# same sex marriage



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm writing a speech for school and wanted everyones yes, no or neutral on whether gay men and women should be allowed to marry? I wanted to do an anonymous poll but didn't know if this belonged in the poll section. So yes, no, neutral?


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

I have no problem with gays marrying. To each their own. I just dont believe that a gay couple should be allowed to raise kids. Theres enough in the world already to confuse kids without putting them thru that.


----------



## enigma (Feb 18, 2005)

I say yes.

As someone said recently (I forget who): "They have a right to be just as miserable as the rest of us."

Also, I've never heard of there being any ill effects on children being raised by gay couples.

e


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

No, no marriage. Civil unions are fine by me. I think, historically, marriage just has religious connotations. Basically, what I'm saying is yes, it just needs to go by a different name.


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

yes


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

and a lot of the "no" reasons, TO ME, seem to boil down to people being uncomfortable with homosexuality. ie, citing history and tradition (hey, women were historically and traditionally repressed, blacks were historically and traditionally denied civil rights, jews were historically and traditionally shot and killed), citing family values (what values?), citing religion and sanctity of the church (well whose church and why, and if god said it then why do humans yell it with such fervor?), etc. There is nothing based on factual evidence, there is nothing totally unbiased, there is no proof of gays being morally unacceptable (and the bible is only proof if you choose to accept other things in it like slavery)...basically if someone gets in a heated emotional state as to why this is so WRONG perhaps we need to examine the arguer. But that's just my opinion.

Also, with all the gay discrimination, no one wants to admit their own sexual ambivalence, so they smack down harder on gays. This doesn't happen with other kinds of discrimination as much (such as you can't fake your skin color as easily, but you can tell yourself up and down that you're only attracted to the opposite gender)...i guess because homosexuality is ambivalent, sexual, and deeply personal.

I think if gay marraige was made legal eventually it would be so okay in society to be gay that the issue of children in a gay marriage would be nil. It would just be another aspect of society, like women voting or blacks being allowed to exist (things that were found obscene at one time).


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

You're right person. I read that mixed marriages were not allowed in all states until 1967 which is crazy. Also, all regions in the US didn't allow blacks to marry until after the Civil War. Does anyone have any info on these statistics? I've checked them many times but it seems so crazy. 1967!?


----------



## ret (Aug 10, 2004)

No. It's fucking stupid.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2005)

Yes (and I also love that quote "sure, let them be as miserable as the rest of us" lol)

And to me the travesty in refusing to allow gay couples to form a marriage is that this country is founded on a right of separation between church and state. To say "no, they cannot marry because homosexuality is wrong in the eyes of "x" religion" is to deny couples a santicty right by this country by using a SINGLE specific religion as a basis for "right" or "wrong"

If a particular religious group succeeds in condeming or inhibiting people based on that religion's own unique set of values, we all run the risk of being ruled by someone ELSE's religion in the name of government. People are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they are not entitled to use laws to prohibit other citizens from engaging in a lifestyle that is not conforming to those beliefs.

If marriage becomes synomous with religion, why not prevent atheists from marrying, or non-declared religious persons?

That said, I would be STUNNED if we see gay marriage openly functioning in this country in our own lifetime. The religious Right is powerful. Very powerful.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Obviously it's logically impossible, or should be, for gay people to get married in the church. I said it in another post but the bible, as a sort of rule book that can not be changed, states that marriage is between a man and a woman. So gay people obviously can not get married in the Christian church ever, otherwise it just wont' be Christian marriage.
However I think gay people should be allowed to get a legal marriage, why not?
There are clearly a lot of difficulties surrounding gay couples having children. I can't be bothered to think about the issue either. However I think it could be argued that a child needs both feminine and masculine influence, from a female mother and a male father. Basically I think that children raised by gay couples _might_ turn out to be very different from other children.


----------



## enigma (Feb 18, 2005)

Axel19 said:


> Obviously it's logically impossible, or should be, for gay people to get married in the church. I said it in another post


Refer to 'enigma' post after second 'Axel19' post in 'John Paul II' theard', p.1.



> but the bible, as a sort of rule book that can not be changed, states that marriage is between a man and a woman. So gay people obviously can not get married in the Christian church ever, otherwise it just wont' be Christian marriage.


Refer to second 'Person3' post, this thread, paragraph 1, lines 5-6.



> However I think gay people should be allowed to get a legal marriage, why not?


Indeed. But if they're religious, why should their own church treat them as second class?



> There are clearly a lot of difficulties surrounding gay couples having children. I can't be bothered to think about the issue either. However I think it could be argued that a child needs both feminine and masculine influence, from a female mother and a male father. Basically I think that children raised by gay couples _might_ turn out to be very different from other children.


Pure conjecture.

e


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

> Pure conjecture.


It's not _pure_ conjecture. It seems obvious that a child raised by same sex parents _might_ turn out different to a child raised by different sex parents. It's simple nature/nurture. I'm not saying they'd turn out to be freaks or anything, just that the likelihood is that there would be differences, which may turn out to be insignificant.

Secondly, the gay people I know of in the church, who treat ther faith seriously all try to remain celibate. Christianity is based on the bible. 
Person 3 said that the bible says slavery is ok. I don't know where that was said, but ti certainly wasn't said in the new testament. Christianity is based on the new testament, the teachings of Christ hence the title 'Christ'ianity. Jesus did say that marriage was between one man and one woman.
Should somone erase the words in the bible that say (paraphrased) 'marriage is between one man and one woman'? 
To censor the words of the supposed son of God, because they don't agree with your way of life, would be to discard the entire religion itself. Therefore gay marriage within the church will never be possible.

I'm not saying that the bible/Christianity is neccessarily right in refusing gay marriage. Rather that gay people wanting to get married in the Christian church seem to have very much missed the point of Christianity. That's not to say that a gay person can't be a Christian. 
The Christian religion prohibits gay marriage within its church, and this is said to be the word of God. Again, I'm not saying that this is right.

Gay people wanting to get married in the church makes about as much sense as me asking for my pornography stash to be blessed by the parish priest. Once again I'm not saying that gay marriage is wrong. But the reality of the situation is that Christianity considers gay relations to be a sin. 
Any right minded gay person would either say that the bible isn't the absolute moral maxim that people think it is, even though it may have _some_ truth in it. 
Or if they were desperate to be a proper Christian, for whatever reason, they would try to avoid gay relations, and ask for forgiveness.
For the last time, I personally don't think that homosexuality is a sin, I think it's perfectly acceptable. Nor am I a practising Christian. 
I just wanted to clarify, for the purposes of casual forum discussion, that gay marriage within the church is impossible.

Sorry if this post sounded condescending towards gay people in any way, with me constantly saying 'gay people can't get married in the church' as if teasing. I just like to deal with what is lucidly logical.

Furthermore, thusfar I think we have been very impersonal in our posts. Following recent arguments, let's try and keep it that way.


----------



## enigma (Feb 18, 2005)

Axel19 said:


> makes about as much sense as me asking for my pornography stash to be blessed by the parish priest.


_Mine_ was!  (That's an interesting comparison, btw.)

e


----------



## dreamcatcher (Sep 23, 2004)

i'd say yes.......i believe any two people that want to commit to each other should be allow to marry


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Really, I don't know understand what the rush for gays to get married is all about. The most genuine motive I see behind it is for the purpose of creating a family. Because people want the joy of kids but you don't want your kids being raised multiple d*ckweeds and because it is best for kids to be in a stable environment. When you don't have that ability, marriage loses a lot of that purpose. Historically, there are a lot of religious connotations associated with marriage but I don't think most people even think about that anymore-- until they think about kids and how it is wrong to have children out of wedlock. Marriage is really only a formality now. If society hadn't made it a convention, everyone wouldn't be so gung-ho about marriage.

There are a lot of selfish motives behind marriage. Because you can't stand seeing your partner with someone else, money, etc. I think rarely it's because you love someone with all your heart and soul and you want the best for them. I might be wrong, though. Marriage has become the only sure way to legally "lock-in" on your partner. The quickest way to break-up with your significant other is to say you don't want to get married.

I'm actually all for marriage, I'm just raising some questions for you Enigma.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

I agree there should be civil unions. Heterosexuals not affiliated with a church have civil unions.

Civil unions and marriages protect both parties. One important thing is the right to be involved in the partner's health care decisions, i.e. even visiting in the hospital, making health care decisions for children, etc. There are tax benefits. All of the privileges that hetero couples have. Owning a house together, the benefits of Wills, etc. I don't know all the details. Health coverage, etc.

Also, I believe in gays raising kids. There are hetero couples who have GAY children. I fully believe that in 90%+ of cases that homosexuality is hard-wired. Purely Nature. If a hetero couple can give birth to and raise a gay child, and gay parents can raise straight kids, well ....

Bottom line I believe that one is born homosexual.

And how many hetero marriages have been ruined by a gay spouse (frequently men who get so much greif for being gay), afraid to "come out of the closet", who announces this after there have been children, years of marriage? It hurts everyone involved including the gay spouse. I personally know two friends this happened to.

Also, what is the divorce rate for hetero couples? I know more gay monogamous couples that have lasted a lifetime.

There are many promiscuous, irresponsible heteros, and the same to be said for gay folks.

Someone else said and this is in agreement: "I, Dreamer, would have rather been raised in a loving gay family than the wealthy, hetero nightmare of a family I was raised in. NO LIE."

I have a gay half-brother who is in his 70s. He was born in 1932, my mother's child. He was put up for adoption and taken into a hetero family he loved very much. He and his partner have been together for 45 years. Oddly enough he and I, though we NEVER met until 1990, are musical, interested in theatre, went into creative careers, went to the same University... all of these things are common with my MOTHER.

Also, he has some of my mother's funny joke patterns. She used to say, "Hey go get the panshoo to wash my hair." My half-brother, raised by a hetero couple is very much like me and my mother, save I'm straight and he's gay. I also have problems with my marriage, he doesn't.

We don't keep in touch as he is a racist, LOL! He lives with his partner in a white bread upper class neighborhood in Orange County, California.

OK, enuf, I have 20 things to do today.

Oh, the church, yes, why have a religious union when a civil union has the same result. Again, if the church/synagogue is against this, why a "marriage" vs. a civil union. My only prob with this.

I've seen more kids messed up by hetero couples than I care to discuss, including myself.

All one needs is a loving family, no neglect, no abuse, guidance, support, etc., etc., etc.

D


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2005)

I have no problem with gays or even gays getting married, but there is absolutely no way in hell they should be able to raise a kid. I look at the kid first, you should always look at the kid first. Growing up is hard enough for every kid and throw in the fact that he/she has homosexual parents and it's going to be ten times harder. The torment he or she would experience at school would be enough to tramautize that child for life.

I caught hell in school for having hairy arms, can you imagine how much flak this child would catch for having homosexual parents!! Kids are not accepting or understanding creatures. Kids can be nasty because alot of the time they don't know any better. You could always homeschool the child, but that would be robbing them of an experience they deserve.

You may downplay this and say, "well you are only in school for so long." That is very true, but your experience in school influences your future big time. I was teased in school and it has an effect on me til this very day. As much as a homosexual couple may want a child, the world is way too cruel to suit such a thing. Sad but very true.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2005)

I have computer (posting) trouble, but carefully trying if this posts.
I am saying 'yes' to enngirls poll. Wont further participate in this topic (in which some VERY good posts were made by among others Person3, Janine, Enigma, Dreamer).
Here's my contribution:










I think this is the core of what this topic is about.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

I mean, look at the show My Two Dads. It only lasted what, 2 seasons?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

gimpy34 said:


> I mean, look at the show My Two Dads. It only lasted what, 2 seasons?


LOL.

Ah, there was a discussion about this before, and I recall adding another point. Adoption. There are MANY, MANY children who have NO families. Hetero families often adopt children from other countries. There are many children in the US who are languishing in foster homes or worse, being subjected to abuse. Some are ill, some have AIDS.

Many gay couples want to adopt. These children can and do benefit from a family, regardless if it is made up of 2 men or two women. It all depends on the quality of the family.

I saw a documentary some years back of a gay couple. A male nurse, and a guy who was a businessman. They had been together for years. The male nurse worked in a pediatric AIDS ward. He brought one baby home as no one wanted him. Then another. I think in all these two men took in 5 kids with various disabilities or who weren't wanted. The doctors there were thrilled!

They raised these kids (ah, here's an interesting point too, some of the kids were black, the men were caucasion -- there's another hornet's nest .. and there were girls and boys) .... well they did a beautiful job. I think they had the kids for 10 years or more. One kid was a teen ready for college. The nurse worked, the businessman became a house husband... forget which.

At any rate, they were able to provide superior health care for these children with AIDS or HIV. Superior schooling, and most important a loving family. As gimpy says, a CIVIL UNION makes having a family more "legitimate." *Also, in theory it is easier to get married than it is to get divorced. You want to think ahead before you dive in. There has to be committment there.*

I think this was a legal case in Florida. At any rate, the law in Florida prohibits adoptions of AIDS babies by anyone other than a hetero married couple. I think I have this all wrong, but this is sort of the scenario. So these children, who had been raised by the same loving parents for 10 years were going to be removed from the home.

The entire group was devastated. The children didn't "become gay" and one young boy had been AIDS free though HIV positive because of the care he received.

They fought this in the Fla. courts to no avail, and the documentary ended with their all moving to Oregon. At the time the legal wrangling continued. Fortunately the older children became adults, but there was a constant threat that the younger kids would be taken away from the only loving home they knew. This was on PBS -- Frontline. Does anyone recall?

