NFB: Missouri votes by a 71% margin to ban same sex marriages.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

What about the children issue? You would endorse married gays raising adopted children? I think that is NUTS! Kids have a hard enough time already... Lets not throw them into these situations also. That alone is enough reason for me to say no, all religion aside.

No, I definitely think the "it isn't hurting anyone" argument is one of their strongest arguments... as soon as kids come into the picture it is. They should not be allowed to adopt.

[TraceZ]

No, I definitely think the "it isn't hurting anyone" argument is one of their strongest arguments... as soon as kids come into the picture it is. They should not be allowed to adopt.

Gotcha. So you are for the gay mariage, but with less than equal rights. I'd say that is a tolerable middle ground. God will take care of his issues on his own, anyways.

[Torque]

This is a topic I could argue from both sides very easily, there are many valid concerns and benefits of each side. I really am not one to press my personal views on such topics. However, I would like to encourage those who make the arguement that gay marriages take away from the meaning of their own marriages to think twice about this statement.

Marriage means different things to different people. From my perspective and from that of my wife, (and I beleive to those extremely conservatives who seem to be taking offense to gay marriage and claim to have the most clearly definied definition of the unity), there is nothing that anyone else can do that would impact the relationship that I have between myself and my wife and the committment that we have to one another. Certainly, the last thing that we would allow to impact this relationship is public oppinion. Therefore, you can marry 2 of just about anything right in our backyard and I can assure you it will not impact my relationship or what our perceptions of the strength or sactity of our relationship are.

I would encourage those who seem to take such offense to this act to embrace family values, refocus your attention back on your own family and relationship with your spouse, and lead by example.

Not sure how we got off topic onto politics and religion but bringing this back to the Forum topic, my Z-28's still sitting in my garage under a cover with a locked up LT-1 in it (without even being torn down) for almost a year now. Debating whether to rebuild or buy a new crate. Doing a Turbo motor seems really appealing but getting creative is what got me to the situation I am in. Anyone have suggestions for good solid crate motors or rebuilds?

[AmericanZ28]

Marriage Mayhem
Advocates of Same-Sex Unions Rely on Weak, Faulty Arguments
By Ira L. Shafiroff
Daily Journal - Sep 4, 2003
Forum Column

In Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated the nation's anti-sodomy laws. In the aftermath of Lawrence, the debate on same-sex marriages has intensified. According to recent polling data, as reported by the New York Times, most Americans are opposed to same-sex marriages. This is not because of bigotry or hatred but because a legal and moral case for same-sex marriages cannot be made.

Proponents of same-sex marriages argue that the state should not prevent those in a loving relationship from obtaining a marriage license, and by doing so, the state is violating the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. While the argument is interesting, it displays faulty legal thinking.

If the key to getting a marriage license were just a loving relationship, then there would be no legal reason why polygamists and siblings should be excluded. If the 14th Amendment applies to homosexuals, it should apply to polygamists and siblings, too. If certain traditional standards should come down, there is no reason why others should stand. The slippery slope argument is real and compelling.

Activists also argue that, by prohibiting same-sex marriages, the state is unlawfully interfering with the civil rights of gays and lesbians. To buttress their claims, gays and lesbians often make reference to our nation's civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, analogizing their struggle with that of the African-American community. Reference often is made to Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which abolished state anti-miscegenation laws. But the civil rights argument is weak, and the comparison to Loving inappropriate.

First, while marriage is a fundamental right, it is also a status based on contract, and states may regulate contracts. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that states can regulate marriage without having to satisfy a heightened standard of review. See Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).

Second, gays and lesbians who want to place their struggle on par with African-Americans unintentionally diminish the real horrors of the black experience. The civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was the legacy of unimaginable cruelties: kidnappings, forced family separations, demeaning slavery, unspeakable torture, widespread lynchings and Jim Crow laws.

Irrespective of the wrongs evildoers have inflicted on America's homosexuals, the African-American experience was fully unique for its horrors. While gays and other groups in America have experienced discrimination also, can compare their experiences with the history, events and circumstances that led to the black civil rights movement.

Another argument activists raise is that recognition of same-sex marriages is necessary to put homosexual couples on the same footing as their married heterosexual counterparts with respect to financial and health care concerns.

