Advertisement

Previous   Next

Do you think that people who are transsexual should be an exception to the Kansas law banning same-sex marriage?

Asked at Massachusetts Street on November 16, 2004

Browse the archives

Photo of Ken Chang

“I guess they shouldn’t be an exception. It’s basically the same issue in a different context.”

Photo of Charles Moore

“I think marriage is between two people. The government should recognize it whenever it happens out of respect for its citizens.”

Photo of Shawn Reaves

“I don’t think anyone should be married. It’s an outdated concept for our times.”

Photo of Jim Eisele

“I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman. I think marriages between other groups could be a possibility, but they should have their own special category.”

Comments

brendattx 9 years, 5 months ago

Posted by Fangorn on November 17 at 11:56 p.m.

Brendattx- Unfortunately, I'm coming back to this debate a day later because I got involved in some family activities that took priority. I think it's unlikely that you'll ever read this, but I wanted to reply just in case.

Ah Fanghorn - again I am amazed, there was a question posed, I repsonded to the lack of addressing the questioned response and I am being chastized here because (you feel) there is something unappropriate or unscholarly in regard to my writing - typical.

The question that interested me was - Do you think that people who are transsexual should be an exception to the Kansas law banning same-sex marriage? -

A simple yes or no (althought I know that there is no simple answer to this question) would have sufficed as that is the only discussion that I am interested in.

And yes, I did follow up and read others comments

0

Fangorn 9 years, 5 months ago

[ms_canada was unable to post on this date but posted some remarks on the November 19 forum. Consumer1 added some thoughts on the same topic. To keep the two discussions separate, I am posting here even though it is three days later.]

Consumer1 has an excellent point. Our sexuality is not the same thing as our societal roles. The roles we fill are culture-based, not nature-based. Is a woman's place in the kitchen? Not necessarily at my house! I love to cook and bake. In fact I'll be baking several dozen cookies this afternoon for a fund-raiser at my daughter's school. Does my love of the culinary arts make me gay? I don't think so! And I've had female friends who enjoy stereotypically "masculine" activities. Are they lesbians? No. (Well, actually, one is, but the majority like guys.) I can see how a boy who enjoys a "female" activity and then has his sexuality questioned by those around him could come to question it himself (and conversely, for a girl who likes to do "guy" things). Adolescence is hard enough without outside groups pressuring kids.

0

Larry 9 years, 5 months ago

I assume that someone will refer to Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. Therefore, I feel compelled to address Jefferson's letter. Jefferson was responding to the Baptist concern about a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, was about to become the national religion. People at that time were very alarmed because they knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Thomas Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. At the time, Americans knew what might happen to them if the State were to establish a church. England had forbid worship in private homes and had strict guidelines as to when, how, where people could or should worship. Other churches were not allowed! England required mandatory attendance to the establish church. People were punished if they did not attend or comply with the established religion. Early Americans didn't want freedom from religions, THEY WANTED FREEDOM OF RELIGION.

Jefferson's letter was simply an attempt to assure the Baptist that the government would not be involved with establishing ONE religion/denomination whereas ALL people must worship in a certain way. The First Amendment was intended to allow people the right to NOT worship at all or gave them the right to practice a specific religion of their choice. It wasn't intended to keep the government from practicing a religion.

0

Larry 9 years, 5 months ago

In addition, you state that "words written on monuments and quotations from famous Christians does impute intent to our founding fathers - especially when they had a perfect opportunity in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to explicitly declare such an intent by stating so." I believe that it does when those people participated in the writing of the constitution.

What about this? Is it possible that the First Amendment was written to assure that those citizens who do not believe in Christianity have the right to not participate in religion? Meaning the government cannot force them to participate in religion (even if the government does). Makes sense to me considered the way England was running things. Regardless, the first amendment assures those of us who do believe in God, the freedom of speech! --"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is part of the First Amendment that many liberals forget to mention. To me, this states that the government cannot prevent individuals (rather employed by the state or federal government) from exercising their right to celebrate Christmas or religion. When you consider the behavior of our government in the first 100 years of the United States, I believe that the intentions are clear. The government can depend on God but cannot force American citizens to depend on God. God is written all over our early history due to this belief by our founding fathers. The current mindset of liberals who believe otherwise was predicted by Thomas Jefferson himself. In 1819, he wrote. "The Constitution...is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please." I wonder if Jefferson was already starting to suspect that people would misinterpret the intentions of the Constitution.

0

Larry 9 years, 5 months ago

Marji,

"resolutions from later lawmakers"????? I believe that Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and George Washington were all in the mix of things when the constitution was created. What if your argument is true? What if the writers of the constitution did in fact want religion and government to stay totally separated and apart from one another? Wouldn't we all agree that the behavior of our founding fathers would have backed your theory up. Your statement that "They could have directly and clearly derived the Constitution from the bible and the Ten Commandments and required that that connection be maintained in all future amendments and derivative laws. They did not." is very powerful. However, I think it also makes my argument easier. Had they wanted the two (religion and government) separate, they would have done something about it. They were still alive when Christianity was celebrated in public places throughout Colonial America. Prayers were held before Congressional meetings at the approval of our founding fathers. So, if your belief that our founding fathers did not intend for religion to be part of our government, would they not have put a stop to it right from the get go? Of course they would have! I think most people agree that the concerns with religion and government did not appear until the past fifty years or so.

In 1787, Ben Franklin delivered a speech at the Constitutional convention in which he said: "I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." Marji - these words came from a man who was highly involved with the writing of the very constitution that you and I are referring. That doesn't sound like a man who supports separation of church and state. It sounds like a man who supports the involvement of religion in government. Imagine if President Bush were to make a statement like this tomorrow morning on ABC. Wow, the ACLU would come unglued and file lawsuit after lawsuit. Liberals would go crazy and try to impeach the President.

0

Margi 9 years, 5 months ago

Larry, I'm new here but your post of (11/17 4:03) cries out for an answer and prompted me to register. You ask: Now - how come the liberals, the ACLU and other non-Christian's are trying to convince Americans that a government based on Christian values was not the intent of our founding fathers?

Resolutions from later lawmakers, words written on monuments and quotations from famous Christians does impute intent to our founding fathers - especially when they had a perfect opportunity in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to explicitly declare such an intent by stating so.

They could have required that we all be Christians by law. Wouldn't that make sense in a nation based on Christian beliefs? They could have directly and clearly derived the Constitution from the bible and the Ten Commandments and required that that connection be maintained in all future amendments and derivative laws. They did not.

They did carefully separate the government (lawmaking) from religion by prohibiting the government from making laws with respect to religion.

