Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Important Prop. 8 Ruling Today

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
    For the record, I never said anything about the consensus of most Americans. And my moral argument about gay marriage is a personal one, not a legal one ... so naturally it is based on my personal beliefs. The legal argument is based on the fact that a large percentage of Americans believe gay sex is a sin ... which is a fact. It may not be a majority anymore, but it is a large minority. I don't think we should be incentivizing behavior that is morally controversial. Should we overrule laws that restrict such behavior? Yes. But I don't think the government should be encouraging it by giving tax breaks to gay people that want to get married. The purpose of the tax benefits that come from filing a joint tax return, at both the state and the federal level, are purposely designed to encourage marriage.
    As for this sin argument, keep in mind that it wasn't very long ago that most American believed interracial marriage was a sin and there were quite a few states with laws against it. Furthermore, I heard on the radio this morning that young voters support gay marriage by an 80-20 margin. This ship has sailed.

    This also brings up an interesting point. Can anyone point to a longstanding cultural tradition that was changed by society through legislation that ended up being conclusively wrong in hindsight? Prohibition is the only thing I can think of at the moment.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

    Comment


    • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
      I know this will be controversial, but what I want more than anything is to be able to have a healthy marriage to a woman and have a family. I'm not going to pretend that that will be easy or simple. It may never happen in this life. I don't plan on marrying someone who doesn't know everything about me in this regard. This is what I want though, and I know people that have made it work.
      This part is interesting to me. Can I ask why?

      As many here know, my younger brother, who I am very close to, is gay. He was previously married and had 3 kids before he came out. His marriage was not what i would call an overly warm and healthy relationship, but it was also not overly contentious. His relationship did not start out as openly as you have said you would want in a marriage, as it took him a number of years to understand his feelings. That certainly caused a great deal of strain later on. Once he became open about it, their relationship was immediately over. She wanted nothing to do with it at that point.

      That being said, by far the most important thing in his life is his children. He would do anything for them. I can understand wanting to have and raise kids.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
        It's a thorn in the flesh, because if you give in to it ... it obstructs your ultimate salvation. I never said anything about gay people not being happy, good, productive, or normal. I guess now is as good a time as any to reveal that I, myself, am gay. I didn't want to mention it earlier because I didn't want people to think I was appealing to my own unique situation to give my position more weight. But in this instance, I will rely on that. I am gay and I am a mormon. I think I am as happy and productive as any ordinary person. I try to be good. Normal? Probably not ... but 3 out of 4 ain't bad. Do I think I could also be happy, productive, good and normal if I left the Church and found another man to marry? Probably ... except for the normal part. But it is my belief that if I were to do that, I would be obstructing my own personal salvation. That has nothing necessarily to do with my temporal happiness or my general goodness.
        FTR, if you refer to Taysom Hill as "beautiful" I will track you down and tape your buns together. I would do likewise to the other person who referenced him as "beautiful," but I won't and not because she is a woman. But because she is a Poly and likely has Poly friends. Up here in Idaho, likely where Taysom shovelled shit out of dairy cow stalls or bucked hay to develop that rippled physique that has so many twitterpated, we don't use the word "beautiful" for males....unless it is a trout or an elk with a really big rack! BOWN BICHA BOWN BOWN!

        I think the crux of the argument between you and the more secular mormons comes down to your belief that being gay is not an eternal characteristic. I am not sure if they entirely disagree just that they subscribe to that notion that the great thing about the enlightenment was the spreading of the belief that we should be concerned about the human condition today. All of us struggle with believing that gay people would be happier denying themselves the joys of a committed relationship we find in marriage. It boils down to faith.

        For me, I have not totally worked out where I stand on the moral issue although I admit I lean in your direction. However, I believe the marriage laws discriminate and even if it will not benefit society I think we should have the right to destroy ourselves.
        Do Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
        -General George S. Patton

        I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
        -DOCTOR Wuap

        Comment


        • Sorry I can't find another source, but Justice Sotomayor asked Ted Olson (who was a Solicitor General under George W. Bush who's arguing the side trying to overtturn Prop. 8) whether under his argument the state would be able to place any restrictions on marriage, specifically laws against polygamy and incestual marriage. I'm not sure how satisfactory Olson's answer was, but basically he says that gay marriage is banned because of the individuals' status while polygamy and incestual marriage is conduct.

          http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ted-...e-sex-marriage

          I was reading an article in Abovethelaw about that Columbia professor who was in a sexual relationship with his adult daughter. What was amazing to me was the number of people in the comments that were willing to just say "hey, they're two consenting adults." Incest is one of those leaps I will never be able to make. I don't think incest between adult children and their parents (or siblings with each other) is particularly common enough for it to be much of a worry as it relates to lifting government bans against gay marriage -- but it does give me some pause. I just hope there's some way to have a constitutional distinction between gay marriage and crossing those other boundaries. Morally I find incest and polygamy extremely repugnant, something that I don't feel about gay marriage. But constitutionally speaking, I'm not sure how you draw the line just at gay marriage.
          Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
            Let me ask you this. Do you think sexual orientation is an eternal characteristic? I do not think it is. I don't think it is a sin or a choice, but I do think it is a "thorn of the flesh" that will not exist in the resurrection. If you disagree with this, then I don't think we will ever be on the same page as each other.
            UVACoug,

            I have really appreciated your comments on the subject and your willingness to support your opinions and beliefs despite the opposing views on this board. Because of your disclosure in this thread, I would really be interested in a more thorough explaination of your answer to the bolded question above?