Another reason I am very pro kids being raised by gays *if the family is a good one*. There are so many unwanted children, abused in foster care, moving from unstable home to unstable home.

I'd rather be adopted by a loving gay couple.

And hey, kids get ribbed in school for everything.

In my private school, several kids had no televisions in the house. Some parents today would say, "How do the kids tolerate not having a television, and how can they explain this to their friends." For kids, this isn't always an issue, and if it is, it's up to any good parent to deal with this.

Good parenting is the key. It has been done by gays and heteros and it has been botched by both.

Would you rather be abandoned or loved? That's what matters.

D


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2005)

If we are going to play god and prevent any children from being born into families that might provoke teasing from their school mates, there will be VERy few children ever born.

:lol:

We humans have a very arrogant view of what Normal is, or should be. It matters that a child knows it's loved. Anything else is gravy.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2005)

I think there are ramifications that most liberals don't consider concerning this issue, in that it is something so many people who might otherwise consider themselves liberal or moderate are opposed to (but are afraid to voice their opposition about), giving more conservative factions a wild card to play whenever they need it.

This is also an issue that is extremely unpopular among minorities, who until recent elections can typically be counted to support more liberal candidates.

I've heard serious arguments that the gay marriage issue and Kerry's failure to come out against it, as Clinton did, cost him the election.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Hey, and people have problems with:

Bruce Willis, Demi Moore, Ashton Kutcher and 3 kids, with another on the way (Demi is pregnant)? So the kids have a Dad who is 50 and dating, another Dad who is 25, their mother is 42 and pregnant by :shock: the 25 year old gorgeous boy toy :!:

I don't give a hoot about this. Some people find it blasphemous! If there is love, discipline (appropriate), a sense of values, etc.

A marriage or civil union indicates committment. It may be even MORE necessary for gays as it is a "test" of their ability to be monogamous and raise a family.

And, another problem, there ARE gays who are spiritual, who are theists of varying religions.

The world is tough enough.

He who is without a skeleton in the closet, I dare you, throw the first bone.
:shock:

No that doesn't work, LOL.

There are so many families these days that are out of control. And they're hetero.


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2005)

> He who is without a skeleton in the closet, I dare you, throw the first bone.


I totally agree with Dreamer's sentiment. but....isn't it "throw the first STONE?" lol

Although, I also always appreciate a good canine reference.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Janine said:


> We humans have a very arrogant view of what Normal is, or should be. It matters that a child knows it's loved. Anything else is gravy.


*YES!*

Also, littlecrocodile, re: Kerry's loss in the election. I can't articulate all the details, but I think that when Massachusettes sp! declared it was OK to have gay marriages, there was a hue and cry amongst conservatives. I believe Karl Rove whipped up the moral majority and got them to the polls. The pendulum is swinging towards "values" these days ... on one hand because we do see kids out of control.

And... I'm not a liberal. Shoot me, I'm a registered Rebuplican. :shock: OMG, but don't espouse all Republican views. My views on many social issues are liberal. I was raised in a very conservative upper class enviornment. My mother and father were both racists (they were born in 1915 and 1906 respectively -- much older when I was born) and my mother made fun of one of her gay male patients. She was a shrink and used to talk to me about her patients behind their backs -- she found them amusing, God help them all. She was also an atheist.

I am really the complete opposite of my mother. Agnostic as well. Perhaps I rejected her hypocrisy at some point, but she had me under EDIT: HER thumb. How did I end up the way I did? I'll never know.

As I've said, I'd rather have been raised by two loving gay hippies, and that is no lie. And so it goes. :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

JanineBaker said:


> > He who is without a skeleton in the closet, I dare you, throw the first bone.
> 
> 
> I totally agree with Dreamer's sentiment. but....isn't it "throw the first STONE?" lol
> ...


ROARING. Woman, woman, woman! LOL. They saying is biblical and I didn't want to bring that into the picture. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Since we're talkin' skeletons in the closet, I figured a bone was more appropriate, as I don't find homosexuality a sin.

But I do love doggies 8)


----------



## enigma (Feb 18, 2005)

gimpy34 said:


> I'm actually all for marriage, I'm just raising some questions for you Enigma.


Straight but _not_ narrow 8) (if you'll pardon my usage of a cliche, and just to avoid any confusion here).

In any event, I'm sure motives for marriage do not differ among gay and straight couples.

As for all the questions you raised for _me_, I think Janine and Dreamer (Republican?! :shock:. Who'd thunk it? :wink: ) did a splended job addressing all of those.

e


----------



## enigma (Feb 18, 2005)

That poster is funnier than hell, btw, Wen.

e


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

Axel,

in the old testament i believe is also where it says "a man shall not lie by another man..." which is the argument that Christians tend to use a lot against homosexuality. So I think Christians go by the old testament as well.

I would like to know why Jesus thought it so important that it should be between a man and a woman...then again we dont' ever have documented proof that it was HIM that said it...


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

hairy arms? hairy arms? wtf, *I* have hairy arms!

I got flack for not shaving my legs, although i was like 11 at the time. I didn't know it was so urgent but i got brutally made fun of for it in the worst imaginable ways, nonstop, until the group of people reached the point of doing things like spraying shaving cream in my eye.

I am a girl. from a straight family in good financial standing. I was bullied by both boys and girls. I can't say it was my religion because this was at a summer camp of my religion.

But either way...I don't think anyone can get out of being made fun of. Anyone. I used to have arguments about this and that, things that would damage the kids reputation in school because the parents had that lifestyle etc...but really...if I went home and had two caring, supportive moms to cry to and possibly remove me from the hellish camp situation I would have liked that a hell lot better than one psychotic worthless straight woman.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Well, I'll tell you one thing. I'd like to have two loving gay parents than grow up in a dirty, stinky orphanage. Not that they are all like that but you know. But I don't know, I've locked myself into doing my speech on same sex marriage, supporting in with research and now I'm wishing I hadn't chosen this topic. Don't get me wrong, I do support it, but... it's just a heavy topic, and I'm from the south which makes it even worse. In class as she read each topic anonymously the class separated according to their views, agree, disagree, or neutral and it was about half and half on that issue. But it's not really what people think of it that is bothering me. Because I have strong opinions and usually don't care what people think. It's just how strong is my opinion on this? You know how anxiety and dp/dr makes you scared of anything that entails change, even if it's good? Like moving, school, jobs, etc. That's how I feel about a law on legalizing same sex marriage. And I know it makes absolutely no sense since I support it, it's just one of my weird things. Must I worry about _everything_? :x


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I have a question. What is the real difference between a civil union and a marriage? And does anyone know if any states allow civil unions?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Dear En,
To the best of my knowledge, as my husband wanted to go the easy route 8) , in California when we decided to get married, for $25.00 you could go to the local County Court, file for a license (which everyone has to do) and get married by a Justice of the Peace -- e.g. I believe a judge, a ship captain (Captain K?) 8) , and some other military personnel are J.O.Ps. Ah, a mayor, oh now I have to look this up. But someone with CIVIL authority, not someone ordained in a Church.

Isn't Jeff Probst of "Survivor" a Justice of the Peace? And how? Wasn't he going to marry Amber and what's his face who won last year? Mainly it is someone with a judicial background? Now I have to look this up.

It's a really boring schtick though. You can show up in your long johns say, "I do." and be done with it in about 4 minutes. Extrememly informal and conducted in a "civil court" -- a public building, or you can hire a justice of the Peace to marry you on the top of Mt. St. Helens I suppose as well, LOL... I have to look this up.

It's very inexpensive, and some young couples do this first, then later have a "fancy wedding in a church."

A "marriage" as I understand it is performed by a member of some religious organization vs. civil. So an "ordained priest, minister, rabbi", etc. in a Church, a Synagogue, etc. performs the ceremony. It is of course far more elaborate, even the simplest ceremony. And it is with the blessing of God.

This is the sticky wicket for gays.

I can see why a gay couple might want all the pomp and circumstance.

In California I knew a number of "married" gay couples. Married by members of certain Churches that were accepting of this, but I don't know for certain if they were literally considered "marriages". The state of MASS (I can't spell the name of that state) -- gay marriages WERE legal. Now they're not? And all the gay marriages in San Francisco were deemed illegal, or anulled.

OK, I'm getting into murky territory. Sorry. My word I think out loud, and ramble! :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

http://www.sos.nh.gov/justice.htm

*Well, I love the internet! Here's how to become a Justice of the Peace in New Hampshire, LOL. Forgive, I'm tired, giddy and bored, and trying to stay awake.

So, see this isn't as nice as being married in Church or Synagogue or Temple. And for those who are of an organized religion, they would want GOD's blessing, not simply the legal recognition by the government, but a civil union is 100% legal and is an official marriage.*

*REQUIREMENTS AND APPLICATION*

Every person applying to become a justice of the peace must be a resident of New Hampshire.

You must have been a registered voter in New Hampshire for at least 3 years prior to the date of application.

The applicant must sign a written statement under oath as to whether he/she has ever been convicted of a crime that has not been annulled by a court, other than minor traffic violations.

2 justices of the peace and one registered voter of New Hampshire must endorse the application for appointment.

The applicant must complete a State Police Records Check Form.

The fee is $50 for a 5-year commission.

*PROCEDURE FOR APPLYING*

The application is obtained from the Secretary of State's Office. You may call to request an application at 271-3242 OR mail your request in writing to: Secretary of State's Office, State House, Room 204, Concord, N.H. 03301.

Complete the application and the State Police Records Check Form and return them both to the Secretary of State's Office with the $50. fee.

Your application will be treated as follows:

The State Police Records Check Form will be submitted to the Department of Safety;

Your application will be submitted to the Governor and Executive Council for nomination;

Your application will be submitted to the Governor and Executive Council for appointment.

This process will take 8-10 weeks.

*AFTER BEING COMMISSIONED BY GOVERNOR AND EXECUTIVE COUNCIL*

Your commission as a justice of the peace will be for 5 years from the date the Governor and Council confirms your appointment. The date of appointment will be indicated on your commission.

Within a week after appointment by the Governor and Executive Council you will receive your commission, oath, index card, and other information from the secretary of state's office.

You must:

Sign and take your oath of office in the presence of two notaries public OR two justices of the peace OR one notary public and one justice of the peace. Those who sign your oath should also sign your commission.

Return the oath to the secretary of state's office as soon as possible. Unless we have your oath on file, we cannot certify that you are qualified as a justice.

Keep the commission for your records.

Sign the index card as required and mail to the Superior Court of the county in which you reside.

* JUSTICE OF THE PEACE SEAL*

You are not required to use a seal when making acknowledgements.

A justice of the peace signing an acknowledgment or jurat on any document or instrument shall type, print, or stamp the name of the justice of the peace and state the expiration date of his or her commission on the document or instrument. However, failure to meet these requirements shall not impair the legal validity of any acknowledgement or jurat).

*POWERS OF A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE

Every Justice of the Peace shall have the power to:

Witness anyone's signature EXCEPT THEIR OWN; 
Perform marriage ceremonies; 
Administer oaths of office; 
Take depositions. 
Justices should not sign documents that specifically require a notary's signature and seal.

FEES

A fee of no more than $5.00 can be collected for each oath, witness, service or certification, except that:

For depositions, a fee of $5.00 but not more than $50.00 may be collected. The fee is based upon the amount that the justice of the peace feels is sufficient payment for his services. The justice of the peace is also entitled to .20/mile when traveling to swear in witnesses.

No fees are allowed for administering and certifying oaths of office of town officers.*


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

So when we're talking about the right from gay men and women to marry, under the law, we're actually talking about civil unions, not marriage? I'm gonna look up the definition for marriage and see if it has to do with religion.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding ... rriage.htm

Here's an article on the differences between marriage and civil unions but I can't find a date on it so I'm still not sure which states allow civil unions between gay people.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

enngirl5 said:


> So when we're talking about the right from gay men and women to marry, under the law, we're actually talking about civil unions, not marriage? I'm gonna look up the definition for marriage and see if it has to do with religion.


OK, now we have to look up the definition of marriage, but you can be married in two ways....

1. Civil - Justice of the Peace
2. Religious - Priest, Minister, Rabbi, etc.

EDIT: I am wrong about the privileges.

The key is the when a MAN and a WOMAN wed, they receive all the benefits. I swear a man and woman in any state can have a civil union and get all of the benefits noted below, unless I'm mistaken.

More research!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Woah, I didn't know this, but in California I guess the laws are different. If a man and woman have a civil union in California you get all of these benefits, now I'm confused:

Such as:

*Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.
*

Now I see why gays would want "marriage".... OK, now I'm waiting for your research paper, LOL. I am misinformed to the hilt. I guess everyone who's lived in California for any length of time should be excused for that. 8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/wheremarriage.htm

It looks like Vermont is the only state? This info looks very up to date as it mentions the Massachusettes SP! 2004 marriage ammendment. California has a "partnership law." But I swear to you, in CA, my husband and I could have had a civil ... maybe it was a civil CEREMONY, conducted by a Justice of the Peace?

Well, now I'm for gay marriage, as it can be performed outside of a church then. I think gay couples should have the same rights as a man and a woman who unite in marriage -- as "kin". It makes two people who are unrelated by blood, essentially related. I think that is the bottom line.

I don't understand why gays can't be "fully" married by a Justice of the Peace, vs. a Priest/Minister/Rabbi, etc.??????

I need answers, now.
I'm gravely misinformed.
Perhaps time to turn on the telly for mindless viewing.
You found a great site there with a lot of important information. And we've been mislead by the media and politicians yet again. Ah, well.

