Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage

That's right, through the legislature.

Before today Vermont had only legalized civil unions, and now my home state has legalized gay marriage, overriding a veto to do so. The result was a 23-5 vote in the State Senate and 100 to 49 in the House, even though the bill initially passed with less than two-thirds supports. I for one am very glad this has finally happened and hope that Vermont will continue to lead the way in providing its citizens with equal rights and opportunity.

Here's a link to the Burlington Free Press, and as a little background I would guess it is a fairly liberal rag, but I can't stand the thought of posting a link to my hometown newspaper because it does such a terrible job of reporting the news.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...EWS03/90407016

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

That's right, through the legislature.

Before today Vermont had only legalized civil unions, and now my home state has legalized gay marriage, overriding a veto to do so. The result was a 23-5 vote in the State Senate and 100 to 49 in the House, even though the bill initially passed with less than two-thirds supports. I for one am very glad this has finally happened and hope that Vermont will continue to lead the way in providing its citizens with equal rights and opportunity.

Here's a link to the Burlington Free Press, and as a little background I would guess it is a fairly liberal rag, but I can't stand the thought of posting a link to my hometown newspaper because it does such a terrible job of reporting the news.

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/a...EWS03/90407016

---

How the system is supposed to work :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

How the system is supposed to work :thumbsup:

---

Yeah right?

I mean ideally for someone supporting the bill (me) the governor never would have threatened to veto, but we did it right this time. The only problem I can see in the way this went is that groups outside of Vermont tried to get involved and apparently spent money in the state, but I can't say how big the presence was as I wasn't back home.

I'm sure there will be some complaints that this didn't go to the people, but they'll probably be sparse and people will move on just as they did after the Civil Union bill.

I'm guessing we'll be seeing a domino affect happening here with a lot of other states. This is very good news in my eyes.

Good for Vermont. :yes:

Not sure how this will end up being received by other states, but I hope it at least restores a bit of confidence in state legislatures as opposed to letting the courts do everything.

Iowa now Vermont. I thought California was going to set the movement back for a bit, but I guess I have been proved wrong.

Vermont FTW!!

Can someone outline the differences between marriage and civil union in the United States for me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Can someone outline the differences between marriage and civil union in the United States for me?

---

From Dictionary.com
Marriage:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Civil Union:
A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.

Well, even though Vermont's decision was about as democratic as it can get, apparently the whole thing is a plot by rich hummasexuals to destroy democracy. No, really.

Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins today condemned the vote of the Vermont State Legislature to overturn the Governor's veto on same-sex "marriage" as well as the vote by the District of Columbia City Council to recognize same-sex marriages performed in the 50 states.

"Same-sex 'marriage' is a movement driven by wealthy homosexual activists and a liberal elite determined to destroy not only the institution of marriage, but democracy as well."

Remember kids, eat your crazy flakes every morning and maybe you too can grow up to be Tony Perkins.

-edit-

And I am forced to ask again, why is it that every group with the word "family" in its title is, without exception, completely nuts?

The Vermont decision sounds legitimate. I still oppose the measure, but that is how a Democratic Republic works. We're starting to catch on, eh?

The people of Vermont have the right to govern themselves and not be governed by tiny cadres of people using technicalities to overwhelm democratic consent.

I congratulate the people of Vermont for asking the right people to ammeliorate their issues - themselves. They got the wrong answer mind you, but we can't all be right 100% of the time.

Bravo!

Nate Silver runs some numbers (using polling and demographic variables) on when States could be expected to vote down a gay marriage ban (Not legalise gay marriage, just declare it not-illegal):

Marriage bans, however, are losing ground at a rate of slightly less than 2 points per year. So, for example, we'd project that a state in which a marriage ban passed with 60 percent of the vote last year would only have 58 percent of its voters approve the ban this year.

[...]

The model predicts that by 2012, almost half of the 50 states would vote against a marriage ban, including several states that had previously voted to ban it. In fact, voters in Oregon, Nevada and Alaska (which Sarah Palin aside, is far more libertarian than culturally conservative) might already have second thoughts about the marriage bans that they'd previously passed.

By 2016, only a handful of states in the Deep South would vote to ban gay marriage, with Mississippi being the last one to come around in 2024.

I wonder if we're gonna see an amendment on the ballot in November.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The Vermont decision sounds legitimate. I still oppose the measure, but that is how a Democratic Republic works. We're starting to catch on, eh?

