Catholics say anti-gay marriage campaign not political, gay groups disagree

This guy’s nuts; I heard him say on MPR yesterday that denying gay people the right to marry isn’t discrimination because gays can’t marry now. So, when blacks couldn’t marry whites, that wasn’t discrimination because they couldn’t legally marry anyway? Denying women the right to vote wasn’t discrimination because they didn’t have that right? I think the Catholic church should lose their tax-free status, because this is delving deeply into politics. Hiding behind the “but this is what I believe” is no excuse.

The older I get the more I am starting to believe that the Cathlic Church is all about hate and not about love.

You should see the Protestant Church, jeffk. I grew up in it: it’s even worse.

What is human life really worth to the Church? $1.6 million could have paid at least one woman to not have an abortion.

How can the DVD project not be deemed political when the priest at the end of the film asks people to talk to their legislators and governor? (I watched the dvd on the MPR web site)

Archbishop John Neinstedt has got it right. We need to quit being politically correct and become morally and Biblecaly correct. I wish I had the money to help mail out a million more. I would stand on a street corner and hand them out and pray that each DVD would awaken the people to what God intended marriage to be, ONE MAN-ONE WOMAN. Amen!!!!

“Hiding behind the “but this is what I believe” is no excuse.”

How about hiding behind the “this has been the definition of marriage since the beginning of time” excuse?

Surely, this generation of normal people isn’t the only one who thinks gay marriage is a deviant idea.

Revoke their tax exempt status. Now.

This is outrageous. Believe what you want and preach your religion. Trying to influence elections is going too far.

What will it take to get the government to do its job?

Oh, by the way I am Lutheran. But the Catholic Church has got it right.

Please learn something about marriage before regurgitating propaganda.

In the BIBLE, marriage is one man and MANY women. Heck even Adam had more than one wife.

In the dark ages and later, it was a contractual obligation where a woman was treated as property.

Unless you are completely ignorant, you would know that marriage has changed substantially over the years, and a Biblical “definition” of marriage IS the “polamory” that this silly DVD refers to.

So, stop being hypocrites and shouting that gays getting married has any effect on hetero marriages, especially by scaring people into thinking it will lead to – WHAT’S IN THE BIBLE.

(I am a Christian, btw- I just don’t support hysterical and ignorant paranoia, homophobia, or any other petty demonization of minority groups in order to gain political or financial power with an ignorant constituency)

We can add world history and cultural anthropology to the list of subjects Dennis knows absolutely nothing about.

Children are hungry, families homeless, schools underfunded, jobs pay less and less–yet, the Catholic Church thinks gay marriage is more important than economic and social justice. Shame on you, archbishop.

We can say and do what ever we want on earth but on judgment day God will sift the chaff from the grain and I will always stand on the side of God and The Bible. By the way God created Adam and Eve to be a couple. Homosexuality is not a minority group it is a sin.

I always am kind of shocked when I see a comment like billt’s God created Adam and Eve. This to me was always a tale to tell little children who do not have the mental capacity to understand how the world really began. Then to see an adult going on about it as if it were true. I mean really, the Jewish creation myth is not even a good one. There’s only one murder and a little incest (although it does have an evil snake). Some of the other creation myths are much bloodier, and full of intrigue. At least if your going to believe a tall tale, pick a good one.

Civil marriage should be available to all adults. The Catholic church has no business in civil law.

Why shouldn’t gay partners get the same social security benefits that everyone else does? (Can anyone come up with ONE legitimate reason why—other than heterosexual bigotry?)

Robert my God have mercy on you.

Robert is calling Dr. Martin Luther King an idiot. That’s racist.

I was raised Catholic,I have now made the decision to end that affiliation. I ask that other Catholics not to follow my lead but if you believe in Freedom for all the citizens of this country, to hand this hateful propaganda to your priest and send the message that the church has the right not to Marry Gays and Lesbians, but should stay out of politics. Religious marriage and Civil marriage should be kept seperate (Seperation of Church and State).

billt, there is no Santa Claus.

Sorry.

There is no Santa Claus but there is a God. As far as the bible talking about men having more than one wife, that was man’s choice after he sinned against God. Not God’s choice.

billt, aren’t you supposed to hate the sin, but love the sinner?

I didn’t say I didn’t love the sinner. I have a nephew that is gay and I do love him but I condemn his sin. God loves all sinners but a sin is a sin. I am tired of people ramming their sinful lives down our throats and that the Christians of the world stand up and quit being “politically correct.”
God will judge us all!!! “Amen and Good Bye”

[...] Full Story from the MN Independent [...]

@billt

It’s Lutherans like you that are the reason I am not one anymore.

It’s uncles like you that are the reason I don’t really talk to some of mine anymore.

It’s reasoning like yours that makes me glad I don’t think like that anymore.

Don’t get me wrong, you have every right to hold to your personal religious beliefs, but the matter at hand here is public policy. Last time I checked, we were a nation with many people of many differing religious viewpoints. We’ve only gotten *more* diverse since this nation was founded. To preserve a union that contains so many different views requires secular governance.

So, why do you hate the First Amendment so much, billt and Dennis? It protects your right to hold increasingly unpopular moralistic views about the inherent superiority of heterosexuality. You should be glad it’s there because the time will come when people like you will be in the very same position that people like you put gays and lesbians into.

Learn from the gays and lesbians. Learn how to be different and bear up proudly under the withering heat of social disapprobation. Learn to be true to yourself despite what others may say to you. Learn to ignore the hateful lies and insulting stereotypes, because they will become more common, at least for a while.

When society judges you for the choice you’ve made to believe a certain way, remember that you’re getting off easy. No one is going to fire you for your private religious views. Not like they fired openly gay and lesbian citizens only a decade ago. No one is going to bar your entry into the military because of your religion. Not like they barred gays and lesbians from serving. And it’s very likely that no one is going to brutally assault or murder you because they hold some deep-seated prejudice against your religion.

Only, you actually did choose this when you chose to hold the beliefs you hold. Gays and lesbians aren’t so lucky as you; they convert if the pressure gets too high. For the ones where the pressure gets unbearable, all too often the price for relief is the end of life itself. Be glad no one’s forcing that choice on you.

Putting human rights to a popular vote is just wrong. Do you think if it was left to a popular vote, would there be equal rights for blacks in the south?

Typo in that last paragraph. Should read:

Only, you actually did choose this when you chose to hold the beliefs you hold. Gays and lesbians aren’t so lucky as you; they *can’t* convert if the pressure gets too high. For the ones where the pressure gets unbearable, all too often the price for relief is the end of life itself. Be glad no one’s forcing that choice on you

There are 4 billion people in the world who are not Christians, do not believe in Christ or the God of the Bible. Why is the Christian view the only view?

You know, I know a lot of black people. The conservative christian ones don’t take kindly to having their struggles for civil rights constantly compared to the demands of the homosexual community.

Jus sayin’

@Dennis

Tough shit for them. The parallels are there; the fact that some people wish they were not, does not make them miraculously vanish just because they don’t want them to be there.

@Dennis:

You’re right. It’s totally not fair for LGBT’s to compare our thousands of years of oppression worldwide with the few hundred years of African Americans in the USA.

I’m not discounting at all the horrible treatment African Americans have received in this country. It was, and continues to be, absolutely disgusting.

We’re all humans, regardless of sexual orientation, skin color, or other characteristics, and we all deserve to be treated with respect and dignity.

Homosexuality is an ABOMINATION. When unrepentant homosexuals attended the church, nobody said anything. When unrepentant homosexuals were ordained as priests, nobody said anything. When unrepentant homosexual priests began molesting boys, nobody said anything. Well, I’m going to say something. Jesus didn’t die on the cross so you can wallow in your favorite sin. Jesus never preached LOVE to mean that Christians stand idly by and smile at every evil thing you do. In addition to LOVE, Jesus also preached REPENT OR PERISH:

“The Son of Man (Jesus) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do INIQUITY; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42)

Does that sound like a Jesus that “loves” everybody?

UFF DA, billt. You ain’t no Luteran. You are just a mean, spiteful man, and I know your god will agree with me. Sheesh.

Jaha, tough shit for them, Dennis. Civil rights belong to everyone – not just the blacks.

The Roman Church continues in its attempt to force its bigoted and anti-Christian dogma on the rest of the country. My family came to this country to get away from the corrupt tyranny of the RC Church. Now they are attempting to influence civil laws in this country. America is NOT a theocracy and our founding fathers were very adamant about religious interference in government. This RC church’s attempt at influencing civil law is anti-American and it’s time the people of Minnesota told them to get out of our laws and concentrate on all their lawsuits and dealt with all their molested parishioners.

