On denying rights to LGB groups

IJ · Post by IJ » Thu Feb 05, 2004 5:20 pm

It amazes me that because God suggested this one standard at the moment of creation, people are unable to conceive that others would be acceptable too.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not seperate."

Are you actually implying this has anything to do with homosexuality? I mean, if this does, than just as much, it shows that men are OBLIGATED to marry, and CANNOT divorce. Do you believe that no divorces shall be granted? What if a man beats and rapes his wife and molests their child? You propose that the child and wife are stuck with that arrangement? Marriage until death is a fine ideal but not always possible or advisable.

What would church leaders at the time said of interracial marriages? They were illegal until recently (see Loving vs Virginia). What about marrying off very young women (12-13) to much older men? That used to be common and accepted, now it's not. What about priests? THEY aren't getting married! Did God's law change? Or did we make some social progress?

Personally, IF I chose to take these words to heart, I would take them as I do the phrase, "be fruitful and multiply," or "have dominion over the x y and z." These are wellwishes, not obligations! I've actually heard people say it's god's will to have 13 children (or even that people MUST have children, although they seem to make exceptions for infertile heterosexuals nonetheless) and to sapp the natural reources of the world on this basis. Well, the world was different then. No one envisioned a population of 6 billion. No one knew of homosexuality as it is now understood (tho heterosexual-heterosexual, male-male rape was commonly used to punish defeated foes) and no one could therefore have commented on it. The Jews were a small group where efficient procreation may have been necessary to survival. There weren't tons of kids with parents dead of AIDS or just gone awaiting adoption.

It takes a Christian mind, guided by a little common sense, to view these words rationally and apply them to a modern world. 2000 years have passed from when even the updated rules were published.

I believe in separation of church and state, but more importantly, separation of historical church and state.

sarosenc · Post by **sarosenc** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:43 am

IJ wrote:It amazes me that because God suggested this one standard at the moment of creation, people are unable to conceive that others would be acceptable too.

God suggests ? ... commands, gives law, makes covenants and promises, but suggests ... no. Look to the book of Job start of ch.38 here ... Then the Lord answeered Job out of the storm. He said:
"Who is this that darkens my counsel with words without knowledge? Brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer me. "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me if you understand." Please read further.

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not seperate."

Are you actually implying this has anything to do with homosexuality? I mean, if this does, than just as much, it shows that men are OBLIGATED to marry, and CANNOT divorce. Do you believe that no divorces shall be granted? What if a man beats and rapes his wife and molests their child? You propose that the child and wife are stuck with that arrangement? Marriage until death is a fine ideal but not always possible or advisable.

12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

Personally, IF I chose to take these words to heart, I would take them as I do the phrase, "be fruitful and multiply," or "have dominion over the x y and z." These are wellwishes, not obligations! I've actually heard people say it's god's will to have 13 children (or even that people MUST have children, although they seem to make exceptions for infertile heterosexuals nonetheless) and to sapp the natural reources of the world on this basis. Well, the world was different then. No one envisioned a population of 6 billion. No one knew of homosexuality as it is now understood (tho heterosexual-heterosexual, male-male rape was commonly used to punish defeated foes) and no one could therefore have commented on it. The Jews were a small group where efficient procreation may have been necessary to survival. There weren't tons of kids with parents dead of AIDS or just gone awaiting adoption.

That is definitely a problem, taking scripture out of context and only picking what works for someones selfish desires is doubly dangerous.
James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.(I am an adoptive parent)

It takes a Christian mind, guided by a little common sense, to view these words rationally and apply them to a modern world. 2000 years have passed from when even the updated rules were published.

The Bible has addendums?The New Testament is the record of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy and its explanation. Christ is the fulfillment of the Law's requirement for us thus we are justified by faith in Christ and God's grace.

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 1:33 pm

I have no reason to discuss the bible further. I could care less what it says.

I beleive that people are free to do what they want with their own bodies.

Sarosenc. I say to you beleive what you want. If you want to beleive that the bible is a direct link to God's will fine. You obviously take it litterally. Fine. I want to ask you... Could you actually look someone like Ian in the eye and tell him face to face that he doesn't deserve the same rights and privaleges as you? How would you feel if someone said to you that christians had no right to live because the Koran (spelling? someone will correct it I'm sure

) said so.. Oh and some people beleive that to be true.. they feel that it is the word of God.

sarosenc · Post by **sarosenc** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:56 pm

Benzocaine I agree that you are also free to believe what you want to believe. I do not take the Bible literally, as my own inadequacies would make that type of interpretation as dangerous as not reading and interpreting it as absolute truth. I am not denying anyones rights, but argueing against the smokescreen of advancing a lifestyle under the guise of persecuted civil rights which have not been denied.

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:34 pm

the "State" shouldn't ever have had the power to "grant" marriage licenses anyway. What's the State have to do with you getting "married". Doesn't that violate separation of Church and State? Isn't the concept of "marriage" a religious one? If your religion says that you are allowed to marry someone (who meets the criteria of a consenting adult), then, if you wish, you should get married under the auspices of that religion.

