PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon judge on Tuesday ordered Multnomah County officials to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, but he said the laws banning the unions were unconstitutional and the state must recognize the marriages of gay couples who have already tied the knot.
Heh...while he halted further marriages in the short term...3000ish marriages are now constitutionally protected...And acknowledged that banning the marriages was unconstitutional...
PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon judge on Tuesday ordered Multnomah County officials to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, but he said the laws banning the unions were unconstitutional and the state must recognize the marriages of gay couples who have already tied the knot.
Heh...while he halted further marriages in the short term...3000ish marriages are now constitutionally protected...And acknowledged that banning the marriages was unconstitutional...
Feel free to panic now Homophobes...
While I really dont care either way being against Gay Marriages does not make you a homophobe.
PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon judge on Tuesday ordered Multnomah County officials to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, but he said the laws banning the unions were unconstitutional and the state must recognize the marriages of gay couples who have already tied the knot.
Heh...while he halted further marriages in the short term...3000ish marriages are now constitutionally protected...And acknowledged that banning the marriages was unconstitutional...
Feel free to panic now Homophobes...
While I really dont care either way being against Gay Marriages does not make you a homophobe.
I stand corrected...Feel free to panic now homophobes and /or religious fanatics...
PORTLAND, Oregon (Reuters) - An Oregon judge on Tuesday ordered Multnomah County officials to stop issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, but he said the laws banning the unions were unconstitutional and the state must recognize the marriages of gay couples who have already tied the knot.
Heh...while he halted further marriages in the short term...3000ish marriages are now constitutionally protected...And acknowledged that banning the marriages was unconstitutional...
Feel free to panic now Homophobes...
While I really dont care either way being against Gay Marriages does not make you a homophobe.
I stand corrected...Feel free to panic now homophobes and /or religious fanatics...
I think one could characterize the religious fanatics as induced homophobes really...they are after all "protecting the institution of marriage" against some perceived homosexual menace...which is an irrational fear (phobia)...but *shrug*...
*edited* I before E except after C...I'm sorry its a freakin' germanic language...ie should always be the EE variant...
I don't know if I'd go that far. I'm really reluctant to go and say all followers of a religion are homophobes. It's a fine line really, I know. Gotta remember there's some religious gay people, and even some of them who are against gay marriages. Homophobic outted christians?
Dregor Thule wrote:I don't know if I'd go that far. I'm really reluctant to go and say all followers of a religion are homophobes. It's a fine line really, I know. Gotta remember there's some religious gay people, and even some of them who are against gay marriages. Homophobic outted christians?
I will go that far......Even homosexuals can be homophobes...
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's all based on hate Arb
But I will say this...as long as you deem my sexual behavior as immoral Adex, I will deem you and your beliefs that not every human being on the earth is born equal immoral
Regardless, "protecting the institution of marriage" is regoddamneddiculous...I laugh my ass off everytime I hear this. They actually take it seriously.
Truant wrote:Regardless, "protecting the institution of marriage" is regoddamneddiculous...I laugh my ass off everytime I hear this. They actually take it seriously.
Yeah ya know the only threats I ever perceived to my parents marriage were from heterosexuals......
Adex_Xeda wrote:That's right you either with us or against us you homophobes!
Nope you can hate 'em all you want but the constitution won't bear you depriving people of their rights irrationally......It was designed to force such issues...
Do you consider a person who cheats on his wife less equal than a person who doesn't? I don't.
Do you consider a active homosexual less equal than a straight person? I don't.
Do you consider a liar who harms others with his words less equal than a person who tells the truth? I don't.
Do you consider an illegal drug user, a compulsive gambler, an alchoholic, a person who's seeking revenge, or a KKK member less equal? I don't.
Equality isn't the focus of this issue.
At least not to me.
For some reason our government and governments in the past have seen something in hetrosexual marriage that was a benefit to society. For some reason our government decided to encourage marriage by subsidizing it just like it might subsidize a college student's bills.
Today people want equal government recognition of gay unions. They say that two committed gay people are just as positive to American society as two people bound in marriage.