@Mary:

Oh, dear. I do hope you don’t ever wear trousers of any type!

Deuteronomy 22:5 – The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are ABOMINATION unto the LORD thy God.

seems to me marriage is a religious construct, best left to faith communities.

adult humans who fall in love with each other, want to pledge to a unifying civil relationship, are recreating the stable fabric of a civil society. regardless of their sexual orientation.

so … the state should recognize civil unions, which include both “marriages” if within some faith community, and civil unions, if it isn’t a religiously sanctified relationship.

of course, that means that Churchs which do not harbor gay bigotry may allow their gay/lesbian members to marry, and other faith communities would have as much to say about it as non-Catholics do about Catholic belief about marriage

I wish these bigots could live long enough to see how isolated they’re becoming. Unfortunately, they’re all going to die; we’ll forget they ever existed; and they will never see how wrong they really were.

@Dennis

Perhaps you and your purported hordes of African American conservative friends should take a look at what the wife of one of the leaders of the civil rights struggle said about gay rights. Coretta Scott King was an outspoken advocate for civil rights and she didn’t draw a line between gay people and black people. (I’d wager she knew a few persons who were both gay and black, in fact. Bayard Rustin being one of them…)

In Coretta’s own words: “For many years now, I have been an outspoken supporter of civil and human rights for gay and lesbian people. Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions”

If that wasn’t clear-cut enough for you, how about this one: “I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.’ I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”

And finally: “Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”

This is from the wife of the most well-known civil rights leader in American history. Indeed, his name is known the world over. So neither you nor those conservative black people you claim to know really have an inkling of who Martin Luther King, Jr. was. Coretta did, and she continued his fight for civil rights for *all* Americans right up until she couldn’t fight any longer.

@Mary Waterton

“Does that sound like a Jesus that “loves” everybody?”

Wait. You’re really arguing that Jesus didn’t love everyone? Is this what modern Christianity has come to?

OH NOES, Mary. What if Jesus doesn’t love you? What will you do then? Sheesh.

What Emmer and NOM and the Catholic church do not tell people is that we do not vote on unalienable Rights. They are playing on prejudice and self-righteousness to stampede people into doing something unconstitutional.

Court after court has recognized the rights of gays and the lies of those like NOM and Emmer.

All those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds are attacking religious freedom. They will never admit it because it is not *their* religious freedom they are attacking, they are attacking the freedoms of others *in the name of their own religion*. This is called religious persecution, and we do not like it from the Taliban either.

I’m sure the Archbishop and the Catholic Church has their collective asses covered legally in regards to their 501 c 3 status, but if anyone believes his statement “this isn’t about politics”, they’re idiots. The Archbishop is lying and needs to be held accountable for that lie.

From the IRS Compliance Guide for 501 c 3 Public Charities:

Legislative Activities

A public charity is not permitted to engage in substantial legislative activity (commonly referred to as lobbying) . An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact members or employees of a legislative body for purposes of proposing, supporting or opposing legislation, or advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.

The full IRS document can be viewed at the following link:

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf

“The Archbishop is lying and needs to be held accountable for that lie.”

Exactly, but a couple Hail Marys will absolve him of this sin. Or do Catholics even do confession anymore? They may have watered that down to the point where the Priest does general absolution during Mass.

would the State of Minnesota enshrine bigotry in its’ constitution, knowing fully that one such state’s constitutional amendment has already been found to violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the US Constitution? Seems to me voters would want to consider this issue at a later time, unless they don’t mind spending their tax dollars on litigation.

holy cow! this from a corrupt organization that brought you the “inquisition”. the thirty years war, not to mention the deal that the then papal nuncio, future pope, pius struck with hitler and his cronies that enabled them to destroy the liberal opposition in germany, and, bring hitler complete power. this is the church that enabled dictators like mussolini and franco to run roughshod over the civil and human rights of their countries. it is high time that the seperation of church and state in this county should be enforced. let the catholic and other churches pay their taxes just like any other political action gorup. this is all about keeping the parish rolls full, and, the money rolling in to pay for the out of court settelements for the pedophiles in the church.

Quote of Mary Waterton’s comments

The Son of Man (Jesus) shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do INIQUITY; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13:41-42)

Does that sound like a Jesus that “loves” everybody?
endquote

She has shown up on a lot of these kind of issues.

She is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church / aka Fred Phelps.

the psychopaths who celebrate happily at the funerals of our soldiers killed fighting terrorism. As well as the gays murdered, eg Matthew Shepard funeral in 1998 in Wyoming.

My minor was psychology. You can get a free electroinc book about this psychopathic clan by googling “adicted to hate”, written primariy by a couple of Phelps children who left the day they were 18

Briefly the old man was beaten by his alcholic father. In the conflict between ones natural love of a parent, and the hatred to that parent, people throw their self hatred out on others, for it gives them both pleasure and helps to assauge their guilt driven into them – that the beatings were all their fault.

So Fred Phelps beat his kids and lots of other things. And the kids beat their kids, and also beat each other. The whole gang should be in jail for child abuse, they are sick beyond words.

thew catholic church…………………..

Which hid the molestation of children for decades if not centuries. Priest get promoted, the rot reaches to the top. BTw, the very conservative archbishop of Vienna, Schornborn, said the whole problem came from celibacy.

The church whose german pope in 2009 UNexcommunicated a holocaust denier/minimizer – a Bishop williamson. There is a lot to be said for the churches “give me a child by the age of 7 and I’ll make him a good christian for life’ Where did the pope grow up?

The same church of life, which has yet to EXcommunicate the biggest murderer in history – Hitler, born and baptised cAtholic in very catholic Austria in 1888. Who documents how he came to hate the Jews in Mein Kampf.

The same church that was behind the hatred of the Jews for a millenium. Because they wouldn’t convert. The hatred Hitler leveraged,along with the great depression, to get elected in 1933.

The church also talks about “fixing gay”. The program is called “Regeneration.”

In the middle ages Regeneration was the program to convert the Jews. We know where that one led. Pogroms where every last Jew, except by a few hid by good christians, were murdered by religious zealots.

the Catholic church is circling the wagons. All of western Europe except italy and greece recognize gay re marriage (7 countries) or a partnership/civil union
arrangement

Latin America is doing the same – Mexico, Argentina, and Columbia with marriage. Equador, Brazil, and Uruguay with civil unions. And many other countries as well

The church knows that once any of their “absolutist beliefs” are called into question, the whole thing will begin to collapse. Faith is faiths. Not logic, not truth necessarily etc

And in Europe, the church is dying on the vine. As Europe recognizes many of the items I have mentioned here. And knows firsthand the horrors of the Nazis. and how the church has yet to acknowledge the part they played in hitlers coming to power.

BTW, if you read their comments carefully, you will see examples of them saying “we are the victim of hate”. seems the otehre way to so many.

And also blaming the victim – the gays. Same old trick.

Its like the battle of the bulge. The last gasp of a church that has all but lost its way over the last century or more. Desperate to stop the tide of history.

We we have ended slavery, crushed the KKK, ended segregation, let women vote (“it would destroy society etc etc”), and ended bans on inter-racial marriage in 41 states

Something that will also happen to end bans on our gay and lesbian neighbors and friends and co-workers etc enjoying the same rights as everyone else.

And from the anecdotal evidence, where they are married, divorces are few and far between. Contrasted with us str8 people, where 50% divorce, and after 42 yrs I personally am becoming a minority – still with the same and only wife.

As an ex catholic, I’d like to second the other person who said they have left the church. As has almost all of our extended family of 42 people.

Someone said something about “loving thy neighbor as thyself”. But the church has always had someone to hate, and now it is the gays filling their radar screens.

Hate is like a product that flies off he shelf. Blinds the eye and hardens the heart. Gets twisted into blaming the victim. Condemning and demonizing them. and setting them up for murder by the fanatics amongst us.

Including the 9/11 we have every single year – of gay children who commit suicide because they can’t take being a pariah to their peers at the age when social acceptance
is Job 1.

And that makes me ask another question – is the church’s campaign for life just another smokescreen?

To hide its guilt for the murder – that is what it is – of these children in the name of God. Just a more sophisticated example of what primitive societies did in the past – eg since they didnt claim to speak for God, they would tell someone a message they wanted to pass to God. And guess how they sent the messenger on his way. ( early branches of Mayan society and some others)

While this article seem to focus on the catholic church, we need to look closely at other very conservative churches.

