Uechi-Ryu.com

Valkenar wrote:

Bill Glasheen wrote:They also came pretty close to advocating statutory rape. I have a problem with that as well. BIG problem.

What? How did they do that? Even if they were advocating sexual activity between teenagers (which I don't think they were), statuatory rape as I understand it requires either a spread in ages, or one of the participants to be past the age of majority. Did they say anything about going out and finding older people to experiment with? I didn't see anything like that.

Like it or not, teenagers have sex. Educating them on it is not a bad thing, imho. But like I said before, I recognize that not everybody shares that opinion.

On this I have detailed Massachusetts knowledge. I really am not trying to be rude when I say this, but since you think being blunt is OK, then here it is: You don't know what you're talking about. You don't know the laws in Massachusetts. You're belief in what the law is does (somewhat) correspond to the way the statutory rape laws are in some states, but not in Massachusetts.

I personally know of statutory rape situations in Massachusetts which are on-going and which have devastated the young woman involved because of the despicable actions of the young man involved. It has not gone further at this point because there is more discovery to be done, but BOTH of them were under the age of consent in Massachusetts and were only a few months apart in age. This young rapist has also been accused of his twisted seduction with at least one other young woman who was below the age of consent. That particular instance they were even closer in age, but the incident occured a few days after he passed the age of consent. Evidently there are others... I can't wait to see this little rapist go to jail for about 20 years. And to top it all off... he got his ideas and the belief that they were "OK", from "classes" such as the one I mentioned above! Some of the things he did and talked these young women into has truly hurt these young women emotionally, mentally, AND physically! And whenever they tried to stop him or resist, evidently he was able to convince them that they weren't being "compassionate about his feelings" or were "being intolerant of something that's really natural and fun" and that "it's a good pain, really..." (god, I feel like I need a shower... ick!) So, please learn the facts! In Massachusetts it is statutory rape if either party is under the age of consent (16), and if both parties are under the age of consent, then the State can charge them BOTH with the criminal act. The only mitigating circumstance is generally if one party has been coerced, forced, enticed, seduced, or tricked into the act by the other party. That is what happened in the particular case I'm referring to. In Massachusetts, there is absolutely NO requirement to have ANY spread in ages. The age of consent is 16 and if either or both parties have not reached that age it is statutory rape. If a 55 year old man can convince a 16+ woman to have sex, it isn't statutory rape, she was able to consent. There has been much discussion in certain circles to raise the age of consent to 18, simply to make it coincide with the age that is recognized for someone to have to be in order to enter into a binding contract, vote, go into the military, and get a driver's license without restriction and without prior driver's eduction training. But that hasn't really gone anywhere.

Regardless, I have heard that (some) students were being offered the "opportunity" to go and experiment... but that wasn't done during the "official" class and it was an offer that was only made to some juniors and seniors... you know... the ones who were OVER SIXTEEN!

I'm not endorsing all of it unequivocally, either, I'm just saying that I don't think it constitutes advocating homosexual activity.

Fine... let them teach the class with their OWN money, at some rented private facility, with paid announcements (using their own money) in the media, NOT give ANY academic credit or "tolerance training" credit for the class, require part of the class to include the detailed health risks of the activities and the risks of disease from a practicing MD, require signed parental consent for anyone under 18 or living with their parents, allow the parents and other independent observers in the course. Then I won't have a problem with it.

But I draw the line at someone telling me that homosexual sex equates to, or is morally equal to that sacred bond found in marriage

You're right. It's not. And heterosexual sex is also not equal to the "sacred bond found in marriage."

A sacred marriage is a union of two people, blessed by minister - who pledge themselves to each other for life.

A secular marriage is a union of two people, recognized by someone invested by the powers of state - who pledge themselves to each other for life.

Most countries require you to have a secular marriage license and leave it up to the inidvidual to decide if they want "sacred" validation by a member of the recognized clergy.

The argument that every consenting couple of opposite sexes that decided to put a gold band on their ring fingers are somehow morally superior to individuals who happen to have the same equipment starts to break down when you look at divorce rates, infidelity rates, and domestic violence rates.

And if the concept of "sacred" implies based on Judeo/Christian values then why just seize on certain sections of Leviticus and not others?

