SUPREME COURT DECISION PROP 8, MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN - WOMAN

alj wrote:

How do you know, Alice?

I know everything!
LOL
LOL

I am a mother.

LOL
LOL
LOL

...AND A GRANDMOTHER
If I had married a woman, There would be no Becky, Dan. Joshua, Jonah or Kenzie.

God loves them all.

I take back that last question. I should not have asked it.

I am in the process of reading, at this moment, a description of the differences between the "historical Jesus" of the Gospels and the "Christ" of the Church and the beginnings of that church as seen in the Letters, mostly from Paul, so from the perspective I'm studying at the moment, I cannot see that Jesus condemning anyone and that's where I am coming from right now.

I am also falling asleep at the computer and need to go to bed.

"See" you tomorrrow.

Annie

Jesus did not condemn anyone. He came to save everyone.

I am a sinner in need of salvation.
Sweet dreams!

What is wrong with people simply following their vows?
My friend had married had two children. as I mentioned teenagers, who were not well served by her romantic indiscretions.

Why not do as she vowed to do? I can't figure it out. No one would condone her leaving her husband for a man , why do it for a woman?

Oh, Alice, you can't solve the world's problems! People do what they want to do. Ann would not have left her husband, but he didn't feel the same way. We have no control over anyone else's feelings.

alice wrote:

Jesus did not condemn anyone. He came to save everyone.

I am a sinner in need of salvation.
Sweet dreams!

You are a good woman, Alice.

The way I see it (and this is just me), everyone sins; everyone is forgiven, so everyone is saved, including even me - and especially you.

No worries.

Annie

Thank you, Ann,

You are far better than I am.

Shelagh wrote:

Oh, Alice, you can't solve the world's problems! People do what they want to do. Ann would not have left her husband, but he didn't feel the same way. We have no control over anyone else's feelings.

You are so right!

In my experience people are so fragile in spirit. Open to hurts. kind of a mushy gob.

It does not matter how old we grow, we are still that mushy gob.

To live in this society, we must mask our mushy gob and go forth with as much courage as we can muster and fit in. Some of us do it well and some of us never get past our mushy gobbish-ness.

Love,

Betty

4/7/2013
Betty..

..........Bravo...

Cheers..Joe.....

I guess we solved this problem--hope so anyway.

Alice,
if people literally followed the bible, the problem would be solved by killing off all gays, all divorcees, people working on the sabbath, etc. Of course we know that is BS. The point is that by cherry-picking scriptures, we can make anything turn out the way we want it.

Interpretation of the Bible has and continues to be a problem. If one can take the simple approach and concentrate on the Love aspect, most problems would be solved. How can anyone believe in love and war at the same time? Loving your enemies is a bit different from killing them.

Abe,

Where did I advocate killing anyone? I am not for the death penalty for any reason and am against war unless we are attacked. I love gay people--am related to some.
I don't wish any ill will to gay people.
I want them to have equal rights.

Alice, my comments were generalized, not directed at you. I know you are a peace-loving person. Sorry for the confusion.

Abe F. March wrote:

Alice, my comments were generalized, not directed at you. I know you are a peace-loving person. Sorry for the confusion.

Abe, Thank you.

I tried to stay away from this discussion; I really did.

Marriage has traditionally been limited to one man and one woman for a range of reasons beyond the obvious religious ones which are not, by the way, irrelevant. I support treatment of all honorable human beings with dignity and respect and protecting the civil rights of every citizen. I also oppose changing the definition of marriage and the two positions are perfectly consistent. Civil unions, contract law, and living wills amply protect the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. Those are red herrings used to advance a very specific agenda that goes well beyond the "right" to marry or the acceptance of gays and lesbians as coequal citizens which of course they are. Everything that my wife and I own is owned as joint property. Bank accounts, real estate, etc. If we were living together rather than married, the same would be true. The only difference is we would have to have a living will and a traditional will to ensure that well meaning relations could not meddle with healthcare decisions or take under intestacy laws that which we intend for one another. Would this be an inconvenience? Perhaps, but a minor one and one easily addressed at little or no cost as there are ample resources online to help individuals draft valid living wills and traditional ones as well.

I support civil unions. I do not support gay marriage. I have had many colleagues and some friends who are gay/lesbians. All kept their sexual preference to themselves as is, for me at least, perfectly acceptable and highly preferable as I do not care what goes on in anyone's bedroom and would never dream of sharing with anyone what goes on in mine. Sexual preferences ought be the most private of private information of interest to no one other than to those for whom prurient matters are of interest. I do not like gays or lesbians engaging in French kissing or heavy petting in public any more than I like heterosexual couples doing so. See my prior comment as to why. I do not like sex scenes without any real purpose in films either--heterosexual or homosexual, though I find the latter particularly objectionable if pushed on young children through television and other popular media. (I also have a problem with obviously gay men increasingly appearing as leads in romantic comedies. Suspension of disbelief goes only so far.) I have watched and enjoyed films featuring loving relationships of gays and lesbians and will continue to do so. I am not a homophobe, a hater, or a religious freak. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not I leave to God; my interest is the laws of men and women. (My opinion is that God made gays and lesbians just as he made straight people and loves both equally. Homosexuality is not a communicable disease or a choice. Having said that, I do worry about children experimenting or being confused by what they are told is normal, acceptable behavior and about the modern penchant for promiscuity at ever increasing young ages by both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.)