What did Marvin Gaye sing in "I Heard It Through The Grapevine"

"Believe only half of what you read, some and none of what you hear."
Is that the lyric?


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

lol, yeah, I'm trying to get my mind off it and study for what I really need to study for but I keep coming back to look stuff up.


----------



## gimpy34 (Aug 10, 2004)

Yeah, in Leviticus or something is where it says "a man shall not lie with another man." New Testament is the essence of Christianity but they go by the old book as well.

I think Ashton Kutcher is a cool 27. I watch too much E!


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2005)

See, this is where the topic becomes very insideous. There is an unspoken CONNOTATION that marriage = religious sanction. That's at the heart of debate - a civil union is not a "marriage" and doens't push the buttons of the religious right.

To the folks who are covertly trying to blend Law and Religion in this country, they are not about to "loosen" their grip on the word "marriage." To them, it implies God's approval - and even scarier, to them it implies a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN God's approval. This is where I get ballistic, lol. There is nothing wrong with wanting such a God to bless a union, but that must remain DISTINCT from our country's LAWS. That is separation of church and state, and Americans must insist on that right being upheld.

Okay, I'll shut up, lol

See, here's my point (notice I haven't shut up). If a Catholic Church does not want to bless a gay union because it is considered sinful in the context of that church, that is ABSOLUTELY the right of that church. But to try to OWN "marriage" as a word or an institution and to blanketly throw a net over it in the name of religion is VERy sneaky and very very much against the founding principles of this country.

God bless America.
LOL,
J


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

ROARING OVER ALL OF THIS. Ya'll are great.

OK, phoned my husband, in California. His problem -- he works for the Federal Government and he reads FAR too much. He explained some things, but don't quote me.

OK:

1. There are civil *unions*
2. There are civil *marriages*
3. There are *marriages* within a church/synagogue, etc.

MARRIAGE -- making a woman and man who are not related as blood kinship. So a man and a woman can have a civil marriage or a church marriage and both are 100% legal and binding. A man and a woman would not want a civil union.

*A CIVIL UNION (BY A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE) DOES NOT BESTOW ALL OF THE BENEFITS OF A CIVIL MARRIAGE (BY A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE) OR A MARRIAGE (PERFORMED BY AN ORDAINED RELIGIOUS REPRESENTATIVE) -- pick a religion.*

It is the desire of many people that gays should not be married "kin" as this is "unnatural" whether you look at it from a Spritual perspective or a simple moral perspective. This is like saying blacks aren't equal to whites and need to sit at the back of the bus.

Vermont is a state that recognizes civil unions between gay couples -- oh Hell or is it civil MARRIAGE -- I forgot again. It is the only state in the union that specifically states that.

California has a "partnership law" that is similar. Massacusettes, SP!!!, *lost* its gay union law on appeal. Oregon is more liberal re: this.

BUT, it is up to the states to determine if they want these types of unions on the books. Many different states of the 50 do have some variation of civil unions. That article you posted Engirl has the best info. It is up to an individual STATE, not the Federal goverment, and the vote of the constituency of the state to decide this.

The Federal Government does not recognize civil unions and hence the benefits and privileges of those marriages are not bestowed on said couples.

My husband said a very important thing which I always forget:

*"Politics is the authoratative allocation of values."* And that can be a bad thing. It depends on how much goverment intervention you want. Sometimes you want more, sometimes less.

He feels that gays seek "marriage" (civil or church, not just UNION) to help validate homosexuality. And I think that's fair. To make it be accepted into society.

I didn't realize that the States have more say in all of this than the Federal government. When John Kerry was running, there was a fear by many (not just spiritual people -- and that includes Jews, Islam, etc.) that homosexuality would be recognized as "normal." In other words, it is a tradition, that serves many purposes, that a union between a MAN and a WOMAN has a very specific purpose. Family.

I will admit, in thinking this over, the ideal family as far as I'm concerned (and I had a terrible family, save I got to go to really good schools and camp and had a lot of the benefits that money can give) is a Dad, a Mom (who stays at home -- I know, I know, when the kids are small!!!), and more than one child. I didn't like being an only child.

We can't and shouldn't legislate morality. That is separation of church and state. The other countries mentioned South Africa, the UK, Canada, THe Netherlands are far more secular. But there is a question if secular means deterioration of value and tradition. I'm just posing that question.

So, per my husband's interpretation, and in this case he wears his Libertarian hat, he feels that in reality, gays can get various forms of legal contracts that allow them to have many privileges. But that isn't enough, it is validation of their dedication to each other and the need to be accepted, more than the financial/medical perks.

OK, he would have to explain this more.

I have mixed feelings now. But I see no reason why there couldn't be civil *marriages* for gays.

Wow, learn something new everyday. And I admit I did not understand all of this, and don't quote me, but this is the general understanding I got.

I love these discussions!
D 8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> ="gimpy"I think Ashton Kutcher is a cool 27. I watch too much E!


LOLOLOL.
You know he's adorable and I think he's a great partner for Demi. I have no problem with their relationship, and I'd think that whole family, including Bruce Willis and whomever he hangs with, is a great extended group.

Also, re: gays raising children. My only problem, the more I think about this is, I think children do need the presense of BOTH SEXES in a family as role models.

I don't think gays raise gay children, but there may be some raised in a gay household who feel they may have missed a traditional family. A boy may miss the presense of a father. A girl might miss the presense of a mother, etc.

Think I've got some of this straight.

En, you've got to post your paper when it's done!
Coool 8) 
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Janine, one thing that's interesting, if you read where gay civil unions are recognized, or is it civil marriages, I'm so confused!!!! One country is Israel, so I can't say it is specifically Judaeo-Christian.

This in and of itself is one college course. You know, it's a law course.

If you are a gay couple, and have the money for an attorney, you can create any number of legal contracts to have all of the secular benefits of a "marriage", in theory.

Hence, why would gays want a more traditional marriage? Again, yes, the hassle, but I do agree, and hadn't thought of this, it is a statement, a great desire for acceptance. I can understand that.

I have a friend, my oldest friend. We were friends when we were babies! She is 6 months younger than I. She is gay. She has been with her partner for years. Her mother doesn't know. Only her sister knows -- not even her sister's husband, etc. Her father is deceased. Only very few friends know, save her neighbors obviously.

It's very sad, as I know her, she is a good, dear person. But she and her partner have built a life together. They have a house, friends they are open with. But she has to tread on eggshells, and as she told me, when we got older, this is how she always felt.

She has made a good life for herself. I don't know all of the details, and she wouldn't seek marriage as she wouldn't want to draw attention to herself or her partner.

This is really confusing.
OK, time for bed.
Or I'll go researching some more.
Could call my husband back, LOL.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2005)

> That poster is funnier than hell, btw, Wen.
> 
> e


Think so too, pal. Its a magnet, you know those kinds you can stick on your refrigerator. There's a whole series of them. Too funny. :lol:

Wen :wink:


----------



## Monkeydust (Jan 12, 2005)

*Axel wrote*


> I said it in another post but the bible, as a sort of rule book that can not be changed, states that marriage is between a man and a woman.


Not to mention the fact that it says: if a man has sex with another man, *kill them both.* (Lev 20:13)

*Axel wrote*


> Person 3 said that the bible says slavery is ok. I don't know where that was said, but ti certainly wasn't said in the new testament.


Where do we start?

Lev 25 44:-46 states that clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock.

Then there's a whole section in Exodus detailing how to treat you slave (Exodus 21:2-6) condoning sex-slavery (21:7-11 ) and condoning beating of your slaves - as long as they don't die from it (21:20-21 ).

The New Testament, contrary to your claims, isn't much better. Here's a few quotes for starters:

_"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)"_

_"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)"_

And to top it off we even get Jesus condoning the beating of slaves (Luke 12:47-48).

Nice stuff, ain't it?

*Axel wrote*


> Therefore gay marriage within the church will never be possible.


This is true. There's little room for Christian "progressives" manoeuvre within the ambit of their own texts.



> Really, I don't know understand what the rush for gays to get married is all about. The most genuine motive I see behind it is for the purpose of creating a family. Because people want the joy of kids but you don't want your kids being raised multiple d*ckweeds and because it is best for kids to be in a stable environment.


For homosexuals, I think it's quite largely a "symbolic" issue in the sense that they want to be publicly acknowledged as being on an "equal footing" with heterosexuals in society. It also means a lot to those who want to solidify a strong relationship.

*Dreamer wrote*


> Also, I believe in gays raising kids. There are hetero couples who have GAY children. I fully believe that in 90%+ of cases that homosexuality is hard-wired. Purely Nature. If a hetero couple can give birth to and raise a gay child, and gay parents can raise straight kids, well ....


I don't think the issue here is so much "gay parents bring up gay children". It seems to me that the real issue here is that, supposedly, homosexual couples will offer only an "unbalanced" upbringing because the mother/father role models that the child is "programmed" to recognize are not distinctively there.

But, again, it's a difficult one - I'm not sure where I stand on this particular question.

*Dreamer wrote*


> Bottom line I believe that one is born homosexual.


I disagree.

Sure, one might be born with a tendency to be either homosexual or heterosexual, but I personally feel it's mostly a matter of upbringing.

I don't think that makes it in any way more "wrong", however.

*Janine wrote*


> We humans have a very arrogant view of what Normal is, or should be. It matters that a child knows it's loved. Anything else is gravy.


So its it the case that it doesn't psychologically speaking "matter" if a child doesn't recognize both a mother and a father?

This is the issue I'm unsure about.


----------



## dakotajo (Aug 10, 2004)

How many people here would want to come home as a child with your best friend from school just to catch your two dads or moms tongue kissing? That would be an instant mental illness for the rest of your life. Images like that would burn into your brain. What about school and social activities? Would you want your parents to be there? You would know what every body was thinking and it would make you miserable 24-7. I would be totally ashamed. I dont think any developing mind should be put thru the stress of having to live like that. I dont care what anybody thinks. I could care less if gays want to set up camp but they should not EVER be able to raise kids....


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Ultimately, I think the position of many benevolent straight people (myself included), is that they would feel sorry for gay couples if they had to miss out on the joys of having their own children. They _do deserve_ the experience of having children, which is perhaps the most important thing one can do in life.
Howver I think the issue is far more complicated than some people make out, and any hasty conclusions should be avoided. That's why I've given up thinking about it.


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Okay, this is a difficult post to write.

Janine, as much as I disagree with Martin, and it is quite a bit, I will have to use one of his terms for this post. Law is a way for government to codify morality. Whatever you base your morality upon. The greater good, personal safety, societal order, religion. In our country, it being a republic ( no _true_ democracy exists in the world today) our laws, and their inherent morality, are codified by consensus. _That_ is the way the founding fathers decided it would be. The seperation of church and state bars any dignitary of the US from declaring an official state religion. They didnt have a problem with "christianity" being the inspiration for law or the constitution - most of the signers preferred it that way. But they had left England because they were Quakers, Calvinists, or Catholics and were escaping persecution. They seemed more interested in allowing different denominations of christianity to do as they wished than any form of relgion. Atheists would probably have been hung. And even that didnt really translate into reality for many years - of the first thirteen colonies, only two allowed Catholics to worship. I want to caution against reading into history the way we _wish_ it were now, and not the way it truly was. Conservatives make the same mistakes. If you think I'm right wing, you should meet some of my aquaintances. They're always holding up the Middle Ages as the golden age of humanity and the Victorian era as a beacon of purity - neither of which is really true. Victorians didnt talk about sex, but had alot of it, and alot of the diseases you get from it. Read some medical history books. The Middle Ages was no better, you just had less freedom in general. Now, eventhough I dont beleive that George Washington would be at all enamored with homosexual unions, I will still base my argument on the principle of their worth, and not law, as I tend to disagree with plenty of governmental decisions myself.

Monkeydust, I can't get into too much of this now, but if one is a literalist, the Old Testament makes it difficult to sympathise with Jews and Christians. These kinds of quotes back up anti-Semitists. So why dont Jews, who still contain Leviticus in their Talmud, hold slaves now, beat them, and use them for sex? Dont they beleive that this is the literal teaching of God? Well, actually, no they dont. Rabbis have always been around to interpret it. This was civil law in Israel about 3000-4000 years ago. While they teach, and so do Christian sects, that these books were written by men under a divine influence, they were still written by men, with all of their ancient world customs and prejudices. There were plenty of good quotes in Leviticus as well, and if you look at the nations around them, the Jews look positively saintly. They didnt decide to throw their children in fiery pits for their god, unlike the Baalists. As for the New Testament quote, at that point the Jewish culture, or perhaps it was divine inspiration, had progressed to the point at which they no longer posessed slaves. In that specific parable, Christ says _servant_.And it isnt a condonement of people-beating - its an Aesop fable, a parable, a story with a moral.