And for that matter, since our country likes to claim mostly Christian over Judeo heritage why are people seizing on laws laid out in the Old Testament when Jesus clearly stated that everything in the New Testament was to replace the Old Testament. I'm not usually one to quote bible verses but since I was raised a good Methodist...

Leviticus 18:22 states: "Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination."

The term abomination (to'ebah) is a religious term, usually reserved for use against idolatry; it does not mean a moral evil. The verse seems to refer to temple prostitution, which was a common practice in the rest of the Middle East at that time. Qadesh referred to male religious prostitutes.

Leviticus 20:13 states: "If a man also lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they should surely be put to death....".

The passage is surrounded by prohibitions against incest, bestiality, adultery and intercourse during a woman's period.

These passages are part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also:

* permits polygamy
* prohibits sexual intercourse when a woman has her period,
* bans tattoos
* prohibits eating rare meat
* bans wearing clothes that are made from a blend of textiles
* prohibits cross-breeding livestock
* bans sowing a field with mixed seed
* prohibits eating pigs, rabbits, or some forms of seafood
* requires Saturday to be reserved as the Sabbath

Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians. They can wear tattoos, eat shrimp, and wear polyester-cotton blends....Although this code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality.
Source: http://www.whosoever.org/bible/lev18.html

As a sushi eating, polyester wearing, and one who relishes in good pulled-pork barbeque....I need a better answer than "homosexual sex is not equal to sacred marriage" before I ready to deny sensible and cost-effective legal protections to thousands of people and their children.

Good points Dana...

Valkenar wrote:

Panther wrote:maybe now we can start repealing most of the oppresive anti-freedom, Un-American legislation that's been forced down our throats.

Which ones? Aside from gun/weapon legislation, which we've discussed at length previously (and which I mostly agree with you about at this point), which anti-freedom legislation are you talking about? I'll nominate the USAPATRIOT Act, the DMCA, CALEA... what are some of your favorite pieces of awful legislation?

All those are a good start... I think we can add NAFTA, GATT, the Kyoto BS, the subsidies to NOT farm, most forms of "entitlements", the Federal Reserve act (it's neither by the way), drug laws, alchohol laws, any "tax" or "tariff" in any form that's come about after 1800, membership in the UN, any law that allows for "foreign aid" which goes to any country that is not on our side, any law authorizing any treaty that would violate any rights, any law that violates any rights, the laws exempting the government from having to follow the laws they put on the rest of us, any law on any level that allows for any bureaucratic abuse of any citizen at the whim of some bureaucrat, any law that supports or authorizes participation in the world court, the world bank, or any other "world" scam that robs us of our sovreignty, any law that prevents anyone of any adult age from going to the doctor of their choice or taking the medication of their choice, any law that allows communist/socialist BS to be indoctrinated into our children, any laws that prevent or hinder parents from teaching their own children, any laws that require or prohibit associations with others who have some "deemed" unacceptable trait, any laws that allow the Federal Government to have any more power than ensuring fair commerce between the States, negotiating treaties (which can't go against our fundamental, Constitutionally recognized, granted by our Creator freedoms), providing for national defense, and minting the countries currency... There are lots more and I guess if I wanted to spend a lot of time, which I don't have right now, digging I could get very specific. Suffice it to say, in my utopia, the Federal Government would cost the average citizen less that a hundred bucks a year... And the average total tax burden from Fed down to local would be under $500 including property taxes... In my utopia, anyone who hasn't committed a crime would be able to walk anywhere carrying a gun, by their drug of choice or any medicine they needed, drive whereever they wanted to go without a license or registration, get married to whatever adult (and even how many they want... hey if you're nuts enough to want more than one spouse, well... you're probably nuts enough to make it work) in their own church without getting the government's "permission", get rid of most stifling regulation, get the government out of our bedroom and our wallets... I could probably spend the next week writing, but you get the idea.

Now... even though that's what I would like, I don't harbor any belief that such a place will come about again on this planet... It took less than a century for it to get screwed up here.

