually the cause) man doesn't wish to be thought of as so. Been living together, bought a house, and a couple of cars together, civil union by state definition.
Nick
We have several people here who can't just disagree with Bush, they have to assail his intelligence. Typical.
I think that in America, people have the right to live their lives. That being said, our government must stand for certain standards of social behavior. I have no problem at all with those who are gay, but I also don't think the government should sanction gay marriage by recognizing it. It opens up a whole host of other issues, including benefit payments, etc.
Like it or not, the majority of the population here still considers homosexulaity to be immoral, according to polling data. My position is a bit more complicated. People have a right to be gay. Though it is against my religous beliefs in general, I also believe there are many gay people who are "born that way"....
What I have a problem with is the active promotion of the gay "lifestyle" (for lack of a better term). It's like some gays are literally recruiting! I remember several years ago I was watching a promo for an updated "Ugly Duckling" movie on HBO. Of course, the Ugly Duckling was actually the Gay Duckling. One of the voice over celebs (forget who) was being interviewed and going on and on about how there was no one telling kids "it's OK to be gay". She thought was a really important message kids should be hearing. This really struck me as misguided and wrong...especially since she was talking about kids...not adults. Essentially, it's as if some gays lives are all about being gay.
If someone is gay, that's fine with me. I've known many gay people in my life. It's not a mainstream behavior though, and it shouldn't be promoted as such...which is exactly what's happening at times. The government sanctioning marriage would implicitly do so.
Originally posted by trumptman
The state can choose to be completely religion free and that is fine, but then it shouldn't take religious words and ideas and redefine them to what the state wants them to mean.
Except that it is not a religious idea. Human coupling is universal and independent of religion. Religion is mearly the vehicle.
Your problem with the words used is rediculous. Many english words have religious roots. Advocating forcing the US government to check the etymology of every word and only use ones not at all influenced by religion is rediculous, impractical and only going to get you laughed out of the room.
Just so you know, here's what I could find on the etymology of the words involved.
Marriage: Marry entered English in about 1300 as marien `to give in marriage.' This came from Old French marier, from Latin maritare `wed, marry,' from maritus `married man or husband.' It is thought that maritus might have its source in a participle that meant `provided with a bride or young woman,' from Indo-European *mer- or *mor-.
from
http://www.takeourword.com/et_k-m.html
And wed is a scottish word meaning to pledge.
So it doesn't look like these words have their roots in religion and therefore, according to your conditions, they can be used without regard to gender.
Originally posted by giant
Except that it is not a religious idea. Human coupling is universal and independent of religion. Religion is mearly the vehicle.
Your problem with the words used is rediculous. Many english words have religious roots. Advocating forcing the US government to check the etymology of every word and only use ones not at all influenced by religion is rediculous, impractical and only going to get you laughed out of the room.
Just so you know, here's what I could find on the etymology of the words involved.
Marriage: Marry entered English in about 1300 as marien `to give in marriage.' This came from Old French marier, from Latin maritare `wed, marry,' from maritus `married man or husband.' It is thought that maritus might have its source in a participle that meant `provided with a bride or young woman,' from Indo-European *mer- or *mor-.
from
http://www.takeourword.com/et_k-m.html
And wed is a scottish word meaning to pledge.
So it doesn't look like these words have their roots in religion and therefore, according to your conditions, they can be used without regard to gender.
If religion is the vehicle then religion ought be left alone. Simply choose a new word and confer the same benefits. You don't call your tax a tithe. You don't call your president a pope. Likewise I could see atheists totally flipping out if they had to call these items by those words because of their religious nature. The word isn't just a word. It is associated with a religious institution. I haven't called for the government to expunge any and all words that have a religious nature so stop slippery sloping down the hill.
Likewise don't be a hypocrite yourself Giant. I know for a fact that you would not want God in the pledge, on money or things of that nature even though god can be secularly defined to mean any religious entity and likewise belief in a supreme being is just as universal as marriage.
Lastly your little definition just follows it back through other words that mean marriage. It does not show where the concept of marriage came from historically.
Nick
We have two distinct "Christmas" holidays, mebbe that hasn't gone so well for the christians, victims of their own success?