Lastly, this is why I'm not in favor of gay marriage. I know it tends to sound, when you disagree with anyone about choices they make or things they do, that you dislike the person. Well it doesnt mean that and it shouldnt. We coexist with people all the time who dont live up to our expectations, society's expectations, and we still call them friends, or Mom, or Dad, or brother, or sister. The secret of a healthy relationship is to look past these things and to try to understand where they are coming from. This being said, I dont agree with homosexuality. This is for a variety of reasons. I was raised in a religion which doesnt permit it. I havent had overwhelmingly positive contact with gay men. I dont beleive it is very healthy psychologically, and for men, medically. Most of the gay men I have known have been around my age, about 23, flaming, very unhappy, very promiscuous, and at times physically and psychologically ill. I understand their quandary. I dont think they chose to be gay. I think they were born that way, and are incredibly smart, artistic, sensitive guys. But the lifestyle itself, not even the way they were being treated (since in college towns being gay is almost chic), seemed to be tearing their bodies apart. I wouldn't condone these guys raising children. All a newborn to three year old is, is a blank slate. They go through the same thing that animals go through, imprintation. Mom and Dad become hard-wired on the brain. Our gender perceptions have been set by the first 36 months of our lives. I dont want to fool with nature's way of doing this. Civil unions without adoption? Honestly, I'll leave that to the consensus to legislate. I havent had much contact with lesbians my age. I'm not sure why, but at least around here, there arent that many. I knew one, and she was a great baseball player and a cool tomboy. She was a good friend, but she was also suicidal alot. I dont know if she chose the lifestyle because of the problems she had, if it caused it, or if society's perception of her lifestyle did. I just cant say that religion aside, I think its healthy. Maybe if I had had Dreamers contacts, I'd be more optimistic. 
Evolutionary wise, it must serve a purpose, since mother nature made 1-2 pecent of us gay. I just dont know if I can say that this purpose is getting married and raising children.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2005)

Despite how much some may WISH it is so, or how much some may pretend it is so, or how much some may try to FORCE it to be so, this country was and is founded on freedoms and human rights to individuality - requiring only a mutually-agreed upon set of moral behaviors, not beliefs. It is NOT within the jurisdiction of this nation to legislate belifes.

This is NOT a "Christian" nation. It is a nation. There are lots of Christians. But the current Religious Right is riding on a series of delusions if it thinks it can actually get away with proclaiming that.

Christianity is ONE religion here. Not The Religion. and those who do not adhere to its beliefs cannot and will not be forced to live according to them by law.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Wow, this is a great discussion. I agree w/Axel in that this is not cut and dried at all. Interesting is my home state voted down gay civil marriage/unions in the elections. Many states put that on the ballot and it won as again there was a fear that Kerry was going to change the status quo. That really backfired on Kerry, I agree -- the whole state of MASS mess.

I have some concerns about the raising of children only in terms of a child missing one or the other parent -- as I did. I really had no parents -- my school was my family.

But, I think gay couples who are serious about raising children -- and those gays have to go through hoops for that anyway -- would not show more than the affection a hetero couple would show in front of their own children. And there are always the stories of, "OMG, I walked in and Mom and Dad were doin' it!" 8) Scarred for life!

I know Rosie O'Donnell sp? isn't the average gay mother, but I heard her on a talk show saying she and her partner don't display anything other than normal affection in front of the children they've adopted. Also, many gay couples DON'T want children -- my half-brother as an example. Like some hetero couples.

Also, in the documentary I saw, this was always the two men who did a BEAUTIFUL job of raising their brood -- unwanted children -- were never inappropriate sexually in front of the children. Hetero couples are the same. But both gay and hetero couples can be screwed up too!

In the case of adoption, as I've said, if there's a gay couple subjected to the same standards as a hetero couple who wish to adopt, I say, let the child have a home for crying out loud.

Now in terms of a civil union vs. a civil marriage vs. a standard religious marriage.

1. I see no problem with a civil union, and if the couple is serious of all the rights and privileges of marriage, they can seek these through other means.

2. At this point, I also don't see the problem with civil marriage, though I see how it seems to violate an ancient tradition of man + woman which is spoken of in all cultures.

3. A religious marriage really makes no sense. It's moot, as someone said, many religions won't perform such a ceremony.

This is not an easy decision, but I also agree that political intervention in moral issues is just as dicey as mixing church and state. It's essentially the same thing.

I do stand by my belief that homosexuality is in most cases something someone is born with. Hard-wired. I've heard this too many times from friends and from reading, etc. I agree in a certain percentage of cases this could be influenced by environment, but I lean towards Nature vs. Nurture.

Very interesting. Learn something new every day.
Agree with you Axel, this is not an easy thing to decide. It is far more complicated than I understood. Again, the media and "political speak" are very weak re: conveying the full implications of things. One needs to read in depth about a particular topic to really understand.

I was sorely mistaken in my understanding of all of this, and am awaiting Engirl's paper to fill me in!

Best,
D


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2005)

Also, it is very dangerous to equate Morality with Religion. Moral behavior is without a doubt a requiremen for a good strong civilized country. THAT IS NOT RELIGION, and the implication that only by enforcing religious beliefs upon people can there be any moral adherence is highly manipulative and highly incorrect. It is, however, part of the brilliance of Carl Rove, and a large piece of why Mr. Bush got re-elected.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Oops, Homeskooled and Janine you were posting at the same time I was.

This is interesting Home as I believe this, and this supports my belief that one is born gay. There are animals that have homosexuality.


> Evolutionary wise, it must serve a purpose, since mother nature made 1-2 pecent of us gay. I just dont know if I can say that purpose is getting married and raising children


I do have a strong evolutionary POV re: the development of the human. It is interesting how certain traits appear in a constant percentage throughout various cultures.

Re: all this history. I'm too ignorant at this point to argue it.

OK, enuf. I'm waiting for a paper on this from the Engirl. I am sorely ignorant there, LOL.

Peace folks,
D


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

JanineBaker said:


> Also, it is very dangerous to equate Morality with Religion. Moral behavior is without a doubt a requiremen for a good strong civilized country. THAT IS NOT RELIGION, and the implication that only by enforcing religious beliefs upon people can there be any moral adherence is highly manipulative and highly incorrect. It is, however, part of the brilliance of Carl Rove, and a large piece of why Mr. Bush got re-elected.


OK, one last thing, LOL. MAN I wish we could all go out for a cuppa Joe and discuss this. Much easier than typing.

I was quite amazed that ONE MILLION people waited in line to view the Pope lying in state. They had to cut off the line at ONE MILLION or people would be filing by for eternity.

There is a difficulty here as I believe that religion serves some evolutionary purpose as well. Ramachandran, M.D., Ph.D. has investigated this for some time. I find it fascinating that seizure patients can have tremendous spiritual experiences. Other illnesses cause this to happen as well.

I do wonder if people are essentially born "good". Why have there always been laws in every culture to help maintain unity and avoid chaos? And not just laws that are established by religion. Homeskooled describes this well in his last post.

Discipline of children (without cruelty) is necessary for them to fit into culture in a constructive way. We know that children from dysfunctional families are more prone to criminal behavior, etc. Have emotional problems. Schools today are killing grounds. I see that as the fault of bad parenting.

At any rate, I don't think we have a real innate sense of morality. I think we have to recognize our shortcomings in re: this.

Though I am not Jewish or Catholic or Buddhist, I believe in certain teachings of all three religions. The word religion being a set of rules and rituals. I believe in the 10 Commandments, they make perfect sense. Why would they have been created (not necessarily by God -- I am not SPIRITUAL that way) if these rules weren't already being violated?

I do believe we are all suceptible to indulging in the 7 deadly sins. It's only logical. And I've already forgotten most of them, though I saw the movie Se7en about Seven times, LOL. I think these traits are innate in humans -- partly out of survial instincts such as territoriality that go back to our evolutionary heritage, like the great apes.

OK, done. This is an excuse to not do 20 things I have to do.

Best,
D


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear Janine, 
I dont think that you have to have religion to be moral - thats hard-wired into us, but only to a degree. If people weren't susceptible to being immoral, we wouldnt need laws. Janine, whats the difference between mutually agreed upon moral behaviours, and a belief? If you are in agreement with enough people about enough moral behaviours, it becomes religion. I know that its easier to polarize the two sides, but its two sides of the same coin. And its easier still to use catch-phrases like "this nation was and is founded on freedoms and human rights to individuality", but ask black citizens and women how much freedom and individuality they had in 1910. There has never been a state religion in the US, however, and hopefully, it will stay that way. Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson used the words Judeo-Christian in their writings more times than I can count on both hands. This philosophy informed their "morals". This has been a driving philosophy in the US for a long, long while, and even predates Karl Rove. Whatever philosophy informs the "morals" of the consensual majority is going to be the philosophy that legislates. It isnt evil, it isnt without precedent, and it isnt un-American. In the future, it may be an agnostic left-wing ideology which informs most Americans, and our legislation will reflect that. But have hope- even today's right wingers would have been considered Socialists and liberals in 1910.

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Homeskooled said:


> I dont think that you have to have religion to be moral - thats hard-wired into us, but only to a degree. If people weren't susceptible to being immoral, we wouldnt need laws.


I agree with this completely as I mentioned in my earlier post. We make laws AFTER laws have been broken. A simple thing as stopping at red light is a law because people run red lights -- the result is frequently severe injury or death, yet people risk this. Just a simple example, and it has no spiritual basis at all.

Murdering someone, stealing, etc. This has occurred since humans were in social groups, and it even occurs in chimps. Laws against these crimes are social, not from organized religion. And they are a philosophical religion in a sense, or set of rules that preserve survival of the group.

Also, Homeskooled, there is one thing. Christianity as noted in Genesis says we are born with sin -- hence we are fallible sp? no? So we *aren't considered moral to begin with.*. Am I incorrect in this?

We are "sinful" in spritual terms. God/Christ can forgive our sins, but we must atone for them, and in society were must atone as well, with fines, prison time, ostracism, etc.

A person can be moral to a degree, I think, but I believe at minimum this starts at the family level. Religion which rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior reinforces this. There are secular consequences as well as religious consequences.

Again, without one or both, I think the world would be mayhem. And it is anyway. :shock:

IMHO only.
D 8)


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2005)

Oh, I don't think "Goodness" in wired into us at all, lol....we are animals, and we're selfish primarily (and should be in interest of the species). We are sexual and aggressive creatures in my opinion, without a doubt. Are we capable of altruism? maybe. Maybe not. Doesn't even matter, if we can instead, funnel our needs and desires into socially beneficial (for many) outlets - and share, help and/or provide for the less fortunate BECAUSE it in the long run benefits the rest of us.

Morality can be taught and inspired - with or without religious beliefs - we can instill a sense empathy in our children, and we can model it. We might not make saints, but we'd make a good batch of folks to live next door to.

Our conscience (the "guilt meter") will tell us if we should or should not do something based on the effects it could have on the larger group of our neighbors and countrymen. We can also "gage" our reactions to "this feels a little TOO selfish" based on our developed empathic sense.

Nowhere in any of that do we NEED a code of religious beliefs in order to "control" one another. We can agree to a code of behavior that FITS with our sense of what we agree will be tolerable to live around.

But as soon as one says "Beliefs" are needed - we're in scary turf. Beliefs imply a "HOLIER" than us universal - is there one? maybe - but maybe YOUR "holier than me" god isn't the same as my definition of Him. As a large society, we can agree on behaviors we will accept or limit based on the quality of life factor for all involved, but I will NOT live in any society that tells me I must ascribe to a core set of imposed beliefs.

Sometimes people are SO scared of the intense and untamed reality of human beings (especially in themselves - we KNOW we're not "goody goody' much of the time, if ever!) that they assume religion is NEEDED in order to prevent mankind from running amok. That is untrue - people can hold their beliefs and live by them, or not....each to his own. We can demand certain behaviors (or face consequences of laws) by all.

VERY important to keep morality and behavior and religious beliefs SEPARATE issues.


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

Homeskooled said:


> Okay, this is a difficult post to write.
> 
> Lastly, this is why I'm not in favor of gay marriage. I know it tends to sound, when you disagree with anyone about choices they make or things they do, that you dislike the person. Well it doesnt mean that and it shouldnt. We coexist with people all the time who dont live up to our expectations, society's expectations, and we still call them friends, or Mom, or Dad, or brother, or sister. The secret of a healthy relationship is to look past these things and to try to understand where they are coming from. This being said, I dont agree with homosexuality. This is for a variety of reasons. I was raised in a religion which doesnt permit it. I havent had overwhelmingly positive contact with gay men. I dont beleive it is very healthy psychologically, and for men, medically. Most of the gay men I have known have been around my age, about 23, flaming, very unhappy, very promiscuous, and at times physically and psychologically ill. I understand their quandary. I dont think they chose to be gay. I think they were born that way, and are incredibly smart, artistic, sensitive guys. But the lifestyle itself, not even the way they were being treated (since in college towns being gay is almost chic), seemed to be tearing their bodies apart. I wouldn't condone these guys raising children. All a newborn to three year old is, is a blank slate. They go through the same thing that animals go through, imprintation. Mom and Dad become hard-wired on the brain. Our gender perceptions have been set by the first 36 months of our lives. I dont want to fool with nature's way of doing this. Civil unions without adoption? Honestly, I'll leave that to the consensus to legislate. I havent had much contact with lesbians my age. I'm not sure why, but at least around here, there arent that many. I knew one, and she was a great baseball player and a cool tomboy. She was a good friend, but she was also suicidal alot. I dont know if she chose the lifestyle because of the problems she had, if it caused it, or if society's perception of her lifestyle did. I just cant say that religion aside, I think its healthy. Maybe if I had had Dreamers contacts, I'd be more optimistic.
> Evolutionary wise, it must serve a purpose, since mother nature made 1-2 pecent of us gay. I just dont know if I can say that this purpose is getting married and raising children.
> ...


homeskooled,
have you ever considered why so many gay men seem to be living that very hard lifestyle? it is probably because there are people like you in the world that judge them and say that they don't deserve the same rights. perhaps you should think about that aspect.

also, i don't think it is the "flamers" who are looking to adopt. in fact, i'd be willing to wager that adoptind a child is the farthest thing from their mind. even if they were looking to adopt a child, no one here is saying that it should be mandatory. they would still have to go through a very rigorous screening process.

a lot of your points are well thought out (if misguided), but a lot of your arguments don't make any sense at all.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2005)

I'll cheer up this thread a bit, and I believe my comp is up and running again. From the Decoration Committee, A Very Special Delivery:

















Love this thread :wink:


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I'll get back to you guys on all this. I'm keeping up with the posts. You've given me some great information Dreamer. Thank your husband for me.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

> How many people here would want to come home as a child with your best friend from school just to catch your two dads or moms tongue kissing? That would be an instant mental illness for the rest of your life.