The Baptist church, which had its roots in the Holland of colonial power (think south africa) , became the church of the southern bible belt. Which justified slavery as per the bible, and ws directly responsible for the culture of the old south.

Blacks were treated as animals, though counted as 3/5 of a person re congressional representation quotas. And after our bloodiest war ever -more died then in wwii, the baptist and similar other christians gave us the KKK and segregation for another hundred years.

and of course blacks couldn’t marry until 1867. And women voting was an abomination that would destroy the family.

And then there was the issue of inter-racial marriage. Also forbidden by the bible. 41 states had bans on it. Overthrown in 1967.

Its basically the same old s..t, regenerated to hate another minority group. To give the haters power, which feeds egos and their salary’s.

And its up to all of us to end the abortion of treating gay people equally under the law, and exposing the evil that persist in our society.

Henk re the catholics no longer doing confession.

Couple points – Tell the priest, who in catholic theology what sins you committed, and he has you by the gonads etc. Want a trip to hell etc.

All part of the church’s gaining control of minds. Which is threatened if people discover that gays are just like most everybody else, and the church is the hypocrite of hypocrites

And yes , I’ve heard something about them watering down confession. Lest they dare have people in the hierarchy confessing their crimes against humanity.

Oh forgot – some people have pointed out the links of the catholic church to how hitler came to power.

But in the 1936-1939 spanish civil war, the church supported the fascist Franciso Franco.

Not surprising since the Inquisition officially operated in Spain up to the 1830s.

Let me borrow a comment I read here – “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”

“And the church claims they speak for God”

Talk about power corrupting

The Archbishop indicated that the entirety of the money spent on this DVD was donated by a single anonymous donor. Thus no money was diverted from any efforts to help the poor.

Read the article here: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/22/same-sex-nienstadt/

I think, if we consider ourselves to be faithful people, we should, for the good of our world, watch the DVD and accept what the Archbishop and the Church teaches.

Once we watch the video, save money wasted on postage to return the DVD and make an even bigger donation to helping the poor.

Andre:

How about helping the gay people. The gay kids in this country commit suicide -
per year.

Because they are despised by their fellow students. Thanks to the catholic and other
ultra conservative Churches .

Look at recent recent examples where two married women in Ma,
and another state = same thing in the midwest, had their kids rejected from catholic
Schools -the church does run no nonsense education scenes – because the mothers
were married.

Bet the church doesn’t reject kids of single, never married str8 moms.

Something about hypocrisy.

Oh yes – the church could have used the money to help people save their homes from
foreclosure, feed the poor people crowding food banks I volunteers at a couple)

Or told the guy to keep his dirty money.

And reminded him we are ALL Gods children. And under our constitution entitled to
equality under the law, and freedom from religion beliefs wee don’t accept being imposed
on us. Catholic, right wing christian, Islamic – its all similar.

Homosexuality has always and will always be a moral issue. Just because it has recently became a political issue, does not mean that the Catholic church or any church can no longer have a moral position on the issue.

Abortion is also a moral issue and yet the Church remains consistent with its moral position. The radical homosexual lobby is just trying to get come legal arm twisting to get the Church to back down. At the same time, the radical homosexual lobby continues to state their goals is not just to force their religious position on society, but to destroy the Church by removing its legal right to exist.

Driven by there great hatred for anyone who does not believe in there religious position of homosexuality, the gay lobby is trying to destroy the rights of millions. They need to be stopped before they turn the nation into another Iran.

Here, i fixed it for ya:

Driven by their great hatred for anyone who does not believe in their deluded faith, the American Taiban is trying to destroy the rights of minority Americans. They hate others’ exercising religious freedom, and they need to be stopped before they turn the nation into another Iran.

Good Evening Sirs and Ladies.

First, for those that attack the Catholic Church because of their belief, specially saying it is a hate issue, really does not know much about the Church. If, let´s say, you have a kid (very unlikely for gays by the way, unless you adopt one), if that kid does something wrong, would you stop loving the kid? NO! Would you correct the kid? YES! Very simple, and this is an act of Love, not of hate.

Freedom: it ends with the freedom of others. This will take us into rights and duties, etc. let´s say it is ok that gays fight for their right to “marry”. Their main reason is basicly to gain civil securities and benefits married people have. Does these rights includes affecting the right of others when, let´s say, they want to adopt? Do kids have an option? If naturally kids are born of a mother and a father, is it ok for them to have 2 dads or 2 moms?

Concepts: Marriage as it is has not changed, and never have, from when it was instituted in a as is. If any discrepancies appear in history, is more of men´s incapacity to keep in line with the rule. It is logic that men and women has the right to have one for one, not 2 for one, or 3 for one.
One man to one woman and viceversa is the logic and just way to go for both persons. No woman is more than a man as to have more men as husbands, or viceversa.

Natural: and it is natural for women to have children thanks to her husband, and viceversa.
So, if I have kids today with my wife, and we die, do you think I will want that some gay couple adopts my child in the future?

At the end is all about security for gays. Let them have it, no problem with that. But do not affect children. Do not affect concepts so pure and perfect as marriage of one man and one women. Call it something else, like gayrriage or gaymony, be CREATIVE at least in words, since it will be impossible to be CREATIVE in the physical. Be real and honest to yourselves, that is the best way to love yourselves.

Best Regards,

Prime

Re: RETURN TO SENDER, Aquaria left this comment recently on another blog:

It will depend on how it’s mailed if it actually gets back to them.

If they sent it as Standard mail with some kind of service requested or as Parcel Post, then they will get it back.

But most of these religitards send their junk via non-profit/generic standard mail, and I’m reasonably sure that’s how the RCC would send a huge mass mailing like this. The cost of Parcel Post or Service Reqested, never mind First Class or higher, would be astronomical. All that will happen if non-profit rate mail gets sent back is that it will go no further than the recipient’s post office, where it will get thrown away.

Source: Ex-postal employee–that would be me.

I left my comment yesterday night, and today this morning it was deleted. I doubt this website is any serious in respecting freedom of speech and opinion. This is SAD.

I will post my comment again later.

Best Regards,

Prime

Please Disregard previous comment.

The message is there.

Best Regards and my apologies,

Prime

The way our system works is that all first-time commenters are put in a queue for me to manually approve. New comments should go live right away after that.

religious marriage has NOTHING to do with CIVIL marriage..NADDA,ZERO…as a matter of fact- you can get married all you want in a church..BUT- IF the State doesn’t sign on to it..it means squat in the eyes of the law…period! You can get married by a Justice of the Peace, an Elvis Impersonator…….and Gays/lesbians ARE marrying already…….it has NO affect on anyone elses marriage….and IF you feel it affects yours..then Obviosuly You do NOT have faith in your own marriage to begin with….you’re pathetic. Keep your religious Voodoo OUT OF OUR SECULAR LAWS & GOV’T!!!

tim wrote: Driven by there great hatred for anyone who does not believe in there religious position of homosexuality, the gay lobby is trying to destroy the rights of millions. They need to be stopped before they turn the nation into another Iran.

HUH..? Hey Tim..how about making sense…..or has being Brainwashed by religion made you lose your reasoning? Gays are Trying to Destroy the Rights of Millions..? REALLY? Wow….talk about reaching……LOL Please do explain Tim…we’re all ears. You Timmy can beelive whatever Hokus pokus,Voodoo you want…I don’t care……Just Keep your BS religion OUT of OUR secular gov’t. okay timeeeee.

@Prime – You are very, very wrong. The concept of polyamorous marriage is far more common across history and across human cultures than monogamous, for example, and polyamory by nature requires multiple persons of the same sex to be legally married together. Polyamory is the very most traditional form of marriage that exists – Christians outlaw it.

Arranged marriage and de facto sex slavery also have a very long and traditional pedigree. Girls were sold to suitors far older than them, sometimes as young as six and seven to a husband as old as fifty or more. The intended purpose and fate of these girls was to be a baby factory for the older husband so he could produce an heir. Arranged marriage is no longer permitted in the Western world and thank goodness for that!

How about marital rape? The wife doesn’t want to have sex? Too damn bad, it’s her wifely duty! That was not finally outlawed in every state of the Union until 1993 and that took some controversy to accomplish.

Chattel marriage? It took until the 1880s for married women to be considered legal persons for ANY purposes, and even then their personhood was with significant restriction.

By the way, noticing a theme in all of these forms of monogamous marriage that I’ve mentioned? They all depend upon an inequality of the sexes that is dependent upon a worldview that places men inherently closer to divinity than women – in other words, the Patriarchal worldview.

