Gay Marriage for Conservatives

[Spence]

Alan Simpson, former Republican Senator from the state of Wyoming and Bob Dole's #2 man in the Senate, wrote this in today's Washington Post:
As our country has gained honest and steady knowledge about homosexuality, we have learned that it is not a mental illness or a disease or a threat to our families. The real threats to family values are divorce, out-of-wedlock births and infidelity. We all know someone who is gay, and like all of us, gay men and women need to have their relationships recognized in some way. How are gay men and women to be expected to build stable, loving relationships as all of us try to do, when American society refuses to recognize the relationships?

Not long ago the daughter of an old family friend of mine came home for a Thanksgiving dinner with her lesbian partner -- and my friend is one of those "old cowboy" dads, too! He and his wife gently took their daughter's hand, and her partner's hand, and said grace together just as millions of American families do every year.

To reach the best understanding, the debate over gay men and women in America should focus not on what drives us apart but on how to make all of our children -- straight or gay -- feel welcome in this land, their own American home.
Read it all here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28071-2003Sep4.html). I wish Senator Simpson could make other conservatives see that.

[Green-Is-Good]

I don't know why the hell anybody should make such a big deal of this. I actually agree with a politician, and a republican at that.

[BigCountry]

I wish everyone was like him.

[RedskinsDave]

But then no one would be gay. :D

[Green-Is-Good]

:lol3:

[jsarno]

we need to be tolerant, that much is evident, and all should practice it. However, there have been many extensive reports about the part of the brain that produces sex drives (hypothalamous I believe), and in gay men, that part of the brain is the same size as a womans. (abnormal size) Meaning it is (but not in all cases) a brain disorder.
So, tolerance is one thing, allowing it (same sex marriage) to be glorified is another.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
we need to be tolerant, that much is evident, and all should practice it. However, there have been many extensive reports about the part of the brain that produces sex drives (hypothalamous I believe), and in gay men, that part of the brain is the same size as a womans. (abnormal size) Meaning it is (but not in all cases) a brain disorder.
So, tolerance is one thing, allowing it (same sex marriage) to be glorified is another.
This is junk science, JSARNO. Neither the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association agree with you on this. In fact, they both disagree and condemn your viewpoint as ignorant and false.

[BigCountry]

Among other things. Hey I wish I could decide what qualifies as natural too, would be a great gig but I can't. Nobody has the right to make that decision for other people. Being gay isn't a mental or physical dissorder. Being gay is just being a human being like the rest of cause believe it or not, gay people are your equals.

[NamVet4]

Originally posted by jsarno
....So, tolerance is one thing, allowing it (same sex marriage) to be glorified is another.


I beg to disagree and request you expalin this statement.
How does marriage, either civil or religious act, glorify same sex marriage and/or homosexuality?

[Spence]

I've never understood the right-wing argument that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriages. Somehow, if two homosexuals are married it poses a threat to all the traditional marriages out there. I don't see it. Seems to me if marriage can survive all the cheating and abuse that heterosexuals engage in, a few gays crashing the party shouldn't be such a big deal. After all, how could gays screw up marriage more than straights?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
I've never understood the right-wing argument that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriages.

I never said it was a threat. Marriages were made for man and woman, to allow same sex marriages is opening the door for all sorts of other crazy things, like no more statutory rape. (who's to say a 10-17 year old can't be an adult?) Hw about beastiality. You KNOW there are crazy people out there that prefer sex with animals. So where do we draw the line? Just because society has been taught to embrace the gay people as people (which is a GREAT thing, because we are all human and deserve to be treated as such) doesn't mean that you can desicrate he sanctity of marriage, and destroy moral fiber throughout the country.
Why do they HAVE to be married anyway? Why does it matter? Marriage was something that came from religious roots. If there is no God (which is clear if they are gay since it's against all God stands for) then who cares if they are married? If I truely didn't believe in God, Iwouldn't care if I was married or not. If they truely love one another, then a piece of paper doesn't matter. So why are they forcing abnormality on the world? Hey, if they want to live in sin, that's thier choice, we're all sinners, but our laws shouldn't glorify it and make it right.

