Gay Marriage to Alfred: Your Thoughts

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (3000 of them)
Paul is a frakish zealot who is almost the antithesis of everything Jesus (and Matthew, Mark and Luke) stands for.

So this Paul, he voted Bush in '04 too?

Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:17 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yeah, sorry Dave. I think it's not a non-issue though. People have always become married independent of religion, for long periods without any ceremony at all. I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

Wait, I don't know much about the debate in the USA, but is the debate as to the right for gay people to get married in a Church? Or as a legal agreement? I see people talking about both.

It's both, but much more on the legal agreement side.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:18 (10 years ago) Permalink

Other than appeasing the bible-belt, why is anyone arguing what the christian bible has to say about it? It's not the only religious book out there.

I don't think we should let the religious right redifine marriage to fit their definition - is everyone who didn't get married in a church single now?
I mean "faith" not "church" -- in other words, it's up to the individuals' own sprituality (or intellect) to decide what a valid "marriage" is. It has nothing to do with law, is my main point.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

This is essentially a civil rights issue. Discrimination against same sex couples flies in the face of the concept of equality under the law. If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice, criminalizing or marginalizing sexual behaviors amongst consenting adults amounts to an act of the most basic cruelty.

The hypocrisy with which fundamentalists criticize gay marriage but do not outlaw divorce and remarriage, or require an unwed brother to marry his brother's widow, belies the religious basis of their argument. They cherry pick the OT and the NT to find stones to cast at those who are different, which I find particularly repulsive.

The state does have an interest in encouraging stable, long-term partnerships but why the state should recognize 'marriage' if it is essentially a religious ceremony, is beyond me.

Michael White (Hereward), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

If, as science and experience show, basic sexual orientation is not a choice

I thought this had been rejected/disproven by gay groups?

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:22 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue. If gay marriage were legalised would it not be down to the individual churches to decide whether or not to allow gay couples to get married in that particular church?

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:23 (10 years ago) Permalink

(Church meaning denomination or congregation there, btw, I don't think it really affects my point either way.)

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:24 (10 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

Yes, it would.

x-post

Leon in Exile (Ex Leon), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:25 (10 years ago) Permalink

I just read a news item - Sec. State Blackwell (Ohio) speaking against gay marriage .. not a quote, but asserts that marriage is for the purpose of procreation, which you can't do with a gay couple. This offends me to no end .. and to debate him on his own terms, leaving out the gay arguments - my wife and I have decided not to have children. Are we no longer allowed to be married? What about people who can't physically have children?

God, I hate that idiot.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

xp - Indeed it would. And that would closely resemble a constitutionally-guaranteed right called Freedom of Religion.

briania (briania), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:26 (10 years ago) Permalink

you first 'Chantel'

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't understand why the getting-married-in-church thing is an issue.

I don't think that really is an issue - anyone/any church can call two people married, the issue is that the rest of society doesn't have to recognize it.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

The word "marriage" is charged with religious meaning, which is why I think it'd be best to jettison it from a legal opint of view and just talk about civil unions. This is what they've essentially done in France, where gay couples (or straight couples or brothers and sisters or whatever) can sign a PACS (pacte civile de solidarité) which affords most of the rights of marriage.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:28 (10 years ago) Permalink

unfortuneately, "civil union" is also stigmatized as "a way for queers to approximate marriage".. So a new term is needed.

dave225 (Dave225), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:29 (10 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, I don't think you will find anyone supporting the death penalt in muslim nations here. And probably not the death penalty anywhere.

However, I won't allow the Bible to be misinterpreted, twisted and wielded to hateful ends. The arguments will have to come both in the religious world and the secular, because like it or not we live in a christian civilisation.

But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay souple get married in a church which recognises their partnership?

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

As I said, are we just declaring open season on Christianity right now or are we going to start criticising the instant death penalty handed out within Muslim countries for homosexuality? WELL?

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:30 (10 years ago) Permalink

FWIW, while I should be supportive of it, I think a large amount of the gravity in people standing up for it has made the issue seem like one for the left fringe when it should be a centrist civil rights issue - and thus people get scared of it. And as such, maybe jumping up and down in a country where most people don't want it hinders the cause.

edward o (edwardo), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (10 years ago) Permalink

But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

i'd rather not be KILLED

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (10 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, um, we're discussing gay marriage and, by extension, Christianity. Do by all means start a thread on why you hate Islam if you're so keen.

Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:31 (10 years ago) Permalink

The only logical way to deal with is to get rid of the legal institution of marriage, but there is no way anyone is going to get away with that. Just imagine the hysterical family values hoo-hah that would result.

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (10 years ago) Permalink

one legitimate reason that people worry about a civil union between two people is because it would inevitably lead to demands for a civil union between more than two people. Which, of course, is totally rational.

The government has absolutely no compelling interest to regulate civil matters between consenting adults (other than in areas of fraud, etc.)

don weiner, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (10 years ago) Permalink

This kind of argument really pisses me off. YES THERE ARE THINGS WRONG IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES AS WELL, I know. But rather than talking about something I know nothing about and have no contact with, I would rather talk about something I know about, think is wrong and have a chance of changing.

Okay, am I the only one who sees a deep irony here? The vast majority of the posters on this thread have been British!

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:32 (10 years ago) Permalink

I apologize in advance for the US-centric viewpoint but our election was just yesterday and I presume was the shitstorm that spurred the topic.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (10 years ago) Permalink

(I was hoping noone would notice Dan)

But still, you are the spawn of our nation (i.e. you speak English).

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (10 years ago) Permalink

(Also we have the same debate going on in the UK)

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:34 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hey, we have gay marriage/civil union stuff brewing here as well! And with an established state religion, there are real actual constitutional problems involved. Though I do take your point.

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (10 years ago) Permalink

We don't have gay marriage yet either, Dan. (x-posts)

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (10 years ago) Permalink

Dan Perry - Spawn of England!

adam... (nordicskilla), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:35 (10 years ago) Permalink

Her Majesty is proud.

Steve.n. (sjkirk), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:36 (10 years ago) Permalink

Woah, does this mean I can be President AND King???

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:37 (10 years ago) Permalink

Kneel before his er hrm ah er munificence.

Pashmina (Pashmina), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:38 (10 years ago) Permalink

Well, not King exactly, but you could get married to William and be the nu-duke of Edinburgh.

RickyT (RickyT), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:39 (10 years ago) Permalink

Anyway, the liberal arguments will win - which is partly why the right are so afraid. We have been moving more and more towards egalitarian societies, ans they know they will lose. Add to that that I have never heard a proper argument against gay marriage and I am certain the egalitarians will win.

Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (10 years ago) Permalink

This should never be an issue. Let whomever wants to marry, marry. If they're crazy enough to want to do it, who am I to stand in their way? Hell, I'll even be flowergirl.

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:40 (10 years ago) Permalink

more like teh nude duke of edinburgh

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

'08 is going to be a banner fucking year for me.

It is probably best that I have four years to acclimate myself to the political realm before I turn 35 as right now I want to state all of my issues as satirical initiatives; my current solution to the gay marriage issue would be to pen a bill that banned divorce and heterosexual civil unions.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:43 (10 years ago) Permalink

As i thought. Trendy and acceptable to attack Christians. Unnacceptable to attack other religions which are actually tolerant and fluffy.

Ridiculous.

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:47 (10 years ago) Permalink

"But Jonathan, why can't a christian gay couple get married in a church which recognises their partnership? "

I have no problem with that. But you can't legislate to force a church to do that. On the other hand, it's the law's business to protect the rights of individuals. Therefore we should separate out what churches do from what the law does, and call the two things by different names.

Jonathan Z. (Joanthan Z.), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (10 years ago) Permalink

Chantel, Hooked On Phonics might work for you.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (10 years ago) Permalink

tolerant and fluffy?

Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:48 (10 years ago) Permalink

The Passion of the Snuggle Bear.

luna (luna.c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:49 (10 years ago) Permalink

The day that the US and Britain become Islamic societies is the day that your objection to this thread makes sense, Chantel, just to spell it out for you.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:50 (10 years ago) Permalink

BBritain is a Christian country? When did this become official? As in the WHOLE of Britain? All of it Christian too?

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:52 (10 years ago) Permalink

You are a gigantic moron.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:54 (10 years ago) Permalink

I'm not the moron saying the UK is a Christian country.

Chantel, Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

Basic logic would tell you that saying Britain is not an Islamic society does not imply that Britain is a Christian society.

You don't know this because you are a moron.

The Ghost of Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

attacking fluffy things is definitely unacceptable!!!! leave the furry bunnies alone!

ken c (ken c), Thursday, 4 November 2004 17:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

also not a battle I particularly give a shit about

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:32 (2 months ago) Permalink

but they're an aggrieved, besieged minority

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:36 (2 months ago) Permalink

are they?