The people of Vermont have the right to govern themselves and not be governed by tiny cadres of people using technicalities to overwhelm democratic consent.

---

I understand the point of view that the legislature should be involved. It makes sense. But isn't the "technicality" being used in these cases the concept of "equal rights"? Isn't the purpose of the court system, and of having rights in the constitution, to protect against a democratic majority when that majority infringes on a group of peoples rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

From Dictionary.com
Marriage:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

---

Does that mean that all churches will have to recognize same-sex marriage? Because that's wrong.

Otherwise, though, sounds like good news to me.

Vermont, it's bigger than Texas! :us-vermont:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And I am forced to ask again, why is it that every group with the word "family" in its title is, without exception, completely nuts?

---

When the fascist Vichy traitors were installed, the very first thing they did was to chance 'liberty, equality, fraternity' to 'family, work, fatherland'. Quite literally so, as the Republic's ancient motto is physically present everywhere, much to the chagrin of family value groups, who somehow consider 'fraternity' a grave threat to 'family'.

'Family' is a watchword for the far-right everywhere. The antithesis to liberty. It is never about family values, it is about an attack on diversity, individuality, and personal freedom.

Good that they did it the right way. :yes:

More reaction from the rightwing crazysphere:

There is a rising tide of pink fascism in this country, and it comes as a result of the election of Barack Hussein Obama. Obama has signaled that during his reign it will be acceptable to impose gay marriage on the people of the United States. He's being very cleverly used as a tool of the gay puppet masters. He is personally masculine, has a beautiful family and was used by the gay mafia to convince real American families that they should support him.

And now that Obama the Trojan horse has been taken inside the gates, so to speak, the contagion from within his administration is spreading throughout the country. One state at a time seems to be falling. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, California is teetering on the brink. Will Texas be next? Will Obama say that in order to make up for the oppression caused by slavery that the Deep South will now have to accept gay marriage under duress? Is this a sexual reconstruction of the entire country? Don't ask, because Obama won't tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

the gay mafia

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

If Texas passes a gay marriage bill I'll be the first one to get married. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

If Texas passes a gay marriage bill I'll be the first one to get married. :laugh4:

---

:sweetheart::belly:

I mean the tax breaks would be amazing.

Good for Vermont though, now I wonder if this will turn into another CA mess though.

Yet another step to make the term "marriage" meaningless. Congratulations to Vermont for "legalizing" nonsense!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

From Dictionary.com
Marriage:
The social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

Civil Union:
A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority.

---

Yes, I know what the words mean, I was wondering about different benefits, state involvement in each, etc.

Vermont is awesome. As it is a former french state, I'm not surprised :clown:

On to the differences. I believe Civil Unions were treated the same way under Vermont law, but federal law did not recognize these unions. I'm not sure if this bill actually changes anything, though the it will perhaps be recognized more broadly? I am not sure. What I do know is that the federal government basically does not recognize any sort of same-sex union.

An interesting note, Civil Unions are now going to be made null and void though with a little paperwork people can have their civil union become a marriage without any special ceremony. So in the future Vermont will only offer marriage with no distinction between same-sex and hetero marriages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Does that mean that all churches will have to recognize same-sex marriage? Because that's wrong.

Otherwise, though, sounds like good news to me.

---

No, the bill specifically states that churches are not required to perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PowerWizard

Yet another step to make the term "marriage" meaningless. Congratulations to Vermont for "legalizing" nonsense!

---

Apparently it's only a legal term. If churches aren't required to perform ceremonies or recognize same-sex marriages, then marriage between a man and a woman is just as meaningful as before.

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

---

Ah, finally, a post from someone who's been married a while. It's true, after a decade or so, it's very hard to maintain crazy romance. That out-of-your-head flush of emotion that you felt for the first year or so? Yeah, that's gone. It's okay though. A slow burn is better than a forest fire in the long run.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Ah, finally, a post from someone who's been married a while. It's true, after a decade or so, it's very hard to maintain crazy romance. That out-of-your-head flush of emotion that you felt for the first year or so? Yeah, that's gone. It's okay though. A slow burn is better than a forest fire in the long run.

---

:laugh4: I'm not even married... I just have common sense.

My Google skills are failing me, so I'm unable to link to the report, but there was a study of long-term emotions between couples last year. Anyway, the findings were that 90% of people start with crazy love and then mellow into companionship/friendship love. But there was a small percentage of people who continued to feel mad, passionate romance for their entire relationship. For decades.

