Re: Bush and the Gay Marriage Issue

[Knox The Hatter]

Re: Bush and the Gay Marriage Issue

The following is excerpted from the Sunday, August 3 edition of 'The Trentonian', a local, rabidly right wing tabloid. Every day, little by little, it's becoming apparent to me that the Busholith ain't so solid...

"If the president has motives other than enhancing his own re-election prospects, presumably he will address some basic questions surrounding the issue of gay marriage, such as:

* What business is it of the government if two gay individuals privately choose to commit themselves to life together in a civil union? Or what business is it of a government if a church privately chooses to sanctify such a committment in a religious marriage ceremony?

* Exactly how would gay unions or marriages be a threat to the sanctity of other marriages? Did we miss something here? Is somebody suggesting that heterosexual folks be forced to take gay folks as their spouses?

* Wouldn't individuals or religions finding scriptural authority to oppose homosexuality still be free to do so and to proselytize their views if they wish?

* Exactly what social goal would be achieved by additional federal impediments to gay marriages or civil unions? Would homosexual people relent and declare themselves heterosexual?

* Conservatives often lament the promiscuous lifestyle they believe is prevalent among gays. In what way does opposition to gay marriages or civil unions addres this lament? Wouldn't such marriages or unions logically be more likely to address this conservative complaint and advance conservative values?

Assuming the Bush administration is not merely playing petty politics and pandering to prejudice, we look forward to hearing it answer these questions."

Poster's note on the second asterisk paragraph: common scare tactic in Antebellum America was to claim that freeing the slaves automatically led to marriage between Big Buck Field Hand and your daughter. Don't be surprised if you start hearing pablum along the same lines from Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al.

 

[Haltickling]

Just a side note, heading towards the same topic: A few days ago, the Vatican (= the Faith Congregation, whose predecessor was the Inquisition) proclaimed an edict against gay marriages, claiming they are against natural law. In addendum, the Vatican adressed all Catholic politicians to follow this edict.

One of our conservative parties (the CSU = Christian Social Union) eagerly agreed...

 

[Dragon321]

incapable of expressing anything but support for gay marriages under normal circumstances.

if homosexuality is against the 'natural law' how to explain the myriad cases of homosexual practice among the animal kingdom? are they possessed by the devil? the inquisition...now that was an abominable and unnatural institution. somehow i doubt jesus or god would have really opposed homosexual union. how exactly are we to know that jesus was not gay? 'blasphemy' the church decries. just as god must be a white male, so must jesus be straight. riiiiiiiiiight...

and if they are against subversion of natural law, why is the pope not allowed to die, instead of using drugs and technology to keep him alive (i am not privy to whether this is true, i assume).

excellent points on the subject, knox! people hate what they do not understand.

 

[dskodj]

I recently found out about all this because my best friend is gay and in a situation where he is basicly married and has been for quite sometime. I personaly think that it is utterly ridiculous and a load of bullshit that gays can't have the same rights as everyone else. It is a form of being racist if ya ask me. I mean, they are human too ya know? Sexual preference is a choice someone decides to make in life and if 2 of the same sex can find love and romance in each other so be it!

DJ Jimmy M

 

[dskodj]

Oh and to add one more thing I forgot to say..this is one of the reasons im a nutral when it comes to religion and church..simply because of things like this that make you stop and think about things arn't right here in the way they view things

 

[Knox The Hatter]

Don't you just love it? The organization that hid and protected and moved around pedophile priests and stonewalled and whitewashed all attempts to expose them is going to tell US what is immoral. You can't make this up... 😡

 

[Krokus]

The Punks can't tell people what to sexually prefer, mentally prefer, or anything of that nature. I wouldn't mind taking a steel pipe to the faces of those men personally.

 

[JPie1]

I personally think goverment had no right to dictate this matter. People have the right to choose their sexual preferences for themselves. I too don't see how legimatizing gay marriages is going to hurt anyone or anything. I did not vote for Bush the 1st time around, nor am I ever when he runs again, I despise the man.

 

[kurchatovium]

Ok this is one of my rare non-marmalade appearances. I am normally conservative on many issues however this is not one of them. If gay people want to get married, let them. This is an area the goverment has no right to control. Just my humble opinion though....now back to the gelatinous goodness of the Humor Forum.