Equality of the sexes is itself a modern innovation, and has suffered significant pushback, especially as conservative men determine to restore what they once stole, the power and voice of anyone Not Them.

An ancient pedigree does not confer truth. The truth is something that continues to be discovered, not something that some God handed down to a man on a mountaintop.

@Disgusted American – Excuse? I happen to be honored to know a few Vodousant, and they are some of the most wonderful, tolerant and progressive people you could hope to meet. Tarring their faith by comparing it with Tim’s bozonic version of Christianity is grossly unfair.

Hello Katie,

Your knowledge of history is not letting you see the concept itsetl. As YOU just said, Polyamory is the proper word for that type of marriage. Matrimony is the proper word for one man and one women, regardles of historic flaws.

As of TODAY, only one mayor religion promotes polygamy, Islam. The others promote Matrimony. As for governtments, for those conservative, Matrimony is the law, and the “liberal” ones are going outside of the rule to promote gamony (?).

So as you can see, even if old civilizations, or unreasonable impractical religuous beliefs use or used other type of unions, Matrimony was instituted at some point in time, and the concept has not changed. IT IS THE CONCEPT we are talking about, which is the meaning behind the word. So as you can yourself see, there are different words for different types of uniones… for that I give you thanks.

On other subjects, live women being raped by their husbands, girls being sold, etc, please be reminded of 1st. The 3,500 years old concept of Jewish/Christian view of marriage goes together with a growth in understanding of the “equality” of the sexes.

It is the Jews and Christian (please compare with other civilizations/religions) who gave proper place to women, specially Christ himself.

Adding to the above, it is important to note that Marriage requires consent of both parts. So situations of children being sold, etc, do not enter in this definition.
So, if is in consent, please be aware that this is historically registered FIRST in the jewish/Christian tradition and then it began as widely used on this past 2,000 years, which menas that the concept was instituted, commonly used by Europe and then America for almost 2,000 years.

Pleae be reminded that Rome saw chastity and Christian behavior not to participate in sexual inmoralities was something bad, and Christians were persecuted for 300 years before our influence illuminated the Western World.

Also, if your defense in bringing up from it´s moral decadence, the concept of gay marriage, is to bring up bestiality concepts like other ways of unions, and child being sold to older guys, etc….reflect on your stance, as this is a poor and even offensive to the gay world, comparison.

Bless you.

Prime

Also, I did not say Matrimony was common in history, I said it’s concept has not changed since it was institued.

Truth, by the way, is discovered, but it depends much of changes. Men and Women has not changed much for more than who knows so many years. Women still bear children, Men do not.

Matrimony is a truth based on something that hasn´t changed, and will not change naturally soon enough. Matrimony is then THE applicable truthful union in humanity. The only NATURAL way to keep humanity alive for concepts like this to be questioned again and again.

Then there are constant, unchangeable, eternal truths, and there are those are not. We have to learn to discent in both kinds, since the later is always subject to the first type.

Regards,

Prime

The following is proof of the influence the Catholic Church provided to the World, and the erronuous approach of changing concepts because of lack of creativity.

This is for marriage only, which is even more general than Matrimony.

Etymology of the English word marriage
the English word marriage
derived from the Old French word mariage
derived from the Old French word marier
derived from the Latin word maritare (marry, give in marriage)
derived from the Latin word maritus (husband, married man; lover; nuptial; of marriage; married)
derived from the Latin word mas (male; male; masculine, of the male sex)

earliest known usage of marriage in English dates from the 13th century.

Hello Disgusted American

Even it, let say, I was not a religious person, truthfulness will not allow me to bring up historic truth to this discussion. Ideologies, beliefs, it is all part of history, and for your good, and all of us, having history as backup will allow us to learn from it and look into the far future.

Arguments such as “gays are marrying already” do not support the validity of the act, and the concept. You might be eating humans already, that does not make cannibalism right.

Religion, like it or not, has been around as long as humanity has brains to think on it’s place in the world. It has influenced the world and will always do. The thing is to look through the smoke and look for eternal and practical truths in life. this at the end will bring you to the question if you do the right or bad thing by letting other do bad, if they do nothing to you….but what about your children? grandchildren? nephews? little cousins? Do you care what is best for them?

this is a war, my friend. You can be on the bad side, the good, or do nothing, which is the same as to be in the bad side.

Look for answers, real answers.

Best Regards,

Prime

Some people have been known to mumble to themselves all day long.

Marriage comes in different forms, “Holy Matrimony” is only one. Throughout the history of this country, we have had civil marriages, usually administered by a Justice of the Peace or other public servant.

“Marriage” has been used to refer to “Holy Matrimony” for so long now that devout people have forgotten the difference, and take offense when others claim their rights to “marriage” as if they were making a claim against the devout view of “Holy Matrimony”.

In response to this perceived offense, they have laid claim to exclusive use of the term “marriage”, even beyond the confines of their own religious beliefs. This effort to redefine marriage exclusively in their own terms is an exercise in theocracy that attacks the religious and non-religious rights of others.

Even if stopping the push toward theocracy was the only reason to support gay marriage, it would be enough.

Even if defending equal treatment under the law was the only reason, it would be enough.

Even if defending the immutability of “unalienable Rights” was the only reason, it would be enough.

Even if defending the Republican form of government promised by the Constitution from the moods of the simple majority was the only reason, it would be enough.

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and constancy of purpose. We must not tire, we must not falter, and we must not fail.”
- Thomas Jefferson

wow Prime…so equating Loving committed couples to cannibalism..LOL thats funny! Considering , that MOST likely the person being eaten didn’t AGREE to it…..Marriage IS a CIVIL CONTRACT given BY THE STATE (along with RIGHTS). You do NOT get them from a church,nor do you get your divorce from a church..you get it from the State..period. Equal Treatment of ALL citizens under Secular law / Constitution of the US of A …how hard is that to comprehend>?

Good Morning ZaraLee,

1. Again, Marriage/Matrimony has been used for so long to refer to the union of a man and a woman that it makes you understand that it is really that, and not something else. My post on etimology of the word proves it.

2. If for any reason gays want to use the word marriage in their unions, that will only affect a meaning, concept, but it will still be an unnatural, distinct act than that already established by mayor historic and practical influences.

3. Theocracy in Christianity never happened under the Catholic Church. Theocracy happened first with the Anglicans, after England´s King became also the Leader of the Church in England, and instead of following God’s will (theocracy), he really did this division to do what he wanted, to divorce and have another wife (man’s incapacity to keep in the rule again), and Putting Secular impulses to become the rule. That is why now, after 500 years, the Anglican Church is little by little uniting with the Catholic Church, because Secularism is getting out of touch with Practical and Natural thinking.

4. Equal treatment while you are equal is ok. But let’s be honest: women has different rights than men, being more protected than men. Children have different rights also, and duties. So why do we have to equalize Marriage/Matrimony (union between a man and a woman) with Gayrriage/Gaymony? Maybe they could have SIMILAR righst, NOT EQUAL. think also in the extension of this union, as, it seems, their desire to adopt kids (kids are the ones who worry me the most)…..Do not confuse the term equality and use it freely without putting it into context.

5. unalienable Rights: Please be aware that this rights are also known as NATURAL RIGHTS, and different than the HUMAN rights. and It is also dependant on the limit of “my rights ends where the others start” concept (think for the kids).

Freedom ends where others´freedom starts. My freedom should not affect others.

think on the consequences and how our children will be raised. Schools teaching that it is a normal act, normal attitude. Natural?

If this is what the USA wants for their kids, so be it. But certainly it is something the Fathers of USA would have dissapproved. They were all Christians, and that influenced the Constitution and the Ammendments.

The Entire Social Justice, Freedom, and most of the good we know in society comes from Christian Influence, or at least they were elevated thanks to Christian Influence.

THE US DOLLARS..In GOD WE TRUST! THE USA became the Light of the world in many things, the Guide and Example. This will be, it seems, shortly going to end.

It seems that you don´t want to Trust GOD anymore.

God Bless America

Hello Disgusted American,

No, It was not an Equation, it was an example of how things that are happening are not necessarily correct. I tried to use a simplistic approach. Let us say then that because smoking is happening (and legal), is it right, or good? NO.

The STATE /Government that makes this laws are all men, with their own belief and in representation of their People, and People have also religous influences, as well as reasoning and concience. The STATE should protect the will of the People whenever possible, since it is not always true that the mayority want’s their own good most of the time.

What is happening, and it is understandable and wanted, is that laws are not dependant necessarily on Religion, or religious views.