If we can't duplicate that with a drug, we must kill them all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

My Google skills are failing me, so I'm unable to link to the report, but there was a study of long-term emotions between couples last year. Anyway, the findings were that 90% of people start with crazy love and then mellow into companionship/friendship love. But there was a small percentage of people who continued to feel mad, passionate romance for their entire relationship. For decades.

If we can't duplicate that with a drug, we must kill them all.

---

Nvm, XOXOXO

Boo!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Well, even though Vermont's decision was about as democratic as it can get, apparently the whole thing is a plot by rich hummasexuals to destroy democracy. No, really.

---

To be fair, didn't the Knights of Columbus play a similar role in California taking the opposite decision on this matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And I am forced to ask again, why is it that every group with the word "family" in its title is, without exception, completely nuts?

---

The religious right has taken things way too far in this respect. When I see these US Christian families sitting eating dinner together and saying grace it sends a shiver down my spine - they say the left wants to attack the individual! I think they are forgetting that 'family' meant an economic arrangement to their Puritan forefathers. But then, I'm maybe not the best to comment, since people tell me my family's like the one in Malcolm in the Middle. :laugh4:

I'd just like to add that, in my parents' opinions, there was very little outside influence on this legislation. Apparently there were clergy from both sides testifying before the legislature, but really very little action was taken by outside groups and this bill passed with far less conflict than the civil unions legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

Apparently it's only a legal term. If churches aren't required to perform ceremonies or recognize same-sex marriages, then marriage between a man and a woman is just as meaningful as before.

Besides which, I thought marriages were supposed to be economic unions of convenience that had absolutely nothing to do with love or companionship; so what's the big deal?

---

Don't get me wrong, I don't have any problem with gays. I just find it amusing that gays want marry, despite marriage is between man and woman. I won't go to further explanations why do I think it is, I think it's either self-explanatory or not.

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

---

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

---

Ok, I was just stating that last post because I have heard the argument that Government can not dictate what marriage is if it is not a civil institution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

---

If you recall, racial equality was not supported by a majority for a long, long time.

The same with gay marriage. With time, my friend, with time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

To be fair, didn't the Knights of Columbus play a similar role in California taking the opposite decision on this matter?

---

The Knights support the position of the Church which defines marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman. Matrimony is one of the Seven Sacraments. Though the church also opposes civil unions between same-sex couples, this stance seems less adamant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us.

---

I think claiming to know the will of Almighty God is a very dangerous bit of hubris. God is, by definition, unknowable and incomprehensible.

And don't even think of bringing Leviticus into this. I don't see anyone stoning people who gather sticks on the Sabbath. Anyone who has actually studied the Bible, rather than reading off their pastor's Greatest Hits, knows that it is a library rather than a book. I don't know a single serious theologian who suggests that every word is meant to be taken literally.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

Also, as long as I'm picking on you, how does one "force the issue" with a "superlative"?

[QUOTE=Lemur;2202894] pastor's Greatest HitsQUOTE]

With such hits as:

John, 3:16
He Died for Our Sins
Crumbling the Walls of Jericho (Remix)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I think claiming to know the will of Almighty God is a very dangerous bit of hubris. God is, by definition, unknowable and incomprehensible.

---

That's true, maybe God really wants human sacrifice and cannibalism- but I doubt it. Religions base their teachings on many things including the bible, scholarly discussion, ect. Religions do claim to know some of the will of God pretty much by definition. Look at the Ten Commandments for starters.

Quote:

---

And don't even think of bringing Leviticus into this. I don't see anyone stoning people who gather sticks on the Sabbath. Anyone who has actually studied the Bible, rather than reading off their pastor's Greatest Hits, knows that it is a library rather than a book. I don't know a single serious theologian who suggests that every word is meant to be taken literally.

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

---

That's a pretty nice strawman you've built yourself there. :yes:

Quote:

---

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

---

Also, not only is that false to begin with, but there's more Catholic (which I'm pretty sure TSM is) doctrine against homosexual acts than what's in the bible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I don't understand something. Someone correct me here (which i have no doubt someone probably will), but:
1. Marriage is a social not a civil institution.
2. The people (AKA the society) of Vermont put forth their legislature to make decisions which they believe will vote for the same things they believe.
3. This legislature approved gay marraige.
4. Therefore, hasn't Vermont's society accepted gay marraige by electing representatives who accept gay marriage?