 

[Ticklebell]

Excellent questions. How is it against the "natural law" if we cannot control our own hearts? You cannot choose to love. You just do. Neither the government, nor the church, nor anybody else on this earth should feel that it is in their place, duty, or power to tell people whom they can or can not love and cherish, through sickness and health, till death do they part.

-Bell

 

[Jamandi]

According to the United States government, marriage is a contract between two people. Thats all. So what gives them the right to say who can have a contract with whom? Can they say that a white male can't sign a contract with an African American female because, well it just might make some people uncomfortable. How can people not see that not allowing gays to marry is comparable to the massive segregation on African Americans years ago? Are people blind to concept that it's not just bad to segregate blacks, but that segregation itself is the problem! Ignorant, linear thinking people can make me angry like nothing else. I know I am ignorant of many things but at least I don't go around pretending I'm not. Besides, doesn't Bush know that there is a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. Maybe that could help us with our debt 🙄 .

-Jamandi-

 

[dskodj]

I personaly think Bush is the god damn anti-christ! I also have never seen so many people not like who is in office till now. I heard about an impeach Bush campaign on some web site. Does anyone know what it is or where I can join?😕

 

[BigJim]

The Catholic Church is an organisation that stands at the top of the list for profiteering, genocide, racism, biggotry, extortion, thievery and social division. It has been so throughout it's evil existence. Catholics who are genuinely good people are a wonderful miracle of nature, as the Catholic Church is responsible for at least as many deaths and false imprisonments as the Nazi Party during World War 2. (Of course the Nazi Party created it's victims in a lot less time than the Church, so perhaps it's evil is greater; but you see my point?)

Given all of the above, I find it extremely laughable that the man who reputedly stands at the head of it, should deem himself fit to comment upon social morals. It's an organisation that betrays the values of it's higher-minded members (one of whom I count as a good friend, here at the TMF) and has NO DAMN RIGHT to shoot it's thieving, mass-murdering mouth off about social morals when it does nothing but degrade them itself. The Pope should shut the hell up, wind his neck in and let people continue to evolve as beings, instead of doing his best to keep them in the spiritual Dark ages, by his continued support of a discriminatory, out-dated and ignorant dogma.

If I had as loud a public voice as the Pope, I'd do my best to persuade all decent catholic politicians to ignore the predjudiced old bastard and continue to judge things that are outside their sphere of experience, with extreme care. Ignorance and discrimination never did anyone any good and it's time the catholic church woke the hell up and learned the lesson that's been so obvious to anyone since the middle of the last millenium. WE are God, in our collective. WE have the ability to decide what it right and wrong. When an un-biased, un-indoctrinated person listens to their conscience and asks themselves whether something is evil, neutral or good; they're listening to "God" talking through them. Just what harm to social morals does a homosexual relationship do? None. None, whatsoever! A prime example of the Catholic Church pointlessly crippling human emotions, is the fate that befell the TMF's founder. He screwed himself up with so much guilt that he decided tickling was "against God's will", because it freely expressed sexuality. It's lucky he didn't have sole ownership of the VBulletin version of the Forum, because it's quite likely he'd have rubbed it out when he left the community.

The only harm is done, when such a relationship (homosexuality or tickling) is brutally stigmatised and the people who exist in one are even more brutally castigated. Free your minds of negative emotions like anger and guilt. Ask yourself if things that involve people freely expressing their sexuality truly harm anyone else. Ask yourself if someone at the head of one of the most evil organisations in human history, should be giving us advice on how to conduct our private lives.

If you are catholic and are reading this, please understand that I mean no offence to you personally. The very fact that you're liberated enough to be on this Forum shows that you are probably not the sort of person who believes in supression of someone's feelings.

 

[Dragon321]

although most would not go so far as to agree with your most controversial comment, i pledge wholeheartedly to that doctrine, unless another explanation that is better presents itself. god is within us, and people should quit watching the heavens and search within themselves for a sense of ethics and a moral code. as i said, ideas, not a belief system. i support Jim's assertion that the Catholic church has perpetuated many evils during its reign. i like to think of it as the spiritual mafia. this does not mean i hate catholics, anymore than wishing for peace in the middle east means that i hate jews or palestinians. the government should follow the doctrine of the separation of church and state. Jamandi's views on segregation are also very valid.

