This is TOO much!

[ericb]

The difference here is that the majority of Americans agree that gays should have a right to marry.

 

AE....can you please point my to the poll/study you are referring to? I haven't seen it, and find it interesting that in the cases where Americans have actually voted, this has not been the case.

 

It was not a vote, it was a poll in Newsweek. However, I have read that an albeit slim majority of Americans are OK with gay unions in a number of publications. I wish I had a better memory--but I read so much that I simply cannot remember exactly where I read everything. Plus, I'm old.

 

AE...make up your mind....Marriage (your original statement) or "unions" (follow up) do you mean civil unions???.....There is a difference...nonetheless....Forget Opinon polls...how about actual voting results

 

Efforts to Ban Same-Sex Marriage / Civil Unions* / Domestic Partnerships* by Constitutional Amendment -

The following table shows all popular vote results regarding state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and in some cases civil unions and domestic partnerships.

 

State, Date, Yes vote, No vote, Final outcome

Far West:

Alaska November 1998 68% (152,965), 32% (71,631), Yes

Hawaii November 1998 69% (285,384), 31% (117,827), Yes [11]

West:

Nevada November 2002 67% (337,183), 33% (164,555), Yes

Montana November 2004 67% (295,070), 33% (148,263), Yes

Oregon November 2004 57% (1,028,546), 43% (787,556), Yes

Utah November 2004 66% (593,297), 34% (307,488), Yes

 

Midwest:

Nebraska November 2000 70% (450,073), 30% (189,555), Yes [12]

Missouri August 2004 71% (1,055,771), 29% (439,529), Yes

Michigan November 2004 59%, (2,698,077) 41%, (1,904,319) Yes

North Dakota November 2004 73% (223,572), 27% (81,716), Yes

Ohio November 2004 62% (3,329,335), 38% (2,065,462), Yes

Oklahoma November 2004 76% (1,075,216), 24% (347,303), Yes

Kansas April 2005 70% (414,106), 30% (178,018), Yes

 

South:

Louisiana September 2004 78% (618,928), 22% (177,103), Yes [13]

Arkansas November 2004 75% (753,770), 25% (251,914), Yes

Georgia November 2004 76% (2,454,912), 24% (768,703), Yes

Kentucky November 2004 75% (1,222,125), 25% (417,097), Yes

Mississippi November 2004 86% (957,104), 14% (155,648), Yes

Texas November 2005 76% (1,718,513), 24% (536,052), Yes

Alabama June 2006 81% (734,746), 19% (170,399), Yes

Edited November 6, 2006 by ericb

[cj001f]

so you wont' get married ericb? I'm crestfallen - Carson and I had found the perfect frock for you to wear - your husband to be loved it!

[archenemy]

sacrements?? what is that have to do with this?

 

well, either way - i was taught that prayer is direct communication with god. i believe this to be the common thought of catholics.

 

take the 'our father'. it is all 1st and 2nd person words in that prayer.

Oh, and in exchange for your helpful life lesson, I will give you a basic grammar lesson. The first person is "I; the second person is "you". If you use those words in the Lord's Prayer (which is what I am assuming you are referring to here, correct me if I'm wrong) then you learned to say it differently than I was trained to say it.

[ericb]

That's OK....I don't need to call it marriage....at least I can add my Gay Lover to my insurance benefits when he loses his job

Edited November 6, 2006 by ericb

[archenemy]

The difference here is that the majority of Americans agree that gays should have a right to marry.

 

AE....can you please point my to the poll/study you are referring to? I haven't seen it, and find it interesting that in the cases where Americans have actually voted, this has not been the case.

 

It was not a vote, it was a poll in Newsweek. However, I have read that an albeit slim majority of Americans are OK with gay unions in a number of publications. I wish I had a better memory--but I read so much that I simply cannot remember exactly where I read everything. Plus, I'm old.

 

AE...make up your mind....Marriage (your original statement) or "unions" (follow up) do you mean civil unions???.....There is a difference...nonetheless....Forget Opinon polls...how about actual voting results

 

Efforts to Ban Same-Sex Marriage / Civil Unions* / Domestic Partnerships* by Constitutional Amendment -

The following table shows all popular vote results regarding state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage, and in some cases civil unions and domestic partnerships.