Well just the other day I walked in on my 50+ year old parents, lying naked in bed (ok so they had the bed sheets over them, but they definately were naked). Shortly before I became mentally ill, I walke din on my mum lying naked in the bath. That was a shock. Why wasn't the door open? Why was there no bath foam, leaving the water totally transparent?



> Oh, I don't think "Goodness" in wired into us at all, lol....we are animals, and we're selfish primarily (and should be in interest of the species).


I'd disagree with Janine on that one (I've always wanted to say that :lol: ).
Well Janine, your right in saying that in our current state we are not necessarily 'Good'.
However two points to bring up.
Firstly, we are in a state of evolutionary flux. Plesiousaurs were not, intrinsically, land animals, but they certainly were becoming land animals, evolutionary speaking. That is to say that they were headed that way in evolution. I think the same coud be said about humans.

People often say that modern society is bad. In my opinion (and I'm talking with very limited assumptive knowledge of history) this is not the case. Society has become increasingly more benevolent towards the general good. At no other point in history was it the case that _everyone_ had the right to life. In the not too distant future I can see capital punishment being abolished throughout America. 
It has always been debated in philosophy whether reason or feelings govern morality. What Bertrand Russell pointed out when refuting Nietszche, was that there may in fact exist a universal love in people. A universal love that was present in the likes of Jesus and Budha. This feeling may indeed be pleasant for the subject, but that does not mean that this 'universal love' exists purely for the pleasure of the individual. It can be said to be a neccessary occurence in an evolutionary process that will lead to a more unified human society. This universal love may in fact be absent in certain individuals, but present in others, that is a posibility. Something similar to this universal love recurs throughout many cultures and lines of thought. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism even the more primitive tribe cultures of the Amazon. It is present in Utilitarianism, which is the moral principle from which many of America's laws are derrived.

This isn't just pseudo-theological babbling. Groups of animals always function better when they submit to the general good. Ants, termites, bees all have a swarm mentality (swarm is in fact a scientific term). Indiviually they can achieve very little, but the swarm functions so tightly that it can almost be viewed as a single animal in itslef, one that is many degrees more intelligent than any of its members. These swarms are able to create vast and complex structures, which any one indivdual could not do on its own, even if it did have the time. Humans do not quite function as a swarm yet, but it is the opinion of some that we are in fact evolving to such a state. To do so would be to abandon the selfish human state, that is intinsic to all higher level mammals.

Furthermore I think that the Cartesian account of mind is largely responsible for a lot of the forms of so called selfishness we see today. That the mind and the body are entirely seperate, and that a mind is an independant immortal force. This leads to an inflated view of the self, that one's own needs can always outweigh those of others because one is a sort of god, and the world is a playground to manifest one's will.
However I think that a more monistically materialist view of people in general will help bridge the gulf between individuals and create a more unified swarm like mentality, which would be the manifestation of a universla love. What I mean is that if we can view the mind independant world as the governor of what is true, as opposed to ones own mind, then we will not tolerate the existence of any form of suffering.............and in all honesty I haven't the slightes f***ing clue what I'm talking about anymore, I doubt any of you are still reading, and this has nothing to do with gay marriage so I'll shut up.

p.s.But it was nice to disagree with Janine for all of five minutes.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2005)

LOL to Axel.....hope you enjoyed your five minutes, lol

and HUGE howl to Wendy for the "Hers and Hers" and His and His cake decorations. Excellent.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*Axel*, LOL re: your 5 minutes of disagreeing with Janine, and *Wendy,* those wedding cake decorations are priceless, but those are for real! I've seen those. *Homeskooled I believe I have had more interaction with gay folk perhaps because I lived in Los Angeles for 16 years, and was frequently in San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, etc.

I also am an Artsy person. I have worked in theatre, TV, film, music since I can recall. I have run into more gay people than you can shake a stick at. No big deal in West Hollywood my dear, or in the entertainment industry that's for certain. *

My beloved drama teacher in high school was gay (you wouldn't know, and I didn't understand this until some years later). I also believe another of my favorite male teachers -- a history teacher -- was gay. He was also a devout Christian. I adored him. 2 teachers, highly respected at a top private school. There were probably more gay male teachers, but they didn't dare "come out." Can't answer for the women, but I believe one athletic director was gay. A wonderful lady.

My drama director was one of the best instructors I've ever had. He was a "retired"-at-26-actor" literally and a member of SAG --- he'd been on a soap opera... after he'd pounded the pavement in New York, he brought the world of Broadway to all of us.

At University, I had a number of gay professors. That's in undergrad and grad... all male.

In L.A. I worked as a production assistant on a major TV Series. Also, my oldest girlfriend I mentioned (who came from a loving upper class home), and my half-brother are gay. I knew gay women in college as I lived in an all-womens' dorm -- it was quieter! I could study! LOL.

*There are as many kinds of gay people as there are straight people. Excellent human beings to idiots -- gay or straight. Responsible or irresponsible. Wealthy and poor. Etc., etc., etc. Andy who started this original forum is gay. He wouldn't mind my saying it as he was completely open about it. The original DP Forum and connection w/the IoP was Andy's creation. And I always thank James for taking it over for him.*

And *Axel* because I can't articulate my disagreement with Janine's argument at the mo, I'll go with yours.



> It has always been debated in philosophy whether reason or feelings govern morality. What Bertrand Russell pointed out when refuting Nietszche, was that there may in fact exist a universal love in people. A universal love that was present in the likes of Jesus and Budha. This feeling may indeed be pleasant for the subject, but that does not mean that this 'universal love' exists purely for the pleasure of the individual. It can be said to be a neccessary occurence in an evolutionary process that will lead to a more unified human society. This universal love may in fact be absent in certain individuals, but present in others, that is a posibility. Something similar to this universal love recurs throughout many cultures and lines of thought. Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism even the more primitive tribe cultures of the Amazon. It is present in Utilitarianism, which is the moral principle from which many of America's laws are derrived.
> 
> This isn't just pseudo-theological babbling.* Groups of animals always function better when they submit to the general good. Ants, termites, bees all have a swarm mentality (swarm is in fact a scientific term). Indiviually they can achieve very little, but the swarm functions so tightly that it can almost be viewed as a single animal in itslef, one that is many degrees more intelligent than any of its members. These swarms are able to create vast and complex structures, which any one indivdual could not do on its own, even if it did have the time. Humans do not quite function as a swarm yet, but it is the opinion of some that we are in fact evolving to such a state. To do so would be to abandon the selfish human state, that is intinsic to all higher level mammals. *


I have to ponder on this more as I don't agree with everything here, but I go with the survival of the fittest theory. Survival is the name of the game. And if sentient beings are going to survive in groups -- individuals, with many differences, even within a culture, a town, a household -- they must have some "code of ethics." Without one, things would collapse into anarchy -- "Sodom and Gommorrah", "The Tower of Babel", "The Money Changers in the Temple."

*Forgive me Homeskooled, but I take a good part of both the Old Testament and the New Testament as myth, fable, and parable -- but these things teach us lessons, lessons all children must learn to survive as adults, and all adults must try to adhere to to maintain some sense of social cohesion. What if the wiser members of a group found this was the best way to ENFORCE the ability to survive?

Also, again THEISM does come from a need to understand the unknown. To deal with mortality. That's a whole other discussion. We need "parents", God the Father if you will (I may be stretching that a bit), to love us, forgive us. And we need explanations and answers that for many aren't answered in purely secular ways.*

Where GOD, spirituality, THEISM, comes into the picture, I have theories on that, but I feel it is too prevalent, and exists in ALL cultures in one way or another. That can't be by accident.

That is not to say that THEISM, or any religion (and you can call communism a religion, literally) always works or is always right. It gets misinterpreted, misued, there are dissenters. It can become destructive, dangerous, deadly. NAZIism is in essense a "religion" -- a philosophy, a set of beliefs, a set of rules.

*As dear Squeaky Fromme said (yes the Manson gal) "If you ain't got no philosophy you ain't got no rules. She was right. And she was off the wall!*

You can't satisfy all people all of the time. It's impossible, so there have to be some agreed-upon "rules" at minimum.

And the biological imperative.... the driving force. To survive. It seems we have adapted in many different ways to guarantee this.

End of lecture :shock: 
D 8)

*Ah and Engirl, my husband is always happy to discuss politics, religion, history, science, psychology, physics .... he drives me NUTS, but he's pretty cool, and very smart. You can give him a footnote in your paper, LOL. He will be honored.*


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

*PS to Homeskooled*

At uni, I studied "The Old Testament and New Testament as History" -- this was an outstanding one year course, where we read the Bible as literature, as well as great Greek and Roman historians, etc. We also studied the history of the time.

I believe that both the OT and the NT are about people who actually lived, or are the oral tradition of people who did live. I believe there was a Moses, a Jesus, etc. It would seem a good portion of the OT IS historical, and the NT less so, but that doesn't take from its messages, its lessons.

And I prefer the King James Version, the "old fashioned" text, not modern text. It is so beautiful. I also had the amazing good fortune, to go with my mother the atheist, to see the Vatican. Saw the Sisteen Chapel, etc. My mother boxed my ears, hit me on the head, and said, "Remember this! Damnit, this is history!" LOL. (Um, I can laugh at that now.)

Being in many of the old Churches of Europe, I was in awe. I felt something "greater". If a choir sang, if an organ played, I was absolutely floored by it all.

The beauty of the psalms is overwhelming.

It's these things that I find so moving. Also, I have been in Mosques. I feel the same grandeur, and one's voice drops to a whisper, or to silence. I wish I could go to The Holy Land. Wowzer. Sadly, not these days.

I love:

*"By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down,
yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.
We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.
For there they that carried us away captive, required of us a song,
And they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying,
Sing us one of the songs of Zion.
How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?"

Psalm 137*


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2005)

damn gay people (grin). I am taking mySELF out of this thread for a day - I have things to DO and this is too addictive!!!!!!!!!!

Dreamer, excellent points there, by the way. And it satisfies me to no end that we are now gleaming pearls of wisdom from Squeaky Frome, lol...and she's RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To each his/her own (and the right to their own cake decorations). 
Love to all, Janine


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm going to crawl out of my self-imposed gutter just one more time, to comment, nicely and with self-restraint, on this matter.

Firstly, Christians do NOT follow the bible. They run around after random pages torn out of the good book, fluttering in the wind, and pick and choose the bits of it they like, and ingore the rest on the pretence of taking the rather more unsavoury bits in 'historical context'.

Secondly, I've got absolutely no problem with gay marriage, or union, or whatever you want to call it, and 'having' children. Two gay people can bring up a child just as well as a hetrosexual couple, I would have thought. I can't see any reason why not. The only reservation I have is this - is society ready to accept gay marriages where children are involved ? Of course it isn't. There's too much religious bigotry and the terror of deviating from social 'norms' for that to happen. That's the real problem and it's a shame.

Back to the gutter. I shall say no more.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Oh, Martin, "don't hide your light under a bushel" -- bad biblical quotation, and I simply can't spell anymore. I use the spell check when writing.

One thing, this isn't just Christian. This is a concept that exists in ALL religions, in all cultures. And men in the main are the decision makers in this, and woman are subservient to these decisions.

Women are also treated like dirt in many countries. Worse than dirt, such as Africa. Also, oddly enough, I believe Saudi Arabia? (no one quote me) sends a great deal of money to Africa, and they teach concepts such as hatred of the U.S., and teach Islam as the primary religion.

Society as a whole, and I again believe this comes from the biological imperative, regardless of organized religion, Spiritual beliefs, does not find the union of gays to be "natural". Theism of one sort or another ENFORCES this, but I don't believe this is where the original laws came from.

And for instance, I remember this from L.A. Hispanic men are very much into "machismo" -- that is strictly cultural. There were places in L.A. where two Hispanic men would meet for trysts -- in cars parked in public parks, late at night. Whether they were gay or bi-sexual, they would have a fling, then return to their wife and family.

The hispanics, in California -- the majority I believe are from Mexico (have crossed a border made of Swiss Cheese, LOL) are Christian/Catholic. But their social "machismo"" -- where they deny any homosexual tendencies is seen as a cultural phenom and has nothing to do with religion.

There are more secular countries/cultures, and more spiritual. Laws are still required, and they are still broken.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Note also: man I'm addicted to this darned topic.

There are secular individuals who are also anti-gay. Said folks find homosexuality "unnatural". I think it is a natural human "instinct" perhaps, as it violates the concept of procreation, and again survival of the species.

Oh, may I get things done, and get away from this!

Janine, LOL. I see you are equally addicted to this discussion.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

> And Axel because I can't articulate my disagreement with Janine's argument at the mo, I'll go with yours.


You say that like it's a bad thing. 

As far as people saying (probably in a heavy southern accent or cockney accent, or equivalent in whatever country) 'it ain't natural!!', well they need to be more specific about what they mean by natural. I've alwys taken natural to mean that which 'occurs in nature'. Now doubtlessly homosexuality does occur in nature, so that argument's just stupid. Unless of course they are implying that gay people just pretend to be gay, In which case homosexuality would be man made, and therefore unnatural which is just a very stupid argument. 
Whst I mean is that homosexuality is natural, which was obvious anyway, so I don't know why I brought it up.
Anyway gay people shoudl doubtlessly be entitled to the benefits of a civil union (shared bank accounts etc, although I'm not sure exactly what the benefits are), I'm sure we all agree on that.
As for gay couples being allowed to have children, well like I said before, I'm really not sure. But it certainly is a matter for the state to decide, the state, and its laws existing for the welfare of it's population. So anyone who says that it's no one else's business whether a gay couple have children doesn't knwo what they're talkign about really. That is not to say that gay couples _shouldn't_ be allowed to have children, but it certainly is a matter of concern for society. Whereas gay marriage is far more a question of one acting out personal will which does not affect others. The family structure is absolutely pivotal to the function of society and mankind in general, and any drastic change to this structure should be rigourosly examined before being put into action. Gay parenthood isn't a trivial matter at all. So once again I'll say that heterosexuals (whom I can only really speak for on the matter) should avoid hasty conclusions motivated purely by (probably slightly patronising anyway) sympathy for gay couples.
Gay marriage and gay parenthood are two very, very different issues.


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2005)

I will say this only once, and I repeat, *ONLY once*:










If life could be just THAT simple (.....off to smoke a ciggie, o and ofcourse a piece of that delicious cake...).


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2005)

> The family structure is absolutely pivotal to the function of society and mankind in general, and any drastic change to this structure should be rigourosly examined before being put into action. Gay parenthood isn't a trivial matter at all.


Axel, I agree that parenthood in general shouldn't be trivial. HOwever, representing Reality over here, grin....let's take a look at what IS. Frequently, children are abandoned, and placed subsequently into foster homes where they are abused sexually and/or violently, or they are neglected, or they are hated and used only for the few hundred bucks a month their responsibility pays for.

Then if charges are brought up against the foster parents, often they're dropped for lack of evidence and/or lack of time.

Often those same parents are given more children, and the few hundred bucks a month they come with.

If the ISSUE is truly our poor children, there are many many areas that need attention and money and focus and time. Whether or not the adoptive parents are gay or not IS trivial compared to the rest of what needs to be addressed.

But...like most activists, people rarely really care enough about the real issues at hand. They'd rather hate and judge and condemn whatever particular group stirs up danger in their own psyche.

Witch burning by any other name is still a red herring.

And, who would have suspected?
after all this time, it seems MY sexual "preference' is the same as Wendy's LOL (well, according to her new motto above)

:lol:


----------



## Homeskooled (Aug 10, 2004)

Dear AgentCooper, 
Thanks, but I need to ask which of the statements I made you thought were devoid of sense. Like I said earlier in the paragraph, "Robbie" and "Matt" were both fairly well accepted in Pittsburgh. My other friend, "Phil" is actually an incredibly well-balanced guy in New Jersey. I dont need to judge them- they're my friends, but I reserve the right to judge behaviour, and not the person behind it or their motives. We've all talked about our differing views, especially "Robbie" and I. We both act, we both are great at impersonations. Speaking of things without sense, I dont know if there is really any reason why gay men like Cher so much, but "Robbie" can do a killer imitation. Unfortunately, his physical health isnt so hot right now. He is independently wealthy, as his parents died about 10 years ago, and his promiscuity tends to lends itself to alot of breakups, which seriously depresses him to the point of suicide. He has expressed interest in adopting a child. "Phil" is also wealthy, but he lives with his parents, who are doctors, in New Jersey, and tends to lead a fairly wholesome life, with hardly any romantic entanglements, and he seems to be better for it. "Matt" who also lives in Pittsburgh, is also very promiscuous, and although not sick, also sad. I just tend to see a correlation that the more they practice it, the less psychologically healthy they seem and the more medical complications crop up. They talk to me about their problems, and I try to help them out as best I can. But I cant condone it. I just cant. I honestly think that Robbie is compensating for the loss of his parents with his promiscuity. If they ever think that I am judging them, and not their situation, I'm sure they'll tell me.

Janine, 
I want to start out by saying that the use of foster homes as a typification of adoption is misleading at best. You do not even need to have two foster parents to run a foster home. Being a child in a foster home doesnt mean that you are up for adoption - a large percentage of them are in a situation where their parent/parents are incarcerated. Others parents are still alive, but they have been removed by social workers from a harmful family environment. In all cases, they are not babies. In a great many situations, they are teenagers. At that point, anything is better than the streets or juvenile detention centers. Adoption of infants is a totally different matter. The waiting lists are an average of 8 years long for a domestic adoption. You may get an adoption of a foreign baby approved sooner. My mother was adopted, and two couples I know have been trying to adopt. There isnt a lack of parents - its the other way around.

Lastly, I cant say that it strikes me as intellectually honest to both simultaneously assert that your position is correct and at the same time to profess a dislike for absolutism. If arguing makes one an activist, we are all witch-burners in this thread. But I also realize that this term was only reserved for the opposition. Which brings me to my last point. Why is the opposition the only ones with dishonest motives and insecure psyches? Freud was not inequivocally opposed to absolutes. To only be able to live in a world of grey is as problematic as living in a black and white cage. What Freud, and psychoanalysts today, have tried to show is not that absolute principles do not exist, but that absolute pictures of people do not. When all of the opposition becomes haters, or the judgemental, or the Inquisitional Witch Burners, one has to ask why they cant be referred to as concerned, or moderate, or moral, or even misguided. What danger do they pose that they can no longer be seen in grey scale? Whose psyche is really running for cover?

Peace
Homeskooled


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2005)

FIRST thing I want to say is this: this debate (aside from being so damned addictive, lol) is very adult. EVERYone, and I mean this, guys...everyone should take a moment (me included) and try to ponder why this is so intriguing and so intense and so volatile...and yet, nobody is getting ugly.

I'm slamming the religious right, Homeskooled has now dragged Freud into it, lol...Dreamer is invoking her outside sources (highly well-read hubby) and trying to offer a modicum of middle-of-the-road sanity....we're being personal without being Personal. We're trying to win the argument without destroying the person.

I have no theory for why this is working, and no theory for what goes wrong when it doesn't work, but it's interesting to me, and just wanted to acknowledge all my (erroneous) opponents, grin.....it is possible to have high-strung debates here and not get hurt by them.

Okay, nuff of that.

LIsten, Homeskoooooooled, I am the first to admit I have my own agendas. Clearly. I personally despise it when those right-wing groups (and I do mean the loud and public ones) try to make me WRONG (morally wrong) according to a set of principles I do not accept.

So, you're right. I am not at all above the fray. I do see this as too black and white. However, I shall be back shortly with more arguments, grin

L,
J


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2005)

Harkening back to a point Dreamer made much earlier up there, I do think that is a very good distinction between anti-gay for religious reasons, and the other socially critical folks who might be anti-gay-marriage and anti-gay-parenting for their own set of reasons that are not determined by something holier than mortals.

I guess I am much more tolerant of people's differences/tastes and even social isolationism if those beliefs are not based on something Higher Than Human. I think when those rights/issues are tinged with "God does not approve" it's such an insideous argument, and implies that humans have a right to that definitive Judgement themselves (in His Name).

I'd be more than happy to debate in a legislature whether or not the idea of gay couples as parents has social problems, social merit, etc...if the opinions are not based on religion. But my continued (and yes, obsessive) argument here is that regardless of one's religious beliefs, we CANNOT as a society allow one religious group's beliefs to govern the rest of us.

I'm not doing well at staying away from this thread. I hate all of you. lol

J


----------



## person3 (Aug 10, 2004)

It's kind of like by using the "Holier than thou" argument about gays, one can take away the fact that they are so uncomfortable with homosexuality and just might even have some homosexual feelings! Incredible!


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Woah Nellie :shock: 
I couldn't post a while back. And now there's more! And it's a jumble. And I agree, I really enjoy this discussion as I'm learning from it. I've found I don't know a lot. :?

*Axel,* I wasn't criticizing your swarm theory, LOL, I still can't articulate everything I want to say, I feel I'm lacking in certain areas, lacking facts, etc. I don't know if we're "evolving" towards something like that -- a "kinder, gentler" swarm of humanity. 8) I don't know if it's possible, which is why we need rules, ethics, laws, etc.

*I agree with Janine that ideally it would be best to work things out in the legal system and not bring theism into the mix, BUT* 8) , I don't think that's possible. It's not how humans ... are constructed? We are both selfish and altruistic. We are sometimes out for our selves, have our own agendas, and at other times are greatly concerned about a cause or a group or our fellow man.

And the part I can't articulate. *I think there is something in our brains, our minds, that leads us to the spiritual, no matter how you interpret it. Not everyone certainly, but I'd say, the majority.* And I am an agnostic because of this. I was not raised with any religion, and my mother was an atheist. I don't really know what my father believed. And I decided a long time ago that I didn't see how anyone could be certain of the answer if there is "God" -- however you describe that, or "a higher power". But I also didn't know how anyone could be certain what comes after THIS LIFE. I honestly don't know. And so, I straddle the fence. And I try to learn along the way, and one day, we'll all know.....?

However I BELIEVE that there are people who are 100% certain that they have a God in their lives. I know many such people. It doesn't bother me. It's only when there is absurd extremism. Total Fundamentalism in ANY form makes me suspicious. Political, religious, spiritual etc.

Also, oddly enough, just for the record, my friend who died, who is a Catholic -- Orthodox Polish Catholic -- (Pope John Paul II came to one of our Polish communities... in the 1990s I think, I forgot)! She was very liberal -- she voted democrat. She was pro-choice, pro- women as members of the clergy, she had no trouble with gays. She said to me once, "I'll be excommunicated for this." And we talked more about this, and for her however, the bottom line was she sincerely believed, 100%, and I believe this 100%, in the core of Christianity -- that Christ rose from the dead. That God listened to her. It didn't seem that way in the manner of her death, but I want to believe she and her mother are with her cocept of God, as she spoke of Him.

And *Homeskooled* as I said, I have run into many gay people in my life and I don't think one can make a generalization about gay people, any more than one can generalize about minorities, or Middle Easterners, or........ etc.

I agree there is a subculture of gays who are promiscuous and self-destructive, but there is a culture of young people these days who are having sex at the age of 12. There is a strip club of sort sort ot be found if a guy wants one. There are prostitutes, and men go to them. High priced, or low priced. We're back to "Sodom and Gommorah" SP!, the oldest story, and it's still going on. Nothing new.

There are many people in this world, in high places, who are gay, and they never tell, or they get outed, or reveal this later in life. For instance the Governor of New Jersey was it? A high-level political figure, who had to hide in a sham marriage. I don't know that much about him, and perhaps he's a bad example -- but his "confession" so to speak was a shock to his constituency -- he would never have been elected if he were openly gay, so I gues "don't judge a book by it's cover."



Axel said:


> So once again I'll say that heterosexuals (whom I can only really speak for on the matter) should avoid hasty conclusions motivated purely by (probably slightly patronising anyway) sympathy for gay couples.
> Gay marriage and gay parenthood are two very, very different issues


Agreed. And I have discovered this from this discussion. But we get into this mess. Should single women be able to become pregnant and raise chidren on their own? Those who work and don't want to get married? I have a problem with it. But it happens all the time. And again we have very young girls giving birth to children by many fathers, none of whom even contribute to child-support. There are a million cans of worns out there. And I won't even get into Dolly the Sheep, LOL.

And you said something else in response to a comment that many secular people don't find homosexuality "natural".

Re: those secular individuals who say "homosexuality ain't natural" -- well, I know a few of those folks. Very secular individuals who don't get anything out of the ordinary. One ex girlfriend in particular who still doesn't believe after some 40 years that her brother is bi-polar, "he's just a lazy drug addict."

People often don't understand what doesn't touch them. Period. And unfortunately (and I do it myself, make horrible assumptions generalizations). It is extremely dificult to understand everything in the world. We'd be studying like college students everyday and the house would be falling down around us (um, that would be my husband, though he does have a good job and has never been fired.)

*Homeskooled* re: the adoption discussion. It is my understanding that many people have very specific preferences when they adopt, and many children who are handicapped, sick, maladjusted, and yes older have nowhere to go. For those children who have no homes, if there is a gay couple, who is qualified to adopt said child, I say go for it.

The gay couple I noted on that documentary adopted babies who had been abandoned by their birth parents, because the babies had AIDS. Those children are not going to be on the top of the list really for many couples out there. I'd have difficulty with it myself.

OK, this was too much of a ramble. Forgive. And very disjointed. And if it doesn't post, well maybe that's just as well, LOL.

As I said, I'd like to have us all together as a group -- in person!

L,
D
EDIT x 1


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm getting mixed research. One site says that Civil Unions for gays only exist in Vermont. Other sites seem to say that all states recognize civil unions. Does anyone have any info on this?


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Ok, so apparently only Vermont recognizes civil unions but other states recognize civil partnerships. AHHHH!!!?? So many labels!!! :shock: I'm going to sleep.


