Author Topic: Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)  (Read 2881 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Skip

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4206
  • Manna: 45
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #35 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 13:55:51 »
This is an article that may help to give some "real data" in this thread. This is primarily to correct one poster's misperception that lack of homosexual monogamous relationships was tied to the legal "marriage".

Reference: Canada census figures for marriage:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/famil04.htm

On the more sickening side, I will make the blunt (but not pretty) observation that in three of the last four places that I've lived the police battled a problem in city parks or rest stops as documented by the local news (Lincoln, NE, St. Louis, MO, Huntsville/Decatur, AL). Those of you in north Alabama who watch the local news will be able to vouch for the factuality of this - Decatur in particular has been a problem area. The problem was homosexual men looking for quick sexual encounters, often in broad daylight and in public view (including in view of children). The likeness to Paul's description in Romans 1 is striking - there is no shame in these highly public encounters; sometimes other people were just a few feet away, but the act proceeded anyway. Given that the homosexual population is estimated to be less than 5% of the total population, the frequency of these encounters and the number of arrests for public indecency were far out of line with the 95+% that is heterosexual, where public indecency is less frequent and almost always associated with intoxication and/or drug use - which not the case with the homosexual arrests.

--Skip

---------

Gay men not rushing to altar
Jonah Goldberg
September 3, 2003


Homosexuals can't have it both ways, and I don't mean because it would technically make them bisexual.

The Sunday New York Times ran a startling front-page story over Labor Day weekend. It was startling as much for its content as for its location. The New York Times, which has been one of the English-speaking world's most adamant advocates of gay marriage, ran a story incontrovertibly hostile to the idea. The story made all of the points that conservative opponents of gay marriage have been making for years.

The Times' story noted an interesting development north of the border: Now that gays are free to marry, not many of them want to.

Between June 10, when a Canadian court legalized gay marriage, and Aug. 25, only 590 gay and lesbian couples had applied for gay marriage licenses in Toronto. And, reports the Times, more than a hundred of those were Americans who crossed the border. Toronto, by the way, is the home of Canada's largest homosexual population - I'm talking numerically, I don't mean that only gay dudes who shop at "Big and Tall" stores live in Toronto.

The reason for this surprising reluctance on the part of gay men to marry is that, well, many gay men don't want to get married.

The Times reporter, Clifford Krauss, finds all sorts of homosexual men who are perfectly willing to denigrate the institution of marriage. Most of the men simply "don't believe" in monogamy.

The editor of Fab magazine, a leading Canadian gay publication, tells Krauss, "I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play."

A special issue of Fab dedicated to the gay marriage scene in Toronto also included a cautionary essay by sociologist Rinaldo Walcott. He complained that marriage might just be too boring for homosexuals. "I can already hear folks saying things like: 'Why are bathhouses needed? Straights don't have them,'" he wrote. "Will queers now have to live with the heterosexual forms of guilt associated with something called cheating?"

"Something called cheating"?

What such cutely ironic post-modern quips reveal is that many in the gay community don't really mean it when they say they want access to the institution of marriage.

First of all, it's not "something called cheating," it's cheating, pure and simple. I have no doubt that most homosexuals understand perfectly well what cheating is and understand that the concept applies to all sorts of relationships. Pretending otherwise may seem clever or enlightened, but such word games are astoundingly stupid.

Why? Well, because marriage is an institution of rules. If pro-gay marriage activists aren't liars, they should respect those rules and not seek to undermine them. Pro-same-sex marriage advocates, including the editorial board of The New York Times, constantly compare gays to blacks under Jim Crow. They flatly assert that male-male unions are directly analogous to white-black marriages in the days when racial intermarriage was illegal.

I've never thought such comparisons were sound, and this story demonstrates why. No blacks denounced the concept of monogamy in their struggle to do away with anti-miscegenation laws. When Jackie Robinson fought his way into professional baseball, he didn't want to change the rules of the game. He wanted the rules to apply to him to [sic]. The same goes for integrating the army, the schools, etc.

Perhaps it's a sign of how far the pro-gray marriage argument has progressed that The New York Times now feels comfortable to float stories more or less undermining the idea of gay marriage. Until recently all good liberals - gay and straight - had to be on the same page, saying that gays are just like everybody else.

And, yes, I know from talking to homosexuals that many gays do, in fact, feel that way. But some gay activists see marriage as a kind of prison they'd like to dismantle, and conservatives who suggested otherwise were branded as bigots and homophobes who "just don't get it."

