Author: Benjamin Jumper

Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:23pm

I believe that the word "marriage" is defined as a
man and a woman. If we expand that definition to include men and men or
women and women, can we not then expand it further to include a woman
and her cat or a man and his 6-year old son? I believe that we need to
have a new word if we as a society decide to allow gays to "marry."
"Civil unions" seemed to be OK to me.

Many gays in California say that they are being
discriminated against because they are not allowed to marry who they
want to marry.
Then aren’t we discriminating
against the woman who wants to marry her cat or the man who wants to
marry his 6-year old son? We have to draw the line
somewhere and I think that "marriage" should be between a man and a
woman, then "civil unions" could be for gays (if we decide to allow it
legally).

- Ben

Author: Ruben Camarillo

Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:15pm

Marriage could be defined as this:

A union between two persons having the customary but
usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

I’m not quite sure "marriage" could be the right term
between a woman and her cat or a man and his 6-year old son. I think
that is sick.

Author: Lawrence Sonntag

Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:11pm

There was a time when people thought two men together
was sick.

Or doing work on a saturday.

The point that’s being made here is, if we cross this
"boundry", where do we set it now, and how do we know it won’t be
crossed 50 years down the road, when we grow even more tolerant?

Author: Kevin Burger

Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:15pm

I don’t really see what the problem is with gay
marriage.
Heck, I don’t even see what the problem is with inter-species marriage.
Side note: I’m a heterosexual who’s only attracted to human beings. What
people do in the privacy of their own homes is their own business.
There’s nothing to fear, it’s impossible for homosexuals to breed, so it
will never become the norm.
As far as inter-species wedlock,
again, so what? Are we afraid that the world is going to be over run by
Centaurs? (Mythical half-man half-horse.) Currently, an old man can
marry a six year old, so long as the child’s parents consent to it.
Do I think pedophilia should be outlawed? Absolutely, the vast majority
of the time it will result in the child having psychological and
possibly even physical damage. Let the courts decide when it’s ok.
Anyway, there are laws that prohibit having sex on the street, so
there’s no reason to think that we’ll be forced to see any more acts of
homosexual sex, bestiality, or pedophiles at work than we would acts of
heterosexual sex. Human beings have been around so long before what we
would consider civilization, that if these things where really all that
popular, we wouldn’t have bred enough people to be here today, so have
no fear!

Author: Kevin Burger 

Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:36pm

There was also a time when people of non-white skin
where considered to be an inferior species. Africans, Asians, Latins,
gays, etc. (exclude pedophiles in this one for reasons stated in my
other post) aren’t hurting anyone by their existance. They deserve equal
protection and liberties under the law. (Though I don’t see
inter-species weddings any time soon, because you’d have to get into
issues of whether or not Seabiscuit can apply for citizenship, and thus
voting rights.)

Author: Timothy Andrews 

Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 4:16pm

Perhaps you didn’t read it right, he didn’t say he
was against gay marriage (I don’t think) he only said that if we allow
gay marriage, it should be named something else, and not marriage,
because marriage is between a man and a woman. Thus, just rename it,
they get "united", etc. and that’s the end of that. People make too much
of a big deal in meddling with other peoples lives, that it’s sad and
turns their own lives into a big waste of time. Let people live (as long
as they are not hurting anyone else) any way they want. If a guy marries
a guy, is that going to affect my life? They were already "together", so
why not let them live in "legal union" and be happy, as they please.

Author: Brady Mayes

Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 6:23pm

I am very conserned about the moral boundary issue.

At the risk of sounding totally politically
incorrect, I must say that I find the whole matter appauling. There
simply is no such thing as a gay marriage. The religous origins of
marriage are undeniable–and although it has been secularized in many
aspects within the past century, marriage remains a fundamentally
religious sacrament:

• This is why weddings are traditionally held in a
  church.

• This is why the ceremonies are conducted by a
  minister.

