patrick.net

Yes and no I don't have a problem with gays wanting legal cohabit rights and all that affords it. Notice I didn't use marriage? You don't have to redefine marriage that is not broken. But there's certainly no problem with creating a new recognition that accomplishes the same goals that Gays want.

They could have also done this with out declaring war on Families and family values. They could have also forgone co-opting children who are just confused and are captive participants to an argument they may feel like they are not allowed to challenge. Like when teachers politicize at school during district votes that effects gays somehow. Not to mention those kids are NOT the one's voting. Their parents are, had Cliff just gone and knocked on some doors and canvased the adults in the community. It might have been more successful.

It seems to me, it's less about wanting to be "Married" as much as it is, sticking it to the religious right.

CaptainShuddup says

Yes and no I don't have a problem with gays wanting legal cohabit rights and all that affords it. Notice I didn't use marriage? You don't have to redefine marriage that is not broken.

I agree with this view to an extent.

Fact is though, that if a significant number of gays are getting civil unions or whatever you want to call it, if you accept that, then they are going to go ahead and call themselves married.

50 or 100 years from now these couples will be referred to and thought of as "married," regardless of what the technical legal term is. This seems obvious to many. So why fight it over some desire to reserve that word for hetero couples.

It's can't be done.

marcus says

if you accept that, then they are going to go ahead and call themselves married.

They can do what ever they want, I just don't think Father Guido Sarducci should be on the wrong side of a Federal wrap for not concurring.

CaptainShuddup says

Look people can't speak honestly on the side of millions of years of
evolution, with out being labeled some hater. It's not wrong to feel
uncomfortable with Gays, that was as good as it ever could have gotten in this
country. Or any country. Gays don't want equal rights they want exceptional
rights. Where their rights trumps the rights of others to be repulsed by it, or
to raise your children to think Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, one which
may conflict with the morals of how one might want to raise their children.

The bible talks about homosexuality and it still exisits now. Any culture with recorded history has homosexuality in it . So it ain't nothing new and for some reason has continued to exist for thousands of years.

So your logic of some agenda is false. It is part of us and honestly if you want to talk about lifestyle-50% divorce rate among straight should be something you need to worry about-not gays wanting to be in the institution. That is the problem with the right-they go off in deep tangents and never deal with the issues head on? Straight marraige is in trouble and has been for a long, long time-that gays want to join, should be considered good-at least it gives it legitimacy-no?

I don't know ask the Kremlin, I'm just a nobody.

lostand confused says

The bible talks about homosexuality and it still exisits now. Any culture with recorded history has homosexuality in it . So it ain't nothing new and for some reason has continued to exist for thousands of years.

Yes, they have recorded history of homosexuals across time and nations. But it stops when it comes to marriage and procreation... Its all about the family blood line who carries the legit family name. Everything else is called a Bastard. Why else do you carry a last name ?

Based on what many gay rights advocates, all of history was also wrong in not accepting gay marriage.

CaptainShuddup says

You don't have to redefine marriage

The history of same-sex marriage extends back thousands of years, including using the same word. A "redefinition" occurred in 342 AD when Rome banned same-sex marriage, which had previously been legal and recognized.

Yet, fundraisers have collected millions of dollars from people to "protect" a word that was never in any danger. It's divide-and-misrule. They've got you worrying about "defending" the word marriage, while they pick your pocket every way they can.

But I return to the metaphor of geocentrism vs heliocentrism. The Vatican fought hard to enforce geocentrism partly because their business model included flattering people's vanity. You were created in the image of the Creator of the universe, you stand at the center of the universe, everything literally revolves around you, and your marriage is just like Adam and Eve. That's vanity. In reality, we live on just one of many planets and it orbits just one of many stars, ours is just one of many species that evolved over billions of years from single-celled organisms, and your marriage - while it may well be special to you - isn't the only kind out there. Everybody wants to think they're above average, and flatterers tempt you for their own gain. Equality requires admitting that we're all imperfect people doing our best which we hope may be good enough, which is a long way of saying humility, which is much less tempting than vanity.

robertoaribas says

Just give it time, and these SOB's will die off.

They are, which is why the Republicans have a difficult road ahead: their constituency is literally dying. But the Captain is only around 40, and learned computer programming, and where there's life there's hope.

CaptainShuddup says

Gays don't want equal rights they want exceptional rights. Where their rights trumps the rights of others to be repulsed by it, or to raise your children to think Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, one which may conflict with the morals of how one might want to raise their children.

The gay rights movement just wants equality. Stopping you from being ashamed of your children or raising them as bigots is not really a part of the agenda.

Thedaytoday says

equal benefits hetro couples enjoy.

they are not marriage rights but policies created by non-religious institutions, such as
transfer of benefits to spouse, IRS tax deductions, etc etc.

but just like the IRS tax code were created for the benefit of growing family.. a mom who stays home...but since when do two professional working guys need such benefits.