Well, if the activists think marriage can still be something called marriage, after the folks at Fab magazine rewrite all the rules, then they are the ones who just don't get it.


Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online, a TownHall.com member group.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #35 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 13:55:51 »

Offline charlie

  • Quoted on every stupid baptism thread
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
  • Manna: 95
  • Gender: Male
  • Here I come to save the day
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #36 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 14:06:57 »
Okay, next question. How are Christians going to stop gay marriages or civil unions from becoming legal? Between the hypothetically proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual and Massachusetts' move to go ahead and allow homosexual unions, who's got their finger in the dyke and how can Christians help out the cause?

If we say we're not giving in an inch on this one, who exactly is asking for our permission?

boringoldguy

  • Guest
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #37 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 14:12:22 »
The last article makes pretty clear that the real reason behind the press for gay marriage is the desire for favorable tax rates and getting on the "partner's" insurance plan at work.

As I've said, I think that the effort to oppose homosexual "marriage" is probably going to suffer a temporary defeat.    I think so because it appears to me, barring some real political courage in Massachusetts, that the only way to stop it will be by constitutional amendment and I doubt that the amendment can be passed.

As an alternate strategy I think Christians should seriously consider an effort to abolish civil marriage altogether.   If we believe that marriage is an institution established by God, then its regulation is the province of the church, not the government.     That would entail our giving up being able to file joint tax returns and putting our spouses on our employer-provided insurance policies (for those who have employers and/or insurance.)   In other words, it would cost a lot, but I think it may be the best plan.   Marriages, divorces, etc. would be in the hands of the couple's church.  People without a church could make whatever arrangements they saw fit, but they wouldn't be married.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #37 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 14:12:22 »

Offline charlie

  • Quoted on every stupid baptism thread
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
  • Manna: 95
  • Gender: Male
  • Here I come to save the day
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #38 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 15:09:19 »
I think Christians have a better chance of convincing gays that their behavior is wrong than they do of abolishing all civil unions. The words 'snowball' and 'hell' come to mind.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #38 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 15:09:19 »

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #39 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 16:04:12 »
charlie,

At the very least we could call our representative and senators (local and national) and demanding that they pass a constitutional admendment defining marriage, participate in petitions, etc.

At the same time, to prepare for the worse, Christians (in the widest possible sense) of like mind can form agreements to recognize each other's "church marriages", independant of state sanctioned marriage. My thinking is if the state recognizes same-sex "marriages" then those marriages aren't worth the paper their written on. Christian shouldn't even participate in the farce. Unfortunately, many churches rely on the concept of if your married by the State then you are married, if you are not married by the State then you are not married.

On the side issue of benefits I don't think health insurance for a spouse is a law. I think the law is that an employer must offer health insurance to its employees that doesn't have to extend to his or her family. Filing joint tax returns really isn't a benefit, in fact, there was push a few years ago to eliminate the marriage penalty in filing joint returns.

Ken

Christian Forums and Message Board

Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #39 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 16:04:12 »



boringoldguy

  • Guest
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #40 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 16:19:26 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (s1n4m1n @ Dec. 02 2003,4:04)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]charlie,

At the very least we could call our representative and senators (local and national) and demanding that they pass a constitutional admendment defining marriage, participate in petitions, etc.

At the same time, to prepare for the worse, Christians (in the widest possible sense) of like mind can form agreements to recognize each other's "church marriages", independant of state sanctioned marriage. My thinking is if the state recognizes same-sex "marriages" then those marriages aren't worth the paper their written on. Christian shouldn't even participate in the farce. Unfortunately, many churches rely on the concept of if your married by the State then you are married, if you are not married by the State then you are not married.

On the side issue of benefits I don't think health insurance for a spouse is a law. I think the law is that an employer must offer health insurance to its employees that doesn't have to extend to his or her family. Filing joint tax returns really isn't a benefit, in fact, there was push a few years ago to eliminate the marriage penalty in filing joint returns.

Ken[/quote]
Actually, there's no law that says employers have to offer health insurance to anyone.   The practice originated in WWII when there were strict wage and price controls.    Employers who wanted to keep employees from leaving couldn't give them raises, but they could offer medical insurance and started doing it.   The Internal Revenue Code made it more attractice to employees, because the insurance was't counted as taxable income.  (The self employed must pay for their insurance with after-tax dollars, subject to some deductions that are allowed.)

