I have no problem whatsoever with you speaking in public David, but from your first paragraph to you last, you lied, much as randall does. You aren’t looking at the issue with unbiased perceptions and you have lots of issues with how you perceive homosexuality and union.

Be a close-minded, ill informed bigot, I don’t care, but when you speak, don’t be surprised if someone expects you to back up your words with exact and current facts and logical arguments.

By asking the government to recognize gay marriages, and all the concessions that legal union should bring, we are expecting the government to refrain from legislating morality. We don’t expect the Churches to bless the marriages so it has nothing to do with God, much to your likely disappointment.

In short we want the government to keep it’s nose out of private affairs, or treat every citizen equally if it does get involved.

I just re-read my post,both first and last paragraphs, which are preceded by I think and I find. Are you telling me that I’m lying about what I’m thinking? Or that you know better what I think than I do? Wow, I knew you were amazingly intolerant of opposing ideas, but I’d no idea just how deep your arrogance runs.

Look bud, you can call me a liar on any point you like, but if you expect me or anyone to take you seriously, you should try backing it up with a little specific fact.

If you’re questioning anything I said, feel free to mount an actual argument, all I see in your post is a bunch of name calling. What, specifically, do you take issue with?

Look bud, you can call me a liar on any point you like, but if you expect me or anyone to take you seriously, you should try backing it up with a little specific fact.

If you state something as fact, it’s your job to back it up.  But then, you didn’t state any facts…

I just re-read my post,both first and last paragraphs, which are preceded by I think and I find.

So you are not stating facts, merely opinion.  What Brock probably should have said was that your opinions are misinformed.

And if it’s okay for gays to have legal standing equivalent to marriage, what’s wrong with letting them have the label?

I’ve never understood why anyone that does not believe in God gets married

What does that have to do with your argument?  Just b/c someone is gay does not mean that they are an Atheist.

I’ve never understood why anyone that does not believe in God gets married

My wife and I are both atheists.  And we didn’t get married until we had lived together for seven years.  The marriage was partially for us, and it was largely for the benefit of our families.  We already loved each other, but formal commitment, in front of our families, goes beyond an emotional commitment—it establishes our status within our families.  If I croak, no one is going to try to give my car to my sister.  That car is my wife’s.  And I don’t have to write it down on some piece of paper and have it notarized—it’s a given.

Yes, we could have just signed a contract, and mailed copies to our families, but ceremony serves a valuable social function.  It reinforces ties between families.  People are essentially tribal.  We always have been.  People who have family to rely on, people who have families that they are obligated to, tend to make better citizens (a “judgment” on my part on what makes a “good” citizen, but a judgment that I believe is supportable).  Even if you are an atheist, you still exist within a social structure, a community.  And what is “right” is determined by the community.  There is NO absolute right—right and wrong are social constructs.  I think we’ve had this debate before, while talking about CS Lewis, objective morality, etc.

it’s unlikely that same sex couples will produce the same benefits as heterosexual couples (longer, happier lives, higher levels of physical and mental health, recover from illness quicker, earn and save more money, are more reliable employees, suffer less stress, and are less likely to become victims of violence of any kind)

And these conclusions come from where? 

I would argue that the institution of marriage itself probably is what creates those “longer, happier lives, higher levels of physical and mental health, etc., etc.,” Why would heterosexual marriage be inherently more “healthy” than homosexual marriage?  If it’s the sex aspect, I don’t think there’s any evidence that which particular “naughty bits” are being rubbed together has any bearing on the “health” of the relationship.  If it comes to the emotional or psychological benefits of marriage, I find it difficult to understand why having a same gender partner who shares your interests, gives you emotional support, helps with the chores, and pools economic resources with you, would be inherently inferior to the same arrangement between heterosexual partners.  I could be missing something, but that argument only seems to fly if you buy into the idea that heterosexual unions have some indefinable “essence” that makes them inherently superior to homosexual unions.  It sounds more like alchemy than science.

On the other hand, taking a certain segment of the population (a population that is not about to just “disappear”) and deliberately doing what you can to marginalize and exclude it from social structures, creates individuals who WILL have social problems.  Who gets hurt by that?  The society does, as well as the individual.  We’re creating our own problems, here.  Imagine, for example, what your investment in society and family would be if your family disowned you, and society denigrated you.  Imagine how your investment in your own personal welfare might be affected.  It makes absolute sense to integrate homosexuals into society as much as possible.  Primarily because all of our attempts to exclude them have been dismal failures.  It doesn’t matter if we burn them, shoot them, ignore them.  They’re still going to be there.