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

I'm going to sleep after this post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Well it seems to me that a lot of the pro gay people in this discussion seem to be arguing that what matters most in parenthood is love, to the point where it's almost the only thing that matters. 
The temptation is to see things this way. As someone who was brought up in a bit of a tough love household. My mum does try, but she has admitteit herself that she has trouble being loving in the affectionate sense. Even friends have pointed out that they find here a little harsh in her demeanor. She's not a bad mum by any stretch of the imagination though. 
My dad has always been far too critical of me. He has never verbally expressed his love for me. Almost all the money he has ever given me has been for purely pragamtic purposes. He has helped me out a few times with holiday money of course. But he has _never_ spoiled me just for the sake of it. I think that perhaps he should have a few times, but ultimately he's a pretty good dad. 
However I have always been slightly jealous of my friends, who's mothers in particular would be constantly affectionate, and would often spoil their 'special little guy'.
The tempation is of course, given experience of family life lacking in love (at least in a lucid form), to believe that an abundance of love is all that is needed in a successful family life.
An old friend of mine, who I fell out with several years ago, had an abundance of love in his household, from his two older sisters and his mother. However he has already screwed himself quite a bit. He's not even twenty yet, but he has already developed a cocaine habit, and fallen out with all of his olde friends. Clearly affectionate love, which is what seems to be lacking in all of the cases that we have brought up, isn't enough. I'm sure that's obvious to all of you anyway, so I'll press on.



> Axel, I agree that parenthood in general shouldn't be trivial. HOwever, representing Reality over here, grin....let's take a look at what IS. Frequently, children are abandoned, and placed subsequently into foster homes where they are abused sexually and/or violently, or they are neglected, or they are hated and used only for the few hundred bucks a month their responsibility pays for.





> If the ISSUE is truly our poor children, there are many many areas that need attention and money and focus and time. Whether or not the adoptive parents are gay or not IS trivial compared to the rest of what needs to be addressed.


Janine, I could be taking this out of context, but it seems to me that you are implying that we may as well allow gay parenthood, just to accomodate the overwhelming presence of abused children. This is only one part of the issue. Yes doubtlessly a child should be brought up by gay parents instead of being subjected to endlessly cruelty at the hands of cruel foster parents. But are we therefore to expect gay couples to be the saviours of the abandoned youth, by only being able to adopt children from disfunctional backgrounds. Actually Janine, I just noticed that you said 'IF the issue is truly our poor children'-well what I'm sayign is that it isn't. In that case I belive the question is:

'Can gay parenthood function to a such a degree that the child will not be at a significant disadvantage (socially, emotionally, intellectually etc)?'

I don't know the answer to this question. But what I will say is that no couple, either straight or gay, has the right to bring a child into the world, who they know they will not be able to care for properly, purely for their own gratification. That is what worries me most, that gay couples simply want to enter into the joy and challenge of parenthood, with little thought to how well the child will be able to function. 
This leads on from what I was saying earlier in this reply about love and parenthood. All too often parents find themsleves overwhelmed with love, and sacrifice what is clearly the right thing when parenthood is concerned. I believe that it may be the case that some gay couples who want children are simply overwhelmed with senseless love, which simply wont' cut it when real parenthood is concerned. I may sound like a totally unromantic kill joy, which is pretty sad considering I'm only twenty. But I am in fact all for senseless crazy love, just as long as it's balanced out with more pragmatic and wiser love. What we want to avoid is a case where gay couples, adament in their ability to be good parents simply fall into the same trap as the teeenage star crossed lovers who run away together.
We can not allow gay parenthood simply for the benefit of the parents, which is something iIthink we all agree on. And love, even though it's _supposed_ to be benevolent and self sacrificing, can be very misleading and unrealistic at times.
Again I really don't know whether or not gay couples could make good parents or not, but I don't think any one has so far provided good arguments to support either claim. But then I shouldn't complain since I'm the only one who can't be bothered to do any outside reading. Anyway the discussion rages on.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

enngirl5 said:


> I'm getting mixed research. One site says that Civil Unions for gays only exist in Vermont. Other sites seem to say that all states recognize civil unions. Does anyone have any info on this?


Dear Enngirl,

Did you ever go to bed last night,LOL?

This is very confusing, but that Wickipedia definitely is a super resource. I was just sitting and reading it for 20 minutes, LOL. It's very confusing. However one thing confirms something my husband said:



Wickipedia said:


> A Vermont civil union is *nearly identical to a legal marriage, as far as the rights and responsibilities for which state law, not federal law, is responsible are concerned.* It grants partners next-of-kin rights and other protections that heterosexual married couples also receive. However, despite the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Constitution, civil unions are generally not recognized outside of the state of Vermont in the absence of specific legislation........


So, of all 50 States, only Vermont has a CIVIL UNION for gay couples that is recognized... EDIT: as the closest thing to a marriage.... only in the State of Vermont, but is NOT recognized by the Federal government.

My husband said, no civil unions are recognized by the Federal Government. And he did say that various states have laws as you said that are "civil unions" to one degree or another that go by different names, such as California with its "partnership law".

Though Wickipedia seems to be very up to date, if I'm not mistaken, the Massachusettes law that was very much like the one in Vermont was struck down and no longer exists. (This was the mess that Karl Rove used to spin the election, and was in part responsible I think for Kerry's defeat in the election.)

Bush wants a Federal ammendment? that disallows ANY STATE to have these civil unions. I disagree with that -- the Feds shouldn't be telling individual states what to do. There was concern that Kerry would make some Federal ammendment FOR gay civil unions to ALLOW THESE in all states.

Voters got concerned. I think this is why the moral majority came out in full force, and why, like in my state, at the last minute, a new Proposition was added to our ballot to vote for or against civil unions -- though the wording was purposely misleading, I swear it. Well, civil unions lost in my State, as they did in many States.

- So, Vermont has a civil union, closet to marriage
- Other states can have variations on EDIT:! *civil unions* granting a variety of lesser privileges, and come by variuos names, as California's "partnership law"

Bottom line, I think, there are a number of states that have a variety of "civil union" laws which go by different names. The strongest is in Vermont and is closest to a marriage. California has that Partnership Law.

Is this a law class? Because this is really difficult stuff.

I think you've got it figured more than the rest of us Enngirl.

But I think I understand civil unions and marriage better:

1. Civil Unions -- created for same-sex unions. (They are in various states under various names, with varying privileges)
2. Civil MARRIAGES -- for a man and a woman to be wed by a Justice of the Peace w/out a Church/Synagogue Ceremony
3. Holy Matrimony!!!! -- for a man and a woman wed by an ordained member of a Church/Synagogue/Mosque, which is a union that is sanctioned by God.

Well you learn something new everyday.

I want to be back in Uni. I love this stuff. I've also been reading the Time or is it Newsweek? special article re: the Pope. (I have NO BRAIN :shock: ) A really interesting dude. And he began his Papacy in 1978 I believe, when I had just left high school/started uni. So the only Pope I ever "knew", up until this year.

Best,
D
You probably already have all of this information and your paper is finished, LOL.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Axel said:


> But what I will say is that no couple, either straight or gay, has the right to bring a child into the world, who they know they will not be able to care for properly, purely for their own gratification. That is what worries me most, that gay couples simply want to enter into the joy and challenge of parenthood, with little thought to how well the child will be able to function.


Axel I agree with this 100%. But I will say, there are straight people who have no business having kids and do, and I'm often more concerned about that than about gays who have kids. Gays who have kids at minimum, as I understand it, have a rigorous process to go through when adopting. I believe their intentions can be as sincere as any couple wanting to adopt.

And I know, as a woman, I have a tremendous maternal instinct. I never had children because of this infernal illness (depression and anxiety as well) -- almost did -- but I still have a longing for a kid. I miss not having experienced what most of my friends have. I want a couple of unruly teens around the house about now. 8) I really do.

And men, I know many men whose lives are forever changed by having children. For the better.

And this again reminds me of professional women who aren't married (who don't want to be married/or haven't found the right person/who are artificially inseminated, etc.) but who want to have a child.

They may have money, a nanny, etc. But it raises the same questions.

Bottom line, this makes me think 20 times about this, and it's difficult as I believe every couple is a unique case, straight or gay --

*I believe in a traditional family unit .. something I didn't have. Literally Mom at home, Dad at work, and some siblings. And the key purpose of the family -- raise the children with love, discipline, and emotional support to make them comfortable with who they are so that they can function at their greatest potential in society.*

To be honest, I don't know the statistics on how many really functional happy families there are out there. Gay or straight or one-parent, I think many folks love their children and do the best they can, are "good enough." And there are also a TON of parents out there who are doing a TERRIBLE job of raising their children. And that is absolutely terrifying.

And the "family" I had was seriously dysfunctional, and I don't blame all of my problems on it, but I have MANY difficulties that are the result of my dysfunctional upbringing.

OK, I'm not coming back to this thread for a week, LOL.

Peace,
D 8)


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2005)

Seems we've got more in common than only Dp, Janine :wink:


----------



## Guest (Apr 9, 2005)

> Seems we've got more in common than only Dp, Janine


yeah, well. Please notice that we spend all our time on this BOARD, so apparently our sexual preference isn't working out too well at the moment.

 :lol: :wink:


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2005)

....


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Thanks Dreamer. I think I finally have it all straight. My paper isn't due until Friday. I'm just going to assume that Vermont is the only state that technically calls its law a "civil union". Others like you said have various names and various clauses. So now that I have that figured out I can actually start writing the rest of the paper. lol. I have my first sentence, "This is what civil unions are..." And it only took a week. j/k, I've written a little more... :wink:


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2005)

Good luck with writing your paper!


----------



## enngirl5 (Aug 10, 2004)

Thanks Wendy! I'm counting down until graduation. Two more weeks.


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Dreamer:



> One thing, this isn't just Christian. This is a concept that exists in ALL religions, in all cultures


Absolutely. Well, nearly absolutely. A lot of 'primitive' tribes with indigenous cultures that haven't been soiled by western-bastardisation, have entirely harmless, non-discriminatory views on homosexuality. Homophobia is a relatively modern phenomena in the grand scheme of things.

Axel19:



> Well it seems to me that a lot of the pro gay people in this discussion..


Aha..have you betrayed your real intentions ? What do you mean by pro-gay ? Is it the same as to be pro-hetreosexual ?


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Martinelv said:


> Dreamer:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dear Martin,
I forgot where I wrote that, but I think you misunderstood what I said. Or else I wrote it wrong, sigh.

I believe that the concept of edit: theism? exists in ALL cultures, and the concept that homosexuality is frquently viewed as "not right" for one reason or another. NOT ALL. But I think the reason simply is:

1. Survival -- a need to maintain a status quo that best serves survival of the race. If men and women don't get together and have babies and make a family that protects the children and educates them in social etiquette, there, in theory would be a decline in the cohesiveness and stability of a group, any group.

2. We see this in lower class minorities in the US. Children having children. Out of control. Young women alone with fatherless children. We have seen as a result a breakdown in the foundation of the stability of the nuclear family. If anything, I find this of more concern than what gay people are doing.

3. Men and women ARE different, and that is also, as I see it because of a biological imperative that doesn't fit into modern day society. Division of labor which used to make a helluva lot more sense before the advancement of technology and the move away from traditional jobs, etc.

4. I had a thought, and someone will argue this with me, but again, in the main, I would say men are more promiscuous as a whole. And it could be that a subgroup of gay men could be seen as excessively promiscuous... but if you read the book "And The Band Played On" -- about the AIDS epidemic -- a fantastic book, wonderful.... there was a time when

a. Gays thought that this illness "GRID" was a sham, created to destroy gay culture, and as a backlash they purposely became careless with sex. That has changed.

b. This argument has been used by African Americans -- that AIDS was introduced into THEIR community to destroy their race.

Both of these are radical concepts, but both of these groups are "disregarded" or "opressed" or have been at one time or another.

Also, it depends on so many variables, but there are very few "unwesternized cultures" left in the world. I wanted to study cultural antrhopology at one point. I'm a perpetual student 8) I took a number of classes at UCLA and was considering going into the graduate program there. One of the requirements was 1 year "field study" out of the COUNTRY, of a "primitive" culture. The head of the department at the time (this was around 1986 -- eighty six), bemoaned the fact that finding a culture untouched by westernization or MODERNITY by one degree or another was very difficult to find, vs. the work he did in the 1950s or so.

Man I love this discussion 
Cheers mate, please hang around. 8)


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

VERY interesting article on the Catholic Church as we wait for a new Pope. From yes, the very liberal New York Times.

*April 11, 2005 - The New York Times
Catholics in U.S. Keep Faith, but Live With Contradictions
By DEAN E. MURPHY and NEELA BANERJEE*

*LOS ANGELES, April 8 - Lily Velazquez, who turned 18 on 
Thursday, is the sixth of 12 children of Mexican immigrants in a 
poor suburb of Los Angeles. She considers herself both a devoted 
Catholic and a hopeless sinner.

She attends Mass every Sunday but has had two children out of 
wedlock. She thinks abortion is murder but chafes at the Vatican's 
ban on birth control. She mourns the death of Pope John Paul II but 
hopes his successor will be "new and different."*

"My mom gets mad if I don't go to church," Ms. Velazquez said, as 
her 2-year-old daughter, Emily, sucked on a bottle of juice outside 
the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, the official hub of the 
country's largest Roman Catholic archdiocese. "As for me, I think 
I've done a lot of sin and if I go to church, it's better."

Ms. Velazquez was among the tens of thousands of Roman Catholics 
who visited the imposing cathedral in downtown Los Angeles this 
week to pay respects to the pope by lighting a candle or kneeling 
at his photograph. She is also a vivid example of the 
contradictions felt by American Catholics as they wait with 
uncertainty and some anxiety for the selection of a new leader in 
Rome.

American Catholics, be they Latinos here or African-Americans in 
Atlanta, or those of Irish, Italian or Polish ancestry in Boston 
and Baltimore, have come to accept that being Catholic means living 
with inconsistency. The roughly 65 million Catholics in the United 
States no longer have as distinctive an identity as they did a 
generation ago, and as they assimilated more thoroughly into 
American society, their views on social and moral issues came to 
mirror those of other Americans.