• It’s why the traditional vows contain references
  like: "almighty God", "sign of God" and "God’s ordinance."

I could come up with a lot a choice descriptions of
same-sex unions, but "marriage" isn’t one of them. "Marriage" is a union
between one man and one women. Anything else is just a twisted variant.

Allowing gay marrage will not help the gay community
in any way. In fact–like most of the public–I suspect it will only
harm the public at large. By acknowledging same-sex unions as true
marriage, the American State essentailly rejects morality as a basis of
legal review. Likewise, it effectively grants asylum to all varieties of
sexual disorders. And it thus becomes completly inconsistant for future
courts to support gay marrage today, and detest–say–a Catholic preist
who fondles a child tommorrow. Furthermore, the American public
relinquishes its right to detest immoral sex acts once they’ve been
accepted as the new "Norm".

Personally, I find the thought of two men or two
women having ’sex’ together completly warped, depraved and hideous. But
if people want to pursue that line of behavior in private; where I don’t
have to see it or hear about it–well, I suppose that’s at least
tolerable. But clouding the issues by demanding the undeserved title of
"marriage" is detestable at best. The homosexual agenda would be better
off lobbying Congress to extend the existing civil union benefits,
rather than assaulting timeless religious tradition.

Author: Lucas Meier

Date: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:43pm

Right on man. homosexuality isn’t marriage. It’s like
dividing by zero, or trying to enter into an exit ramp (oh wait….)

The problem here is "what next", who’s to say they
won’t remove laws that don’t allow sex in the streets someday.
I hate
homosexuality, I find homosexuals disgusting, unnatural, twisted and I
think they should be drug out in the street and shot for defacing the
image of their creator. Am I going to get in trouble for
hate crime if we keep trying to make everyone think homosexuality is
normal? I think pedophiles should be shot, as should rapists,
abortionists, and the like. If the government tries to force people to
recognize a perversion of marriage, it simply isn’t going to fly. I will
never recognize gay ‘marriage’ as a legimitate institution, just as I
wouldn’t a woman and her cat or a guy and his son or whatever that other
guy was saying.

They are EQUALLY disgusting, equally unnatural, and
equally wrong. I can’t stop people from doing that, but I will never
recognize or respect such a perversion as a legimitate relationship, who
cares if the government "legalizes" it?

Of course I can’t force people to think my way, I
know that. What i can see happening is the gov trying to force ME to
think THEIR way by acknowledging a pseudo marriage.
I won’t
ever have any problem telling a homosexual that they are sick and in
need of serious help, regardless of whether our gov recognizes it.
But will our government tolerate people like me very long?

I mean, our government also legalized abortion. That
doesn’t make it right, and it won’t change my mind on it. Little by
little people begin to accept, but if you’ve ever seen a writhing
‘fetus’ (baby) flailing about in a metal bowl gasping for air until it
dies after being extracted, you know its sick and wrong.

Our government is ill-equipped to make moral
decisions. They do what people pay them to do, everyone knows that.

The question is are we going to put up with it?

Homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality are all sick
and wrong. The government can’t change that.

Author: Kevin Burger

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 1:15am

Exactly, the current governmental acknowledgement is
based on religion. Which is a big no no. The government isn’t allowed to
outlaw things because christianity, islam, etc say that it’s wrong. And
while marriage does have it’s origins in religion, having the government
recognize it makes it a legal matter. So legally, it goes against the
first ammendment to outlaw any type of marriage. However, religiously, I
think hell will freeze over before a priest says "I now pronounce you
man and man." As far as the moral grounds go, as I have said before,
this point is invalid. When a man engages in pedophelia, the child is
often left with psychological damage. The child is a victim, who is the
victim in gay marriage?

Again, the only justifications for outlawing gay
marriage come from religion, which is not a valid reason to make a law
here. Not too long ago, inter-racial marriage, even inter-racial dating
was said to be just as bad as homosexuality. But that’s ok now. Why is
it that that’s ok, but gay marriage isn’t ok? After all, it’s two people
of a differant race.

