Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Common Interests Texas Constitutional Amendment!! Prop 2! Marriage!

Originally posted by TexasRealtor:

---

Originally posted by Beowulf:

---

Lot's daughters raped him in his drunken sleep. I have a feeling he knew what was going on, wink wink nudge nudge.

---

Are you saying that Lot was a blind bat?

---

Originally posted by dnewma04:

---

I want to give some credit to cjbaldw for providing some arguments for same-sex marriage amendments that are intelligent and insiteful, at least for me. He has obviously done more research than most. This doesn't make me agree with some of his viewpoints, but the other side needs more people like him. Woodencross is a strict ultra-conservative christian, and I can respect that, but the information he uses to back himself up is only credible among others who are like him. Davo obviously likes to stir things up, and is always a welcome contributor, because he gets people involved. I dont like his methods sometimes like calling people out for not addressing his points, and then doing the same to others, but it's entertaining nonetheless. ZZD is surprisingly rational about the issue considering it hits closer to home with him than anyone else on this site. JaTo continues to be prove that he reads and absorbs entirely too historical information and Tony still has his priorities right where they should be. For the most part, everyone in this thread has kept themselves in line and have avoided what could easily turn into a flame fest. Thanks to everyone for proving rational conversations can occur about controversial subjects.

---

Thanks man.

As I said previously, I do enjoy a good debate, even though I've gotta get my annual self assessment done before COB today!

In regard to the comment about my arguments being insightful and intelligent, well, if only you knew the real me LOL!

Seriously though, I do want to also say to WoodenCross that I do admire him for standing up for what and Who he believes in. Like WC, I am a born again Christian. I fundamentally and intimately understand where he is coming from, so his arguments from a Biblical perspective make complete sense to me. I admire his bold witness and his willingness not to comprise. In respect to his unwillingness to compromise his values, a very wise man, George Washington, in his farewell address to the nation, wisely said that partisan politics (read compromise) would ultimately lead to the end of democracy and the end of this republic. This speech used to be memorized and quoted by our nation's children and adults for many many years, but it has lost it's luster so to speak, and is rarely referred to any longer. Still, it is worth the time to read and analyze, and to bookmark and re-read to keep our bearings IMHO:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

Here is a commentary on the speech:

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_avlon_george.htm

Regarding my own personal faith and how it plays into what we are speaking about here, this is my take on it. If the God of the Bible is real, and His Word is indeed true and right, then this fact will be reflected in our reality no matter what anyone here or anywhere else says or does one way or the other. In my analysis at least, I can't see how it could be any other way if you take the presumptions I just mentioned to be true. So, in regard to same-sex marriage, if God does indeed mandate that the union of one man and one woman is His Will, then no amount of human effort will result in a positive outcome. WoodenCross's sig says that Biblical principles work and there are no exceptions. Indeed if the God of the Bible does exist and His Word rings true, then non-Biblical principles, i.e. the wisdom and ways of the world, will never work, no matter how much worldly wisdom seems to indicate otherwise. This is why I look with great interest upon Kurtz's work, because I get a front row seat to see the truth play out (or not).

As far as my role in these types of debates, I can only use what God given wisdom I have to clearly communicate what I believe and why I believe it, and do so openly and passionately to the best of my ability. I can only plant seeds so to speak, and trust that the Lord will do with it what He will. If what I do here (or anywhere else) has some positive outcome for the Kingdom, then to God be the glory. The fact that my arguments may seem intelligent and insightful is not a positive reflection on me, but on what I believe and Who I believe in. Indeed, to anyone who knows the Scriptures, they clearly state that no good and right thing can be done apart from God, so anything good that comes from me is because of the wisdom and abilities imparted to me by the Lord. That doesn't mean I don't do my homework, I surely do, as I feel it is my responsibility, as the Apostle Paul stated, to be prepared to be a good and effective witness at all times. I feel this is applicable not only in the case of personal testimonies to other people via sharing my faith when given the opportunity, but also, and I hope quite obviously, surrounding larger societal issues such as this one. I also feel it is all of our civic responsibilities to be knowledgeable on the issues of our day and to demonstrate wisdom, patience, and restraint when approaching such fundamental issues as altering the institution of marriage. Specifically in this case, there are a few countries that have already taken this step, most recently our Northern neighbors, Canada, so it would be, IMHO, wise to sit back and analyze whether or not the decisions these countries have made was a wise or unwise decision objectively, and with our own best interests in mind in regard to our collective future as a society.

Originally posted by Beowulf:

---

And the suggestion that is it primarily a "gay" disease is strictly due to a common misconception that resulted from many of the first cases being reported in the gay community.

If you take a jaunt over to Africa, it is decimating heterosexual men and women. I beleive I recall reading that homosexuality is far less common there. If this were a "fag killer" as many bible thumping firebrands tell us, why would it be killing so many non-homosexual Africans?

Maybe God is like George Bush and hates black people.

---

Originally posted by Beowulf:

---

This is why I will not "debate" with Davo. If he wants debate, he has to address points not skate around them.