Sorry Spence...it's not junk science, it's recently tested science that is still doing research on. Just like at one time the world was flat.

[jsarno]

also...don't forget multiple marriages (man married to more than one woman etc)...marriages to brothers / sisters / cousins etc.
Think that's going too far? It isn't if their "in love" right? That's the excuse to warrent same sex marriage right? Well what if a man is in love with more than one woman? Or a woman in love with more than one man...why should they be denied that? What if a man is madly in love with his first cousin? Should that be allowed? If they are in love why not?

[BigCountry]

The fact that you're comparing gay relationships with pedofiles and beastality is pretty much the problem. There's nothing that perverted about being gay and it won't open any of those doors because gay people are NORMAL people.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
The fact that you're comparing gay relationships with pedofiles and beastality is pretty much the problem. There's nothing that perverted about being gay and it won't open any of those doors because gay people are NORMAL people.

That's your opinion...just a few decades ago, same sex couples were considered just as bad. I direct you to my last e-mail about multiple marriages as well.
By the way, people that like younger people are NORMAL too, they just have an abnormal sexual drive, as do gay people.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Originally posted by Spence
I've never understood the right-wing argument that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriages. Somehow, if two homosexuals are married it poses a threat to all the traditional marriages out there. I don't see it. Seems to me if marriage can survive all the cheating and abuse that heterosexuals engage in, a few gays crashing the party shouldn't be such a big deal. After all, how could gays screw up marriage more than straights?

Spence,

Your choice of verbiage when talking about heterosexuals and homosexuals implies to your audience that you think one choice is proper and the other is something less than that.

You are talking about 2 groups of people and you identify one group as "straights." Since you already called the other group gays, I am assuming that you think heterosexuals are "straight" and therefore, gays being the opposite of that, must be something less than that? Not normal? Not proper? Not Natural?

I think you take pride in pushing the "homophobic fear of the right wing" being a liberal yourself, but the labels you choose leads one to believe deep down you really don't fully subscribe to what you are trying convey here. You subconsciously support jsarno. HDYFAT?

[Green-Is-Good]

Yes, but that is simply because the term has been used so commonly. Like Columbus thinking that Native Americans were Indians. It stuck.

[Skinzaholic]

"Because when they knew and recognized Him as God, they did not honor and glorify Him as God or give Him thanks. But instead they became futile and godless in their thinking (with vain imaginings, foolish reasoning, and stupid speculations) and their senseless minds were darkened.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools (professing to be smart, they made simpletons of themselves).

And by them the glory and majesty and excellence of the immortal God were exchanged for and represented by images, resembling mortal man and birds and beasts and reptiles.

Therefore, God gave them up in the lusts of their (own) hearts to sexual impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies amongthemselves (abandoning them to the degrading power of sin).

Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed froever! Amen. (So be it).

For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one,

And the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another - men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was their fitting retribution.

And so, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God or approve of Him or consider Him worth the knowing, God gave them over to a base and condemned mind to do things not proper or decent but loathsome.

Though they are fully aware of God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve to die, the not only do them themselves but approve and applaud others who practice them."

- Romans 1:21-28, 32




Now before you bore me with your humanistic responses... let me list them so that you can simply refer to the # and save yourself the time to type them out.

1. The Bible was written by men who made mistakes.

2. I dont believe that way.

3. That is misinterpreted or written for a time back then.

4. My church doesn't believe that way.

5. The Bible has lost it's initial meaning through various translations.

6. (include your own here).



Basic thing is that this isn't new...in Biblical time there were entire islands where homosexual communities lived. This is simply the cycle coming around again. Sure wish both liberals and conservatives could see that!


I sure dont hate homsexuals (male or female)... nor wish they would all die and go away... but I also have enough guts to love them and tell them they dont have to live that way. I've personally seen MANY who have come out of that lie and now counsel others as well.