Here’s another way of looking at it: Would you rather
force someone who enjoys having sex with animals into leading the normal
life style? Do we really want this guy to have kids? So that he can
raise them to be little horse lovers too?

Author: Benjamin Jumper

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:12am

Let me explain my views a bit better. I didn’t say I
was for or against gay marriage earlier (I don’t think), but I am. I
believe that the people can be good people, but their lifestyles are
wrong, twisted, and corrupt. It is just unnatural. People say that they
are "born gay." If you’re born gay, why do have the…shall we
say…body parts you have? It just doesn’t make sense. As someone
earlier said, "it’s like entering the exit ramp."

As far as the government is concerned: we live in a
society who lives by what the government says. We tell them what we want
them to do, they do it, and we live accordingly (ie, laws, regulations,
etc.). We might not all agree to it, but the majority does. While yes,
our nation was formed on the basis of Christianity, we also decided to
be religiously neutral. We cannot make a Christian law, unless the
majority want it. Apparantly, the majority do not want an
anti-gay-marriage law.

Or at least that’s what the law-makers think. If we
really do not want this, we need to take action. Write your Senator,
write your Representative, both for the state and for the country. But
if society decides we want to allow gay marriage, then we have to live
by it, even if we don’t agree with it. Although, we do have to be
consistant in our law-making. Why are we starting to allow gay marriage
and not inter-family marriage?
Or to look at it the other way,
why to we ban inter-family marriage and not gay marriage?

- Ben

Author: Kevin Burger 

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:47am

Well for starters, with inter-family marriages,
genetic complications arise. It’s called Inbreedig Depression. Which
basically means that a child of two parents who are close relatives will
have a reduced fitness compared to the general population. And according
to this site:

http://www.zoo.utoronto.ca/able/volumes/vol-15/12-ecker/12-ecker.htm#SO-Intro42%
of those born from a sister-brother marriage die before reaching a
reproductive age. So now that there’s a scientific reason to boot, I’ll
back you in that I think incest is appauling, but not just for the
scientific reasons.

Author: Thomas Hughes

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:57am

The word unnatural is your opinion. There is a
popular belief that incest results in physically or mentally deformed
children, although this is a vast oversimplification. There is a popular
belief that all gay men have anal sex, which is ludicrous. Please keep
your instilled beliefs away from my liberty.

Author: Stephen Lecheler

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:20pm

Does anybody else see that this discussion, and the
united states government for that matter, is judeao-christian in it’s
definition of what marrige is? Going to a church to get married? Ms.
Spears proved that even weddings in churches are not always good and the
fact they you can marry a person on a cruise boat, a rail road, and at a
justice of the peace.

At what point do we draw the line of that is
unnatural? Do we look to nature for our guidance? And what of the rights
of the minority? Even when you have noterized documents your privalages
over your signficant other (in a gay relationship) can be infringed apon
simply by the arbitrary will of annother. Where’s the Justice?
Do we draw
the line at marring ourselves and having our offspring genetically
cloned from our bodies? Or, at the extreme end, do we allow anybody to
marry anything, including but not exclusively other people, ourselves,
animals, land, matter, ideas, and (my favorite absurdity) our
imagination?

Stand up for what you believe in. Let the world know
your views lest they be ruled illegal by the vocal minority.

Author: Timothy Andrews 

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 2:40pm

Whoever said that it’s unnatural… wrong, there’s a
lot of different species on this planet that are gay. Man, y’all just
need to let people be, I’m a heterosexual, but I don’t see why a gay
couple shouldn’t be able to have a legal binding to one another to reap
benefits such as being in the other’s will, and tax benefits and such,
if they are already together.