*"Catholics as a whole occupy the mainstream of American life, 
when 50 or 60 years ago, they were on the periphery of society," 
said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied 
Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio and an expert on 
religion and politics.*

As a result, the Vatican's teachings on a number of subjects, 
including contraception, the ordination of women and homosexuality, 
are out of step with the beliefs and lifestyles of most American 
Catholics. But the Americans mostly find a way to stay in their 
faith by adhering to values most important to them and quietly 
ignoring those they disagree with.

*"Catholics right now are ? la carte" in the practice of their 
religion, said Diana Gonya, 61, a retired insurance agent in 
Baltimore whose wedding 36 years ago was officiated by Pope Paul 
VI.*

*Certainly there are problems. Fewer Americans these days send 
their children to Catholic schools. Mass attendance in the United 
States fell during John Paul's papacy. The church faces an acute 
shortage of priests. And the sexual abuse scandal continues to roil 
dioceses across the country.

While few American Catholics say they expect doctrine to change 
markedly under the successor to John Paul, the transition has 
allowed them to dream a little about what their church could be. 
Broadly, they say they hope for a church that more readily embraces 
modernity. For some, it means that priests might be allowed to 
marry. For others, it could entail the arrival of women as priests.

Most, polls show, would like to see a softening of the church's 
stance on birth control. After years of sexual abuse scandals, many 
look for a pope who will make ending the abuse a priority.*

"If it wants to stay one of the major religions in this country, it 
needs to progress with the times and let women priests in," said 
Katie McDevitt, 20, a sophomore at Boston College, a Jesuit 
university. Ms. McDevitt says she attends church relatively 
regularly, and she recently went to a memorial Mass for John Paul.

"It needs not to be so sexist and patriarchal. There is a lot of 
emphasis on the wrong principles."

American Catholics grieved for John Paul, as did their brethren 
all over the world, but a recent Gallup poll indicated that they 
think who the next pope might be matters less to them than to 
Catholics elsewhere, especially in *Africa and Latin America, 
where the church has grown most robustly over the last two 
decades.* There is a widespread acceptance among Roman Catholics 
in the United States that they can be out of step with the Vatican 
and still unequivocally call themselves Catholic.

Mrs. Gonya said that her attitude toward the pope and the church 
hierarchy was something like people's feelings about their parents. 
"We respect them for what they believe, but we have new information 
that takes us in different directions," she said.

Mrs. Gonya and her husband, Gary, are enthusiastic lifelong 
Catholics. Mr. Gonya studied to be a priest in the 1960's. The 
couple proudly show photos of their wedding during Pope Paul VI's 
visit to Mrs. Gonya's native country, Colombia, in 1968, and of an 
audience they had with John Paul in his summer home, Castel 
Gandolfo, for their 25th anniversary.

Mr. Gonya, 62, says he attends Mass at two churches every Sunday: 
the activist, liberal-leaning St. Vincent DePaul nearby, which 
inspires him with its liturgy and homilies, and the conservative 
St. Leo's just across the street from his house in the Little Italy 
neighborhood of Baltimore.

*Despite their devotion, the Gonyas differ from the church on most 
central doctrines. They say they would be delighted to see women 
ordained. If the church took married men, Mr. Gonya would be first 
in line, his wife said.

"Rome is important, but I don't think the typical American 
Catholic leans on that alone," Mr. Gonya said. "We have to continue 
to explore our beliefs in our own culture."*

That division between doctrine and one's own beliefs does not alarm 
Mrs. Gonya. "The pope's positions make us think more about what we 
believe," she said. "It is an invitation to a deep search on an 
issue."[/b]

The breadth of priorities Catholicism embraces permits people to 
identify themselves as Catholic while disagreeing with doctrine, 
said Luis E. Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public 
Life, based in Washington. Catholicism's agenda spans personal 
morality issues that evangelicals also emphasize, like the fight 
against abortion, and the liberal social issues that mainline 
Protestant churches champion, like anti-poverty campaigns. "In 
Catholicism, there is something there for everyone," Dr. Lugo said.
Certainly there are traditionalists. "If it works, why mess with 
it? It lasted 2,000 years. Why mess with it?" asked Joseph M.

Perry, 51, a mechanic from Reading, Mass. Mr. Perry says he does 
not agree with abortion and thinks priests should remain celibate 
and male.

But some younger Catholics say they can no longer live their lives 
in keeping with doctrine. Adam Williams, 17, goes to Mass at Mount 
Carmel, the Catholic high school he attends in Baltimore, but 
rarely goes to church otherwise. The church's prohibitions on 
"almost everything a kid can do," Adam said, has made him ever more 
reluctant to identify himself as Catholic.

"At school, they taught us that there are so many people in Africa 
with AIDS," Adam said, as he took a break from working after school 
last week at Vaccaro's, a local pastry shop. "But the church won't 
let them use condoms. I think that's stupid."

*The growth of the Roman Catholic Church in America since 1960 
has been largely driven by an influx of Latinos, according to the 
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Already about 
one-third of Roman Catholics in the nation are Hispanic, and the 
percentage keeps growing.*

Here in the Los Angeles Archdiocese, the older generation of 
Latinos follows a tradition of obedience. Ms. Velazquez's mother, 
Maria, 48, of Compton, spoke of seeing John Paul in her dreams 
before he died. Clutching a crucifix dangling around her neck, she 
said she could think of nothing she would change about the church.

But younger Latinos, like Ms. Velazquez, have begun to resemble 
other Americans in their attitudes toward Catholic doctrine. Ms. 
Velazquez said unhesitatingly that many Catholics of her generation 
have abortions, use birth control and generally lead lives not in 
keeping with church teachings.

*A 2001 study by the Tom?s Rivera Policy Institute in Los Angeles 
found that only 38 percent of second-generation Latino Catholics in 
the United States relied "a great deal" on religion in daily life, 
compared with 53 percent of their parents' generation.*

Maria Velazquez's only wish for the new pope is that he might be a 
Latin American. "He would understand our culture better," she said 
in Spanish.

A recent Gallup poll showed that an overwhelming majority of 
Catholic respondents would find it acceptable for a new pope to be 
chosen from Latin America or Africa. But whoever the new pope is, 
he will have to face an American church at odds with most of the 
rest of the world, Catholics interviewed noted.

"I'm afraid the church as a whole is coming to the point where it 
isn't one size fits all any more," said Jack Scalione, 66, a 
turnpike inspector, who was watching the papal funeral on 
television at Our Lady of Mount Carmel church in East Boston.

*"What's good in Europe isn't necessary good in America, and 
what's good in America isn't necessarily what's good in Latin 
America. You have to fit to the wishes of the people because the 
people are the church."*

------------------------

*Dean E. Murphy reported from Los Angeles for this article, and 
Neela Banerjee from Baltimore. Ariel Hart contributed reporting 
from Atlanta, and Katie Zezima from Boston.*

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Yes, I misunderstood.

And yes, I agree that theism, or at least theosophy, exists in all cultures. What I was denying is that homosexuality, not as an act of procreation, but as an act of sexual gratification and love - even social cohesion in some cases, has been viewed as entirely normal, or indeed preferable, in some cultures. To the Greeks and Romans, physical love between men wasn't frowned upon at all.

Homophobia is, again, an exclusively human trait. Dogs and cats and rats rut away at each other irrespective of sex. The dim witted used to think that it was because they weren't intelligent enough to distinguish between their sexes...but of course that's not true. Sexual gratification for sexual gratifications sake, man on man, woman on man, woman on man, has been around for nearly as long as we've been posting on these damn DP forums ! :lol:

Following your post regarding the Pope, it might interest you to know that the saturation media coverage of his funeral by the BBC over here has been roundly condemed, not just for religious reasons (although there are many), but for many others.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Shoot, I should say, I think the concept of a "higher power" may be something that is present in most PEOPLE, or humans, part of our very being.

Like primitive people who attributed things like thunderstorms and such to "the gods", or a more deified version of "Mother Nature" (that in and of itself is an expression we all use that seems to anthropomorphize the weather!).

I think our need to understand why we are here, and why we die is powerful. The human mind wants answers, closure, control, a sense of balance. It's difficult to live with uncertainty.

Yada, I've got to stop. LOL 8)


----------



## Martinelv (Aug 10, 2004)

Yes, that approach is called Pantheism, as you well know. The more specific definition is where someone says that "'Pantheism" signifies the belief that every existing entity is, only one Being; and that all other forms of reality are either modes (or appearances) of it or identical with it.

If you can mix together the letters c.o.p and o.u.t, you won't be suprised at my position regarding this.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> Sexual gratification for sexual gratifications sake, man on man, woman on man, woman on man, has been around for nearly as long as we've been posting on these damn DP forums !


We posted at the same time. YES, this is so true as well. LOL.

And "Like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives posting on DPSelfHelp."

LOLOLOL :shock:


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

> If you can mix together the letters c.o.p and o.u.t, you won't be suprised at my position regarding this.


Shame on you Martin. This is interesting, but at my friend's funeral Mass yesterday, the Priest actually had some interesting things to say ... he did a rather good job, also considering that he had to include the Pope into a Mass for a number of deceased including my friend and her mother.

What stunned me though is that his words echoed Buddhism. That we are all part of some "greater whole". There is actually tremendous simplicity in that. I sort of like it.

For the Priest, he noted that the "afterlife" isn't a place, it is in Christ. I'd never really thought of it that way. There is no "paradise" really.

And the Buddhist part of me, thinks/hopes that when I die, I will live on as part of the earth, maybe grow into a tree -- i.e. my ashes being part of its nourishment. The sense of "nothing to lose, hence nothing to mourn" is rather comforting.

And my pals and I, and my friends extended family (never saw more cousins in my life) needed that ritual. We finally got it. After my friends horrible exit last December.

It was cathartic. Can't explain it, but it was. I feel better. And I'm not a Catholic by a long shot, as you know 8)


----------



## agentcooper (Mar 10, 2005)

Axel19 said:


> But what I will say is that no couple, either straight or gay, has the right to bring a child into the world, who they know they will not be able to care for properly, purely for their own gratification. That is what worries me most, that gay couples simply want to enter into the joy and challenge of parenthood, with little thought to how well the child will be able to function.


that statement is totally untrue. unfortunately, anyone who can get pregnant, can bring a child into the world and raise it...regardless of their capacity to raise the child. there are some governments that regulate how many children people can have, but i'm pretty sure they don't tell some people they CAN'T have children. so any woman(straight or gay, married or unmarried, drug adict or sober, depressed or happy, etc) has the "right" to have a child. in some cases, a child can get taken away but i'm sure you'll agree that many times, when a child SHOULD get taken, they don't.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

> Axel19:
> 
> Quote:
> Well it seems to me that a lot of the pro gay people in this discussion..
> ...


No please don't read that as a Freudian slip. There's no such thing as pro gay. I meant those who are 'pro gay parenthood'.



> Axel19 wrote:
> 
> But what I will say is that no couple, either straight or gay, has the right to bring a child into the world, who they know they will not be able to care for properly, purely for their own gratification. That is what worries me most, that gay couples simply want to enter into the joy and challenge of parenthood, with little thought to how well the child will be able to function.
> 
> that statement is totally untrue. unfortunately, anyone who can get pregnant, can bring a child into the world and raise it...regardless of their capacity to raise the child. there are some governments that regulate how many children people can have, but i'm pretty sure they don't tell some people they CAN'T have children. so any woman(straight or gay, married or unmarried, drug adict or sober, depressed or happy, etc) has the "right" to have a child. in some cases, a child can get taken away but i'm sure you'll agree that many times, when a child SHOULD get taken, they don't.


I see your point. I did not mean 'right' as in a sort of 'civil right', I meant more in the moral sense. Actually I'm not even sure what I think anymore.


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

So to write the 100th reply, and to conclude the post, I say gay couples should be allowed to marry, and they should be allowed to have children. The differences between a child rasied by same sex parents and a child raised the old fashioned way is probably neutral, meaning any differences are positive or negative with respect to both children. In other words a child raised by gay parents probably would turn out different to a child raised the old fahioned way, but they would not turn out worse.


----------



## Dreamer (Aug 9, 2004)

Interesting Axel. I think that's probably true. A different experience, but I believe if a gay or straight family is healthy, the end result will be best, and that is love, discipline, teaching children respect, giving children respect, etc. And all I know is the majority of families these days, straight, seem to be doing a pretty bad job of raising children. As I said, I'm more concerned with those families than gay families.

I also found an interesting quotation in today's NYTimes. THey have a "quote of the day."



> "To tell you the truth, I am not a feminist. I don't want to commit the same mistakes Western women have committed. I like that family should be the major principle for women here."


*SHATHA AL-MUSAWI, one of the 87 women in the National Assembly in Iraq, on the efforts to shape a new legal code.*

Interesting. And how do we satisfy all the POVs all the time? We can't. It is humanly impossible.

Peace,
D
OK, I have to take a break from this stuff! I wish we could have a weekly discussion on this stuff, lOL. "DP'd Group --Topics in Society Night" LOL.
[/quote]


----------



## Axel19 (Aug 11, 2004)

Damn Dreamer I wanted to have the last word. 
However I liked that quote by the Iraqi woman.


----------



## ShyTiger (Apr 1, 2005)

Yes, i think same sex partners have a right to marrage if it's what they want. I dislike labels and then people being considered less of a member of society because of them. Yes to same sex couples having children too. Isn't raising children about love? Each family has differences and different structures but as long as the child is loved and supported what does it matter if the parents happen to be of the same sex?


----------