Guess there are alot of people who DONT love them... simply tell them what they want to hear.

[Keino]

The gay marriage issue has alot to do with Next of kin issues etc. I think it's ridiculous that if one half of a gay/lesbian couple takes ill, that the person who obviously loves them cannot go see them in ICU in the hospital, nor have any rights of survivorship as a Heterosexual couple has. That is the crux of the argument that many here aren't getting.

SKinz, I will acknowledge that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin a number of places, however as I have argued many times before there are no lesser and greater sins. Sin is Sin and we are all sinners. Allowing gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples is showing more love than discrminating against these people an denying them the right to name their Loveer as their next of kin.

BTW - That same Bible you love to quote also tells you in 2 places not to eat that slab of Bacon You fried up this morning or that Ham you have every Christmas. "Judge not lest ye may be judged" is also a quote I remember reading in a few places.

In the end, we are only accountable for our own sins. Accept all people for who they are and let them live and make their own decisions, that is Freedom to me.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Keino
The gay marriage issue has alot to do with Next of kin issues etc. I think it's ridiculous that if one half of a gay/lesbian couple takes ill, that the person who obviously loves them cannot go see them in ICU in the hospital, nor have any rights of survivorship as a Heterosexual couple has. That is the crux of the argument that many here aren't getting.

They absolutely deserve every right a normal human gets. But don't ask to have abnormal rights given to you. A marriage was meant for man / woman. That's what it's design was. It should not be glorified, or desicrated by allowing Gays to marry each other. Have we become so P.C. that we can't see the blatent wrong right in front of our face?

SKinz, I will acknowledge that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin a number of places, however as I have argued many times before there are no lesser and greater sins. Sin is Sin and we are all sinners. Allowing gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples is showing more love than discrminating against these people an denying them the right to name their Loveer as their next of kin.

See above.
Gay couples should not have the same rights as a married heterosexual couple. This is the same as asking for 10 year olds to have the same rights as 21 year olds. The 10 year old shouldn't have the same rights (ie drinking voting etc), not should a homosexual couple be allowed to recieve benefits designed for a married heterosexual couple.

BTW - That same Bible you love to quote also tells you in 2 places not to eat that slab of Bacon You fried up this morning or that Ham you have every Christmas. "Judge not lest ye may be judged" is also a quote I remember reading in a few places.

No one is judging here. In fact we are all speaking of tolerance and love. I, nor others here, do not persecute the homosexuals for their sins. It's their life, they can do so as they please. Noticing a sin is not judging.
Also...I don't have time to get into it, but no it does not say "do not eat that slab of bacon" etc. That was an ancient ritual that the bible later explains is no longer needed.

In the end, we are only accountable for our own sins. Accept all people for who they are and let them live and make their own decisions, that is Freedom to me.

You are absolutely right. But let me ask you...do you really think God would appreciate you condoning a clear cut sin by speaking out for laws to allow it? If you open this door by standing behind gay marriage, you will be judged on it.
No one here is not accepting Gays (at least that have said so in their posts), some of us think the idea of desicrating the sanctaty of marriage with unatural and impure acts is wrong. If they want to be gay and live in sin, that is their choice and they will have t answer for it later...I will not stop them. But I can speak up against a law that will legally allow sin to take place every day. Just because you might want to do something that is wrong doesn't mean you should fight to make it a law to make it "right". You can cut up shit into 20,000 pieces, but at the end of the day it's still shit.

[BigCountry]

This is pretty much gonna go round in circles. You guys say you're not homophobic which may be true, but the fact that you're coming out and telling people what's normal is wrong. It's not your place to decide, and it sure as hell isn't the bible's place to decide. If a person doesn't give a damn what the bible says, then why should he or she go by it? Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It's not something morally wrong because they're not hurting anyone except people's opinion about what's normal, and that is in all due respect, just an opinion.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
This is pretty much gonna go round in circles. You guys say you're not homophobic which may be true, but the fact that you're coming out and telling people what's normal is wrong. It's not your place to decide, and it sure as hell isn't the bible's place to decide. If a person doesn't give a damn what the bible says, then why should he or she go by it? Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It's not something morally wrong because they're not hurting anyone except people's opinion about what's normal, and that is in all due respect, just an opinion.