I don't belive this. I belive acting on homosexual impluses is harmful to one's spirit. It's not the way we were designed. But again we weren't designed to kill each other, or lie, and yet we do it.
Fesuni, if you and some fella wants to pool your resources together and form a union I could respect that. I still think it's wrong, but you should be free act on that choice.
If you want to redefine what marriage means, I'm going actively vote against such efforts. Just like I'd vote against efforts to make lieing under oath, or theft recognized as a good thing.
I don't hate you. You're a friend. It's just that in this case my sense of what is right and wrong differs from you. I'll do my best to respect your beliefs right up until the point where I'd be compromising mine.
Adex_Xeda wrote:You're slinging mud Arb, but you've got the wrong target.
You are naive...Basing your opinions on a tradition based on Homophobia does not mitigate your guilt...Though it may blind you to it.......you may no feel fear and hate but you are acting based on it nevertheless...
Dregor Thule wrote:I don't know if I'd go that far. I'm really reluctant to go and say all followers of a religion are homophobes. It's a fine line really, I know. Gotta remember there's some religious gay people, and even some of them who are against gay marriages. Homophobic outted christians?
I stand corrected...Feel free to panic now homophobes and /or religious fanatics...
Fanatics, not followers. The fanatics are quite anti-homosexual. My dad didn't come out of the closet until he was 36 because of christianity.
Do you consider a active homosexual less equal than a straight person? I don't.
Today people want equal government recognition of gay unions. They say that two committed gay people are just as positive to American society as two people bound in marriage.
I don't belive this.
If you want to redefine what marriage means, I'm going actively vote against such efforts. Just like I'd vote against efforts to make lieing under oath, or theft recognized as a good thing.
OK Adex make up your mind. You don't view a homosexual as less equal but you refuse to allow them the same rights with their partner and you would actively vote/work against any measures that would all ow them those rights?
I am not a homosexual. Its not something I find appealing in any way. Yet, I do not support the denial of rights to same sex couples: legal partnerships should not be sanctioned or denied because of religious bias. That is all the whole "traditional marriage" argument is.
Honestly I think marriage needs to be defined in both a religious and secular fashion. The religious can be defined as the church in question sees fit. The secular should be defined by the state as essentially a legal binding partnership between 2 consenting adults, regardless of race, religion or sex.
Wulfran Moondancer
Stupid Sidekick of the Lambent Dorf
Petitioner to Club Bok Bok
Founding Member of the Barbarian Nation Movement
Ashur wrote:And the mormons think we should have polygamy. Who's to say THEY aren't correct?
I don't have any issues with polygamy in principle offhand...I'll admit I haven't thought it through extensively but fundamentally any arrangement consenting adults would care to make is fine with me...
And I believe the Mormon church declared polygamy against official doctrine?...I wouldn't be so quick to point to the mormons...I believe Judaism and Islam both recognized polygamy historically as well?
Polygamy would certainly offer some societal benefits that I can think of offhand, but would involve a great degree of complexity in terms of estate law, divorce law, child custody law and of course businesses would have to rethink how they offer insurance coverage to spouses/children etc...
Adex_Xeda wrote:If you disagree with any aspect of the gay rights movement are you automatically thrown in the homophobe catagory?
Yes. In this case homophobia would be the only logical reason for a person to oppose equal rights for everyone under the law.
Especially considering that marriage is a legal institution and legal institutions are constitutionally protected from interfering bible beaters that want to dirty government with their disgusting and hate-filled belief system that persecutes people who are different than them.
For instance: I don't like you. I think you are stupid and ignorant and should at the very least be sterlized so you are incapable of reproducing more humans that might turn out like you, and at worst you should be loaded into a rocket and fired into the sun. However I wouldn't support legislation in the united states that would give you less inalienable rights than anyone else. Of course I don't go to some building every sunday and listen to someone talk about how people like you are satan's tool and will burn in hell fire for eternity because of the way you were born like you do, so who knows what I would think if my brain was corrupted by something as worthless as fundamentalist baptism.
