Riddled with Holes and Hypocrisy

What argument would you be willing to accept?

1st, I'll define what Marriage is, and then that definition as a consequence will define what Marriage is NOT. 2nd, I'll try to answer your Vegas analogy. Then we'll see if you accept it...

1st, Marriage is not defined by society, regardless of our silly attempts to write and file a "document". I think the definition of anything is tied to its origin (how it began). I believe from it's origin one can derive its intention and scope - how far you can and canNOT take it. The origin is God. (are you still with me?...) The intention appears two fold: Initially, to model or reflect like a human mirror, God. How? By reuniting both the masculine and feminie natures that each separately share many of God's characteristics, i.e. a man's deepest desire appears to have RESPECT in a warrior-type protection and provision, and then the woman's deepest desire appears to be LOVED with the princess-type desire to be captivating and nurturing, etc. Finally, to procreate a social structure that lives on and on through generations that we call "Family" - this also is supposed to illustrate a pocket of heaven which feels as safe as a womb (minus abortion) where its members can be protected, provided for and nurtured. This model attempts to produce a family with an attitude of gratitude for God.
Question: Can those two intentions be met with a same sex marriage? (don't shoot the messenger- you asked)

2nd, Now your Vegas analogy. You make a great point, a drunken couple getting married at the Elvis Chapel-O-Love, doesn't initially appear sacred - however, since its a male/female relationship, there's still a chance that the original intent can be accomplished (mentioned above).

How was that? If there are holes or hypocrisy, please expose them...people have a right to know.

I so totally agree. Also drive across Nevada to Reno and see how many people are waiting to divorce or even at your local courthouse. How is divorce affecting the "institution" of marriage. How are abusive husbands supporting the "institution". Darinos theological expaination doesn't hold a lot of water either. It implies that all people are 100% male or 100% female yet none of us are. If we try to equate love to a God then we need to look at all aspects of love and how these mirror the love of the God of your understanding. Life is not black and white and all attempts to make it binomial should be stopped. Just as masculine and feminine are a continuum, not an absolute, so should our definition of love be fluid, not a concrete slab. Inability to be flexible comes from a lack of understanding of life and its complexities. It would be nice if everyone fit into tidy little highly defined categories but like the hundreds of thousands of varieties of butterflies, people are individual and different and very hard to define and label. Why don't we stop trying and accept the beauty of each personhood in all its splendor?

Actually, the argument from Darino about the origin of marriage here is flawed. To use the argument that marriage stems from "God" is perfectly acceptable in your belief system, and in a free society, you are entitled to practice your religious beliefs. The problem is that you do not also have the right to impose that set of beliefs upon others.

Let's first even presume that marriage came from a "god." Which is a big "if" since we have no imperical evidence of this. It is what most religions would call "faith." But still working from this assumption, exactly WHOSE "god" should we be working with here? A christian one? Hebrew? Islamic? Hindu? Buddhist? Zoroastrian? Shinto? Paganism? Wiccan? Confucianism? Taoism? Scientology? Jehovah? Rastafarian? Unitarian-Universalists?

The point is that competing belief systems may arise, and that ultimately, that leaves the definition of marriages to be recognized by the state for secular purposes. All religions are still free to practice as they see fit in accordance with their customs and beliefs for "religious marriage", without interference by the state, but a separate and important system must be in place for "civil marriage."

This system has been in place and worked very effectively in France for a very long time. While France is widely considered to be a Roman Catholic country, they are officially a secular state. Therefore, they do not recognize religious marriages on their own. Basically, the way it is done, is that everyone has their "civil marriage" in the mayor's office, then the wedding party, in gowns and all, runs down the street to the church for the the religious ceremony of their choosing (IF they choose at all!).

To your argument about marriage being for procreation. It is a failed argument. While it has been accepted by many courts in the United States. Ultimately, it is a flawed. If that is the purpose if marriage, then in order to "defend" marriage, why do we not propose a constitutional amendment indicating that any marriage that does not produce children within three years is thereby NULL AND VOID. I wonder how popular that would be?

Along with that, tubal ligations and vasectomies would be banned by constitutional amendment because they do not allow for procreation in heterosexual marriage.

Further, heterosexual senior citizen couples in which women who are beyong menapouse must also be banned from entering into marriage because they cannot produce children.

Condoms must be banned for sale and use in the United States, along with birth control pills and all other forms artificial contraception. Any doctors or patients who attempt to use these items must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Families come in all shapes and sizes. It is not for you, or anyone else to decide what is or is not a loving family for someone else, and their version of what you call "heaven."

