Gay Marriage

[LaylaMonroe]

LOL!! I gotta go look that up.

Please let me know if you find it.  I just searched all over the place and came up empty handed.  I'd love to see it again, though.  It aired on The View in the last 4-6 weeks, I think.  I know it was fairly recently.

[malthumb]

Alex doesn't sell vowels; that would Pat and Vanna's job . ...

I just KNEW U13 or TJ would be the one to catch that.

[phbrown]

oh the difference a few years make since 2009

the POTUS now openly supports it

and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48108897/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/

Presbyterians debated for more than three hours Friday whether to change their definition of marriage. In the end, they preserved the traditional meaning, upheld a ban on officiating gay weddings, and sustained related tensions that have roiled their denomination for years.

With a 52-percent majority, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) shot down a bid at its Pittsburgh meeting to redefine marriage in the church constitution as “a covenant between two people.” As a result, marriage is still defined there as “a civil contract between a woman and a man.”

The Presbyterians are struggling with it also

[under13]

This thread is old as dirt....

[malthumb]

This thread is old as dirt....

Even by PHB standards?

But it is interesting, since I are (int) Presbyterian.

[LaylaMonroe]

Speaking of Vannah, I wish y'all could've seen Joy Behar reading an excerpt from Vannah's book.  It was so hilarious!!!  Apparently, Vannah wrote an autobiography and included an extensive chapter on the challenges of her career as a letter-turner... LOL!  She was dead serious, too!

And as for Dick Cheney, I saw that on CNN this morning.  Not sure why they're reporting it as though it's breaking news.  Dick has been in favor of gay marriage for a minute, now.  That's not new. 

HAHAHA! NO WAY!!! 

Oh yes, ma'am.  She talked about how she is often praised for making it look so easy, when in reality, it's quite complicated! LOL!  I just couldn't take it. I hadn't laughed that hard in a long time.

LOL!! I gotta go look that up.

Please let me know if you find it.  I just searched all over the place and came up empty handed.  I'd love to see it again, though.  It aired on The View in the last 4-6 weeks, I think.  I know it was fairly recently.

It's not clear, but...... I FOUND IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's the first part of this clip:

Celebrity Autobiography on THE VIEW!

[phbrown]

with the supreme court hearing about Prop 8 in Cali looks like it will be an open and shut case since it is so narrow .... at least to my inexperience eyes

[phbrown]

oh wait or is this about DOMA ... i'm confused

[gtrdave]

Both DOMA and Prop 8 are before the Supreme Court.
How they handle each case will be very interesting to see, for sure.

[blyempowered]

I posted my prediction on blyempowered.blogspot.com.

[THE WOLFMAN]

reel talk, this is a battle that wont be won by its opponents. Its inevitable.

[sjonathan02]

reel talk, this is a battle that wont be won by its opponents. Its inevitable.

Sadly, this is truth.

[funkStrat_97]

Sadly, this is truth.

There is a shift in our society where gay marriage and homosexuality in general are viewed as being a new normal and no longer have the stigma of immorality attached to them.  With the installation of a new Pope, there is even hope (among proponents) that the Catholic church will change its stance on homosexuality and indeed the church as a whole is not as strong in its opposition; it has already been accepted b the Episcopal church.  Additionally, 56% of US protestants say that homosexuality should be accepted. 

Pew Research Center: Episcopalians Accept Homosexuality (2010).

[phbrown]

reel talk, this is a battle that wont be won by its opponents. Its inevitable.

I was in a room where Rush Limbaugh (don't ask why I was listening it was not by choice) he just said hey we should legalize it every where so that the Democrats can not use it as a divisive issue which causes the GOP to lose votes and that the focus can return to the economy.

[blyempowered]

And I read an article that was talking about how in this debate the argument from those who support gay marriage/marriage equality (for the record, not the same people. Some support gay marriage and some support marriage equality but not gay marriage the lifestyle) that everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose is winning and beyond the Bible there's no counterargument working. I think I agree with that article. And yes, it's never been a matter of if, it's a matter of when in light of the direction of the world and in the context of what America is (land of the free). 