But that's where you're wrong...we live in a democracy, and it's everyone's right to voice their opinion on what is right and wrong. We do have a say in the decision. (albeit a small...more minute one).

Even if you don't go by the bible, common sense and mother nature should tell you otherwise. EVERYTHING points to NO...but there will always be those people that push that envelope.

by the way...homophobia is a fear of homosexuals / lifestyle of homosexuals. We are not afraid of it...we are afraid of the moral fiber of the country being contaminated worse than it already is, and allowing something that is clearly wrong / against nature to become a law of acceptability. Marriage will have no point if that is allowed. Might as well not even have marriages if it can be soiled like that.

[jsarno]

and trust me...if it's allowed, it will open a door for all sorts of crazy thought, first of which being multiple partner marriages. If gays can be married, why not allow a man to be married to 500 wives?

[BigCountry]

It won't because homosexuals aren't sick or perverted people. You say against nature but what you're really saying is it's against your own nature. Homosexuality has been around for a while and is also part of nature.

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by Keino
The gay marriage issue has alot to do with Next of kin issues etc. I think it's ridiculous that if one half of a gay/lesbian couple takes ill, that the person who obviously loves them cannot go see them in ICU in the hospital, nor have any rights of survivorship as a Heterosexual couple has. That is the crux of the argument that many here aren't getting.

SKinz, I will acknowledge that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin a number of places, however as I have argued many times before there are no lesser and greater sins. Sin is Sin and we are all sinners. Allowing gay couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples is showing more love than discrminating against these people an denying them the right to name their Loveer as their next of kin.

BTW - That same Bible you love to quote also tells you in 2 places not to eat that slab of Bacon You fried up this morning or that Ham you have every Christmas. "Judge not lest ye may be judged" is also a quote I remember reading in a few places.

In the end, we are only accountable for our own sins. Accept all people for who they are and let them live and make their own decisions, that is Freedom to me.


Keino... I agree with what you say... that the unfair treatment of Gays is wrong... but to blatently ignore what the Bible teaches as wrong is also not right. By making laws which provide government services for homosexual couples is an infringement on my personal beliefs (and about 85% of the nation). I pay my taxes... and I live in a land of religious freedom... yet my government makes laws which use my tax money to support what I do not believe in.

To me (and the Bible), the sin of homosexuality is the SAME sin as pornography... I agree with you totally... and if my government passed laws which supported pornography then I would be upset as well. The issue isnt the freedom of homosexuality... but rather the forcing of public approval.

As for the Bacon/Ham comment... this is a simple misunderstanding of the covenant between God and man. I don't have the time to go into it now... but just to say that many of the laws (including regulating what they ate) were fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament... that is why men can wear earrings... have long hair... women can wear makeup and jewlry... etc etc etc. Leagalism isnt God's heart.

Homosexuality was a sin also in the New Testament (as the verse I quoted proved). Big difference between Old and New.


Your biggest statement was the last. What is freedom "to you" wasnt my point. (Not even what is freedom "to me"). I was simply showing how God feels about the situation.



Big Country, you revealed your heart in this matter and also showed that you and I will NEVER agree in this issue... not because one is right or wrong... but because we both conduct our lives from a different foundation. You make your decisions based on what YOU PERCEIVE as right or wrong at a given moment, despite how that standard changes throughout your life and the society you live in. I make my decisions based on a timeless standard which has remained unchanged for several thousand years.

In the end, the question and argument remains the same... not if the treatment of Gays is right or wrong... but should I as an American citizen be forced to tolerate a lifestyle I deem as intolerable. That isnt freedom at all.

