marriage rights to homosexuals,

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

God and his "Kingdom" are very much a part of the issue...while a man-made organization (denomination) is not. You don't have to be a member of a man-made organization to read the Bible and understand it.

---

Ok. Good, now we're getting somewhere.



1, The "Kingdom of God"/"Body of Christ"/"All the followers of Christ" is in your perception not a man made organization, thus it is different from a religion (wich is a man made organization) and therefore not subject to the first amendment of the US Constitution?







2, What's your thoughts about potential kingdoms of other gods?

You don't have to be a member of a man-made organization to read the Edda, Coran or any other Deism manual and understand it.







Wich leads us back to:

Quote:

---

Galmin - "You see, to take this discussion on objectively, we must regard all religions, past or contemporary, as equally valid."



DreamTone7 - "Not in America".

---

3, Did the US ever have an adapted state faith and a church to represent it?

[DreamTone7]

1 - Yes



2 - This would assume that there are other Gods....I personally don't think that there are. (Note that this can also mean that they are all one and the same! On that I am not sure.)



3 - This is a Christian nation (the faith question), but there is no "official church (man-made organization)". (Haven't we discussed that already?)

[NRKofOver]

Now I'm even more confused.



I really don't understand why this isn't a simple freedom issue.



The freedom to enter into legal partnerships that come with responsibilities along with benefits should be applicable to all people, regardless of the gender of those people.



Churches will marry gay people now. That's of no consequence. This is simply a government question, why are gay people denied access to the same legal protections that straight people get?

Read all about ME!

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

1 - Yes

---

Ok, so IYHO man made religions are subject to the first amendment of the US Constitution were the "Kingdom of God"/"Body of Christ"/"All the followers of Christ" (a one of a kind, not man made entity, that levitate Christian issues above the Constitution) is not.



I am glad we cleared that up.

Quote:

---

This is a Christian nation

---

So you keep telling me, though there never was any adapted state faith. It would have been different, had the founding fathers astablished it into the Constitution by the time the first amendment was written.



Religous freedom and adapted state faith.



As it is, you merely have the first.

Quote:

---

I really don't understand why this isn't a simple freedom issue.

---

It is.





/G

Edited by: Galmin  at: 9/19/03 9:04 am

[DreamTone7]

Marriage was a spiritual institution long before it was ever anything "legal"....or in this case, legally recognized. When this country was founded it was decided that this union, which already existed, would be recognized for various purposes.



You can have a union between two gays, two straights, or a gay and a straight (?) of whatever sex.....but you can only call a union of this type between two opposite sex straight people (or at least those that purport to be so) a marriage. Sorry boys, you just can't change the definition of a word to suit your own purposes. Now whether or not a government decides to recognize said union between two gays would depend on the beliefs of the people that formed the government.....in this case, Christians. Any decision to go against the wishes of the "founding fathers" would alter what this country is and what it stands for.



This is a Christian nation fellas....and until that changes, you guys really do need to get over it, and move on.



Do they recognize same-sex marriages in Sweden?

[NRKofOver]

Quote:

---

Any decision to go against the wishes of the "founding fathers" would alter what this country is and what it stands for.

---

You mean like making Blacks whole complete humans instead of partial ones? What were we thinking when we altered the ideals of our founding fathers? And the alterations have been terrible! We should go back to the very beginning of the document that founded this country and put everything back the way it was, because any alterations will destroy this country. Please, Dream, recognize that the country was founded with the ability to change, that is one of the best parts of our Constitution, that it can change and it has and will continue to do so.

Read all about ME!

[RonOnGuitar]

Quote:

---

why are gay people denied access to the same legal protections that straight people get?

---

Someone who is homosexual already has the same civil rights that all Americans share, NRK.

[NRKofOver]

This is simply not true Ron. Spouses in marriages have exceptional rights compared to non-married partners (but even common law marriage gives rights to those people who never enter into a formal marriage arrangement), such as hospital visitation rights, such as medical decision authority, such as automatic estate rights when a will isn't present, and etc.. Gay people are not gauranteed, and often are deliberately denied these rights even when they enter into long term marriage-like relationships. Maybe the intention wasn't to give special consideration to married couples, but that's what has happened and now people who can't get 'married' because of gender compatability are not given the same rights as others.



Ron, I've always contended that the abolition of state sponsored relationships is the way to go, rather than allowing more people to enter into 'marriage'. Who you sleep with, who you live together forever with, who you raise children with, all of it is none of the governments business. But even more importantly establishing separate privileges/rights because of a partnership and deliberately excluding others is just wrong.



The reality is that I can marry a lesbian friend get all the rights associated with marriage and even adopt children and no one would be any wiser. I guess that's also a 'gay' marriage, but for some reason gender issues frighten people and the slightest bit of expansion can't occur, so f**k it, get rid of marriage in a government sense altogether. Why does it exist in the first place?

Read all about ME!

