Senate committee passes anti–gay marriage amendment

Ideologues. A dark day for Minnesota. Welcome to christaria law and your new theocracy.

Higher taxes wouldn’t make me move, but if this is enacted into the state constitution I will move someplace where liberty and the pursuit of happiness are supported not trampled on.

The DESPICABLE, repugnant Republicans are limiting liberty and freedom. They are disgusting! We must VOTE THEM OUT!!

The true colors of Republicans. First we don’t have a right to vote, now we don’t have a right to get married. What other rights don’t we have, according to them?

Now is the time for everyone to not only contact their legislators but to also implore everyone else to do likewise. If this makes the ballot it will cause untold strife & divide the state bitterly. Here in CA it is still very bitter,3 yrs after Prop 8.My neighborhood is still divided & neighborliness is a thing of the past- when people vote to strip/withhold rights from others it is very personal & impossible to bridge the gap.

Republicans are all about deregulation and removing protections for consumers, the environment, the elderly, children, the disabled, and the poor and middle-class. They argue that regulations and restrictions are unfair burdens to businesses, and that the social responsibilities of individuals cannot or should not be legislated.

Then they argue that marriage must be regulated, and must be restricted to what their idea of a proper marriage is. They seem to have a delusion that being gay is a choice. They argue that a marriage between two people of the same sex will somehow destroy the institution of marriage for all people.

Their attitudes are inconsistent, patronizing and offensive. I would also argue that their philosophy is one of convenience, self-interest, greed, individual responsibility with no social responsibility, and amorality cloaked in self-righteousness.

I only hope that others in the legislature fight vigorously against their proposed ban against gay marriage. If they succeed, they will be placing on the ballot, to be voted on by the majority, a proposal to restrict the rights of a minority. I will be making my views known to my legislators.

The Supreme Court has ruled several times that marriage is not only a civil right but one of the most fundamental civil rights. So to keep saying it is not a civil right is a lie. Where are the pro-equality people of faith in MN while this is going on? Why are they not publicly denouncing this in the streets, having prayer vigils in public and committing acts of civil disobedience in front of the state capital building? There are many churches in MN that support equality. Where are they? As long as pro-equality Americans allow radical conservative Republicans to pretend like it’s okay to vote on the civil rights of other Americans, they will continue to get away with it. Stand up! Speak out! Get off your butts! If they can vote away our rights, who is next?

Christofascists on the march, jackboots clomping.

Bigotry. No other word fits.

Sen. Dave Thompson, R-Lakeville, said the issue isn’t about discrimination and civil rights: “Marriage isn’t a right. Nowhere in the federal Constitution or the Minnesota Constitution is marriage considered a right.”
————————-
Someone needs to tell the senator that nowhere in the federal Constitution does it say that heterosexuals have the right to marry either. Has he also never heard the phrase, “Marriage is a state’s RIGHTS issue”? You don’t hear people saying, “Marriage is a state’s privilege issue” do you? It’s VERY apparent that the honorable senator is desperately trying to come up with any semi-plausible reason to discriminate against gay people.

Perhaps Mr. Thompson can explain why heterosexual prisoners serving a life sentence for murder have the “privilege” to get married, but same-sex couples that have been in committed relationships for decades, don’t?

Gary M. Segura, expert witness, Stanford Politics professor
“There is no group in American society who has been targeted by ballot initiatives more than gays and lesbians.”

TSG,
If you move, the terrorists win. Don’t move. Vote in democrats and make them put up an equality amendment.

And once again (remember the DVD?) the Catholic Church used the argument that same sex marriage is an unproven social experiment. What in the F does that mean? I suppose to the idiots who question nothing from their leaders it sounds like a very profound and insightful comment, but could any one of them explain exactly what it means or its relevance?

OMG the official fight around this issue is more than a year away and already I want to take out my nonexistent machete and chop some heads!

@Kevin – this is a great example of heterosexual privilege – of course heterosexuals get their right to marry unquestioned and unexamined, but queers better not try.

[...] Senate Committee passes anti-gay marriage amendment Senate committee passes anti Thank God there's no problems here. The economy's in great shape, and the roads we drive on [...]

well I know its another state I’ll never fo to IF this passes……and that one commentor is correct – This will do NOTHING but Cause Hard feelings between neighbors, and people who thought they (were friends) turn out not to be…and people who never speak to one another again………I know for a fact, IF I knew my neighbors voted against my rights….I’d never speak to them again……….. so, pass this MN…and Lose Tourism $$$$ , and possibly many residents.

…and as another commentor posted..

…they never seem to bring up the fact that CONVICTED Murderes in Prison for Life still can marry…but committed gay cpls together for 5,10,15yrs or more…can’t? HUH?????

And from CA – Judge Vaugh Walker’s opinion on Prop. 8.

“Walker held that the ban on same-sex marriage did not pass even the most minimal scrutiny under equal protection law, because it denied a fundamental right—the right to marry the person one chose—without a “legitimate (much less compelling) reason.” Tradition alone would not suffice; marriage had changed in all sorts of ways, and there were plenty of traditions that had outworn their welcome. The notion that the state was helping to protect marriage between people of the opposite sex would not do, since, Judge Walker noted, the lawyers for Prop. 8 had “presented no reliable evidence that allowing same-sex couples to marry will have any negative effects on society or on the institution of marriage.” The argument that banning same-sex marriage promoted children’s welfare was unconvincing, too since the evidence showed “without a doubt” that gay and lesbian parents could raise kids as effectively as straight ones. Moreover, he pointed out, even if California had a legitimate reason to prefer opposite-sex parents to same-sex ones, which it did not, “Proposition 8 does not affect who can or should be a parent under California law.” Gays and lesbians are already raising children, biologically related and not, and allowing same-sex marriage could only be helpful to those families.”

This is EXACTLY why the MN Senators involved in this amendment do not want the courts to decide on same sex unions. There is SANITY in the courts.

show up in person, Calls, letters, emails. in that order for making a difference. We need to do all of the above. This is a Civil rights issue. We need to get off our butt’s and stop this in its track. Straight people need to unite, its time for us to stop sitting on our butt’s and saying to each other, oh this is not right. It took white people to get racial rights, it took men to get women’s rights, If we were to vote today in Mississippi on racial rights guess what the polls would say?

I understand the frustration, being homosexual and part of the younger population. I am frustrated too, but if the arguments against this are ones of hate towards the ones who seek to pass this bill, it doesn’t earn us any points. If unity is what we are fighting for, I promise to respect not only those who I agree with, but also those who very well might harm my future chances at marriage. I will, however, ask for an explanation as to why my rights and the rights of someone else in my life, in my society, are different based on sexuality. I care about their opinions, but why does it have to decide my life?

Some facts, my fellow Minnesotans:

1. The accepted definition of marriage – over thousands of years, across the generations, throughout history, and across cultures – is a union between husband and wife; that a husband is a man and a wife is a woman.

2. There is no basis for same sex marriage in the entirety of Anglo-American jursprudence, custom, or history.

3. Recognition of traditional marriage by the State of Minnesota reflects a legitimate policy directive as well as the stated will of the people through their elected representatives.

4. Traditional marriage is a recognition of the biological imperative between a man and a woman to perpetuate the human species and to form a family unit to properly raise their offspring. A same sex couple will never be able to consummate a marriage and cannot procreate. Same sex “marriage” will never be equal to opposite sex marriage.

5. In our civil society, which is based upon a Judeo-Christian cultural and moral hybrid, marriage between a man and a woman has always been defined and recognized as the only legitimate form of marriage. The same sex “marriage” movement is an attempt at the complete repudiation of Jewish and Christian moral teachings. It is, prima facie, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bigotry.

@Nachman says: Same sex “marriage” will never be equal to opposite sex marriage.

I say: Nachman will never be equal to a thinking, feeling human being.

And another thought. These people who can’t see past “traditional” marriage have no imagination. If you can’t imagine anything other than what we have now, you can’t have a vision for a better future. These people have no vision. They have nothing to offer us. Leave them in the dust.

@Nachman
In another thread several examples of same sex unions were given throughout history with back up to review the writings quoted.

In these modern times with schooling available to everyone in our society I find this bigotry against GLBT disgusting and primitive.

To have same sex unions would change nothing in this country accept produce more families who love and live together.

The part where you say same sex unions cannot be consumated was laughable and idiotic. I almost lost my place reading I was laughing so hard.

After reading your letter again every point is fundamentally wrong except for #3 which is wrong in of itself.

You sir are a bigot.

Ironic that bin Laden is killed as the American Taliban is ascending.

Praise Jebus, God hates love, Amen.

@Nachman

Please actually read Paul V’s comment and take it to heart, there is a million accesses to prove your statements wrong. The data is out there, and it has been proven that same sex marriage has been, through out history, and also has been supported.

Science is a practice where it shows up every day to prove itself wrong. Theology is on the table to existence in “Faith” even when proven wrong.