"I haven't heard a valid argument against gay marriage. They're usually filled with holes and hypocrisy." dnguyen

I haven't heard one either, dnguyen!
So far as my research goes, all arguments against gay/transgendered marriages arise from
mostly from fear, self-importance (my hetero way IS the rightwinger Christian way to have sex--worldwide and you're not going to enjoy the legal, civil rights I do because you're well, "unnatural") . . .

lack of understanding that such people don't choose their homo/trans-sexality any more than we choose our str8tness!

(Scientists have now started to come down on the side of genetic-induced sexual preferences and identities.)

See my continued email below. mike Lapinex@comcast.net

I'm not even sure who said this? Is it you, my buddy Darin?

"What argument would you be willing to accept? 1st, I'll define what Marriage is, and then that definition as a consequence will define what Marriage is NOT."

All right, buddy: let's put the gloves on. :)

Let me start by returning your sucker punch:
WHAT ARGUMENT WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO ACCEPT? And, no thanks, truly objective Christians will not allow YOU and your rightwinger buds to define marriage anymore.

You've done that long enough, Pal! You have no authority to speak for scientific, rational Christians or believe the diametric of your vested-interest views!

I doubt there are any arguments that you/I would be willing to accept--either yours or mine.

(But if you'd like to take this man-to-man,
email me at Lapinex@comcast.net .)
No--it's not a duel! Just a way to be more efficient in some one-on-one communication.

(I am assuming you're a man because your sex stereotypical views are usually an indicator that it's a dominant male speaking.)

Now I don't have the time on here to dissect (and refute :) steady, steady) ALL your arguments. They are very personal to you, I can tell.

But here are some bullets that I can develop
if you want to correspond with me:

1) I do NOT agree marriage is defined by God,
much less rightwingers!
And I profess my Christianity as much as you
probably do. If you are not a Christian,
fine. I do not accept your belief system.
That's fine too. I hope it is with you.
I don't want to be killed. :) Chill--it's a joke!

Cite me scripture, book and explicit verse.
Just because Jesus went to one does not
explicitly define an endorsement, or as we
Christians like to say "a commandment".
Sorry Darrin, I'm a deep Christ-believer,
but I have stopped liberally-
interpreting the Bible to support what I
believe and I hope you have too!
Let's be conservative interpreters for a change, OK?

2) You are presuming that the "masculine" and "feminine" natures are God's will MUST PREVAIL because he created male and female and saw "it was good".

Sola Scriptorium (without explicit reference to prove your position)?

3) OK, you're using procreation so we'll "go on and on" (Titantic). What about those of us who do not wish to procreate not because we can't but because we don't want to? It's your perogative to drop kids into this society whether or not you can always provide for them, but IT IS NOT EVERYONE'S DESIRE. Can you understand that? Besides, do you favor a marriage law that requires all married hetereos to go forth and procreate to their hearts' content? If there are no ankle-biters, then the marriage is automatically annulled, right?

If not, I think you're in good (or bad?) company with Thomas Jefferson in NOTES ON VIRGINIA who said and I quote: "Sex is for procreation purposes only."

Cmon, Darrin! Do you really know anyone who never has sex AT ALL except to PROCREATE? I do not. Do you? Even James Dodd has said in written that he cannot picture a God that would condemn little masturbating children to Jonathan Edwards' and Dante's melting hellfires!

So, now you remember: you asked for it this time!

You ask: Can those two "intentions" be met with a same sex marriage? Yes, It can, Darin (if you disavowed the possibility of such positions). I know happy, Christian homosexuals and transgendered people all around us, and I do not question their relationship with God any more than I challenge yours. I'm just challenging your scholarship, buddy.

But read my response to your opinion (is it always about you, Bud?) on Abortion too.

How about this argument for gay marriage. They don't choose to be gay. I've seen little kids that were gay. People are born gay. God made them like he made everyone else. He didn't intend for them to go through life alone and unloved. I've been married for 45 years and your marriage or a gay marriage doesn't threaten mine. You aren't supposed to judge other people. Why in the world do you worry about what other people are doing privately. Hatred only hurts you. Get over it.

Bully2: It sounds intelligent to say, "Darino's argument is flawed..." However, when you say, "The problem is that you do not also have the right to impose that set of beliefs upon others." Isn't your statement imposing a belief on others? Get it? Contradictory statement...LOL! That's rather funny, don't you think?

People, I have found when operating from two different world views, there's not going to be much agreement.

One thing though I find very interesting: I often hear a common opposing response to a traditional marriage view is to claim the person(s) is fearful and/or hateful. Consider this: the last data I heard (+/- a few years), the average life span of a homosexual male is 42 years (not avg age, but avg LIFESPAN). From MY worldview, especially in today's culture with such antagonistic backlash, isn't it both loving and courageous to stand up and say, "Stop it!...Can't you see you're killing yourself?..." etc, and offer alternatives to dying early and taking a bunch of others with you?

darino, What they are dying of has crossed the lines and there are a bunch of people dying at a young age from the same thing, including children. It isn't just a homosexual problem anymore. Shall we tell them all to Stop it? Let's give everyone their civil rights and mind our own business.