 

State, Date, Yes vote, No vote, Final outcome

Far West:

Alaska November 1998 68% (152,965), 32% (71,631), Yes

Hawaii November 1998 69% (285,384), 31% (117,827), Yes [11]

West:

Nevada November 2002 67% (337,183), 33% (164,555), Yes

Montana November 2004 67% (295,070), 33% (148,263), Yes

Oregon November 2004 57% (1,028,546), 43% (787,556), Yes

Utah November 2004 66% (593,297), 34% (307,488), Yes

 

Midwest:

Nebraska November 2000 70% (450,073), 30% (189,555), Yes [12]

Missouri August 2004 71% (1,055,771), 29% (439,529), Yes

Michigan November 2004 59%, (2,698,077) 41%, (1,904,319) Yes

North Dakota November 2004 73% (223,572), 27% (81,716), Yes

Ohio November 2004 62% (3,329,335), 38% (2,065,462), Yes

Oklahoma November 2004 76% (1,075,216), 24% (347,303), Yes

Kansas April 2005 70% (414,106), 30% (178,018), Yes

 

South:

Louisiana September 2004 78% (618,928), 22% (177,103), Yes [13]

Arkansas November 2004 75% (753,770), 25% (251,914), Yes

Georgia November 2004 76% (2,454,912), 24% (768,703), Yes

Kentucky November 2004 75% (1,222,125), 25% (417,097), Yes

Mississippi November 2004 86% (957,104), 14% (155,648), Yes

Texas November 2005 76% (1,718,513), 24% (536,052), Yes

Alabama June 2006 81% (734,746), 19% (170,399), Yes

What am I supposed to make up my mind on? To me, a simpleton, marriage and union are the same thing. Two people who are in a committed relationship (long-term, but ideally for life and the hereafter)and share living expenses, etc etc etc.

I don't give a fuck what they call it as long as it amounts to the same thing--equal rights , equal protection under the law, equal whatever.

 

And thanks for the poll info.

[tvashtarkatena]

Regarding the % of atheist, agnostics, whatever, it doesn't really matter to me. If I was the only atheist in America, I would not change my beliefs.

 

I believe our lives are a collection of stories; those we believe about ourselves, others, and the world, and those others believe about the same. So here's a story. After years of questions and deliberation, I stopped believing in God during a single conversation...about climbing, ironically. I don't expect anyone here or anywhere else to agree with or understand the subjective interpretation below, nor do I really care. I believe two things are important; arriving at beliefs regarding religion that work for you, and not imposing those beliefs on others.

 

I was on an eight day ski traverse across the Sierras with other college students. We were gathered in the largest tent one night talking, and we came upon the subject of God. One young woman recounted the story of her only brother, who was killed two years prior when the piton he was rapelling off of pulled. She said "I loved my brother more than anything in the world, but no matter how much I wanted to see him again, no matter how many people told me I would see him again, I just couldn't bring myself to believe it. It just wasn't true."

 

At that moment I let my belief in God, which never really made much sense to me, go. No matter how badly I wanted to believe it, I just couldn't anymore.

 

Morality is a decision to act that we make for ourselves, no matter where our beliefs come from. If we are christian, it is because we have decided to act so. There are six billion different sets of morality in this world. Such is the challenge of society and government. I do think that human beings are predisposed to act morally in the modern sense because evolution favored that kind of social behavior. We act otherwise, of course, but that comes less naturally for the majority.

 

I don't know where the universe came from. I'd like to know, but I accept that I may never have that answer, along with many others. I assume that after death I'll go the way of all other things that die, back into the great molecular recycling bin. From my standpoint, if entire galaxies and even universes have finite lives, why should the great Tvashtarkatena survive, in any recognizable form, for eternity? It seems a bit conceited to me. And as for heaven or hell, they can both be found right here on earth.