[Skinzaholic]

By the way... I respect both of you and your point of view. I disagree totally with it... and feel I can prove it's falicy without a doubt... but that doesnt reflect my attitude towards you guys (or anyone else who disagrees with me).

Just wanted to add that.

[BigCountry]

Your religious beliefs are not to be forced on anyone else. Doesn't matter if 95% if the country agrees with them. What if I'm muslim? Am I still supposed to go by what the bible teaches?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by BigCountry
It won't because homosexuals aren't sick or perverted people. You say against nature but what you're really saying is it's against your own nature. Homosexuality has been around for a while and is also part of nature.

You're 100% right...SIN has been around for a LONG LONG TIME. So has murder, rape, theft etc. I guess those are all ok too...after all, they HAVE been around for a while.
Come to think of it, the Greeks celebrated sex with 10-13 year olds...so maybe we should consider that ok because THAT has been around a while as well. (that must make it right)
There are MILLIONS of bad / wrong things that have been around since the dawn of time, INCLUDING IGNORING GOD. This does not make any one of them correct.

Homosexuals ARE perverted. Here is a definition from Dictionary.com
per·vert·ed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-vûrtd)
adj.
Deviating from what is considered right and correct: a perverted idea of justice.
Of, relating to, or practicing sexual perversion.
Marked by misinterpretation or distortion: a perverted translation of an epic poem.

It is not against just MY nature. But ALL of nature...your nature, your mother's nature etc all the down to Adam and Eve. Just imagine for a second that everyone...the entire world was Gay...how long do you think the human race would last? (i'd say about 55 years or so then no more babies would be produced thus the end of man kind about 40 years thereafter or less)
It's funny how this issue keeps going around and around. We all know deep within our souls that it is wrong / against nature. You can't argue against nature. So why is it even an issue. Again I ask, has P.C. become more a reality than common sense?

[Skinzaholic]

Originally posted by BigCountry
Your religious beliefs are not to be forced on anyone else. Doesn't matter if 95% if the country agrees with them. What if I'm muslim? Am I still supposed to go by what the bible teaches?


You missed the point of what I was saying. I do not feel anyone has any right to force their religous beliefs on anyone. I dont think the Founding Fathers even felt that... and that is why they made the Constitution say what it does. BUT... our government is STILL set up as "for the people, by the people"... so how can someone take the position that "it doesn't matter if 95% of the country agrees with them"? That is exactly what DOES matter.

Small interest groups (such as the homosexual agenda) are rallying loudly for special rights... and that equals money out of my pocket to fund them... that is where I say NO WAY! The fact of my religous beliefs only is my defense on why I disagree with them... not the support on why they shouldnt get what they are asking for.

Like it or not, America was and is still clinging to Christian values... according to last years George Gallop Poll... 69% of Americans still consider themselves "Christian"... and yet now we are all to swallow the fact that those values are being overruled by the courts and voted in favor of various groups?

Would it be fair for me to move to Iran and start to lobby the government to acknowledge Christianity, give me federal tax breaks due to my religous beliefs, and cry UNFAIR when they challenge me? Not only would that never fly... it would probably get me killed.

Yet in America, the land of "open minds" we do just that everyday.


Eventually... that leads to a revolution.

(For the people, by the people).

[BigCountry]

I give up. No way through here... If you wanna judge someone's way of life, which really hurts nobody, as a sin or whatever you wanna call it, be my guest.

[Green-Is-Good]

Before this, I had no idea same-sex marriages were illegal.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by robert11273
Spence,

Your choice of verbiage when talking about heterosexuals and homosexuals implies to your audience that you think one choice is proper and the other is something less than that.

You are talking about 2 groups of people and you identify one group as "straights." Since you already called the other group gays, I am assuming that you think heterosexuals are "straight" and therefore, gays being the opposite of that, must be something less than that? Not normal? Not proper? Not Natural?

I think you take pride in pushing the "homophobic fear of the right wing" being a liberal yourself, but the labels you choose leads one to believe deep down you really don't fully subscribe to what you are trying convey here. You subconsciously support jsarno. HDYFAT?