I think a pretty compelling argument can be made for the idea that society would be *better* off if it recognized gay marriage.

But if someone has evidence that proves that homosexual marriage is going to destroy the fabric of society, I’m willing to look at it.

David, I probably should have said that you’re pretending to be open-minded and considerate with the issue, but that you’re really just wanting to bash gays and atheists - in my opinion.

Nothing is stopping 2 gay folks from making a lifelong commitment, they can swear it in front of God, their friends, a Justice of the Peace, whatever.
So let’s not say this is about love or lifestyle, nothing stands in the way now, and nothing is likely to.

Plenty stands in the way now. How can gays have a legal ceremony if the local government won’t even perform it or the state or federal government won’t recognize the union if it does take place? It is about lifestyle and how some lifestyles are disregarded. It may not be about love, as no one who gets married has to prove they are in love in order to be married, now.

So what’s the problem? Legal standing. Documents are already in existence in every state that will allow any 2 people to enter into a financial and legal situation that is equal to marriage.

At the very least you need to read some of the other entries at SEB, which provide links that compare legal provisions between two parties, to marriage provisions. At most, you need to be willing to research some yourself before you come here pretending to be informed and enlightened.

So in the end it’s all about the money.

Whether it’s all about the money or all about the warm fuzzy two people get when they commit themselves to each other shouldn’t matter. It could even be a varying blend of both intentions. Once again, the government shouldn’t be in the business of discriminating between individuals who want to benefit from the legal union marriage is and will be.

Your disdain for gays and their little complaints is so apparent to me that I wonder why you bothered to state that you have no problem with same sex unions.
I compared you to randall because you both misrepresent your intentions and feelings - in my opinion. Put your true feelings unapologetically out there and we can deal with them. Otherwise it’s all just a bunch of meaningless typing on both our parts.

So instead of giving gay couples the same tax break as straight couples, why not end the whole mess and get rid of the tax code altogether?

Actually, I don’t think most gay people would object to that.  (Well, they might object to a flat tax for a variety of reasons, but I don’t think it would have anything to do with their sexual orientation) It’s the distinction that’s being drawn between hetero and homo unions, and the govt’s assumption that one is inherently more socially beneficial than the other, that gays object to.  With good reason I would argue. (did argue)

Perhaps even more ironic than you infinitely tolerant, free speech types that think “people like me” shouldn’t be allowed to speak in public.

I don’t have ANY problem with your speaking, David.  I take issue with some of the assertions that you make, but I don’t think your right to make those assertions is even in question.

Do you feel uncomfortable speaking in a forum where most people are going to disagree with you?  Or where they might pre-judge you on the basis of what they perceive as your political “orientation”? 

Does it bother you that people might simply dismiss anything you had to say, out of hand, because your ideas are just “queer”?

If that happened over and over again, do you think it would make you bitter. . .

David has been around these parts in the past. Been relatively quiet for awhile, but it seems he’s had a cup of coffee or two recently. I didn’t have too many problems overall his first reply in this thread (surprised me to be sure) other than the following couple of items:

Now, I’m sure that all you high-minded intellectual tolerant types will quickly brand me as a homophobe, but be assured that in no way am I attacking the idea of homosexuality. I’d be glad to, mostly because I’m very curious what definition of right and wrong you’re using when you get to the conclusion that homosexuality is right.

I don’t recall anyone debating the issue of whether or not homosexuality is “right” nor including it as an aspect of the debate. There are plenty of people who feel being an atheist is “wrong” and would happily not allow us to engage in marriage if they could whether we are hetero or homosexual. The argument used on me by one person who who held such a view was that marriage was a result of religion (not true) and thusly those who don’t believe in God shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Clearly the fact that I am married indicates that I see value in the concept above and beyond its supposedly traditional religious aspects and I would be just as vehemently supporting the right of atheists to marry as I am for homosexuals. The issue for me isn’t one of whether I consider homosexuality morally “right” as it is an issue of equality for all Americans. There are plenty of Americans who hold beliefs and engage in lifestyles I consider “wrong,” but I don’t feel they should be treated as second class citizens as a result.

