Massachusetts to allow gay marriage

“I don't, and I don't intend to start. Now answer my question please.

jesus christ, you know what i meant. ok, fine, let me rephrase, how would you be paying if gay marriage was legalized?
last edited: 7/24/05 8:45:44 AM”

“You don't know do you? You said "as a single man,how do you think i feel about "paying for your lives" as a married man? noboday asked me if i wanted to help pay for benefits and not receive them."

I can't answer your question unless you tell me what payment you're talking about.

Do you even know?”

“I'm not. That was your platform. I can't believe you got confused as to who was what here.”

(In case you're not familiar with your party's platform, libertarians don't believe we should have to pay for that stuff.)”
Sarge

you were clearly using the lib party platform to make your point.”

“i know exactly what im talking about, but im not awake enough yet to try and diagram every little thing i say just yet. i need coffee”

“Crash. That's because you said you were libertarian. I didn't know at the time you meant you were a half-assed libertarian.”

“Fine. Get your coffee.

I gotta lift and then go to church. Maybe I'll talk to you later.

Hey, I do hope you get a chance to read that book we talked about. I think it will surprise you.

P.S. - Get a lot of coffee before you try to diagram where these payment are coming from and going to. I'm the guy that generates the statistics that you read about in newspapers and books on this topic. I have access to the raw data.”

“you say that your tax dollars would be going to gay couples if gay marriage was legalized. well, dont my tax dollars go to you and other straight couples in the exact same way? or are there secret "gay dollars" being funneled by marxist pagans in funny hats? maybe as a single man, i dont want to help pay for benefits i dont get
last edited: 7/24/05 8:58:54 AM”

“PS - I know you're the bag boy, you sick-o.”

“let me put it this way. if gay couples were to get benefits straight couples did not get, then i could see your point. but theyre not asking for better treatment, just same treatment”

“They already do get the same treatment. Men and women who marry each other get the same treatments.”

“are you missing the point on purpose? i think you keep changing the direction of the discussion to draw attention away from the flaws in your logic. you still have yet to draw out bacpacs "all homsexuals are child molestors" argument. maybe when you get desperate

same-sex couples want equal treatment as opposite sex couples, WHEN MARRYING THE SAME SEX

i hate myself for not being able to pull myself away from this flat-forehead society
last edited: 7/24/05 3:19:18 PM”

“Like treatment for what?”

“like treatment=same benefits. isnt that what youre against? your tax dollars going to whatever economic benefits they might get as a legally married couple?

im not married, never have been, so i dont know what all the benefits are. but you say that you as a taxpayer is somehow paying for their lifestyle. i assume you mean these mythical benefits, whatever the hell they are. tax breaks, govt assistance, whatever
last edited: 7/24/05 3:23:14 PM”

“Like what for example?”

““Like what for example?”

i dont effing know. youre the one whos against them getting it. youre the one whos married. WHATEVER benefits married couples get.

explain what you mean by "i dont want to be paying for their lifestyle" what did you mean by that?”

“if youre against them not only getting married, but having civil unions, then its not just about semantics and re-defining the word "marriage". if youre against them having civil unions, then theres something tangible that you dont want them to have, at least not at your expense. so what the fck is it?”

“What's the rush to get a homosexual marriage, crash, if you don't even know what benefit it gives you.

The benefit you get is to fulfill a covenant with God.”

“no no no no no no no no NO NO NO NO NO NO

There you go changing the direction of the discussion again.

lets back up. what did you mean by "i dont want to pay for their lifestyle"?”

“i need to unload the car

(to be continued)”

“lets back up. what did you mean by "i dont want to pay for their lifestyle"?

Once again, what's the rush to get a homosexual marriage, crash, if you don't even know what benefit it gives you?”

“Leviticus for example is very specific. It references males lying with males as they do with women as forbidden. It's not even disputable.

Romans is the same way. Very specific. Indisputable.

There are others.”
Sarge
7:44:41 PM
7/21/05

As I noted before "I've also heard it argued that Paul, in Roman's, is speaking of orgiastic or idolatrous practices not specifically of any kind of committed/stable homosexual relationship."