What some of them did is describe their personal religious inspiration. Some politicians are known to do this in order to make their opinions carry more weight. For most of our history Christians seemed to respect the separation that was designed into the Constitution and non-Chritians overlooked this harmless silliness.

Things have changed. Non-Christians now realize that many Chritians are attempting to subvert our Constitution and tirn our nation into a theocracy. I think you will find that many of us are willing to forcefully defend our right to be free from religious persecution - whether or not Christians believe we have that right.

Claiming divine inspiration is a long way from showing direct intent by the framers - an intent that they somehow, in all their wisdom, failed to act on. But, nice try.

0

Larry 9 years, 5 months ago

No problem Fangorn. I will check back in a few days. I glad to hear that your family is your priority. That is exactly how it should be with everyone!

0

Fangorn 9 years, 5 months ago

Larry- I did not return to this day's discussion because I was busy with my family. And today (Wednesday, the day after this discussion) I spent baking cookies with my daughter and taking her to a movie. Since it is just shy of midnight, I will not reply now. Sleepiness will impede logic. However, I promise that I will reply before the end of this week. Come back to this date, not the then-current date when you read it. Sorry about the delay; family is a priority. Thanks for your understanding and patience.

0

Fangorn 9 years, 5 months ago

Brendattx- Unfortunately, I'm coming back to this debate a day later because I got involved in some family activities that took priority. I think it's unlikely that you'll ever read this, but I wanted to reply just in case.

First, I see that unless you have posted under a different name this is your first post in this forum. I doubt there has ever been a day when we have stayed strictly on-topic. We tend to range all over the board.

Second, I want to address your final paragraph because it regards a line of questioning I started earlier in the day. It's interesting that you mention both logic and rhetoric. These are two elements of a Classical education. The third element (or first, if you list them chronologically) is grammar. Society as a whole would benefit if more (all?) schools taught a Classical education, but certain fads are more fashionable at the moment.

Although you used the word to mean insincere or grandiloquent language, the rhetoric of Classical education is the "art of speaking or writing effectively". It is apparent that you do not understand the rhetorical tool of reductio ad absurdum. You call it "outrageous rambling". It's not rambling simply because you do not follow it well. And it is not "outrageous"; it is "absurd". That's the point: take an argument to its most extreme conclusion. It is ironic that you purport illogic to this line of reasoning, since in this same paragraph you commit a rather egregious logical error. You impute the concern regarding a parent-child marriage to "outrageous rambling", yet opened the paragraph by saying "Any two people who feel they want to be married should be allowed to marry" [emphasis mine]. Any two people would include parent-child pairs. Either you are not thinking clearly (logic) or you are not writing clearly (rhetoric).

I fully realize that I have made no attempt to answer your points of argument. But neither did you answer mine. I reply merely to refute your assertion of "outrageous rambling" and "pure rhetoric".

0

Larry 9 years, 5 months ago

Would you agree that marriage was (at one time) a requirement before a male and female were to start a family? What I mean is that society (at one time) expected a couple to marry before they started having children. That was the intent of marriage. If not, men and woman would have dated and never married. Therefore, I believe that you are comparing apples to oranges. Do we tell a woman that she is no longer a woman because she can't have children? Of course not because we understand that although a woman may not be able to have children, she is still a woman. Marriage was intended to be between a man and a woman and we certainly don't dismiss the potential for marriage if a man or woman happens to be sterile or might have other complications preventing them from reproducing. At any rate, I believe religion is the key difference in our opinions. I believe that if our society continues to fall away from our religious foundations, we will become a society of me, me, me's.

Did you notice that ABC wouldn't run the "Saving Private Ryan" movie on veterans day because the TRUTH was too graphic, yet what happened on Monday Night Football was deemed appropriate. This is another example of how the far left continues to brainwash America as to what is acceptable and what is not. I think the Internet has become a valuable tool for conservatives. It has provided us with a platform where we have a voice to fight the liberal propaganda spitting media.

Thanks for the civil conversation/debate. Although we don't agree, I have enjoyed the discussion.

0

bige1030 9 years, 5 months ago

Larry - I think that if people have in mind that marriage is solely for procreation, then we should not allow those who are infertile to get married. Quite frankly, the idea of procreation is not a valid defense for sustaining the current institution of marriage because those who are infertile are allowed to get married.

I have proposed that the institution of marriage be removed and replaced by a civil union which would be open to any couple whose constituents have attained the age of majority (with exceptions by way of parental or judicial consent in exceptional circumstances). I have proposed several arguments for keeping it this way - limited to two people who are not related. Certainly, the gay brother/sister idea comes up. By considering that the brothers/sisters already love each other by default, they would have to love each other only that much more than an unrelated couple loves each other. That is quite impossible, and that could be the reason for prohibiting gay brother/sister marriages - that they can't love each other like a couple and like a brother/sister simultaneously.

Essentially, I've eliminated the menage a trois et. al., beastiality, and incest from the institution of civil union. There are limits to the institution of civil union that make perfect sense, should you choose to accept them rather than dismiss them.

To the transsexuals - I'm trying to say that I approve of you getting married so long as you're of the age of majority and not related. I'm sorry that I'm having to defend my own conception of marriage rather than expressing my opinion on the issue at hand.

0

Larry 9 years, 5 months ago

How about our first Court Justice, John Jay?

He stated that when we select our national leaders, if we are to preserve our Nation, we must select Christians. "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian Nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th President of the United States reaffirmed this truth when he wrote, "The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

In 1782, the United States Congress voted this resolution: "The congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools." Harvard University, chartered in 1636 had in the original Harvard Student Handbook rule number 1 which was that students seeking entrance must know Latin and Greek so that they could study the scriptures. "Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider well, the main end of his life and studies is, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3; and therefore to lay Jesus Christ as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning. And seeing the Lord only giveth wisdom, let everyone seriously set himself by prayer in secret to seek it of him (Proverbs 2:3)."

Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial is a quote from Jefferson. "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

Last, but not least....James Madison (who greatly influenced the wording of the Constitution)..."We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to THE TEN COMMANDMENTS"

Now - how come the liberals, the ACLU and other non-Christian's are trying to convince Americans that a government based on Christian values was not the intent of our founding fathers?

0

Larry 9 years, 5 months ago

big31030 - why would it matter if two gay brothers were to marry. The reason that we traditionally haven't allowed people from the same family to marry is to avoid the negative consequences that occur to their offspring. Isn't offspring the meaning of life? Isn't offspring the only way that we can sustain life? But since everyone seems to be more concern with themselves, I see no reason why we should stop at allowing homosexuals, man-boy lovers, man-girl lovers, transsexuals, etc. to marry. Let's make it legal for anyone, anywhere any age to marry whomever they wish. Surely you can see where all of this is headed.