Maybe I should wait until the next state legislation election to see if these guys all get kicked out before this statement can be considered true....

---

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

You're more or less right about this. I doubt any legislators will be given the boot next election cycle over this because Vermont society is, outside of some intolerant patches, at least tolerant of same-sex unions. A few cowards voted against this legislation because they "got more no calls than pro calls" even on the Democratic side. Personally if I had any influence over Corcoran's (a guy who did just that) next election I'd give him the boot, but as this is not an election year I doubt he'll get much of a backlash.

I'd just like to put forward that since the institution of marriage is recognized by the federal and state governments and brings certain benefits it must be defined as a civil and not a social institution. Ceremonies held at churches are social in nature, but the right to make medical decisions for a loved one when they are sick, and the right to file joint tax returns are very definitely not merely social. Were marriage a social institution the only thing one would need to do to get a same-sex marriage is find a church or other religious institution/person who was willing to preside over a, materialistically speaking, meaningless ceremony. That is as I have shown not the case.

---

But if marriage is a civil not social institution, then it must treat everyone the same, including same sex marriage. Brown vs Board of Education stated that separate but equal institutions are inherently unequal. Marriage and civil unions are supposedly separate but equal, but under that ruling it is unconstitutional, therefore same sex marriage is legal and the judges are right to rule in its favor.

That is, like you presented, if marriage is to be a civil not a social institution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

That's true, maybe God really wants human sacrifice and cannibalism- but I doubt it.

---

See Abraham and Issac and then get back to me about human sacrifice. Anyway, your reducito ad absurdium has shaky legs; even atheists know enough not to engage in abhorrent practices. You don't need the Divine to not be a complete monster. Basic moral principles are a priori.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Religions do claim to know some of the will of God pretty much by definition.

---

The key word in that sentence is "some."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Also, not only is that false to begin with

---

Asserting something doesn't make it so. Declaring something to be a "strawman" without deigning to back up the claim is poor manners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

There's more Catholic (which I'm pretty sure TSM is) doctrine against homosexual acts than what's in the bible.

---

And how, exactly, does that contradict my point that "The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus"?

I think humility is extremely important when asking about God and His will. As I said, God is, by definition, infinite and unknowable. Take a look at what he had to say to Job and get back to me. Anyone who claims to know His will in picayune detail is delusional. We should all be humble before the Lord, and maybe even attempt to fathom how little we are capable of understanding.

Anyway, to bring this back to the hummasexual mafia and the destruction of America, every pastor I've ever heard denounce teh gayzorz has done so based on three sentences in Leviticus. Catholics have their own hierarchy and special rules which I am not going to make any attempt to summarize.

This is not a country ruled by clergy, thank God, and this is not a nation founded on Catholicism. Or Presbyterianism. Or Baptism or Seventh Day Adventism or Mormonism or Pentecostalism or the Anglican Union or Lutheranism or Methodism. This is a nation of democracy and laws. If you have a case to make against Vermont, please feel free to make it.

-edit-

Some brilliant person just leaked the audition tapes for the latest National Organization for Marriage advert (at least they don't have "family" in their name). Watch them pretend to be victimized. It's more than amusing.

Tape 1, tape 2, and the final advertisement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Yes.


Vermont's democratic majority is in support of gay marriage. Congratulations - that is one population out of 50 so far.

I hope that the rest of the nation can hold out against this rising tide - I think that we will be able to unless the courts try to play dirty. There is no violence, we can resolve this issue peacefully, it will just take time and arguement. During the civil rights movement both God's law and man's law demanded equality between the races.

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage - I wonder what superlative the elite are using to rationalize forcing the issue on the lot of us. Vermont is legitimate, but judicial legislation is not.

---

So by extension, should the Supreme Court not overturn anti sodomy laws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The entire Biblical argument against gay people rests on Leviticus, and there's a hell of a lot more in that book than sexcrime.

---

Well, depending on your choice of translation, there's a pretty good argument to be made for condemnation in some of the Pauline epistles as well. Either way, however, there's plenty of room for interpretation and modern application.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

See Abraham and Issac and then get back to me about human sacrifice. Anyway, your reducito ad absurdium has shaky legs; even atheists know enough not to engage in abhorrent practices. You don't need the Divine to not be a complete monster. Basic moral principles are a priori.

