Same Sex Marriages?

[Lordfoul]

Marriage in the pure biblical sense is for one purpose only- procreation. Last time I checked this is physically impossible for a same sex couple to do this.

Sex in a biblical sense is also only for procreation

Sex in a biblical sense is also only to be had between married people.

I bet your bible only comes out when it suits your argument.

/SM

[bodypaul]

Hey meemiathai!!

I have never sh*gged a homosexual but I have sh*gged a man who has!!!

[wolf5370]

Does that make you BodyPaulette then?

[Tornado]

Just how narrow-minded one can be!!!!!!!!!!

You tell me

[cathyy]

The biggest problem with the gay marriage issue here in the states is semantics. The word marriage has two meanings. First, there is the legal contact between two people, recognized by the state, and verified by the issue of a license. Second, there is the religious sacrament between two people and God, recognized by a church.

No law allowing gay marriage can ever change the second meaning against the will of the church. It's that good old separation gig.

The first meaning is what is up for debate. But here's the key point: a gay marriage, recognized by the state, verified by a license, has to be recognized by the Federal government as well. That means access to Social Security benefits for the spouse, the right to make medical decisions for the spouse when the spouse is unable, Income tax penalties or benefits, etc. A so called "civil union" confers many fewer benefits, like possibly the right to be on the spouse's medical insurance, and is not recognized by another state or the Federal government. That's why the push for gay *marriage* rather than civil unions. They aren't even close to being the same thing legally. I think most people believe that a civil union would carry the same benefits as marriage but without the church involvement. I know I did until I did my research into the issue.

So there it is. I see it as a moot question, anyway. I expect a Supreme Court decision affirming the right to gay marriage no matter what the religious right does to prevent it. It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

[wolf5370]

Just how narrow-minded one can be!!!!!!!!!! 

You tell me

Er, wasn't a question I think.

"Just how narrow-minded CAN ONE be?" would be a question, and this is 4.5 inches aprox.

"Just how narrow-minded ONE CAN be!" is a statement.

[bodypaul]

Just a joke to lighten thing up ..... some serious stuff tho!!

[Tornado]

Just how narrow-minded one can be!!!!!!!!!! 

You tell me

Er, wasn't a question I think.

"Just how narrow-minded CAN ONE be?" would be a question, and this is 4.5 inches aprox.

"Just how narrow-minded ONE CAN be!" is a statement.

serious question - are you gay?

[20yearsinthai]

Same sex marriage is a simple matter of civil rights. It took the U.S. Supreme Court 17 years to make marriage outside of ones race a consitutional right throughout the U.S. after the California Supreme Court made it legal in California.. At that time, over 80% of all Americans were opposed to inter-racial marriage. Of course the religious right and the churches were outraged, as they are now about same-sex marriage. Now interracial marriageit is a no brainer, especially in Thailand.

Less than 60% of people in the U.S. are opposed to same-sex marriage. That number is decreasing, much to the credit of the American people, despite their presedent's unsuccessful attempt to get a constitutional ammendment to ban it before the courts rule on the unconsitutionality of this discrimination against a distinct class of citizens.

I was deep into my emotional prejudice against interracial marriage at the time it was illegal in almost every state in the Union and I often remarked how Sammy Davis's children, issuing from his marriage to Brit Eklund, would probably come out pokka-dot. I am deeply ashamed about how wrong I was at the time.

I wonder how those in this forum, who are married to Thai ladies now, would have felt had they lived in the U.S. at the time such a union was illlegal and condemed by more than 80% of their fellow citizens. If they are too young to have lived when their current marriage was condemed, perhaps they could emphathize a little with the gay citizens of the world who are discriminated against by the denial of a basic civil right, as they would have likewise been condemed, ostrasized and treated as a criminal in most States as they would have been had they been in their current marriage only 40 years ago in the U. S.

How can you compare interracial sex marriage with same sex marriage?

Why do they want to institutionalize same sex marruiages?