When considering our nation's heritage, don't listen to Fangorn's ideas of what our constitution's intentions were and for that matter, don't listen to mine either. Listen to our founding fathers and make your own judgement!

Consider these words that Thomas Jefferson wrote on the front of his well- worn Bible: "I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also."

Consider these words from George Washington, the Father of our Nation, in his farewell speech on September 19, 1796:

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible. Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, our religion and morality are the indispensable supporters. Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Consider these words by John Adams, our second president, who also served as chairman of the American Bible Society.

In an address to military leaders he said, "We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

0

Larry 9 years, 5 months ago

Fangorn- I am busy right now but plan to respond to your comments later this evening. I'd be interested in your response/thoughts.

Larry

0

brendattx 9 years, 5 months ago

Jeez, I never saw so many answeres to a question that were so far off base and did not even address the issue as I have seen here. First place folks - understand that gender has nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation - a huge percentage of trans-women and trans-men identify as heterosexal - a marriage to them in not a same sex union,

Secondly, understand that we are just trying to live our lives in the same manner and to the same degree as the rest of the population. There are many complex reasons why we are transsexual - please do not discard us because we are so.

Third, I am always amazed at why people stuck in a static definition of male and female/man and woman, feel so threatened by my meager existance. I have no intention of chasing after someone else's spouse/partner whatever. Lighten up, yiou are safe and nothing is going to rub off on you.

Last, why should they not be able to marry? So all my legal documentation say I am female, including my brith certificate, so I can assume I am female - you on the other had are free to assume whatever you want.

Any two people who feel they want to be married should be allowed to marry - as far as the outrageous rambling of folks thinking that the next step is marrying animals, parents, etc that is pure rhetoric simply because they are not able to understand the complex situation and their inability to logically discuss the issue

Brenda

0

craigers 9 years, 5 months ago

kelly4839, don't take nature for granted. I know you probably appreciate it and conserve it but just observe it and tell me there is no God. The fact that grass, plants, trees just grow with water that by the way just falls from the sky and then back to the clouds, accumulates and then falls again. All by coincidense, I don't think so. The stars, the planets, just hanging in mid-air on nothing but invisible orbits that we can't see, the sun heats it and if the earth were closer to the sun, we would burn up, if it were further away, we would freeze. I won't continue, but the complexity of this earth and nature, not even mentioning the animals and humans, simply cries out that a Creator made all of this, there is no way it happened by chance.

0

The_Original_Bob 9 years, 5 months ago

bige1030 - noticed you were still up. If you still are, I responded to your post from yesterday on yesterday's page. Thank you for your coherent post. Bob

0

Fangorn 9 years, 5 months ago

I appreciate everyone's responses regarding my earlier questions. Carmenilla is right about the tone; it's been civil for the most part. I think if we as a community (those in this forum) insist that posts be issue-oriented and not a lot of name-calling, we'll see more discussions like this.

Kelly4839- Yes, I believe there is a God. In fact, I find it difficult to look at the wonder of the world around me and NOT believe in God. However, please note that in my above posts I did not approach the issue from a religious/moral point of view. Kansas may have a bad reputation. . .in the "blue" states, just as Massachusetts has a bad reputation in the "red" states (and for the same type of issue being discussed in today's forum).

DaREEKKU- The separation of church and state does exist and has been badly abused over the last 50 years or so. . . by the state. The phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson told the Danbury Baptist Association that there should be a "wall of separation between church and state" in order to keep government from interfering with religious practice, not to keep religious thought from influencing government policy. I know this runs counter to what you've been taught your whole life. But if today's radical interpretation of the "establishment clause" is what the writers of the Constitution really meant, it's odd that it took the Supreme Court 150 years to figure it out.

0

bige1030 9 years, 5 months ago

kelly4839: Unfortunately, some people cannot imagine the idea of a difference between civil marriage and religious marriage. I bet that most of them probably fear that their churches will be forced to marry homosexuals despite their convictions against that (and the rest can't stand to live in a world that doesn't go their way). Nothing could be further from the truth. If they knew the First Amendment, they would realize that it protects them in this circumstance.

That is why I propose that the government recognize no marriage and instead recognize civil unions for any two people who can demonstrate a strong, romantic love for each other, provided that they are not related.

The "slippery slope" idea doesn't quite work. For our government can ban beastiality and incest on the grounds that it is detrimental to the public health. Animal diseases and hemophilia are very difficult to avoid in these circumstances. (Before you cry Gay = HIV, remember that sleeping around is how it's spread. Monogamous relationships don't spread HIV.) Now for the menage-a-trois and greater, the government could argue that each person doesn't have as much love for the others as someone in a couple has toward the other in the couple. That is, no one member of a threesome can love the other members as much as a member of a couple loves another member of a couple.

0

Hi_Jinks 9 years, 5 months ago

It makes no difference who said it!

Tell you what.....I'll say it......

Nuts!

0

nicegirl 9 years, 5 months ago

Jonas: Seriously though, I wish you the best in your marriage, God or not. I can tell from your posts that you are a compassionate person that sticks by what you believe in. I wish you both a happy and fulfilled life together. My husband and I were first married in a civil ceremony by a Judge and then had a church blessing so I guess I covered all of my bases. :)

Kelly: Quit copying and pasting comments. Just say what you want to say. As for being off topic, you have obviously not posted here often. We always get off topic. Deal with it. Name calling and ridiculing will not persuade anyone to change their opinion regardless of how many times you do it. And lastly, if by some chance I am wrong with my faith and love of God and Jesus Christ, the worse thing that will happen is nothing. I died wrong. But if you are wrong, the consequences are much higher. If you're comfortable taking your chances, more power to you. Good luck.

0

DaREEKKU 9 years, 5 months ago

There is a clear seperation of church and state, THEREFORE, any higher being E.G. "God" should not have a role in whether or not two people of the same sex can wed. Marriage is a contract between two consenting adults....period. Two consenting adults should be able to wed and receive full benefits. Running a 50 percent divorce rate and with such inventions as the "drive through quickie" in Las Vegas.....what do we have to lose? I mean seriously, get over it people. Humans are MADE to evolve, its a scientific fact. Let people get married if they want to.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

Do you people actually believe there is a God?

I don't see what religion has to do with this poll. We are talking about whether transsexuals should be allowed to engage in civil marriages, which depends on what sex they legally are. Religioun has nothing to do with this.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

<<kelly, when you repeated lunacydetector's statement about...."what if a dude got the boobs but still had the manhood".....you said that it is insane that these things are even being considered. It is nuts, you said.