Your Faith can dictate to you what to believe. I will take the path of facts, biology, and truth. For my Truth leads me to a moral and correct life. Do not indoctrinate your theology onto me. I will not indoctrinate my beliefs onto you. but will support the ideology that you will not support all in society to be equal. I can accept that I do not support. Can you? If not a religious state is one that you are asking to live in.

@marie –
Gay-marriage would create a theocracy, in which the government would be the enforcer of the moral and very religious position of same-sex relationships.

The theocracy would then force every business, government branch, university, church, etc. into this position because it is law. This would be a complete loss of the freedoms our nation was created for – namely the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. Without these freedoms, private property cannot exist and the economy cannot prosper. This has already begun to happen in nations like the UK and Canada.

We that appose you are not defending traditional marriage in order to stop you from having a committed relationship with anyone; you are free to do that. We oppose you to save the nation from social and economic meltdown.

Gay marriage would create a theocracy. What color is the sky in your world?

There is no gay religion.

@ Tim

I am a straight married woman to a man of over 20 years, a mom, stay at home, who gives to the community by way of volunteer work in many areas, children, seniors, homeless, and more. I spend via 30 plus hours a week on volunteer work. Non on a religious basis. I have never broken a law, stolen and much more. I live a “conservative” life.

There is no Gay theology. There will be no forcing you to support a gay marriage, just accept that there is one.

All marriages must be officiated by the state to make legal, the ceremony you might have had in a church is just symbolic. Your church doesn’t have to symbolically preform a service for a gay marriage.

Courts have said over and over again that marriage is a civil right. NOT A RELIGIOUS ONE.

Your theology just pertains to you, not me and mine not to you. It shall not cross over into law.

Your book, your God has no truth to me, no power over me. Stop trying to indoctrinate me into your life. I do not want to live by your religion.

the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, and Argentina. Five U.S. states and one U.S. district perform same-sex marriages, those being Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and the District of Columbia. Mexico City also performs same-sex marriages, which are recognized in all 31 Mexican states. You may say that these countries are in bedlam over same sex marriages, but that doesn’t make it so.

Morality and marriage is not religiously based. It is a legal matter. Its a tax matter. Its a civil matter to allow access to estates, medical decisions.

Controlling what you call a family is indoctrination and oppression.

I could as easily say Tim, that the south just had destruction over their sinful bigoted ways within their bible pounding ways! but that would be wrong and evil. But would be the same as all people like you that are extremest.

You are the poster boy of the American religious zealot Taliban. By all means never support a gay person for the rest of your life, that is your choice. But you must accept they are here, and that they are humans and are equal to all other humans and shall win equality! As long as my Straight life is breathing i will stick up for all those who are oppressed.

@marie –
The foundation of your support that, “Morality and marriage is not religiously based”, is completely wrong. The idea of marriage has been part of religion and morality since the beginning of time in every nation in the world.

Therefore, you fail to realize that gay-marriage would create a theocracy. If gay-marriage is a civil right, then the state is agent of public morality. The state cannot defend two positions. It has to choose one or the other. Without an absolution and unchanging definition of truth, it is impossible for a nation to have freedom If gay-marriage was law, then teaching the opposite moral position would become illegal as the state must defend its moral position, which means that all religions that teach an opposite position would be subject to criminal activity – the end of freedom of religion, and the end of control of private property.

The state has no right to make a moral claim and enforce it on everyone else. Defending traditional marriage is not defending a religion. It is defending natural law and the natural family which existed before any state marriage license was issued. Gay-marriage would be a gross overuse of government power and a direct violation of everyone’s rights, which is why it is unconstitutional.

Tim,

“Therefore, you fail to realize that gay-marriage would create a theocracy. If gay-marriage is a civil right, then the state is agent of public morality. The state cannot defend two positions. It has to choose one or the other. Without an absolution and unchanging definition of truth, it is impossible for a nation to have freedom If gay-marriage was law, then teaching the opposite moral position would become illegal as the state must defend its moral position, which means that all religions that teach an opposite position would be subject to criminal activity – the end of freedom of religion, and the end of control of private property.”

The above paragraph is total gibberish. IT IS NOT ESTABLISHING A RELIGION for gay’s to have civil rights. There are number of civil rights that heterosexual marriages have that gays do not, filing jointly on a tax return. Your notion that people lose freedoms because gays have legal relationships is, at best, delusional. Religions are still welcome to preach against homosexuality, although they will find themselves in a minoirty like the crazy Christians that preach that only white people are the “true Christians”.

And besides that, just because gays will someday get equal civil rights does not mean you have to now marry a man.

@Tim,

Once again your logic is 180 degrees out of phase – exactly backward.

What “natural law” are you talking about? A quick search of “natural law” found a minimum of 12: Plato, Aristotle, Stoic, Cicero, Christian, English jurisprudence, American jurisprudence, Islamic, Hobbes, Cumberland, Liberal, and Contemporary Catholic. Pick one and we’ll talk. Without an understanding of the way you think and your frame of reference, I’m at a loss to explain your reasoning. It simply comes off as bigotry. So, unless you can show your logic, I’m filing you under ‘bigot’ and ‘illogical.’

@Tim again your wrong.

Despite what some of our more adamant posters would like to believe, marriage is not solely a religious institution, but civil institution – “…a system of rules to handle the granting of property rights…”. As a civil institution, it has existed since ancient Roman and Greek times. Most marriages in the world were, until very recently, Arranged Marriages, for this purpose – business arrangements that were economic liasons for growing family wealth, rather than love or even procreation.

the actual marriage as a ceremony and a sacrament within the church did not take place until the 12th century.

So again, there is no theology of Marriage. but a legal one. And there is no place for religion in our laws.

Israel doesn’t perform same-sex marriages, but does recognize any performed where same-sex marriage is legal. They don’t seem to have any problems with making that secular law co-exist with the Jewish religion.
Generally the arguments about conflicts between churches and gays have been over property that the church has been renting to the general public (people/groups who are not members of the church), but when someone who the church doesn’t approve of (gays for example) tries to rent the space they refuse and that is discrimination.
No one will/can insist on a priest/minister/clergy performing a marriage ceremony for a gay couple if that church believes it is a sin, but that church cannot refuse to provide a secular service ie renting property to particular classes of people if they offer that service to everyone else.

@TSG

A church can make policy to not rent to all non members of their church. They will need to make that choice when equality for all people are made for civil marriage rights.

Government civil appointed marriage officiants will have to be able to serve all people.

You will have to make the choice to take the job if you can not full fill the Job.

Such as the southern judge that refused to marry a bi-racial couple. He was forced to step down. So will a Judge that refuses to marry a gay couple.

A church though will not be forced to lead the non legal binding ceremony (since no ceremony is legal binding anyways, till you sign state papers)

@ Tim, do you understand that it is not legal to be married till you sign the state papers that says you are married? There is no power of the church to marry people, only to give ceremony in a symbolic way?

Do you know the difference between symbol and law?

@marie –
You seem to see how gay-marriage would control provide property, as the state enforces its moral position, and at the same time fail to see how disastrous this would be to our nation.

You are in clearly in support for religious persecution, which is state controlled religion – a theocracy.

@ Tim

So I see you agree that you take it directly as a personal attack on your personal religious belief.

The constitution provides for you to support your personal choice in religion since its a personal choice and you can make the choice to change it, unlike biological orientation.

No one will force you to support gay marriage. simply accept it, such as you have been forced to accept that I do not worship your God, and I do not support any form of your religion in any state or form. But I accept that you have the choice to worship someone, and interpret rules from your theory of creation that I do not.

The only persecuted is the Gays who do not have equal rights as you do.

You are the one who is judging and persecuting. Which by your own rules and regulations of your religion is a Sin within your own theology.

Gay marriage has been around as long as the thought of Marriage, it has not destroyed society as of yet.

@marie –
Immorality has destroyed many nations and continues to destroy them today because an immoral people cannot be free, and without freedom a nation cannot prosper.

I wish I could tell you that gay-marriage will not destroy the nation, but that is simple not the case. If gay-marriage became law, everyone would be forced to support gay marriage and the nation would be destroyed. You are pursuing the destruction of the nation.

In-equality is the destruction that we have now. I truly believe that equality growths are what has made this nation great.

Its time for us to push the bigotry of those against the GLBT society to the side.

We will see economic growth, family growth, educational growth.

@Tim,

it was your same groups that tried to stop racial equality, and it was your groups that tried to stop women rights to vote. it was your groups that started world wars, and it was your groups that killed in the name of God. It is your group now that is the destruction and the charge of all that is dangerous.

History, fact, science and Love will set you free.

Tim really wishes he was living in the Republic of Gilead.

@Cahyanov

Its as real as the talk of destruction and gay theology as what tim speaks about.

The number one reason for war has been over “Gods wants” It has been religion that has destroyed most countries in the world. With Christians on the forefront in history.