Here's the thing Bill:

You're concerned that my opinion on whether I, my loved ones, friends, and all other LGB's (and I should stress, all EVERYONE, including religious conservatives) should have equal rights makes me look elitist to the "fly over" states because I think that homophobia is largely based in a gut reaction, a sense of unease, of unfamiliarity, etc. Here's why I take issue with that concern:

First, I'm right. I am not actually making this stuff up. I lived it. I've seen the look of disgust on people's faces--people that've known me for minutes to years--on learning who I am. It's a look of disgust. I've also met with religious conservatives who felt differently than I who had NONE of this reaction, but they're in the minority. Largely, it was a gut feeling, and it was based on fear. A great many UVa students, for example, told me they were repulsed by the idea that I wanted to have sex with them. Guess what guys--no worries there, at all. Eww. (do they expect the women they ogle to react as negatively as they do to their own imagination?) Bill, it wasn't a Biblical sense of morality that lead my roommates 2nd year to look for alternative housing when they heard rumors about me--in their own words, they were "worried [I'd] lick [their] dishes to give us AIDS." Give me a break.

To add to anecdote, this has been studied. There is evidence that negative feelings and perceptives of gay people are strongly linked to knowing next to nothing about them, and that there is a subset with strong antigay feelings who tend to be MORE aroused by same sex pornography than those with neutral feelings (based on penile plesthmography while being shown all manners of pronography--another great advance brought to you by psychology research). If you want to see proof on FILM, go to www.ifilm.com and watch Jimmy Swaggert explain (while stumping on gay marriage!) how he really feels about gays--he said "I'd kill him and tell god he was dead," if one of us looked at him "that way." Please, everyone take a peek before replying. Or watch dozens and dozens of people being interviewed for "ballot measure nine," which summarizes this issue very nicely. That's ignorance, that's fear, that's the emotion driving 11 approved state constitution amendments this election. It's subtle, it can be masked by politeness or philosophy, but that's the predominant emotion.

I note again: I have been closely involved in this matter personally and politically since I was a sophomore in high school and have been the subject of death threats, hate mail, physical attack, housing discrimination, and have followed the relevant SCOTUS decisions, local law, and policy (say, at UVA) very closely. Anyone else?

Second, while it has political implications, I don't otherwise care if I look elitist to the red states. THEY, NOT I, are the ones attempting to limit someone else's rights and control their lives. To outlaw their ability to legally and financially and medically care for and protect loved ones, to make their very intimacy illegal. THAT's elitism: presuming you're so darned right YOU should have the chutzaph to goosestep into my bedroom and arrest me. BOTH groups disagree strongly. ONLY ONE is attempting to stomp on the other. I have always, will always strongly support the religious freedoms and other civil rights of those who bar me from full citizen status. So I am not inclined, as the one willing to live happily with fully free neighbors of any race, nationality, sexual orientation, sex, religion, etc, to apologetically listen to lectures from the religious right on being elitist.

As for fistgate, I haven't read the link. Don't need to. I'm sure it was a travesty. Note: when gay people do something stupid, or even abhorrent, it's often felt to be part of their very gayness. The molesting teacher somehow speaks to the very nature of gayness if he's gay, but not to straightness if he's straight. Whaaa? Has anyone noticed that 99% of the murderers and molesters are MEN? Why isn't the issue one of testosterone poisoning? Because men, and heterosexuals, are normal, this is overlooked, like their eyecolor and handedness.

Straight people have brought us date rape. They brought us comfort women in WW2 (and, WW2). Deliberate rape by HIV+ men in Africa as a war tool. Sadomasochism--and fisting. They created wives as property. Female circumcision. Foot binding. Corsets. "Hysteria." Wives that could not refuse sexual activity. The unfair awards for conquest: titles of "stud" and "whore." A time when women weren't permitted to control their fertility, or much else, or have independent lives. We forget that these are products of heterosexuality and fail to try to figure out what they tell us about heterosexuality. But with good reason. These things were invented by people who were *incidentally* heterosexual.

There are morons of every color, nationality, gender, height, sexual orientation, you name it. The stupidity or lack there of emanating from a few homos has zero meaning to me in this debate. I will add this however--a group that is ostracized, marginalized, and then begins to seek power often has members that go "over the top," with attempts to shock the public out of their way of thinking. This underlies everything from Black Panthers (not to be confused with our forum moderator) to drag queens. It's a symptom, not intrinsic to the "nature" of the group in question.

Final word: Panther, I think this country has every right to be pissed about the stupidity on television and in the movies. A large chunk of our popular culture is trashy and dumb. The morals there are pathetic. They are getting us in trouble with the islamofascists and many others, to boot. Instead of movies that I've enjoyed that speak to admirable human qualities--sacrifice, perseverance, charity, love, creativity, etc--you get junk. I'd much rather see more "Schindler's List," "Private Ryan," "Shawshank," "Crouching Tiger," "Pianist," "Amelie," "Find Nemo," etc type movies than what's on display most of the time.