With that in mind, then aren't these licenses being issued, regardless of what they're titled, really licenses for a civil union? As such, why doesn't the State just change the title for everyone? No one gets a "marriage" license, everyone gets a "civil union" license. Not separate, equal. If you want to use that for a "civil union" with a Justice of the Peace, fine. If you wish to use that for a "marriage" within a Church with the denomination or religion of your chosing, fine. Makes no difference to the way the State looks at it. As far as the "State" is concerned consenting adults who enter into that arrangement/agreement are in a "civil union" and have certain legal rights, irrespective of religion.

Thoughts?

IJ · Post by IJ » Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:36 pm

That's swell, Sarosenc. If you're not interested in discrimination and want no rights denied, then you're an advocate of equal access to the benefits of marriage (if you want to call it something else, that's fine by me), equal ability for qualified couples to adopt, or seek employment with say, the military, and we're on the same page.

Two other thoughts: I'm really not picking and choosing from my Bible readings; there haven't been any, with the exception of having peeked at the rules some happily violate while not only dispproving of other violating different rules, but seeking to make such violations illegal.

And lastly, if you want a good example of advocating one ideology under the guise of something else, see position papers from Robert Knight and Co on such topics as "family" which are actually religious tracts. You may be interested to know that the student advovacy group I worked with for a few years had the express purpose of disbanding by making itself obsolete by making sexual orientation a nonissue like being lfethanded is. Maybe that's threatening to some, but it's not as if we're the Borg. A lot of religious groups seek not to make religious belief a nonissue (such that we would all get along) but believe those who differ are in error and ought to be converted. I'm not saying you're among them, but, if majorities are threatened by a minority seeking equal status, imagine how members would feel as a minority with the majority trying to ban or cure them.

IJ · Post by IJ » Sun Feb 08, 2004 4:56 pm

Agreed, it's always been my feeling that churches should decide who gets married, and the government should grant civil unions with a bllind eye.

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:44 am

All this talk and writing about scripture and what have you and it's relation to marriage, homosexual relationships or what have you is utterly irrelevent.

Public policy in Massachsuetts, any of the other 49 states or the Federal govt' is absolutely not based on any religious scripture. It is solely based on what the law makers of the government in question decide is in the legitimate interests of the populice, subject of course to judicial review.

By all means, please continue to debate holy scriptures of all types and origins. But they should bear no authority on the laws we pass. Period.

Gene

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 2:11 pm

What's the State have to do with you getting "married". Doesn't that violate separation of Church and State?

The only logical reason I can think of is to prevent things like brother and sister getting married.. or cousins

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 3:39 pm

benzocaine wrote:The only logical reason I can think of is to prevent things like brother and sister getting married.. or cousins

Certainly there are genetic, medical reasons to prevent "in-breeding", but the fact is that such practices have been historically common in certain cultures. And before you (or anyone else) makes a smart-@$$ comment concerning this fact in the "redneck south"... Historically, this practice has been as prevalent in other parts of the country as it has been in the South. In other words, regardless of the media myth, it is just as much a frowned upon, rare abberation in the South as anywhere else in this country.

In Hawaii, it was the custom to keep the royal bloodline "pure" by having royal marriages only between proper blood cousins and/or siblings. Such practice has been historically used for the same reason throughout the European aristocracy. As recently in history as the weddings of the current british royals, there was discussion surrounding whether the brides (Sarah, Diana) had the "proper lineage" to marry into the royal family... and it was found in both cases that they did! Some geneticists have gone so far as to comment that historical in-breeding could be the cause for Prince Charles' "look".

Regardless, if we are to allow "medical" reasons for the State to deny a "civil union" license, then there are those in the woodwork right now who, I am certain, will provide all manner of "medical" reasons why the State should deny "civil union" licenses to homosexual couples.

Thus we can see how quickly the "slippery slope" of encroachments on someone's Rights can be rationalized by those wanting to infringe on the Rights of others. This must be carefully weighed when looking to infringe on anyone's Rights.

Dana Sheets · Post by **Dana Sheets** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:07 pm

I second the motion for civil union to be issued by the state to all who apply an for marriage licenses to be issued by the religion.

Can we take a vote?

This is all being played out in Mass right now. Perhaps they will come to the same conclusion and simply make civil union the legal term.

benzocaine · Post by **benzocaine** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:56 pm

And before you (or anyone else) makes a smart-@$$ comment concerning this fact in the "redneck south"... Historically, this practice has been as prevalent in other parts of the country as it has been in the South. In other words, regardless of the media myth, it is just as much a frowned upon, rare abberation in the South as anywhere else in this country.

I live in Roanoke Virginia. I may have grown up in Massachusetts' craneberry country but I am here to stay. My wife is from Salem Virginia.. talks with a southern accent. My child will be born in the South and will have an accent. I am not about to imply that my wife and future child are inbred Hillbillies.

