News-Record.com

Wow...What a pick for a hot-button issue for Election Day.

Unfortunately, The issues that will determine today are rising health costs, Bush's credit (the national debt), an underfunded education system, and a war with no course (which means plan).

The news and record shaw receive a call from me to cancel my subscription this morning, and I hope that others follow suit. (that is, if anyone still subscribes nowadays.

Plenty of online alternatives to get the real news.

Homosexuality used to be a crime in this state and country. Now, you've got gay folks wanting to get married. I guess that proves the cliche that if you give folks an inch, they'll take a mile.

"Give them an inch"...I hope that was a fruedian slip...(smile.)

"Homosexuality used to be a crime in this state and country."

So was a black man kissing a white woman. So was oral sex. So was pulling your car off the road and covering it with a tarp when a horse and rider approached.

"Now, you've got gay folks wanting to get married. I guess that proves the cliche that if you give folks an inch, they'll take a mile."

Yeah. What'll they want next, free speech and the right to vote, or bear arms?

Grow up folks.

edit: "So was pulling your car off the road and covering it with a tarp when a horse and rider approached." should read "So was NOT pulling your car off the road and covering it with a tarp when a horse and rider approached."

I love how so many people have bought into this idea that Gay marriage really will ruin "Their" lives. HOW?

Ted Haggard was a ring leader opposing Gay marriage, and look what we found out about him!
I imagine there are many more Ted Haggard's in the "loud vocal opposition" of Gay Marriage--as the Bard once said, "Methinks thou protesteth too much". There are probably some like Haggard who are continually posting here and elsewhere against it.
Just finished Strom Thurmond's daughter's book. Mr. Segregation was having sex with a negroe housekeeper, while fomenting hate for blacks--it really is a strange world.

My marriage, morals, monogamy, or lifestyle is in no way threatened by homosexuals marrying or entering into civil unions.

Some of the best friends I have ever had could be described as "flamers." As I see it, they are entitled to the same fundamental rights and privilieges as I am. No more and certainly no less.

Marriage is more than a spiritual or religious union of two people. It entails many legal rights. Such as inheritance, property ownership, tax breaks, and a spouses medical decision in case of an emergency. I don't see how these marital benefits could only exist for straight people.

"Marriage is more than a spiritual or religious union of two people. It entails many legal rights. Such as inheritance, property ownership, tax breaks, and a spouses medical decision in case of an emergency. I don't see how these marital benefits could only exist for straight people."

I think you've hit the crux of the issue. The term "marriage" as a legal contract means one thing and as a religious service and bond it means something else. I am perfectly fine with churches deciding who can and cannot participate in their definition of the marriage ceremony. I just don't think it is the state's right to make that distinction.

As an alternative, I think maybe all marriages should be called civil unions in the eyes of the law. The term "marriage" would only apply to the religious context. Everybody okay with that?

Works for me, Howie.

I knew I could count on you, Carol.

neocon,

might have been some freudian stuff going on there.

Howie, you've got a point. Laws change all the time. Sometimes for good reason, sometimes not.

My personal belief is that our law should not allow gay marriage. I think homosexuality in itself is a perversion of nature and has no place in our society. Our laws are based on morals and morals can come from just about anywhere. I think homosexuality is immoral and you don't. No discussion is going to change that.

My marriage and lifestyle is in no way threatened by you being carjacked or by the kid up the street being molested or by Joe Blow doing pot up the street. Does that mean it's legal?

I'm not saying you're stupid for feeling the way you do about gay marriage. Everyone is entitled to their feelings.

As far as Swank's points about legal rights, I have serious issues with different laws being applicable to married folks versus single folks and I can see that point. I just don't think sanctioning gay marriage (and along with it homosexuality) is the way to deal with that problem.

"right or wrong, our government long ago sanctioned heterosexual marriage."

And therefore, they should also sanction homosexual marriage? And while they're at it, they can sanction polygamy and just about anything else. Fact is they did sanction heterosexual marriage. And they didn't sanction homosexual marriage. There was a reason for that. That reason still exists for many of us.

Most gay people are highly educated and welll empoloyed. I don't mind if they have the right to inherit from their "spouse" or visit him/her in the hospital, but government funds should be saved for the people who need it. How many poor gay people do you know? Now how many kids do you know who are going to school in trailers? How many teachers do you know who have to buy a lot of their own materials. If we sanction gay marriage, then it will cost this city, county, state and country a fortune at a time when we have many other pressing needs. I didn't vote for the swimming pool, either

Okay phillipa. Help me out. How is gay marriage going to cost this city anything? Is this a joke that I'm not getting?

Howie G & swanks, you have spoken my thoughts in the postings above.

The term "marriage" may not be the best as it inherently is linked to religious vows. Where there are some religious groups that allow and promote the union of same-sex couples, the majority of religious groups do not. Does that make it right?

How can legalizing the union of two people of same-gender in any way affect the union of opposite-gender people?

It seems to me that the heterosexual people have pretty well screwed up the institution of marriage (both religious and civil) for many, many years. How can two people of same-gender make what has already been corrupted and ruined by heterosexuals worse?