But, I hope the red states don't continue to confuse that appropriate disgust for idiot culture with the issue of tolerance and legal fairness for their neighbors of all stripes. And I'd like to see the moral majority beat down those idiot shows by doing what I'm doing: not watching them.

Dana Sheets wrote: But I draw the line at
A sacred marriage is a union of two people, blessed by minister - who pledge themselves to each other for life.

A secular marriage is a union of two people, recognized by someone invested by the powers of state - who pledge themselves to each other for life.

It's amusing how much some people despise religion, but can't do more than copy it when they find something they want without the strings attached.

Most countries require you to have a secular marriage license and leave it up to the inidvidual to decide if they want "sacred" validation by a member of the recognized clergy.

And anyone who wants to live in 'most countries' can go there anytime they want, right?

The argument that every consenting couple of opposite sexes that decided to put a gold band on their ring fingers are somehow morally superior to individuals who happen to have the same equipment starts to break down when you look at divorce rates, infidelity rates, and domestic violence rates.

Don't get me started on the domestic violence rates of GLBT, but if you are so eager to denigrate marriage, than why try to argue its' benefits to any group of people? I hear arguments all the time for legallizing marijuana, by comparing it to cigarettes or alchohol. Like that, it's inviting worse.

And if the concept of "sacred" implies based on Judeo/Christian values then why just seize on certain sections of Leviticus and not others?

Who seized on any section of Leviticus? Not I. First time I've seen it in this forum topic, in fact.

And for that matter, since our country likes to claim mostly Christian over Judeo heritage why are people seizing on laws laid out in the Old Testament when Jesus clearly stated that everything in the New Testament was to replace the Old Testament.

Dana, I would not presume to tell you what your religion teaches, whatever that is. Since I am a Christian, and well-versed, I can assure you that Jesus 'clearly' stated that everything he came to do FULFILLED the Old Testament, not replaced it. Not once did he reference the 'New Testament.'

I've heard the Sponge-crowd interpretations of Levi 18:22 before, thank you. But then, Sponge-heads also believe that Jesus was not the son of God, was born in a cave, and married. Forgive me if I don't fall head-over-heels for sources like that. Speaking of sources...

"The United States, as a nation, does not possess any of the qualities of blessedness that Jesus spells out. We are a rich nation, where the meek, the hungry and the peacemakers are marginalized, not only in society at large, but within the nation's churches, as well. We are not God's chosen nation -- we are a nation forsaken by God -- a nation that has forgotten that to be truly blessed is to be humble and meek."

Wow, Jerry Falwell doesn't say much different, does he? Where did this come from? http://www.whosoever.org/, and on-line magazine for GLBT 'Christians'. Hmmm. No bias there .

Churches have abandoned the Holiness Code; it is no longer binding on modern-day Christians.

That's cute... Holiness code. Original, too. The laws of Leviticus were never binding on any Christian. Any imposition of Leviticus would have been done without Biblical authority.

This code is obsolete for Christians, many clergy still focus on those passages which deal with homosexuality. Source: http://www.whosoever.org/bible/lev18.html

I don't know any clergy focused on Levi. But then, I just have to consider the source.

As a sushi eating, polyester wearing, and one who relishes in good pulled-pork barbeque....I need a better answer than "homosexual sex is not equal to sacred marriage" before I ready to deny sensible and cost-effective legal protections to thousands of people and their children.

While I doubt that you really are interested in a better answer, considering the sources you've relied upon, I will tell you that I don't care what they do with legal protections for GLBT, as long as they don't take the legal apparatus built around marriage, and slap another label on it.

Med Tech wrote:While I doubt that you really are interested in a better answer, considering the sources you've relied upon, I will tell you that I don't care what they do with legal protections for GLBT, as long as they don't take the legal apparatus built around marriage, and slap another label on it.

Why should there be any "legal apperatus" around marraige? What about between two athiests? should they be allowed to marry?

ljr wrote:Why should there be any "legal apperatus" around marraige?