 

The removal of what I've come to consider a supernatural filter overlaying the universe has allowed me to see that universe more clearly, to get closer to it, and to better appreciate its intrinsic beauty than I could when I was a Catholic. For me, that has been worth trading eternal life for.

 

End of sermon. Donuts and coffee in Father Roberts Hall at 11:00.

Edited November 6, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[underworld]

sacrements?? what is that have to do with this?

 

well, either way - i was taught that prayer is direct communication with god. i believe this to be the common thought of catholics.

 

take the 'our father'. it is all 1st and 2nd person words in that prayer.

Oh, and in exchange for your helpful life lesson, I will give you a basic grammar lesson. The first person is "I". If you use that in the Lord's Prayer (which is what I am assuming you are referring to here, correct me if I'm wrong) then you learned to say it differently than I was trained to say it.

 

what about 'our' and 'we'? first person plural, no?

 

btw - i'm not giving anyone a life lesson. just trying to reply to inaccuracies about religion, with respect to how i learned it. live as you will, share as you will.

[archenemy]

Yes, it is plural; hence the removal of the one on one communication I was referring to. And I agree with your live and let live sentiment.

[ericb]

What am I supposed to make up my mind on? To me, a simpleton, marriage and union are the same thing. Two people who are in a committed relationship (long-term, but ideally for life and the hereafter)and share living expenses, etc etc etc.

I don't give a fuck what they call it as long as it amounts to the same thing--equal rights , equal protection under the law, equal whatever.

 

And thanks for the poll info.

 

AE - While you might not give a fuck what they call it, the distinction is very important to some. There are many Christians that I know that support civil unions, but want to make a distinction between a legal contract, and the sacrament of marriage. Much of the liberal spew on this subject is that a vocal minority (evangelicals) are trying to force legislation that the majority of Americans are oppposed to. However, when Americans have gone to the ballot box they have demonstrated otherwise.

[JayB]

As far as "the equal right to marry whomever they choose," is concerned - as someone else said that is a fairly vast oversimplification that virtually no one would support in practice. While everyone would restrict the right to marry to consenting adults, no one is out there campaigning for a complete libertarian free for all. I think that all gay people want is for the government to extend the rights that are associated with a male-female union consisting of two persons to be extended to legal unions of any two consenting adults. Ask many of them whether or not they'd like to include polygamy in the realm of legal relationships that they'd like to have elevated to the same status, and they'd probably tell you that they are actually fine with the government denying groups of 3, 4, 5, 6, or 26 consenting adults the marital rights that they want for themselves. There are a bunch of practical reasons for this,

 

Uh...we're not discussing polygamy. That is a completely different subject with different social and legal implications. We also not discussing man-on-dog marriage, just in case that should come up.

 

I think you'll find over time that most Americans will support gay marriage, as they did interracial marriage. The arguments against the latter were nearly identical. As for whether a technical majority do now, if not, it is very close, and certainly growing.

 

Wow - seems like you really missed the point, which was probably on purpose. I said consenting adults. I wasn't comparing gay marriage to polygamy. There are people who base their arguments for gay marriage under the premise that the government has no right to privilege one type of relationship between consenting adults over another. This is most often the logic behind the "right to marry whomever they choose" argument.

 

This is a very strange argument to use for a couple of reasons. Even if gay marriage is the law of the land, there will still be a legal and social consensus behind granting the government the power to restrict the legal privileges of marriage to certain, very tightly defined arrangements, and the government will therefore still be in the business of deciding what kind of consensual relationships amongst adults that it wants to grant legal recognition to. This is something far different than the government being entirely agnostic on this matter, so the government will still be translating a set of arbitrary "values" and norms into law on this realm. This set of values will still say a lot about what kind of consensual relationships between adults that society thinks are most valuable and legitimate. What gay people are asking for is not for the government to completely remove itself from the role of determining which consensual relationships between adults get legal sanction, what they are asking for is for the government to grant same sex-unions of two people the same legal status that they currently extend to male-female unions involving two people. This is something entirely different than the government playing no role whatsoever in the matter and serving as a rubber stamp for any domestic arrangement that consenting adults care to organize themselves into.

