Re: same-sex marriage

Ted Davis wrote:

>>>>Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com> 06/09/06 2:36 PM >>>writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>This is not a trivial issue, Pim, it has nothing at all to do with personal
>survival or insecurity. It has everything to do with what is thought to be
>part of the ordained order of creation. And that, I realize, is what drives
>this: a rejection of our (to speak collectively of traditional monotheists)
>conception of ultimate reality and divine purpose. That is why this matters
>a great deal to some of us.
>
>
>
Enough to amend the constitution to explictly exclude some from the
benefits of marriage? I can understand why one may reject same sex
marriage based on religious beliefs but does this mean that same sex
marriages should be outlawed without any legal remedies for those to
whom the right is denied?

>>From where we sit, this is not a matter of discrimination against
>homosexuals or anyone else. We are not trying to deny rights to anyone: any
>single man of legal age can marry any single woman of legal age. If some
>
>
And thus you are excluding the right to those who are single and want to
marry someone of the same sex. That IS denying rights, especially since
our legal system extends special rights to those married.

>choose not to exercise this right *for any reason*, that isn't
>discrimination, any more than it is discrimination if some citizens choose
>not to vote or to own property. I do not now and never have advocated that
>homosexual people be denied any legal right that I also have. What they are
>asking for -- that the government (and also churches, but that is not
>entirely the same point) recognize equivalent relationships constituted in a
>fundamentally different way -- is not IMO a call to end discrimination.
>Rather it is a call to redefine marriage, which is not the same thing.
>
>
They are fundamentally the same thing. People have been denied rights
extended to others and now some are fighting to amend the constitution
for a variety of reasons EXCLUDING a group of people based on their
sexual preferences. Why should the government recognize only loving
relationships between man and a woman when reality for thousands of
years has been that same sex relationships exist? To claim that some
chose not to exercise their right is plain silly. No such right exists
to many just because they love and care for someone of the same sex.
So it's not even about marriage, the same extends to partnerships as
well? Any legal recognition should be rejected because it runs against
what their religious beliefs.
I fail to see how one can justify however to explicitly deny equal
justice and protection rights to some and not others. It's hard to not
call this discrimination. Homosexual rights are being denied the rights
that other citizens have.
Just because the bible does not mention marriage to include same sexes,
just because the bible includes slavery and submissive wives we should
not ignore the unjustness. We may reject personally same sex marriages
but to call for the exclusion of equal protection rights for a group of
people just because they violate our sense of correctness seems totally
indefensible.

Rich

> I don't see the conclusion you draw in the first sentence could be
> gleaned from anything I wrote. I see you agree that marriage
> strengthens human families but you add "any formal relationship"
> presumably a reference to homosexual same sex marriage. Here is the
> situation. Homosexuality can be attractive to young men, not because
> they are born with a gay gene and can't help themselves but because of
> their male sexual drive. Homosexuality, if legitimized, is easily
> introduced to young men who engage opportunistically. They can be
> subborned and trained to the behavior if they're caught at the right
> time. In an environment in which homosexual behavior is completely
> legitimized, there will be more opportunistic homosexuality than ever.

This extends to any kind of sexual behavior not just homosexual
behavior. So now the fear is that homosexuality is attractive to young
men (and women?) because of their sexual drive? Such irrational fears
only serve to further undermine the arguments against equal protection.
And even if it were to increase sexual experimentations, is that by
itself a sufficient reason to deny equal protection rights? And
homosexuality is already legitimate and legal so let's not confuse the
concept of marriage and sexuality.

> Married men with wives and children have a responsibility to nurture
> those children and increase their opportunities. Men with only their
> sexual drive to attend to do not nurture any children. They do not
> bear the greater burden of fatherhood personally or economically. For
> that reason marriage between a man and a woman must be sacralized
> because it is the most biologically healthy, natural and productive
> relationship and marriage between a man and a woman bears the
> responsibility, personally (as role models) and economically for
> maintaining the family from generation to generation.
> And it has been sacralized even more so than in Judaism by Jesus who
> was against divorce.
> Slavery is a formal relationship. It doesn't strengthen families.
>

It strengthens families, it strengthens power. Divorce may be something
Jesus believed should be avoided but at all cost? Even if the
relationship is mentally or physically abusive? Where are the limits? To
confuse sexuality with marriage is just inexcusable, you seem to believe
that this is about men with sexual drives rather than about men (and
women, they too have sexual drives although often ignored or forgotten
by men) who want to be engaged in a loving and meaningful relationship
with all the rights and benefits extended. Remember that the government
extends particular rights to married people.
The confusion and irrational conclusion that man/woman relationship is
the most natural and productive relationship is just plainly
indefensible and founded in prejudice more than in rationality. The
excuses some people are trying to make to justify exclusion of rights to
a group of people is just shocking to me personally.