Now given the contents with which you were replying to......when you say "nuts"......that wasn't meant to be a pun, was it???>>

Actually, I did not make the statement. Lunacydetector did.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

lunacydetector, I do not know about the study you are referring to, so I cannot comment on that, but being gay has nothing to do with child abuse.

There is nothing wrong with being gay or with gay people getting married. I have yet to hear a single valid objection. Just lots of hysteria and ignorance, as well as religious psycho babble. No wonder why Kansas has such a bad reputation with the rest of the country.

0

jonas 9 years, 5 months ago

And, I should note, my fiance is one of those atheist/agnostic types we were discussing yesterday.

0

jonas 9 years, 5 months ago

Nicegirl: I like to make or break on my own, is all.

0

nicegirl 9 years, 5 months ago

Savage: I'm with you on this one. When God sends his son Jesus Christ back to the earth, I know that he will be taking me with him. If everyone else wants to mock him and take their chances, go ahead.

Jonas: You usually make some points that I really relate to, but I must admit that I am kind of surprised that you would say you don't want God involved in your marriage. All I can say is good luck to you then.

And just to make it clear, I am not anti-homosexual. I have many close friends and family members who are gay. I just don't believe in gay marriage and most of them don't either ("them" being my gay friends and family).

0

jonas 9 years, 5 months ago

Lunacydetector: Probably too late to hope for a response but I have two questions about your last post. You refer to a contoversial, as you put it "kind" study of man-boy sex, but you're only backing of that adjective is the quote that says some respondee's had a positive memory of the experience. I'm curious, do you think that is false? I'm willing to put money on it that it's not. If you asked the same question to a young boy/ older woman, young girl/older man, you would get favorable answers from at least some of them as well. Should they have not included that fact in there, or should they have lied about it and said that no one claimed a positive experience?

As well, I was wondering if you could define this "agenda" that you say homosexual activists or pursuing. Do you view it as equal rights, the disolution of the family unit, the destruction of society, or what? What do you feel that they are trying to accomplish?

0

say_hi_to_your_knee 9 years, 5 months ago

kelly, when you repeated lunacydetector's statement about...."what if a dude got the boobs but still had the manhood".....you said that it is insane that these things are even being considered. It is nuts, you said.

Now given the contents with which you were replying to......when you say "nuts"......that wasn't meant to be a pun, was it???

0

lunacydetector 9 years, 5 months ago

the American Psychological Association (APA) endorsed homosexual marriage. The decision, made by the APA's Council of Representatives, commits the organization to supporting gay marriage. Within the APA, it was the Working Group on Same-Sex Families and Relationships that developed the approved statement. The group is headed by Armand Cerbone, a Chicago psychologist.

the American Psychological Association was the same organization that in 1998 published the "Rind" study that took a kind and gentle look at man-boy sex. The study, which ignited public attention, said that "quite a few of the [molested] boys remembered their childhood sexual experiences positively."

any organization that can essentially sanction pedophilia (its sister group, the American Psychiatric Association, last year toyed with the idea of removing pedophilia from its list of mental illnesses) is a sure bet to say it's okay for Tom and Dick to get married.

the principal player behind this decision, Dr. Armand Cerbone, is not exactly a disinterested party. Cerbone and his gay partner, Michael, have been fundraisers for the Society for the Psychological Study of Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Issues. So popular is Cerbone homosexuals that he was nominated by the Advisory Council for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered Issues of the Chicago Commission on Human Relations to be inducted into the Chicago Gay and Lesbian Hall of Fame. He was inducted in 2003.

Cerbone is not the only disinterested party on the panel to give his blessings to gay marriage. Dr. Beverly Greene, for example, previously served as editor of Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues. Dr. Kristin Hancock, the person who developed the APA's "Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients." Dr. Lawrence A. Kurdek is another partisan, having served on the editorial board of Contemporary Perspectives on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Psychology. none of these so-called scientists is any match for Dr. Candace A. McCullough.

Dr. McCullough is a lesbian who has twice tried to produce a deaf child by artificial insemination, using sperm from a deaf donor. Why would she do this? Because McCullough and her lesbian lover, Sharon Duchesneau, are deaf, and they wanted a child who, as Duchesneau said, "is the same as us." They got exactly what they wanted when Jehanne was born-she's completely deaf. But they didn't get the whole loaf the second time around: their son, Gauvin, is deaf in one ear and has severe hearing loss in the other.

In a sane society, such persons would be convicted of child abuse. But in the U.S. today, they are given influential positions to convince the masses of the wisdom of homosexual marriage.

It may be that no one but college students will be fooled by this game. But that is damage enough. These aren't objective social scientists in pursuit of the truth. They are homosexual activists in pursuit of an agenda.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

<>

The vast majority of medical professionals, including the American Psychiatric Assocaition, which controls the DSM, believes that it is not a mental illness. They did this since they beleived that:

"homosexuality was to be considered a mental disorder only if it was subjectively disturbing to the individual"

soemthing that does not happen too often.

More can be read about this here:

http://www.mhsource.com/expert/exp1052101c.html

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

<< When Jesus returns...one will be taken with him and the other left behind....one here, one there, taken, left, taken, left...when it happens...the christians will have not been so crazy after all. Its really too bad that people mock the story of soddom and gommorah. There is also some verse that says...even the wisest of the wise will not be able to outwit God in the end of times. So take heart...call his name if you hear his call....you won't regret it for all eternity. >>

You don't realize the Bible is a fictional work, based on some historical events?

0

lunacydetector 9 years, 5 months ago

well, perhaps they were wrong by declassifying it.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

<<and to follow up on what i just got done posting....what if a transexual got the operation only half-way? what if a dude got the boobs but still had the manhood?

this is insane that these things are even being considered. It is nuts!

if it is allowed then where will the line be drawn?>>

Then this person has not had sex reassignemnt surgery (SRS) and is still legally a man (in the case of male-to-female transsexuals). Only until the person has had SRS can one legally change one's sex. So your argument is invalid.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

<>

Actually, transsexuals are not mentally ill. This is a physical problem that needs a physical solution. But even if it were a mental problem though, sex reassignment surgery is a form of surgery that medical professionals agree is the standard treatment for transsexualism. Remember, until the 70's, homosexuality was also considered a mental illness before this classification was removed from the DSM.

<>

Why not?

0

lunacydetector 9 years, 5 months ago

and to follow up on what i just got done posting....what if a transexual got the operation only half-way? what if a dude got the boobs but still had the manhood?

this is insane that these things are even being considered. It is nuts!

if it is allowed then where will the line be drawn?