I disagree with you, and others, that government should get out of the business of marriage. From the very beginning our country has viewed marriage as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization. http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/marriage.html
Since your morals are different than mine, and we live in a democracy, we can continue to pull the government in either direction, to pull the course of our civilization along the biggest 'stream,' so to speak. For a while, it looked like it was going in your direction. Now we've put up a dam for awhile. Eventually, my side will fail, and the American dream will fall, much like the Roman Empire did. Without common values, common wisdom and common knowledge, how can a people remain together while emphasizing their differences?

What about between two athiests? should they be allowed to marry?

Have I given you any indication at all that I would care, one way or the other?

Ian, of the 7 movies you mentioned, I've seen 5. Liked and enjoyed them all. Many might disagree, but I feel strongly about "The Passion of the Christ", but others might not wish to see it. Regardless, I know of lots of folks, including myself who either have stopped watching mainstream media as much as possible OR only watch it to keep up with societal trends for reference purposes only. (some folks are just political junkies... )

Med Tech, I am not (and don't really think any one here is) discounting the importance of marriage or families, what I'm saying is that with the "separation of church & state" and the over-reaching laws legislating morality that abound, I want the government out of it. That in no way stops or thwarts the institute of "marriage". By defining "marriage" as a religious ritual/commitment and defining any union sanction by the government as secular (which it is according to the separation of church and state rule), and thus calling such a government sanctioned union a "civil union" for everyone, that accomplishes a number of goals. First, no one is required to seek the government's permission for a church "marriage", but that alone does not give the government benefits which many seek when getting "married". Neither does it require a religious commitment in order to form a "civil union with two people to get those government benefits (tax, health, visitation, survivorship, etc.)... PERSONALLY, I would be content "marrying" my wife and leaving the government out of it! Our "marriage" is between the two of us and God (as defined by our church). Some churches/religions/denominations recognize homosexual marriage, others do not. That's simply religious freedom as recognized by the First Amendment working in the favor of the homosexual couples who are members of those churches/religions/denominations. Regardless, according to the separation of church and state doctrine that is commonly referred to and used, it is simply not the government's place to get involved in religion unless there is some overriding public health interests. (and in that regard, the government has stopped the practice of poligamy, but because it only harms the person taking the action, they have not stopped snake handling...) The only real reason for government to get involved in "marriage" is to issue "licenses" and the only real reason to issue "licenses" is to enhance revenues (make money)... While there may be some greater public good accomplished by licensing certain trades and professions based on attaining and showing a proficiency (such as medical professionals, enginners, architects, pilots and commercial drivers for hire) there is really no reason to require many of the "licenses" that are issued by the government. IMNSHO, a "marriage license" seems to fall greatly into that category. In a related matter, public records for births, marriage, deaths, etc USED to be kept "for posterity" and historical purposes. Those records were available to anyone as a general matter. Now that government has found how lucrative these records can be, you must pay for an "official" copy of those records. Recently, with a death in the family, the Insurance company required an "official" copy of the death certificate. What a nice way for the government to scam the grieving family out of $50!
Multiply that by a major percentage of all deaths and we aren't talking chump change here. Whatever happened to those records being kept and made available (even "official" copies) because they were paid for with our tax dollars to begin with? And even more pertinent given the electronic nature of many of these records now and the fact that in centuries past, the "copies" had to be done by hand... now a xerox creates it with the push of a button and the pressing of a notary seal. Oops... rant mode off... sorry...

Panther wrote: Med Tech, I am not (and don't really think any one here is) discounting the importance of marriage or families, what I'm saying is that with the "separation of church & state" and the over-reaching laws legislating morality that abound, I want the government out of it. That in no way stops or thwarts the institute of "marriage".

Panther, I personally think that the whole 'seperation of church and state' has been carried far beyond the original intent for political gain by people who don't want to be bothered (ie, see, hear or otherwise nuisanced) by religion in any form. I think that a balance needs to be kept, but the scales have been tipped in the other direction.
I understand that some people want government out of the business of marriage, abortion, etc. etc. Some are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but few are willing to get rid of the provisions as well as the restrictions for marriage or abortion. As long as people continue to legislate their morality, others will legislate their own. The GLBTs have done a marvelous job of using the courts to get their way. I certainly won't shed a tear over citizens having their way on the ballot.

IJ wrote: We also heard that I can marry a woman if I want, so my rights are preserved. This remarkable assertion can be approached two ways: I can ignore this right... Or I could marry someone, try to live a charade..., GREAT options, both.