 

A better argument for gay marriage should frame the debate not in terms of changing the rules, or government getting out of the rule-making business in this arena all together, but extending the current set of rules so that it the existing law that arbitrarily privileges unions of two people over all other arrangements also includes two people of the same sex.

[tvashtarkatena]

Actually, JayB, you're the one who missed the point. No one here has called for government to get out of the business of marriage. That would be patently ridiculous: marriage is a fundamental legal contract. No shit, Sherlock.

 

Quite the opposite. I am calling for government to become more involved, not less, by enforcing the equal protection clause of our constitution for gays so they have the same marital rights (or whatever you want to call it) as heterosexual couples to marry who they want. Note the word SAME: last time I checked heteros couldn't marry 26 other people. You're the only person on this forum confused by this. If you want to obfuscate this debate by involving polygamy and other scenarios that have not been under discussion, by all means start another forum. Gay marriage is a big enough topic for this one.

Edited November 6, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[archenemy]

What am I supposed to make up my mind on? To me, a simpleton, marriage and union are the same thing. Two people who are in a committed relationship (long-term, but ideally for life and the hereafter)and share living expenses, etc etc etc.

I don't give a fuck what they call it as long as it amounts to the same thing--equal rights , equal protection under the law, equal whatever.

 

And thanks for the poll info.

 

AE - While you might not give a fuck what they call it, the distinction is very important to some. There are many Christians that I know that support civil unions, but want to make a distinction between a legal contract, and the sacrament of marriage. Much of the liberal spew on this subject is that a vocal minority (evangelicals) are trying to force legislation that the majority of Americans are oppposed to. However, when Americans have gone to the ballot box they have demonstrated otherwise.

then my "decision" should be clear to you. The distinction is not important to me.

[archenemy]

Actually, JayB, you're the one who missed the point. No one here has called for government to get out of the business of marriage. That would be patently ridiculous: marriage is a fundamental legal contract. No shit, Sherlock.

 

Quite the opposite. I am calling for government to become more involved, not less, by enforcing the equal protection clause of our constitution for gays so they have the same marital rights (or whatever you want to call it) as heterosexual couples to marry who they want. Note the word SAME: last time I checked heteros couldn't marry 26 other people. You're the only person on this forum confused by this. If you want to obfuscate this debate by involving polygamy and other scenarios that have not been under discussion, by all means start another forum. Gay marriage is a big enough topic for this one.

this is a clear statement of how I see this situation--thanx

[ericb]

If you want to obfuscate this debate by involving polygamy and other scenarios that have not been under discussion, by all means start another forum. Gay marriage is a big enough topic for this one.

 

This is a pretty ironic statement coming from a guy that just gave us his testimony about why he's an atheist and his theory about what happens after death. Just what exactly did that have to do with gay marriage?

[ericb]

then my "decision" should be clear to you. The distinction is not important to me.

 

simpleton

[tvashtarkatena]

 

AE - While you might not give a fuck what they call it, the distinction is very important to some. There are many Christians that I know that support civil unions, but want to make a distinction between a legal contract, and the sacrament of marriage. Much of the liberal spew on this subject is that a vocal minority (evangelicals) are trying to force legislation that the majority of Americans are oppposed to. However, when Americans have gone to the ballot box they have demonstrated otherwise.

 

Secular and religious marriage are separate issues. The state is involved in the former, but should not be involved in the latter. Granting secular gay marital rights would not force churches to change their doctrines. Just as the Catholic church can refuse me a church wedding because I do not adhere to its beliefs, so can any church refuse to marry gays for the same reason.

 

As for America's viewpoint on gay marriage, the issue is still very new. There has not even been a substantive Supreme Court ruling yet. The states are still in the process of testing all the permutations. The trend, however, like many other issues involving basic civil liberties, is unmistakeably towards acceptance. The Equal Rights amendment didn't come overnight; neither will this.

Edited November 6, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

If you want to obfuscate this debate by involving polygamy and other scenarios that have not been under discussion, by all means start another forum. Gay marriage is a big enough topic for this one.