Last edited by kyoukan on April 21, 2004, 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
There is a reasonable argument against State's allowing gay marriages that is not inherently based on hatred. I don't personally think the Christian idiots wanting to "protect the institution of marriage" have this in mind, nor are they smart enough to figure it out on their own, but I'll outline what I mean.
Most us, even the most liberal among us, would probably agree Christians can believe that homosexuality is a sin and that as long as they merely hold that belief, but do not attempt to act on it in a way that limits the rights of homosexuals in our society, that they are not bigots.
If you don't believe the above, then read no further. It is an axiom to the rest of the argument.
Now, a little about how marriages work, from the perspective of the state.
There are basically two steps. First you obtain a license to marry. Then you actually get married. The first step is entirely secular. The couple applies with a state agency, and is required to produce various documents, if all these things check out, the state issue a license to marry. That license, however, does not create a legal relationship (marriage); it merely allows the couple to go on to the next step.
Step two is the marriage itself. This requires a ceremony and, generally speaking, there are two means of conducting this ceremony. You can turn to a "justice of the peace" (which can be any number of public officials, depending on jurisdiction) or you can be married by any number of religious institutes. Religious institutes are given power by the state to marry people. When you witness a marriage in a church, it is not merely a religious ceremony but is also a secular ceremony under the power of the state the will create a binding legal relationship between the two parties getting married.
Now, how do churches go about marrying people? They, essentially, hold themselves "open for business" (and marriage is a profitable business, I assure you). Couples come to the church and make an appointment to rent the space and hire the various people involved in performing the ceremony and pay a fee (though the payment of a fee is not required for the analysis to hold true) that in the end results, under the power of the state, in the creation of a legal relationship between the two parties being married.
Now enter Public Accommodations Law. It is legally reasonable (if politically unlikely) that churches wanting to offer marriage services, generally, might be required to offer those services without regard to the sex of the parties being married, much in the same way as they are required now to offer those services without regard to the race of the parties involved. A good example of why this is feasible (if not likely) is Dale v. Boy Scouts. In Dale, the Boy Scouts (a very clearly religious institution, but none-the-less one subject to Public Accommodations Law) were required to admit an openly gay scout into their ranks. The holding of the Supreme Court of New Jersey was that the Constitution of New Jersey forbade discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by those providing public accommodations, which they held the Boy Scouts so did. I think it is reasonably clear that the same reasoning that found the Boy Scouts a public accommodation would also find any church a public accommodation as well.
Right now, with same sex marriages prohibited nationally, and thus gay couples unable to acquire licenses to marry, churches are not faced with the issue of having to turn away a couple's request for the church to marry them (though that changes in less than a month in Massachusetts). Thus this scenario is currently impossible. Once gay marriages are more generally allowed, that will change. And I have no doubt that at some point a gay couple that are members of a congregation will ask their church to marry them and be turned down on the basis of their sex. It would not surprise me if, at some point, one such couple succeeded in their lawsuit to force the church to marry them.
That, I think is a reasonable, non-hate based, argument for prohibiting gay marriages. It is, of course, overly broad, as there are other options. I personally think the problem lies with the state's grant of power to churches to marry people. It makes more sense to me to avoid this possibility by simply requiring that step 2 be done only by a public official (then those wanting to be "married before God" could still have their PURELY religious ceremony in the church of their choice).
Of course, this is not what is running through their heads. But it was an interesting excersize at least (though not nerely as interesting as watching to see how many start adopting this theory now that it has been explained to them).
Last edited by Aaeamdar on April 21, 2004, 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Adex_Xeda wrote:For some reason our government and governments in the past have seen something in hetrosexual marriage that was a benefit to society. For some reason our government decided to encourage marriage by subsidizing it just like it might subsidize a college student's bills.
Spurious logic, at best. For some reason our government and governments in the past have seen something in slavery that was a benefit to socitety. For some reason, our government decided to encourage slavery by subsidizing it just like it might subsidize a college's student's bills.
Ok, your first point has had its teeth knocked out. On to the next...
Adex_Xeda wrote:
Today people want equal government recognition of gay unions. They say that two committed gay people are just as positive to American society as two people bound in marriage.