Author: Lucas Meier

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:03pm

are you gay ? (Editor
note: This guy is the biggest idiot here. Good job, Mr. Meier)

Author: Lucas Meier

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 4:22pm

If homosexuality should be allowed and given legal
rights like a marriage, as opposed to pedophilia because pedophilia has
victims and hurts peopole but homosexuality doesn’t, why is it against
the law to commit suicide or assist suicide in almost all states? That
takes away someone’s rights to do what they want with their body, right?
Hmmm…

Author: Lawrence Sonntag

Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:42pm

This also lends itself to societal behaviors as well.

(For the rest of this post, I am not stating -my-
believes, but postulating for the sake of conversation)

The argument thus far is that homosexual marriage
harms noone, and only makes the couple that wishes to be married happy.
If there’s no megative, and only positive, why not allow it?

The same argument can be made for drug use, ect.
However, there is a believe that such behaviors do not lead to a morally
right or virtuous lifestyle. If someone wishes to use extremely harmful
drugs, that could degredate their job performance, or mental outlook on
society in general. This, in turn, harms others. Ever tried to work with
someone who’s perpetually high? Wasn’t fun, in fact, I even considered
in unjust, having to do all their work too.

One might even go so far to say that respect for
one’s person is a vital element to a virtuous person. By allowing people
to damage their bodies with harmful drugs, we encourage the destructive
tendensies of mankind. Although that can be a bit of a stretch.

The point to be made is that while gay marriage
doesn’t damage society, it may get to the point where we will allow
private behavior that doesn’t damage society directly, but fosters
immoral behaviors.

Don’t take this to mean that I believe homosexuality
is wrong in itself. My belief is that those relations are against the
intended will of nature. Anatomy states by it’s very design an intended
use. You eat with your mouth, see with your eyes, ect.

However, our entire society is based around the
ascendency from nature. We have glasses for people with bad vision,
prosthetic limbs for those that have none. So, if we deviate from the
intent of nature in those areas, it’d be awful hypocritical of me to
condemn the devience of homosexuals.

Author: Brady Mayes

Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:58am

I think the prime issue isn’t over whether
homosexuals harm themselves; but whether the court decision will harm
the public good. The vice behind the Massachusetts decision is an
intangible one. It encourages the public to cast morality to the wind.
It instills the idea that any line of behavior is acceptable–as long as
you’ve got a legal team. And it invalidates the role of morals in
lawmaking. In short,
the homosexual agenda will do
nothing more than spite and undermine existing ethical law.

In terms of biology, anthropology, and even natural
selection–homosexuality is a grotesquely unnatural act. Biologically
speaking, it is comparable to trying to fit the star peg in the sqaure
hole. (Innuendo not intended). It’s a vigorously warped lifestyle, and
the only
reason it has "caught on" in the past decade is because of bandwagon
tolerence.

When it comes to upholding
social values, I think the public could use more indivduals like
President Bush, General Powell, and Justice Scalia; who don’t flinch at
calling sin by it’s true name.

But Legally, there is nothing stopping the gay
adjenda. Legally, there is also nothing stopping pedofile adjenda; or
the child porn adgenda; or the polyigamy adgenda. Remember, we’re
talking about eliminating morals as a basis of legal review here, folks!
Plus, if the court recognises gay marriage, the future damage to church
and state will be threefold:

It will over-extend and trivialize the Equal
Protection Clause (14th Amendment)
It will intertwine church and state
It will allow the judiciary to manipulate church activity

Finally, alot of gay advocates seem real fond of
comparing the gay adgenda to racial and sex rights issuess. But these
aren’t parallel cases at all. The reason inter- racial dating is
acceptable today is because we recognise race as an immutable
characteristic. And it’s wrong to condemn people for things they can’t
control.
Sexual orientation on the other hand is a lifestyle decision.
The existance of bi- sexuality reinforces this fact. To quote Colin
Powell, the race comparison is a "convenient but invalid argument." Yet,
you can still find homosexuals in the headlines, pretentiously comparing
themselves to Thurgood Marshall, Susan B. Anthony, and even Rosa Parks.
Disgraceful.