0

lunacydetector 9 years, 5 months ago

it is really sad that these poor mentally deranged people cannot receive treatment for their mental illness - all in the name of being politically correct.

no, the transexual should not be allowed to marry, just because they had their thingy cut off or had a thingy sewed on, or they took some hormones and got big boobs or got small boobs (whichever the case may be).

0

Savage 9 years, 5 months ago

When Jesus returns...one will be taken with him and the other left behind....one here, one there, taken, left, taken, left...when it happens...the christians will have not been so crazy after all. Its really too bad that people mock the story of soddom and gommorah. There is also some verse that says...even the wisest of the wise will not be able to outwit God in the end of times. So take heart...call his name if you hear his call....you won't regret it for all eternity.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

<<I'd like to offer a reductio ad absurdium. If any two people are allowed to marry, what about combinations also currently prohibited by law? What if two siblings want to marry? What about a parent and child? "What do you think, Sis? Mom died five years ago and Dad sure is lonely." And why limit it to two people? Why not three? Or four? I've got a group of really close friends (two males & two females in addition to me). Perhaps we should formalize our relationship and demand the right to "marry"? Of course four of the five are already married, but why should that be a barrier? (I mean, as long as we're knocking down all the barriers anyway?) Imagine all the fun at holidays! "Hey, I'd like to you meet Bob, my second wife's third's husband's son by his oldest daughter." And while we're at it, why limit it to people? The PETA mindset encourages us to think of animals as people already, and I've seen some people with a very deep affection for their pets. "Don't think of it as a farm. Think of it as a place to pick up chicks. . . literally. The chicken coop is over there."

This probably seems ridiculously extreme, but that's the point. Where do you draw the line and on what basis is that limit established? When anyone wants to alter an institution that is millennia old, the burden of proof rests on them. I'm interested to hear other's thoughts. I'll share my own later.>>

Your analogy misses the point completely. There are valid public health reasons for not allowing marriage between members of the same family. The same cannot be said for same-sex marriage. Being gay is not a choice, as I stated above. Why shouldn't two people who love each other not be allowed to marry? There's nothing sacred about traditional marriage--in fact, it has been flawed all this time as it fails to allow for minority members of society to participate in it.

The other point is this entire discussion is off topic. Transsexual marriage is not the same as same sex marriage. This discussion should not be about gay marriage, but whether a transsexual is legally the sex of their gender identity.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

<< It is not hysterical to call approving same sex marriages a slippery slope. Using animals as the next step is extreme, but I wouldn't put it past some people. Having been around longer than fifty years I can assure you, anyone even discussing same sex marriage back then would have been considered hysterical. Everyone always pushes the limit until they destroy everything that is good. >>

Your argument is flawed as it does not address the issue of there being a slippery slope in the first place. Bestiality has nothing to do with love between gay people. Gay people, through no fault of their own, love members of the same sex. They may be in the minority, but they should not be penalized for this. It is not harmful to anyone, nor does it influence anyone in one direction or the other since sexual orientation is not a choice.

It is encumbent on the majority to allow for equal protection for minority members. To not do otherwise is simply unfairly prejudicial.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

<< Now we are saying there is a difference between a female and male brain? At work, I could get in serious trouble with EEO for saying such a thing. >>

Yes, males and females have long been demonstrated to have different thinking patterns and there are key differences in the brain. For example, males primarily use one hemisphere of their brain, while females tend to use both hemispheres equally.

Take a look at this article to read about key differences:

http://www.brainplace.com/bp/malefemaledif/default.asp

0

Bud Fuller 9 years, 5 months ago

Now we are saying there is a difference between a female and male brain? At work, I could get in serious trouble with EEO for saying such a thing.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

<< I still don't know is transgender someone who thinks they are the opposite sex and plays the part or does one have to go through the sex change to be transgender? >>

"Transgender" is a cover term used to designate anyone whose gender expression is incongruous with one's physical sex. This includes transsexuals, transgenderists, drag kings, drag queens, tranvestites, gender benders, gender blenders, cross dressers, female illusionists, etc.

"Transsexual" is a person whose physical sex is opposite his or her gender identity, gender identity being the belief that he or she is a man or woman. Transsexuals desire to get SRS (sex reassignment surgery) to correct their defective bodies and make them congruent to their mental sex. They can be either "pre-operative" or "post-operative", depending on if they have had their surgery yet.

"Transgenderist" applies to a person whose physical sex is opposite his or her gender identity, like with transsexuals, but a transgenderist does not feel the need to get surgery.

0

kelly4839 9 years, 5 months ago

Many of you people, as well as the designer of this poll, are missing the point: a marriage involving a male-to-female transsexual to a man is not the same as "same-sex marriage"!

Transsexuals change their sex through medical procedure. In this case, Sandy Gast, formerly a "male", is now a female. Thus she should be allowed to marry a man. Sandy Gast, in fact, has always been female, as she was born with a female brain, but a defective male body. In such a cases where a conflict exists between mental and physical sex, mental sex should be controlling, since our brain controls how we perceive ourselves as either men or women.

0

Bud Fuller 9 years, 5 months ago

I still don't know is transgender someone who thinks they are the opposite sex and plays the part or does one have to go through the sex change to be transgender?

0

Carmenilla 9 years, 5 months ago

I feel as if some people view any sort of steps forward in our cultural evolution (sorry Fundamentalists!) as a step towards our destruction. I think that that kind of thinking is going to keep us moving backwards until we hit the Dark Ages. And to directly answer the question on today's post, wouldn't a transgendered person be in a hetero relationship if they were once the opposite sex dating same-sex? Or to make it easier, if they were once a woman dating women and than went thru the sex-reassignment surgery to become a man, wouldn't they be a man dating women? Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that all transgendered people date the opposite sex.

0

Bud Fuller 9 years, 5 months ago

It is not hysterical to call approving same sex marriages a slippery slope. Using animals as the next step is extreme, but I wouldn't put it past some people. Having been around longer than fifty years I can assure you, anyone even discussing same sex marriage back then would have been considered hysterical. Everyone always pushes the limit until they destroy everything that is good.

Larry is right on point!

0

Carmenilla 9 years, 5 months ago

Great debate everybody. Nice to see it kept civil for a change. Jonas you said it....There is a lot of misleading information out there about the religious nature of marriage. A lot of conservative Christians want you to believe that gay marriage is the next step towards the total breakdown of society as we know it. The sad reality is that there are same-sex couples out there who have lived together for years, may have adopted children even and they still have no rights as a domestic partner. We must not allow this prejudicial attitude to become pervasive. When we limit people based on sexual orientation we are telling them that they are not equal. Christian morality is not the law.....No matter what people might think.