I've actually written a few good papers on this, but I won't "publish" them here. I will give my customary hint though, both sides are wrong, both sides do not really understand why they're wrong, and the "right" solution would leave both sides largely unsatisfied.
Originally posted by trumptman
It is associated with a religious institution.
According to your view, 'marriage' is a word that can only be used by chistians. Unfortunately for you, the word is simply the expression in english of a natural and universal act of comitting to coupling.
religion has been the vehicle out of utility. Coupling is not a creature of religion. In fact, the opposite could probably be successfully argued.
What it comes down to is that if you want to use the word marriage in a certain way, then go ahead. But having the state dictate the direction of the english language is rediculous. Next thing we know, people like you are going to make it law that only evangelicals can call a car an auto, and everyone else has to call it a horseless carriage. Simply because evangelicals say so.
It is associated with a religious institution.
For some reason I can't think of a single example where a non-chistian would be opposed to the word wife. In fact we use it regardless of the religion of the subject being discussed. Maybe that's because it's the english word for a woman in a couple.
It does not show where the concept of marriage came from historically.
it's called instinct, genius. I wonder where ducks and penguins got their conception of it from historically.
For the traditional side, they are looking at the wrong set of origins or practices.
Originally posted by Matsu
So close and so far. You're looking at the wrong set of instincts for your part.
You don't know that. If someone taught it to you as fact, either in writing or vocally, they misled you.
The first place you need to begin in order to understand influence of instinct on human decision making is with the intellectualization of morality and what the defintive lines are between humans and non-humans. Without a clear deliniation between intellectualized morality and impulsive nature, something that has never been adequately addressed and possibly never will, the ability to isolate individual classifications of instinctual impulses is nonexistant.
As such, I am not specifying such classifications. All I state is that a formalized commitment (with or without a ritual) to other individuals is obviously a universal human impulse.
Now, you may have been taught a classification system for instinctual impulses and how it relates to human behavior, ritual, custom, language, etc. If so, let us know about it. I'm certainly interested in your view and its supporting evidence. These boards can't adequately handle the in-depth written discussion this topic requires so don't expect an argument in the tradition of AO. But I am certainly very interested in what you have to say. It's been a while since I've studied this and I forget the specific arguments.
SDW, I applaud your willingness to be upfront about it, even though I think you're wrong.
Trumptman, I think your semantics are just that. Certainly a church shouldn't have to marry anyone they don't agree should be married, but changing the vocabulary isn't correct. That opens up problems down the road when laws, social customs or whatever spring up that offer benefits to those that are 'married' while not those that have civil unions. It's an unfair double standard in my opinion.
Matsu, I just wish you'd make a case either way so there were something to discuss.
Originally posted by SDW2001
What I have a problem with is the active promotion of the gay "lifestyle" (for lack of a better term). It's like some gays are literally recruiting! Essentially, it's as if some gays lives are all about being gay.
If someone is gay, that's fine with me. I've known many gay people in my life. It's not a mainstream behavior though, and it shouldn't be promoted as such...which is exactly what's happening at times. The government sanctioning marriage would implicitly do so.
It's these kinds of comments that just make me sick. This idea of "promoting the gay lifestyle" drives me nuts. No one ever uses the term "promoting their heterosexual lifestyle", which in fact permeats every single form of marketing and advertising on an daily, hourly basis.
My brother and I grew up in the same house, with the same hetero parents, went to the same Catholic church, were preached to by the same priests and played with the same group of friends on the same playground. He's gay. I'm not. There's was no vast gay mafia actively RECRUITING! Even when he slowly came to the realization that he was different and bagan hanging around with other homosexual friends, no one was actively trying to "recruit" me into their club. And I hang out with these fine folks.
The problem with Bush's statements, to me and only me, is that he made a huge statement that he was going to do his best to get the laws changed which would openly and actively discriminate against a large percentage of his own population. Wow! A United States President admitting that he's going to discriminate against HIS OWN PEOPLE! I find this absolutely amazing that in the year 2003 we have our President along with several right-wing Senators trying to change legislature to make it impossible for "gays and lesbians" to use civil rights as a legal argument.