Author: Thomas Hughes

Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 8:29am

Homosexuality can be a moral issue only to the extent
that it is a matter of choice. Scientific evidence shows that, in many
cases, people don’t choose their sexual orientations—it is in their
natures to prefer sexual relations with members of the same sex, members
of the opposite sex, or both. On the other hand, people can choose
whether to act in accordance with their natures, and since sex is
essential to man’s life and happiness, this is a moral issue. It is
morally right for people to act in accordance with their natures,
whether heterosexual, homosexual, or anything in-between…. However,
this moral fact has no political implications. *TAKEN FROM*
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/dmoskovitz_faq-moral-
homosexual.asp Please keep your "vigorously warped" "grotesquely
unnatural" morals away from my liberty.

Author: Benjamin Jumper

Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:05pm

But the reason for marrying
should not be to get tax benifits or to be in someone else’s will. It
should be because you love the other person. Many of the gays out in San
Francisco are using that reason for getting married. They say they are
being discriminated against because they can’t get the same legal
rights. I think if they really wanted to marry it would be because they
really love each other.

Author: Brady Mayes

Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 2:49pm

An exerpt from the Journal of Homosexuality:

Early studies focused on hormone measurements in adult men and women.
While definitive interpretations are hindered by methodological
problems, the studies as a whole do not support a causal relationship
between postnatal hormone levels and sexual orientation. More recently,
a theory that prenatal hormone levels produce varying degrees of brain
androgenization and subsequent dimorphic sex role behavior has
consistently been supported by studies in lower mammals. Attempts to
generalize the causes of sexual orientation from animals to human have
been controversial. Efforts to measure the estrogen feedback as an
indication of brain androgenization have produced inconsistent results.

These studies have been rigourous pursued since the
1940’s. To this day the gene theory remains a very flimsy theory at
best. One of the original authors behind the "gay gene" theory was
investigated by National Institutes of Health for scientific fraud in
the mid 90’s. He admitted this fraud in 1998. Even the gay community
itself has admitted it is unable to find any corelation. The power for
geneoligy to persuade sexual orientation may be significant–but it is
by no means deterministic.

Consider the on-going tobacco suits. The smoker might
claim that his behavior is controlled by an inherited trait; that he is
mearly a genetic puppet, powerless to decide his own fate. Such
reasoning is nonsense. No amount of hormones can control a mans mind and
force him to purchase and consume a hazardous product. People are
responcible for their decisions.
Humans are not ruled by their
inheritance.

Gender Identity (and the Fraud Case) [Parents and
Friends of Ex-gays and Gays (PFOX)]
http://www.pfox.org/documents/genderidentity.pdf

Journal of Homosexuality [San Francisco State University]
https://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?
sid=6QUQSX48S6D39JXGUQ1J0013AJA232TA&ID=39045

Author: Lawrence Sonntag

Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 3:05pm

Yeah, I’ve always believed that the power of will is
greater than the power of instinctual urge.

And the cause can be more than just a basic horomone
thingy too.

I used to have a friend who believed he was gay,
until a doctor found a vericose vein on one of his testicles, and
discovered that he had been getting virtually no testosterone since he
was 12. He called me on the phone a week later telling me how great
pornography was, haha.

Author: Brady Mayes

Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:56pm

Exactly! Homosexuality is a matter of will. If it was
uncontrolable, then you could make the case the anti-gay argument is
unethical.
But since homosexuality is a
behavior, the Massachuetts court is running the risk of expanding our
Equal Protection beleifs to protect inappropriate behavior, and not just
race, gender, and disablility. This path would do great
damage to society. It would–if may borrow your words–encourage private
behavior that doesn’t damage society directly, but fosters immoral
behaviors.

Author: Lucas Meier

Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:16pm

Science also says we came from
monkeys, does anyone really believe that?