0

Larry 9 years, 5 months ago

MrCairo -years ago, certain words were considered vulgar and were not tolerated and many times considered disrespectful to use in public during conversation. Suddenly, society started to turn the other way when citizens began using vulgarities, etc. Now, we have music, videos, our motion pictures, etc. flooding our ears with all kinds of vulgarities. You catch the point. The more we turn our eyes and ears away from the issue and practice TOLERANCE, the worse things become. You say, "You can't legalize morality." How about murder and theft. Both are straight from the Bible. It seems that you are suggesting a society of chaos more than acceptance.

Libcon - you don't fix the problems with marriage by making it more liberal. Nicegirl was right on the money when she suggested that divorce is an easy way out. We need to tighten up the standards rather than loosen them. Nicegirl also made a very valid point in that we've taken religion out of marriage and it has caused more problems. How many couples do you know that get married in a church, then never attend a Sunday service or get involved in any church. I can guarantee you that church is what keeps my marriage ticking.

Badger - the great thing about America is that you, I or Fred Phelps can start a church and call it a Christian church. Just because you can name a Christian church that will marry gay couples, doesn't mean that they are truly Christian. You and I know that we both can come up with tons of quotes from the Bible against homosexuality.

Gotta get back to work. Interesting topic and wish I had more time to elaborate. Although, I'm sure some of you are quite glad that I'm finished. :o)

Have a great evening. I need to get back to work as I'm taking my wife to dinner this evening for her birthday. I'm one lucky man!!!!!! Sorry all, I didn't have time to proof read. You probably know me well enough to know what I'm intended. Welcome back Jonas and congratulations on the wedding.

0

jonas 9 years, 5 months ago

Badger has already taken my animal marriage debunk and expressed it quite well, so I'll just tack on as well that as a child is not able to enter into most legal agreements without parental supervision, the same should hold true to marriages or civil unions, under the understanding that a child is too young to be able to fully appreciate the decision and the duties inherent. As far as multiple partners, it is understood that the secular point of a marriage, I think, is to enable another person to speak and benefit on one's behalf, regarding interrment, last rights, financial matters, insurance etc. That purpose would be served easiest, and with the least amount of problems, by keeping it as a strictly one-on-one basis. Which leaves incest, I suppose. The only argument I can see to forbid it is that it can be genetically dangerous. So I guess that leaves the question of why, aside from the "eww that's creepy" argument, should we NOT allow family members to so marry, if they choose to? Can anyone provide a good answer to that?

As an aside, I'd like to shed light on a misconception about marriage that seems prevalent, at least by most arguments I've seen.

Marriage is not a religious institution, and so is not necessarily sacred. It was stated above that the sacridity (?) of marriage has been deluded by secular rights. The actual statement should read that it was a secular institution that gained some trappings of religion. Marriage is a civil contract, a legally documented pairing. It is not necessary to go to a church to get married, but it is necessary to sign legal forms in order to make a church marriage valid. The institution was originated as a way of demarcating property, specifically, in the beginning, as a way to transfer the women and her patrimony from the ownership of her father to that of her husband. We've moved away, of course, from that basis of society, for the most part, and so that particular significance has bled away somewhat, but the basis of marriage as a secular protection of joint property has remained. It is true that in most societies, after some time, people started seeing their religious leaders to oversee their ceremonies (so their union would be under the eyes of god) but in no culture, that I am aware of, has it actually started as a religious institution, and that includes Christianity. The custom of having a priest or bishop oversee a marriage was not started for multiple centuries after the religion gained significance.

Don't get me wrong, if you want your marriage to be sacred, it certainly can be. I myself want no part of god in my marriage, I would just as soon go at it alone. If someone else wants it to be sacred, it can be. However, it is simply not true to say that it is and has always been a sacred institution, so to use that as an argument against anything is invalid.

0

italianprincess 9 years, 5 months ago

When it comes to relatives getting married, to me I wouldn't do it. Don't know of any who have either. In my book of my own logic it would be wrong, but to some its not.

I have heard of men in Utah who have 7 and 8 wives and some are related ( sisters and daughters ), some religeous thing. To me thats also wrong.

Marrying in numbers in some states and countries I guess is allowed and fine for some. I guess people like it like that. To each is own I say.

Love is strange. It attracts people together for reasons of its own. It can hurt you as much as it can't.

I think if two people who are truely in love and want to marry whatever their gender status is they should have the right to do so. The government shouldn't have a say so in someone elses happiness. They should at least give us that much.

0

badger 9 years, 5 months ago

Same goes, actually, for NAMBLA's claims. If you're under 18, you can't enter into a legally binding contract without parental consent. Under a certain age (varies by state), even parental consent isn't enough. Adults, gay or straight, can enter into legally binding contracts, and so can marry without giving NAMBLA or PETA precedent under law to marry their little dears or little deers.

By the way, nifty badger linky!

0

Libcon 9 years, 5 months ago

I am not angry, I hope my post did not give off that tone of voice. I simply stated what I was feeling. My name screename is a hidden message.

0

badger 9 years, 5 months ago

Fangorn, the best way I know to dispel mildly hysterical 'slippery slope' arguments is to treat them with logic and reason.

All right, suppose just for a moment that someone used the argument that gays are allowed to marry as precedent for marrying his pet goat. Goats are not people; thus as they are not human they are not covered under the Constitution or able to enter into contracts under law (which a marriage is, being a secular, state-defined institution). An amendment to the Constitution would have to be made allowing that animals are covered under its protections. I find that unlikely, but in the event that it should happen, we would be a very different country by that point, likely one that didn't object to human-animal marriages. I think that's probably not going to happen.

Additionally, we can't communicate reliably with goats to determine if they are entering the marriage of their own free will. Consequently, the goat cannot consent to the marriage in any manner currently legally accepted in any court. Before that could change, the communications of animals would need to be easily translatable and verifiable. I also think that's probably not going to happen (any time soon, anyway).

So, for that 'slippery slope' argument to be valid, we'd need to see significant scientific advances (because even advanced primate studies can't produce verifiable complex communication, certainly not complex enough to explain the significance of marriage) and a massive change in the Constitutional climate. It's a specious argument and one I'd really like to see laid to rest once and for all. It came out sixty years ago in the fight against mixed-race marriages, and it has no more merit now than it did then.

0

Fangorn 9 years, 5 months ago

italianprincess- a lot of people misspell my screen name (non-Tolkien fans, maybe?). I think you are the first who noticed and corrected it. Thanks!

