Liam

Oh well, depending on various religion.....some sins fall under either what they call venial or mortal sins. But you see, whether we agree or not to religions' interpretations, it is not for us to dictate to them how they should interpret and practice. No one in gay marriage debate has *ever* attempted to dictate to a religious organization how they should or should not honor certain marriages. I would never support that. What we want is equal access to a certain state-issued license.

A friend just emailed me this interesting opinion piece from the NY Times (registration may be required)... http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/opinion/...r=1&oref=slogin My favorite line was about the ex-gay movement: if a Christian is so convinced the ex-gay movement works, would he really want his daughter to marry one?

Gambling is a sin, yet I see Bingo games in virtually every parish and Monte Carlo nights in KofC halls. Some people are being very selective about their rage against sin.

I agree, though a think a stronger argument on this point is that the issuance of a state marriage license is a state action, not a religious action. Religion and marriage are two entirely different things. Some marriages take place under religious rites. Some do not. One can get married without attaching any religious meaning to it whatsoever. The fact that a priest, vicar, or tribal shaman has the power ("...vested in me by the state of...") to solemnize a state license does not make all marriage a religious institution.

Liam, i respectfully disagree. Sam's incoherent babbling deserves no such respect. I just wanted to approach this in a friendly manner as people often get defensive and angry when accosted. I'd rather keep this an open dialogue (but absolutely don't mean to say that I'm looking down the approach of your reponse. ) What's the saying... you catch more flies with honey...

Sam, I am not going to make any assumptions about your orientation because the honesty of your answer here requires a respectful answer. First, your physical reaction in high school is not uncommon for straight boys. Lots of boys have similar experiences and it does not mean that they are gay. I remember lots of kids having the same response at that age -- it's in the wiring of our bodies to have the most embarrassing things happen at the worst times at that age (it's called a spontaneous erect!on). That experience, alone, does not mean that you are gay or that you have the capacity to be gay. Second, people cannot decide to be gay, nor can they decide to be straight. At most, people can decide whether or not to act on their natural attractions or to deny those natural attractions. I, as a gay man, could easily decide that I was going to deny who I am and find a nice girl to marry and make a family with. But I would always know that doing so would be at the expense of living a truly happy life because I would need to shut down part of who I am to attain that. Would I be gay or straight? I would still be a gay man who was trying to live a straight life. What matters is who the person is on the inside, not what public image he projects based on a "hetero" wedding ring on his finger. I know plenty of gay men who tried to be straight, who married women, but found themselves later in life extremely unhappy and depressed. They could not decide away their true nature. Ultimately, that is why the ex-gay movement is not effective. Contrary to what you say, the ex-gay movement is not a success. It does not change anyone's orientation. At most it shames, guilts and coerces people to drop their "sinful" and "wicked" nature, to bottle it up, to crawl back into the closet and try to be a good, faith-based straight man or woman. The problem is that there is an overwhelming failure rate in such conversions -- even to the point that several prominent leaders of such movements have been discovered back in gay bars or posting their profiles on gay cruising websites. It's all a sham.

Not being Canadian, I don't know who those individuals are. I should have made more clear that my comments re: the Left were with regard to "the Left" here in the US, which is probably more akin to the middle of the road in Canada. The Canadian "Left"?... nah, I'm not even going to go there.

I grew up in what was probably the ideal family. My parents worked hard, saved, and gave me and my siblings a pretty good life. My parents remained married till my father died a few years ago. I played sports as a kid. I attended Catholic grammar school and Catholic high school, college and eventually graduate school. I was never physically nor emotionally abused. I knew absolutely no gay people when growing up and my only exposure to gay people was via negative comments and jokes by peers and family members. I dated women in an attempt to fit in, but I knew from an extremely early age (perhaps before kindergarten, even) that I was different from the other boys. While I can't know with scientific accuracy, I heavily suspect that I was born gay. At no point in my life did I choose this aspect of my overall character. None of my gay friends ever chose to be gay. None of my straight friends ever chose to be straight. It is not a choice. As for your cousin, perhaps he was abused because his father saw something in him that he didn't like -- his homosexuality?

The relationship I have with my wife is by choice a sacrament, between us and God, nobody else. Very much agreed I have to agree here as well, although I'm starting to figure that if gays want to be gay, it really doesnt involve me, but I will still vote against gay marriage as it's offensive to my traditional views of marriage and what it means to be married. I wouldn't vote for cilvil union for gays, but if they got it I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I agree with wellandboy's statement. Neither I nor my boyfriend would seek marriage in a Church, nor would we ever have interest in trying to force them to marry us. Being Catholic, they'd chase me out the door anyhow. Spike 22: your basis of marriage seems to say that marriage is only of value when pregnancy results. Does that mean that older people who marry and younger people who either cannot or choose not to have children either aren't or shouldn't be allowed to marry? Elvis: "...gays want to be gay..." I hate to break it to you, but gay people don't choose to be gay any more than straight people choose to be straight.