As far as what is says in Leviticus or any of the Hebrew Scriptures, there are many things which are prohibited or mandated with more force that Christians find irrelevant.

Why do rigth wing christians scream more about Gay marriage than about homosexuality than about the Sabbath? Surely that's not Biblically based. Isn't the Sabbath in the 10 commandments. Is homosexuality in the 10 commandments? It's amazing how many Christians are on the computer, driving cars, buying things, selling things and working for pay on the Christian Sabbath and then quote other biblical injunctions from the Hebrew bible.

Then there is the holy question about the Christian Sabbath. The Sabbath from Friday sundown to Saturday sundown. How the heck did Paul's gang justify setting up a whole new Sabbath. I mean the Sabbath was in the 10 commandments.

My grandfather did not do business on Sunday's. He tried not to do business with businesses opened on Sunday's. He felt the Sabbath was a very important pro-family rule, it created a day where most families could be together. Now, I don't know where he would have stood on gay marriage - quite possibly he would have been opposed.”

“"How the heck did Paul's gang justify setting up a whole new Sabbath."


The Sabbath was changed by the council of Nicia in 325 C.E. under the rule of Constantine. Ya know Constantine? He converted to christianity, then converted christianity to him and then killed his whole family.”

“Interesting Nigal. I guess even speaking as loosely as I was about Paul's gang, I was off the mark (I'm wondering if I ever knew that since I did study up on Nicea once... I've already begun to suffer from CRS).

I really should study this more. It's fascinating to me that some folks took it on themselves to just change the Sabbath (I remember reading that the justification was to be distinct from the "Judaizers" - although this was in "Plain Truth" and I'm not sure how reliable that source was).”

“Now I'm getting confused. I'm researching this and hearing claims that "History records that Christians were meeting Sundays from the first century AD"

and "Constantine did not change the Sabbath to Sunday, he merely created the first 'Sunday closure law' because Christians had been worshipping on the first day of the week since apostolic times.

I wish I had time to research this one further. Maybe some day.
last edited: 7/24/05 5:38:48 PM”

“Many times when blue laws have been enacted it has been for the sole purpose of persecuting the Jews. The 325 Council was a good example. In many of these cases Jews were not allowed to pray in public or practice their religion. And it just kind of went up and down through to today. One of Hitler’s greatest influences was the great “reformer” Martin Luther who wrote a hateful book called Jews and the Lies Their Lies where he encourages the leaders of the world to take the Jew’s books away from them, burn their synagogues down, and forbid them from praying or even speaking G-d’s name.

But that’s all water under the bridge now.”

“OK I couldn't resist. This is fascinating, too - but I don't know which side to take in this one (this debate rings a few bells...):

http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p205.html

http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm
last edited: 7/24/05 5:44:42 PM”

“I agree Nigal.

I've also been told (and this brings us closer to the thread topic, for what its worth) that the Supreme Court Decision upholding laws against polygamy in the US was part of an attack on the Mormons (and perhaps to a lesser extent on non-European peoples), as was the Congress enacted the Morrill Act of 1862 - which criminalized bigamy US territories.”

“"http://www.ccg.org/english/s/p205.html"

“Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]:”

Ped this is why things can get changed and mixed up so much. Paul was talking to the gentiles here, not the Jews. Gentiles are not supposed to keep the Sabbath. In fact we are prohibited from keeping it as the Jew does. Same with many of the holy days as well. The ten commandments aren’t even applicable to the gentile as we have our own 7 commandments.

Christianity really took a hard turn with Paul. He really screwed up a lot of stuff.
last edited: 7/24/05 6:01:37 PM”

“You are correct about the Sabbath law and Constantine. The blue laws he passed in 321 did do about the same thing.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=17&letter=S&search=constantine%20sabbath”

“This is a good joke for ya Ped that kind of ties in with the thread topic. Do you know how to tell what kind of Jewish wedding your at?

Orthodox- the mother of the groom is pregnant.
conservative- the bride is pregnant.
Reform- the rabbi’s pregnant.
Reconstructionist- the rabbi and her life partner are pregnant.”