Yes, I was being extreme. That is the point of reductio ad aburdium (reduction to the absurd): taking an argument to its most extreme conclusion. My question is, where do we draw the line on who (or what) can marry? And more importantly, on what basis do we draw that line? Obviously you would draw the line before we reach barnyard matrimony (I won't disagree!), but why there and not someplace else? NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) advocates the legalization of what they call "transgenerational love" (most others, including current law, call it molestation). They use some of the same arguments that the gay rights community uses to advocate same-sex marriage. If these arguments are valid for homosexuals, are they also valid for men who like boys? (I don't mean that facetiously. It's a serious consideration.)

Back to my question on drawing the line: where and on what basis? You draw the line at the number two, and include people only. That's a start, but why there? And a strict interpretation of the "any two people" principle would validate NAMBLA's claims. Is that acceptable? If not, how would you modify the principle (i.e. move the line)? And again, on what basis? I'm not asking these questions rhetorically. I am curious to know your thoughts and those of anyone else who wants to respond.

[Dang! I told myself I wasn't going to be drawn into today's discussion. I've got too much else to get done today. btw, welcome back, Lulu! I hoped you wouldn't abandon us.]

0

drugdealer 9 years, 5 months ago

If people truely think that getting married is something you do before the eyes of God then I'll see almost every divorcee in Hell for lying to God, instead of till death do us part they should change that to till we get tired of each other.

0

hugs_and_kisses 9 years, 5 months ago

Relax, Libcon. I don't want your name. I was just curious about its meaning.

0

Libcon 9 years, 5 months ago

My name is mine and no one else's. Sorry. It cannot be taken away and is not to be mocked.

0

hugs_and_kisses 9 years, 5 months ago

What's a "libcon" ? Libcon, can you tell me?

0

italianprincess 9 years, 5 months ago

Sorry Fangorn,

I mispelled your name.

0

italianprincess 9 years, 5 months ago

Fanghorn???????????

Are you not being just a bit extreme like you mentioned?

They ask a simple question and you display an episode on the Jerry Springer Show. If someone fell in love with their pet and wanted to marry it, I'd be calling the men with the straight jackets.

Love comes in many ways. Love between two PEOPLE no matter what sex they are shouldn't be an issue and everyones problem to worry about. There are way to many other things happening in the world today to worry about people in love.

Molesters, rapists, serial killers etc is what we should focus on and leave the people in love alone.

0

Andre_Linoge 9 years, 5 months ago

HELP!!!! I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body!

0

Libcon 9 years, 5 months ago

Lulu I could not agree more.

0

Bud Fuller 9 years, 5 months ago

Don't forget them little farm animals, I want my little sow to get my society security when I go to the pig pen in the sky.
Boy that is really sick- bad pig farmer!

0

Lulu 9 years, 5 months ago

I could not stay away with such a fantastic question.

All people should be able to live in happiness together for the reasons of love and loving. If a man or woman feels like a change, by all means they should have the change. It is wonderful the miracles of modern medicine it fills me with joy. Just think of the people in the past who had to live trapped in another sexy body they didn't want. If a man wants to marry a man so be it. If a woman wants to marry a woman - so be it. If a man wants to marry a man and vice versa, who used to be a woman or man - so be it. It is all good.

If it isn't hurting anyone, then why should anyone care? If my husband wanted to become a woman, I could live with it. I love women too!

0

Fangorn 9 years, 5 months ago

I'd like to offer a reductio ad absurdium. If any two people are allowed to marry, what about combinations also currently prohibited by law? What if two siblings want to marry? What about a parent and child? "What do you think, Sis? Mom died five years ago and Dad sure is lonely." And why limit it to two people? Why not three? Or four? I've got a group of really close friends (two males & two females in addition to me). Perhaps we should formalize our relationship and demand the right to "marry"? Of course four of the five are already married, but why should that be a barrier? (I mean, as long as we're knocking down all the barriers anyway?) Imagine all the fun at holidays! "Hey, I'd like to you meet Bob, my second wife's third's husband's son by his oldest daughter." And while we're at it, why limit it to people? The PETA mindset encourages us to think of animals as people already, and I've seen some people with a very deep affection for their pets. "Don't think of it as a farm. Think of it as a place to pick up chicks. . . literally. The chicken coop is over there."

This probably seems ridiculously extreme, but that's the point. Where do you draw the line and on what basis is that limit established? When anyone wants to alter an institution that is millennia old, the burden of proof rests on them. I'm interested to hear other's thoughts. I'll share my own later.

0

italianprincess 9 years, 5 months ago

Love is a beautiful emotion that is shared between two people.

Who cares whether its between a man and a woman, a man and a man , or a woman and another woman.

Makes you wonder if the ones who are complaining about this issue and the same sex issue are happy in love in their own lives.

Either they are happy in love or have nothing better to do with their time then bitch about someone elses happiness.

Leave the ones in love alone and let them live their lives.

0

badger 9 years, 5 months ago

Gays can marry already.

I know of several communities, as well as at least one Christian denomination, that will perform marriage ceremonies between two people of the same gender and consider those commitments valid in the eyes of the community and the eyes of God (or goddess in a couple of cases).

The thing is, marriage in its non-secular form is a commitment between two people and their community to honor, support, and defend their commitment and their union. That exists in more places than you'd think, my friends.

I agree with the idea of civil unions on two conditions:

  1. Every single right, from insurance status to tax breaks to the right to adopt your partner's children, must be the same. There can be no advantage to either a civil union or a conventional marital one, even down to ease of filing or dissolution. If it's easier to dissolve a civil union, then that's not an equal distribution of rights.

  2. Civil unions have to be available to heterosexual couples, too, who choose to marry outside of a spiritual community. Replace the ol' Justice of the Peace marriages with civil unions, basically.

Then, once legal rights are equalized, gays, transgendered people, or heterosexuals can marry (ceremony of commitment to pledge their union) as they like.

0

simple_simon 9 years, 5 months ago

I think them two women are hot!

0

missmagoo 9 years, 5 months ago

Why should transsexuals and homosexuals be any different? When you start to allow exceptions to the rule, that's when the problems start. Then you will start to get in to sex changes, blah blah blah and if that is really constitutional or not. Homosexuals should not be able to get married. Ditto for transsexuals.

0

mrcairo 9 years, 5 months ago

I think any 2 grown-ups who want to form a union should be able to. Those who want to legislate morality remind me of the Taliban. You simply can't legislate morality.

That aside, there are special issues to consider. Marriage between brother and sister are not allowed for obvious reasons. As marriage between cousins isn't very healty either.

The easiest way out of all of this, is to allow the simple concept of civil-unions.