Thedaytoday says

Yes it is broken, unless two woman or two men can be married with all the equal benefits hetro couples enjoy.

from what church do you get equal benefits... what part of the ceremony states you are entitled to equal benefits created by non-religious institutions ?

If anything, if you are a gay couple .. you no longer need such equal benefits.

ask the insurance companies, irs, and others... what equal benefits ?

I like how the word bigot has been redefined as well. Apparently you can't host your own opinion, with out actually hating. I don't hate gays, I just don't want to hear them whine every time I turn on the television or open a news paper. If you've got a couple hours, I tell all about my woes as well. Gays and Races in this country don't have a monopoly on problems. Where's the government trying to mandate everyone to solve my problems in life? Oh that's right, they don't give three shits about my problems or my plight.

Thedaytoday says

That is not your call.

Hence law, rights and a Constitution.

WE the people, makes it my call. The "rights and benefits" are not under the constitution, If you are a US citizen.. you already have those individual rights.

Policies and contracts made by insurance companies for death benefits are outside the US constitution.

thomaswong.1986 says

IRS tax code were created for the benefit of growing family.. a mom who stays home...but since when do two professional working guys need such benefits.

Around a million gay parents have more than a million kids. Famous examples include Melissa Etheridge, Rosie O'Donnell, etc. Not all of them are married, but you might want to read this regarding the married couples:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=8232392&page=1

CaptainShuddup says

I like how the word bigot has been redefined as well. Apparently you can't host your own opinion, with out actually hating.

Your opinion is that being gay is an immoral lifestyle choice that people make for attention. Look up bigotry in the dictionary.

thomaswong.1986 says

If you are a US citizen.. you already have those individual rights

Which rights might that be?

CaptainShuddup says

If you've got a couple hours, I tell all about my woes as well.

I thought that's what you were doing?

pdh says

Look up bigotry in the dictionary.

From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."

Le mot juste!

"a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who thinks that anyone who does not have the same beliefs is wrong"

Etymology suggests the word "bigot" is derived from "By God," i.e. they can't find any observable reason and so insist that their particular invisible deity agrees with them.

In many ways, russia has been and continues to be a bastion of backwardness. The "slavophile" glorification pontificated by Dostoyevski has not provided the needed critical introspection needed to emulate the successes of other white cultures such as germans and anglo saxons.

curious2 says

Around a million gay parents have more than a million kids.

two gay men with professional jobs hardly need special tax relief.

Actually Rosie O'Donnell, like so many Hollywood types don't adopt children,
they collect them like cars and homes. Oh yea! these kids will grow up normal.

thomaswong.1986 says

curious2 says

Around a million gay parents have more than a million kids.

two gay men with professional jobs hardly need special tax relief.

Actually Rosie O'Donnell, like so many Hollywood types don't adopt children,
they collect them like cars and homes. Oh yea! these kids will grow up normal.

How do you know that?

I am all for traditional Russian values if that means more Caspian caviar.

Peter P says

traditional Russian values

I noticed that phrase, and attributed it to the source (Fox), where "traditional" has a selective meaning. The Russian word Tsar derives from the Latin Caesar, at least two of whom actually had same-sex marriages. So, the meaning of "traditional" depends on how much of the tradition one chooses to consider. Looking at Putin, I think the relevant tradition is Ivan the Great, who became Ivan the Terrible. Ivan epitomizes the expression that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. He governed well for a time, then gained absolute power, then became a terrible tyrant. Nevertheless, Russians to this day tend to want a strong leader, a divine emperor. Putin reveres the memory of Stalin, who murdered millions of Russians but spared Putin's grandfather. The alliance between Putin and the Orthodox church for the enforcement of "traditional Russian values" is basically an alliance to protect the current power structure against any change.

curious2 says

The alliance between Putin and the Orthodox church for the enforcement of "traditional Russian values" is basically an alliance to protect the current power structure against any change.

Send the Gays over to sort them out, that ought-a do it.

This whole mess probably started when the punk rock group called Pussy riot performed at one of Russia's grandest cathedrals, criticizing Putin.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/world/europe/russia-pussy-riot-trial/index.html

So now they have to bring the youth back to all Heil Putin. Lets see how far backwords they slide this time.

lostand confused says

This whole mess probably started when the punk rock group called Pussy riot performed at one of Russia's grandest cathedrals, criticizing Putin.

Yup! And why did they have to go to the Church to pull their shit?

That's what gets me about their movement.
They are requesting outlandish shit, they expect the impossible.
They want everyone to love them and not only accept Gay children but wish for it. This isn't about getting the Government to recognize their Civil union. That would be very simple and easy. Well it would have been about 6 years ago, maybe ten years ago, before they started their 'in your face, now love me' campaign. It would have been very simple for them to have gotten special recognition from the government and rights that were specially crafted for their ideals and beliefs. But that's not what they want. They want to hijack normal. It's very easy to get the Government to send a gay spouse their deceased lover's SS check, retirement funds,and estate untaxed. What is impossible is to get Jerry Farwell to admit that he thinks that guy from "Queer eye for the straight guy" is kinda cute.