A third option: given that 'straight' people have become GLBT, and that GLBT have become 'straight' (you can deny it all you want, if it makes you feel better), why should government step out of its' way to accomodate such a fluctuating and fickle special interest group? If they were to do so, I think it should be along the lines of option 3: Test the waters, giving a bare-bones civil union statute, set up to accomodate not only GLBT interests, but adults who are having to care for their elderly parents or disabled siblings, and other interested parties who have not had the legal protections they felt they needed at any given time. Civil Unions A, B, C, whatever. Be original, taylor it to general situations and let it loose. For the tax stuff, hopefully we'll eventually toss the convoluted tax code that costs way too much and go to a flat tax. Maybe I'm dreaming here, but if so, I know I'm not alone.

Med Tech, let me ask you this: if you needed to give your dying patient drug A, and the government had told you this was intrinsically wrong, so you could only use drug B...

Being a little melodramatic, aren't you?

This is it: the assertion that (no specifics, no facts, nothing but the weight of personal opinion) LGB people are evil and that MT is against us.

I never said GLBT are evil. You're twisting my words without any subtleness whatsoever. I'm against no person, regardless of who they identify with.

Rather than reply, I have a reminder, and an invitation. The reminder: Med Tech, *I* do not find your opinions, or your religious beliefs, the way you live your life privately or publicly so long as others are not harmed, at all subject to my whims or opinions or those of the majority, and no matter how much power I or the majority some day has over YOUR personal business, I will work to support your rights and the concept that civil rights are not meant to be voted on in a popularity contest, but upheld.

Nor do I have any delusions of power concerning your circumstances. And I did join the service with that high and lofty goal of protecting the rights of every American. I have not even suggested taking any rights away from you that you and every other human being in this country have.

The invitation: last night, the homosexuals met at my home in san diego to further their radical agenda. My partner and I, both hardworking UCSD physicians, taxpayers, and halloween candy hander-outers... If you EVER want to come and see what "evil" we are brewing, you can come, bring your family as appliable, sit down at our table and relax among friends you know will NEVER challenge your civil rights or describe your most cherished relationships as "evil," or otherwise challenge the legitimacy of your relligion and your beliefs no matter how you treat us.

Ah, yes, here it is. I don't agree with you on something, so I must be ignorant of how 'real' homosexuals act. I've known a few. Some were good people, others not. Just like any other group. I have respect for the good people I meet, and they for me, regardless of their background. I work in one of the most diverse workplaces in this country, its military. I would not divulge the orientation of anyone appointed under me unless they break the rules. I hold no ill will for GLBT, yourself, or anyone, Ian. I certainly don't accuse you or them of conspiracies. But there are groups out there that claim to speak for you, Ian, and their actions and their words speak louder than yours.

IJ wrote: Final word: Panther, I think this country has every right to be pissed about the stupidity on television and in the movies. A large chunk of our popular culture is trashy and dumb. The morals there are pathetic. They are getting us in trouble with the islamofascists and many others, to boot. Instead of movies that I've enjoyed that speak to admirable human qualities--sacrifice, perseverance, charity, love, creativity, etc--you get junk. I'd much rather see more "Schindler's List," "Private Ryan," "Shawshank," "Crouching Tiger," "Pianist," "Amelie," "Find Nemo," etc type movies than what's on display most of the time.

Hey, something we can agree on. Except Shawshank, Pianist and Amelie, gads Shawshank was boring, and the other two awful.

But, I hope the red states don't continue to confuse that appropriate disgust for idiot culture with the issue of tolerance and legal fairness for their neighbors of all stripes. And I'd like to see the moral majority beat down those idiot shows by doing what I'm doing: not watching them.

The problem as I see it, is that 'idiot culture' is the predominate voice demanding far more than tolerance and fairness, Ian. When a backlash forms against one, it will hit the other, inevitably.

Ian, Val and Dana: I apologize for any offense. Some of my words and messages could have been worded more carefully and clearly, and no doubt kept most of the confusion about my ideas or intent from forming. Some of my posts were written in the dead of night or half-awake in the day, especially my earlier ones, and I was not at my best (I've been dealing with a little insomnia). I probably won't raise this sensitive issue again, or even respond to it except for a reference here and there if it comes up. I'd like to bury the hatchet, so to speak, if at all possible. I'm having a good month, and I feel like spreading the wealth. I've been promoted at work, and in one of the martial arts I'm practicing. Good day!