Maybe I'm old fashioned but I just dont get it.

[Tornado]

The biggest problem with the gay marriage issue here in the states is semantics. The word marriage has two meanings. First, there is the legal contact between two people, recognized by the state, and verified by the issue of a license. Second, there is the religious sacrament between two people and God, recognized by a church.

No law allowing gay marriage can ever change the second meaning against the will of the church. It's that good old separation gig.

The first meaning is what is up for debate. But here's the key point: a gay marriage, recognized by the state, verified by a license, has to be recognized by the Federal government as well. That means access to Social Security benefits for the spouse, the right to make medical decisions for the spouse when the spouse is unable, Income tax penalties or benefits, etc. A so called "civil union" confers many fewer benefits, like possibly the right to be on the spouse's medical insurance, and is not recognized by another state or the Federal government. That's why the push for gay *marriage* rather than civil unions. They aren't even close to being the same thing legally. I think most people believe that a civil union would carry the same benefits as marriage but without the church involvement. I know I did until I did my research into the issue.

So there it is. I see it as a moot question, anyway. I expect a Supreme Court decision affirming the right to gay marriage no matter what the religious right does to prevent it. It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

so is paedophilia determined to be unconstituonal by your thought process, should that be legal to?

Only in America!

[britmaveric]

Narrow minded? Moi- nah be honest with you I'd could care less. I'm giving you an arguement whether its right/wrong is for you to decide.

Anyways I shant say anymore.

[20yearsinthai]

The biggest problem with the gay marriage issue here in the states is semantics. The word marriage has two meanings. First, there is the legal contact between two people, recognized by the state, and verified by the issue of a license. Second, there is the religious sacrament between two people and God, recognized by a church.

No law allowing gay marriage can ever change the second meaning against the will of the church. It's that good old separation gig.

The first meaning is what is up for debate. But here's the key point: a gay marriage, recognized by the state, verified by a license, has to be recognized by the Federal government as well. That means access to Social Security benefits for the spouse, the right to make medical decisions for the spouse when the spouse is unable, Income tax penalties or benefits, etc. A so called "civil union" confers many fewer benefits, like possibly the right to be on the spouse's medical insurance, and is not recognized by another state or the Federal government. That's why the push for gay *marriage* rather than civil unions. They aren't even close to being the same thing legally. I think most people believe that a civil union would carry the same benefits as marriage but without the church involvement. I know I did until I did my research into the issue.

So there it is. I see it as a moot question, anyway. I expect a Supreme Court decision affirming the right to gay marriage no matter what the religious right does to prevent it. It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

Are you saying that the main reason for this is to get the material benefits as a normal marriage??

So now even more of our tax dollars will be needed to pay these benefits.

[wolf5370]

 

(wolf5370 @ Wed 2004-07-28, 20:04:52)

 

Just how narrow-minded one can be!!!!!!!!!! 

You tell me

Er, wasn't a question I think.

"Just how narrow-minded CAN ONE be?" would be a question, and this is 4.5 inches aprox.

"Just how narrow-minded ONE CAN be!" is a statement.

serious question - are you gay?

hahahaha - I hope that wasn't serious Tornado, because that would be a down-pat "backed-in-a-corner-have-to-hit-back" type response a homophobe would give. Nah, must have been a joke, right?

...but I'll answer anyway. No, I'm not. I am just absolutely secure in my sexuality and human enough to consider other people feelings, and differences to allow for variation.

I have 5 kids (with 3 mothers ), have been married twice, have never had a period of more than 6 months (during my divorce and for legal reasons) since being sexually active (at 13) that I have not been in a sexual relationship with a female (I am, of course, male). I had my first child at 15 (which was given up for adoption - not my choice), and my last at 31. I have never had a crush, relationship, kiss or whatever with a male (obviously kissed my Dad and Grandfathers when I was younger).

I do not believe in making threads personal, so I will not retuen the question., but come on seriously, what harm do they do to you?