I enjoy many Southern Values.

1) The death sentence.

2) Lower taxes

3) common sense gun laws.

4) People here are polite.. yes I like many people from here. You do however get good and bad everywhere and it would be foolish to assume everyone is nice.

When I added my comment earlier about the state being involved in marraiges, I simply put forth a theory as to why they may want to be involved. Not to make cracks at stereotypical backwoods people.

I honestly beleive that is why the state origionally got involved. I'll have to research.

Gene DeMambro · Post by **Gene DeMambro** » Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:10 pm

Marriage, at least in the Commonwealth, is a civil matter.

Check out Peter Gomes editorial on page H11 in The Boston Sunday Globe. To wit:

The Pilgrims created civil marriage in the Plymouth Colony based on the Dutch model, which was created in 1590. The first marriage performed was in May, 1621 by Gov. William Bradford.
The first clergyman didn't even reach Plymouth until 1629. And even then, the first Puritans still rejected the idea of clerical marriage as unscriptural.
It wasn't until 1692, when the Massachusetts Bay and Plymouth colonies merged, were clergymen allowed to, as agents of the Commonwealth, solomnize marriage.
Fast forward to the present day. Clergy perform marriages, in the legal sense, as agents of the Commonwealth.

Looking at the civil rules for marrigae, they don't seem that burdensome. And without going into, there are legitimate reasons for the few restrictions that do exist. And if one can get a marriage license in Nevada 24 hours a day.....

And also, the word "marriage" has lots of legal connotations.

So maybe Panther is right, "Marriage", at least in the Commonwealth is indeed a "Civil Union". If that's the case, then yes, why have both? Just call it "Marriage" for both straight and gays, (it has less syllables than "Civil Union") and be done with it.

Gene

Panther · Post by **Panther** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:01 pm

Gene DeMambro wrote:Marriage, at least in the Commonwealth, is a civil matter.

And also, the word "marriage" has lots of legal connotations.

So maybe Panther is right, "Marriage", at least in the Commonwealth is indeed a "Civil Union". If that's the case, then yes, why have both? Just call it "Marriage" for both straight and gays, (it has less syllables than "Civil Union") and be done with it.

You are correct. Even Merriam-Webster's dictionary discusses the act as a civl matter and doesn't make reference to the religious connection I indicated.

IJ · Post by IJ » Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:15 am

The reason to change the terminology to "civil union," would be to placate the set opposed to equal rights in this regard. A large percentage of the population has convinced itself that two men or women living in their state in a relationship that hasn't changed in 20 years become a greater threat if the name of their relationship is changed (granted, some rights would change too, but most people are willing to grant the rights and are only squeamish about the name). The changing of names and definitions is only to save face and preserve appearances for those who've been yammering about the sanctity of the institution. This doesn't make good legal sense to me, but then, it makes good political sense.

People seeking equal rights have to expand the public imagination so most people agree they should have them. They start to become successful in some battles (courts primarily) at around the same time that the public is deeply divided. Pushing the issue in HI resulted in the state supreme court mandating equal rights or a discriminatory amendment. LGB's there got the latter because the Constitution there is very easy to amend. What I'd like to avoid in MA and the whole USA is an ugly situation where, because the country is a few years from sufficient consensus that LGB's deserve marriage, instead of marriage, they get a blemish on the constitution that limits their rights and looks REAL bad. This happened with Bower V Hardwick. A few years ahead of it's time, the idea that LGB's have a right to privacy on par with heterosexuals got to the SCOTUS, and SCOTUS said NO, you actually don't have that right. A few years later and the swing vote was noting how much he regretted his decision. It was years and years later that sodomy statutes were finally shot down nationally by the SCOTUS, although the law in question had actually been shot down in the georgia (i think?) supreme court a while back.

A little art of the possible could lead to a compromise preserving what both sides care about: one side gets to keep their special word, and the other side gets to stand as the legal parent of their beloved child and take that kid to the doctor without paperwork from the biologic parent; the other side gets to be the presumed decision maker when their partner is sick, not a family that may hate them, and they get to visit in the hospital; they get to enjoy the same health, inheritance, and other such benefits most couples take for granted.

That's worth avoiding a constitutional blemish and a big setback. How long did prohibition last? Don't want to see that repeated. And since this issue generates more excitement, apparently, than ABORTION (probably because most americans find that latter issue closer to home and may not know they know any LGB folk, this issue is getting amendment attention much more easily), it might take MANY years to undo the damage to the constitution.

Here's an unrelated overlooked fact. The right wants traditional marriage preserved--by denying same sex marriage, and encouraging LGB's to pursue "normal" sexuality. How many broken marriages result when people are pressured to marry someone whose sex is opposite from that they'd really want?! Not good for spouses, the LGB in question, or the kids involved, that's for sure. Encouraging LGBs to deny who they are will lead to more sham / unstable heterosexual marriages.

On denying rights to LGB groups

What about the thought that...