[gtrdave]

Justice Sotomayor asked a very powerful question the other day regarding the gay marriage debate:
"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" And then she referenced "polygamy and incest among adults," as other forms of relationships that could constitute marriage if the traditional form were found unconstitutional.
This is very serious stuff that I have brought up for years regarding this debate, but I always get shut down as some sort of extremist.
So, here's a Supreme Court justice saying the same thing and did it make the evening or morning news?

Homosexuals and their advocates don't want to welcome that part of the marriage equality conversation. They speak of "love" and "equality" and "rights" but only in terms that apply exclusively to themselves.
But whatever. We have become a nation run by emotions and feelings and money and we have a president who is the perfect leader for such a nation.

[malthumb]

I was in a room where Rush Limbaugh (don't ask why I was listening it was not by choice) he just said hey we should legalize it every where so that the Democrats can not use it as a divisive issue which causes the GOP to lose votes and that the focus can return to the economy.

Arguably the smartest thing I've heard attributed to the man.

[malthumb]

Since I've already chimed in, I guess I should offer my opinion on the larger subject.....

I can support marriage equality and same sex marriage.  I understand the various biblical positions, but let's face it....everyone doesn't live according to the Bible and this country was founded on the premise that you don't have to.  The law of the land does not have to be rooted in Scripture.  So, for those who don't claim the Bible as their life's direction and are living a life that includes being in love with someone I certainly would not be in love with, that's their business.

I think I mentioned a lonnng time ago in a thread far far away that one of the most enduring and committed relationships I've witnessed is one of my colleagues and his life-partner of over 20 years.  If they were allowed to get married, my life would not be detrimentally impacted at all and their lives would improve (health care and survivor benefits laws).  So why should I get to say what they can do?  If same sex marriage is not supported, they're not going to separate and find heterosexual relationships.  They don't need to and quite frankly, it would be disastrous if they tried.  Remember folks, we are not dealing with the ECUMENICAL definition of marriage here....only the LEGAL definition.  Equal treatment UNDER THE LAW of a country that purports to have no favored religion.

As for the slippery slope into polygamy and incest, that is easily handled by the same set of laws that may or may not chose to allow gay marriage.  Incest in particular has a foundational challenge in that there is a public health element to it due to the increased likelihood that children born to an in-breeding situation can be more susceptible to hereditary conditions that could then be passed on to their children. [insert HIV reference here]  [insert reference to all STDs as counter-argument here]

I don't think it is an issue of the "traditional form" of marriage being "found unconstitutional".  That is not and never was the question.  Marriage as we know it today IS CONSTITUTIONAL and WITHOUT CHALLENGE.  What is being challenged is the exclusion of same sex marriage.  I have no problem with same sex marriage.

[Docdb04]

And I read an article that was talking about how in this debate the argument from those who support gay marriage/marriage equality (for the record, not the same people. Some support gay marriage and some support marriage equality but not gay marriage the lifestyle) that everyone should have the right to marry whomever they choose is winning and beyond the Bible there's no counterargument working. I think I agree with that article. And yes, it's never been a matter of if, it's a matter of when in light of the direction of the world and in the context of what America is (land of the free).

I agree with the part in bold.  You can't prove how same-sex marriage is detrimental to society.  We can only show a spiritual consequence to those who follow and if they don't follow the same bible or have interpreted the scripture in a different light, the argument is null and void.   

As far as incest, there are medical defects which have been proven to be the outcome.  Because of that reason alone, incest will most likely never be legal or socially acceptable.  As far as polygamy, it may be a matter of time before this issue is in the fight to become legalized. 

[THE WOLFMAN]

some body will fight that fight.

and win.

If I'm a dude that's gainfully employed, and two able minded women want to 'share' me, each knowing about the other fully, and i'm able to financially support them both, why and how does that affect you?


(and the chess pieces continue to move....)