[Tornado]

 

(wolf5370 @ Wed 2004-07-28, 20:04:52)

 

Just how narrow-minded one can be!!!!!!!!!!  

You tell me

Er, wasn't a question I think.

"Just how narrow-minded CAN ONE be?" would be a question, and this is 4.5 inches aprox.

"Just how narrow-minded ONE CAN be!" is a statement.

serious question - are you gay?

hahahaha - I hope that wasn't serious Tornado, because that would be a down-pat "backed-in-a-corner-have-to-hit-back" type response a homophobe would give. Nah, must have been a joke, right?

...but I'll answer anyway. No, I'm not. I am just absolutely secure in my sexuality and human enough to consider other people feelings, and differences to allow for variation.

I have 5 kids (with 3 mothers ), have been married twice, have never had a period of more than 6 months (during my divorce and for legal reasons) since being sexually active (at 13) that I have not been in a sexual relationship with a female (I am, of course, male). I had my first child at 15 (which was given up for adoption - not my choice), and my last at 31. I have never had a crush, relationship, kiss or whatever with a male (obviously kissed my Dad and Grandfathers when I was younger).

I do not believe in making threads personal, so I will not retuen the question., but come on seriously, what harm do they do to you?

yes it was a straight question, so what is the problem with the question?

Ok so your not gay and neither am I.

I am aslo secure in my sexuality and married with one biological child and sponsor 3 Thai kids for school.

So you have stated you are human enough to consider other peoples feelings -well these are mine that I posted on this thread.

[wolf5370]

...and I never denied you the right to them either.

Just seems you got a little defensive - best form of defense is attack nes pas?

The question "Are you gay?" implies that I would have to be, by your reckoning at least, to be to have such views.

Incidently, it was the grammar I was touching on, not the topic.

[cathyy]

Are you saying that the main reason for this is to get the material benefits as a normal marriage??

So now even more of our tax dollars will be needed to pay these benefits.

Actually, not the material benefits but the legal benefits. The legal status as spouse has a lot of rights that go with it. The material ones are just the ones that come to mind first. As far as tax dollars, a gay couple, on average, is in a higher socio-economic group than the average non-gay couple. They already contribute far more in taxes than they will ever receive in benefits.

[cathyy]

so is paedophilia determined to be unconstituonal by your thought process, should that be legal to?

Only in America!

Don't be absurd. Paedophiles have nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage is limited to consenting adults, remember that age requirement for a license?

[kat]

The biggest problem with the gay marriage issue here in the states is semantics.  The word marriage has two meanings. First, there is the legal contact between two people, recognized by the state, and verified by the issue of a license.  Second, there is the religious sacrament between two people and God, recognized by a church.

No law allowing gay marriage can ever change the second meaning against the will of the church. It's that good old separation gig.

The first meaning is what is up for debate. But here's the key point: a gay marriage, recognized by the state, verified by a license, has to be recognized by the Federal government as well. That means access to Social Security benefits for the spouse, the right to make medical decisions for the spouse when the spouse is unable, Income tax penalties or benefits, etc.  A so called "civil union" confers many fewer benefits, like possibly the right to be on the spouse's medical insurance, and is not recognized by another state or the Federal government. That's why the push for gay *marriage* rather than civil unions. They aren't even close to being the same thing legally. I think most people believe that a civil union would carry the same benefits as marriage but without the church involvement.  I know I did until I did my research into the issue.

So there it is. I see it as a moot question, anyway.  I expect a Supreme Court decision affirming the right to gay marriage no matter what the religious right does to prevent it.  It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

so is paedophilia determined to be unconstituonal by your thought process, should that be legal to?

Only in America!

Excuse me, but comparing pedophila to sex between two consenual adults or peers is not only grossly inaccurate and unfair to actual victims of pedophila, but it is extremely ignorant and bigoted.

Let's see, using your same logic (which, admittedly is difficult because there is no logic in your argument), one could say that marriage to a Thai woman is like marrying a prostitute; and we all now how wrong that is, right?