If people would look at this from a human stand point without preconceived religious mores, things might be different!

Shalom

Nitpicker's reasons, no matter how ridiculous they are on the exterior level, are based on his internal belief that homosexuality is a "chosen" thing. As a lifelong practicing "straight" male and as a very observant fellow, I do not, for the life of me, understand how people can even think that one day a person "DECIDES" to be gay. There was a local business person who would disparage homosexuals at every juncture, and would claim he was a "Christian". He was caught soliciting for "crimes against nature" at a local interstate rest area. He had always argued that being Gay was a behavior not an innate sense. Although not a minister, he was an avowed "anti-gay" person with a wife and three children. It is amazing how people can be so against something and then be "outed". That's the part I can't understand....!

I probably shouldn't have included the city, sorry howie. Where do we get the money to pay for all the benefits we're going to give to gays? You all willing to pay higher taxes? To pretend that it isn't going to cost us a red cent is disenguous at best, stupid at worst. I don't care if they visit each other in the hospital or inherit from each other, I don't want to be funding survivor's benefits for them, for example. Not when teachers are sending home notes asking for donations of copy paper, kleenex and waterless hand soap.

Howie and Darryl have made good points. The main issue should be legal rights and responsibilities, not marriage per se. I’ve long been astounded that reactionaries would want any level of government to define a religious sacrament, but, then, many claim that our founders didn’t want separation of church and state even though those founders first failed to give Congress any explicit power to make laws concerning religion, then specifically denied Congress any implicit powers - the freedom and protection granted by the latter now being our right, free from state interference, as American citizens.
I do wish some of the members of the gay community would make an effort to frame their arguments in terms of legal rights instead of marriage, just because it is marginally less controversial. I also wish reactionaries would take the time, make the effort, to discover the invaluable contributions gays have made and continue to make to Western Civilization, but ignorance is about the only thing our reactionaries have left going for them.
Phillipa’s comments, unfortunately, make gays seem like the anti-Semites’ Jews - they’re all rich, so don’t worry about them. This is nonsense and gross bigotry. Gays run the full economic spectrum, the full labor market spectrum. Like Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists, some few are rich and most are not. Rich gays, like rich liberals and rich reactionaries, have more access to media.

The responce to Phillipa's last post is that gays pay the same taxes the rest of us pay. If someone thinks they are all rich, then they should know that gays obviously pay more. Why shouldn't they have rights of survivorship like any other couple, and how does anyone get off thinking that will take anything from his/her contributions to the general welfare?
I seriouly doubt that we can blame the failings of our city and county governments or state legislature on gays. These politicians are responding the the loudest voices they hear, which more often that not come from reactionaries who pretend that schools and teachers can always get by on less. This is the "don't throw money at the problem" crowd who never can say where the fat is in the education budgets they want to cut. That has nothing to do with gays or gay rights.
"All the benefits" is at best a straw man argument, noe of desperation.

Christopher Tew,
Reminds me of when Jesse Helms was opposing a Martin Luther King holiday. He had exhausted the racist "code" language so he began saying how much it would cost Americans, trying to appeal to the greed factor. Same situation.

If Phillipa is worried about education, then she should work to end the BILLIONS being spent each month in Iraq.

If she's worried about paying for it, then look toward those making in excess of $365,000 per year and I'm sure she'll find it.

If she's worried about the
spend-o-holics in Congress, she should vote against EVERY Republican just to send them a strong message.

PHILLIPA:

Check out this link and then "localize" it with the dropdown bars:

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

Christopher,

Right now, gay activists are a very loud and vocal group. They take many forms and organizations but they are pushing hard for the right for gay people to marry, special gay owned business selection, etc. I plan to be at least as vocal as it is my right (and I think my responsibility) to fight for what I believe. We do have free speech and I encourage all to say what they believe, even those I disagree with.

I do not believe that people who are involved in homosexual relationships are any more rich and better employed than anybody else. I say this really based on the number of gay people I know personally and they cross all the layers of education and economic status that you mention.

My belief is that if you think God chose to create you as a homosexual, you are greatly deceived.

Deacon is right. I believe people choose to be involved in gay relationships.

Dear nitpicker:
You might want to read DD's post again -

As a lifelong practicing "straight" male and as a very observant fellow, I do not, for the life of me, understand how people can even think that one day a person "DECIDES" to be gay.

But then again, that might get in the way of your beliefs, which seem to be more important to you than a reality check. I don't care what you believe, but how you act in public directly influences my quality of life and the rights of my fellow citizens. You've not mentioned a thing about gays that is any of your business.
Gays have to be loud, and they ought to be even louder than they are. They have been asaulted and murdered for their orientation, they have been discriminated against in employment and political and civil rights, and they have to put up with insults and slights from an awful lot of ignorant and predjudiced people. In return they have given us much of the finest literature, art, music, and science we have, things that are at the core of western Civilization, and that, dear nitpicker, is worth more to me than a pasty gravey on pastier biscuits no country boy in his right mind ever ate or a maize-based equivalent of tofu.

