Hay (sic), Matt less a star: I'm trying to be nice....

Try harder sweetheart.

Hay, give me a break, I gotta work into this a little.

I AM trying. OK?

Now I know why jodi has 3,400 posts to my measly < 1700. That's it, from now on, just smiley posts!

:p :p :p

(3405)

I think the question you need to consider is not why?, but why not? Why not honor gay marriage. First of all, in gay union, both parties are human, and thus are granted basic human rights (that should bury the bone on the dog issue). Second, both parties would commit to the relationship willingly. They both desire it because they love eachother (relationships involving pedophiles are usually pretty one-sided, no?). In regards to homosexuals being an "aberance of nature," wouldn't you then also categorize mentally retarded or disabled people as so? Such people may not fare as well in a "survival of the fittest" situation, but that doesn't mean they should be destroyed for the betterment of humanity. The beauty of our civilized culture is that we accomodate for such people, and learn to live with all the diversity and differnces between us. Finally, given the small ratio of homosexuals to straights, there is no way that gay marriage could adversely affect the reproduction of the human race. So all in all, why not? Why not give gay couples the right to marry?

Tom Asterisk asked: They're not, to S.O.B.'s!

A

Hmmm. So this isn't the gay marriage thread, it's simply the marriage thread, and the ongoing debate between masculinity and femininity. :p

Because marriage is a covenant before God, a religious union. The state has just decided to recognize that. But not only have they decided to recognize it, but it has went even further in mixing church and state by attempting social engineering by creating special laws, particularly tax laws, that treat married couples differently than singles. Of course they do this with the "best for society" intentions just as the tax laws for home ownership. Either I've missed it or you are the first person with enough, um, intestinal fortitude, to go here. Are homosexuals an aberrance of nature like those born with disabilities or left-handed?

As I stated before, maybe YOU believe YOUR marriage is, but to make a blanket statement about all marriages is both disingenuous and patently absurd.

OK,

You can look at this issue in one of two ways. Either you choose religion to create a standard for this, or you choose science, but don't go picking and choosing parts of both to suit your taste.

Religion is clear, that is, the religion of God, the only God, Him who created everyone of us and dictated the proper pattern for society, marriage and conduct.

Or, you choose science, because you are much intelectually sound and a more rational animal than the rest of nature. In this case, we have all evolved from mere sludge, humans somehow have reached a level so high we have even begun to create a semblance of morality (where from?) and now attempt to classify it with historical precedence or personal gratification. Do you see any problems yet? If we are not created, then we are mere animals, albeit vastly superior to our loyal dogs, still; simply animals. As such, it follows we should behave as such. But where do morality and ethics play into this natural evolution of our genius? Again, evolution alone would classify a HOMO as an aberance of nature, just like an albino Gator and both are destined to die. But now you change the rules of our man-made science to add your personally developed morality. Using this rather arbitary measure of societal right and wrong, you decide that nothing in life is sacred or meaninful save what is comfortable or convenient at the time.. Am I close? If this is what you choose (without religion) then it is safe to say that my morality concerning HOMOS and their detestability is just as accurate as your ethics saying two guys butt-pluggin each other is in following with the laws of nature and science...

Pick your side and debate it, but science cannot support this, and neither does religion.. so where do you stand my friend in defending the immoral and un-natural?

Manitou

Actually it was carbon atoms in the form of cosmic dust. The sludge only occured later as a consequence of hydrogen and oxygen atoms combining to form water molecules. Mixed together a slurry was created which could rightly be described as sludge.

:D

Perhaps certain posts could be taken more seriously if the festering hostility were curbed. I submit that those who are unable to post on a particular subject without lacing their posts with invective should limit themselves to topics where there is less opportunity for them to do so, like tuning pianos. :rolleyes:

Does this mean that atheists can't get married?

Apparently not. They can however enter into a civil contract giving them tax breaks and specific rights of inheritance and claims over jointly held or acquired assets and liabilities.

First of all, there are far more competing forces in the human psyche and in society than just religion and science. To create a false dichotomy and then to challenge people to choose between the two is not only disengenuous, it is patently absurd.

Second, religion and science cannot compete, if both remain in their respective realms. Science's job is nothing more than to describe the natural world. If the natural world has particular characteristics and is a particular way -- and assuming there is a God-Creator of it, as I believe there is -- one can only assume that He created it like it is. To put it simply, we have trees because God created trees. They sprout, grow and die in the way they do because it is how God's own creation works. Religion can dispute scientific findings all it wants, but if a religion accepts a Creator, then that tradition must accept the creation as it is, even if it contradicts what that tradition has long taught before science was able to provide the answers.

Third, which religion are you talking about? You don't have to answer, I already know. However, since there are more religions than just Christianity, and within Christianity there are more interpretatins than just your own, then when you set up your dichotomy, please do so honestly -- that there is either YOUR brand of religion and science -- not that there is religion in general and science.