 

[Shem the Penman]

Let's face one thing, though: Priests, ministers, and other religious figures -do- have the right to decide who they will, and will not, perform a marriage ceremony for. When Nightfall and I got married, we had to look around for quite a bit before we found a rabbi who was willing to marry a Jew to a non-Jew. That's hardly unlawful discrimination.

But religious ceremonies aside, I see no reason that a stable, monogamous gay relationship shouldn't be allowed the same social and economic benefits a heterosexual marriage receives, and I have yet to see a counter-argument that doesn't boil down to an appeal to religious mores or just "Gays are icky."

I suspect, though, that the whole flap about gay marriage serves the same purpose for Bush II as flag burning did for Bush I: a non-issue that affords him the opportunity to posture for the faithful, while pushing other news off the front page for a day or two.

 

[Ticklebell]

I was raised Catholic in a very nurturing environment. My mother actually works for the Catholic church. Remember that there is a veeeery wide array of the degree of hellfire-spewingness of different Catholic dioces and individual churches and priests. At my church, for instance, I was always taught that love is love and people mustn't be condemned for what in fact comes naturally to them. My mother was telling me about a conversation she just had with the priest at the local church about homosexuality, and he was saying that we should be welcoming gay people, and stop being hypocrites. Hello, Golden Rule. In my time, which is by no means a long time, I have found many protestant churches to be much more angry and condemning than the catholic church. I do not consider myself to be Catholic at this point in my life, I'm a little too much of an existentialist for that much of in institution (lemme hear some shouts out for my man, Kierkegaard!), but I must at least defend the church a bit. This is not to say I'm defending the PAST, aka the inquisition, etc. It's just a faith thing with many misguided people who may or may not be thinking for themselves or blindly following the leader. I do not believe that the pope is acting out of hatred either. He is acting according to his spiritual beliefs, and what his version of the Bible tells him is right. I do not believe he has some personal vendetta out for on-catholics. Also remember he's a real old fella. Oy, I'm suddenly reminded of that NBC commercial with Eric McCormack of Will and Grace saying "Hate is a four-letter word. So is love. Which word will you teach your children?" I think the Bible should be a vessel of love and helpful lessons, and not a rule book, to be taken literally. I was always taught to interpret, and find what is right for me, and have never witnessed any oppression from my particular church or catholic elementary school. Interesting though that I don't even consider myself a Christian anymore though... Damn, how long is this paragraph?

-Bell

 

[Ticklebell]

Oh and by the by, I'm not exactly what you'd call straight. Just so y'all know where I stand on this here issue. Mwah!

-Bell

 

[BigJim]

I was raised Catholic in a very nurturing environment. My mother actually works for the Catholic church. Remember that there is a veeeery wide array of the degree of hellfire-spewingness of different Catholic dioces and individual churches and priests. At my church, for instance, I was always taught that love is love and people mustn't be condemned for what in fact comes naturally to them. My mother was telling me about a conversation she just had with the priest at the local church about homosexuality, and he was saying that we should be welcoming gay people, and stop being hypocrites. Hello, Golden Rule. In my time, which is by no means a long time, I have found many protestant churches to be much more angry and condemning than the catholic church.

I'll set the record straight here TickleBell, just in case you were thinking I hated the Catholic Church in particular. 🙂 ALL religions, including the grotesque puritanism of Calvin, which was undeniably protestant; stink to high heaven. They all suuuuuuuck when it comes to practicing what they preach! I have mentioned this in other posts, but only mentioned the Catholic Church here, because of the recent news stories.

I think it would be worth mentioning though, that the bald-headed old fart wasn't just making a policy decision for the RC's. He was outright condemning and demonising people who are gay and choose to live an appropriate lifestyle. For that I hope he gets a judicious kick up the arse from any deity that happens to be listening.