Supposedly this country was founded on the ideas that all men are created equal and have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One of the definitions of the word Liberty is “freedom from unjust or undue governmental control” and another is “the right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one’s own choosing.” We haven’t always achieved the lofty goals the Founding Father’s laid out 200 years ago, but we’ve been slowly making progress in that direction. Allowing gays to marry is just one more step in securing the equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness they had envisioned.

I’ve never understood why anyone that does not believe in God gets married, but I suppose it doesn’t hurt them much.

Marriage was a civil institution long before it was a religious one. Regardless, there are definite civil and legal benefits in modern day America that makes it a worthwhile arrangement regardless of your belief in a deity. As has already been pointed out by others, some of these benefits may be duplicable via various contractual arrangements and much effort, but marriage makes those same arrangements happen automatically. If you have no problems with the idea of gays getting married or with having access to the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples then I fail to see what you’re carrying on at length about.

Finally we come to my favorite part…

Perhaps even more ironic than you infinitely tolerant, free speech types that think “people like me” shouldn’t be allowed to speak in public.

Please show me where I have ever advocated that you shouldn’t be allowed to speak in public or have ever suggested that you shouldn’t be allowed to express your viewpoints regardless of whether I agreed with them. I’m not so arrogant as to think I can expect to have my own free speech at the expense of yours and I resent the implication that I am of that mindset. You will find ample evidence among the various comments on this site of people who feel that I should be the one whose speech should be curtailed as they didn’t like what I had to say.

If I honestly felt you shouldn’t be allowed to comment in public I’d take whatever steps that were in my control to prevent you from doing so. At the least, I could easily delete your comments from this site as they are posted.

The truth is that I wouldn’t accomplish anything in so doing beyond a little temporary satisfaction and perhaps comfort of the “out of sight, out of mind” sort. It’s better in my mind to allow and even encourage you to express your views so I can offer up my counter-arguments to it. While I may never change your mind I may yet convince some of the fence-sitters who may be leaning one way or the other on the issue, but haven’t made their decisions as of yet. Silencing you does more harm than good and is intellectually dishonest in my opinion.

brock,,,you think i am a liar?? about what?  that is ok i still love you and Jesus loves you to

So does Barney the purple dinosaur! Ain’t that GREAT!?!

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

les,,,oh i dont know if i will survive the total humiliation after the barney shot....wait, wait, i am getting up now,,,,and finally the laughter of all atheist everyone finally subsides,,,,Les, you know its true, the love of Christ for you.  you know it in your heart, and with each blow he took from the roman soldiers in the scourging, from each nail in his body, every ounce of blood that flowed, he still cries out his love for you.  the great thing is you will come to realize it either for the first time or perhaps again...Christians will continue to post on this site some like me will not do a very good job of quoting the “facts” as you want them.  but even the clumsiest (sp) most uneducated christian that shares the love of Christ on this site is penetrating the hearts of mankind.  From atheist to muslim, to backslidden believers people are coming to Christ...The love of barney will fade away, but the love of Christ remains forever...and I still love you with the love of the Lord.

It was a cheap shot, I’ll admit that. I just suddenly had visions of God romping around singing the “I Love You” song and I had to giggle.

Les, you know its true, the love of Christ for you. you know it in your heart,

Now is where I get to honestly call you arrogant. Please do not try to tell me what I know and what I believe. You don’t know what I know and you don’t know what I believe in my heart unless I tell you. It’s the highest form of arrogance for you to try and dictate to me what I believe and what I know.

Again, you dissolve into more meaningless preaching which does nothing to convince me of the truth of what you’re saying.

and I still love you with the love of the Lord.

Oh goody. With love like this, who needs to be hated?

randall, I called you a liar because you came to this site pretending you were looking for honest open-minded discussions. You started out playing a sincerely inquisitive, agenda-free individual. You’ve represented that you really want to understand how people came to their beliefs or non-beliefs.

It seems to me you’ve been trying to utilize the Socratic method of discorse to lead us to awareness of Heaven, but you’ve done it badly, and with every post you make, your biases and poorly considered views become more apparent. You’ve wanted to come off as non-confrontational (and what better way to do so than to say “I love you” over and over) and still do, but your ultimate goal here is to convert nonbelievers.

You want us to say you have the answers. You want us to lift our faces to the sky and say thank ya Jeesus, and will likely only be satisfied if we thank you, as well, for leading us to certain salvation. You’re on an ego trip my friend, and you’re using your God stories to justify it.