Agreed.

I have yet to see one "Leftist" opinion (or "Rightist" opinion, for that matter) on the Mohammed/Denmark cartoon issue. If anything, silence on the Left is not the result of confusion, but rather a lack of understanding of a practice the Right has long ago learned and applied: that you shout out about what is so clearly wrong. If you don't, you can be accused with either being confused or woefully out of touch. The Left often assumes the public is smart enough to know when something's wrong when it sees it (rioting, violence in the name of religion, rallies against artistic freedom or freedom of the press, mindless adherence to clearly improper government activity... the list is endless), yet the Right hops on its soapbox on every issue -- and is often the most vocal when right and wrong are so clearly and easily separated into two camps. As far as this cartoon issue goes, you haven't heard from the Left all that much because it's so obvious to us that the rioters are in the wrong.

And I'm sure you've never known a young, straight man whose aim was to go out to the bars and get laid every weekend. I just spent this past weekend at a friend's ski house. There were 26 guys there in total, all of us gay. Of the 26, 20 were in long term relationships and I saw just as much commitment in those ten couples as I see in the marriages of my straight friends. But back to your point, even if only gays were promiscuous, does that justify treating them differently under the law? Should that mean that promiscuous straights should also be denied a state-issued marriage license?

By entending the logic of your first line, and assuming that God created everything and that there is a purpose for all God created, then you must also acknowledge that God made gay people to be together. Aren't you deliberately standing in the way of God's design by holding that position? Sounds to me like your pride (and thinking you can possess Godly knowledge) is the same sin that cast Adam and Eve out of Eden. That is a sin greater than that of homosexuality. For being gay, God only turned a few people into pillars of salt and such. For the sin of pursuing Godly knowledge, however, God cast all of humanity for time eternal out of his paradise. Yet the state does not take your sins into account in either granting or denying you a state license. Why should it take my lesser sinful condition into account?

Yes it does. On religious terms, we all have our own crosses to bear. The test is on how we bear our burden. I don't think God changes His way in accordance to how modern society gets, hence I cannot understand the other Christian denomination who succumbed to the pressures of humans in changing the ways of the church. I do hope the Vatican continues to hold firm. No one in favor of granting marital rights to committed gay couples has ever argued that religions should abandon their beliefs or compromise their basic tenets. What we want is equal treatment under the law. Religions should keep its focus on eternal matters. Government should keep its focus on temporal matters.

Hicksey: Understanding that politicians who dig their claws into something are often very reluctant to give it up, can we realistically expect them to suddenly get out of the marriage business altogether opting for a civil union structure for all? While I would be willing to suffer under that aspect of your position, a la Kim Campbell, we can hardly expect it to ever come to pass. Politicians on both sides of the 49th parallel will continue to regulate the institution of marriage. With permanent government intrusion into marriage as a given, does it make sense to further exclude from marriage an entire segment of society? Does that make laws which exclude gays from marriage fair? If anything, the making of marriage into a state-licensed event requires that it be applied evenly, fairly and equally among all citizens, regardless of how small a minority one group may be or how distasteful we may feel their union may be. Absent a compelling state interest, the state cannot arbitrarily and unevenly decide to whom it will extend rights and liberties. To go back my paraphrased version of Kim Campbell's quote, to live in a democratic society, we sometimes need to suffer those things with which we disagree.

It does say those things. However, it also says that gambling is a sin, yet we allow gamblers to marry. The Bible says that murder is a sin, yet we allow murders (in prison, yet!) to marry. Furthermore, of all the sins discussed in the Bible, homosexuality is mentioned once or twice. Murder, disrespect for one's elders, gambling, stealing, lying, and dozens of other sins are mentioned considerably more often. If anything, this would indicate some understanding that those other sins are much more grave than two men's lying together. Jesus certainly never said a single thing about homosexuality. Jesus was welcoming of all. And Jesus also set the model for the separation of church and state ("...render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's...") But not to go down that path too far, the problem with basing opposition to SSM on Biblical teachings is that society has already rejected the notion that we extend or curtail civil liberties or basic rights based on the sinfulness or religious devotion of individual citizens... or would you rather have certain rights of yours denied you because of that trip to Vegas?