Nachman wrote:

—”1. The accepted definition of marriage – over thousands of years, across the generations, throughout history, and across cultures – is a union between husband and wife; that a husband is a man and a wife is a woman.”

You don’t know your history. Gay marriage was accepted in the Catholic Church for centuries. Do your homework.

—”2. There is no basis for same sex marriage in the entirety of Anglo-American jursprudence, custom, or history.”

For your claim to be true, the following conditions would have to obtain:
1) ” Anglo-American jursprudence “[sic]
You’d have to maintain that the Equal Protection Clause applies to some people and not others, and provide a convincing rational explanation for it–not just assume it.
2) ” custom, or history ”
You’d have to refute the evidence of same sex marriage in Catholic Church history.
3) You’d have to argue that because something did or didn’t happen in the past, this is therefore a moral reason for it to happen or not happen in the future. Women weren’t allowed to vote in the US before 1920. By simple virtue of the fact that they were prohibited from voting historically, does this then form a moral reason for continuing to prevent them from voting? Because I wore a brown shirt yesterday, is this alone an argument for wearing one today?

—”3. Recognition of traditional marriage by the State of Minnesota reflects a legitimate policy directive as well as the stated will of the people through their elected representatives.”

“a legitimate policy directive”: This isn’t an argument, it’s simply stating a claim that everyone already knows: that some people believe prohibiting gay marriage is a “legitimate policy directive.” You’re right back to square one, forced to explain why this view is valid.

“the stated will of the people”: The people are not infallible. Values change. Plus, your statement leaves unaddressed the underlying question of whether majorities should be allowed to eliminate basic constitutional rights. If a majority votes to deny Jews the right to own property, why should they be prohibited from doing so?

—”4. Traditional marriage is a recognition of the biological imperative between a man and a woman to perpetuate the human species and to form a family unit to properly raise their offspring. A same sex couple will never be able to consummate a marriage and cannot procreate. Same sex “marriage” will never be equal to opposite sex marriage.”

-Perpetuating the human species only requires a birth replacement rate. This could be accomplished with 10% of the population have tons of kids, and gays and lesbians as a 90% majority of the population.
-There’s no evidence that gay/lesbian parents can’t raise kids properly. Try again.
-”consumate[ing]” a marriage: What exactly is this supposed to mean? Having sex? Gays and lesbians have sex.
-”cannot procreate”: Many straights can’t procreate. If this is a criterion for marriage, than many infertile heterosexuals should not be allowed to marry. Artificial insemination is a technique used by many such couples. Gays and lesbians also use it. Plus, there are many kids who need adoptive parents. Gays and lesbians can be wonderful parents to these kids.

—”5. In our civil society, which is based upon a Judeo-Christian cultural and moral hybrid, marriage between a man and a woman has always been defined and recognized as the only legitimate form of marriage.”

False. There’s a history of same sex marriage within Christianity. If you don’t know this history, that’s your fault.

More importantly, it doesn’t matter what the Judeo-Christian tradition is (assuming it’s been uniform over time, which it hasn’t been), we live in a secular republic.

—”The same sex “marriage” movement is an attempt at the complete repudiation of Jewish and Christian moral teachings.”

This is self-evidently false. First, not all Jews and Christians are opposed to homosexual sex or same sex marriage. So it’s inaccurate and even a little dishonest to lump all Jews and Christians together.

It’s also inaccurate and a little dishonest to use a word like “complete.” If we were to take you at your word however, all we’d have to do is make a complete list of all Jewish and Christian moral teachings, and then simply assume that that gay marriage somehow contradicts them all. But this is silly. You should know better. All it takes is to find one moral value held by some version of Judaism and Christianity that gay marriage doesn’t contradict to put the lie to your claim of a “complete” contradiction between gay marriage and these faith traditions. Take love for instance. Although it’s sometimes hard to see it, these faith traditions are partly based on the moral value of love. Are you assuming that gay and lesbian marriage can’t be based on love?

—”It is, prima facie, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian bigotry.”

This would only be true if gay marriage somehow constituted or perpetuated a prejudicial attitude about ALL Jews and Christians. However, gay marriage is only…gay marriage. Your attempt to use the victim card is pathetic and transparent nonsense.

Nachman, you fall into the religiously illiterate trap of believing that your Jewish faith represents everyone who calls him or herself a Jew. Obviously this is not true. The same goes for any Christian who claims that gay marriage contradicts the teachings of “Christianity”, as if there were only one uniform form of it. This has never been the case. Many Jews support gay marriage and find not only no contradiction between their religion and gay marriage, but that their faith fully supports it.

The children of lesbian and gay parents do NOT miss having opposite sex parents. They’re angry at the people trying to keep their parents from having legal recognition!

@marie-
Your hatred for God is evident.
But you have it all wrong; Christianity was the foundation for equal rights for woman and blacks. It was radical groups like yours that tried to stop the freedoms we have today, and now you are trying to bring back slavery which gay-marriage would bring. Hatred towards God does not lead to freedom, but to destruction, death and slavery. Just look at what hatred for God did to Russia.

Consider reading Peter Hitchens book, “The Rage Against God”, in which Peter has traveled the world and tells about the destruction and death he has found in nations that hate God.
http://www.amazon.com/Rage-Against-God-Atheism-Faith/dp/0310320313

It was our nation that stopped Hitler and his evil that started WWII, because of our conviction for good which came from the doctrine of Christianity. The foundation of the free world and the global economic growth is all a product of the doctrine of Christianity. You are fighting with the enemy against your own freedoms and your own nation.

Gay- marriage is a vote for unequal rights. It is the opposite of freedom. The state has no business creating a moral position and forcing everyone to accept it – that is slavery, communism and the beginning of a theocracy.

Think about why you are motivated by this issue. The source of anger in America is a deep hatred of God and his laws, in which they direct their anger at the religious right, suggesting that they are suppressing their freedom to live a lawless life. By condemning society and convincing others of the same, they create a sense of belonging and conviction that gives them a movement that they are identified by, have a purpose in and hope to someday experience something great. These three things are a carbon copy of what Judeo-Christianity offers, identity, purpose and a future – only without the need to reconcile with God. The movement creates an identity and an opportunity to submit to a cause that whole heartedly becomes a reality – just as the Christians whole heartedly submits to Jesus Christ. The unrepentant-left is truly searching for a replacement for God, that they can find identity, purpose and a future in. The problem is that a replacement for God does not exist and no other foundation can be built to does not lead to death that destruction.

“But whoever fails to find me harms himself; all who hate me love death.” – Proverbs 8:36

@marie: I’m Jewish, therefore, Papal edicts are theologically immaterial.

@Eric: you are in no position to define what Judaism is or isn’t or what it says on a particular subject. Reconstructionist, Reform and more recently the Conservative movement act as if they are extensions of left wing political thought.

Halakha recognizes marriage as between a man and a women. It is easily proven. I’ve already done the halakhic research on it.

You could have saved yourself all that typing.

@Eric: no rationalization on your part can explain away the animus and hatred exhibited by the progs. You utterly failed to understand my assertions, written in plain language.

You’re in for a fight.

I wish you no luck.

Tim and Nachman can go pound sand *together,* because religious definitions of marriage should not be controlling the dialogue of a secular nation. And no, same-sex marriage is NOT a “religious” position – it is a *secular* position, a non-religious position based on a premise of equal human dignity. You are not oppressed by my marriage (btw, anniversary this month ;) ) any more than I am by yours. I am, however, oppressed when you demand that I not be afforded the right to care for my partner and when needed make decisions for her in the hospital; I am oppressed when you decide that I am not a fit mother because my partner is a woman; I am oppressed when you decide that my partner and I have to pay higher taxes than you and your partner and file taxes separately, and on roughly *two thousand* other state and federal rights.

You are oppressors, and history will remember you no better than other oppressors.

@KatieB: Welcome to the war. No quarter offered, none expected.

I find that comment extremely revealing. “Welcome to the war?” No. It’s not war, but terrorism when you are trying to hurt or destroy innocent people for your own sick, religious extremist agenda.

@KatieB: of *course* it’s a war, started by your side and advanced by the progs. Projection and moral inversion is to be expected from your movement.

Progs and leftists are no less fanatic in their self-righteousness and moral certainty than any other religious fundamentalist or theocrat.

If you believe that, you deserve the steamrolling that history is going to give you.

@Tim and Nachman: I’m just curious….do you honestly believe that sexual orientation is a “lifestyle choice”? Honestly, I’ve never met anyone–straight or gay–that made a conscious decision to be one or the other. Yet, it seems that those in your camp who are hell-bent on denying equal rights to members of the LGBT community, seem 100% certain that is. I don’t recognize anyone’s concept of “God”, so spare me the scriptural “lessons”, but why exactly do you believe sexual orientation is a choice? Because God makes everybody straight? Puh-lease…..

@Tim

Your hatred for God is evident.

I do not Hate your God, I do not believe in him. That is a different thing. I do not or can not hate something that does not exists.