For example, there is the gay man who, without the benefit of community property laws, finds himself out on the street and penniless after the breakup of a long-term relationship. So, too, is the heartrending account of the woman who is hospitalized and whose partner is barred both from making health care decisions affecting the woman and from visiting.

These problems are real and heartbreaking. But they also are avoidable with proper planning.

A man who wants to be assured that he will not be put out on the street after a breakup need only put title to the house in joint tenancy. A woman who wants to make certain that her domestic partner will make health care choices for her in the event of illness need only execute a health care power of attorney.

Moreover, many corporations and cities now give domestic partners of all orientations the same heath care and disability benefits previously enjoyed only by married couples. True, domestic partners may not receive identical benefits in all cases. Social Security coverage is a notable example. Still, the financial and heath care problems encountered by same-sex couples are largely obviated by proper planning. The demand that society redefine its long-standing definition of marriage so that gays and lesbians may secure additional financial benefits is therefore not an effective strategy.

When heterosexuals manifest a societal concern for state-sanctioned same-sex marriages, activists typically respond, "How will my marrying the person I love threaten or affect your marriage?" Well, it won't. But it could have an impact on children.

To believe that sexual desire is purely a matter of genetic makeup is to adopt a position that is not wholly supported by scientific evidence.

Also, if society teaches that certain behavior is proper, then more people - especially impressionable children - will be apt to try it and adopt it.

For example, as society has become more immodest, we have seen adults, teenagers, and now even children, sporting attire that only a generation ago would have been unthinkable. 42nd Street has come to Main Street because society says brazen dress is acceptable.

Similarly, in the ancient world, Greek society approved of a man having sex with his wife to have children and sex with another male for pleasure. And that is what happened on a large scale. Environment counts.

Assuming that the imprimatur of society does have an effect on behavior, some activists ask, "So what?" What is the problem if impressionable children are told that it does not make any difference whether they grow up to marry someone of the opposite or same sex? To these activists, there is no moral or other difference in sexual preference; it's similar to some liking Pepsi while others like Coke.

But society in general sees a moral difference, and it is rooted in the nation's sincere, deep and long-standing Judeo-Christian tradition. The Bible expressly prohibits homosexual intercourse (Lev. 18:22).

Same-sex marriage activists have addressed this major hurdle by comparing the Bible's prohibition against sodomy with other supposedly "questionable" biblical teachings and, by so doing, sweep all biblical precepts under the cloud of suspicion and illegitimacy. Thus, these activists tell us, while the Bible prohibits homosexual intercourse, it also recognizes slavery and provides for the administration of capital punishment for a "rebellious son" (Deut. 21:18). Just as our society no longer recognizes slavery and extreme punishment for a wayward child, the argument goes, our society should recognize that the biblical proscription on homosexual intercourse is similarly outdated. The moral, if not legal, ban on homosexual intercourse makes as much sense, we are told, as animal sacrifices.

The problem with this argument is that many of the biblical laws were intended for a Jewish commonwealth at a certain time and under certain conditions. For this reason, the laws of animal offerings are not in effect. As to slavery, the Torah allows but does not endorse it. Indeed, Jewish law generally disapproved of slavery and had many laws in place to discourage slave owning.

Similarly, regarding the law that a rebellious son should be stoned to death, the Torah makes clear that a parent in the heat of passion may not do this; only a duly constituted and dispassionate court may - with the implicit assurance that it would never happen, as the rabbinical commentators make clear.

But most Americans believe that the proscription regarding homosexual intercourse is just as relevant now as it was then. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, sodomy, along with laws prohibiting murder, robbery and incest are deemed moral laws for all times and contexts. Put simply, tolerance is appropriate for intimate acts that are kept private. But when the state is seen to approve of that conduct with the sanctity of marriage, statistically most Americans balk, especially when 86 percent are married in a religious ceremony.

One last point troubles most Americans with respect to the idea of same-sex marriages: More children than ever will be conceived with the idea that they will have two mothers or two fathers. The gay community often speaks of civil rights. But do children not have a civil right to a mother and a father? True, parents of all sexual orientations die prematurely, and some abandon their offspring. But children have a right to start out life with parents whose genders complement each other.