 

This is a pretty ironic statement coming from a guy that just gave us his testimony about why he's an atheist and his theory about what happens after death. Just what exactly did that have to do with gay marriage?

 

Read the thread. It is about religion and government, primarily, but not solely, regarding gay marriage. Atheism and other philosophies have been a relevant topics of discussion. Polygamy has not.

[ericb]

As for America's viewpoint on gay marriage, the issue is still very new. There has not even been a substantive Supreme Court ruling yet. The states are still in the process of testing all the permutations. The trend, however, like many other issues involving basic civil liberties, is unmistakeably towards acceptance. The Equal Rights amendment didn't come overnight; neither will this.

 

I am not talking about trends here - I am talking about whether those trying to defend traditional marriage TODAY represent the views of the american public TODAY.

[Recycled]

Social conservatives screw this up all the time by ignoring the distinction between the benefits of a civil contract/marriage and the religious aspects of marriage.

 

To me, the civil contract of a marriage means that my partner and I are an economic unit as far as our finances, arranging health benefits, being responsible for offspring, etc. As well, we mutually agree to be legally responsible for each other, including making medical decision for the other if they are incapacitated. The state has an interest in this to the extent that it clarifies ground rules as far as responsibilites and benefits in a relationship. If that level of committment is too heavy for someone, just don't get married.

 

A religious marriage is an overlay on this basic civil contract, with whatever baggage a particular religion brings to the table. The baggage may include requirements to only marry someone from that faith, it may restrict by race, caste, gender or whatever.

 

It makes sense to me to have the civil and religious aspects completely separated. Any consenting adults should be able to enter the civil partnership, but only those parties that meet a particular religion's stamp of approval would be able to become married in the eyes of that church.

 

Attempting to apply religious standards to the legal institution of marriage is foolish at best and unconstitutional at worst.

[underworld]

in the most general terms - i think a HUGE majority of america believes that gay couples should have similar benefits as straight couples.

 

the devil is in the details.

 

it almost seems that both sides are arguing the same point. the churchies don't want the secular unions to 'taint' their religious unions. while the secular unions don't want the churchies to 'limit' their secular unions. each want the other out of their business.

 

so why is there such a debate?

[ericb]

If you want to obfuscate this debate by involving polygamy and other scenarios that have not been under discussion, by all means start another forum. Gay marriage is a big enough topic for this one.

 

This is a pretty ironic statement coming from a guy that just gave us his testimony about why he's an atheist and his theory about what happens after death. Just what exactly did that have to do with gay marriage?

 

Read the thread. It is about religion and government, primarily, but not solely, regarding gay marriage. Atheism and other philosophies have been a relevant topics of discussion. Polygamy has not.

 

Why is it that JayB is not permitted to introduce the subject of polygamy to the thread if he feels it relevant to the discussion - you seemingly have the freedom to introduce the topic of the afterlife. Seems to be a double standard here. Please explain how your thoughts on life after death are relevant to the thread above. If you can make a good case for it, we will ask Jay to explain how the issue of polygamy is relevant to his point on gay marriage.....kinda like college football's version of overtime.

[tvashtarkatena]

I am not talking about trends here - I am talking about whether those trying to defend traditional marriage TODAY represent the views of the american public TODAY.

 

Uh, I can read. I'm talking about trends. You're not. So what?

 

The issue varies widely by state. Currently 5 states allow some form of gay civil union/marriage. 11 states have no laws either way. The rest have some ban, court ruling, statutory or constitutional. In a situation that is in constant flux, trends are very relevant.

[underworld]

when someone makes the assertion that 'people should be able to marry anyone they please' ... it is more than fair to bring up polygamy and all other topics of marriage. IMO.

 

not to mention this is SPRAY.

 

shit, i just mentioned it

[tvashtarkatena]

so why is there such a debate?

Because religious conservatives are actively working to impose their doctrines on all of us through public policy.

[tvashtarkatena]

when someone makes the assertion that 'people should be able to marry anyone they please'

 

'Anyone', not 'any group'. Pretty clear, at least to me.