CaptainShuddup says

Yup! And why did they have to go to the Church to pull their shit?

That's what gets me about their movement.

Well, Pussy Riot is not a gay/lesbian group-though they support their causes. Pussy riot is a feminist punk rock group!!

Well why would anyone protest the Church? I mean come on this isn't 1612.

Attendance is down for Christ sakes, you'd have a bigger audience at the local strip club.

CaptainShuddup says

It's very easy to get the Government to send a gay spouse their deceased lover's SS check, retirement funds,and estate untaxed.

Actually it's illegal, right now, in America.

CaptainShuddup says

Well why would anyone protest the Church?

This article should have answered that question for you.

lostand confused says

Pussy Riot is not a gay/lesbian group

Exactly. But that doesn't stop Captain Ignorance from blaming their actions for his own bigotry. And the reason for his bigotry is Southern Baptist indoctrination.

There is a very strong inverse correlation between religiosity and legal equality. No Muslim majority countries have marriage equality, for example our "allies" in Pakistan have the death penalty instead. Several majority Catholic countries have marriage equality, despite the Pope's objections. Also majority Anglican and Lutheran. But where Muslims or the Southern Baptist Convention rule, bigotry rules. Even though some of the most famous Southern Baptists support marriage equality, for example Bill Clinton and Bill Moyers, the Southern Baptist convention purports to speak for all of them and Captain Vanity falls into line because he was promised that his geocentric universe must revolve around him.

I have tried telling Captain Tonya Harding the obvious fact that he can't help his own marriage by kneecapping someone else's. But illuminating him on this topic is hopeless. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract.” That's why he blames his own bigotry on anyone who reminds him of it.

Well no Chicken sandwich for then young man!

thomaswong.1986 says

But it stops when it comes to marriage and procreation

Uh, no.

"Scouring collections of medieval manuscripts from Paris to St. Petersburg and from the Vatican to the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, he has turned up more than 60 texts, dating from the 8th to the 16th centuries, of Christian ceremonies for what has been variously translated as "spiritual brotherhood," "adoptive brotherhood" or what Dr. Boswell believes to be a more neutral term, "same-sex union."

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/beliefs-study-medieval-rituals-same-sex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html

Well did they file jointly or single?
Where there lavish weddings at the church, did Luther use his printing press to print up the invitations? Oh so Marie Antoinette, was the Caterer, she was referring to the menu... "Let them eat cake".

What episode of fractured fairy tales did they get the study from?

CaptainShuddup says

What episode of fractured fairy tales did they get the study from?

Yale History Department Chair John Boswell devoted years to reading original texts across Europe. The story of Serge and Bacchus became the basis of liturgies written specifically for same-sex unions in what was then the universal Christian church, i.e. the Catholic church. BTW Boswell was Catholic, and every year for Lent he would learn another language.

Finehoe
In this passage from the article you posted...

"Send down, most kind Lord, the grace of Thy Holy Spirit upon these Thy servants, whom Thou hast found worthy to be united not by nature but by faith and a holy spirit. Grant unto them Thy grace to love each other in joy without injury or hatred all the days of their lives."

Where is the sex of either party even mentioned in that Marital blessing?
Revisionist hard at work I see.

CaptainShuddup says

Where is the sex of either party even mentioned in that Marital blessing?

Both parties are standing at the altar at the time, and their names are included, and other parts of the blessing refer to Serge and Bacchus. You should read the book. BTW a Connecticut priest had also been using these blessings since the 1980s, even though the "modern" church no longer approved.

And none of this came to light during Harvey Milks battle against the straight institution? Boy how on earth did the Church hide these Gay marriages for 8 centuries from the flaming masses. And how did revisionist discover them only just now?

Again, is this about getting the church to kiss your pecker, pr to get the government to recognize your rights. Because it sure as hell seems like it's the first part. And gays could give a rats ass what the government thinks. This is about hijacking everything in history, religion and humanity to give it Homosexual beginnings. Just about crapping on traditional values because Daddy didn't approve of your lifestyle.

As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “The mind of a bigot is like the pupil of the eye. The more light you shine on it, the more it will contract.”

If you had checked the link for Boswell's book on same-sex unions, you would have seen it was published nearly 20 years ago. It wasn't hidden, it simply didn't fit your preferred narrative. But obviously trying to reason with you on this topic is a waste of time, your mind contracts and you become increasingly paranoid and reactionary, so I'll stop now.

curious2 says

If you had checked the link for Boswell's book on same-sex unions, you would have seen it was published nearly 20 years ago.

OH! My BAD so the real story remained hidden for ONLY 780 years.

CaptainShuddup says

curious2 says

If you had checked the link for Boswell's book on same-sex unions, you would have seen it was published nearly 20 years ago.

OH! My BAD so the real story remained hidden for ONLY 780 years.

Well considering the atrocities of the Church over the centuries, it is not a surprise.