And btw, marriage in the bibilical sense was also fundamentally about property and tribal alliances, which is why girl children were basically sold or given away by their fathers. Yes, that is a tradition that originated in the Old Testament, not the Koran.

[Tornado]

It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

The sentence I referred to ladies!

[wolf5370]

And btw, marriage in the bibilical sense was also fundamentally about property and tribal alliances, which is why girl children were basically sold or given away by their fathers. Yes, that is a tradition that originated in the Old Testament, not the Koran.

Of course, the Koran did not exist yet when the Old Testemant (or books that made it up) were written, and the now-a-day muslims worshipped the same god and followed the same teachings - Moses lived with Arabs in the desert.

[Tornado]

so is paedophilia determined to be unconstituonal by your thought process, should that be legal to?

Only in America!

Don't be absurd. Paedophiles have nothing to do with gay marriage. Gay marriage is limited to consenting adults, remember that age requirement for a license?

Maybe you should of expressed your point better

[Tornado]

If all of the people on this planet were gay we would be extinct without scientific help.......... tell me that is not so?

How many gay animals do you see on this planet?

Now go and jump on your soap box somewhere else, you have no educated answer to this as there is none.

[ka12345]

How many gay animals do you see on this planet?

Now go and jump on your soap box somewhere else, you have no educated answer to this as there is none.

Without looking it up, dogs, sheep, goats, penguins and several others engage in homosexual acts. But I don't think they get married.

[The Gentleman Scamp]

I'm surprised that 4 pages in, the subject of how kids would find a life with a mother with a penis or a father figure with a vagina has barely been brushed upon.

I for one would not like to be the kid in the school playground with all his peers sniggering behind their lollipops because they all know that my parents were far from 'normal'.

And sorry, but when you are between the ages of 5 and 15 then being 'normal' and fitting in is very important - it's actually of upmost importance because how you are accepted at school can affect your confidence for the rest of your life.

[Tornado]

How many gay animals do you see on this planet?

Now go and jump on your soap box somewhere else, you have no educated answer to this as there is none. 

Without looking it up, dogs, sheep, goats, penguins and several others engage in homosexual acts. But I don't think they get married.

If all of the people on this planet were gay we would be extinct without scientific help.......... tell me that is not so?

I noticed you left this one out!

Check and post your findings on gay animals , Ill be waiting here for you

[kat]

And btw, marriage in the bibilical sense was also fundamentally about property and tribal alliances, which is why girl children were basically sold or given away by their fathers. Yes, that is a tradition that originated in the Old Testament, not the Koran.

Of course, the Koran did not exist yet when the Old Testemant (or books that made it up) were written, and the now-a-day muslims worshipped the same god and followed the same teachings - Moses lived with Arabs in the desert.

No, you are right, the Koran did not exist when the narratives comprising the Old Testament were formed and written because Islam did not yet exist. Judasim is the first and oldest monotheistic religion (well, actually, this is widely quoted, but also very debatable, because I think Zoronastrionism (sorry for the spelling) from Persia was the first monotheisitic religion.

And yes, although Moses lived with Beoudin tribes in the desert, they did not yet worship the same god. This is because the whole point of the Old Testament is the struggle of Moses to bring monotheistic worship to the tribe of the Israelites. All the other tribes around them at this time were polythesistic.

[Tornado]

It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

The sentence I referred to ladies!

Apology for your unprovoked flame at me Kat? and by the way you are way off topic at the moment.

[ka12345]

How many gay animals do you see on this planet?

Now go and jump on your soap box somewhere else, you have no educated answer to this as there is none. 

Without looking it up, dogs, sheep, goats, penguins and several others engage in homosexual acts. But I don't think they get married.

If all of the people on this planet were gay we would be extinct without scientific help.......... tell me that is not so?

I noticed you left this one out!

Check and post your findings on gay animals , Ill be waiting here for you

I left out your first question because that is obvious. If the gene that cause homosexual behaviour would spread to all humans or animals of a certain species of course they would go extinct. But how would that happen?