I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but I find it ironic that you use this as your tag line: "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell -" You've obviously missed the target of the quote. The quote is in regard to passing hate-speech laws. Your tagline seem to reflect the political philosophy that to live in a free (and democratic) society, we sometimes need to suffer those things that we don't accept. At the time I posted this reply, I had only read the earlier part of the thread where your opinion appeared to be "SSM is an affront to me and my understanding of marriage, so it needs to be banned." I interpreted this as a direct contradiction of the more accepting philosophy your tagline seems to espouse. I have since completed reading the entire thread and, while disagreeing with your position, understand where you are coming from. No offense was meant at the time of posting nor now.

Besides getting the national conversation about the war started, what has Cindy Sheehan done wisely? I mean, some of her declaration have practically permanently placed her on the list of political crackpots.

I am probably more of a moderate Democrat, but being from Massachusetts that makes me a flaming liberal on the national spectrum of politics but it isn't fair to say that "the American left" wants to be associated with Chavez any more than saying that the American right wants to be associated with the Saudi royal family. There are definitely people within each camp who do want that association. Harry Belafonte, for example, recently praised Chavez -- much to my dismay... the Bush family has practically offered up themselves as vassals to the House of Saud. So is it fair to say that you, as a self-proclaimed conservative, want to be associated with the House of Saud -- and all that entails from Wahabism to denial of equal status for women to wink-and-a-nod support of terror groups outside its borders -- just because someone on your end of the political spectrum has that connection? Sheehan, while certainly against the Iraq war and a very vocal advocate of that position -- to the point of bordering on lunacy -- has not to my knowledge ever been annointed official spokesperson for everyone who stands to the left of center. She certainly does not speak for me on any issue, not even the war.

If you actually believe being straight was a choice you made, I would question whether you really are. Brilliant!!

I don't mean this to be a personal attack, but I find it ironic that you use this as your tag line: "If in passing, you never encounter anything that offends you, you are not living in a free society - Rt. Hon. Kim Campbell -"

I will give two: 1. Nixon's southern strategy capitalizing on the Voting Rights Act passed by LBJ 2. Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential run in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town highly symbolic to racist southern whites due to its connection to the 1964 deaths of three civil rights workers at the hands of the KKK. Reagan's speech launching his campaign centered on his support for "state's rights", code word to southern bigots in that was the same position held by slave owners prior to the Civil War. Later in his campaign, Reagan spoke before an Atlanta audience claiming Jefferson Davis, president of the confederacy, as one of his all time heros.

Why nuclear? I put nuclear in there because the US's current power needs probably cannot be met by renewable energy sources alone. I recognize that nuclear power has its own environmental dangers, but when operated safely and securely its overall environmental impact is less than millions of combustion engines fueled by petroleum and thousands of coal-fired power plants. Why concentrate population in cities? Suburban and exurban sprawl eats up acreage blighting the landscape with McMansions and strip malls, requires miles and miles of road infrastructure, furthers the reliance of cars and petroleum consumption, intrudes on natural habitats, and isolates people into self-segregating communities. I disagree that city concentration causes societal problems. I think you're looking at city life post-white flight when the middle class moved out leaving the poorer working classes in many city centers. If the middle class started moving back into cities, they'd be ideal places to live. Look at Europe. Why a flatter tax? I think a tax structure that is too progressive punishes people who become successful and that's neither right nor fair. Certainly I wouldn't want to harm those at the margins of society by going with a perfectly flat tax system (and in order for it to be perfectly flat while aiding the poor and needy, the tax rate would be so high as to be punitive towards everyone), but I would like to see a tax system where the highest and lowest tax rates are closer than how they exist in the US today.

You forgot the liberal domination of academia. I've actually read articles by conservatives essentially calling for quotas for conservatives among college faculties and administrations. I say fine, provided the conservatives give up an equal proportion of seats on company boards and in corporate executive offices.

First: both Lincoln and Roosevelt may have suspended certain civil liberties during their administrations, however, they did so only after Congress actually pass a war resolution. So far, Congress has yet to pass a war resolution giving Bush wartime powers. War was never declared against al Qaeda. Second: the war on terror is, conceivably, an endless struggle. There will never be a momentous surrender signaling the end of hostilities. Therefore, it is all the more important that executive power not be extended during a shadow war with no definitive end in sight. Third: the legal remedies already existed for Bush's wiretapping, and it afforded all three branches of government the appropriate level of checks and balances. Bush deliberately and arrogantly disregarded the law and shot a hole in the "damned piece of paper" we know as the Constitution. (By the way, "I took an oath to protect the Constitution" is not a valid check on executive power, at least not as they taught Con Law in law school.) Fourth: ask yourself whether you would want to extend similar carte blanche to enact whatever secret activites a future president may subjectively deem "necessary" for an indeterminate amount of time. Agreeing with such a scheme is the epitome of un-American and anti-democracy. Why do you hate our freedom?