But even when the concept is reached through other glasses, let’s say, Biology, Gaymony is not the norm and will not keep Humanity from extinction. Let´s say Sociology, where the Family made by a Father and a mother consitutes the best way of social influence to children.

Let´s say Psichology: where kids that gro with 2 moms ot 2 dads may have issues later to marry on their own and have children.

The list may go on and on. I could also use a Secular approach to this subject. But I do TRUST IN GOD, and this is something I want to express, other than to use inferior explanations based solely on men’s judgement, which no matter how great, it will always be inferior to GOD´s WILL and JUDGEMENT.

Bless You.

Hello Prime,

“1. Again, Marriage/Matrimony has been used for so long to refer to the union of a man and a woman that it makes you understand that it is really that, and not something else. My post on etimology of the word proves it.”

Again, we’ve abolished chattel marriage – slavery by another name. We have changed marriage in living memory and we can change it again. There is NOTHING constant or unchanging about any concept in human history.

“2. If for any reason gays want to use the word marriage in their unions, that will only affect a meaning, concept, but it will still be an unnatural, distinct act than that already established by mayor historic and practical influences.”

Gay people are already getting married, with or without state assent. The argument is not over whether or not gay people can get married – the argument is over people having access to the same set of rights as everyone else, which is a founding principle of this Republic. And the sooner that marriage equality becomes law in all fifty states, the closer we will be to our founding principles.

“3. Theocracy in Christianity never happened under the Catholic Church. Theocracy happened first with the Anglicans, after England´s King became also the Leader of the Church in England, and instead of following God’s will (theocracy), he really did this division to do what he wanted, to divorce and have another wife (man’s incapacity to keep in the rule again), and Putting Secular impulses to become the rule. That is why now, after 500 years, the Anglican Church is little by little uniting with the Catholic Church, because Secularism is getting out of touch with Practical and Natural thinking.”

If you believe this, your history teachers deserve collectively to be horsewhipped for failing to teach you about the history of Catholic Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, the Papal States, the city-state of Salzburg, the city-state of Malta, the history of the Western Roman Empire from Emperor Constantine I on, and any number of other explicitly Catholic Theocratic states.

“4. Equal treatment while you are equal is ok. But let’s be honest: women has different rights than men, being more protected than men. Children have different rights also, and duties. So why do we have to equalize Marriage/Matrimony (union between a man and a woman) with Gayrriage/Gaymony? Maybe they could have SIMILAR righst, NOT EQUAL. think also in the extension of this union, as, it seems, their desire to adopt kids (kids are the ones who worry me the most)…..Do not confuse the term equality and use it freely without putting it into context.”

“Not only is it not right, it’s not even WRONG.” – Wolfgang Pauli, physicist

There are thousands of rights in society that are legally reserved to married couples. The vast majority of them cannot be duplicated by ANY legal arrangements, which are trivial to bypass in many circumstances anyway – see the number of cases where an anxious partner has been forced to wait in a hospital waiting room or in a particularly heartless case in the PARKING LOT while their partner died alone.

You disgust me.

“Freedom ends where others´freedom starts. My freedom should not affect others.

think on the consequences and how our children will be raised. Schools teaching that it is a normal act, normal attitude. Natural?

If this is what the USA wants for their kids, so be it. But certainly it is something the Fathers of USA would have dissapproved. They were all Christians, and that influenced the Constitution and the Ammendments.”
Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. Some, notably Benjamin Franklin, were Quakers, a religion founded on precepts of tolerance. Few held particularly strong religious convictions. The Treaty of Tripoli, in 1801, written by several of the Founding Fathers, denounced and disavowed Christian influence on the founding or governance of the United States. The Federalist Papers additionally do not suppot this common false contention.

You may wish to make freedom of religion into the freedom to worship Jesus Christ in a manner consistent with Conservative Religious Principles, but the history of American law and jurisprudence does not conform to your desires.

The fact is that there are moneyed interests, and there is money at stake, in preventing Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual people from marrying people of the same sex – and in preventing Transgendered, Transsexual, and Intersexed people from marrying anyone at all. These moneyed interests are the Catholic Church and the Republican Theocrat Party, who live to continue and expand the social orders of oppression, guilt and shame onto another generation.

Assuming they don’t destroy the Earth in the interim in a mad auto-de-fe.

Hello Katie B.!

Methinks Prime is not natural at all. Have you heard whether some deluded, malfunctioning computer-entity has escaped from some Star Trek movie lot lately?

Gayrriage/Gaymony. Oh brother!

Seeing as the same discredited arguments against same-gender marriage and other LGBT issues are used over and over ad nauseum, wouldn’t it be a nice feature on this website where some of us can store our responses in a database once instead of typing the same thing over and over ad nauseum to retrieve and copy-paste? That feature would save us so much time so that we can spend more time with our cats or loved ones whichever the case might be. I’d rather they get carpal tunnel than us …

BTW, I so enjoy reading your comments. I like your writing style. Smiles.

Katie B.
Comment posted October 1, 2010 @ 8:59 am
Hello Prime,

Again, we’ve abolished chattel marriage – slavery by another name. We have changed marriage in living memory and we can change it again. There is NOTHING constant or unchanging about any concept in human history.

Prime: Nope, you have not abolished anything. You are talking agains´t
1st. Biological truths…only women and men united can create children.
2nd. 3,500 years of Marriage/ Matrimony tradition, instution, etc. This includes not only churches, but governments, including yours.

But keep trying, some day it might happen the miracle in that men(general, exceptions are not the norm) will bear children and women will not. This is proof of your lack of acceptance of the obvious. But I understand your frustration…it is frustrating not to be able to accept that our own acts are wrong, so the fight is brought to other realms, since it is already lost against GOD.

Katie: Gay people are already getting married, with or without state assent. The argument is not over whether or not gay people can get married – the argument is over people having access to the same set of rights as everyone else, which is a founding principle of this Republic. And the sooner that marriage equality becomes law in all fifty states, the closer we will be to our founding principles.

Prime: Again, your are missing the point. Equal rights for differnet types of unions is not viable, logic, or fair. Similar rights is the right way to call it. And of course, this shall not extend to the possibility of adoption for gays.

Katie: If you believe this, your history teachers deserve collectively to be horsewhipped for failing to teach you about the history of Catholic Spain, the Holy Roman Empire, the Eastern Roman Empire, the Papal States, the city-state of Salzburg, the city-state of Malta, the history of the Western Roman Empire from Emperor Constantine I on, and any number of other explicitly Catholic Theocratic states.

Prime: I think you really need to understand the meaning of Theocracy. One thing is to have strong influence in government, another different concept is that the CHURCH exerts pollitical power. City states does not count, as this were mde solely for exceptional and temporay protection for the Church to exist without the direct intervention in/of greater pollitical situations. As is the case of City/State Vatican City. I recommend reading a little bit of the Catholic Encyclopedia and the real situation, from Emperor Constantine–ON.

Katie: There are thousands of rights in society that are legally reserved to married couples. The vast majority of them cannot be duplicated by ANY legal arrangements, which are trivial to bypass in many circumstances anyway – see the number of cases where an anxious partner has been forced to wait in a hospital waiting room or in a particularly heartless case in the PARKING LOT while their partner died alone.

You disgust me.

PRIME: You do not disgust me. I love you and understand your frustation. I truly understand that this situations are out of hand, but in any case, this could definetely happen in many cases, not necessarily for gays, in the US, were the the health system is very strict. Many other countries are not that strict.

KATIE: Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists.Some, notably Benjamin Franklin, were Quakers, a religion founded on precepts of tolerance. Few held particularly strong religious convictions. The Treaty of Tripoli, in 1801, written by several of the Founding Fathers, denounced and disavowed Christian influence on the founding or governance of the United States. The Federalist Papers additionally do not suppot this common false contention.

You may wish to make freedom of religion into the freedom to worship Jesus Christ in a manner consistent with Conservative Religious Principles, but the history of American law and jurisprudence does not conform to your desires.

Prime: Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. SOME of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (Episcopalian, after the Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49. Some of the more prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical or vocal about their opposition to organized religion, such as Thomas Jefferson[12][13] (who CREATED the “Jefferson Bible”), and Benjamin Franklin[14]. However, other notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. SEVERALof the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very SIMILAR to those of deists.[15]

Quaker:The Religious Society of Friends is a name used by a range of independent religious organizations which all trace their origins to a Christian movement in mid-17th century England and Wales.

Truth is Truth. I do not agree with your MANY of the fathers were Deist. Evidence states otherwise. MANY were Christians, or Christians related. So Christian that one of them, JEFFERSON, made his own Bible (typical approach from a protestant believer).