Author: Lucas Meier

Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:20pm

Nice work Brady. I’d like to add, that even IF being
gay was a genetic issue, that doesn’t really matter for society in the
long run. What if we decide a murderer had a genetic tendency to murder?
We can’t allow that either right?

Btw I know a guy who ministers to gay people in some
rich apartment community, he said almost all of them confide in him that
they were molested as children and it, according to the gay people
themselves, "messed with" their "wiring".

This leads me to believe that in many cases, at least
of that gay area in dallas, perhaps they are victims after all?

Author: Lucas Meier

Date: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:21pm

Well said once again.

Author: Timothy Andrews 

Date: Saturday, February 21, 2004 2:21am

In like 15 years, when gay marriage is widely
accepted, just like all other controversial but NON HARMING things end
up being, you’ll all look back at this and think, "Man, I was a
homophobe."

Author: Lawrence Sonntag

Date: Saturday, February 21, 2004 3:53am

I may not agree with a homosexual lifestyle but that
doesn’t make me a homophobe. There are shades of gray to this issue that
I believe both schools of thought will have to understand before we can
make any societal decisions. Sadly, now, with the way homosexuality has
been jazzed in pop culture, it’s become a taboo and hot topic.

Supporters of gay rights fly off the handle for no
reason, while opponents become even more rooted in their unilateral
opposition.

As far as it being non-harming, that’s an issue I was
subtley trying to bring up before. While homosexuality might not harm
anyone directly, does it condone a lifestyle that is still virtuous and
moral? This is a pretty big question, as so far throughout history, the
only true morality seems to come from the same basic tenents of
religion. I.E. don’t cheat, steal, murder, ect.

I would be very interested and delighted to see
virtue and good thrive in a society based on more liberal beliefs, but
there hasn’t been a really good example of that yet in human history. I
could be wrong though, probably am.

Author: Thomas Hughes

Date: Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:25am

Monogamy is a matter of will.

(see: Moral Animal, Red Queen)

Slavery was considered moral, but is unethical.
Homosexuality is deemed amoral, but it is ethical.

Drinking to excess is an inappropriate behavior.
Serial monogamy is an inappropriate behavior.
Mixing cheese with hamburger is inappropriate behavior.
Not wearing a head scarf is inappropriate behavior.
 

Murders harm society.
Homosexuals do not harm society.

Author: Thomas Hughes

Date: Saturday, February 21, 2004 2:24pm

"It is not sexuality which haunts society, but
society which haunts the body’s sexuality."
(Maurice Godelier)

Author: Brady Mayes

Date: Saturday, February 21, 2004 5:27pm

I wouldn’t quite say this is just a sexuality issue.
It’s also a state vs. church issue. One group seeks to redefine a
religious sacrament, while another group seeks to preserve the status
quo. More importantly, it will indicate whether the state is willing to
acknowledge moral boundaries.

Getting back to the New Ethics/Old Ethics issue,
remember that slavery was never moral nor ethical. It was just widely
practiced by people who refused to relinquish it–like an addiction. Few
denied it was a sin, and fewer actually considered it "good." The Bible
condemns slavery categorically. So does Western moral law in general.
Unlike the consciece, morality knows no trend. It knows no compromise.
Just because homosexuality has been jazzed up lately by pop culture,
doesn’t mean it’s a noble cause.

Remember instructor Bearry’s opening question in
class? The issue was "Is it okay for clothing companys to market thong
underware to 8-year-olds?" Some people might actually say "yes".

And why not? No one is being murdered. It makes
money. It feels good. So anything that makes money and doesn’t injure
people must be good, right? This reasoning overlooks cause and effect.
By marketing revealing clothes, you contribute to a sexually depraved
culture. Same is the case for gay marriage. This was the whole point of
ethical theory. The study of human actions and their more subtile
consquences.