Rich

> Brilliant! Yes, the liberal agenda is Marxist to its core. Somebody is
> reading.

Sad to see people use labels in this unsupportable manner. There is
nothing brilliant about this unless the concept of ignorance has
recently been redefined and I missed it.

Philip

> Regarding your comments on lack of compromise and mental disease, the
> answer is the same for both: the religious right are basing their
> opposition on biblical scripture addressing homosexuality.
> Interpretation of these passages does not leave room for compromise
> (in their minds), but it does declare homosexuality a sin, which is
> the reason for the opposition, as opposed to the fear of a mental illness.

We are all sinners, so should we all be opposed? What other behavior
should be surpressed because we believe it to be sinful? At what cost do
we surpress it? What if the behavior is one of mutal love? Should we
oppose this at all cost? Even if it means excluding equal protection
rights granted under our Constitution? Can we somehow pick and chose
from the many sins mentioned in the bible and accept some and reject
others? At least one would hope for some consistency here? What about
slavery? Is it a sinful behavior? What about divorce? The Bible in my
opinion has been abused too often to refuse to extend power and equality
to others. There is just no justification for extending rights and
privileges to a few and not to others. So either we make marriage a
religious concept again and extend a legal concept of partnerships and
the benefits to all or we extend the right of marriage to all .
The dutch did it quite succesfully...

Rich

> Janice must be joking. Today's conservatives are anything but open
> to new ideas and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others.
>
> 1. the attacks on religion and the established order are coming from
> liberals who are completely intolerant of Christianity as they were in
> the Russian revolution which was anti-Christian and turned all the
> minorities against the russian people.
>

Speaking of non sequiturs... And what attack(s) on religions are we
talking about here? And what 'established order'? Let's hear about these
mythical intolerances

> 2. the new ideas: sexual liberation (sodom and gomorrah) and
> multiculturalism (tower of babel) are not new. they are old and have
> destroyed each major civilization before us and so their decadent
> nature is immortalized in genesis.
>

Man... I hope you are kidding here. In addition you seem to be
supporting my statement that conservatives are anything but open to new
ideas and tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others. At least we
seem to agree here although you seem to be trying to justify it.

> 3. I didn't see Janice call any names. There are elements of the
> marxist agenda in the liberal agenda. And "political
> correctness" demands we not say what is really happening in public
> lest we be branded intolerant by the intolerant. PC creates a climate
> of fear, not tolerance.

Calling people marxists because of some incidental overlaps in beliefs
is just plain silly. There are elements of the Marxist agenda in
Christianity as well, of course not necessarily practiced by many. Does
this make Christianity a Marxist belief? The abuse of the terminology
(commie, marxist) only serves to further the ignorance and create fears
without addressing the real issues. Again you are showing that my
comments about today's conservatives was quite accurate. I have no
problem with you or Janice make any pronouncements of what you believe
is happening in public. I am merely calling you and Janice on your
claims and challenging you to support them. Your response however to my
observation about openness to new ideas or tolerance of such ideas seems
quite supportive of the veracity of that observation.

Rich

> Religion is politics. The separation of church and state was an idea
> created to remove Christianity from the public arena. It's working.

You must be kidding. Just because it protects religion and government
from unreasonable entanglements? I would be interested in a historical
or legal or even logical foundation for your claims here. Perhaps
separation of church and state was an idea by the founders of the
constitution to remove undue influence of either one on the other. And
for good reasons I would say. And while religion may be politics, the
reverse need not be true and thank God many of our founders realized
this when they wrote the constitution.
Received on Sat Jun 10 09:23:49 2006