Regarding the Treaty of Trivoly, context and interpretation is required, as it is based on 1 clause that not even exists in both translations, and written, it seems, by the concepts of one man, one example, of many others that did not agree with his point of view.

Again, exceptions are not the norm.

I won´t be rude. Please accept truth honorably.

God Bless you.

Prime

> Prime: Again, your are missing the point. Equal rights for differnet types of unions is not viable, logic, or fair. Similar rights is the right way to call it. And of course, this shall not extend to the possibility of adoption for gays.

Really? Says who?

You are being ridiculous focusing on what gential is creating friction with what genital instead of on the whole person. A human being is a human being is a human being, for God’s sake!

Sheesh!

You disgust me. Honestly!

Additionally, I don’t give a rat’s ass about the Founding Fathers who have been dead for centuries. We live in the present, and that is all that matters.

Sheesh!

Good Night Ladies and Sirs

Lane: I won´t be rude, this is not a Christian way to discuss such an important issue.

If I were focusing on genitals, believe me, this conversation would not have reached such important themes and ideas like the founding fathers (which thanks to Katie now I know a bit more about them), or about different types of rights, or gay or lesbian suffering in this world. For that, I give you much thanks to all members of this page.

If you don´t really care about your Founding Fathers, you could have saved yourself time and talk of something else. I won´t follow your thoughts, as I consider this approach less apealing and somewhat less phylosofical.

I do want to clarify that, as human beings, like you and me, there is a natural way to be born, and some other artificial ways (which are very expensive, now that money was mentioned before).

Artifical ways also involve other issues, like many human beings being killed for the sake of one individual….

But the conclusion is the same, and it is the NATURAL way you and I were born. Even if you were made artificially, that would have required at least a male and female union (sperm and egg) to be able to be born, but most likely, with this artificial method, you had at least 10 brothers die for your sake.

SO…this NATURAL union was named Marriage/Matrimony. It is this union that made us all. I´m not talking about SEX as pleasure only. SEX was made to be the natural way of making more human beings. This I think should be clear by now.

It is mi right, as for anyone here, to give his/her opinion on this matter.

It might appeal or not appeal to your life and thoughts. My main reason for posting is to clarify many erroneous concepts. It is also clear that I have clarified many subtle differences of ideas from other members, which might have received wrong information and are spreading the word confusing others.

It does not take much to learn the truth, just some dedication.

For example, a good way of knowing the Catholic Church and what it teaches is to learn directly from their main pages.

Something very important is that almost everytime there are two versions of the same story. this page might have an inclination to promote gay rights, or it may have just the initiative to attack everything religious, and that´s fine. But we should be aware that we are getting only half of the story. Others just don´t care, and are happy reading only of what they like to see. This won´t get you far with the truth.

You should be able to read calmly what others have to say, think about it, even search about it, then reply…this will help on eveveryone´s understanding of whatever issue you are discussing.

And also very important, don´t be rude. Not many people might handle it peacefully, even in this very impersonal way of discussion.

This might be my last post for a while. I think concepts should be clear now.

God Bless Everyone in the USA, please provide them of wisdom, a sence of autocriticism, the ability to reflect on their mistakes, take unecesary pride from them so they can see when they are mistaken, and give them accuteness in intelligence to grasp ideas easily and be able to spread the truth, which eventually will guide them to YOU, Lord Jesus.

When it comes right down to it, marriage discrimination does not even survive rational basis when it comes to constitutional review of laws; it is not rationally related to any legitimate government interest. Procreation is not a government interest in any sense, and even if it were, the human race is in no danger of going extinct any time soon, save through its own actions in fouling the environment to the point that it can no longer sustain human life.

What marriage discrimination proponents wish is for the subject of marriage equality to be put under an irrational review, where anything that can be linked no matter how irrationally or tenuously – ESPECIALLY through a religious linkage – to a possible state interest is reason for continued legal discrimination. However, this is not the basis on which we write our laws.

Those are the real “special rights” being asked for in this situation – the “right” to override the First Amendment and recast the government in an explicitly Christian Theocratic mold.

Prime, it IS rude and “unChristian” to decide what set of rights and privileges a person should have just because of who s/he is and who s/he loves. Your attempts at ingratiation and framing my responses as uncouth are too transparent.

Hello Katie, Lane,

Thanks for your fast response.

If, let´s assume, the first ammendment were to be modified in a way marriage is defined as a man+women union, the only thing gays need to do is to achieve another type of union to be defined by law. this should not be a big issue, and it is not discrimination. Why? because this gay unions are being a public, law seeking, issue recently, and for this reason this is novelty for the governments in the world. It is something government did not think about as of now, just as many new things….it is evolution of the laws with evolution of society.

It could be the other way around, let´s say that marriage includes gay unions. Well if that is the case, then those opposed will have to fight for distinctions to be made, as there are obvious differences.

The outcome will bring a cascade of events, that little by little should have everyone happy.

BUT it is clear that there are differences. If it weren´t, there wouldn´t even be contrary views on this issue.

It is not I that will determine which rights gay unions will have, but it is my opinion, and am confident to say that the differences are there.

Now, regarding humanity´s extinction in the near future, it seems unlikely…..so let us all be gays for a couple of decades…..very unlikely. This will take us to another issue, but the main thing is that humanity will not be extinct thanks not to gays, but to natural unions. You, if gay, should be thankful. Not being thankful to the natural way of things, is to deny and negate to grasp the whole of humanity as a concept.

It is unChristian not to say the truth. Truth includes disntinctions…right from wrong, good from bad….as well as different types of unions…because there exists….it is not I that do not want to see it. If there is a concept that includes all human beings, regardless of their sex, color, etc…and the name is humanity…but there is a name for man, woman, child, girl, boy…..

then there is a concept for unions by law of gays, hetero, polygamy..etc…is there a word for that? very unlikely to be marriage (see my post on etimology)…maybe there we can be Creative too…something like Uniarriage or something.

It is important to note, that it is not a judgement of who loves who, but a situation. The love is there, alright, but the situation at hand for 2 men to unite, or 2 women, will bring other situations…like a cascade…and this need to be looked on properly to further understand their needs, their rights and their limits as well.

To say over and over that everyone has equal rights, is to lie over and over again. I state that earlier. Men has different rights than women, children have other rights, old people have different rights…thiefs have differnt rights…etc..etc..

The beauty of all is that there is differences in the world to be appriciated. If not, it would be a boring world.

Bless You

Prime,

Under law, all are equal. That is the first tenet of a democratic republic, and it must be so. The same laws must apply to all people equally in all ways. With this stated, we must remember the wise words of Anatole France: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal bread.” In this case, the law, in its majestic equality, forbids hetero and gay alike to marry a person of the same sex.

I am ignoring your snipe about making everyone gay for “a couple of decades,” because that is completely impossible. Nobody is demanding that every person marry a person of the same sex. There is no request or requirement from ANY same-sex marriage rights activist to make everybody be gay. That is your projection, from your religiously-based demand that everybody be heterosexual.

No one wants “another kind of union.” Civil Unions with “similar” rights and responsibilities to marriage have been tried and found wanting. A “civil union” can be easily disregarded outside of its issuing district. They are an inadequate remedy and will eventually be abandoned when the gold standard, marriage, is won.

There is no single legal right involved in marriage that would be substantively changed by making marriage gender-blind. The prohibition of same-sex marriage, therefore, does not rationally relate to any government interest and all that is left is irrational fearmongering.

That parting shot, by the way? REAL class. It’s Christians, not the LGBT community, who wants everybody to be the same. You want everybody to pray the same, look the same, sound the same, and mouth the same mindless opinions that their priest gave them from the pulpit.

Additionally, the argument provided by Prime is utterly disingenuous since the laws and amendments passed against same-sex marriage SPECIFICALLY forbid any arrangement with rights and privileges substantively similar to marriage. In other words, this whole argument is a red herring.

Hello Katie,

In this one I will emphazise “context.”

I see that you make no difference between the law in general as it´s way of being applied, as to how it differs on specifics towards each individual. The Law in general terms apply to everyone equally, but that does not mean that there is no distinction on to which laws apply to certain situation. This is a way of putting out of context your quote from France. I am pritty sure he will agree with me if asked if law in general is the same as specific laws for specific situations.

Let´s say, SEX, for example: it is approved while 2 persons consent to each other to have it. What if children also consent? So the law made a distinction between adults and children, non-adults, or young adults, etc when applied to sexual acts.

So, YES, there is a General view of the law for it´s people, but there are distinct laws for certain situation.