[RonOnGuitar]

All of the issues you mentioned are easily handled by such simple legal measures as giving someone else power of attorney. That is, in lieu of giving anybody who chooses to room together elevated legal status.



There are groups who are constrained by law from being married, as I've mentioned before. e.g. Mothers & sons, fathers & daughters, polygamy & other group scenes.



Going by the concept that laws must not be based on morality, you'd have no basis on which to reject interspecies marriage (i.e.bestiality). Or be able to have any law at all, for that matter.



You could very well say that the bottom line on this issue is "someone who is homosexual can't marry whosover s/he wants" - and you would be correct. But then again, no one is guaranteed that "right".

[DreamTone7]

1 - There is a difference between a "right" and a "priveledge".



2 - Personally, I don't like "common law" marriages either....they're not marriages. (But this is hijacking the thread.)



3 - The "state" doesn't "sponsor" anything. Marriages are recognized, not sponsored.



NRK - "The reality is that I can marry a lesbian friend get all the rights associated with marriage and even adopt children and no one would be any wiser. I guess that's also a 'gay' marriage, but for some reason gender issues frighten people and the slightest bit of expansion can't occur, so f**k it, get rid of marriage in a government sense altogether. Why does it exist in the first place?"



First of all, I do think that both you and your partner would be the wiser. Second, marriage should not exist in a government sense.....however, a government can choose to recognize it. See the difference? Not to be funny, but it's like somebody having broken legs and the government recognizing this and awarding the person disability. Now your arguing over what constitutes a broken leg? (Note that the government did not have a hand in breaking the persons legs.)

[RonOnGuitar]

Quote:

---

it's like somebody having broken legs

---

This highlights the fact we are speaking of - on this issue - emotional-developmental conditions (sexual preference) which, like an injury, is a changable condition. This being often accomplished through therapy - or others may prefer assistance of religious based organizations - and with still others, the individual him/herself leaves the lifestyle cold turkey.

[NRKofOver]

Ron, I think you make a valid point regarding 'changing', although I prefer to call it choice. I believe that genetic and environmental conditions can make a person more predisposed towards homosexuality rather than heterosexuality (or vice versa), but ultimately we can all choose to live how we want, even if it means unhappiness, such as living as a gay person with the problems that involves or feeling same sexual feelings but living as a straight person.



However, you make the contention without saying it, that being straight is preferable to being gay.



I always like people to imagine different and altogether real socieities. Like being a male in Greek times. You would be socially expected (damn near required) to have sexual activity with young males (13-1 . This is a social expectation, nothing more, nothing less. How would any of you feel about that expectation? Would you defy social convention and stick to your feelings and beliefs? Probably not. In today's day and age, compared to even just 100 years ago, the social expectation to be straight isn't as strong. So the question becomes, why is one better than the other?



And Ron, as far as law goes, you don't need a statement of morality in a traditional sense to make law. We don't let people have sex with animals or children or dead people, because sex is an act that requires consent. I for one, have no problem with incestual relationships, I could care less, if two people are happy more power to them. But the others are based on the simple notion that animals, children or dead people are incapable of consenting to any sexual activity. That's why it's illegal, not from any written moral code. Surely this is a moral perspective, that consent is required, but it doesn't come from religion, it comes from the fact that no one wants to be violated and therefore a standard of behavior arises to insure that doesn't happen.



But please tell me how the standards of behavior regarding individual sexual choice that we currently have today, both legally and socially, are created through some logical perspective rather than an emotional or religious one?



Ask yourself, are your own sexual activities open to moral judgment? Are you only having sex in the missionary position for procreation only? Because some people would say that is the only morally correct expression of sexuality. So ultimately, if your sexuality is a bit more expansive how can you judge how others express themselves sexually?



The debate about right and wrong in sexual discussions should be summed up quite simply. There is consensual sex and there is rape, period. No gray areas, nothing called sexual assault, nothing called sexual exploitation of a minor. If you engage in sexual behavior with anyone who does not consent (or is incapable of consenting) it's rape. Everything else (S&M, bondage, same-sex, multiple partners, cross-generational, role-playing, prostitution, etc.) is no one's business.



And for me, that includes the 'recognition' of any marriage. It's not my business and it's most definitely not the gov'ts business.

Read all about ME!

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

Do they recognize same-sex marriages in Sweden?

---

Of course.

[NumberOneWorld]

people are people... we have to learn not to catagorize them... the real question is why we've tied marriage to financial benefit... love and money are two opposing forces... one is for free and the other costs us dearly

Mb

thewireweb

NumberOneWorld

AroundRecords


KnowAboutNetwork

The Bulletin Board

[DreamTone7]

NWW - "people are people... we have to learn not to catagorize them..."



Totally agree with you on that. Unfortunately, terms like "hetero", "bi" and "homo" are categorizations. So when somebody proclaims their sexual preference, they have categorized themselves....which leaves us little say-so in the matter. Personally, I would rather not know somebodys sexual preference as this leaves the labels off.