Bill O'Reilly recently stated on his TV show that he doesn't want to have to explain to his children about homosexuality if he and his family happen to sit in front of a gay couple holding hands (or god forbid...kissing!...shock..gasp). To me, this is absolutely absurd and a complete dereliction of his fatherly duties. My children had to watch 9/11 live, in real-time. I didn't like it, but I had to explain to them about the realities of the world. To keep your children in the dark about homosexuality is absurd. If your children hear the clinical explaination from their parents, then they shouldn't worry about "gay recruitment" should they? I've educated my daughter repeatedly about the perils of smoking and now she actively promotes the "quit smoking" campaign on her campus.
stupid neanderthal co-worker: hey check out cnn.com
me: whoa, thats a shame
snc: what do mean? Thats great, this is a step forward.
me: ummm what?
snc: they have no reason to get married. only men and women who want to have children should get married. Thats the whole point of marriage - to have kids!
me: My wife and I didn't get married to have kids. In fact, we choose not to have any kids.
snc: Fine, but you got married for religious reasons.
me: Um no. Where did you get that idea from?
snc: You got married by a priest didn't you?
me: Yeah but thats not the point. We got married because of this thing called love. You know, we wanted to show that we were "commited" to each other.
snc: Whatever. The point is, the divorce rate will rise dramatically if they allow same sex marriages.
me: (holding back my rage) Please explain.
snc: Thats all that gays care about! (he's getting enraged now) They just want to get it on! They'll just keep moving on to the next partner!!!
me: That is the most ignorant thing I've ever heard! Are you nuts?! I can't believe you even think that. Why do you think they want to get married? Because they care about each other, are committed to each other and deserve the same benefits and rights that any other married couples deserves. How does it even affect you in the slightest?!
snc: Bullshit! You're so nieve. They're all perverts. It affects me because I have to see it and live around it. What am I supposed to tell my kids? How am I supposed to explain those people to them?
me: Umm how about teaching them to be tolerant of all people?! Is this 1903 or 2003?
snc: People were smarter in 1903! They had it right.
me: I guess we should take away women's right to vote or black's civil rights too?
snc: Oh you think you're so modern and righteous!!! This is crazy! (storms out of room).
me: (too shocked to even say anything)
Romanian Co-Work with thick accent (turns to me and says): It is tough, some people will never understand.
This is coming from a guy that has lived in Philadelphia his whole life and is not religious. It makes me embarrassed to be a member of the same species
Where are all these people bitching and complaining about preserving the sactity of marriage and why aren't they concerned about this? They're so afraid that allowing homosexual monogomous couples from getting married or engaging in civil unions, but they're complete mute when it comes to all these reality TV shows that, in my opinion, are doing far more damage to the institution. Is our opinion of marriage so low that we make these programs "must see TV". Or are we just threatened by the gay and lesbian legitimization agenda? I believe it's the latter.
If it weren't for that one little line buried deep in that little book we all love to quote, then there would be absolutely no excuse to openly and actively discriminate against this minority group. Period. This behavior is not tolerated anywhere else in our society. Except this issue.
The President says he won't judge, but he'll label it a "sin". Sounds like judgment to me. Heck, that bible also says I can sell my daughter after she turns 14 years of age...do you think I could fetch a good price for her?
But I've heard this "Conservative Christians Divorce More..." claptrap too often to let this one pass unanswered.
Aside from those with an axe to grind with the Church, most everyone will agree that many people take their faith for granted, until something really bad happens. And when they need that solace or strength in the face of adversity, they look to the church in the neighborhood they passed by so often.
Divorce, to most people, is a kicked-in-the-face, run-over-by-a-bus kind of hurt. It's no surprise that, in this society, the multitudes of people who are going through that kind of pain are sitting in a church pew.
Thus, it's only obvious that if you show up on Sunday and ask how many people have been through a divorce, you'll get a higher percentage than the general population. I'm surprised it's not three times the national average.
If your point, giant, is to prove that marriage isn't the exclusive domain of the church, why is it the first place people go when it begins to fall apart? Nobody goes to City Hall for marriage counselling.
The Vatican came out with the anti-gay marriage pronouncement at the same as Bush did. Coincidence? Maybe the White House and the Pope are trying to make amends after the butting heads re. going to war in Iraq.