I consider that gay unions should be legal, but not equated to marriage, maybe some other word other than marriage, and not with the same rights as marriage, since by nature it is a different type of union.

You are also putting out of context my commentary on all being gays for a couple of decades. My comment was an aswer to the “humanity will not go extinct any time sooner” so why worry about it.

The idea was to make it clear that only union between man and woman will make humanity mantain itself, and not any other type of unions….taking in consideration moral issues like adulthood, consent, and 2 persons, not polygamy etc.

For the other hand, about Christians wanting everyone to be equal, etc. Well, It takes little time to disproof this, it is just a matter of understanding the great diversity in Christian tradition, having a better world view of the Christian Catholic Church History, etc.

I recommend looking at Pope visits around the globe. Diversity is one of Christianities strength, which origins you can find in the Bible, Acts.

KATIE: No one wants “another kind of union.” Civil Unions with “similar” rights and responsibilities to marriage have been tried and found wanting. A “civil union” can be easily disregarded outside of its issuing district. They are an inadequate remedy and will eventually be abandoned when the gold standard, marriage, is won.

Prime: Well, then fight for it´s validity in other districts. All of the above can be fixed legally not necessarily changing the concept of marriage. On the other hand, if this GOLD status you claim, includes child adoption, you will find in me a strong opposition and maybe me wanting to give you a SILVER Solution.

why? Becuase this involves concepts that will afterwards affect education of children, which will grow in a confused world, were their lives will be affected by all this situation in a way that is hard to imagine.

How can I tell to my kid that Momy and Dady loves each other, and that from that love, he/she was born when in school s/he will be told that 2 “boys” can love each other, and 2 “girls” may love each other in the same way. Then I will have to explain that they do not love each other in the same way, because their way would never have created a beautiful being like s/he? What should s/he think? but still, all this is a good oportunity to have them see with their own eyes the real differences and truths in the world. I will have this a challenge and it will be a fullfillment of Christ´words when he said that “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” referring to us in the future, when to be a Christian will be more difficult.

God Bless You

> On the other hand, if this GOLD status you claim, includes child adoption, you will find in me a strong opposition and maybe me wanting to give you a SILVER Solution.

Translated into English:

On the other hand, if this full equality under the law you claim including adoption of children that need loving, stable homes that many heterosexuals cannot provide for one reason or the other and are probably in the taxpayer-funded foster care system, you will find in me a strong opposition and maybe me wanting to give you a bottle of Silver Solution.

The point where bigots always dig in their heels the hardest is when the group they are bigoted against is raising children, and doing so successfully (look at the hardcore conservative kickback when the recent study was released revealing that lesbians tend to be better parents, on average, than straight couples).

It’s not just same-sex families either – People of color are MUCH likelier than white people to have their children taken away on more facile pretexts and shoddier evidence than white people.

Nobody but NOBODY will ever settle for less than full equality under law.

Hello Ladies and Sirs,

Interesting enough, this studies fall short to reality.

We are talking statistical science here. How many lesbian couples have children? How Many Natural couples have children? We know how theses studies have been biased to reflect desired results. For every gay test there is another test that reflects reality.

But in any case, just use reason. Statistics is all about numbers, and it is obvious that natural child raising is way higher than gays….WAAAY Higher, so it is unlikely that study is not biased.

So I did a little research, thanks again Katie. For information, this study is the follow up of 78 kids. That is all…78 kids…If this is not biased, I don´t know then what is.

Bless You.

How Morlockish of Prime to insist that his humans be certified “natural”!

Good Afternoon,

MMM, I was refering to the union, not the persons.

If you don´t consider hetero unions natural, and consider all unions natural…then we naturally won´t be born at all.

Blessings,

Prime

Don’t you think you are being ridiculous, Prime? By your blessed logic, all married couples that do not produce children are not “natural.” Sheesh!

FYI, a heterosexual union isn’t any more “natural” than a homosexual union. Matter of fact, many children – WAAAAAAY more than 78, for sure – are born to as well as are adopted by same-sex couples who are raising them.

Good Afternoon

Lane,

I don´t think you have been reading my comments thoroughly (please review comments on generality and specificallity). Off course there are exceptions to natural united couples that do have children, off course there is more gay unions with kids than just 78, off course we are all not born “naturally”, but also people are born from artificial means (very expensive and murderous approach).

I´m not here to eliminate exceptions or minorities, but to clarify the existing differences and to clarify the NORM, which is more of a generalized, proven practical concept for the mayority (even if we were the minority, it will still be the best way).

The TEST is based on insignificantly low number, which means it is not a significant resource to backup gay parenting.

So who is not thinking straight here? I have shown time after time that arguments in favor of gay rights posted here are well super estimated, accepted and followed without proper analysis. This is even helpful for your cause, as this will strengthen your arguments for the future.

Consider it. Begin by establishing obvious differences. Then consider naming them, and consider solutions to all of this without interfering with others, you will find yourself in a position in which not all are going to be able to have it all. Someone will have to lose, and if I follow your approach, most likely children, and humanity in general.

Blessings,

We gays pay taxes — the Catholic Church does not. Thus, what right/privledge do they have to lobby/influence local government?

Me thinks if the Catholic cult was taxed, there would be a whole lot less DVDs in circulation . . .

Prime,

Since moral approbation is not a legitimate government interest (see Lawrence v. Texas), your obvious moral objections to homosexuality are irrelevant. Since prohibitions against discrimination against LGBT people are First Amendment-neutral (see Christian Legal Society v. Martinez), Tim’s frequent arguments that extending the status of marriage to LGBT people (and damningly to him, ANY rights at all) is a violation of the First Amendment are invalid.

I also notice you deliberately conflating artificial insemination with in vitro fertilization for the purpose of deliberately casting fraudulent moral approbation on gay and lesbian couples.

Artificial insemination is the method which most gay and lesbian couples use to conceive a child (with the obvious use of a surrogate in the case of a gay male couple), because most gay and lesbian couples include at least one person who is fully reproductively healthy (and in the case of the lesbian couple, capable of normally conceiving and bearing a healthy child). Other than the method used to deposit the sperm, reproduction via artificial insemination is indistinguishable from reproduction via any other type of insemination. The “murdered” “children” that you’re wringing you hands over simply never existed in any form, unless you’re willing to go to the utterly ludicrous argument that every sperm is sacred. If that were true, God/dess would be remarkably remiss in creating a form of reproduction that wastes billions of sperm for every successful fertilization.

In vitro fertilization, which is a more dangerous process and as you noted (though inflammatorily) requires a number of fertilized eggs in order to generate a single viable embryo. The in vitro fertilization process is typically used by heterosexual couples with fertility problems (most commonly a low sperm count in the male partner, or some issue with the woman – for example, a blocked fallopian tube).

IVF has TREMENDOUS value for couples who have difficulty conceiving. But it is not typically used by same-sex couples because it is typically not NEEDED by same-sex couples.

Hello Katie,

You are right. I was not clear and did not made a distinction between one and the other ARTIFICIAL means of conceiving a child.

IVF: 1st, let me get you clear that fertilized eggs are embryos and the beggning of human life. So it is a murderous approach. Please refer to the study you mentioned, If I´m not mistaken they used IVF.

AI: Regarding the these method, it is expensive and inside the lesbian community, it is exclusive of men, who actually are fathering the child, which is definetely more of a social, psichological issue as well as moral (but I agree if used by hetero couples when needed). At the end it is also an artificial method and not natural.

So when I generalize, and say that artificial methods are expensive, I’m refering to both, and when commenting murderous, I’m refering to the first listed in this comment.

Again I apologize for not being clear.

Regarding your comment based on government not interested in moral approbation, I will have to make a little bit of research, because the protection of life, or establishing laws for not stealing, not killing, etc, are all based on moral values. Specific cases ruled by judges can have different interpretations, and your hability to put things out of context are continuosly making me doubt of your validity at this point of our disccussion. Give me a week, since I have to study for a test at the end of this week.

Blessings

Prime

As the great Oscar Wilde once said, “Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike.”

Sorry to disappoint you, Prime, but I do read your comments even as they are basically the same arguments regurgitated from comments you posted in other MN Independent articles in the past. Now as then, I find your arguments still lacking in merit. This time I chose to just call you out rather than engage you in further intellectual discussion.

Now you are discussing reproductive privacy rights which is totally different ballgame than same-gender marriage and other LGBT issues which is what this discussion is all about.

Good Morning Lane,

Mm.., this is my first time around this page (with this article comments). I haven´t even posted in other articles related to the situation at the moment.