The grand fault behind the gay marriage rights adjenda is that it
overlooks these consquences. People jump onto the tolerence bandwagon
without acknowledging the negatives. Has anyone heard about that
renegade San Francisco mayor yet? He perfectly illistrates my point.
Total disreguard for long-term effects.

Author: Aaron Wallace

Date: Sunday, February 22, 2004 2:48pm

It’s hard to argue against it.

Author: Stephen Lecheler

Date: Sunday, February 22, 2004 5:48pm

The bible does not catagorically abolish slavery. It
allows for the purchase of service for 6 years of a person. It would,
probably, condem the chatel slavery that was practiced during the early
years of the nation of the United States.

Author: Brady Mayes

Date: Sunday, February 22, 2004 9:04pm

Actually, the Bible leaves some ambiguity here and
doesn’t totally distinguish between slavery and "servitude" (I forget
the exact Biblical term–I think "indentured servitude" is a ~close
description). But you’re right, it definately condemns the type of
slavery we had in early America.

Author: Brian Bearry (121122004S)

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:14am

Some interesting politics in regard to this issue.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110004727

Author: Benjamin Jumper

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 1:00pm

Actually, the science (Charles
Darwin) that says we’re from monkeys also admitted this is a sham on his
deathbed, if I’m not mistaken.

Author: Lucas Meier

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 1:27pm

No I won’t. My standards for what I think is right
don’t come from society thus they dont’ change when it changes.

Author: Lucas Meier

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 1:30pm

I think the question that needs
to be answered by both sides is, what is your foundation for truth and
what is right? I have the Bible, (so did the founders of this country),
what do gay rights have? Where are they getting their information? How
do they know they are right? What if they are wrong?

What is the basis for truth here?

Author: Lucas Meier

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 4:25pm

MAn its worse than I thought,
people still believe the monkey thing? if we evolved from monkeys why
are there still monkeys haha. You are right about the author of the
"theory" admitting he was full of crap. anyone who can research can find
it.

Author: Brett Hoerner

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 5:05pm

Human rights are a nice thing, m’kay. How does two
guys being married opress you?

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17903

Good article. I’d like to drive by the hicks holding
the signs of protest and yell "GET A JOB!"

Author: Brady Mayes

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:27pm

I certainly hope we’re not asserting that all rights
are good. Human rights are not a good thing when they promote a realm of
social depravity. This is very meaning of the social contract. We
retrict human actions to those that do not threaten the public good.
It means
some rights–like say, being able to fondle an alterboy–must be struck
down. This is why we also have laws against seditious
speech, lible, and slander. To say otherwise is an incomplete and
narrow-minded assessment. You must acknowledge the negative effects of
every human right.

Getting back to the issues, that Derek Powazek
editorial was shamelessly opinionated and steeped in irrelevent
sentimentality. It takes more than rose peddles and wedding photos to
justify social depravity.
Other than pure emotion, the gay
marriage faction hasn’t a single compelling argument at its disposal.
Yet it wins support by the press and pop culture. It
turely saddens me to see people get taken in by such a superficial
argument. Meanwhile, the anti gay marriage "hicks" are inevitably
dehumanized by the TV culture and their evidence goes ignored. I’ve
already enumerated some of their perfectly rational arguments and source
references in my previous 4 posts, and I’m not going to repeat myself.

Author: Brett Hoerner

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:42pm

Yes, the negative affects have to be weighed,
fondling an alterboy is impeding on his rights, and of course the
counter is "what if the boy wants it?" Old arguement, really, we have to
set an age when we think people are capable of making decisions for
themselves, and that is typically 17-18 around the US. Back to gay
marriages, I fail to see how this human right has any negative affect
except for offending some Christians. Who gets hurt? How does society
lose anything? I don’t think churches should have to marry them, but I
think they should all be able to get the same piece of paper that I, an
atheist, plan to receive when I get married some day. As said earlier in
this thread, if changes like this, what I would say is common sense,
never occured… we’d still have ‘colored only’ water fountains.