Your scriptures hold no bearing over me or in law. For I am protected from that as an American.

@Katie – Don’t quit your day job. The people of 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage since this fake idea has been brought up by the queers and the progs.

There’s really not much more to be said to the anti-Jewish and anti-Christian bigots, except to reiterate: welcome to the culture war. No quarter given, none expected.

If it’s a war and then it is one that the anti-gay side is losing. Constitutional amendments have passed in 30 states, but the margin they are passing by is getting smaller every time it comes up. When it comes to a vote in Minnesota, if it passes it will probably have to have a recount it will be so close. Even with margin of error in the polls, the majority of Americans think marriage equality is the right thing. With another 18 months to the vote I believe that those numbers will only improve.
Remember Washington state passed an ‘Everything but Marriage’ law which the voters upheld in 2009.

@TSG – You left ouyt “so there, nyaa, nyaa”. Remember, same sex couples can’t procreate and the secular don’t have large families. Not good for demographic superiority.

Keep up your assured self-righteousness. It’s annoying, but it’s all you got.

@TSG – You left out “so there, nyaa, nyaa”. Remember, same sex couples can’t procreate and the secular don’t have large families. Not good for demographic superiority.

Keep up your assured self-righteousness. It’s annoying, but it’s all you got.

I always though religion and politics were supposed to be seperate.
I guess i was wrong.
Why would anyone choose to be gay? Why would I or anyone else want to be treated as a 2nd class citizen and have my rights taken away. Marriage has nothing to do with faith or creed. In my lifetime i hope to be treated as viewed as an equal in all aspects of my life especially under the law, especially in a country where I pay my duties earn my living and recieve my education just like everyone else.

The demographics are unmistakable: The younger the demographic segment, the less likely they are to oppose same-sex marriage. 35 and under supports same-sex marriage by a fairly sizable majority.

Your day is ending, whether you like it or not.

Demographics, Katie, demographics.

Of course, there are the Somalis. Muslims, almost to a person. Ethiopians? Christians. You know all those illegals that progs want to excuse from violating our immigration laws? They are Christian. Millions and millions of traditionalist Christians.

Aside from that, more and more people are homeschooling and do not rely on the dinosaur media to interpret the world for them. Liberal mainline churches are losing parishioners and bible-believing Christian churches are gaining.

Judaism has been around for 5,770 years, Christianity for 2011 years. The moral basis for our civil society isn’t going anywhere. I don’t expect benighted progs to understand this, and I’m not going to convince you or change your mind.

I’m telling you anti-Semites and anti-Christian bigots what for. You can take it or leave it.

@Nahman

To be anti indoctrination is not to be anti-Semite or anti-Christian. I just do Not support or believe in your God.

You Keep spilling out these lines of Morality.

I hold No god, I hold no scriptures.

but I live with and have been married to the same man for 20 plus years. I stay home with my children. That I had after I got married. I volunteer 30 plus hours a week, for many different causes, homeless, seniors and others. I give more than 10 percent of our home income to those of need. I drive one car for choice. I own a home, I pay taxes and I have never had more than a parking ticket in my life. I take care of elderly parents, within my home.

I even recycle. All NOT in the name of a God or because anyone has told me I should.

But I am anti-Semite and Anti-Christian, because the bedrock and corner stone of my morality lies within equality and civil justice? Because I not only Accept that Gay people are the same and equal as myself as a straight person and deserve all that is equal? I am anti-semite and anti-christian because I believe there is no place for indoctrination of religion into law? Such as our founding fathers believed?

You speak of your religion and of your God, but you act as you are a God. That you have the power to judge and tell people how to believe, and live.

@marie: You live in American civil society based upon biblical moral foundations. If you are an American, you have assimilated that morality. Even the most extreme of atheists cannot escape that fact.

You can deny it all you want, but without biblical morality, there would have been no civil rights movement.

I have Moral correctness and Love and equality because I make the choice to.

You keep saying that we are founded on biblical morality doesn’t make it so.

Your continued trys to indoctrinate is Anti-American, and unconstitutional.

Your choice of religion is a lifestyle that I accept but I will never support.

The word indoctrination is assimilation. You might need to conform to an organized and forced idea. STOP ENSLAVING ME into your religious box.

@nachman

What of those indigenous groups that have always accepted homosexuality? God’s control group for evil?

Many Native American tribes formally recognize homosexual and transgendered humans in the role of the “two-spirit” person (sometimes known as a “berdache”).

Bedamini people of New Guinea

are a couple examples.

Are these groups of people immoral? They live in harmony and have rules of moral ground. But they have no contact with your “God”

what of that?

You don’t have to believe in any deity if you choose, however, we live in a civil society based upon biblical foundations. It is a fact, and the progs should get used to accepting that fact and stop attempting to destroy the very foundations that gave them the civil rights movement .

You have your own religion, whether you call it secularism, or whatever you claim it to be.

You are obviously not a slave, no one is “enslaving” you. No need to yell.

If you are forcing your brand of religion onto me its enslaving. Its oppression its indoctrination. PERIOD.

separation of church and state is what makes this country great.

I disagree with you that we live in a society that is based upon biblical foundations.

if that was to be true, we would still think the world is flat and we would still have slaves since the bible supports that as well.

Man wrote the bible, the Torah, the Qur’an

Watch the Hubble. People used to be imprisoned when they said the earth circled the Sun, instead of the Sun circling the Earth which is now proven false.

There is moral ground without Deity. Deity didn’t teach me my Moral perspective I did.

The Rethuglican Party will force the marriage discrimination amendment onto the ballot. There is no such thing as a Republican with a conscience, their party platform is by nature based from beginning to end on naked greed and lust for power. Time to fight.

All Nachman has proven in his moronic comments is what a schlub he really is. Not worth my time to read his rantings … Meh.

Nachman,

You wrote,

—-”@Eric: you are in no position to define what Judaism is or isn’t or what it says on a particular subject. Reconstructionist, Reform and more recently the Conservative movement act as if they are extensions of left wing political thought.

Halakha recognizes marriage as between a man and a women. It is easily proven. I’ve already done the halakhic research on it.

You could have saved yourself all that typing.”

It’s as simple as that, eh? Just look up what people in the past have said and believed and that settles it? No need for further thought, no need to examine the arguments of those with whom you disagree? What a relief to rely upon others for your view of the universe. It sure makes life easy!

—-”@Eric: no rationalization on your part can explain away the animus and hatred exhibited by the progs. You utterly failed to understand my assertions, written in plain language.
You’re in for a fight.”

Your language is very revealing. I presented rational arguments, and you failed to respond. You seem to think they’re mere “rationalizations”, rhetorical slights of hand perhaps, all designed to avoid the eternal axiomatic truth that’s solely in your possession.

Using your language, I already offered a “fight”, but you ran from the room. Do you have any specific reasoned rebuttals to my points, or are you going to stick your head in the sand again?

Eric, there’s no point in having a discussion to prove the obvious – I’ve had too many “dialogues” with leftists. Facts, legal citations, sources, historical record et. al. are irrelevant to progs.

Conclusion: the HRC and Outfront homosexuals, if all they wanted was to be tolerated, was to exercise the right of contract guaranteed in the Minnesota Constitution. It was all a lie. They seek to destroy the core unit of civil society which is based on biblical morality. That makes groups like the HRC, Outfront and their prog enablers anti-Semitic and anti-Christian.

Enough wasting everyone’s time – including mine.

Nachman,

Again you flee the scene, and offer up a lame excuse.

You make the claim,
“They seek to destroy the core unit of civil society which is based on biblical morality.”

Where’s your evidence for this? What’s your argument? You appear to have none from what I can tell.

The sentence you made is, I’m guessing, only a slogan, a series of words that has the appearance of actual cognitive content, but really doesn’t. You don’t actually understand what it is you’re saying. You appear to simply be used to repeating your slogans to the point where they become ersatz “facts.”

You also bandy about the anti-Semitic, and anti-Christian charges quite a bit. You’ve already been challenged on this. Again you failed to respond, preferring instead to run into a corner where you keep repeating yourself.

You grow frustrated with your “dialogues” with “leftists” because, as it seems evident, they demand you actually substantiate your statements with rational argument.

And you can’t. (Or won’t?)

Go back and reread Brown v. Board of Education. ‘Separate but equal’ is unequal.

The principle of equality before the law is the foundation of American civil society – NOT any religion.

@Eric – as I said, there’s no point in arguing. It’s a waste of time.

@Katie – Brown v. Topeka Bd. of Ed. and Loving v. Virginia has no application here.

I’ve already given you guys some clues, the most important one is the Right of Contract in the Minnesota Constitution. You could have looked at that.

waste. of. time.

I rest my case.

fact Definition: verifiable truth; reality

Nachman… Verify all you say with actual truth, not theory.

Your faith system and your perception of holy books written before we have evolved as a society, your perception of a book that thought the world was flat and that the sun circled the sun and a book that not only condoned slavery but gave rules and regulations on such, is not FACT.