I wouldn’t be surprised if you, David, brian, and a couple of others who have posted recently, attend the same church or know each other. Wouldn’t it be cool to come to the Stupid Evil Bastard site and embarrass or convert the owner?

I doubt you really know what love is and I certainly doubt that you love me, but if it makes you feel superior to say it I won’t ask you to stop. Still, if you want any of us to think critically concerning Christianity you probably should begin to demonstrate that you’re able to think yourself. So far all you, and the others I mentioned, have managed to do is show how well you can memorize and spit out dubious platitudes, non-inclusive faith based values, poorly researched information and Christ myths.

I’m sorry, but your bullshit gets old quickly.

Needless to say, all of the above statements represent my perception, reasoning, and intuition.

...he still cries out his love for you.

That or he was yelling “COULD SOMEBODY GET A LADDER AND A PAIR OF PLIERS???”

If you state something as fact, it’s your job to back it up. But then, you didn’t state any facts…

A bit of a twist (and witty to boot) on what I wrote about my post. It was stated as an opinion, not as fact. I think here were some facts that were objected to, but it’s still unclear to me as to what.

And if it’s okay for gays to have legal standing equivalent to marriage, what’s wrong with letting them have the label?

I don’t know. Why don’t we call salamanders frogs? I like frogs. I think salamanders are cool too, but they’re not really frogs, but I could call them frogs. But then I’d have to call them the longish looking frogs as opposed the shorter frogs. Actually, it’d just be a whole lot easier if I just used the system that’s developed over the last 4 thousand years and call frogs frogs and salamanders salamanders. Sure, word usage changes. But it should change naturally. Gays aren’t going to gain or lose respect or recognition they don’t already have by the passing of a law. If the social climate begins to change the meaning of the word, let it. A relatively small group of people are trying to force it, and there is another, larger minority, who finds it offensive. It seems like a waste of energy. If marriage is ever going to come to mean what you want it to mean, it will. Until then it will be known as “a same sex marriage” not just marriage anyway.

I was very impressed by nowiser’s post about his marriage. In fact, it’s the illustration of what I was trying to communicate. Anyone can commit to anyone else. If they want to stand up in front of their families and formalize that commitment, they can. Nothing is stopping gay people from doing this. They can just sign a piece of paper, they can keep it private or they can stand up in front of any group of people that are significant to them and plight their troth. Nothing’s stopping anyone from doing that. And, IMHO, that is essence of marriage, sure you can add kids to that mix, but I don’t see a requirement for it. Everything else is just about the financial benefits.

it’s unlikely that same sex couples will produce the same benefits as heterosexual couples (longer, happier lives, higher levels of physical and mental health, recover from illness quicker, earn and save more money, are more reliable employees, suffer less stress, and are less likely to become victims of violence of any kind)

And these conclusions come from where?

Every study I’ve read on married couples and the insurance companies actuarial tables support my claims about married couples. If you are asking for references, they can be provided. What I think you and others are objecting to (I’m honestly not clear on this point) is my saying same sex “marriages” will produce the same results. A British medical journal reports that male homosexual relationships last, on average 1.5 years, and that gay men have an average of 8 partners a year outside of their supposedly “committed” relationships. This study was done in the Netherlands, where same sex “marriages” are legal, one of the most gay-friendly societies in the world. I’m not saying marriage is perfect here, just a heck of a lot more stable than that!

On the other hand, taking a certain segment of the population (a population that is not about to just “disappear”) and deliberately doing what you can to marginalize and exclude it from social structures, creates individuals who WILL have social problems.

Isn’t that exactly how societies change and grow? Is it not how they keep order and stability? People who do not conform to the norm get shoved aside and ostracized. If the group doesn’t disappear, they splinter off and become their own culture. If it’s a superior culture, it will eventually wipeout it’s parent. I know I’m simplifying a bit. But isn’t this what you believe? It may not be pretty or even nice, but it’s the way it works.

And I thank nowiser for his time and psychoanalysis in the second post. Man, I’m so relieved. I thought all that bitterness was from my relationship with my mother. Actually, I’m trying to point out that I get a great deal more of what I’m accused of here than I dish out. You all claim enlightenment, sensitivity, and tolerance but what I mostly get is well… Brock.

I compared you to randall because you both misrepresent your intentions and feelings - in my opinion. Put your true feelings unapologetically out there and we can deal with them. Otherwise it’s all just a bunch of meaningless typing on both our parts.