---

Unless my memory is horribly flawed, God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaas- so I don't see where "see"ing that will change my view. Where atheists draw their moral direction from is totally irrelevant to my point, which I will re-state: All religions claim to know the will of God to varying degrees. The point of my example was to state that most all organized religions, in general, all maintain that having a basic level of civility towards fellow man is the will of God and I don't think anyone would call that finding hubris. Christianity in general, and Catholicism in specific (again, the viewpoint that I think TSM is coming from) come to an understanding on the will of God from many sources- the bible is certainly one of them, but not the only one. Based on thousands of years of Catholic teaching, I don't think it's overly presumption for a believing Catholic to state that God does not approve of homosexual unions.

Quote:

---

Asserting something doesn't make it so. Declaring something to be a "strawman" without deigning to back up the claim is poor manners.

---

I'm not sure what you want me to back up. You put forward the "Leviticus" argument, which no one here made, and then proceeded to knock it down. You don't get much more strawman than that- I think it was pretty obvious to everyone. As to "poor manners" I think it's making the strawman and putting words in someone's mouth that's poor manners- not pointing it out. :bow:

Quote:

---

Anyway, to bring this back to the hummasexual mafia and the destruction of America, every pastor I've ever heard denounce teh gayzorz has done so based on three sentences in Leviticus. Catholics have their own hierarchy and special rules which I am not going to make any attempt to summarize.

---

Just because you've never heard or bothered to look for any other arguments doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm not a bible scholar, nor do I want to carry on a biblical debate- as I've said, my religion's beliefs have more to them than just the bible -, but I'll throw you the most common New Testatment reference I've heard just to prove my point that not all biblical arguments are based on Leviticus: Romans, 1

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

26
Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27
and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
28
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.
29
They are filled with every form of wickedness, evil, greed, and malice; full of envy, murder, rivalry, treachery, and spite. They are gossips
30
and scandalmongers and they hate God. They are insolent, haughty, boastful, ingenious in their wickedness, and rebellious toward their parents.

Why are the Americans even discussing what 'God' wants? Or, rather, what they personally want, disguised as what their god wants?

Isn't that an attack on other people's freedom of religion? Shouldn't it be entirely irrelevant? Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Unless my memory is horribly flawed, God stopped Abraham from sacrificing Isaas

---

Who's "Issas"? God commanded Abraham to sacrifice Issac in the first place. This has implications which you don't seem to have thought through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

All religions claim to know the will of God to varying degrees.

---

"Varying degrees" has replaced "some." I think your first version was more apt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Based on thousands of years of Catholic teaching, I don't think it's overly presumption for a believing Catholic to state that God does not approve of homosexual unions.

---

Based on at least a hundred years of documented gay, philandering and/or pedophile clergy, I don't quite understand where the Church is coming from on this issue. But it's not my church, so I'll walk away quietly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I'm not a bible scholar, nor do I want to carry on a biblical debate

---

But you'll toss some verses out if you think they'll prove your point. Nice. Try this one on for size:

Galatians 3:18: "There is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

There are plenty more where that came from. Your selective reading of the Bible is typical of those on the far rightwing. Quote the book when it reinforces your viewpoint, ignore the weird hippie stuff.

I suppose we should spin this off into its own thread.

Did anybody watch those videos I posted? They're hilarious.

-edit-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?

---

As I said, and Xiahou ignored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

This is not a country ruled by clergy, thank God, and this is not a nation founded on Catholicism. Or Presbyterianism. Or Baptism or Seventh Day Adventism or Mormonism or Pentecostalism or the Anglican Union or Lutheranism or Methodism. This is a nation of democracy and laws. If you have a case to make against Vermont, please feel free to make it.

---

Unfortunately, Xiahou only responds to the parts of an argument that are congruent with his methodology; seize upon a detail that you believe you can disprove, ignore everything else, no matter if the detail is irrelevant to the overall thread or whether you're ignoring salient points. Then doggedly hang on to the point you think you can win, ignore everything else, and concede nothing, ever.

Charming stuff, really.

The National Review in 1957:

The axiom on which many of the arguments supporting the original version of the Civil Rights bill were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from this premise all else proceeds.

That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-olds is the difference between slavery and freedom. The residents of the District of Columbia do not vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geometric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote, and would not know for what to vote if they could.

The National Review yesterday:

One still sometimes hears people make the allegedly “conservative” case for same-sex marriage that it will reduce promiscuity and encourage commitment among homosexuals. This prospect seems improbable, and in any case these do not strike us as important governmental goals [...]