---

Originally posted by Davo:

---

Originally posted by Beowulf:

---

This is why I will not "debate" with Davo. If he wants debate, he has to address points not skate around them.

---

Yet you 'choose not to debate' with me in the middle of a debate, conveniently when you had little to no response for what I was saying. I addressed pretty much every relevant point you made earlier. If you expect me to respond to every sentence you write, then that's asking a little much.

---

Originally posted by Beowulf:

---

Oh well, we disagree.

---

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

---

Originally posted by Beowulf:

---

And the suggestion that is it primarily a "gay" disease is strictly due to a common misconception that resulted from many of the first cases being reported in the gay community.

If you take a jaunt over to Africa, it is decimating heterosexual men and women. I beleive I recall reading that homosexuality is far less common there. If this were a "fag killer" as many bible thumping firebrands tell us, why would it be killing so many non-homosexual Africans?

Maybe God is like George Bush and hates black people.

---

That is why I specifically stated modernized countries, not third world countries where basic standards of living are at the heart of the many of the reasons for the spread of the HIV/AIDS virus due to extreme poverty and lack of infrastructure to properly support human life. That is another discussion altogether and I'm not prepped to discuss that issue in length at the moment unfortunately.

I will say that if you check the CDC's data on the actual confirmed number of AIDS cases in Africa, it is dramatically lower than what you hear in the news, and many of the symptoms associated and assumed to be AIDS related in Africa are in fact the very same symptoms of many of the diseases that extremely poor third world nations struggle with. Tuberculosis, hepatitis, other STD's, etc., have extremely similar disease patterns from a sympomatic standpoint to the HIV/AIDS virus and given the widespread issues of clean water, sewage removal, shared living arrangements, lack of medicines, etc., that Africa struggles with, the AIDS virus is often assumed to be the cause of sickness and death, but there is no way of determining whether or not this was in fact the case. Recent studies funded to provide data for these assertions have indicated that the AIDS epidemic, while extremely important to address in Africa, may be wildly overestimated in this respect. My point here is don't believe everything you hear, look to the actual factual evidence as provided by the NIH and the CDC and you'll see quite a different picture. Once again, I'm not saying we should table efforts to find a vaccine and to eliminate the HIV/AIDS virus, it will be a joyful day for many when this occurs, but we need to keep perspective and take a hard look at the facts surrounding these matters.

---

Originally posted by Davo:

---

Originally posted by Beowulf:

---

Oh well, we disagree.

---

I agree.

---

Now you ruined it!

Originally posted by Beowulf:

---

That is fine, after all, this is a discussion that is supposed to be about why we are allowing government at all levels to discriminate against a significant minority in America.

---

Quote:

---

This should not be a discussion about AIDS, religion or the wives of Solomon.

---

Quote:

---

The bible has no place in legislation other than the simple right that all Americans have the right to worship in the manner they see fit (as long as that worship does not result in behavior that is illegal such as murder, rape or the abuse of children and so on).

---

Quote:

---

Even "rights" have limits. When we are discussing consentual behavior between adults that does not customarily result in death or dismemberment, the government and the religious right should stay away.

---

Quote:

---

And since we are discussing the privilege of marriage between consensual adults of the same gender, the only litmus test that should apply is "does having this privilige bring direct harm to America?"

No, it does not. They are going to have sex, and since it seems that the sexual act is such a hang up for "Christian" America, perhaps they should ignore it. I know many homosexuals are disgusted at the thought of "straight" sex.

---

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

---

Actually, this is a discussion about same-sex marriage and whether or not it is a wise decision for our collective future. You assume discrimination. I disagree. The fact is that no state legislature has even come close to allowing same-sex unions to be recognized as civil marriage. However, knowing that public opinion is firmly against them, same-sex marriage activists have now turned to the courts in an effort to get what they cannot achieve through the democratic process. Several states have heard lawsuits from same-sex couples demanding that they be granted marriage licenses, and as of this moment, Massachusetts and most likely soon to be California have or will have legal recognition of a same-sex civil "marriage."

Oftentimes people bring up the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a comparative analysis, however the huge difference here is that it was the democratic process in Congress that brought about civil rights, not activist judges that are effectively legislating from the bench. Without exception the majority of the population in the U.S. opposes same-sex marriage, including the liberal state of California and the Massachusetts state legislature, and this thread was in fact started because of yet another state in the union enacting the definition of marriage into it's own constitution using the very same democratic process we claim to all cherish. This issue has nothing to do with democratic principles or the enaction of them.