Author: Brady Mayes

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 8:44pm

I find your view of Christianity as "collateral
damage" most intriguing. Actually, I think it perfectly describes the
prime driving force behind the gay tolerence bandwagon, but before I go
into this I’ll reiterate some of the main casualties of the gay marriage
court decision:

Legal Casualties: With all the gay marriage rights issues surrounding
the State courts, alot of people would assume that the power to regulate
marriage rights lies in the judiciary. Quite the contrary. It is the
Congress that decides these rights. When the Massachuesetts court
allowed gay marriage rights, it essentially circumvented the Legislature
in its decision. This violates the American concept of Checks and
Balances to a very large degree. This type of action contributes to
what’s known as a Critocracy–a rule by Judgeships. History has
demonstraited repeatedly that societies that legislate from the Bench
are innately choatic, arbitrary, and totalitarian.

Social Casualties:
At the risk of sounding repetitve, I’m going to reiterate one of my
previous points almost word-for-word.
If the courtroom acknolegeds
Civil Unions as true marriage, it essentially casts out morality as a
legal standard of review. It will grant asylum to virtuall all
behavioral disorders such as pedophilia, beastiality, and necrophilia.

Additionally, this means that no law can established or maintained on
the basis that it promotes social good. "So What?" some may say. "Let
people do whatever makes them feel good." Another narrow-minded
assessment. Recall that morality laws don’t only apply to the public,
they also restrict the State. This means that for every Obscenity law
cast aside, you also remove an Invasion of Privacy law. For each Child
Pornography law removed, you raze a Defamation law. Each of these
policies have one thing in common– pursuit of morality and public good.

Religious Implications: This refers back to my opening point. Here, the

Massachusetts court is attempting to redefine a fundamentally religious
sacrament–a role to which it has no Constitutional right
to. By acknowledging Gay Unions as true marriage, you force the Church
to redefine its rules an accept homosexuality as a normal behavior.
Modern American history has a firm policy against intertwining church
and state, and this action would clearly violate the Bill of Rights. Two
guys marrying each other does not oppress me directly, the vice here is
a latent one.

I think–based on my observations–that
the gay rights movement is just
a vielled attempt to spite organized religion in general.
And it’s not just Christian groups that are under the crosshairs. That
is why the gay faction has consistantly taken aim at certain privite
groups such as the Boyscouts of America, and various Christian
Universities across the U.S.
It’s basically an attack on
Traditionalism, to sum it. It will be very interesting to
see how this one plays out…

Author: Aaron Wallace

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:03pm

Until someone can show me some sort of proof
(preferably not a passage from the bible) that we were all placed here
by a "magical" higher being, I think I’ll stick with my view.

Author: Brett Hoerner

Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:40pm

I agree, it will be interesting, I suppose being a
white heterosexual male takes away my real "need" for this to work out,
it’s just a hope, really. As far as my views about Christianity as
"collateral damage"… I don’t think it would be in my best interest to
discuss how I truely feel in a school forum.

Author: Chris Wahlen

Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 12:28am

The story of Darwin (the aforementioned author)
denouncing the theory of Evolution on his deathbad is false. It’s
irrelevant at any rate; the theory today stands on its own without
having to rely on the credibility of its author.

Author: Thomas Hughes

Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:04am

Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV) "Your male and female slaves
are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and
members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your
property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and
can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow
Israelites ruthlessly."

Leviticus 25:44-46 (KJV): "Both thy bondmen, and thy
bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round
about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the
children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye
buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your
land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an
inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a
possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren
the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."

Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV): "If a man beats his male or
female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must
be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a
day or two, since the slave is his property"

Exodus 21:20-21 (KVJ) "And if a man smite his
servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be
surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall
not be punished: for he is his money."

—————————–
President George W. Bush
February 4, 2004