I never hid how I felt about homosexuality. I came right out at the beginning of my post and said I think it’s wrong and would be interested in hearing why anyone thinks it’s right. I don’t think this is a minor issue at all, or I’d not bother to respond, particularly to your petty insults. Your emotion and accusations betray to me a strong stake in this matter and a projection of your own reality. Why don’t you come clean?

At the very least you need to read some of the other entries at SEB, which provide links that compare legal provisions between two parties, to marriage provisions. At most, you need to be willing to research some yourself before you come here pretending to be informed and enlightened.

You name the similarity, other than the 2 I mention in my argument (insurance and taxes), you pay the fees, and I’ll get you a legal document in your state that will provide the right. Believe it or not SEB is not the end all of legal knowledge. Marriage is a great deal less complicated (legally) and provides a great deal less in the way of rights than you seem to realize. But I doubt you’ll try coming up with anything so solid as a specific example. That’d mean developing a cohesive argument, something that’d be a welcome change from your incessant name-calling.

I don’t recall anyone debating the issue of whether or not homosexuality is “right” nor including it as an aspect of the debate. There are plenty of people who feel being an atheist is “wrong” and would happily not allow us to engage in marriage if they could whether we are hetero or homosexual. The argument used on me by one person who who held such a view was that marriage was a result of religion (not true) and thusly those who don’t believe in God shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Clearly the fact that I am married indicates that I see value in the concept above and beyond its supposedly traditional religious aspects and I would be just as vehemently supporting the right of atheists to marry as I am for homosexuals. The issue for me isn’t one of whether I consider homosexuality morally “right” as it is an issue of equality for all Americans. There are plenty of Americans who hold beliefs and engage in lifestyles I consider “wrong,” but I don’t feel they should be treated as second class citizens as a result.

I wasn’t trying to include it, but as I predicted, as soon as I wrote I was against redefining marriage to include same sex unions, someone else started calling me names without even trying to look at my arguments. They called me a bigot instead of a homophobe, but then, for never claiming the gift of prophecy, I was close enough that my point is proved. I was just trying to make clear that I disagree with the lifestyle choice, but that it is a separate issue.  I was clearly not claiming to start from some unbiased neutral ground, but that I was trying to analyze the issue as well as I could from my perspective. Honestly, I don’t think humans can do much besides that. We are far better recognizing our biases and moving forward, than trying to deny that we have them. Some of you claim you are far more advanced than I and don’t actually have any biases. Somehow I doubt that you’re being completely honest. Particularly when in their enlightenment they have a fit of name calling when someone opposes their view.

More to the point, I’m not advocating anyone be treated as second class citizens. Indeed, we all have the same rights. Anyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. Further, anyone can make any living arrangement they please. They can commit in any format to be accountable to one another financially and/or emotionally. There is no law against this. While I personally think it’s wrong for 2 people of the same sex to do it, I’d never want to use a law to prevent them. But as I’ve pointed out, and no one has contradicted, it’s not the emotional or familial issue that is being denied. Therefore, it’s only the financial issues that are of concern.

… I could be missing something, but that argument only seems to fly if you buy into the idea that heterosexual unions have some indefinable “essence” that makes them inherently superior to homosexual unions. It sounds more like alchemy than science.

I do think they are inherently superior. And interestingly enough, part of it is chemistry, not alchemy at all. I could be missing something, but what part of sexual reproduction don’t you understand? This bit of the argument inherently begs the question that Les writes was never asked. Married people really do have those benefits. There is no such proof, and in fact I gave some degree of contrary proof, for same sex “marriages”. I could say that it’s because God designed it that way, but I don’t suppose I’d get any takers here on that argument. But even if you want to believe in evolution: it’s clearly the way nature intended it. Since our emotional bonds can only be a response evolved by nature to insure procreation, it would be unnatural, or since it specifically precludes species survival, contra-natural, for 2 organisms of the same sex to bond. Prove that same sex unions benefit society in the same way as heterosexual relationships do, and I must concede. However, you never will, because children simply cannot be conceived by same sex unions no matter how they rub together their naughty bits (I must admit I’ve always rather liked that turn of phrase) – they can never be completely equal.

Les, I thank you for being so open minded, and while my comment about not being allowed to speak in public was not aimed at you, I truly enjoyed your response to it. And so that you know, I come by here at least a few times a week. I very much enjoy some of your commentary, and I admire your intellectual honesty. A guy who enjoys Red Dwarf cannot be all bad. This issue I find very interesting, and I didn’t see anyone talking about what I see as the key issues.