For fact you need to PROVE it.

Eric: As I rest *my* case, you win *nothing*.

Facts are nothing to progs. It’s a waste of time trying.

Thanks for letting me piss you guys off, though. :-)

Claims that you have facts on your side when your only “facts” are the same old religious doctrines that don’t mean anything and are not supposed to be part of the law? Are not facts.

You’ve proven nothing, all you’ve been is annoying.

Perhaps Nachman doesn’t realize that there are many others than progressives that visit this website. What must those in “the moveable middle” (and they vote, too) think of his comments? Probably not too well.

He also repeatedly mentions the right of contract in the Minnesota Constitution. How does that help the same-gender couple in dealing with such things as hospital visitation rights (the hospital is not a party to that contract, and therefore doesn’t have to honor it), paying for health insurance using pre-tax dollars (the IRS is not a party to that contract, and therefore doesn’t have to grant this), family membership rates at any organization (that organization is not a party to that contract, and therefore doesn’t have to honor it), and so on and on in addition to having to show all the private details of that contract each and every time to be recognized, IF AT ALL. Married couples do not endure this “waste. of. time” and indignity; furthermore, in terms of commitment and responsibility to each other, there is NO DIFFERENCE between that of a opposite-gender couple and a same-gender couple.

Additionally, why should a same-gender couple shell out thousands and thousands of dollars for paperwork that may or may not be effective when a marriage license can be had for a relatively low fee with that license granting instant recognition and access to the rights, responsibilities and privileges that today’s married couples take for granted?

That same contract does not guarantee that the courts won’t force a person to testify against his or her partner – unlike today’s married couples.

Instead of trolling websites, perhaps that schlub could take a step outside and smell the reality of life all around him? Spring is here; some fresh air could clear out those cobwebs in his mind.

Annoyed patrons of this site? Get to be to be organized voters, and will rally up, not just the liberals and prog’s, but the middle.

The middle will be swayed by facts not religious indoctrination. This act of un-American, unpatriotic, because its un-constitutional act of putting a minorities civil rights on the voters ballot will put man against man.

Facts and science are what us “prog’s” live by. ours can be verified and have been. Yours is based on a faith system that I am protected NOT to be indoctrinated into.

So, Nachman, Lane has given us good reason to think that the “right of contract” argument is a very weak one. Do you have any other bits of wisdom?

“As you know the definition of marriage is a very personal one,” said Senator Warren Limmer. OK, Senator. If you admit that the definition of marriage is “very personal,” then it is immoral and UNJUST to legislate that only one definition of marriage carry legal rights and responsibilities!

Lane: By legislation, direct that third parties honor lawful contracts in specific circumstances.

There. Fixed.

Nachman,

That still doesn’t address the issue of the unfair burden and expense of drawing up specific contracts for GLBT couples.

Isn’t it easier to just legalize gay marriage?

“Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding.” (APA)

@marie, Eric, Katie B. -

It is your system of faith and your self-professed moral position that you are trying to force upon the nation, in order to oppress our freedoms of religion, speech and private property in order to limit and control the pursuit of happiness. Your bid for oppression is unconstitutional. If you want to be gay, go ahead, but you cannot force your (im)moral position on the rest of society. Your attempt to blame other religions for everything without giving credit for the history of faith in God that has lead our nation to prosperity, is completely foolish. Then you turn around and use your self-proclaimed morality based and your religion to oppress the nation – in a bid to create a theocracy. Open your eyes, you are the oppressors, you are the ones that want to bring back slavery to the state and take away the rights that our nation has fought for.

Your selfish ambitions without regard for the cost our nation would pay is inexcusable. A free nation cannot remain free if is gives up its freedoms. Gay-marriage is not a free gift to give. The cost is too high. Freedom is too rare and far too expensive to give up. The greatest freedoms you could have without destroying the nation, you already have.

Oh pffft, Nachman.

Why should loving same-gender couples who want to commit to each other with that relationship legally recognized and protected by law settle for “separate-but-equal marriage but not really marriage” statutes?

Why should society be burdened with two separate sets of laws for essentially the same function – especially given the difficulty of ensuring both sets are always “equal” to each other? Why should society pass laws that treat a subset of its population differently based on a characteristic when such laws do not pass constitutional muster?

Nachman, I assert again that in terms of commitment and responsibility to each other, there is NO DIFFERENCE between that of a opposite-gender couple and a same-gender couple.

The only rational course of action is to extend access to civil marriage to same-gender couples, and let all the benefits flow through existing mechanisms to these households that may or may not include children. To do so is a very conservative, very American thing to do in the sense of integrating yet another large group of citizens more fully into society as full equals. Finally, this is but another instance of KISS – keep it simple, stupid!

Gentle readers, please pardon the static that preceded my response to Nachman … That static is even more annoying than that buzzing whine of a male mosquito in the front porch or is it coming from the nearby wind turbine?

Tim,

Unless you want to dialogue in a serious and honest manner, I’m not sure that many others or I have much patience left with you.

As you’re well aware, the three of us are nonreligious. Yet, you refer to our views as “system[s] of faith” and our “religion.”

You’ve repeatedly been refuted in your claim that gay marriage somehow equals a theocracy, and yet you keep repeating the claim, as if you’re incapable of changing your opinion when it’s shown to be false.

You misrepresent our views again when you write, “Your attempt to blame other religions for everything…” Nowhere in my postings, nor from what I’ve read of Katie B. and marie, do we ever blame religion “for everything.” As you’ve done repeatedly, you fabricate information and then ascribe it to others. You don’t advance dialogue that way, you damage your credibility and undermine your own case, and yet you persist in these odd behaviors.

Tim, as you may know, support for gay marriage is now rapidly expanding in the state of New York. After it’s made legal in NY, it will happen in state after state, including MN. Eventually gay marriage will be a fait accompli everywhere. Bigotry will have no resting place.

Eric – As a point of order, I’m a Pagan. Specifically Wiccan, with particular interests in the Greek and Celtic Pantheons. :)

I’m pretty sure there’s nothing in my religion that is specifically about gayness.

*checks*

There isn’t.

lol

Thanks for the correction.

Best wishes, :)
E

In any case, you are generally correct, and I consider my codes of morality to be based in human reason and human compassion, rather than in any God/dess/es’ commands.

Eric wrote: “That still doesn’t address the issue of the unfair burden and expense of drawing up specific contracts for GLBT couples. ”

Thanks for having the courage to imply my assertion that a contract between a same sex couple was correct.

Some entrepreneur will start a business specifically for same sex couples wanting to exercise their Right to lawfully contract, something like Legal Zoom. The HRC could even set it up so that couples can do it at reduced cost, or Outfront can do the same.

“Isn’t it easier to just legalize gay marriage?”

Happy marriages are legal.

Nachman obviously does not have the courage to admit that contracts between same-gender couples hardly command the same legal force and respect everywhere that a marriage license does. Meh. What a schlub!

I will state once again,

I hold zero religious thought, or faith. My moral compass comes from within, I service the community I am in and beyond, and I bring up my children, and stay monogamous because I love my male married partner, becuase I make the choice to, not because I am told to.

I accept any religious belief, for others. I support their wants, and practices, and choice of being in that religion, or to change their religion. As long as it doesn’t work its way into any form of law, or is pressed onto me.

I support the constitution of America, I believe that all people are equal and deserve the right to be married if they make the choice to with or without a symbolic religious ceremony.

There is no religion in marriage period since it is just a legal contract. God doesn’t make you married the state does.

to cover the thought fully

I make the choice to stay monogamous, I did not make my husband as a choice, or make a choice as a straight person, I was born that way. I never had a moment when I said aha I am making the choice to be straight.

As gay people didn’t make the choice to say aha I am gay.

Nachman,

Ultimately you haven’t addressed a few key points in this discussion:

1) Why should GLBT people go to the extra effort and expense of securing a special contract when marriage will obviate the need to do so?

2) Why aren’t gay marriages equal to those of heterosexual marriages?

Having a contract as you suggest may be a solution, but it’s obviously inferior to full equality under the law with marriage. A contract system also contains a flaw: the unavoidable implicit message that gay and lesbian relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships. They aren’t.

The contract system will prove costly (not all same-gender couples can afford the fees), inefficient (lack of standardized contracts requiring each contract be evaluated one at a time) and susceptible to abuse (what’s to prevent one partner from unduly taking advantage of the other?).

Not only will the contract system send the wrong message about the value of same-gender committed relationships, it will also send that same wrong message to children being raised in those households.

Finally, why would anyone suggest this kind of solution if s/he is not willing to have this applied to her or him? Would an opposite-gender couple consent to a civil union or domestic partnership or reciprocal benefits or contract system or any other version of “marriage lite” knowing that such is not universally recognized and acknowledged? I for one would not accept such; I want the same as everyone else – nothing more and CERTAINLY NOT LESS!