I don't belive this. I belive acting on homosexual impluses is harmful to one's spirit. It's not the way we were designed. But again we weren't designed to kill each other, or lie, and yet we do it.
You personal opinions are your own, and you are entitled to them. Fortunately, our country is founded on the principal that your entitlement to that opinion does not negate the fair and equal rights of any other citizen of this country. You have a right to believe that slavery should be restored, but once that opinion is used to infringe upon other people's rights then YOU have a problem.
Adex_Xeda wrote:
Fesuni, if you and some fella wants to pool your resources together and form a union I could respect that. I still think it's wrong, but you should be free act on that choice.
If you want to redefine what marriage means, I'm going actively vote against such efforts. Just like I'd vote against efforts to make lieing under oath, or theft recognized as a good thing.
You are entitled to your opinion. Be aware that you are actively campaigning to discriminate (in this special case) based upon gender and sexual orientation based upon your religious beliefs. You really ought to produce logical and legal reasons why this should be adopted, aside from historical and religious reasoning. Unless you have no intention to contribute to this conversation. Furthermore, as a good Christian are you able to question your own beliefs and challenge under the same scrutiny that you place other people's beliefs under? If you are, then you should be willing to consider that your opinion on this subject may be wrong or outdated.
Adex_Xeda wrote:I don't hate you. You're a friend. It's just that in this case my sense of what is right and wrong differs from you. I'll do my best to respect your beliefs right up until the point where I'd be compromising mine.
Hate just doesn't apply to this equation.
Sex before marriage is not illegal in this country (thank God!), but many people belief that it is wrong and that is goes against the Word of God. The religious belief that this is wrong should not be confused for the law of our land.
But again we weren't designed to kill each other, or lie, and yet we do it.
Totally different conversation (or maybe its not), but I am currious why you think humans were not designed to kill each other or to lie.
Like most mamals, we have all sorts of things that make us good at killing, and nothing in that design that indicates our abilities to kill should be limited to non-humans.
And humans, in particular, seem almost (not quite, as other animals also lie to each other) uniquely designed to lie.
I would guess your arguements about our "design" would be sourced in the bible, and thus are largely circular.
I'm in a position where a friend of mine wishes my support for him to be recognized by the government and given a tax break in approval of his gay union.
Yet I have religious beliefs that say that acting on homosexuality is harmful.
I can't accept acts of homosexuality as right or good. Yet I want to give as much as I can to compromise out of respect to my friend.
As a result of this conflict I would not vote against modifying the laws so that two or more consenting adults could pool their finances and responsiblities into a union.
But to ask me to call this marriage, or to redefine the definition of marriage to be gender neutral requires me to compromise my own sense of right and wrong.
I can't go that far.
Civil unions? I can respect that.
Gay Marriage? That's an oxymoron
That's as much as I can compromise out of respect for a gay friend.
I recognise that such a level of tolerance is unacceptable for many of you who post here.
But to ask me to call this marriage, or to redefine the definition of marriage to be gender neutral requires me to compromise my own sense of right and wrong.
So your sense of right and wrong is effected by how masculine a man is (or how feminine a woman is)? Are you offended if a masculine woman marries an effeminate man? Or do you just not know what gender means?
My opinions are an extension of my personal moral code.
I'm fully within my rights to express my morality when voting to determine the group morality of the laws of our land.
In some cases like this the group morality lacks a clear consensus.
None the less, my voting for what I see as right (or wrong) is quite democratic.
Do I infringe on the rights of a theif if I make a law that doesn't celebrate and recognise his acts?
How do you define rights?
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
I hold that acts of homosexuality are harmful to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Of course you guys don't accept this because you don't have my religious perspective.
I understand.
We're not going to get anywhere on this isssue because you guys belive that acts of homosexuality is a right. You can't persuade me that this is someone's right.
Likewise my belief that acts of homosexuality is harmful to society isn't persuasive to you because you reject relgious perspectives.
Given this impassable divide. The best we can do is compromise.
I've stated that I'm willing to compromise and not vote against civil unions.