I remain convinced that the primary issues here are insurance and taxes. Insurance is a moot point. The actuaries are going to determine the rates, not what we call it or what we think about it. The tax thing does affect me, in essence my taxes will go up (government is not going to start costing less) albeit marginally. Still, I think that if the change is to be made, the proof that same sex marriage is as beneficial to society as marriage as it is currently defined should be made first. And in the end, I’d rather the government kept their nose out of our business and just taxed us all the same rate, so that we could all pay our fair share, and no more. Alternatively, give me a vote proportionate to my taxes.

brock sorry you feel that way...i actually have no plot to convert anyone on this site, that includes you, les and even, the ragman.  i do try to participate by sharing my platitudes, values, and myths as you say....i actually do not pray prayers like,,,Jesus please save Les, and brock, and let them be in church so they could pay their tithe....my real intention to post on this site is to learn what true unbelievers actually believe, and why they believe certain things.  i cant make you believe that, nor am i trying to.  and if i should not post anymore i still have learned a few things from les, and a couple of others.  there is no way i would actually pursue to “convert” anyone on this site anyway. for two reasons…

1.  i believe in conversion and discipleship
2.  i only “try and convert” those that are seeking such.

its obvious i have not run across anyone on this site that is looking for salvation, but i have run across some that are sincere in their beliefs and i do appreciate that.  i am not trying to come off as non-confrontational.  that is impossible around non-believers...the gospel and especially Christ are a stumbling block...so i expect to confront and be confront.  my idea of confrontation can happen without put-downs though.

the above people you mentioned are not part of and SEB conspiracy.  nor do we attend the same church.  at least i dont think so...(i am from texas how bout you guys) i would never attempt to try and embarass Les or anyone else for that matter.  He is too smart for me anyway.  you probably are too, i am not sure about Ragman though.  (just messin’).

i do have sincere questions, but no hidden agenda.  i you have looked into Christianity at all...(if your a true atheist you have) you should know that the “go into the world and preach the gospel” thing is a command to all Christians.

But when i go out to eat, shop, watch sports, my intent is not to convert every one that crosses my path.  but i would not turn down the opportunity if it should arise.  i hear you and the others on this site...you dont beleive...that is fine....if we were talking at a coffee shop instead of on this web-site, i would hope that we could still hang out and discuss despite out opposing views.

but i tell you what if you wish i will leave this site and not leave anymore posts.

so if this is my last post, despite the ridicule of the ragman, Jesus Christ still cries out His love for you in a great way.  i dont post that to convert or to confront, but just to respond....

Ragman,,,,Despite what you feel Jesus does love you, and so do I at least that is why i think I cried when I read your post....

les,,i understand where you are coming from in your last post to me...and i understand where it is arrogant to tell someone what they believe or should believe, sorry for that.

Hey David,

Can I get the link/citation for the British medical study?  I mean, the Family Research Council does research as well, but it’s not exactly unbiased.

There’s a study claiming that the average gay man has over 1000 sexual partners in his lifetime.  When you compare the demographics of the sample that the study claims, and the numbers that they’re giving, it boils down to these gay guys having sex twice a day, with different people each time, over a period of years.  I tend to think that particular study is a tad unreliable.

Even your British study appears to be claiming that gay men, on average, are having semi-anonymous sexual encounters with strangers every month and half or so.  I would really like to know what their demographic was.  I mean, if they only surveyed people who were getting tested for STDs, or people who were leaving bars, their methodology might be a tad suspect.

Also, you wrote:

is my saying same sex “marriages” will produce the same results

I assume that you are claiming that same sex marriages will NOT produce the same results as heterosexual unions.

As for the civil unions/marriage issue, do gay activists really give a damn about what it’s called?  I mean, it really is about the money isn’t it?  And my contention (and I believe theirs as well) is that “rewarding” sexual and religious affiliations to one group, while denying them to another, is unconstitutional.

You posited that perhaps the answer would be to stop giving those benefits to people who make decisions to get married-- I actually think this is a great answer.  Why not?  The benefits of partnership often spring directly from what the partners bring to the table.  Tax benefits were certainly an incentive for my wife and I, but we would have done it anyway, for a variety of reasons already discussed.  Of course, the govt. gives tax benefits to people to “encourage” all sorts of social behaviors it considers useful.