"From the very beginning our country has viewed marriage as the basis of the family unit and vital to the preservation of morals and civilization."

I TOO agree that families do most of the child rearing, the teaching, the moral education of the country and that they form the foundation of our civilization. HOWEVER, I've known a bunch of people who grew up with two dads or two moms who are better than fine! I know that FAR too many kids grow up without parents and communities who teach them the vaue of studying, working, saving, and meaningful relationships whether with a male or a female. These are the kids who are toast--no life skills, no self respect, no community respect, no compass. To me, what a family teaches is FAR more important than the genders of the teachers.

"Given that 'straight' people have become GLBT, and that GLBT have become 'straight' (you can deny it all you want, if it makes you feel better), why should government step out of its' way to accomodate such a fluctuating and fickle special interest group?"

I don't deny that people's sexualities are fluid (I prescribed OCP's to the Catholic wife of my ex of six years, and I'm delighted they're happy--I would never stand in the way of consenting adults' love). But, two points. Since both groups change, exactly which one are you calling "fickle?" Soooo many more people try to be straight and fail than are "cured." So aren't heterosexuals more fickle?? And why go out of the way to "accomodate?" It is, instead, the government, and millions of Americans who are doing the opposite--going out of their way to OBSTRUCT same sex marriage! Or going out of their way to regulate marriage, when they could be hands off. THINK what we could have done for charity, our national debt, for our failing health care system, with all the time and millions we've spent keeping fellow americans from marriage!

PS: we're people, many would-be wives and husbands, not special interest groups.

PPS: don't memberships of religions fluctuate too?

"I have not even suggested taking any rights away from you that you and every other human being in this country have."

Well, I can get married to a man in Mass, and get CU'd in Vermont. Are you honestly saying if you had the power you wouldn't deprive me of that right? IF you are, we evidently disagree about nothing.

"The problem as I see it, is that 'idiot culture' is the predominate voice demanding far more than tolerance and fairness, Ian. When a backlash forms against one, it will hit the other, inevitably."

This is true--in the sense that there are causes considered "left" and "right" and people tend to share them in groups. THEN, didn't I just prove that they are separable, by asking for equality for LGB's AND attacking the drivel from hollywood? It honestly is a big reason I live in san diego and not LA. I had great job offers in both places. And I believe that lefties and righties and flyoveries CAN and should make this distinction. Also, we can fight on this matter TOGETHER. If you need a hand, give me a ring. Telephone, not wedding.

"Some of my words and messages could have been worded more carefully and clearly."

Mine too--I was born with my foot in my mouth. It's the nature of the internet, and of humans.

"I never said GLBT are evil."

I realize you're modifying your original statement with the one above, which I appreciate, but to explain where I and several others got confused, you said that doing nothing about an alternative lifestyle affects you and you linked that to the idea that for evil to win, all it would take was good people doing nothing. Let me propose as a step to better communication that we throw out the concepts of "elitist" and "bigot." An elitist is a liberal a conservative disagrees with; the bigot is the converse. Both are "judgemental," and we ought to focus on WHAT they judge, their RATIONALE, and the extent of control they desire over others.

OK - I brought up Leviticus because the discussion was about what could be deemed a sacred marriage in a Judeo-Christian culture (ours). So I feel that using a reference from that book to inform the discussion isn't off base.

I didn't check my references very well and had no idea that was a gay site. I just typed the quote from the bible I remembered from my childhood and let Google do the rest.

As for GLBT's having the same domestic issues as heterosexual couples - absolutely. Relationships have those problems. I made that reference to try and understand what defines "sacred". Because to this point in the discussion that only things that's been offered is a difference in anatomy and a cultural tradition informed by the Bible.

On the secular vs sacred thing...

quote: Most countries require you to have a secular marriage license and leave it up to the inidvidual to decide if they want "sacred" validation by a member of the recognized clergy.

And anyone who wants to live in 'most countries' can go there anytime they want, right?

The US is one of those countries that required you to get a secular marriage license. So I wasn't suggesting that we are exceptional.