Both as a social institution and as a public policy, marriage exists to foster connections between heterosexual sex and the rearing of children within stable households. It is a non-coercive way to channel (heterosexual) desire into civilized patterns of living. State recognition of the marital relationship does not imply devaluation of any other type of relationship, whether friendship or brotherhood. State recognition of those other types of relationships is unnecessary. So too is the governmental recognition of same-sex sexual relationships, committed or otherwise, in a deep sense pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Galatians 3:18: "There is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus."

---

Spiritually, yes. On earth, Jews have a special inheritance that Gentiles do not. On earth, some people are enslaved, and others remain free. On earth, people are born biologically male or female, and are expected to desire heterosexual relationships (as other parts of the scripture make clear).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Today, neither God nor the majority support gay marriage

---

Was God elected? If not, then what does He have to do with legislation?

~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?

---

:applause::applause::applause:

This is probably the best contribution I've seen.

Another cup of hot, frothy crazy from the wingnuts: Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

On earth, some people are enslaved, and others remain free.

---

:inquisitive:

Does this mean we should allow them to remain enslaved?

Also, to the "WELL GOD SAYS ITS WRONG!!!!1" folks, what would your reaction be if Muslims started pushing for all our hot Texan chicks to start wearing those head scarfs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Another cup of hot, frothy crazy from the wingnuts: Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders.

---

Makes sense to me. According to the author, propagation of gay marriage is an indicator of the moral decline, and moral decline within the society causes mass murders. Arguable, but plausible. He even explicitly states that he does *not* believe that gay rights somehow cause mass murders.

I was merely asking where this push is coming from if not from God's will or the will of the majority.

In fact, it is counterindicated by both. The push seems to be less logical than emotional and appeals to no existing superlative other than the one that exclaims that there is no transcendent morality beyond what exists within the individual.

I reject that position and I reject the idea of Gay marriage. I support Democratic ideals, so I won't say that this Vermont decision is illegitimate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

The push seems to be less logical than emotional and appeals to no existing superlative other than the one that exclaims that there is no transcendent morality beyond what exists within the individual.

---

TuffStuff, could you unpack this sentence a little? I'm having a hard time following your argument. Also, I do not understand how you're using the word "superlative." Could you help a brutha out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KarlXII

:inquisitive:

Does this mean we should allow them to remain enslaved?

---

Of course not, I just think Lemur was confusing spiritual equality with temporal equality. Men and women are quite clearly biologically different, by his interpretation of Galations 3:18 you would have to argue they are not.

Rhyfelwyr, you're choosing your interpretation of that passage. Fine by me, but don't pretend it's the only reading.

Apologies for this derailment. Here, something on-topic:

There is all sorts of empirical evidence that the public is growing more accepting of the idea of gay marriage. What happened in Vermont yesterday would never have happened five years ago. And it's not hard to see from the age breakdown of poll respondents where this issue is heading. How completely insulated and oblivious do you have to be to think public opinion on this issue is static?

I also love the casual assertion that "marriage is by nature the union of a man and woman," as if marriage is some sort of naturally occurring phenomenon like evaporation or mitosis. Marriage is a social construct. It's whatever we say it is. And it has meant many different things over the course of human history. For instance, polygamous marriage was once very common (still is in some parts of the world). And for many centuries, marriage was primarily a financial arrangement and a way of ensuring inheritance rights. Women were essentially bought and sold. The modern concept of love as a basis for marriage is of relatively recent vintage. And civil marriage is a very different thing than religious marriage (which itself differs from religion to religion and culture to culture). The idea that there is some sort of platonic essence to marriage is just rubbish. Marriage was created by human beings and human beings can choose how they want to define it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

The National Review in 1957:


The National Review yesterday:

---

Oh wow, I get it now! Conservatives are racists and homophobes! :idea2:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's some biting insight! What blog did you dig that up from? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Why are the Americans even discussing what 'God' wants? Or, rather, what they personally want, disguised as what their god wants?

Isn't that an attack on other people's freedom of religion? Shouldn't it be entirely irrelevant? Why should Americans of different persuasions be kept under the yoke of the personal religious ideologies of other Americans?

---

I'm pretty sure it's called democracy. In general, people don't want their government doing things that they view to be morally wrong, whether it's performing gay marriages or regulating carbon dioxide. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

That's some biting insight! What blog did you dig that up from?