Marilynn: You're right. The young dying is collateral damage from dangerous lifestyles that hurt the innocent (like warring). Would you recommend "minding our own business" when innocent young or old are dying? I am out for not only the innocent, but engaging the ones involved in the dangerous lifestyle to help them too. If someone doesn't have to suffer, I wish to point out any alternatives that alleviate as much pain as possible, don't you? To me...it seems cruel and unloving and cowardly to "mind our own business" or leave them to their own devices, when hope and a future is available. Even though I could do better, I think it is love that reaches out, bridges that gap and gets involved.

darino, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by lifestyle? I think of lifestyle as something you choose. Like being a teacher or beach bum. Homosexuality is not something people choose. People that think they can retrain them are misguided. Looks to me that it would be a safer life if people were allowed to marry. Promiscuity is the main reason AIDS is spreading. It might have a cure by now but people thought it was only the gays that got it. By the time they noticed it was their kids too we had lost a lot of time. The only safe "lifestyle" for them is complete abstinence. That is unrealistic and not going to happen.

marilyn, look out! i completely agree with you!!!!! ...... i'd like to ask darino if he's ever spent any time in conversation with any gays, transgenders or whatever, before starting to use the term "lifestyle" to describe them.............. i know lots of gays and NEVER would a term like "lifestyle" or "lifestyle CHOICE" ever enter my mind to describe them..... darino, how many have you spoken with at length who have described their sexual preferences as "lifestyle choice"??? ............. and btw, if you do some historical research, you just might find out that "marriage as an institution" does NOT date back to the Creation, but has changed many times over well-documented historical times....... it IS a very cultural and societal thing............. ............................. ........................ ......... and the quote "While France is widely considered to be a Roman Catholic country, they are officially a secular state. Therefore, they do not recognize religious marriages on their own. Basically, the way it is done, is that everyone has their "civil marriage" in the mayor's office, then the wedding party, in gowns and all, runs down the street to the church for the the religious ceremony of their choosing (IF they choose at all!)." is one of the first things i would really be willing to acknowledge, support, affirm and cheer France for doing!....... for several years, i've championed and supported the idea that "marriage" in the United States SHOULD be "bifurcated"........ split in two: the civil union that confers upon the participants who choose to do it all legal rights that can be put into the document........... straights and gays should have the same legal rights, down to the last decimal point.............................. and THEN, if you/they want a RELIGIOUS / community ceremony, fine..... have your religious person say anything you need to have said to make you feel good, and have the entire community share and rejoice or whatever............. fine! .......... just don't make the religious "approbration" be the LEGAL determination of "valid marriage." ............. that route, whether you like it or not, is either the route of forcing your ideas down others' throats because "my ideas are right and yours aren't" or flat-out hypocrisy........... THAT's why we disagree with you......... and, as a footnote, my personal belief is that Ronald Reagan, by considering AIDS a "gay disease" and consequently delaying government support for research into a cure or even treatment for it, is one of the REAL reasons why AIDS is the scourge it is today........... had he kept his beliefs out of the discussion and considered how horrible the disease is, whoever has it, it might not be afflicting as many straights today as it does..... thanks one hell of a lot, RR.... ............................
ok, marilynn, recharge your pacemaker, get up off the floor......... :)))))))))))))))))))))))

Are you sure plusaf? Of course you are. Thanks

yes i am, marilynn... for a while, too .......................... http://www.plusaf.com/soapbox/gaymarriage.htm
............. hey, wait a minute... sure about what??? :)

By using the word "lifestyle", I was not specifically referring to anyone - I was referring to everyone as a general reference. It is your own assumption that I was speaking of homosexuals. Remember I used the words, "like warring". So generally apply the word "lifestyle" to Muslims in the Middle East. They have a warring lifestyle. They are at war with themselves and every bordering country to a Muslim state and have been for countless decades. (Please don't respond to this as a Middle East topic - it's just an example)

That is my explanation Marilynn about the word "lifestyle".

Now back to my question. How do you think love expresses itself?

plusaf, This one is yours. Take care of will you?

i don't know, MM... darino seems to be too skilled at the christian-right's weasel-wording for me to take on... i'm not sure i'm up to it..... the "warring" business as an aside to what was pretty clearly a homophobic one-woman-one-man=marriage-and-that's-all definition.... been there, argued that, and they're just too good at it.............. now, this deflection to "how do you think love expresses itself" thing..... about as open-ended a question you could possibly imagine, rife with openings for him to drive a stake through the heart of any answer.......... so, darino........ you first: how do YOU think "love expresses itself"? ..........