Eric wrote:

“Why should GLBT people go to the extra effort and expense of securing a special contract when marriage will obviate the need to do so?”

Marriage is a special contract between and man and a woman which our society recognizes as the commencement of the core unit of civil society.

“Why aren’t gay marriages equal to those of heterosexual marriages?”

To reiterate:

Marriage is civil society’s recognition of the biological imperative between a man and a woman to perpetuate the human species and to form a family unit to properly raise their offspring. A same sex couple will never be able to consummate a marriage and can never procreate. Same sex “marriage” will never be equal to opposite sex marriage.

Here’s a question for you: If same sex “marriage” is acceptable to you based upon the premise that as long as two consenting adults love each other it is a valid reason to get married, what of polygamy? Is that acceptable to you as well? What will prevent polygamists from claiming their rights are being violated, and they, too, are being “discriminated” against?

Oh really?

What business is it of yours, Nachman, whether that opposite-gender or same-gender couple consummates or not? What business is it of yours whether either couple chooses to procreate or not? FYI, there are millions of households headed by same-gender couples that are raising children with many of them doing a darn good job being excellent parents!

As for polygamy, that is a red herring. It is a separate issue to be argued on its own merits.

Again, I re-iterate that in terms of commitment and responsibility to each other as well as to their children, if any, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE between that of an opposite-gender couple and that of a same-gender couple.

What a schlub!

As soon as you insinuate that marriage is only deemed respectable because it honors the procreation of our population, you deem all marriages that are without children not significant therefore they shouldn’t be allowed to be married.. The minute you deem marriages respectable only in the name of god, you deem all marriages that are secular then they should not be allowed to get married.

Best friends of our family are in their 50′s, never had a child, never planned to have had children, marred in their 20′s, in a park with a judge. I guess they shouldn’t be allowed the same legal rights you have.

the talks of polygamy is a game religious zealots use to scare the public.

Nachman,

You wrote,

—–”Marriage is a special contract between and man and a woman which our society recognizes as the commencement of the core unit of civil society.”

I’m not clear what your point is–and neither are you, I suspect. If you’re pointing out that many people believe that heterosexual marriage should be restricted to heterosexuals, then you’re merely stating the obvious. If you’re point is that marriage exclusively limited to heterosexuals is necessary for civil society, then it’s not an argument to simply make that statement–that’s the very thing in question! (Instead of repeating yourself consider using arguments, reason and evidence. Hint.) But, if you believe that only heterosexual marriage will protect the interests of society, then you have to provide evidence for it. Merely repeating this statement doesn’t make it true.

—–”Marriage is civil society’s recognition of the biological imperative between a man and a woman to perpetuate the human species and to form a family unit to properly raise their offspring. A same sex couple will never be able to consummate a marriage and can never procreate. Same sex “marriage” will never be equal to opposite sex marriage.”

Marriage has never been restricted to couples who are infertile or don’t want to have children. Also, gay and lesbian couples with children can also “properly raise their offspring.” If, however, you’re claiming that anyone who can’t or doesn’t want children shouldn’t be allowed to marry, then many heterosexual couples would be excluded from marriage.

You use the phrase “consummate a marriage.” I’ve already questioned you on this, but you either didn’t know how to answer or ignored my comments. So, to repeat, my criticism of this “argument” is that it’s arbitrary. You obviously mean by “consummate”, heterosexual sex. But this assumes a definition that not everyone agrees with. If you ask people, ‘How do you consummate a marriage?’, you’ll get a number of different responses. With majorities of people having sex before marriage, it’s hardly consummation for them to be having sex on their wedding night.

You claim that a same sex marriages can never procreate. Biologically this is true, but it’s irrelevant to the marriage question because infertile heterosexual couples can’t procreate either. What do they do? They adopt or use surrogate mothers. This is what gay and lesbians couples do. Other gay and lesbians couples have children from a previous heterosexual marriage.

On the question of polygamy–have you even thought about this question or are you just tossing off whatever pops into your head? Polygamy has been fought for long before the drive for same sex marriage. Heterosexual marriage could just as easily lead to polygamy as homosexual marriage. How could you possibly think otherwise? Marriage itself has always been up for grabs in terms of its definition. In any case this is irrelevant specific question as to whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry.

add “to the” in the last sentence

Be still my typos, be still…

Lane wrote:

“As for polygamy, that is a red herring. It is a separate issue to be argued on its own merits.”

I did not make an assertion, I asked a question.

Eric: I see you are trying to deconstruct the language and revise the definition of words to advance your socio-political ideology. When objective truth is destroyed, so is a common language and the means to communicate.

There is no reason to have a debate, discussion, or argument when the parties involved do not speak the same language and cannot agree on the definition of words.

Btw, Eric – have you seen the Tenth Edition of the Newspeak Dictionary?

Nachman

Clearly saying that there is no reason for debate is the worse excuse I have ever seen or heard to cover up the fact that you do NOT have a debate.

Eric has not deconstruct any language, but used the proper use of it, not just our perception of what is and what is not.

You may have an opinion and you have full right to live within that opinion but it does not make it true, and surely not true for all. In fact for you to do so, makes it indoctrination, and dangerous for all society. For then my freedom as an American will be compromised.

marie sez:

“Clearly saying that there is no reason for debate is the worse excuse I have ever seen or heard to cover up the fact that you do NOT have a debate.”

You left out context and my explanation why there cannot be a debate between opposing sides. Read it again. To simplify your life, here it is: There is no reason to have a debate, discussion, or argument when the parties involved do not speak the same language and cannot agree on the definition of words.

Again: when the parties involved do not speak the same language and cannot agree on the definition of words.

So far, the prog arguments have been textbook.

@Tim

I have personaly met David Noebel and found him to be a very disingenuous person. His need to hate people has clouded his soul just as it has yours. His “camp” in Manitou CO was nothing more than a brain washing torture chamber for innocent children. I hope you will see the true light in Jesus’ love.

@Nachman

The above comment to Tim goes out to you as well.

You both have turned away from the truth in Jesus’ teachings on love. Your souls are clouded with satan’s hatred.

Marie: Here’s an good example.

Eric asserts:

“Marriage itself has always been up for grabs in terms of its definition.”

This is not true. It is completely ahistoric. Eric is either ignorant of fact or is attempting to perpetrate a fraud.

I assert that it is an objective truth the accepted definition of marriage, over thousands of years, across the generations, throughout history, and across cultures is a union between husband and wife; the husband is a man and the wife is a woman.

I further assert that it is an objective truth that marriage is the recognition by civil society or a culture of the biological imperative for a man and a woman to perpetuate the human species and form a family unit to properly raise their offspring. A same sex couple will never be able to consummate a marriage, that is, engage in biological reproduction and, therefore, can never procreate.

@Nachman

Many “imperatives” throughout history have been debunked. You will need to do a better job on validating your hatred than that.

@ Nachaman

You might state that marriage has not been historically changed over time, but it is evident that it has. Please open a book, research your absurd ideas and theory’s with real fact.

The changes in marriage have been broad and fundamental, so what are religious indoctrinates really trying to defend? What is “traditional” about modern marriage?

Most of these changes have moved power in marriages away from extended families and to the couples, as well as making women more equal. Here are just a few of the most significant changes in marriage in the West over the past centuries:

Legalization of divorce
Criminalization of marital rape (and recognition that the concept even exists)
Legalization of contraception
Legalization of interracial marriage
Recognition of women’s right to own property in a marriage
Elimination of dowries
Elimination of parents’ right to choose or reject their children’s mates
Elimination of childhood marriages and betrothals
Elimination of polygamy
Existence of large numbers of unmarried people
Women not taking the last names of their husbands
Changing emphasis from money and property to love and personal fulfillment

Most of these reforms directly benefited women. For a long time, marriage was not in any way a real “partnership” between men and women. Men were in control and women were often little more than property. It’s only very, very recently that people in the West began to treat marriage as a partnership between equals where both men and women had the same status in the relationship — and there continue to be many in America who object to even this idea.

Why was it acceptable to make so many reforms in the nature of marriage that benefitted heterosexuals and women, but not acceptable now to make one reform that benefits gays? Is there any reason to think that all of these other reforms were somehow more “minor” or “superficial” than legalizing gay marriage? No — making women equal in marriage rather than property, eliminating polygamy, and allowing people to marry for love are all at least as significant as allowing gay couples to marry, especially since gay marriage is not unheard-of in human history.

The objective truth still remains: the accepted definition of marriage, over thousands of years, across the generations, throughout history, and across cultures is a union between husband and wife; the husband is a man and the wife is a woman.

Q.E.D.

I would also like to add that although Polygamy has changed in marriage and society, it is not the same subject to address as Gay marriage, since Gay Marriage is of legal loving binding, within religious symbolic ritual or not.

@Nachman

It does not objectively remains, because marriage is a new notion as it stands and its not at all the subject for with you use to attack the reasons of Gay Marriage.