Typical. Don't address the issue, but divert with a specious attack, "Spence is homophobic". Riiiiiiiight.

[BigCountry]

You 2 agree on this issue and you're still arguing?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by BigCountry
You 2 agree on this issue and you're still arguing?

Who are you saying agrees, me and robert, or robert and spence?

[dalpumpkin]

Originally posted by Spence
I've never understood the right-wing argument that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriages. Somehow, if two homosexuals are married it poses a threat to all the traditional marriages out there. I don't see it. Seems to me if marriage can survive all the cheating and abuse that heterosexuals engage in, a few gays crashing the party shouldn't be such a big deal. After all, how could gays screw up marriage more than straights?

The right wing part is not the case. People agree and disagree on many issues and there is no right or left wing between many of us.

As far as Gay marriage? Who cares? Why would a right or left winger care? What does that have to do with us?

Fact is many people who vote for ,lets say Clinton. Are religous and don't beleave in the book they read that being gay is right, and to be on point, they think it a sin. People who vote for Bush, for some think the same. People that vote for either of them also aren't as religous and don't care. It is not a wing thing, it is a belief thing.

Am I againts the fed goverment making churches marry gays? Yes. Am I againts the states giving marriage to gays so they can get the same tax breaks as other couples? NO

I think Gays should have a legal way to protect themselves as couples. But that can be done without causeing a big fuse. Right now gay marriage is a topic of asking a church to go againts there belief, and it is asking the gay people to sware to a belief they don't have to get everyday rights.

There has to be another way, and it is hard to iron out. Gays should be able to make a bond to get the tax and life insurience and whatever benifits a married people has. But they should get it out of over all change. Not them swareing to a god that calls there life a sin, and not from a church doing what they beleave is wrong.

It is a true debate and a issue that must be addressed. I guess our country needs to adapt on issues like this. But I do think they deserve rights like the rest, but it should be away from the church also. IMO

Take care Spence

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by dalpumpkin
The right wing part is not the case. People agree and disagree on many issues and there is no right or left wing between many of us.

As far as Gay marriage? Who cares? Why would a right or left winger care? What does that have to do with us?

Fact is many people who vote for ,lets say Clinton. Are religous and don't beleave in the book they read that being gay is right, and to be on point, they think it a sin. People who vote for Bush, for some think the same. People that vote for either of them also aren't as religous and don't care. It is not a wing thing, it is a belief thing.

Am I againts the fed goverment making churches marry gays? Yes. Am I againts the states giving marriage to gays so they can get the same tax breaks as other couples? NO

I think Gays should have a legal way to protect themselves as couples. But that can be done without causeing a big fuse. Right now gay marriage is a topic of asking a church to go againts there belief, and it is asking the gay people to sware to a belief they don't have to get everyday rights.

There has to be another way, and it is hard to iron out. Gays should be able to make a bond to get the tax and life insurience and whatever benifits a married people has. But they should get it out of over all change. Not them swareing to a god that calls there life a sin, and not from a church doing what they beleave is wrong.

It is a true debate and a issue that must be addressed. I guess our country needs to adapt on issues like this. But I do think they deserve rights like the rest, but it should be away from the church also. IMO

Take care Spence

I did not realize that the topic being debated had to do with forcing churches to conduct gay marriages. I disagree with the religious dogma espoused by most churches (I agree with many of the principles, but not the single-mindeness that "ours is the only true religion" and unyielding adherence to some principles I am against) and do not think they should be forced to do so. The arguemnt usually hinges on whether gays should be recognized, morally and LEGALLY as married to enjoy the rights and benefits of being so recognized.

In that regard, while there are exceptions, I think it is pretty accurate to say that support of gay marriages will come mostly from the left side of the political spectrum and oppostion form the right.

[Skin-E-Dip]

Im expecting gay marriage to become legal in the United States but I personally would never acknowledge a gay marriage as legit