Other than the usual "loud" groups like the SBC or the "Community Churches", most denominations are struggling with homosexuality. It is like the question of blacks, and slavery in the post civil war South. When folks oppose gay rights etc, and cite religious text, it is a red flag to me that this is another intolerant group misusing the bible for their own narrow view. The SBC didn't apologize for NOT allowing blacks to be members of their denomination until AFTER the turn of the century! I imagine the same will be true in forty or so years on the subject of homosexuals. Then, folks like nitpicker will be the ones cited for keeping people from Jesus and his teachings. Reminds me a lot of the debate we had during the ERA movement of the 1970's. Anti equal rights people, surprisingly similar to today's anti gay people, claimed all sorts of atrocities would occur if the Equal Rights Amendment were approved. They prevented the Amendment, but laws were written to accomplish the same thing.

FDR had it right, "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself".

C. Tew, regarding the comment; "I do wish some of the members of the gay community would make an effort to frame their arguments in terms of legal rights instead of marriage, just because it is marginally less controversial." As a gay man, I strive to do this. I do not always succeed, however, that is my intent/goal.

When I find and meet my life partner, I do not want to worry should anything happen to me and vice versa. Even UNMARRIED heterosexual couples are protected if they have lived together long enough in most states; i.e. Common Law Marriage!

Yet, two people of same-gender are not even equated to that status. Can anyone argue with validity that this is NOT discrimination? Forget one's religious/pesudo-religious mores and look at it from the humane/human standpoint. People deserve respect. Respect is not just pleasantries, rather it is equality.

Deacon, regarding Ted Haggard, his situation reminds me of Jimmy Swaggart. It seems that each of those individuals spoke very loud about things that were the most troubling to them, PERSONALLY! I feel deeply for Ted Haggard, regardless of how he has hurt the GLBT cause. I could have easily have been Ted Haggard. I thank God ALWAYS for not making the mistake of marrying a very nice young woman whom I had dated for some time.

As others have noted, it is about basic EQUAL rights; nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

Shalom

Question to Nit, when did you decide to become a heterosexual? Since it is a choice, what made you choose heterosexuality?

Have to disagree with lte. Don't think NC will be tomorrow.

Carol, speaking for myself only, I decided to become a hetrosexual the first timeI saw Loni Anderson on 'WKRP in Cincinnati'.

I feel the same way about gay's rights as I do Iraqi's rights. They have the right to be free, just not the right to make me pay for it.

Phillipa, apparently I'm somewhere between disengenuous and stupid, but I still don't see the financial impact of allowing gays to marry. Are there any figures that I could review to understand what you're talking about? How much of a burden will it be on you (and me) to fund this right? Also, consider that it costs money to get a marriage licanse, so that's got to count for something, right?

In fact, it looks like gay marriage will actually provide a financial BENEFIT to the government, overall. Here is an excerpt from a 2004 article that sums up what I read in multiple articles:

"As for the financial impact on the government, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study found that if gay marriage were allowed throughout the United States, it would "improve the [federal] budget's bottom line to a small extent: by less than $1 billion in each of the next 10 years." (That wouldn't make much of a dent in a deficit expected to exceed $400 billion this year.)

The CBO calculates that same-sex couples would boost Social Security spending, because the partner of a deceased worker would receive 100 percent of the worker's benefit. But the federal government would save money on Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, and Medicare.

The balance, CBO calculates, could be $50 million a year positive or negative on spending through 2009, and reduce spending by $100 million to $200 million annually from 2010 through 2014"

So there you go. Overall reduction in spending of as much as a billion dollars in five years. So, phillipa, can I put you down as a "yes" vote now?

Damn!
Howie G
You removed Phillipa's last barrier against civil unions so now she'll have to drop back to the orignal prejudice that is at the root of the problem. You can't make this stuff up!

Good job Howie!

Last Week: Rumsfeld will stay until end of my term

Day after Election: I'd better get him out before he has to explain our "stay the course, stay the course, stay the course, We never said Stay the Course" Strategy.

"Question to nit: When did you decide to become a heterosexual?"

1989.

"Since it is a choice, what made you choose heterosexuality?"

Actually, Carol, it was my belief in God. I could have gone either way but I knew from my upbringing and my understanding of scripture that one way was right and one way was wrong.

See, unlike what many probably perceive, I'm not disgusted from a sexual standpoint of 2 men together. I'm a guy. I'm horny enough to be with a tree on the right night. And I've loved men as much as women in my heart. But when it comes to who I'm going to be sexually involved with, that is going to be my wife, a woman. Because, in my belief, to be with a man sexually is an abomination to God.

Nit,
I believe in God, but I don't use her as an excuse for my narrow opinions. Fact is, I've never once considered a homosexual act, as I was born heterosexual. When people try to use scripture to exclude people, and to chastise them for being different, they are the abomination to God.

Point: If one of your children is homosexual, you will be the last person they will EVER tell, because they already realize your love is "conditional". That will be YOUR loss. For those of us who believe in the power of grace, we love our children unconditionally. My children know that if they are gay, I love them no less than if they are straight. Seems like a fellow named Jesus had that idea first, so it's been around a long time.
If you're happy in your moral certitude and judgment of others, then that is just groovy. But try to remember to walk a mile in the other fellow's shoes before you start preaching.