History has shown that Gay Marriage has had merit and has set position in history and society.

Your facts can not be verified. Please verified I have verified mine over and over and over again.

@at nachman

actually the argument really isn’t that that its always been one man one woman, its actually the opposite.

ame-sex union was a socially recognized institution at times in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history. These gay unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

So really its just the Gay’s retaking their rights as human beings that the religious right have taken away from them.

Nachman is going to simply ignore inconvenient facts.

@John I –

Why don’t you explain to me your idea of Jesus’ love? How do you think Jesus would address the clear teaching in scripture that all sexual perversion is a sin? How about Romans 8 that tells us the homosexuality is the maturity of sin?

If we are not sinners, then why would anyone need Jesus? You might as well put for faith in being an atheist. But if we are all sinners in need of a savior to pay the wages of sin so that we could be reconciled with God, then why would anyone who has been saved continue to sinning against God? Scripture even tells us that if we have put our faith in Jesus we have become born again, a new creation in which we cannot continue sinning. The only way to remain in sin is to remain separated from a relationship with God, which means you have never put your faith in Jesus and have never been saved. Faith without works is dead. You actions reveal your faith. A practicing homosexual is not a Christian, only a hypocrite living a lie.

@marie -

The same argument could be used for incest or pedophilia or polygamy that they exist throughout history. History includes examples of all of these, but that does not prove they have ever been good for society or anyone. If homosexuality is a good thing, then so is pedophilia. How can you say the pedophiles are wrong and homosexuals are not?

Nachman,

You wrote,

—–”I further assert that it is an objective truth that marriage is the recognition by civil society or a culture of the biological imperative for a man and a woman to perpetuate the human species and form a family unit to properly raise their offspring. A same sex couple will never be able to consummate a marriage, that is, engage in biological reproduction and, therefore, can never procreate.”

It’s apparent what your style of “argument” is. You simply repeat and repeat with little to no thought of backing up your claims with reason or evidence. I’ve already offered arguments against your statements in this paragraph and you failed to respond to them. Can you comprehend that merely repeating yourself doesn’t somehow add strength to your point of view?

—–”I assert that it is an objective truth the accepted definition of marriage, over thousands of years, across the generations, throughout history, and across cultures is a union between husband and wife; the husband is a man and the wife is a woman.”

1) You don’t seem to be able to understand that merely because something was the case yesterday, that that fact alone isn’t sufficient to establish its validity today. (And for the record, I’ve pointed this logical point out to you at least two times before. Either you don’t understand it, or you’re ignoring it.) For instance, there are many places in the Bible where slavery is condoned. It was a normal and morally “justified” institution. Now, of course, we reject it.

2) Your claim about the universality of heterosexual marriage as we know it today is hopefully ill-informed and naive, a generalization born not of learning but of cocksure ignorance. Even a quick google search falsifies your claim. E.g.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient

—–” “Marriage itself has always been up for grabs in terms of its definition.”

This is not true. It is completely ahistoric. Eric is either ignorant of fact or is attempting to perpetrate a fraud.”

You missed my point. My point in context was that there’s no reason why a definition of marriage is ever set in stone. It’s a social construct–not an unchanging “objective truth”–that reflects a time and place. It’s not a found property of society like, for instance, the molecular properties of iron. Marriage, is and always has been what human societies made it, just like governments, bowling clubs, holidays, traffic laws, accounting practices, and art movements.

Nachman–some advice: No one gives a damn about the fact that you can repeat your claims. What they care about is whether your claims are backed by good reasons and evidence. Repetition doesn’t strengthen your case, nor does how loudly you say it. Repetition *does not matter* in establishing your case against same sex marriage. Get it?

@Eric –
Your attempt to discard my arguments without addressing them is cowardly.

You have already admitted that your “system of faith” is secular humanism, which even the Supreme Court has rules in to be a “religion”. Yet, you continue to hide behind the lie that you are not a “religion” person so that you can attack ideas as “religious”.

You just continue to repeat yourself while incapable of changing your opinions regardless of the numerous times I have shown them to be false.

Your credibility is gone, while mine continues to grow with each and every additional post.

You said, “You misrepresent our views again when you write, “Your attempt to blame other religions for everything…” Nowhere in my postings, nor from what I’ve read of Katie B. and marie, do we ever blame religion “for everything.””

Your religion is nothing but people blaming religion for everything. And Marie talks about her hatred for anyone with religion ideas in just about every comment.

Your attempt to twist words around to hiding your delusion has become hysterical and clearly evident that you are unwilling to discuss the issues presented.

Nachman,

You might want to inform the American Anthropological Association of your remarkable finding about heterosexual marriage. Somehow, thousands of academic researchers have come to a different conclusion than you did! Go figure!

“The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”

@Eric –
You said,

“You missed my point. My point in context was that there’s no reason why a definition of marriage is ever set in stone. It’s a social construct–not an unchanging “objective truth”–that reflects a time and place. It’s not a found property of society like, for instance, the molecular properties of iron.”

You are clueless. Marriage has always before any nation created the legal document of marriage. Marriage existed for the beginning of man and women, before any nation was created. It is clearly an unchangeable and objective truth that cannot be defined by a nation that has no authority of nature in which men and woman are created. Marriage is a property of natural like gravity, which is fundamental to every society just as gravity is foundational to the universe.

Some advice: No one gives a damn that you are can repeat your claims. What they care about is whether your claims are backed by good reasons and evidence. Repetition doesn’t strengthen your case, nor does how loudly you say it. The fact of the matter is that gay-marriage would destroy the nation, and create a theocracy. Get it?

Pedophilia is wrong because it involves sexual child abuse as those who are “underage; someone who doesn’t have a completely developed mind to make choices and hold his/her own in a romantic or sexual relationship with an adult. Even in an S/M relationship, where one adult is giving away their power to another adult, it’s still two consenting adults. A child does not have the ability to make this kind of decision.”

Asking why homosexuality is wrong is like asking why heterosexuality is wrong … Sheesh.

@Lane -
But it does exist in history, just as homosexuality. So you cannot use the argument that homosexuality is a good thing just because it is found in history.

By the way, who defines what is “underage” and is that based on morality or something else? Many of the same researchers in the AAA that Eric pointed out also argue that Pedophilia should be allowed for the same reasons. Therefore the reasoning of the AAA cannot be used as support for homosexuality without suggesting that Pedophilia is also a good thing.

Marie – You may not realize that you are supporting your children having sex with adults.

Tim,

You wrote,

“You are clueless. Marriage has always before any nation created the legal document of marriage. Marriage existed for the beginning of man and women, before any nation was created. It is clearly an unchangeable and objective truth that cannot be defined by a nation that has no authority of nature in which men and woman are created. Marriage is a property of natural like gravity, which is fundamental to every society just as gravity is foundational to the universe. ”

This is Christian fundamentalist dogma, not history. Try again.

Tim,

You wrote,

“Marriage is a property of natural like gravity, which is fundamental to every society just as gravity is foundational to the universe.”

So, are we to conclude that bowling rules, laws, rituals, classical music pedagogy, highway driving laws, etc., are also natural categories? –That is, found in nature without human involvement?

Marriage is clearly a social construct. If you disagree, I’d be curious to hear the theory for why you think this is the case.

the minute you answer any debate with scriptures, you invalidate your argument. For it is not fact, it is only your personal choice and opinion.

I’m amazed at how much recent legal history Tim has to overlook to come to this conclusion. Heterosexual, monogamous marriages are very much a social construct of only the last 3 centuries.

Tim, what does pedophilia have to do with equal access to civil marriage for all couples – including those who are same-gender?

I am not interested in the subject of pedophilia; need I mention the shameful involvement of so many religious authorities – priests, rabbis, imams – who are being caught and sent to jail with their institutions being sued for lots of money. I refuse to discuss this subject with someone the likes of you who do not have the necessary legal and psychology backgrounds.

I forgot to add fundamentalist ministers to the non-exclusive list of religious authorities current sexually abusing children as well as in the past. Is that history enough for you, Tim?

@Eric –
You wrote,
“This is Christian fundamentalist dogma, not history.”

Christianity is history. Try again.

History of conquest and extermination, perhaps.

@Eric –
You wrote,
“So, are we to conclude that bowling rules, laws, rituals, classical music pedagogy, highway driving laws, etc., are also natural categories? –That is, found in nature without human involvement?”

None of these are part of nature, the owner of the creation of man and woman. The natural union of a man and woman to form a family (marriage) has never been a social construct and it never will be. The civil laws of marriage simply acknowledge the natural laws of nature. The only way to truly change marriage is to change nature. Perhaps when two men can have a baby, than you can create a civil law to acknowledge. Try again.