I think that is about as far as we can go given both perspectives.
The task now is for you guys to go out there and sway public opinion to the point where your objectives are voted into law.
My opinions are an extension of my personal moral code.
I'm fully within my rights to express my morality when voting to determine the group morality of the laws of our land.
So you vote for people who will physically alter your constitution or merely ignore it and take away people's fundamental rights based on your twisted and phony religious morality? Democracy in action indeed.
sexual or romantic acts are abstract physical and emotional concepts or activities and not human beings so they cannot have rights. are you an idiot?
people have rights. people who are born in the united states are, at least ideally, protected from people like you who would oppress those rights out of hatred and fear.
Adex_Xeda wrote:I hold that acts of homosexuality are harmful to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
How so? Harmful to who, you? How does homosexuality take away from the pursuit of happiness? Or is it YOUR pursuit of happiness? It is however harmful to the procreation of life, but not life itself. Everytime a gay couple gets married, some kid doesn't die you know.
As for taking away from the meaning of the word "marriage", Christians don't own the damn word.
Man and woman are equal but 100 years ago, they didn't have the right to vote.
Whites and blacks are equal but 50 years ago, and sometimes now, they couldn't sit down with each other.
Straights and gays are equal too, they have every right to get married.
Its not like they are demanding to get married in a church, they just want the law to recognize their union, but your too stuck on the notion that "marriage" is just a Christian thing.
Final word of advice, start evolving or at least get out of the 20th century.
Homophobia is being used as way too broad of a term.
Phobias are described by Merriam-Webster's as "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation".
I may not agree with a homosexual lifestyle, but there is no fear of anyone that engages in it. You need to come up with a new term that actually encompasses our objections to the lifestyle.***
***Please note the terminology used here. For those of you that are debate class rejects of society, I do not dislike anyone that is gay any more than I dislike straight people. I hate everyone equally regardless of race or sexuallity. You all suck.
If you have a friend whose lifestyle choices, views, and beliefs in the world you are morally opposed to, you have to stand back and ask yourself how big of a hypocrite you are to label him a friend of yours. Not only is it insulting to him, but it's insulting to yourself. You put on a preface of strong moral convictions which are closely linked to your religion when it actually seems like you're trying to deny the fact that your morals aren't as solid as you'd like people to believe.
If you haven't already, talk to your friend about your ideas of right and wrong, especially on the subject of homosexuality. Maybe face-to-face discourse would sink in for you rather than the sterile environment of the internet, or maybe your "friendship" will disolve. Either way would be less wishy-washy for yourself.
Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I may not agree with a homosexual lifestyle, but there is no fear of anyone that engages in it. You need to come up with a new term that actually encompasses our objections to the lifestyle.***
Well I would say fascist fits more exactly but tends to be a bit more inflammatory...
And I still contend that the huge bulk of the people who would refuse equal rights to homosexuals are doing it based on tradition based on irrational fear...It's no more than a specific Xenophobia...
Its not as if marriage was ever the sole domain of christianity. It predates the earliest traces of even judaism by centuries. Religions took over marriage as a means to administer control over societies, wether with benevolent intentions or not. The king of england had to invent his own fucking church just to get out from under the crispy yoke of power they turned it into. The crispies know that marriage is the last bastion of power they have over free thinking agnostics and borderline atheists. They are bound and determined to keep that power, though I think in this case their course of action will backfire on them.
And Adex, you are not a bad guy, but just answer one question directly:
Why are same sex marriages wrong?
In my opinion, you have been ducking that question because we all know full well the only argument you can offer is religious, which cannot withstand the test of logic or historical basis.
War is an option whose time has passed. Peace is the only option for the future. At present we occupy a treacherous no-man's-land between peace and war, a time of growing fear that our military might has expanded beyond our capacity to control it and our political differences widened beyond our ability to bridge them. . . .
Short of changing human nature, therefore, the only way to achieve a practical, livable peace in a world of competing nations is to take the profit out of war.
--RICHARD M. NIXON, "REAL PEACE" (1983)
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children."
:D:D:D:D:D