 

[BigJim]

Let's face one thing, though: Priests, ministers, and other religious figures -do- have the right to decide who they will, and will not, perform a marriage ceremony for. When Nightfall and I got married, we had to look around for quite a bit before we found a rabbi who was willing to marry a Jew to a non-Jew. That's hardly unlawful discrimination.

I agree Shem, the RC church has the right to set whatever internal policies on it's rituals that it chooses. They may be unfair, discriminatory and possibly even illegal, but let it keep itself to itself. However this goes far beyond that. The Pope was declaring the christian equivalent of a fat-wah on gay people in that statement. It was a sickening, disgusting and utterly unwholesome display of ignorance and close-mindedness.
It's RC churches like Ticklebell's I admire. Places that although they stick to their dodgy doctrine, have the freeness of heart to escape from the idiocy that's caused such division and misery in human history.

I suspect, though, that the whole flap about gay marriage serves the same purpose for Bush II as flag burning did for Bush I: a non-issue that affords him the opportunity to posture for the faithful, while pushing other news off the front page for a day or two.

Quite possibly, I wouldn't put it past this administration. I wouldn't have though Dubya planned any of it though. Something this deep would require more than one and a half brain cells to plan and execute. Far beyond Dubya's capacity. I think his old man has just as much control over the administration today as he did during the years when that senile old tit Regan was "President".

 

[execmail77]

Big Jim/Ticklebell...

BIG JIM:

You state your belief below that "ALL religions... stink to high heaven. They all suuuuuuuck when it comes to practicing what they preach!" Frankly, I don't see that any particular religion is any worse than any human being practising it. We all- individuals and institutions-- fall short of our ideals, constantly. As I understand Christianity, it accepts this fact, and proposes a way to bridge that shortfall...

Secondly, you've also asserted above that "WE have the ability to decide what is right and wrong." I'm just wondering when you have two mutually exclusive ideas of what is right, how does one decide which should prevail? Against what third standard are these two standards measured to decide, and from whom or where was this higher standard derived?

And finally, you declare that "WE are God, in our collective." Can't imagine that We actually created this universe... wonder Who did?

TICKLEBELL:

You said, "Neither the government, nor the church, nor anybody else on this earth should feel that it is in their place, duty, or power to tell people whom they can or can not love and cherish..."

Don't ya think we and our government clearly have an obligation to step in when an adult male wants to "love and cherish" a little girl (to choose just one of several possible examples). I'm sure you're not arguing that we don't have a collective moral responsibility in that case. But this is the one obstacle I still haven't been able to overcome in this whole debate.

I can follow the clear logic that one's sexuality (who one is attracted to for sexual love) is not simply a "choice" (lifestyle or otherwise) as you correctly point out. In no way was my heterosexuality my own "choice." And I cannot see anyone simply "choosing" to be gay, given the opportunity to "fit in" to our culture and to avoid the unfortunate, but still likely bigotry.

Is it just "genetic?" Of course not. If it were, there'd be a 100% concordance between genetically identical twins for homosexuality. And there isn't.

Can it still be "biological," though? Yes. I believe the best research shows that one's sexuality may be strongly connected to other, non-genetic, inutero factors. Hence the reason that there IS a higher concordance of homosexuality between twins (identical and not) than for the normal sibling population (just not 100%). And if sexuality is biological, it cannot be a "moral" issue at all. It "just is," as you say, based on our reasoning thus far...

But, we're left needing to answer this question: if one's sexuality is biological, including with regards to gender, does it not also reason that the sexuality of one attracted to children is also biologically-based, and thus is not a "wrong" "choice" either?

I'm honestly NOT prepared to accept that conclusion, yet I'm left with no other reasonable explanation. And let's be sure to be clear that we're talking only about one's sexual PREFERENCES here, not one's sexual BEHAVIOR, which is a whole different discussion-- yes, I believe heterosexuals can BEHAVE "wrongly" too.

But this is THE sticking point I've yet to overcome in the debate over gay marriage, etc: if our culture can draw the one line, in a biological matter, why not the other line if they so choose?

What say you?

 

[Haltickling]

When an un-biased, un-indoctrinated person listens to their conscience and asks themselves whether something is evil, neutral or good; they're listening to "God" talking through them.