I think religion is a good and wonderful thing - when done well. It can also be a terribly damaging and dividing force. I was raised Christian which taught me one version of right from wrong. A version I found to be a bit restrictive as I widened by world-view. I've since left that Church and am now an active member of Unitarian Universalism (UU). A Church that believes in the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. In fact our minister gave a rousing sermon on the topic of gay marriage today that moved many in the congregation to tears. UU's have a habit of being at the leading edge of discussions about freedom and equity for all. We were part of the American Revolution, we were at the forefront of women's suffrage, civil rights, and inter-racial marriage. And we are at the forefront of the dialogue on gay marriage. Because there are no exceptions to the idea of truth and justice for all.

Med Tech thank you for serving this country and for protecting my rights. I am grateful to everyone who acts to protect what we have built. You've engaged in a thoughtful and honest discussion. That's what these forums are for. And congrats on your new rank! At the same time I am dedicated to making sure that the rights you fight to protect are extended to everyone in this country - regardless of race, creed, sex, sexual orientation or identification.

And with all that being said - I still haven't seen an argument that explains to why in a country with a mandate of freedom and justice for all we continue to deny hundreds of legal protections to thousands of US citizens, their children, and their families.

Dana Sheets wrote: And with all that being said - I still haven't seen an argument that explains to why in a country with a mandate of freedom and justice for all we continue to deny hundreds of legal protections to thousands of US citizens, their children, and their families.

You always have to have the last word, don't you? I don't want to deny ANYONE anything, Dana. I refer you to option 3 in my latest response to Ian.

IJ wrote:"
So aren't heterosexuals more fickle?? And why go out of the way to "accomodate?" It is, instead, the government, and millions of Americans who are doing the opposite--going out of their way to OBSTRUCT same sex marriage! Or going out of their way to regulate marriage, when they could be hands off.

Of course heterosexuals are fickle! We just can't be defined as an interest group. Same-sex marriage has always been obstructed, and have always been regulated. Only recently have people felt the need to reinforce existing marriage law. It's pretty easy to get people worked up about change.

THINK what we could have done for charity, our national debt, for our failing health care system, with all the time and millions we've spent keeping fellow americans from marriage!

Spare me, Ian. No offense, but the GLBT lobby puts out a TON of money that could have gone to any of the above. The money spent against the marriage initiative in Oregon alone would feed a 3rd world country for a year...

PS: we're people, many would-be wives and husbands, not special interest groups.

Sorry if I offended you, but there are GLBT interest groups, and they do claim to speak for you.

Well, I can get married to a man in Mass, and get CU'd in Vermont. Are you honestly saying if you had the power you wouldn't deprive me of that right? IF you are, we evidently disagree about nothing.

I'm torn on that one. On one side, I think states should be able to decide this matter for themselves. However, if any of the ballot initiatives that passed Nov 2nd are overturned in the courts, I don't see any option except to go with the federal amendment plan. So, no, I don't care what Mass and Vermont do. I just don't want Michigan or Utah, or whatever buried under the domino effect.

This is true--in the sense that there are causes considered "left" and "right" and people tend to share them in groups. THEN, didn't I just prove that they are separable, by asking for equality for LGB's AND attacking the drivel from hollywood?

Of course they are seperable. Will they seperate? I doubt it. The people who claim to speak for you are linked to Hollywood for the long run, I think.

It honestly is a big reason I live in san diego and not LA. I had great job offers in both places. And I believe that lefties and righties and flyoveries CAN and should make this distinction. Also, we can fight on this matter TOGETHER. If you need a hand, give me a ring. Telephone, not wedding.

I don't blame you for not living in LA. Between the traffic and crime, who needs the headache. Never been to San Diego. Just didn't have enough time while I was stationed in Kali. There may be other areas we agree on, Ian. Homosexual adoption, for one. I don't think that homosexuality ought to be considered as a risk factor in itself by state agencies. I do think that state agencies need to be protected from discrimination claims if they rightfully decide against someone because of other risk factors who happen to be gay. On the other hand, I think private, especially religious-based agencies, need to be able to decide for themselves.

Let me propose as a step to better communication that we throw out the concepts of "elitist" and "bigot." An elitist is a liberal a conservative disagrees with; the bigot is the converse. Both are "judgemental," and we ought to focus on WHAT they judge, their RATIONALE, and the extent of control they desire over others.

The elitist thing is O'Reilly's, not mine. I don't begrudge anyone their money or influence. If I had it, I'd use it too. I disagree with shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson, and idiots who hold 'God Hates Fags' signs equally.