This genetic defect affects a small percentage of the population (humans or animals) and there is nothing that indicates that it is 'spreading'.

I already told you, dogs, sheep, goats and penguins are the ones I know about that engage in homosexual acts. I am sure there are others but I won't waste time on looking it up.

[Tornado]

How many gay animals do you see on this planet?

Now go and jump on your soap box somewhere else, you have no educated answer to this as there is none. 

Without looking it up, dogs, sheep, goats, penguins and several others engage in homosexual acts. But I don't think they get married.

If all of the people on this planet were gay we would be extinct without scientific help.......... tell me that is not so?

I noticed you left this one out!

Check and post your findings on gay animals , Ill be waiting here for you

I left out your first question because that is obvious. If the gene that cause homosexual behaviour would spread to all humans or animals of a certain species of course they would go extinct. But how would that happen?

This genetic defect affects a small percentage of the population (humans or animals) and there is nothing that indicates that it is 'spreading'.

I already told you, dogs, sheep, goats and penguins are the ones I know about that engage in homosexual acts. I am sure there are others but I won't waste time on looking it up.

So now it is a defect? So us straight people have the responsibilty to breed, while the gay community stand by for us and get ridiculous rights?

In your thought process - "it is a defect", why then shouldnt we be spending money on medicine to help these people?, instead of supporting them and making it fashionable to kids of today.

Was Aids started by homosexual behavour?

I have never seen my dog having anal intercourse with another male or have I ever heard of that before. If you have a scientific link to it, it would put it to rest now wouldnt it? waste your time and prove me wrong, I am open to scientific facts, but your word doesnt mean a thing.

[kat]

How many gay animals do you see on this planet?

Now go and jump on your soap box somewhere else, you have no educated answer to this as there is none. 

Without looking it up, dogs, sheep, goats, penguins and several others engage in homosexual acts. But I don't think they get married.

If all of the people on this planet were gay we would be extinct without scientific help.......... tell me that is not so?

I noticed you left this one out!

Check and post your findings on gay animals , Ill be waiting here for you

Tornado, now you are making me laugh Ok, I can't meet your exact challenge at the moment, because I wouldn't know where the ###### to find statistics or facts on gay animals, and I don't think I would want to spend my time on a farm researching this question.

But I have heard it reported that same-sex behaviour between animals exists. There has also been recent research that argues that homosexuality begins in the womb due to a chemical change as gender is assigned, or something to that effect.

What I'm sure of, is that there are genuinely gay people on this earth who have no choice of who they love and why they are attracted. They are as varied as all the other people on the earth. Have you actually ever known gay people? How can you comment if you have not?

I hate to bring up Oprah Winfrey , but a show she did does come to mind at the moment. It was about a little 3 year old boy, that was already exhibiting undeniably flaming gay persona. He was already uncompromisingly stating his preference for all things feminine, to the absolute horror of his father. His father tried to do force "boy" things on him, and basically punished him emotionally for his preferences. This little boy started exhibiting a hatred for his father to such an extent that he was starting to deny that it was his father.

And the thing is, the father will never be able to change a child that shows such a strong preference so young. That boy is gay. Don't you think it would be much better for the father to accept the son as he is as long as he continues to be a good person? Why should a country deny the basic right of civil unions to gay and lesbian people?

I am not gay or lesbian, but I have many gay and lesbian friends from university and community work that I did. Two of my friends are lesbians that have been together for 18 years. 18 YEARS! They own a house together, raise kids together, are highly educated, and their children are already showing a precociousness beyond their years.

I don't know, call it whatever you want: marriage or civil unions, but I don't think the union of penis and womb is a precondition to civil rights. For some hetrosexual couples, marriage is a ###### tax shelter. So, how can hetrosexuals judge? If we follow this path, then we will start to dictate which hetrosexuals are worthy of marriage. And trust me, that would definitely have more of an impact on marriage than gay people ever can.