---

Public opinion was also against the integration of schools in Alabama, but "activist courts" decided properly in that schools should be integrated. That predates the Civil Rights Act. "Activistim" in the courts also has a long history of being ahead of legislation.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

---

I could very well be wrong, but if I were a betting man, I'd bet that what this really all boils down to, is that same-sex couples want to be accepted as normal in the eyes of society. By that I mean that we can debate the various points of contention surrounding this issue, but what is the end goal, what is the highest need on Maslow's hierarchy of needs? It is to achieve a sense of belonging, to be accepted as normal. Personally, right now, I don't see this occurring with the current makeup of America any time soon. Even if the courts are used as a weapon to force this down American's throat, I believe what will ultimately happen is that the Congress will act to reign in the Supreme Court at that point in time. The supreme court is indeed not as supreme as people believe it to be, there are options the legislative and executive branches have to deal with the court if necessary if our elected representatives feel that the court is overstepping it's bounds, just as the court does in regard to the executive and legislative branches of our gov't. Even taking this out of the equation in the short term, the conservative religious movement will likely never endorse this minority as a legitimate part of society, and I'm not just talking about Christians, though they get most of the attention, but also Jews and Muslims.

---

I don't see this as an issue of "acceptance", I see it as an issue of recognizing that homosexual couples should be afforded the same privilege that heterosexual could use, abuse, enjoy and curse. The courts do not exist as a "weapon". The courts ensure the right of every American to challenge the laws that often discriminate and divide us. Remember your checks and balances. Part of the job of the courts is to ensure that the word and spirit of the Constitution of the US, our highest law, is upheld with discrimination against anyone, minority or majority.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

---

Discrimination has become a buzzword that has been grossly overapplied and the pendulum needs to start to swing back in the other direction IMHO.

---

Homosexuals are denied marriage based on sexual orientation. How is that NOT discrimination? Let me call you attention to this definition of the word -

Discriminate (Dis*crim"i*nate) (?), v. i.

1. To make a difference or distinction; to distinguish accurately; as, in judging of evidence, we should be careful to discriminate between probability and slight presumption.
2. (a) To treat unequally. (b) (Railroads) To impose unequal tariffs for substantially the same service.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

---

I see your point however when talking about changing something that is critical to a healthy society, it is a bit short sited IMHO to try and boil something down to only discrimination. We should be debating deeply about all of the related issues surrounding same-sex marriage and what it could potentially affect. Given that both AIDS and religion are important factors in our society that are obviously both affected and related to this issue, I disagree with your assessment.

---

I have asked what it will negatively impact, other in this thread have asked how homosexuals getting married you affect heterosexual couples and no one has been able to respond adequately. Right now in this country, homosexual men and women live as monogamous couples, some raise children. They do everything we heterosexuals do. However, due to their sexual orientation, they can not go and do what you or I could do easily and without an eyelash being batted. The CAN NOT get married to the person they love. Hell, you and I don't even NEED to be in love to marry a woman. Pay the fee, get the license, get a civil official or ordained minister to tell you say "I do" and we are done. They are DENIED that, they are NOT given equal treatment as citizens. They are relegated to second class as thoroughly and a disgustingly as Rosa Parks was when she was told to go to the back of the bus.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

---

Depends on what you mean by legislation in reference to religion. I believe religion is acceptable in the public square. The separation of church and state is yet another grossly misunderstood concept in our modern society. This concept was brought about specifically in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist church in Connecticut. Don't know if you've read it or not but if you have not I would recommend you do. Suffice it to say that what Jefferson was pointing out was that Congress shall make no law respecting any one religion. This in no way means that religion cannot have a significant role in the public square and in shaping the laws of our society from a moral or even a secular standpoint, it merely means that Congress cannot specifically endorse any one religion, i.e. state sponsored religion.

---

When people base the reason for denying homosexuals the privilege of marriage on "biblical" arguments, it does play a role. The morality at hand is not the right or wrong of the bible, it is the civic morality of "will this bring harm to the nation?" Again, a question not ONE person against homosexual marriage has been able to answer.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

---

I agree, whatever homo or hetero sexual couples decide to do in the bedroom is not the business of the state. And I agree, "rights" have limits, as should the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Most all of the rights given to us as adults (and only as adults - which is but one limit of most of the rights given to us) come with limits, whether it's driving, voting, drinking, etc., why should marriage be the exception?

---

And marriage has limits in this country as well. Homosexuals are not asking to be giving special treatment to exceed the limits allows to heterosexuals, they just want the same limits to apply to them.

Originally posted by cjbaldw:

---

Actually it can and it probably will. Unfortunately I have to run and catch a train right now, I'll be back sometime later to elaborate on this point. Of the roughly 6700 people (IIRC) that have applied for same-sex marriage licenses in the Boston area, 40% had previously been in a heterosexual marriage and were divorced from said marriage. So how is it possible for most homosexuals to be disgusted by the thought of heterosexual relations in light of this factual evidence?

---

I can't wait to see how this would bring harm to America. If marriage for homosexuals is so wrong, maybe heterosexuals should also not be allowed to marry.

Oh, and I said that I personally knew homosexuals that found the idea of straight sex distasteful. Why? Because they are not attracted to the opposite sex! At no time did I claim all homosexuals found the idea distasteful. I am heterosexual, and the idea of two men stuffing pipe doesn't bother me at all. Does this mean I am gay? No. Does it mean I will ever "become" gay? Probably not. Well, maybe if the guy was really hot.