Marriage should be left as it always has been--to the states. But states should also be free to ignore the common law rule that a marriage valid where performed is valid everywhere. One of the traditional purposes of marriage is to legitimize births and provide protection to spouses to prevent them from becoming public charges. These functions can be well protected by civil unions. (And legitimacy has, for good or ill, largely become irrelevant in most states.)

I oppose the wider agenda of many who push for gay marriage as a universal right and seek to make homosexuality a protected class through federal legislation alongside sex, race, national origin, religion, color and disability status. The legal ramifications of doing so worry me for reasons that would take too long to articulate here. That agenda includes marginalizing anyone who disagrees and attempting to quash such disagreement as intrinsically wrong, antisocial, impermissible and (if they had their way) criminal. It is none of those things. I also worry about what is next for those who believe every minority should be able to impose its will on the majority. If we throw away the standards that are based on religious observance and have stood the test of time, how can we conscientiously oppose polygamy? Or the marriage between brothers and sisters? What about the woman who made news by marrying a dolphin a few years back? (Why should not marriage be defined as a union between two sentient beings not necessarily human?) When robots gain consciousness in my lifetime as we are close to being able to duplicate and mimic the processing power of the brain and give birth to true artificial intelligence and consciousness in artificial beings, must marriage be extended to them as well?

My answer is no, at least today. I may change my mind in the future, but I will not be cowed, bullied, embarrassed or harassed or silenced into doing so by a vocal minority seeking to exert its will. Democracy may outvote me on the issue and I will comply when it does. But I will not genuflect to a tyranny of the minority on this or any other issue.

Victor,

Well said and AMEN!

Thank you Victor. You have said what many feel, but are hesitant to voice their opinion. I don't approve of Gay or Lesbian couples. That does not mean I wish them harm. It is my personal preference to associate with them or not.
To me, it is repulsive. I also hate snakes and nothing anyone can say will erase my dislike for them. No, I'm not comparing Gays/Lesbians with snakes, just a point of like/dislike that concerns me personally.

4/7/2013
Victor...
I agree with you on many of these issues, I have known
many gay people who have lived together for 20, 30 , 40 years,their
still together, they have wills, living wills, health care proxy, etc, so
certain family members can't interfere, this I agree with. I also have
known many straight people who are married who are misreable, refuse
to get divorced because they have to divide assets, they live like they did
before but no feelings ! This I can't stand, get divorced, be a grwon up and
divide your assets. I know of a couple he can't get divorced because his
wife is ill( Something to do with the law ?) He has had a girlfriend he lives
with, not married and theye've been togther for 15 years, he takes cares
of his wife medically, etc., but they agreed he is free and she knows of the
girlfriend...That is why I say it's funny that many gays who got married in
other states and after a year ( I have read many of these cases,) they
decided it was a mistake but they can't get a divorce in their own states.
So I don't agree on " Gay Marriage, Maybe a civil union , where the two
people can vow to each other their love, period. So as I've said before many
people don't get it, a piece of paper doesn't mean hill of beans, it won't keep
people together wether your straight or gay....
Cheers...Joe...

That is why I say it's funny that many gays who got married in
other states and after a year ( I have read many of these cases,) they
decided it was a mistake but they can't get a divorce in their own states.
So I don't agree on " Gay Marriage, Maybe a civil union , where the two
people can vow to each other their love, period

A supreme court ruling allowing gay marriage would end that problem, Joe. Vowing to love in a civil ceremony doesn't cut it, legally - not under the current rulings.

I have known several older hetero-sexual couples who cannot afford to marry since it would reduce their pensions, so they live together, but do not marry.

Our modern world has many "exceptions" not covered under our current laws.

Just a note:

In Biblical times and culture, a long-standing relationship between members of the same sex would be unthinkable. They would have been pulled from their home and stoned on the spot.

Paul's injunctions referred to casual occurrences of infidelity, including both adultery (especially by wives) and brief same-sex "liaisons." Promiscuity and infidelity were the problems being addressed.

An interesting side note - Hebrew men were expected to marry, as soon as they reached adulthood, and begin a family immediately, so that they could, "be fruitful and multiply" because there were not enough of them (Hebrews, that is.)

If Jesus had remained single (and celibate) it would have been shocking, and we would likely have direct evidence recorded. He would have been expected to have a wife and children. We wouldn't need to be told - it would have been an assumption.