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:38 (2 months ago) Permalink

are we talking about mormons here

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:39 (2 months ago) Permalink

a subset of Mormons, plus a smattering of bigamists

Aimless, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:41 (2 months ago) Permalink

I think mainstream Mormons are pretty much past this part of their history. Most polygamous relationships now are the sorts of people who think Twilight is less brilliant literature and more a life direction.

Johnny Fever, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:41 (2 months ago) Permalink

see I don't think that particular subset of Mormons and bigamists would be into the legal framework that would likely develop - ie, no child marriages, rights for divorcees, etc.

xp

Οὖτις, Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:43 (2 months ago) Permalink

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 28 January 2015 23:43 (2 months ago) Permalink

Well that was a lot of last minute weirdness but anyway, Alabama!

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/look_couples_line_up_to_marry_in_alabama

Ned Raggett, Monday, 9 February 2015 15:40 (1 month ago) Permalink

sup

https://twitter.com/bwdaly/status/564824998331027456

goole, Monday, 9 February 2015 16:49 (1 month ago) Permalink

Gay Divorce from Alfred: Your Thoughts

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 February 2015 16:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

Easier said than done.

Eric H., Monday, 9 February 2015 17:11 (1 month ago) Permalink

those guys are still mad racist tho right

goole, Monday, 9 February 2015 17:26 (1 month ago) Permalink

The Court today denied Alabama’s request to stay a federal judge’s ruling striking down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage. The state had asked the Court to delay the implementation of that ruling until after the Court rules on the pending challenges to similar bans in Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, and Michigan. Because the Alabama ruling is scheduled to go into effect today, the Court’s order effectively cleared the way for same-sex marriages to go forward in Alabama.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the denial of the stay, in a three-page opinion that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia. Thomas argued that, “[w]hen courts declare state laws unconstitutional and enjoin state officials from enforcing them,” the Court’s “ordinary practice is to suspend those injunctions from taking effect pending appellate review.” Noting that the Court had “granted a stay in similar circumstances a little over a year ago,” Thomas suggested that Alabama’s request “should have been treated no differently.” Moreover, Thomas observed, the Court’s failure to grant a stay “may well be seen as a signal of the Court’s intended resolution” of the same-sex marriage question. “This,” he complained, “is not the proper way to discharge our Article III responsibilities. And, it is indecorous for this Court to pretend that it is.”

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, 9 February 2015 17:30 (1 month ago) Permalink

Huckabee, the once allegedly 'reasonable' evangelical dipshit

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-gay-marriage-lies-reminiscent-nazi-germany

touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Monday, 9 February 2015 23:07 (1 month ago) Permalink

Over the weekend, Mike Huckabee hosted an event in Little Rock called “America from Ordinary to Extraordinary”

o shit is huck denying american exceptionalism

mookieproof, Tuesday, 10 February 2015 00:28 (1 month ago) Permalink

Barack Obama was "bullshitting" his opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions during his 2008 presidential campaign, according to a new book authored by former senior White House adviser David Axelrod.

Time magazine reported Tuesday that the longtime Obama confidant said in his new book, "Believer: My Forty Years in Politics," that he counseled then-senator Obama to soften his position on gay marriage for political reasons.

"Opposition to gay marriage was particularly strong in the black church, and as he ran for higher office, he grudgingly accepted the counsel of more pragmatic folks like me, and modified his position to support civil unions rather than marriage, which he would term a ‘sacred union,’” Axelrod wrote, as quoted by Time.

Obama had stated his support for legalizing gay marriage on a 1996 questionnaire while running for the Illinois state Senate. But he said repeatedly on the campaign trail in 2008 that he believed marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Publicly stating opposition to gay marriage took its toll on Obama, who Axelrod wrote "routinely stumbled over the question when it came up in debates or interviews."

"I’m just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod after one of those events, as quoted by Time.

guess that bundt gettin eaten (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 10 February 2015 14:16 (1 month ago) Permalink

Bullshit.

Eric H., Tuesday, 10 February 2015 14:37 (1 month ago) Permalink

"I’m just not very good at bullshitting," Obama told Axelrod

I am fairly certain that when Obama said that he truly believed it. This highlights the most U&K skill of the really good bullshitter.

Aimless, Tuesday, 10 February 2015 18:20 (1 month ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.