---

Are you disputing that both articles were published by National Review? Explain, please.

Also, I don't understand how you're using the word "conservative," but then I never have.

-edit-

Best summation I've yet read:

Remember: civil marriage for gay couples is not some kind of liberal special right. It requires no concession from anyone else; it requires no individual recognition from anyone who disapproves; it coerces no one; it taxes no one; it spends nothing; it takes not an iota from the rights and dignity of heterosexual marriages, which gave birth to gay people and give many of us our sense of morality and duty and civility. If the right is concerned about religious freedom, please reach out to those of us who favor civil equality and free speech and help protect both. But no, this is not what they are interested in, preferring to construct ads in which actors pretend to be people allegedly persecuted by gays for being Christians. Really, this is pure animus at this point — a decision to define a political movement by the people it excludes and the families it despises.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Rhyfelwyr, you're choosing your interpretation of that passage. Fine by me, but don't pretend it's the only reading.

---

It is the only interpretation that is consistent with the rest of the scripture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Did anybody watch those videos I posted? They're hilarious.

---

Doesn't 'a rainbow coalition of people' imply a coalition of homosexuals? They need to work on the connotations of their rhetoric.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

He even explicitly states that he does *not* believe that gay rights somehow cause mass murders.

---

In an article titled "Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders." Why does this strike me as a classic case of "I'm not saying, but I'm saying ..."?

I like the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman only. I beleive that defining it as anythign other than that would obviously detract from the concept of marriage that I beleive in.

I don't beleive that my conscience calls on me to support Gay marriage, nor does my religion. If anything I beleive that my conscience and religion stand agaisnt both the practice as well as any detriment to marriage.

I don't see any benefit to supporting Gay marriage for myself or anyone that I care about and I believe that homosexuality is a bad thing to encourage for numerous reasons; including medical,emotional and spiritual.

I do not link the issue to the civil rights movement for women or minorities, nor do I see it as noble.

Effectively I am opposed to it. I disagree with the Vermont decision but view it as legitimate. I will continue to disagree with those in favor of it in order to keep my state and nation out of the business of marrying 2 people of the same gender.

Yes, the comparisons to the civil rights movement are ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

In an article titled "Connecting the Dots: The Link Between Gay Marriage and Mass Murders." Why does this strike me as a classic case of "I'm not saying, but I'm saying ..."?

---

I think you're reading a bit too much into this. He suses gay marriage merely as an indicator of the moral degradation in our society. Then he explicitly blames the *moral degradation* for the mass murders. In other words, both gay marriage and mass murders stem from the same cause (moral degradation), but gay marriage doesn't cause mass murders any more than mass murders cause gay marriage.

First off, congratulations to Vermont.

Apparently the Wisconsin supreme court will be hearing a case on gay marriage in the next couple of days. http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/breaking_news/446462

I expect the status quo will remain the status quo. The conservatives in the state bought themselves a majority on the court by pouring money into ugly smear commercials in the last two judicial races. It would be rather embarrasing if their trained monkeys on the court turned against them.:whip:

edit: I should have said 2 of the last 3 supreme court races. We just had an election here(my first vote!) and our chief justice was re-elected.

RVG, were Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth Bathory also the result of moral decay? Last I checked they lived in a world where one man marries one woman, and the church's commandments were law. How about Ed Gein? He was alive during the yesteryear that most history-impaired people hearken back to, the 1940s and 50s.

It's an absurd argument, and one that crotchety old coots have been making since before the city-state of Athens was founded. "We were much more noble before that darn Parthenon got built! Kids these days don't know a proper sacrifice to Zeus from a broken sandal!"

I can count on two constants in this world: Things keep improving and people keep complaining that everything's going to hell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

So were Vlad the Impaler and Elizabeth Bathory also the result of moral decay? Last I checked they lived in a world where one man marries one woman, and the church's commandments were law. How about Ed Gein? He was alive during the yesteryear that most history-impaired people hearken back to, the 1940s and 50s.

It's an absurd argument, and one that crotchety old coots have been making since before the city/state of Athens was founded. "We were much more noble before that darn Parthenon got built! Kids these days don't know a proper sacrifice to Zeus from a broken sandal!"

I can count on two constants in this world: Things keep improving and people keep complaining that everything's going to hell.