I agree with a lot of your opinions you vocalized in this thread, Jim, but not with this one:

There is no single person in this world who is unbiased or un-indoctrinated. Even a freshly born baby has been influenced by her mother's behaviour during the pregnancy. Add all the experiences throughout childhood and adolescence, education given by parents, school, TV, books, other media, all the emotional influence when spending time with friends, neighbors, lovers, colleagues. Add all that, and you'll see a biased and indoctrinated person.

execmail: A genetical reason for the attraction towards kids is not yet out of the question, the research is still going on.

But that's not the problem: While homosexuality between consenting partners doesn't harm anybody, pedophile acts do a lot of damage to children. The state has not only the right but the duty to protect those who get harmed by other people. It has no right to dictate the sexual orientation of adults.

Just another point: Quite recently, a possible genetic reason for violent or murderous behavior has been discovered. Despite that fact, the state still must protect its citizens from those persons. Ideally, they'll get medical treatments to supress the violent streak (that's entirely in the range of current pharmacy knowledge), instead of getting holed up in jail, where violence breeds, and where they'll just add to the violence. But that will not bring any voters, I guess. Bigotry often does win votes...

 

[BellaRisa]

Rather be on my own than a pawn...

Can't imagine that We actually created this universe... wonder Who did?

Um, actually...I don't think anyone did, it just kinda happened. I like that whole 'Big Boom' theory, it makes perfect sense to me; way more sense than the notion of some God who's responsible for floods, famine, pestilence, etc, and allows such destruction and suffering because that's what He/She/ It feels should happen based on a 'plan'. I much prefer random chaos to mapped out, pre-meditated atrocity.

Bella

PS having been raised in NY by loving lesbians who should've been married, my opinion on Mr. Bush should be obvious 😉

 

[execmail77]

Hi BELLA,

It might surprise you to know that I also embrace "that whole 'Big Boom' theory." I see nothing in that which excludes "creationism." The way I see it, as a part of what was created, the initial act of creation could ONLY appear to us as some sort of a "big bang." No problem seeing that both can go hand-in-hand.

But I don't see at all the "random chaos" in the universe that you see. I see a very precise order to everything; from solar systems, and ecological cycles to virtually every physical law of science.

There is absolutely no way I could ever be convinced that these immeasurably complex and very organized systems "just happened." Absolutely impossible.

Could you imagine-- I just love this old analogy-- walking down the street, and finding a wristwatch on the sidewalk, picking it up, and thinking to yourself, "hey, this must have 'just happened.' All these little parts must have just shaped themselves over time, and then found their way together by "random accident,' to begin running in such a way as to so precisely track time?"

Or would you more likely think, "there must be a watchmaker." Someone who in some way conceived of this device and then deliberately fastened it together for its purpose.

I look at our universe, which is so infinitely more complex than a simple wristwatch, and I don't think for an instant that it could ever have randomly occurred. There must be a "universe maker" somewhere. There's just no other reasonable explanation out there.

As for "some God who's responsible for floods, famine, pestilence, etc, and allows such destruction and suffering because that's what He/She/ It feels should happen based on a 'plan'", I'd suggest that that's simply arguable dogma, unrelated to the fact that there must be an actual creator of some kind to begin with.

 

[Shem the Penman]

The "Paley's Watch" argument is a poor analogy that, unfortunately, refuses to lie down and die despite having been first refuted over 150 years ago. It's a form of the logical fallacy "begging the question." You start out by immediately assuming the answer you want -- i.e. that the universe was created -- is true, and then use that to argue that there must be a creator.

If I were to find a watch on the street, I would assume it was created, yes -- but not because of its complexity. Rather, I'd assume it because I already know people are capable of making watches, and because the maker's name is probably on the back and I can always go see them and ask if they made this one.

But then, you've already stated your unwillingness to ever be convinced otherwise, so this is probably a waste of a post. And this is going way off topic. So, in an attempt to get back on topic, I'll just say that Hal nailed it in regards to the "What if someone wants to marry a kid/a horse/a corpse?" scaremongering. Adults can give consent. Kids, animals, and dead bodies can't.

 

[BigJim]

Re: Big Jim/Ticklebell...