To bring this around to the discussion at hand, homosexuality has existed as far back as we can historically recount. In some societies, it was simply an accepted occurrence. In some it was seen as the purest form of love. In others, homosexuals were revered as having been graced by God as natural leaders for society. In still others, like our own, homosexuals were disdained and rejected.

It might interest you to now that Christianity has not always held the position about homosexuality it now has. There is strong evidence that St. Valentine, whose feast day is celebrated by lovers, was the homosexual lover of a Bishop (before celibacy was required). The intensity and purity of his love for the Bishop was such that Valentine was made the patron saint of lovers.

Indeed there wer emany same-sex couples who were considered saints in the ancient Christian Church -- Sergius and Bacchus (same feast days), Felicity and Perpetua (same feast days and mentioned in the traditional Roman Catholic Eucharistic Prayer) and many others.

There are texts of Christian liturgies and rituals from the Middle Ages for the blessing and sanctifying of same sex unions. No, they were not considered marriages nor celebrations of the Sacrament of Matrimony. But the Christian Church of the time revered and respected such unions enough to develop and perform religious services to mark and bless them. You can find the history of this, as well as some of the liturgical texts in Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe
by John Boswell.

Throughout history, we have seen societal and religious morality shift and change. The basic premises may remain the same, but the way a society interprets and expresses those basics shifts with the times.

What we are seeing today in reference to the acceptance of homosexuality in the Western, predominantly Christian, World is nothing more than another one of these shifts. And it is a shift based on one of the most basic premises of Christianity -- the respect for the individual human being and a respect for the unique gifts that God gives each of us.

Do you mean the God who condemned all interracial marriages in Deuteronomy, the one who prohibiting banking and interest, or the one who never got married, was born out of wedlock and was created without sex or marriage all together, told husbands to leave their wives, wives to leave their husbands, all to leave their families, and never said a word about marriage -- straight or gay -- except to defend a prostitute?

"Honey, how about let's make it official. I love you and want to enter into a civil contract whereby we may obtain tax breaks and claims to jointly held or acquired assets or liabilities." :3hearts:

How romantic! I'm blushing. :2hearts:

A little aside.
Married people get tax breaks, or there is the marriage penalty.
Which is it?

A loaded question to be sure. Homosexuality is natural; that is, it occurs naturally, or in nature. The fact that the homosexuality gene does not survive through direct procreation of homosexuals is irrelevant. There is clear evidence that it occurs in other species of animals as well. It is. It does not need a "defense" in order to exist.

Whether it is moral, I suppose, depends in part on your frame of reference. Certainly some religions teach that it is immmoral, or at least that the sexual conduct that arrises naturally from the state of homosexuality is immoral. Personally, I do not think that homosexual behavior is immoral.

In any event, I think the thread is about marriage of homosexuals--not a debate about what you describe as unnatural and immoral.

jf

Actually, there was a "stay at home Mom" incentive, created in the late 40s. The idea was to get white men back into the work place after returning from the War and employment training, so the idea was to create an incentive to get white women to leave their jobs and go back home and take care of the kids. (Black women, like those who made up the bulk of the shipbuilding workforce in Long Beach, California, or the tank building force in Detroit, were quickly laid off, immediately creating huge unemployment pools in Watts and Detroit that haven't recovered to this day.) Of course, it was only available to nuclear families (extended matriarchal households need not apply), and only to those not requiring two working incomes. (In other words, it was welfare for white people.)

Republicans started calling it a "marriage penalty" after it became clear that tax breaks for the rich didn't change the reality that increasingly two incomes were thought to be necessary to maintain the U.S. standard of living, which peaked in 1973. Moms were not supposed to be staying at home anymore; they should be working at Wal-Mart.

Manitou.
Thanks for the dog marriage analogy.
I was on the fence.
But now I understand.
Thanks.

Oh BTW, this really makes me want to join your religion.
Does your church accept new members?
Sadly, I'd honestly guess your church’s sanctuary is bursting at the seams these days.
Pushing other groups down pushes your group up.
Superiority sells.

Here at least there is a marriage deduction for the tax year in which a couple is married or unionized in a civil manner. It dosen't amount to much- maybe a $1000.00 CAD and only one spouse may claim it. After that not all couples request or qualify for the marriage penalty.

Socialist sister Betty F. certainly pushed that message.

True, but she had little impact. (Remember - the "stay at home Mom" incentive was only for two-parent families.) The issue was pushed to the forefront by Republicans during the Reagan Administration, who read the tea leaves and saw families getting poorer and poorer even as stockholders got richer and richer.

Depends on your tax situation. If man is living with his stay-at-home girlfriend, they'll save thousands by being married over him filing as single with the same AGI. OTOH, a married couple who use standard deductions will pay more because they have a higher combined AGI than if they were to file seperately, and possibly more of it will be in a higher bracket as well.

Flat tax, anyone?