            If it is not an eternal characteristic then what keeps couples together? Or are you stating that only heterosexual attraction is eternal? What other personal or human characteristics do you think are not eternal?

            I don't ask this to debate you, I am honestly curious. Thanks again for adding some spice around here.
            "Friendship is the grand fundamental principle of Mormonism" - Joseph Smith Jr.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
              Gay marriage is a concept that was invented about 10-15 years ago. Marriage, by definition, has always meant the union of a man and a woman.
              There were male-bonding ceremonies in medieval Europe that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages. There were twelfth-century liturgies for these ceremonies that inlcuded the citing of marriage prayers, joining of hands over the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. In 1306, Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared these unions to be unchristian, due to the sexual relations between the bonded men.

              It was also a known practice in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as China.

              So to say it's a new invention is just wrong.
              If we disagree on something, it's because you're wrong.

              "Somebody needs to kill my trial attorney." — Last words of George Harris, executed in Missouri on Sept. 13, 2000.

              "Nothing is too good to be true, nothing is too good to last, nothing is too wonderful to happen." - Florence Scoville Shinn

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SoCalCoug View Post
                There were male-bonding ceremonies in medieval Europe that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages. There were twelfth-century liturgies for these ceremonies that inlcuded the citing of marriage prayers, joining of hands over the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. In 1306, Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared these unions to be unchristian, due to the sexual relations between the bonded men.

                It was also a known practice in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as China.

                So to say it's a new invention is just wrong.
                When you say "male-bonding ceremonies", could you describe what purpose(s) this served?
                Everything in life is an approximation.

                http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                Comment


                • Originally posted by UVACoug View Post
                  Marriage, by definition, has always meant the union of a man and a woman.
                  Except for Mormons that lived between about 1840 to the early 1900s when it was the union of a man and women or sometimes men and a woman.
                  "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by SoCalCoug View Post
                    There were male-bonding ceremonies in medieval Europe that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages. There were twelfth-century liturgies for these ceremonies that inlcuded the citing of marriage prayers, joining of hands over the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. In 1306, Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared these unions to be unchristian, due to the sexual relations between the bonded men.

                    It was also a known practice in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as China.

                    So to say it's a new invention is just wrong.
                    Well...that sounds quite a bit different than any male bonding I've participated in. I don't recall any hand holding, prayers, ceremonies, or altars. And there certainly wasn't any kissing. Usually it included stuff like guns, ATV's, or a sporting event. Usually there was some variety of pork or beef cooked and eaten - and usually in large quantities.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Eddie View Post
                      Well...that sounds quite a bit different than any male bonding I've participated in. I don't recall any hand holding, prayers, ceremonies, or altars. And there certainly wasn't any kissing. Usually it included stuff like guns, ATV's, or a sporting event. Usually there was some variety of pork or beef cooked and eaten - and usually in large quantities.
                      So your male bonding experiences involved pork? And in large quantities? Good to know.
                      Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Eddie View Post
                        Well...that sounds quite a bit different than any male bonding I've participated in. I don't recall any hand holding, prayers, ceremonies, or altars. And there certainly wasn't any kissing. Usually it included stuff like guns, ATV's, or a sporting event. Usually there was some variety of pork or beef cooked and eaten - and usually in large quantities.
                        Exactly. There should been a sporting event involved in there somewhere, like nude greco-roman wresting.
                        Everything in life is an approximation.

                        http://twitter.com/CougarStats

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
                          So your male bonding experiences involved pork? And in large quantities? Good to know.
                          There's this forum here called "The Diner". It has a thread called "The Pulled Pork Thread". It sounds like you've been missing out. Sorry.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Eddie View Post
                            There's this forum here called "The Diner". It has a thread called "The Pulled Pork Thread". It sounds like you've been missing out. Sorry.
                            So your male bonding experiences also include a lot of pulled pork?
                            Part of it is based on academic grounds. Among major conferences, the Pac-10 is the best academically, largely because of Stanford, Cal and UCLA. “Colorado is on a par with Oregon,” he said. “Utah isn’t even in the picture.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Moliere View Post
                              Except for Mormons that lived between about 1840 to the early 1900s when it was the union of a man and women or sometimes men and a woman.
                              Let's keep polygmay out of this. Polygamy is not precedent supporting gay marriage. It is not relevant to gay marriage. One of Christianity's primary positive contributions was to eradicate polygamy among the Euro tribes. It is truly a pillar of barbarism. We see the ugly face of polygamy now in the LDS offshoot groups. It's no different now than when Brigham Young had multiple wives.

                              Assuming arguendo that marriage by definition has always meant the union of a man and a woman, so what? All societies had kings and state religions until 1776. This point reminds me of the South's resort to ancient history to support slavery. The last 450 years have been all about breaking free of medieval Christian norms including nomenclature. What's happening is just more of the inexorable marginalization of religion. In fact, this issue exposes religion's nonsense and hatreds.
                              When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.

                              --Jonathan Swift

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Color Me Badd Fan View Post
                                So your male bonding experiences also include a lot of pulled pork?
                                Boston Butts specifically.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X