And I have to cut this short, even though I wanted to contest some of the other points you brought up, because the wifey says it’s time to eat, and if I keep her waiting, I die.

“Marriage” versus “civil union” - mentions the issues are not only monetary: here

Suggests the amendment Bush has proposed has consequences far reaching, and not just for homosexual couples: here

To those who feel that gay marriage is wrong, that homosexuality is an abomination, that gays are perverted, and have said as much either by using those words or intimating it through scriptural citation, you deserve whatever name I’ve called you, and more besides. If you think I’m going to remain silent while you spread hate using your schizophrenic religion’s tenets, think again. I’ve had it with “innocent” personas using religion to tell me I’m fucked-up damaged goods. Don’t tell me you love me and call me perverted. Don’t say you care while spreading messages of exclusion. Don’t use your God to justify your desire to judge, to hate, to pity, to deny me the certainty of being correctly and therefore, appropriately human.

If I love someone and want to marry him so that we can share in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, to love and to cherish till death do us part, why should I be denied the chance to follow through on these oaths. Who would deny me the right to prove my fidelity and love to another, and why? Presently gays are disallowed to marry, to form a legal and equal bond. What next? Will the government soon be able to force couples to justify their unions through childbirth? Will couples be required to take psychological tests to prove their heterosexuality? Should divorce be allowed if God sanctified the union? Should God be allowed to say, via proxy, which union is permissible and under what circumstances, but not be allowed to “speak” and rule concurrently on other issues of union and disunion? Why should “straights” be the only ones permitted to displease God maritally? What about bisexuals? Should they be allowed to marry if they only partially desire their spouses? What if one of the couple is gay: He or she is currently allowed to have a marriage. Why not go the rest of the way and allow both participants to be gay and married? Religion should have nothing to do with marriage, as a person’s religion is between that person and the god he or she believes in. Follow your own path to salvation, but do not try to press me down the path you’ve decided is best for me. Any religion’s “divine” laws mean nothing if they are forced upon others. 

I’ve never asked anyone not to “speak” here. It wouldn’t be my right or desire to do so, anyway. But I can speak too, as long as Les allows it, and I speak now for that which matters most to me. I can only hope that what I say, what I believe, matters to others here as well.

Same sex couples do not presently have the same rights and concessions either financially or socially and though some may state they do, this type of statement is still untrue. Lets try to agree on basic realities first and then we can argue the social, legal and sacramental ramifications of gay marriage and decide what to call it from there.

Just don’t expect me to be silent about this subject. I fight for others rights on a regular basis but this issue’s got my separate and unequal name written all over it.

nowiser, I don’t blame you for not just taking any old study at it’s word. You’ll find I’m pretty particular about it too. Here’s what I have: Maria Xiridou, et al., “The Contributions of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection Among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS, 17 (2003): 1029.38.

And you don’t deserve your nickname. Any man who knows that when his wife calls for him dinner it’s time to go, has wisdom.

Brock,
Thank you at last for coming across with an argument. But the gist of your first paragraph is that if I disagree with homosexuality, then I deserve whatever happens to me. If Christians, and others, who believe homosexuality is wrong felt the same way about you, you’d be dead now. The same Christians tell you they love you, and you call them liars. You spew insults, and call it tolerance. Well, there’s no way for me to prove anyone’s actual feelings, but given those facts, I’d say you’re the one that’s not being honest, and the others have a right to claim they care for you. Has it never occurred to you that if Christians really hated you, they’d have either wiped you out by force or left you alone completely? But neither has happened. They must have something at stake then. I believe it to be actual concern borne of a love that you cannot possibly understand. Because I know that love, and I don’t understand it.

If I love someone and want to marry him so that we can share in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer, to love and to cherish till death do us part, why should I be denied the chance to follow through on these oaths. Who would deny me the right to prove my fidelity and love to another, and why?

No one. Not me, not anyone I know. I said that in my previous posts, and I’m saying it again. What you’re writing about there is what marriage is all about, and I want you to have that. I think that the way you’re doing it is wrong, but I don’t feel I have the right to prevent you from doing it. I think smoking is wrong too, but I don’t have the right to stop you fi you want to light up in the privacy of your own home.

Same sex couples do not presently have the same rights and concessions either financially or socially and though some may state they do, this type of statement is still untrue.