This is about to become an issue out in California however.   Apparantly, state law out there requires that any empoyer-sponsored health plan must include contraceptives.  The Catholic Church is involved in litigation over whether it must provide contraceptives or whether it can be excused on religious grounds.    If they lose, they'll be faced with either violating their religious precepts or else discontinuing insurance for their employees (including the thousands who work at Catholic hospitals.)

Christian Forums and Message Board

Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #40 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 16:19:26 »

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #41 on: Tue Dec 02, 2003 - 16:30:11 »
BOG,

If that's the case then there is even less benefit to a state sanction marriage. Maybe it would be instructive to look at the benefits a government recognized marriage provides.

All I can think of is it provides a joint ownership of property automatically.

Anyone please add to the list.

Ken

Offline charlie

  • Quoted on every stupid baptism thread
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3361
  • Manna: 95
  • Gender: Male
  • Here I come to save the day
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #42 on: Wed Dec 03, 2003 - 06:12:44 »
My wife and I save quite a bit in taxes by filing jointly. Of course, that's just us. It's probably different for others.

Ken, I'm intrigued by your proposal that churches band together to have purely ecclesiastical marriages instead of civil unions. I can't remember where, but I've heard similar proposals from religious leaders. Apparently, writing down your marriage in a family bible is just as legally stout as getting a notorized marriage licence. I don't know much about the legal history of marriages in this country, but I do know that it wasn't that long ago that family bibles were serious archives of official information rather than just dust protection for a square-foot of the coffee table. I'm not sure that much of the church would go along with this, though. Like I said, it might be easier to convince gays that, if they want to follow Christ, they must shun evil and do good, and gay sex is an evil to be shunned.

Anyway, that proposal makes more sense than trying to block state recognition of gay unions on the grounds of immorality when adulterous unions are already recognized.

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #43 on: Wed Dec 03, 2003 - 10:57:53 »
Charlie,

I guess if the wife is a homemaker then filing jointly is an advantage. If the wife and husband both have incomes then I don't know if filing jointly is an advantage.

So here are the secular advantages to marriage:

1) Automatic joint property ownership
2) Automatic guardianship over spouse in event of disability
3) Tax advantage if one spouse does not have an income

Does the State give any other benefits?


Ken

Christian Forums and Message Board

Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #43 on: Wed Dec 03, 2003 - 10:57:53 »

Offline Zaphod

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #44 on: Thu Dec 18, 2003 - 18:01:08 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Booty @ Oct. 20 2003,06:23)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I strongly feel that marriages are of God and unions are of Ceasar.[/quote]
WOO! Good one!

VERY nice!  :thumbup:

Offline NLuquire

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
  • Manna: 0
    • View Profile

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #46 on: Fri Feb 06, 2004 - 16:03:23 »
I'd thought I'd try and re-ignite discussion on this topic. The MassachuSEX supreme court is basically mandating same-sex "marriages" (btw, I strongly suggest everyone putting that term in quotes, to deny its validity) in its state. The State Senate gave every civil benefit of marriage to "civil unions" but that was not enough. I think that is a good thing because it stops the word games being played.

BTW, I reread this thread from the beginning. I find Janine's definition of marriage as incorrect. She said marriage was between "two persons". That is incorrect, the term marriage is and has always been more specific, it is between "a man and woman".

Ken

boringoldguy

  • Guest
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #47 on: Fri Feb 06, 2004 - 17:13:29 »
Well, this is all fascinating for a variety of reasons.   Among other things, I think this makes an amendment to the US Constituion the only way to stop this from being forced upon all the states by means of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

It all has fascinating ramifications for the upcoming elections if GW can work it properly.   Politically, I think he is best advised to play this up as a democratic rule of the people kind of thing -  we want to make sure that a few judges in one little state don't get to change the law for everybody in the whole country.

That puts Kerry in a box - if he supports "letting the people decide" then a wealthy and important pressure group in his party is up in arms;   if he opposes the amendment, then Bush can lambast for supporting "judicial tyranny" (a charge that carries some weight  in this situation) and opposing the right of the people to govern themselves, and doesn't really have to hammer homosexuals too hard.  (There will be other folks happy to do that job for him.)

Alternatively, if Congress won't act, I think there are 37 or 38 states that have passed "Defense of Marriage" acts.  Perhaps those legislatures could be cajoled into calling a Constitutional Convention.  That would be interesting, wouldn't it?   Everything would be up for grabs then.