Victor D. Lopez wrote:

I tried to stay away from this discussion; I really did.

Marriage has traditionally been limited to one man and one woman for a range of reasons beyond the obvious religious ones which are not, by the way, irrelevant. I support treatment of all honorable human beings with dignity and respect and protecting the civil rights of every citizen. I also oppose changing the definition of marriage and the two positions are perfectly consistent. Civil unions, contract law, and living wills amply protect the rights of gay and lesbian citizens. Those are red herrings used to advance a very specific agenda that goes well beyond the "right" to marry or the acceptance of gays and lesbians as coequal citizens which of course they are. Everything that my wife and I own is owned as joint property. Bank accounts, real estate, etc. If we were living together rather than married, the same would be true. The only difference is we would have to have a living will and a traditional will to ensure that well meaning relations could not meddle with healthcare decisions or take under intestacy laws that which we intend for one another. Would this be an inconvenience? Perhaps, but a minor one and one easily addressed at little or no cost as there are ample resources online to help individuals draft valid living wills and traditional ones as well.

I support civil unions. I do not support gay marriage. I have had many colleagues and some friends who are gay/lesbians. All kept their sexual preference to themselves as is, for me at least, perfectly acceptable and highly preferable as I do not care what goes on in anyone's bedroom and would never dream of sharing with anyone what goes on in mine. Sexual preferences ought be the most private of private information of interest to no one other than to those for whom prurient matters are of interest. I do not like gays or lesbians engaging in French kissing or heavy petting in public any more than I like heterosexual couples doing so. See my prior comment as to why. I do not like sex scenes without any real purpose in films either--heterosexual or homosexual, though I find the latter particularly objectionable if pushed on young children through television and other popular media. (I also have a problem with obviously gay men increasingly appearing as leads in romantic comedies. Suspension of disbelief goes only so far.) I have watched and enjoyed films featuring loving relationships of gays and lesbians and will continue to do so. I am not a homophobe, a hater, or a religious freak. Whether homosexuality is a sin or not I leave to God; my interest is the laws of men and women. (My opinion is that God made gays and lesbians just as he made straight people and loves both equally. Homosexuality is not a communicable disease or a choice. Having said that, I do worry about children experimenting or being confused by what they are told is normal, acceptable behavior and about the modern penchant for promiscuity at ever increasing young ages by both heterosexuals and homosexuals alike.)

Marriage should be left as it always has been--to the states. But states should also be free to ignore the common law rule that a marriage valid where performed is valid everywhere. One of the traditional purposes of marriage is to legitimize births and provide protection to spouses to prevent them from becoming public charges. These functions can be well protected by civil unions. (And legitimacy has, for good or ill, largely become irrelevant in most states.)

I oppose the wider agenda of many who push for gay marriage as a universal right and seek to make homosexuality a protected class through federal legislation alongside sex, race, national origin, religion, color and disability status. The legal ramifications of doing so worry me for reasons that would take too long to articulate here. That agenda includes marginalizing anyone who disagrees and attempting to quash such disagreement as intrinsically wrong, antisocial, impermissible and (if they had their way) criminal. It is none of those things. I also worry about what is next for those who believe every minority should be able to impose its will on the majority. If we throw away the standards that are based on religious observance and have stood the test of time, how can we conscientiously oppose polygamy? Or the marriage between brothers and sisters? What about the woman who made news by marrying a dolphin a few years back? (Why should not marriage be defined as a union between two sentient beings not necessarily human?) When robots gain consciousness in my lifetime as we are close to being able to duplicate and mimic the processing power of the brain and give birth to true artificial intelligence and consciousness in artificial beings, must marriage be extended to them as well?

My answer is no, at least today. I may change my mind in the future, but I will not be cowed, bullied, embarrassed or harassed or silenced into doing so by a vocal minority seeking to exert its will. Democracy may outvote me on the issue and I will comply when it does. But I will not genuflect to a tyranny of the minority on this or any other issue.

Victor,

You say it so well.

alj wrote:

Just a note:

In Biblical times and culture, a long-standing relationship between members of the same sex would be unthinkable. They would have been pulled from their home and stoned on the spot.

Paul's injunctions referred to casual occurrences of infidelity, including both adultery (especially by wives) and brief same-sex "liaisons." Promiscuity and infidelity were the problems being addressed.

An interesting side note - Hebrew men were expected to marry, as soon as they reached adulthood, and begin a family immediately, so that they could, "be fruitful and multiply" because there were not enough of them (Hebrews, that is.)

If Jesus had remained single (and celibate) it would have been shocking, and we would likely have direct evidence recorded. He would have been expected to have a wife and children. We wouldn't need to be told - it would have been an assumption.

Thank heavens, Jesus did away with this barbaric behavior. He concerned himself with the judgmental religious leaders.

Amen

I agree with Victor.