“LOL!”

“Back to Mormon's - It seems that "bigamous cohabitation" was also criminalized in 1882, as part of the anti-Mormon Edmunds Act. Apparently almost 2000 Mormons were jailed under this act before the decade was done.”

““let me put it this way. if gay couples were to get benefits straight couples did not get, then i could see your point. but theyre not asking for better treatment, just same treatment”
crash bang
10:06:14 AM
7/24/05


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

“They already do get the same treatment. Men and women who marry each other get the same treatments.”
Sarge
1:03:49 PM
7/24/05


Sarge thats wrong. Married couples can put their partners on their health plans. They can inherit without probate or a will. They have tax benefits when they file jointly. They have rights when one is hospitalized or incapacitated.

While Schiavo's husband had a huge say in her care, a long time lesbian partner could even be prevented by the parents from visiting.”

“Gay marriage appears to be the doom of hetero marriage and family in Scandanavia:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

The End of Marriage in Scandinavia
The "conservative case" for same-sex marriage collapses.
by Stanley Kurtz
02/02/2004, Volume 009, Issue 20

MARRIAGE IS SLOWLY DYING IN SCANDINAVIA. A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born out of wedlock. Sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried parents. Not coincidentally, these countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing Scandinavian trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. The Nordic family pattern--including gay marriage--is spreading across Europe. And by looking closely at it we can answer the key empirical question underlying the gay marriage debate. Will same-sex marriage undermine the institution of marriage? It already has.

[snip]

These three groupings closely track the movement for gay marriage. In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries, where the out-of-wedlock birthrate was already high. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen significantly in the middle group of nations. Not coincidentally, nearly every country in that middle group has recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is seriously considering doing so. Only in the group with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success.

This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.

We see this process at work in the radical separation of marriage and parenthood that swept across Scandinavia in the nineties. If Scandinavian out-of-wedlock birthrates had not already been high in the late eighties, gay marriage would have been far more difficult to imagine. More than a decade into post-gay marriage Scandinavia, out-of-wedlock birthrates have passed 50 percent, and the effective end of marriage as a protective shield for children has become thinkable. Gay marriage hasn't blocked the separation of marriage and parenthood; it has advanced it.

[snip]

Gay marriage is both an effect and a reinforcing cause of the separation of marriage and parenthood. In states like Sweden and Denmark, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were already very high, and the public favored gay marriage, gay unions were an effect of earlier changes. Once in place, gay marriage symbolically ratified the separation of marriage and parenthood. And once established, gay marriage became one of several factors contributing to further increases in cohabitation and out-of-wedlock birthrates, as well as to early divorce. But in Norway, where out-of-wedlock birthrates were lower, religion stronger, and the public opposed same-sex unions, gay marriage had an even greater role in precipitating marital decline.

[snip]”

“Thanks for that, Mutt. I now feel unclean.”

“I know - I love how the causality is simply asserted like it's supposed to be obvious.”

“Here Sarge, have fun”

“With what exactly?

We're over here: http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/31211,5,2.php#1407346
last edited: 6/07/06 8:55:25 PM”

“I know! But many of the same themes have been discussed/argued ad nauseum here”

“Good. Maybe I can find you avoiding pressing questions here too then.”

“When and where have I avoided a question? You took an assertion of mine, replaced two words, threw it back at me, and ask me why I don't defend your "twist" to my statement.
Certainly I wouldn't argue that a 30 y/o man and a 5 y/o boy engaging in a sexual relationship is okay, any more than a 30 y/o man and a 5 y/o girl.
The homosexual marriage issue concerns consenting adults, able to make decisions and enter into contracts and would otherwise be permitted to marry if not for the gender non-differences. Got it?
Please, if I've missed the point you are trying to make, please restate it clearly for me, as I must be dense.”

“I'm new here and had a question,' Since all you talk about here is gay marriage are you sure this isn't TaiL Talk?'”

“My point is made (i.e. - spelled out) on the original thread Limpy.”