BIG JIM:

You state your belief below that "ALL religions... stink to high heaven. They all suuuuuuuck when it comes to practicing what they preach!" Frankly, I don't see that any particular religion is any worse than any human being practising it. We all- individuals and institutions-- fall short of our ideals, constantly. As I understand Christianity, it accepts this fact, and proposes a way to bridge that shortfall...

Religions level of "suckiness" is dictated not by the people who practice it, but by the people who control and administrate it. I've known people who call themselves Christian who also believe in maiming and murdering innocents to make a political point. Namely the IRA and the arseholes who put a car-bomb on an abortion doctor's car, only to kill his wife and three kids when she went to take them to school. I've also known Christians who accept everyone in the world for what and who they are; even those who are evil and break just about every one of the 10 commandments, in the hope that they will return to "Grace" in the end.

It is the people who control the various churches who use religions for nefarious reasons, almost exclusively. This applies to all denominations and variations in all areas of the world. There's a shocking level of collusion between what on the surface appear to be dogmatic opposites, for the perpetration of negative emotions in their followers.

Secondly, you've also asserted above that "WE have the ability to decide what is right and wrong." I'm just wondering when you have two mutually exclusive ideas of what is right, how does one decide which should prevail? Against what third standard are these two standards measured to decide, and from whom or where was this higher standard derived?

Right and wrong aren't absolutes, but ideals that our perception imposes on situations we examine.There is no "right" and "wrong", but there are choices you can make which create positive or negative aftershocks. In the case of the mutually exclusive ideals, then it's a case of handling it as best you can. Even if both alternatives are destined to create some negative vibes, then one will still usually be more positive than the other. Sometimes it's even a case of doing both and mixing the good in both to dilute the bad. It's another thing I dislike about religions. Everything is so black and white. Sadly the real world isn't like that; it's shades of grey.

Perhaps if you give me a specific instance of what you mean, I could answer in more detail and give you a better description of what I mean.

And finally, you declare that "WE are God, in our collective." Can't imagine that We actually created this universe... wonder Who did?

I'm not sure if you're being obtuse because I'm attacking (what I assume) to be your faith, or being serious and mis-understanding me. I'm going to answer assuming the latter.

Why is it impossible for "Us/We" to have created the universe? If you're refering to the physical "Us/We" then obviously we couldn't, because a physical body cannot exist before the physical dimension it is supposed to be inhabiting. But the physical "Us" is only one facet of our existence, and a small one at that. I personally believe that this level of existence is only one of many that we are destined to explore in our total collective lifetime. My conception of "God" is that each human soul and each atom of matter (in all dimensions) is a single cell in His body. It's a bit like saying that if a soul is a droplet of water, then God is the ocean. It's sort of a blend of Taoist concept and spirituality, although I believe the New Age movement is just another attempt to hi-jack human spirituality and put a different sign on the door. The New Age "Sananda" is just another Jesus/Horus/Tammuz/Mithra/Quetzalcoatl/Bacchus/Dionysus/Sol Invictus figure. The universe is swimming with spiritual energy from which I believe our souls came, and will return to when we exit the genetic space suit, we call the physical body. Every time we experience an emotion we create ripples or "vibrations" in it. Negative feelings like guilt, anger, vengeance, misery etc, create a consciousness that can in itself be sentinent. (Which is nothing but helped by most religions, although some people break the mould and actually express a loving spirituality through their faiths. Those people I admire greatly.) That vibrational energy field can affect the consciousness of people who fall under it. A good example would be the mass-hysteria experienced by even non-nazis at the Neuremberg rallies.
In the same way people can choose to free themselves of such bad feelings and express love, acceptance, forgiveness and leave the negativity behind. That creates a consciousness one might call "Christ-like", I suppose. That also can affect people who allow themselves to gravitate towards it.

So God in my definition is the sum total of everything that exists in all dimensions and we have free agency to use it's power for positive or negative. Even the negativity serves God/Allah/Yahweh/spirit/the Force in the end, because when we experience negativity we have the opportunity to learn from it and leave it behind.

Have you ever read any of my posts on religion Exec? I think you might find them thought-provoking, even if you strongly disagree with my opinions.