Some say that there is no difference between men and women. But that is nonsense, and anyone who has or works with children knows this. The ideal that a child comes into this world with both a mother and father could be irreparably harmed if same-sex marriages become a reality.

Of course, spirited discussion may be obviated if a state Supreme Court holds that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. If that happens, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution will kick in, and same-sex marriages will be lawful in the United States, not by will of the majority but by judicial coup.

[Camaro4-2]

I am sorry I am living in a time of declining morals.

AMEN!

Bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself.
The devils best trick is convincing you that he is pure!

AMEN!

I used to take the same stance, and argue symantics as well. "Why not just call it something else?" - I argued...

The reason is that the word marriage can trace its roots back to cultures before or apart from God. The very word "marriage" itself is not a Holy word. It didn't come from the Old Testament, it was around long before that. The Christian/Jewish religions adopted it to be their own word to mean a union of God, man, and woman... it wasn't always so.

While I agree with your morals, I don't agree with your stance on this... it's a bit too hard line. Especially when you highlight other words from that passage from Corinthians.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Look, allowing gay marriage isn't going to change their lifestyles. They're gay. Plain and simple. I applaud your desire to maintain family values, but to be perfectly honest, I cannot find any grounds to outlaw gay marriage besides religious ones. And we know how crucial it is to keep church and state seperate.

Sodemy is illegal.Isn't Sodemy the like backbone of Homosexuality? Adultery is illegal bud(divorce suits).
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...here we are at the thing I hate so much, the "christians are hypocrites" thing again. Jesus Christ gives us salvation, we walk a path for God...the enemy(devil) is ALWAYS there trying to temp us and break us from our union with God. Were the same humans you are and there are times we break down and lose a battle and end up sinning. Jesus paid the price for that and we will repent of it. I'm fine with losing a few battles and winning the war. Being in the military I'd rather be an AMERICAN fighting the war on terror...losing some battles to the enemy but because theres fellow soldiers losing some battles I'm not going to go live with the terrorists.

[fastTa]

What gets to me is that you always here gays compare themselves to those involved in the Civil Rights Movement. That really pisses me off because until a gay person is not allowed to eat in a restaraunt because he is gay...until a gay person in not allowed to ride a public bus...until a gay person is not allowed to attend public school, I don't want to hear any more of this silly nonsense of gays trying to compare their so called liberation to that of what the minorities had to endure during the 50's and 60's. It is completely selfish and disrespectful.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Sodemy is illegal.Isn't Sodemy the like backbone of Homosexuality? Adultery is illegal bud(divorce suits).
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...here we are at the thing I hate so much, the "christians are hypocrites" thing again. Jesus Christ gives us salvation, we walk a path for God...the enemy(devil) is ALWAYS there trying to temp us and break us from our union with God. Were the same humans you are and there are times we break down and lose a battle and end up sinning. Jesus paid the price for that and we will repent of it. I'm fine with losing a few battles and winning the war. Being in the military I'd rather be an AMERICAN fighting the war on terror...losing some battles to the enemy but because theres fellow soldiers losing some battles I'm not going to go live with the terrorists.

First of all... about sodemy being illegal... I am not sure if it is or not, but even if it is, it is simply one of those laws that they don't have to take off the books. Everyone knows there is no way to prosecute someone for that in a consensual act.

Second of all... you may be surprised to know that statistics show that sodemy is equally likely to occur in a heterosexual relationship as it is in a homosexual one.

As far as adultery is concerned, I was considering it to be any sex outside of marriage... but I guess fornication kinda covers that. Anyway, all I am trying to say is that if you are going to use that Corinthians passage, note the whole thing... not just the words that argue on your side.

Gays feel like the object of Christian's hypocracy, and I can see why. If Christians want to outlaw gay marriage, they should also outlaw pre-marital sex and start prosecuting people for it. You can't allow one sin to continue while marching on a crusade to stop another.

[Camaro4-2]

Gays feel like the object of Christian's hypocracy, and I can see why. If Christians want to outlaw gay marriage, they should also outlaw pre-marital sex and start prosecuting people for it. You can't allow one sin to continue while marching on a crusade to stop another.

With this legalized gay marraigae can they get married in a church by a priest or pastor? I mean if the bible states against it can they have a marriage anything other than a paper version? I'm dont know the answer to that..does anyone know anything about it...thnks.