All I meant was love doesn't sit back and mind it's own business. Even though I need to be better at it myself, love often times compels me to get involved and try to make a difference. Sorry for the open ended question. I was just tired of being misunderstood, labeled and judged for sharing what I believe to be beneficial. A rose by any other name is still a rose - (identifiable by it's characteristics.) So I was trying to bring out love's characteristics so it could be identified to distinguish it from the things that aren't loving at all.

way ahead of you this time, MM. ........... but darino, "love compels me to make a difference"? what does THAT mean? ....... "judged for what i believe to be beneficial"??? what is it that you think you're being judged for that you think is "beneficial"? .... yep, love has "characteristics" and they tend to vary a lot from person to person..... "things that aren't loving at all"??? can you give some examples that we could discuss here? ............

Well...as far as being compelled to make a difference - would be answering this video post. As far as being judged for my beneficial perspective - my lifestyle word was judged as homophobic.

But that is beside the point. You state love characteristics vary, when really actions vary but love has relatively the same characteristics of self-sacrifice, delayed gratification and empathy.

An example to discuss here is: For the sake of argument, if it is true that the average LIFEPSPAN of a homosexual male is 42 years, would it be loving to - a) mind our own business, or b) get involved and try to increase their lifespan?

Back to Darino again:
This is about to sound complicated, but bear with me. When Darino says that I claim he cannot impose his beliefs on others, he claims that I am missing a contradiction in myself since I then want to impose MY beliefs upon others.

There is his inherent flaw, yet again. The problem, you see, is that restricting rights, based on religious beliefs, is prohibited by THE CONSTITUTION. We do not live in a Theocracy. We live in a Republic.

So, Darino is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights freedom to practice his religion without interference from the government, as noted in the First Amendment, which says, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Darino must also recognize that is also LIMITED by the same Bill of Rights and the very same First Amendment, in that he cannot use the law, nor have the government impose his religious tenets, or any others, on the rest of us. Let's try it again, it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."

Further, there's this pesky little part of The Constitution that has been around since it got ratified on 07/09/1868, that would be the 14th Amendment. This is commonly referred to as the "equal protection clause" because it reads as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The last I checked, and I may have missed my heart beating or my pulse racing, but even homosexuals are, in fact, persons. Therefore, they are protected as CITIZENS as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and are subject to EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.

These are not RELIGIOUS laws, but the laws of the land.

Another thing about your reply to me. You said that you often hear people claim that if you oppose traditional marriage that you are fearful and/or hateful. You then quoted "fact" (without citing sources) about homosexuals living to the age of 42, concluding, in YOUR words, that you are both "loving" and "courageous" for trying to spare homosexuals from trying to kill themselves.

My response: If marriage kills, then I think we need a constitutional amendment banning it for ALL heterosexuals. Second, I don't respond to statistics without cited, peer reviewed sources. Third, I was not hateful in my reply. I told you that you could have your beliefs, in fact I told you that you are guaranteed them by The Constitution of the United States.

What it appears that you DON'T understand, dear Darino, is that The Constitution does NOT give you the right to NOT be offended. Furthermore, The Constitution provides rights, and guarantees liberty to those who may be different from you, and believe it or not, some of them may even be homosexual.

Wow Bully2: your response is the longest one I've been willing to read...and I find myself not knowing how to respond. I think your contention was my desire to restrict rights based on religion...? FIRST, Please include this dynamic into your eloquent rhetoric. That dynamic is morality. You see, we are a Republic, just as you stated. That's different than a democracy. If 3 men and 1 woman are stranded on a desert island and the 3 men vote to rape the 1 woman, that is democracy. A republic has as it basis, morality. In our country immoral persons have the right to be immoral and I'll fight for their right to be immoral, as long as it doesn't take away another's right for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And LAST, if I cited all my "facts" my response would be so so long I might lose interest in typing it, let alone reading it...that's a hint;)

Marriage is a contract, started as legal joining of property and to maintain wealth. If it were religious or given by god, a church would dissolve one. Lawyers dissolve marriages and other contracts. Let's let everyone who wants to join into this contract do so, keep the religion out of it and in church where it belongs. I would rather link to my partner legally, be able to act in his behalf if he were unable, to have our "stuff" transfer between us without additional lawyers and documents, to be able to visit him in the hospital as "family". Why are these rights only available to hetero couples?? Where does it say that my religious feelings about marriage impact my legal ones?

i agree with what this man has said because i feel that as long as those 2 people are happy, whether it is 2 men, 2 women, or 1 women and 1 man, it should be atleast tolerated because no one can change who they are. but even if you cant except the ways of gay people, then atleast leave them alone. dont discriminate or make fun of them. just leave it alone.