Offline Jim Abb

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Manna: 21
  • Gender: Male
  • Now where did I leave my pants?
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #48 on: Fri Feb 06, 2004 - 21:50:32 »
BOG I think you are on the right track regarding the Constitution. The only remedy for both the homosexual marriage issue and the abortion issue can be in the form of a Constituional amendment.
 Even with 16 years of Reagan and Bush we still have abortion. Without  a specific Constitutional ban the courts will continue to rule the way they have.
But Charlie's "snowball and hell" come to mind.
Jim

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #49 on: Fri Feb 06, 2004 - 21:54:32 »
How about a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to nullify Supreme Court decisions. This would restore some of the balance of powers that supposed to exist between the three branches of government.

Really, I think if the Congress and President grew some backbone, maybe do some impeachments for some decisions. The Court will be put back in its place.

Ken

Offline Jim Abb

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 948
  • Manna: 21
  • Gender: Male
  • Now where did I leave my pants?
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #50 on: Fri Feb 06, 2004 - 22:15:40 »
Just a reminder that the majority of members on the Supreme Court are Republicans. Sometimes an honest judge must rule against his own beliefs because he understands that without the law there is no law. That is why we need amendments that will enable judges to have a law to back their positions. From a legal standpoint I think the courts in Massachusetts ruled correctly. To rule differently will necessitate a change in law. And that falls back on the Congress.
Jim

Offline Arkstfan

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
  • Manna: 93
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #51 on: Sat Feb 07, 2004 - 08:16:46 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]How about a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to nullify Supreme Court decisions. This would restore some of the balance of powers that supposed to exist between the three branches of government.

Really, I think if the Congress and President grew some backbone, maybe do some impeachments for some decisions. The Court will be put back in its place.[/quote]
Congress can do it. If 2/3rds of each house agrees they can send a proposed amendment to the states and if 3/4ths agree they can change the constitution.

Mere nullification eliminates the need for a Supreme Court and all law will simply be a popularity contest. Given the chance in the 50's the Congress would have nullifed Brown v. Board of Education.

As to impeachment if you want break the law and impeach justices for not agreeing with you (despite scriptural calls to obey the law of the government) it is possible to do only if you ignore Article II, Section 4.  The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Personally I think Christians need to quit wasting so much time trying to get the government to enforce and regulate codes of conduct that they want and use these distressing developments to actually reach people.

Outlawing homosexual relations to force the non-believer to take on the outward behavior of the saved does NOTHING for the non-believer. The unsaved homosexual is sentenced to death at the judgement of the Lord. The unsaved who is forced into heterosexual behavior by law is still sentenced to death. The unsaved heterosexual is sentenced to death even if he has never once had the slightest urge toward a member of the same sex. The law of man does not save. If anything the law of man forcing moral behavior probably hurts evangelism since we believers on the surface would seem to act exactly like the people we are supposed to be encouraging to repent and accept Christ.

Reaching him or her and letting God change their heart is the only effective remedy, not a law.

Offline s1n4m1n

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3651
  • Manna: 55
  • Gender: Male
  • Another Day's Work
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #52 on: Sat Feb 07, 2004 - 11:45:30 »
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Congress can do it. If 2/3rds of each house agrees they can send a proposed amendment to the states and if 3/4ths agree they can change the constitution.
[/quote]

Lots of hoops to jump through to rectify problems caused by a simple majority of SC justices who, in my opinion, seemed to make it up as they go along (I'm thinking of the Lawerance decision).

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Mere nullification eliminates the need for a Supreme Court and all law will simply be a popularity contest. Given the chance in the 50's the Congress would have nullifed Brown v. Board of Education.
[/quote]

Based on the decisions the SC has been making, it seems like the need for a Legislative branch has been eliminated.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]As to impeachment if you want break the law and impeach justices for not agreeing with you (despite scriptural calls to obey the law of the government) it is possible to do only if you ignore Article II, Section 4.  The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
[/quote]

I don't know why you think impeachment is "breaking the law" since the Legislature has the authority to impeach, given to it by the Constitution. Don't the Justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Shouldn't they be removed for violating their oath.

Ken

Offline janine

  • Guardian-Patroller of Lee's Outer Darkness
  • Global Moderator
  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14000
  • Manna: 370
  • Gender: Female
  • Good Stuff
    • View Profile
Same-Sex Unions (no, not Teamsters, ha)
« Reply #53 on: Sat Feb 07, 2004 - 14:14:07 »
Since the revival of the discussion has centered on political/legislative handles on the matter, I will shift this to Politics.

And yeah, I should have specified, re: the two persons in a marriage... one should be an "innie" and one and "outie". :thumbs-up: