Mary started it all

[Tigermike 3,717]

If we use mine there will be a lot of unhappy people on this board alone. My opinion of remarriage after divorce is that it is commiting adultery.

Not to hijack this thread, but how did you come to this opinion? From reading the Bible or from having that particular doctrine preached to you? But maybe that should be for another thread or board.

[Tiger in Spain 0]

If the gay rights people do not endorse nor want to be perceived as condoning pedophilia, why do they all march together? It would seem that if they march down the street arm in arm & sign along side sign that they in effect support each other. For example if we were to see TigerAl (not that he would) marching with the KKK in Montgomery we would assume that he endorsed what they did. No matter what he said to the contrary. It seems logical to assume that since the gay rights folks and NAMBLA folks all march together and protest together that they support, endorse and want equal rights and representation for each other.

Mike, I had the same thought in my head this afternoon at work. You are absolutely right, my friend. In most of these gay pride marches, one will often times see a NAMBLA sign being carried by someone marching along side the two transvestite cowboys who have their bare hams sticking out of the backside of their chaps.

If I were Pee Wee Herman, I'd be pissed!! This guy had it going in the late 80's with Pee Wee's Playhouse, then he gets caught in a porno theater in the midst of a "loving, stable relationship" with his right hand and whamo, he loses everything. Rosie O'Donnell, on the other hand, forces us into her disgusting lifestyle via the television set and she is a martyr for the cause. I just don't get it.

[channonc 466]

I have never met a gay person that condones or associates with NAMBLA or any other organization that endorses sex with minors or other nonsense.

[Tigermike 3,717]

I have never met a gay person that condones or associates with NAMBLA or any other organization that endorses sex with minors or other nonsense.

Maybe they don't "condone or associate with" NAMBLA but if their political gay rights leadership does not distance themselves from NAMBLA is it not logical to assume they are all on the same page and want the same rights for each other? It would appear that the folks at NAMBLA are homosexuals, they just like their men a little younger. That is another reason to think there is much more of a connection with the two groups than meets the eye. You would not expect any gay rights group to openly say they expect rights for NAMBLA do you? Not when it seems that they (gay rights movement) are making headway. (No pun intended)!

http://www.nambla.org/

[DKW 86 7,899]

I dont care what gays do as long as they leave everyone else alone. I do have a problem with their forcing everyone to say they are okay tho. If Raymond Burr, the Dad on Brady bunch and many others can get along for decades in a media fishbowl being gay then why do we have to have it shoved down our throats?

Marriage is their asking us to condone something. I refuse to do it. Marriage is from God and by God and in the eyes of God. A civil union is a contract and not much more.

Nambla and other orgs will eventually try to be mainstreamed. They are now. I would not be surprised to see Michael Jackson as a spokesman.

BTW Al, I bet many of us are scripturally divorced as you say.

[channonc 466]

Marriage is from God and by God and in the eyes of God. A civil union is a contract and not much more.

Which is why I started a thread a week or so ago stating that every "marriage" should be considered a civil union in legal terms. There is no legal difference b/w a marriage license signed at city hall or one that you bring to your minister or other religious leader. You're right David, marriage isn't a legal term, its all semantics. The point is gay couples want the same legal benefits that come with a "marriage" of heterosexual couples. Right to hospital visitation, right to inherit estate, right to leave their children under partner's custody...

[TitanTiger 21,241]

Could a solution to this dilemma be that there's an easy to fill out form where you can designate anyone your "next of kin", thereby granting them all the rights that a spouse, child, or parent would have with regard to inheritances, hospital visitation/medical decisions, etc?

Or is the real issue that the concept of marriage is being pursued because it connotes a certain "validity" to such relationships?

[AURainman 6]

I still haven't figured out how my marriage will be affected if Jim and John are allowed to marry.

Marriage is not a political institution. It is one that was founded by God. The government chooses to acknowledge marriage. They do not say what marriage is. They just choose to acknowledge it and, yes, there are certain benefits that married couples receive from the government. Benefits that the government has chosen to reward people with who make responsible decisions. Why? Because this country was founded on moral grounds based from Christianity. God created Adam. God created his companion Eve. God did not intend for Adam to marry Cain or Abel. He was intended to be with a woman.

Its not rocket science. In fact its kindergarten stuff. Square peg + square hole. Simple, right?! A 2 year old has figured that one out. Not Square peg + square peg. Not square hole + square hole. The problem comes where people find square peg + round hole and it doesn't work. Then, due to a society that refuses to define a "right" answer and yeilds to the "any solution is the right solution" mentality will allow people to make the wrong decision. Namely, Square peg + square peg.

So, to answer your question. My marriage (in June 2004), runs the risk of being associated with those who are making the wrong decision. The homosexuality marriage issue is diluting the intended version of marriage. It is making a mockery of a beautiful gift that God has given us. I have no problem with non-religious, civil contracts. But, that is not what people want now. They want marriage. THAT is where I have a problem.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

My thought is that the gay marriage/equality debate could turn out to be like many many other instances in oour nation's history when not thinking things through with a cool head can result in things no one ever considered - the law of unintended consequences. Lawyers can take anything and spin it to fit their client's situation - that is what they are paid to do. Get it before some liberal activist judge, and you have a problem!

You say that pedophelia and incest, etc. are abhorent and the general public would never get behind that idea - well, wasn't homosexuality in that same category just ten or twenty years ago. Not stating an opinion on it, just making a point. Who's to say what people will or won't support ten years from now? Someone posted last week about the father/daughter incest thing in Mobile - there was not a victim there - the daughter WANTED to be with her father. If they were sterilized, your argument against inbreeding is removed - so who's to say that their sex is any "worse" than gay sex?

[channonc 466]

yes, there are certain benefits that married couples receive from the government. Benefits that the government has chosen to reward people with who make responsible decisions.

Responsible, b/c you have committed to spending the rest of your life with that person. Wouldn't you rather see a gay couple make that commitment rather than not?

The non-religious institution called the government doesn't give special privlages to those who get married in a church vs. those who go to city hall. Why should it be different for gay couples? Marriage I agree is a religious term, unfortunately, "marriage" and "civil unions" have become interchangable. The government gives out the marriage license, its up to you to decide if you want to have the ceremony in city hall or conducted at a religious ceremony. Legally, you have the same rights as a couple that got married in city hall.

I have no problem with non-religious, civil contracts.

Exactly!! The government can't force a church to conduct the ceremony. The argument right now is whether or not they can receive the actual marriage license from the government-- a civil contract. This argument has nothing to do with whether or not they can be married in a church. That will always be up to the individual church/religion. Hense, seperation of church and state.

[Tiger Al 0]

I have never met a gay person that condones or associates with NAMBLA or any other organization that endorses sex with minors or other nonsense.

Maybe they don't "condone or associate with" NAMBLA but if their political gay rights leadership does not distance themselves from NAMBLA is it not logical to assume they are all on the same page and want the same rights for each other? It would appear that the folks at NAMBLA are homosexuals, they just like their men a little younger. That is another reason to think there is much more of a connection with the two groups than meets the eye. You would not expect any gay rights group to openly say they expect rights for NAMBLA do you? Not when it seems that they (gay rights movement) are making headway. (No pun intended)!

http://www.nambla.org/

TM, here is a statement from GLAAD:

The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deplores North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD.

GLAAD also supports the statements issued by other gay and lesbian organizations supporting the International Lesbian and Gay Association's (ILGA) call for NAMBLA's immediate removal from the international association.

GLAAD concurs with the 1990 ILGA resolution based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states, "Major power imbalances create the potential for child abuse. ILGA condemns the exploitive use of power differences to coerce others into sexual relationships. All children have the right to protection from sexual exploitation and abuse."

Although statistics indicate that the vast majority of sexual abuse against children is perpetrated by heterosexual men, it is imperative that child abuse, in all forms, be condemned by gay men and lesbians.

As a group of people who historically have not had legal rights and protections, gay men and lesbians have always worked with, and built coalitions with, others whose rights are at risk. The true gay and lesbian agenda is ultimately about free human rights for all people.

I can't comment on who walks with the gay rights people in parades because, I must admit, I have never attended one or watched one on television (if they even show them). I was curious to know if you could provide a link or something other than your opinion that NAMBLA and gay rights organizations are in cahoots? Not that I don't believe you.

[Tiger Al 0]

You say that pedophelia and incest, etc. are abhorent and the general public would never get behind that idea - well, wasn't homosexuality in that same category just ten or twenty years ago.

Laws against homosexual acts were borne out of prejudice. There is no actual crime committed. Pedophilia is a crime, not because it is misunderstood, but because a person, a child, is being forced to engage in sexual acts against his or her will. Unless you think that society is going to change its' opinion on that, then someone can try using the same argument all day long but it isn't going to fly any more than if you tried to use that argument to say that rape is no longer a crime because people have casual sex.

[Tiger Al 0]

So, to answer your question. My marriage (in June 2004), runs the risk of being associated with those who are making the wrong decision. The homosexuality marriage issue is diluting the intended version of marriage. It is making a mockery of a beautiful gift that God has given us. I have no problem with non-religious, civil contracts. But, that is not what people want now. They want marriage. THAT is where I have a problem.

Everything you do in life runs the risk of being done by or associated with someone who makes a wrong decision. Because those kids tore up the football field last year does that lessen the quality of education you got at AU? Is your diploma worth less because they got a diploma also?

The strength and validity of your marriage rests squarely on your and your wife's shoulders and is no more affected by a homosexual claiming to be married than it is by a husband in Oregon who is cheating on his wife. If you think that it is, maybe you'd better put it off a while and get a better understanding of what YOUR marriage is supposed to be about.

[Tiger Al 0]

Or is the real issue that the concept of marriage is being pursued because it connotes a certain "validity" to such relationships?

Maybe they're wanting the same thing that you and I wanted when we got married. (obviously, not the same marriage!)

[channonc 466]

Laws against homosexual acts were borne out of prejudice.

This is why I stated in an earlier discussion that this was similar to past laws which prohibited interracial marriage.

[Tiger Al 0]

Laws against homosexual acts were borne out of prejudice.

This is why I stated in an earlier discussion that this was similar to past laws which prohibited interracial marriage.

Exactly! Those 'crimes' weren't actually criminal acts, but were a reflection of the times in which they were enacted. I don't foresee a time when pedophilia will be viewed as a loving act and that people opposed to it at one time just didn't get it.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

Or is the real issue that the concept of marriage is being pursued because it connotes a certain "validity" to such relationships?

Maybe they're wanting the same thing that you and I wanted when we got married. (obviously, not the same marriage!)

I'm just asking...are they wanting the approval of society on their relationship by having it called a "marriage" or do they simply want to have the benefits that marriage provides (hospital visitation/medical decisions, inheritance laws, power of attorney, etc)?

[channonc 466]

I honestly believe the second one.

[AURainman 6]

So, to answer your question. My marriage (in June 2004), runs the risk of being associated with those who are making the wrong decision. The homosexuality marriage issue is diluting the intended version of marriage. It is making a mockery of a beautiful gift that God has given us. I have no problem with non-religious, civil contracts. But, that is not what people want now. They want marriage. THAT is where I have a problem.

Everything you do in life runs the risk of being done by or associated with someone who makes a wrong decision. Because those kids tore up the football field last year does that lessen the quality of education you got at AU? Is your diploma worth less because they got a diploma also?

No, my diploma is not worth less. But then again. Had the guys murdered someone on the field, if the story was nationwide, wouldn't Auburn be cast in an odd light. Wouldn't more people be scared to come to Auburn. Wouldn't Auburn be associated with the crime. Wouldn't there be an previously nonexistant predjudice against my Auburn University because of this?!

[TitanTiger 21,241]

I honestly believe the second one.

Then wouldn't a compromise like the form I mentioned work to accomplish this? You can designate anyone your effective "next of kin" (in the presence of a witness and an attorney of course) to take care of all this?

[Tiger Al 0]

No, my diploma is not worth less.  But then again.  Had the guys murdered someone on the field, if the story was nationwide, wouldn't Auburn be cast in an odd light. Wouldn't more people be scared to come to Auburn.  Wouldn't Auburn be associated with the crime.  Wouldn't there be an previously nonexistant predjudice against my Auburn University because of this?!

Well, if the quality and worth of your marriage is determined by what other married people have done...you're screwed! With the high divorce rate, single-parent households and enormous rate of infidelity what exactly, using your reasoning, remains of marriage that is worth getting into it? You're going to be in bad enough company as it is, so why bother? When you go to a party or a new job and introduce your wife, aren't you afraid that people will see each of you as an adulterer of the worst kind and you are no more than a deadbeat-dad-in-waiting? You are, after all, married and married people have done those things and you are now guilty by association.

It doesn't work like that.

[Tiger Al 0]

Or is the real issue that the concept of marriage is being pursued because it connotes a certain "validity" to such relationships?

Maybe they're wanting the same thing that you and I wanted when we got married. (obviously, not the same marriage!)

I'm just asking...are they wanting the approval of society on their relationship by having it called a "marriage" or do they simply want to have the benefits that marriage provides (hospital visitation/medical decisions, inheritance laws, power of attorney, etc)?

I thought you were working on converting some lesbians at one time. Why don't you ask them?

I think it's primarily the latter reason, but I think that there is also a desire to add a sense of permanancy to their relationships, the same as us. Here is an article from a lesbian discussing gay marriage/civil union/domestic partnerships. Unfortunately, you're gonna have to wade through some anti-Bush/GOP/conservative stuff, but you're a big boy, you can handle it!

[Jenny AU-92 0]

You say that pedophelia and incest, etc. are abhorent and the general public would never get behind that idea - well, wasn't homosexuality in that same category just ten or twenty years ago.

Laws against homosexual acts were borne out of prejudice. There is no actual crime committed. Pedophilia is a crime, not because it is misunderstood, but because a person, a child, is being forced to engage in sexual acts against his or her will.

But what about my other comment - about the ADULT father/daughter sexual relationship? Pedophilia aside, these were two consenting adults - why shouldn't they be involved, provided that they cannot reproduce - no victim!

My point is simply that there will be exceptions to every rule - for example, in Alabama, I think you can still be married at 14 with a parent's permission - how is that any different than statutory rape or pedophilia? Simple - the law says it's okay. There are bastardizations of every law (no pun intended) but my concern is that we may not be able to see right now all the ways this law could come back to haunt us later, once it gets twisted and manipulated by some plantiff's attorney and some bench-sitting, powerhungry, agenda pushing activist judge.

[TitanTiger 21,241]

I thought you were working on converting some lesbians at one time. Why don't you ask them?

Why are you being so snotty? I'm asking questions and you're making backhanded remarks about my conversations with a bi-sexual friend.

[Tiger Al 0]

I thought you were working on converting some lesbians at one time. Why don't you ask them?

Why are you being so snotty? I'm asking questions and you're making backhanded remarks about my conversations with a bi-sexual friend.

That wasn't my intent and I apologize.

If you know someone in that particular situation, wouldn't you get a more reliable answer by asking her? It just seems to me that if I want to know something about Jaguars, it would make sense to ask a Jag owner about them instead of a bunch of Ford owners.

Again, I'm sorry.