@Lane –
You wrote,
“Tim, what does pedophilia have to do with equal access to civil marriage for all couples – including those who are same-gender?
I am not interested in the subject of pedophilia; need I mention the shameful involvement of so many religious authorities”

If same-sex couples should be given access to civil marriage then why deny that right to pedophilias? The arguments are the same. In fact many homosexual advocates have been involved in pedophilia throughout history, so they are very closely related. For this reason, pedophilia groups are part of pro-gay events.

Tim, you are delving deeply into long-discredited lies spread by your hate-group owners.

@marie –
There is more evident in the world that scriptures contain the truth as they have been validated by countless historical evidence and research then there is that you and I ever existed.

Therefore scripture is more relevant then you’re or my opinion. I know you don’t like to hear the facts, but the truth will eventually set you free.

Oh really? given that 9x% of pedophiles are heterosexual males with 9x% coming from religious homes.

www valueallfamilies com/myth__gays_are_pedophiles

www childmolestationprevention org/pages/tell_others_the_facts.html

Tim,

You wrote,

—–”Christianity is history. Try again.”

Well, if we’re referring to, e.g., the Christian fundamentalist dogma that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and the claim that the stories of Noah and Adam and Eve are true–there’s no evidence for this, and it’s safe to say that this claim is false in light of archeology and the natural sciences. This is just one of many examples.

—–”None of these are part of nature, the owner of the creation of man and woman. The natural union of a man and woman to form a family (marriage) has never been a social construct and it never will be. The civil laws of marriage simply acknowledge the natural laws of nature. The only way to truly change marriage is to change nature. Perhaps when two men can have a baby, than you can create a civil law to acknowledge. Try again.”

Tim, you’re confusing two concepts–heterosexual pair-bonding and the institution of marriage. Heterosexual pair-bonding (and homosexual, for that matter), the tendency for humans to form relationships, is indeed natural. Pair-bonding is an instinctual basic behavior. (At the same time there’s anthropological evidence for groups of people to form intimate emotional and sexual bonds with each other.)

Marriage, on the other hand, is a set of laws and customs–the very definition of a social construct. Who is allowed to get married, when, and under what conditions are all variables that have changed through time and place.

It follows that marriage utterly changeable. After all, it always has been.

Tim,

You wrote,

“If same-sex couples should be given access to civil marriage then why deny that right to pedophilias?[sic]”

If Christian fundamentalists are allowed to marry, what’s to stop pedophiles from asking for the same right? After all, in many traditionalist religious cultures, it’s not uncommon to find young girls being married off to much older men. Religious rationales are offered for this, and village religious leaders sanction it.

Tim,

While we’re at it, history still has no definitive answer to the sexuality of Jesus. If he existed, then he was a man. Which meant he had erections, ejaculations, and quite possibly sexual encounters with other people. Was he hetero oriented? Bi? A homosexual? There’s no solid evidence to substantiate any of these claims. We just don’t know. Did he masturbate? Very likely yes.

Tim

Evidence, not theory. You can say your religion is the truth and only truth, that there is only one God and he is indeed my God, eventhough I do not recogonize your religion or your God.

Science proves you wrong, science is built to even prove itself wrong! Which the basic ideology difference between any religion and Science. Science practices it self to correct, grow, and learn. Your religion is set to be absolute with no change of change.

Religion is not history. There is religion in history.

@Tim

You and Nachman have completely distorted the teachings of Jesus. Arguing with you is paramount to….well I can not think of anything more pointless than talking with you two. The time the two of you spend trolling this web site attempting to validate your lives with hatred and bigotry is truly detestable. Your attempts to spread your hatred will need to end. I give you the one script from the bible that you can not run from or deny. Matthew 16:19 King James version

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Tim and Nachman, I will not allow your hatred and bigotry of God’s creations to enter into heaven. You are both truly disgusting people.

John I: It’s presumtive of you to think I’m a Christian. I am not a Christian and the NT is irrelevant to me, theologically at least.

Eric: Wikipedia is not reliable. Don’t used it as a sole source of information.

Eric, I used “objective truth” to qualify my argument. Do you know what an objective truth is? An objective fact? Do those concepts exist for you or the progs?

objective truth gets bounced out with literal truth.

To evaluate the objectivity of a truth or fact requires that predictions be made and then devising tests to see if those predictions hold true or not.

Let’s take Nachman’s “objective truth”: the accepted definition of marriage, over thousands of years, across the generations, throughout history, and across cultures is a union between husband and wife; the husband is a man and the wife is a woman.

This requires that the definition of marriage being the union between one man and one woman hold true over thousands of years, across the generations, throughout history, and across cultures. I only need point out Mormon polygamists and legal same-gender marriages here and there to prove this false; therefore, that “truth” is not objective.

*yawn*

PS Nachman, it doesn’t matter to me to what set of beliefs or lifestyle you ascribe to; just keep it to yourself. We’ll all thank you for this.

Nachman,

You wrote,

“Eric, I used “objective truth” to qualify my argument. Do you know what an objective truth is? An objective fact? Do those concepts exist for you or the progs?”

I encourage you to answer Lane’s well-state point.

Yes, I understand what “objective truth” usually refers to. But I’m not certain that you are able to grasp the following logical point, itself an objective rational truth (albeit an objective fallacy): Because phenomenon X happened for Y amount of time in the past, this is sufficient basis for claiming that X is moral, correct or true.

I’ve challenged you on this a number of times and you refuse to defend your position. Could this be because it’s indefensible?

Eric, you are denying what is self-evident – objective truth.

Lane: “[It] doesn’t matter to me to what set of beliefs or lifestyle you ascribe to [between consenting adults]; just keep it to yourself. We’ll all thank you for this.”

Right back at you.

@Nachmann

if you really felt what was akin between two consenting adults than you would have no issue with them being married, cause it would have nothing to do with you or your marriage.

Tsk. Tsk. Such love coming from Nachman, but then what does one expect from such a johnson like him? Meh.

Lane:

Lane: *plonk*

marie: Just noting the irony. It’s *you* that wants change how we live – our entire society, in fact.

Nachman: Not even close. Society has already acknowledged for years and years that gay people – despite intense pressure against us – form lasting, personally-meaningful relationships at about the same rate that heterosexuals do (dissolve them at about the same rate, too). Marriage rights are a legal acknowledgment of this.

Nachman,

Once again, instead of understanding and replying to my argument with one of your own, you simply repeat yourself. I’m reminded of that famous William James quote about what most people consider to be thinking is merely rearranging their prejudices.

Nachmann

AS did millions of people when we stopped slavery.

AS did millions of people when we changed womens rights

AS did millions of people when we changed marriage over and over and over again through history.

I will never force you Nachmann to follow suit of my religion, stop forcing yours onto the public and stand up for equality rights. Its what gave you the right to be bigoted in this manner.

Eric: already presented my arguments.

marie stated”

“AS did millions of people when we changed marriage over and over and over again through history.”

Soapbox rhetoric.

“I will never force you Nachmann to follow suit of my religion,stop forcing yours onto the public”

That’s *exactly* what *you* and the SSM progs are trying to do. Don’t throw stones – you’ll get cut by flying glass.

I think Tim and Nachman have secret gay dreams about eachother at night. See you at the gay bar boys!

Tim,

Have you nothing to say to my last post? If you don’t believe you’re confusing pair-bonding with marriage, then please explain why you think that’s the case.

Nachmann

there is no religion in secular marriage. Same Sex marriage can be either secular or religious. In your sect of your particular religion Not.

straight marriage again, in some religions yes, and in others no. I don’t follow religion, I have a secular marriage. Of NO RELIGION

And with this thread’s descent into ad hominem,

*plonk*

Is it your intention, Nachman, to troll this website by posting childish, bigoted comments that attempt albeit unsuccessfully to polarize or otherwise shut down us regular readers? Why should we continue to read what you post, much less respond to what you have to say? I intend to skip your comments from now on.

@ Tim

Since the largest percentage of Pedophiles come straight religious homes and are male, then than you by being a straight man and a Christian are promoting pedophilia.

Since the largest population of criminals come from straight religious homes than you by being straight are promoting criminal acts.

Marriage, once again, is not a human right, a civil right, or any other concoctiion you wish to attribute to it. It is the union of one man and one woman. It’s been that way for 2000 years and more and even if you believe in evolution the animals knew how to procreate – an inate and natural phenomena – one male, one female = a child. That is the core unit of the family and the structure of society. This farse you people call same-sex marriage is just that a farse. It’s a foolish fantasy that man on man or woman on woman is marriage. It’s not – it’s mush. And all your ragging on religion doesn’t change that fact. People whether they are divorced or not can still respect the core foundation of society. Marriage between a man and a woman is good for children. Anything else is pure delusion, farcical and wishful thinking.

Our Constitution wasn’t meant to provide same-sex marriage under any Amendment and the founders would have been appauled at the inference. Get a life.

Mudrose wrote,

“Marriage between a man and a woman is good for children. Anything else is pure delusion, farcical and wishful thinking.”

I assume you have actual evidence to back up this claim? Please provide us with a peer-reviewed research report from a reputable academic journal.