 sj |
||
|
||
US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage
|
|
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Donuel Date: 28 Jun 15 - 06:36 PM This is about as many issues as you can attribute directly or indirectly to societal growth and maturity. There are behaviors that are harmless or simple safe biological expressions that led to murder or assault by homophobes or followers of dogma. The more we rid society of man made evils and prejudice, the better. Think of all the times when you were a boy and you heard or saw some kid getting beaten or called a faggot when he probably didn't even know what it meant. The fewer ways we have to arbitrarily hate other people the better. This decision is another small step for man. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Thompson Date: 28 Jun 15 - 04:39 PM Well, Dublin yesterday and today is full of rainbow banners in shopfronts and on people for the Gay Pride march. Lovely feeling of warmth and friendship in my home town. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 28 Jun 15 - 04:03 PM Deseret News in Salt Lake City, Utah, offers an overview but doesn't say if anyone actually attempted to marry since the decision came down. A glance at the online papers front page holds clues to this reticence - the top stories right now are: |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Jeri Date: 28 Jun 15 - 01:17 PM Acme, I hear Huckabee's passive resistance will involve a million-heterosexual-person march on Washington,cuminating on the mall, where they will definitively in not marry someone of the same sex. From what I understand (check it yourself if you're interested because I don't have sources) some states have halted the marriages. I don't see that they'll be able to keep that up. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 28 Jun 15 - 12:19 PM Thanks gargoyle. I was not aware of that July 2014 study on the aidsmap link. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 28 Jun 15 - 11:48 AM From the Texas Tribune Texas Counties' Responses to Marriage Ruling Vary https://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/26/counties-plan-varied-responses-marriage-ruling/ Elated couples across Texas hurried into county clerks' offices Friday to apply for marriage licenses following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Some offices quickly began issuing licenses, including those in Travis, Harris, Tarrant, Bexar, Dallas, El Paso, Hidalgo and Midland counties. Other counties — including Maverick, Ector, Victoria, Potter and Bastrop — were waiting to hear from State Attorney General Ken Paxton on how to proceed. Late Friday afternoon, the state registrar released to county clerks a revised marriage application form with spaces for "applicant 1" and "applicant 2" in place of "man" and "woman." In Travis County, more than 25 same-sex couples lined up at the clerk's office Friday morning. Less than two hours after the high court announced its decision, the first couples received their licenses, smiling and waving as they filed out of the office. Jacque Roberts and Carmelita Cabello were among the first couples to receive a license. "I'm still shaking," said Roberts, 60. "I've been shaking since the order came down." Roberts and Cabello, who have been together 31 years, said they were grateful same-sex marriage was legalized in Texas in their lifetime. "It was important for us to do this in Texas because Texas is our birth state," said Cabello, 68. "We wanted Texas to recognize us." In Harris County, the clerk's office started issuing licenses Friday afternoon. Earlier in the day, Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart said his office would not begin granting same-sex marriage licenses until it received new marriage forms from Paxton's office because the current ones list "man" and "woman" as applicants. Counties that have already begun issuing licenses said they will use the old forms until until Paxton's office releases a new version. Bexar County Clerk Gerry Rickhoff said last week he expects his office to stay open for additional hours to handle demand. "We're going to embrace it and stay open late until everybody who desires processing is processed," Rickhoff said last week. "I think it's very hard to predict what the demand might be. There are some counties I think are going to resist the change. The message is that everybody is welcome to Bexar County." Paxton's office said he would issue guidance to county clerks on Friday afternoon. "To be clear — the law in the state of Texas is that marriage is one man and one woman, and the position of this office is that the United States Constitution clearly does not speak to any right to marriage other than one man and one woman and that the First Amendment clearly protects religious liberty and the right to believe in traditional marriage without facing discrimination," Paxton wrote. In Austin Friday morning, Victor Ayers, 47, fought back tears as he described his plans to marry his partner, Caleb Nelson, 41, after they obtained their license. "I didn't think this would happen in this state," the Austin resident said, explaining he and Nelson were previously planning to marry in Chicago. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Stilly River Sage Date: 28 Jun 15 - 11:35 AM Chronic presidential candidate Mike Huckabee (R, Arkansas) is calling for MLK-like Passive Resistance to the Marriage decision by the Supreme Court. Will they lock arms and block bridges, to face the fire hoses and police dogs of the pro-marriage proponents? No. I imagine there will be outward signs that some shops won't serve same-sex couples, at which point I will boycott those shops. They will shoot themselves collectively in the foot if they sign on to this strategy. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,.gargoyle Date: 28 Jun 15 - 06:08 AM Keith www.avert.org/hiv-aids-uk.htm Of the total HIV diagnoses reported in 2012, 51 percent resulted from sex between men, 45 percent from heterosexual sex, 2 percent from injecting drug use, and less than 2 percent combined from mother-to-child transmission, blood/tissue transfer, and other or undetermined routes. 23 Transmission from sex between men became the largest transmission route in 2011, when it overtook heterosexual sex. - In Scotland, sex between men has accounted for 71 percent of all new HIV diagnoses since 2004. - See more at: www.avert.org/hiv-aids-uk.htm#footnote28_6hm0ska See more at: www.avert.org/hiv-aids-uk.htm#sthash.eEEftPfh.dpuf. MEN WHO HAVE SEX WITH MEN (MSM) (July 2014) Substantial proportion of male HIV infections labelled as 'heterosexual exposure' in UK probably due to sex with other men HIV prevalence in the UK is higher in MSM than any other group. See more at: www.aidsmap.com/Substantial-proportion-of-HIV-infections-involving-heterosexual-men-in-UK-probably-due-to-sex-with-other-men/page/2867845/ Terrance Higgins Trust Historically, HIV hit the gay community in the UK first and hardest. For the first 17 years of the epidemic, the highest number of new diagnoses of HIV were among gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM). That changed in 1999 when the number of heterosexually acquired diagnoses overtook those among MSM. In 2011 the situation reversed again with MSM having the highest number of new infections. See more at: www.tht.org.uk/our-charity/Facts-and-statistics-about-HIV/Men-who-have-sex-with-men. Sincerely, Gargoyle For some ignorance is....... Gargoyle has the last word on this topic RE: the UK and HIV discussions. This thread is about the US Supreme Court decision and will look at how the resistant states respond to the opening up of marriage to previously excluded same-sex couples. Fighting posts will be deleted. ---mudelf |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Thompson Date: 28 Jun 15 - 05:21 AM Odd! A post I made seems to have disappeared. I was saying that "ancient peoples" didn't all think alike, and the Bible isn't really a guide to ancient thought. And that fighting over this kind of thing is like the people in Europe fighting over their dinner tables about Greece - people who've never been to Greece in their lives, but freely give of their inexpert opinions. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: DMcG Date: 28 Jun 15 - 04:30 AM Whatever the Bible says on the issue is irrelevant as it only pertains to people who believe anyway! For good or ill, that's not so, Allan. Remember we are talking about the US here, where there is a strong religious element and that that element can be in positions of power enabling them to affect non-believers as well as believers. So what the Bible says can be of life-altering importance to non-believers. Now, I personally agree that "it certainly should not be allowed as an excuse for discrimination" but that's a lot more subtle than it sounds, especially if you happen to believe the Bible is unerringly true and that you understand it perfectly, as some of these people do. If that is your mindset then preventing gay marriage is no more discriminatory than preventing murder. I don't agree, of course, but that's how the thinking goes. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,Allan Conn Date: 28 Jun 15 - 03:53 AM Whatever the Bible says on the issue is irrelevant as it only pertains to people who believe anyway! It certainly should not be allowed as an excuse for discrimination. And let's get clear the same book that denounces homosexuality suggests that a son who is accused of being a drunkard and of being rebellious to his parents should be taken to the gates of the city and stoned to death by all the men of the city! It then also states that when at war you can take a female of the beaten population and bring her home where she should shave her hair; then she can mourn for her parents for a month; and after that you can go into her but if she doesn't please you then she can be let go as long as you don't sell her! (Deuteromony 21) Let's get clear this is all very interesting in seeing how ancient peoples thought but has no relevance to human rights and equality in the 21stC |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Thompson Date: 28 Jun 15 - 02:39 AM Now let those troglodytes stop gay marchers being part of the St Patrick's Day parade in New York! You're out of date - the NYC St. Patrick's Day parade allowed the gay pride participation this year. 2015. --mudelf |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: DMcG Date: 28 Jun 15 - 01:32 AM As a non-battling Brit, that would interest me as well, Acme. I really have little idea how extensive the state powers to delay the ruling are. Nor do I know if it a feasible strategy for those who want to block things to stall until the next President turns up in the hope they are less supportive to the idea and can assist getting it reversed. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Stilly River Sage Date: 28 Jun 15 - 12:30 AM I'm interested in hearing how states handle it now. For example, on Friday, Mississippi's Attorney General sent out a missive that no more same-sex couples were to receive marriage licenses after only three had been issues. People there are waiting to see what issue he feels needs to be "resolved" before they are allowed to proceed. I'm waiting to hear about licenses being issued in Texas. The urban county clerks are ready and willing. Out in the boonies, that may be a different story. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Jeri Date: 27 Jun 15 - 03:29 PM Thanks, Joe--I hadn't seen that before. (The video) |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Jun 15 - 02:55 PM I've studied scripture all my life, and Theology was my major in college. It's often said that "Evangelical" (born-again) Christians take the Bible literally, and others don't. The implication is that non-Evangelicals take the Bible as some kind of code, or that it doesn't mean what it says, or something like that - and based on that, Evangelicals condemn others for "not really believing the Bible." But that's not the case, I think. In varying degrees, Evangelicals deny the context of the Bible. They fail to consider the historical and cultural context, linguistic and literary structures, and the intent and limitations of the authors - all things we should consider when we closely study any book, but especially when we study a book that is considered sacred. Evangelicals will tell me that I don't consider the Bible to be "true" if I condone homosexuality when it is condemned in Leviticus and in Paul's letter to Timothy, and in other places. Of course it's true - there's no attempt at deception in the Bible that I've been able to find. Leviticus contains several moral codes, and some of those codes don't agree with each other on every point. But it's clearly stated that at the time Leviticus was written, Jewish leaders considered homosexuality to be immoral. And Timothy shows clearly that Paul considered homosexuality to be immoral. Those condemnations were written with a cultural and historical context that existed 2,000 years ago or more. But culture and morality have evolved through the centuries, and what society considered immoral then, may not apply to the present time. Conservative Christians were slow to accept the fact that while Paul and Leviticus considered slavery to be moral, Christians can no longer use the Bible to defend slavery or racial prejudice. Were Paul and Leviticus "wrong" about slavery? No, I don't think so. They simply reported the moral standards of their times, a context completely different from ours. Same goes for homosexuality and gay marriage - times have changed, and so must religion. The basic moral principle of most religions is the Golden Rule, the requirement to love your neighbor, and that doesn't change. Individual rules like marriage and sex and diet and such have changed, but the underlying principle remains. When people focus on the legalities and forget the underlying principle, that's where religion gets into trouble. As DMcG pointed out, Jesus focused on the principles, not the rules - and the Buddha and Mohammed and the Jewish Patriarchs and Moses and all the other founders of great religions were the same - they focused on principles, not legalities. As time goes on, I hope that the fundamentalists will be able to figure this out: homosexual marriage is not going to bring about the condemnation of the world. It's our failure to love our neighbor that will bring about our destruction. And that destruction will most probably be a natural consequence of our hatred, not some sort of punishment from Above. How look will it take the fundamentalists to wake up and accept gay marriage? It may take a good, long time. I'm not sure all of them are quite ready to accept the end of slavery. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Janie Date: 27 Jun 15 - 02:42 PM The story of the couple at the center of the Supreme Court case. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: DMcG Date: 27 Jun 15 - 02:12 PM Well, gueat |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST Date: 27 Jun 15 - 02:01 PM Does this ruling mean that age discrimination is also unconstitutional? My ten-year-old girlfriend and I would like to get married, but we too have been victimized by the moral views of the majority. My other wife suffers, too, because she's lonely and wishes she could have a co-wife, especially one so young and sweet. Isn't she entitled to equal protection under the law? |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: DMcG Date: 27 Jun 15 - 01:47 PM It is a source of constant entertainment to me (I don't get out much!) that when you ask Christians what Christ said about gay relationships they immediately quote pre-Christian documents, i.e. not things that Christ is reported to have said. And as far as those earlier teachings are concerned, Christ's support for them is nothing like as absolute as you might imagine. For example, when asked about the teaching about marrying your brother's widow, he pretty much said 'That was then, this is now; stop being literal and think about what the actual point of that was." And he was highly critical of those who tried to reduce the teachings to a formal set of rules, saying they had made a right hash of it (I have a rather colloquial Christ in mind.) I see Christ as someone who placed the individual and their circumstances first, second and third, and any rulebook as an also-ran. So as far as Timothy, Romans and Corinthians are concerned, for me they have great teaching but "Christians" must always be asking are they Christians, or are the Timothians? |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Jun 15 - 01:11 PM Statistically, that jury is still out. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jun 15 - 01:02 PM Has anyone said that? |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Jeri Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:51 PM I said "They can bitch about it, much like some people will in this thread, until Hell freezes over... because that's all they CAN do at this point. Bitch, troll, and try to get everyone else's panties in a bunch because theirs are." This pretty much was referring to-- the impending repetition of the "homosexuals shouldn't be able to call it 'marriage' because...anal sex" thing. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Amos Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:41 PM Beside which, the Mosaic diatribes which make up the Old Testament are a mishmash of stories which go back to Babylon, Egypt, and the early Mesopotamian civilizations. They are posed as revealed wisdom from the Christian tradition, but for the most part they were created by pagans and so-called barbarians of other persuasions, often polytheistic, or sun-worshippers, or some such. In any case the issue at hand is simply a matter of civil rights being extended uniformly. No-one is arguing the religious aspects of marriage, which are purely a matter of the individual church to bless or withold blessing. Conflating the civil and spiritual codes is not only dangerous and foolish, it is somewhat idiotic. Marriage in the eyes of the law is an entirely different thing than marriage in the eyes of Yahweh, Zoroaster, or Juno. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: akenaton Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:33 PM Acme, I don't agree, I opposed the law criminalising homosexuals in the UK, I did not say "well that's it, nothing to see here , time to move on," I opposed what I saw as a bad law, and I shall continue to give my view on the issue, whenever it comes up....civilly and without abuse. Unless of course it becomes against the rules of the forum, in which case I will gladly move on. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Bill D Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:51 AM Leviticus: from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus "The traditional view is that Leviticus was compiled by Moses, or that the material in it goes back to his time, but internal clues suggest that the book developed much later in Israel's history and was completed either near the end of the Judean monarchy in the late seventh century BCE or in the exilic and post-exilic period of the sixth and fifth centuries BCE. Scholars debate whether it was written primarily for Jewish worship in exile that centered on reading or preaching,[2][3] or was aimed instead at worshipers at temples in Jerusalem and Samaria.[4] Scholars are practically unanimous that the book had a long period of growth, that it includes some material of considerable antiquity, and that it reached its present form in the Persian period (538–332 BCE).[5]" compare Paul's Epistle to the Romans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles So... similar ideas on male homosexuality (little or nothing is said about female practices) are traced thru 6-7 hundred years and written by different 'scholars' with different agendas and very different social settings. The similarity is that both claim to be directly inspired and given to specific individuals by God to instruct people about morality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans#Purposes_of_writing It all boils down to claims made by various mortals asserting that they were *chosen* to receive the Word. You may notice that this still happens today as zealots decide that their strong feelings MUST be the correct ones, and then find some way to attribute them to God. It is not always easy to know if these people are seriously convinced, or are just using impossible-to-check assertions to bolster their claims. Because those who are not homosexual often find it hard to comprehend why anyone would BE homosexual, and are personally put off by the idea, belief about the commands of some Immortal Entity provides an easy way to justify the persecution of those they dislike. Although it is regularly shown that there are serious contradictions and awkward assertions in religious texts, it is still common to pick & choose which Holy Commands they will follow and which they will ignore. Slowly, parts of the world are deciding to just let others determine their own path about who they love and allow decisions such as SCOTUS just made to ease the way. Abraham Lincoln was supposed to have said "God must have loved the common people; he made so many of them." No one can document that he ever said that, but the idea is still popular. Perhaps bible believers should replace 'common people' with 'gays & lesbians'...... |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:49 AM People need to get over the idea that marriage is only about sex. Supposedly "Christian"[sic] people especially need to get over themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,# Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:33 AM Well, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks, pro, con or undecided. The SCOTUS has ruled and it is now law in the whole USofA; it is now, as of this very day, right this second, a moot point. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Stilly River Sage Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:17 AM Not "married." Married. The quotation application illustrates a losing argument and it hampers all other discussions. Now is the time to agree to disagree and move along. There is nothing to see here any more, the Court has spoken. "They" are us - we all have the right to marry and to stay committed or to stray. It's that simple. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: akenaton Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:10 AM I would just add Stu, that there is no inequality and oppression of homosexuals in the UK where we both live, in fact homosexuals have more civil rights under present legislation than heterosexuals. They have three choices, Single, "married", or Civil Union. Heteros have two... Single or married. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: akenaton Date: 27 Jun 15 - 11:04 AM Sorry Stu...cross posted, I understand and appreciate your point of view, you are a decent man. I simply think you are wrong on this one, the epidemic which now affects hundreds of thousands of homosexuals is too important to be obscured for political reasons....and the societal damage of the break up of "the family"....for that is what will ensue, is too dangerous to contemplate. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Stu Date: 27 Jun 15 - 10:57 AM ".the equality argument just does not stack up" It stacks up better than the inequality and oppression argument. It's about love Ake, nothing more. It's good news in a world full neck deep in gore, filth and greed. It gives people the same rights the rest of us enjoy and is long overdue, it reduces suffering and the ability to discriminate against people for their way of life. The haters who would see this decision reversed, who condemn it because it doesn't fit in with their religious or political beliefs should practice tolerance and understanding of those who don't. They should try to understand compassion is the only way forward for us all and this includes for those they disagree with. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 27 Jun 15 - 10:24 AM People need to get over the idea that marriage is only about sex. And if gay relationships bother them, they need to stop trying to visualize what a gay sexual relationship looks like. Instead, visualize the partnership that is legalized, in which the couple may share in benefit packages from the workplace or elsewhere, equally own real estate, have no confusion as to who is a legal heir or who is "family" who may visit in the hospital and make final decisions. A stable partnership in which to raise children - however conceived - and not have to explain the compromise legal agreement they have reached regarding adoptive and custodial parents. Close family relations are universally banned from marriage, due to their sexual behaviour, which is deemed to be dangerous, unhealthy and socially unacceptable. The health issues could be overcome by close relatives agreeing to be sterilised, yet this piece of equality is never discussed. The ban is quite rightly in place for social and legal reasons. Comparing gay sex to sex between siblings or first cousins is so flawed an argument it doesn't bear dignifying it with a response. Apples and oranges would be outraged to be markers for such a debate. It's time to let go of that health and welfare syllogism, it is a specious argument flogged to death through dozens of threads and proven to be inaccurate on many occasions. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Steve Shaw Date: 27 Jun 15 - 05:08 AM Well, Guest, at least you were honest enough to refrain from weeding out the call for gay people to be put to death. As Jesus preached mercy and forgiveness, I assume that at least you don't think that the Leviticus one is the word of God. :-) You have neatly demonstrated that the good book is infested with homophobes. But none of your quotes actually mentions gay marriage or defines marriage at all. Do you agree with all four of your quotes, including the putting gays to death one? Answers on a postcard, please! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Jun 15 - 05:01 AM What you really meant is that you don't know or care what the bible says about it" Basically, I think that's what we are all saying, though some of us are more than aware of the mythical excuses used by unelected body's efforts to control our lives down the centuries. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST Date: 27 Jun 15 - 04:52 AM Steve Shaw: As for Christian roots, etc., I am not aware of any biblical condemnation of the concept of gay marriage. Perhaps you could provide chapter and verse. Leviticus 20:13 Romans 1:27 1 Corinthians 6:9 1 Timothy 1:10 Only because you asked, though perhaps what you really meant is that you don't know or care what the bible says about it. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Jim Carroll Date: 27 Jun 15 - 04:10 AM "beginning with the undermining of family values " This nonsense was used by the church and the homophobes during the Irish referendum on Gay marriage and firmly kicked into touch by the the Irish voters. Even the church hierarchy has now realised it was a mistake and has described the result as "a wake-up call for the Catholic Church" - it is the death throes of religious fundamentalism in Ireland and, along with the child abuse scandal (still jogging on its merry way with the enquiry into the church's collusion in Brendan Smyth's rape of up to 200 children), it has brought the Catholic church to its knees (not in prayer). The Smyth affair is representative of the same "family values" as those which led to centuries of persecution of homosexuals, promoted by a overwhelmingly elderly, all-male, celibate hierarchy attempting to tell its flock how to behave in their bedrooms. Done and dusted here, at least Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: akenaton Date: 27 Jun 15 - 03:52 AM This issue, in Western countries, has nothing to do with "equality", but is politically motivated and homosexuals cynically used. The object is the removal of social conservatism from society, beginning with the undermining of family values and the established Christian Church. Close family relations are universally banned from marriage, due to their sexual behaviour, which is deemed to be dangerous, unhealthy and socially unacceptable. The health issues could be overcome by close relatives agreeing to be sterilised, yet this piece of equality is never discussed. The ban is quite rightly in place for social and legal reasons. Given the horrific MSM health figures, and the practical redefinition of monogamy and traditional marriage......the equality argument just does not stack up. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,No it's gone again Date: 27 Jun 15 - 03:02 AM I had the ruddy cookie for a short while too... It is interesting that there was a thread about SCOTUS and the implications of someone using his superstition as a yardstick. Yet in a couple of days, The USA has seen this function be used to strive for equality in two areas. Marriage and access to decent healthcare. See? I told you if you kept banging the rocks together.... Meanwhile here in confusionville, pete rattles on about two thousand years of traditional marriage. Would that be the Christian ceremony that up till a few years ago required the woman to love honour and obey? Or the pre c20 model where women were seen as goods and chattel. I was wrong to call pete a homophobe. I should have said misogynist homophobe. His universal love knows no bounds.... |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Jun 15 - 01:31 AM Oh, I found out that the Supreme Court decision apparently takes effect immediately. Several new states were issuing marriage licenses today. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Bill D Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:27 AM Pete is ",....saddened and disappointed by the redefinition of marriage and the further move away from Christian and biblical roots. " Pete... marriage was never *defined* by anyone. And the majority of the world doesn't have "Christian and biblical roots". The important thing is, no one will have gayness imposed on them or be required to perform or attend a same-sex marriage. For hundreds of years, 'straight' people tried to impose straightness on everyone else, and because they were generally a majority with church backing, they generally succeeded.... thus, most same-sex couples seldom admitted they WERE gay, much less tried to get married. The concept of 'defined' marriage was just a matter of assuming that 'what is common is what is right'... and anyone should be able to think of a dozen examples to disprove that notion. Overcoming 'traditional' rules and cultural practices that were basically unfair takes a lot of work, help, publicity, legal battles and even just plain luck. This case before SCOTUS was made easier BECAUSE 36 states had already made a statement. Wouldn't it have been interesting if SCOTUS had dis-allowed all those precedents? Those who are straight will get up tomorrow and go on being straight, with no interference by the government, and despite there being one heck of a lot of happier gay people smiling and walking a bit taller. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: PHJim Date: 27 Jun 15 - 12:19 AM From: GUEST,Mark - PM Date: 26 Jun 15 - 11:39 AM "Also some very encouraging news for some folks in southern Utah!" Mark, this will not have a huge effect on citizens of Utah since same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in Utah since December 20, 2013. It will be more encouraging to the citizens of those states who, up until today, have banned same-sex marriage. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Jeri Date: 26 Jun 15 - 10:52 PM Ups, huh? Who you talkin' to? As for religious organizations not wanting to marry same sex couples, I don't see why those individuals would want to be in that sort of religious institution. In any case, church & state are still mostly separate. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Joe Offer Date: 26 Jun 15 - 09:46 PM Pet from Seven Stars link says: however, since the homosexual activists have already taken Christians to law for following their biblical convictions, this law will only increase this. at present Christian ministers are not obliged to marry same sex couples, but I wont hold my breath that it will stay that way indefinitely. I hope I am proved wrong , but the instances of Christians already being taken to law over conscience decisions does not induce confidence for the future. If religious ministers are required to preside against their will at gay weddings, then you have a point. But that hasn't happened, and hasn't been seriously proposed. So, for now, it's not an issue. But I cannot see how gay marriage is offensive to anyone, or a violation of anyone's beliefs. If you believe that people of the same sex should not marry one another, you are completely free to refuse to marry somebody of your sex - and that will never change. But why do you think that what other people do with each other, is a violation of your beliefs? Homosexual activists have "already taken Christians to law," not for following their biblical convictions, but for attempting to legally coerce others to follow their interpretation of biblical morality. Now, there are some extremists here who think you should not have the right to consider homosexuality immoral, but I think those extremists are the minority. But most people think you should not have the right to stop homosexuals from getting married. McMusket says: Mind you, before you start having a pop at the civilised region of the planet, just remember it is your Vatican combined with their "enemies" in the U.S. Christian wrong who exacerbate, fund and Stoke up attitudes in the pigshit thick idiots who throw their weight around in NI. My point was that it's not quite right for people from the UK to snipe at the US for being slow to approve gay marriage. Both the US and the UK have factions who oppose gay marriage. That's what they think - it's not necessarily a reason to condemn them. It takes time for people to change their minds, and some never do. Such is life. But when Christians like The Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori applaud the decision allowing gay marriage, she speaks for me. She's my kind of Christian., -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jun 15 - 09:31 PM I hope that answers your question. Sure does, Michael- its all about YOU and never mind the millions who now have access to health care that didn't before. Better to have no loaf at all rather than a half a loaf. Gotcha. You bet. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: michaelr Date: 26 Jun 15 - 09:13 PM Steve Shaw and Greg F -- I can't speak for Yanks who "oppose moves to improve your health service", nor am I "part of the current U.S. Republican 'War Against Poor People'". I (as a transplanted German who grew up with universal health care) am and have been a champion of Single Payer. I continue to oppose the Affordable Care Act because it's an egregious giveaway to giant insurance corporations that forces Americans to enroll in their programs with no way to opt out. Costs for millions, including me and my family, continue to go up, while services have not improved in any noticeable way. We are hit with punitive tax penalties if we don't enroll. It's extortion, pure and simple, and does way too little in the way of actual "reform" (such as removing the profit motive from the health care field, which would be the right thing to do). I hope that answers your question. |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jun 15 - 09:11 PM Muslims need be treated no differently to anyone else. Were I to live in the States, the welfare system would not permit me to claim benefits for four women as though they were my wives. I can't think that very many right-minded Muslims would expect such advantageous discrimination along those lines. When in Rome, etc., within reason, and according to Old Mother Common Sense (in the words of the mighty John Seymour). |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: GUEST,ups Date: 26 Jun 15 - 08:58 PM Jeri - move from state to state and granted the rights? So.....you propose....those who follow Islam.... And move to a "western Christian country" should be permitted to bring with them the four wives...they lawfully married within their culture. And, if they take up citizenship....and fall upon "hard times" WHICH of the four four wives is most entitled to government subsidy.....the first, or the forth, or ALL. Not that this would ever happen.(a Muslem is only allowed to take each newer wife based upon proof of economic, income support) |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Don Firth Date: 26 Jun 15 - 08:46 PM Well, between same-sex marriage and universal health care, if we keep working at it, the U.S. might just catch up with more advanced and enlightened countries--like Denmark, Norway, Sweden.... Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: US Supreme Court sez Yes to Gay Marriage From: Steve Shaw Date: 26 Jun 15 - 08:35 PM I repeat, possibly in different terms. Fifty states "recognising" gay marriage is not the issue. Fifty states celebrating the joy of gay marriage is what we strive for. As for toasters, I'm married to my Le Creuset large lidded casserole pan. Me and my Le Creuset, let no man put asunder. |
| Share Thread: |