I agree. But to get the financial concessions with regards to taxes, I think it’s incumbent upon those who want change to prove that it’s in the best interest of society to make the change. Why should you get the same tax break? Does your union form that basic building block of society that straight marriages do? Prove it. There are no other granted financial concessions, insurance rates are the way they are because the statistics warrant them.

Presently gays are disallowed to marry, to form a legal and equal bond. What next?

It’s been that way since the US began. There is no next. You are the one that wants to change it, I say fine, justify the change. Prove that your union is as beneficial to society as mine. The rest of that paragraph is one nasty slippery slope. None of which has been advocated by anyone I know, here or in the press. If any of that does happen, rest assured, I’d be on your side. Although, a psych test might not be such a bad idea, but not to prove they’re straight. Lastly, no one is forcing you to believe. Trust me, reading your posts do not make me feel you’re forcing me to be gay. If you read my words (or anyone else’s) and then you feel somehow oddly compelled to believe in God… well, that’s the Holy Spirit working on you, not me.

David said:

Alternatively, give me a vote proportionate to my taxes.

I don’t want to live in a plutocracy.  Rich people don’t know what’s best for me on account of their wealth.

the randall said

you should know that the “go into the world and preach the gospel” thing is a command to all Christians

Which is just fine and dandy.  First Amendment all the way. 

What I do have a problem with is this: when someone decides that since I don’t buy into their belief system, they now need to make them into law in an attempt to FORCE me into their belief system.  I’m thinking of the blue laws in this case.  I just don’t see the detrimental effect that shopping on Sunday has on society, or how not selling alcohol on Sunday is going to curb drinking. 

the randall also said

i am not trying to come off as non-confrontational. that is impossible around non-believers…the gospel and especially Christ are a stumbling block…so i expect to confront and be confront.

Impossible for you or in general?  I wouldn’t say it’s impossible in general.  It does depend on the disposition of those involved.  Personally I don’t discuss religion with religious people since most I’ve been around tend to get defensive/dismissive/pissed off when you question religion or their beliefs (I grew up in Louisiana).  If someone belives they know the (capital T) Truth, they are not there to analyze or accept your evidence, but to deliver to you their Truth.  I think you can have a discussion between a beliver and a nonbeliever, as long as the two sides are willing to LISTEN to what the other has to say, and not look at the discussion as an “opportunity to convert”. 

Online discussion is easier for me, since I can look up things quite easily, which isn’t always easy to do in a coffee shop.  Cyber cafe, maybe…

On a side note - the loudest arguments I’ve personally seen involving religion have been between religious people.  Especially the one between “Brother Redenbaker” (some guy who came onto campus preaching - looked JUST like Orville Redenbaker down to the glasses and bowtie), and a student who was ordained.  Both red-faced, bibles in hand, screaming at each other, spit everywhere…

ragman....10-4 on the first ammendment, and 10-4 on the laws.  i am not for laws that demand anyone to practice a religion of anykind.  that is the whole thing that Jesus came to tear down.

i also understand the argumentative christians...i am trying to learn to listen to the views of others that is why i am hangin out on this site in the first place, and am not looking to convert or show off what i know.

Ragman,
I agree that rich people don’t necessarily know what best for you. I do think I could make a case that it’s more likely they know how to spend money better than poor people, but that isn’t the basis of my statement. It’s much more like: It’s my money, I should get a bigger say in how it gets spent than someone who has contributed less money.

And you’re re-framing the argument. I’m talking about tax dollars and determining how they should be spent. Not what’s best for you. It’s a fine line, but it’s a line.

And you’re re-framing the argument. I’m talking about tax dollars and determining how they should be spent. Not what’s best for you. It’s a fine line, but it’s a line.

OHHH… you said
“Alternatively, give me a vote on fiscal issues proportionate to my taxes.”

No, wait… you just said vote.  Period.  That encompasses more than just fiscal policy.  If you were talking about fiscal policy, you should have said something to that effect.  You are reframing the argument by throwing in about how tax dollars should be spent. 

I was going to say something about a contradiction between flat tax and your vote size, but then, you need to clarify what you mean by flat tax.

Sucks to be wealthy, huh?  If you’re paying that much in tax that you feel your “vote” would carry some weight, what you want are called “campaign contributions”.

I do think I could make a case that it’s more likely they know how to spend money better than poor people,

Please do, I’m curious.
And while you’re at it, help a fellow Christian out - the randall needs to find some data on how homosexuality brought down the Roman Empire, since he hasn’t been able to answer my question.