And no, I´m not changing subject, it just happened that Katie made emphasys in the reproductive comment, carefully correcting me, so I made a clarification.

But still the Natural concept is there, moral or not, it is still the natural way.

Best Regards and Blessings,

So to clarify, My first ever post in this page was made in this article, a couple of days ago.

mmm….regarding the arguments…being repetitive, etc. Is it that men and women are changing so often that I need new arguments every now and then?

remember that part of this issue is our position of believing in a trascendental, universal, for the time being constant and consistent truth about humanity. I wouldn´t be discussing this if it wasn´t like that.

repetitiveness does not take away value from an argument or concept. If by any chance I speak lies, or am not coherent with reality, etc., you would have it much easier to counter argument.

It is also important to note that not all people discuss in the same way, have the energy, patience, or time to go into this discussions. At the end the decision will be taken, depending on the situation, by votes or by judges. So you might have read the same argument, but not as well defended, or with enough time to be clear for others to understand…etc..etc..ir varies from people to people. You can see the differences in Katies comments, yours, etc. I recently saw a comment made by a Katie (I don´t know if it is the same Katie posting here) that made a copy paste of MD´s comment against the Catholic Church with all this Hitler excomunication being done, etc, or MD coppied Katie, who knows. So you too (you as a group) some times go for repetitive actions. And this is a very common well known technique. It is said that is you repeat something enough, people will begin to believe it.

We can use the same techniques as well, but I am bound to, if repeating things, to be truthful, so when people do research, I won´t be found as a lier, or twisting the truth.

Blessings,

Prime, I already addressed the issue of people like you bringing up again and again the same anti-LGBT arguments that have long since been discredited in my October 1, 2010 @ 10:06 comment. Or perhaps you didn’t read that comment, eh?

I do remember tussling with you in the past; unfortunately, I wasn’t able to locate that one or two articles as evidence. However, I did see your September 28, 2010 @ 7:50 am comment but I don’t know if that is because you are back using a different email address/IP address or if it truly is your first time on this website. But that doesn’t matter because I find your arguments to be without merit and irrelevant when it comes to same-gender civil marriage.

I am done flogging this dead horse.

Prime,

Your intentions in research are inherently twisted around a specific agenda of finding that America is, contrary to its law and legal tradition, an explicitly Christian nation; and that the Founders of that nation were, contrary to their papers and spoken opinions, men who were essentially religious in the sense that the 19th and 20th Century Fundamentalist movement is religious. Neither assertion is tenable. The United States’ legal tradition is a product of the relatively irreligious Enlightenment. You may sincerely believe everything you say, but you believe it through a lens dark and twisted, which results in a skewed worldview and skewed results.

The direct specific wording in the Lawrence v. Texas majority opinion specifically denounces moral disapproval as an interest of government. That is the INTENTION of Lawrence v. Texas – the striking down of laws against conduct based on moral disapproval. (“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.” – O’Connor, concurrence with majority opinion, Lawrence v. Texas). Furthermore her concurrence goes on to state, “While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”

Likewise that is the direct specific wording in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez – Ginsburg’s majority ruling holds that the court declines to “distinguish between status and conduct,” and offers in parallel, “A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”

Furthermore, Romer v. Evans establishes beyond a shadow of a doubt that mere moral animus against a class of people is not sufficient governmental interest to justify a law. This moral animus is at the core of ALL anti-equality marriage laws, as well as laws against adoption by same-sex couples, in the country today, rendering them unconstitutional under the Romer standard.

Good Afternoon,

It seems that is all for Lane, in that case, thanks for your participation.

Katie, I´ll adress that in the weekend (as I said before), if you can post more comments with information, the better.

Blessings,

Eh?

So Prime is using us to do the hard, tedious work of research for his position paper that is soon due?

Meh.

Not doing Prime’s homework research for him.

Sorry.

I’m out.

I liked gay people better when they were not trying to force their agenda down our throats, bogging down our legislatures to react to trivial bogus issues. If you’re born gay and have that birth defect, fight for legislation to force health insurance to find a cure, if it’s by choice then good for you. Some people choose to go Goth, punk or whatever, be prepared to be looked at differently. Society will always judge outside the baseline of normal. Being gay is not “normal”.

Good Night Ladies and Sirs,

After doing my research I can see that gay arguments are based on the sole idea that government shall not judge based on morals.

It is hard to believe that the US courts have based their ideas on such concept and it seems natural that this is the only plausible argument in favor of gay rights (it is reasonable that the attack needed to be made on the root cause of their issue, morality itself).

Lack of moral judgement of todays us court officials is just proof of an increasing secular relativistic society which is increasing in an alarming way. I will have to see if christians are strong enough to organize themselves to fight such a foul concept at the public arena and in adoption laws.

Best Regards and Blessings,

Prime

In a free society, not every human affair is a government affair. Government exists to secure rights, not to police behavior that SOME may find objectionable even if they can’t point to any rights the behavior violates. The U.S. courts exercise judicial review to ensure those rights are protected.

It is unfortunate that some Christians and other religious bigots are not strong and wise enough to accept that a secular society is required in order for them to be able to exercise their freedom of religion while not intruding on other people’s freedom of/from religion.

@JohnnyReckless: There’s no “cure” for being different. You don’t get to erase people because they make you uncomfortable; and before you answer that with an explosion of anti-queer hate and bigotry, there’s something you should know:

Being a bigot doesn’t make you wrong because your opinions are unpopular.

Being a bigot makes you wrong because you’re a fucker.

Good Afternoon,

Just in case people don´t know the word´s meaning:

A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The predominant usage in modern American English refers to persons HOSTILE to those of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, various mental disorders, or religion.

I think you can see who is being Hostile here.

Blessings,

Prime

Prime, it takes one to know one. Hmmm.

I am a woman married to man. Our marriage is NOT “threatened” by gay marriage- no one’s is. It is ludicrous to deny civil rights to any group. It has no impact on my own or anyone else’s marriage. Stop trying to control other people’s lives by legislatively denying rights, Archbishop!

Prime’s definition of who a bigot is is inadequate. Using this definition, everyone is a bigot in one way or the other in the sense that they have some opinions and viewpoints that they will not allow to be questioned. My childish but accurate response “it takes one to know one” is based on this definition; however, this does not help our discussion.

For the purposes of this discussion, this explanation is more relevant:

“A bigot is someone who derives a sense of superiority from believing that he is a member of some elite group that is superior to other groups. Bigotry is the all-encompassing term for such things as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. White supremecists, for example, believe that white people are superior to blacks, native Americans, Indians, etc. Some even believe that other races are minions of the devil. Male chauvinists often believe that women can’t think straight or are less intelligent or are more prone to hysteria or whatever. Homophobes think that homosexuals are immoral deviants.”

http://afgen.com/christian_bigotry.html

So in the interest of clear communication, JohnnyReckless and Prime are homophobes who fail to see the common humanity of those of us who are LGBT. JohnnyReckless is being offensive whereas Prime is more insidious, citing “morality,” “natural law” as justification. Bah.

Why is this campaign of the bishop’s being labled “anti gay” when it could just as easily be labled pro traditional marriage or anti divorce?

Why is it that the Catholic Church is only sopposed to be concerned with helping people materially? Aren’t churches sopposed to be equally worried about people’s spiritual well-being? I propose that the Bishop has the right to educate his flock about a tenet of the church they belong to. If he does it before an election all the better—–they can translate any principles they pick up to the ballot. This is political therefore, but not partisan, as no particular party is mentioned…..just a principle. Marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

Would you have liked to have been raised by two men? or women? If homosexuals unions are held at the same level as heterosexual ones, then a child could be adopted into such a home.

The real question is: Why can’t the Catholic Church educate it’s members on any of it’s teachings including homo-sexuality?

Let’s face it folks; the Christians have taken over our free nation and turned it in to a theocracy not much difference than the Muslims have taken over Iran and turned it in to a theocracy. Our real leaders are the Pope and heads of the many Christian sects not the president. It reminds me of Hitler and Nazi Germany when it comes to a theocracy as Germany was then a Catholic nation influenced by the Pope. Until we outlaw the influence of religion over our government we will never be a free nation but a dictatorship ruled by religions. Our Constitution means nothing to these radical terrorist who call themselves “good Christians” as they have crammed their dogma down our throats rather we like it or not.

The belief in a creator god is not normal to begin with and although millions believe there is a god does not make them normal but still in the family of the rest of the primates; chimpanzees, apes and gorillas. As for the Bible this book was written by primitives bigot men who were more than likely a bunch of drunkards of their day and anyone believing in such hogwash has a mental condition.