---

I wouldn't call it absurd. Weak perhaps. Nonetheless, it is not entirely without merit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

The conservatives in the state bought themselves a majority on the court by pouring money into ugly smear commercials in the last two judicial races. It would be rather embarrasing if their trained monkeys on the court turned against them.:whip:

---

We'll see. The vast majority of judges who've been striking down same-sex marriage bans have been Republican appointees. These uppity judges today don't stay bought, that's the problem.

Massachusetts (Goodridge, 2003) Margaret Marshall, appointed by Chief Justice Gov. Weld (R) in 1996, elevated to Chief by Gov. Cellucci (R);

in 1999 California (In re Marriage Cases, 2008) Ronald George, Chief Justice appointed by Gov. Wilson (R) in 1991, elevated to Chief by Gov. Wilson (R);

in 1996 Connecticut (Kerrigan, 2008) Richard Palmer, Associate Justice appointed by Gov. Weicker (Ind.); in 1993 — Note that Weicker was a Republican during his time in the House and Senate. He won the governorship as an independent.

And today, in Iowa (Varnum, 2009) Mark Cady, Associate Justice, appointed by Gov. Branstad (R) in 1998.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yes, the comparisons to the civil rights movement are ridiculous.

---

Not really.

Racial equality? IN MY AMERICA? I don't think so buddy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

I like the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman only. I beleive that defining it as anythign other than that would obviously detract from the concept of marriage that I beleive in.

---

I have been married for well over a decade. To my first wife, thank you very much, as opposed to "conservatives" like Limbaugh (who dumped his third wife in 2004) or Gingrich (who is still with wife #3).

I fail to see how the lesbian couple who live three houses down from me detract from my marriage. I fail to see how them becoming legally bound would detract from my marriage.

Somebody please explain. Will I love my wife less? Will our bond become less tight? How exactly will the private affairs of gay couples damage my marriage?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I have been married for well over a decade. To my first wife, thank you very much, as opposed to "conservatives" like Limbaugh (who dumped his third wife in 2004) or Gingrich (who is still with wife #3).

I fail to see how the lesbian couple who live three houses down from me detract from my marriage. I fail to see how them becoming legally bound would detract from my marriage.

Somebody please explain. Will I love my wife less? Will our bond become less tight? How exactly will the private affairs of gay couples damage my marriage?

---

Refer to Lewis Black:

Gay banditos

*Warning: One or two use of the "F" word*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I have been married for well over a decade. To my first wife, thank you very much, as opposed to "conservatives" like Limbaugh (who dumped his third wife in 2004) or Gingrich (who is still with wife #3).

I fail to see how the lesbian couple who live three houses down from me detract from my marriage. I fail to see how them becoming legally bound would detract from my marriage.

Somebody please explain. Will I love my wife less? Will our bond become less tight? How exactly will the private affairs of gay couples damage my marriage?

---

Is marriage a private affair? Why is the public being asked to sanction it?

The private affair arguement worked for overturning the sodomy laws. State marriage rights are firmly in the realm of the public, living together is not. Like it or not, marriage drags the public into your relationship.

Anyone who dumps the mother or father of their children is a sham and a coward. I do not respect the moral authority of Gingrich or Limbaugh, they have none.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

Is marriage a private affair? Why is the public being asked to sanction it?.

---

Why is the public trying to ban a private affair?

I have been married for well over a decade. To my first wife, thank you very much, as opposed to "conservatives" like Limbaugh (who dumped his third wife in 2004) or Gingrich (who is still with wife #3).

I fail to see how the lesbian couple who live three houses down from me detract from my marriage. I fail to see how them becoming legally bound would detract from my marriage.

Somebody please explain. Will I love my wife less? Will our bond become less tight? How exactly will the private affairs of gay couples damage my marriage?

I have been thinking on this and i think i have come up with the answer...

People who believe gay marriage will make hetro marriage less will through thier own self belief see less value in marriage if gays get married... so its a self fufilling propehcy for them...

Don't worry yours and other marriages which don't see gay marriage as an insult to marriage will value marriage just as much as before!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Yes, the comparisons to the civil rights movement are ridiculous.

---

Really?

So you would choose to accept a person regardless of the colour of their skin but wouldn't accept someone because of their sexuality?


:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Really?

So you would choose to accept a person regardless of the colour of their skin but wouldn't accept someone because of their sexuality?

---

Yes. :shrug:

Your skin colour says nothing about your character, it's not an action. On the other hand, homosexuality is an act and often a lifestyle, don't try to tell me homosexuals act just like anyone else.