To those who believe such actions would weaken the traditional marriage between a man and a woman, I beg to differ. Just because 2 women want to form a civil-union, or marriage, or whatever, I am not going to suddenly divorce my wife, and leave my kids, and do stupid things.

0

BasketballJonesKU 9 years, 5 months ago

Transexual/Transgender/homos, they are all essentially the same thing? So why should they be an exception?

0

pike 9 years, 5 months ago

God is Dead and no one cares. If there is a hell, I'll see you there. NIN

0

Bud Fuller 9 years, 5 months ago

The majority of married couples I know believe in staying together. It is understood that there will be good times as well as bad. Sometimes you may not even like your spouse, but that doesn't mean you split. Couples who learn not be so self centered and work thing out together, end up healthier and happier - for life. Marriage is not for everyone as it takes a commitment.

0

nicegirl 9 years, 5 months ago

Libcon: you must have obviously been burned in a bad relationship because marriage is not a loss. Unfortunately most people do not enter marriage with the attitude and outlook that is needed to make it work successfully. Divorce is such an easy out. Marriage is very hard work and most people (regardless of gender or sexual preference) are scared of hard work. As badger stated, marriage has turned secular instead of remaining a religious institution and that has changed the face of marriage and it's meaning.

0

Savage 9 years, 5 months ago

Right now I'm imagining a group of senators debating a bill on capitol hill in regards to this issue. Coffee, tea... Anywone? Or better yet, how about a nice cold shot of JD.

0

Bud Fuller 9 years, 5 months ago

First is a transsexual a person who wants or thinks of themselves as being the opposite sex or to be a transsexual do you have to actually go through the sex change?

You see all the trouble and questions that come up when you start redefining marriage? This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want to be gay, well I may not like it, but I won't be harassing you. But the gay community are a bunch of pushy people that want to change society to conform to their heathen ways. So now they try to get laws changed giving gays special rights as a special class of people. Topeka will be voting on this tonight. Or they want to have a sex change and believe that really makes a difference. All these are back door (no pun intended) methods to obtain the same or more rights of legally married couples.

The gay community are not doing themselves any favors by continuing down this path along with a few liberal judges supporting their ideas.

Eventually you will will piss off the majority and then hate crimes will begin. I think this last election with the 11 states that defined marriages shows the feeling of alll 50 states. Make that 48 states as I am not sure about California and Massachusetts.

Next thing, there will be people who want to come out to the farm and marry one of the furry little critters. You say this sounds absurd, well what to you think same sex marriage would have sounded like to your grandparents? This is a slippery slope!

0

badger 9 years, 5 months ago

As an aside, I'll buy into the 'sanctity' of marriage as sacred and inviolable just as soon as all the people who claim it's sacred and holy start giving up those secular advantages it brings them, like breaks on insurance, better interest rates, automatic ability to make medical decisions or visit a loved one in the ICU, that sort of thing. I've been married. My income tax refund tripled. How are tax breaks sacred?

Currently, we give secular rights to some people on the basis of a condition they claim is available only to them for religious reasons. Same-sex couples, in many cases, just want those same rights (which are all secular and mostly financial in nature) for themselves.

Give up the worldly advantages, folks, and I'll lead the fight against forced imposition of gay marriage myself. You can't tell a church or community what they have to view as right or moral, but you can't go around denying financial and legal rights to some people, either. Balance it out. Once the government got involved in marrying people, it ceased to be a purely religious institution and became about the provision or denial of rights under law.

0

badger 9 years, 5 months ago

Just some thoughts with regard to transsexuals/transgendered folk:

Often, the transgendered person, once the transition is complete, has new name and identity as the target gender. In fact, that's why most therapists who coach people through the process advise that someone plan a move when they begin living as the target gender, so that the 'break' between genders is clean. Basically, for all intents and purposes, the TG person lives seamlessly as if he or she has been that gender since birth.

In other words, short of genetic typing (which is a bad idea for reasons I'll get to in a moment), there's no way to tell in most TG cases. The surgical scars would take a pretty invasive exam to find, and would be concealable with plastic surgery. Medical records are sealed.

Why is genetic typing a bad idea? First, because the idea of the government demanding a blood sample to prove you're not TG makes my skin crawl. I have serious doubts about the ability of information to remain confidential; that means a 'false positive' (which can happen with any blood test) could ruin someone's life.

Second, because the tax structure and paperwork involved would be a nightmare. You'd have to employ at least one phlebotomist and one analyst in each county, as well as pay lab fees. You try to soften that blow with marriage license fees, and fewer people will get married to avoid the hassle, I think. More people will just live together, and that's not necessarily good.

Third, because there's a growing concern among doctors in this country that a lot of 'undifferentiated' babies were incorrectly assigned at birth. When a baby is born without defined gender characteristics (for a number of reasons including birth defects, chemicals taken in during pregnancy, or simple slow development), parents and docs often assign gender, perform surgery to solidify the choice, and raise the child as that gender. How would you like to live your whole life thinking that you were just a particularly outdoorsy girl with big bones, and find instead at age 20 that you are XY and unable to marry your high school sweetheart, despite the fact that you've been a girl all your life?

That last, incorrect assignment at birth, is one of the biggest reasons TGs have surgery later in life.

Honestly, I think that there's no way to do it that's not a nightmare of red tape and personal invasion, and that there are a number of valid reasons someone might undergo gender reassignment, so the government should accept that someone's legal gender is his gender.

If they started demanding that I prove I wasn't TG, it wouldn't matter that I'm the gender I was born as. I'd move to a different state long enough to get hitched, then come back. Would they demand that I prove I wasn't TG if I was married when I moved here? How about making the people who are here but already married prove it? Quadruple the red-tape nightmare.

0

remember_username 9 years, 5 months ago

I really don't care if two people of the same sex want to get married. There are enough lawyers out there to handle the increase in divorces - although it might back the courts up more.

Seriously though if the law were based upon what ones birth certificate says then there would be no exceptions. I do think that complete spousal benefits (including public recognition) should be available to ones companion regardless of sexual orientation or religious affiliation, that's all the equality anyone really needs. To heck with getting married.

0

Libcon 9 years, 5 months ago

If marriage is so sacred why are so many people getting divorced? Marriage is not sacred anymore and should be alowed to be between any two people. I personally do not believe in it simply becuase it is a way to conform to society.

If someone wants to marry that is their loss, for now I will keep my chips and stay single.

0

pistachio 9 years, 5 months ago

I can see "Craigers" point, but using that logic shouldn't murderers or adulterers also be banned from marrying? Murder and adultery are also abominations in the eyes of God.

0

craigers 9 years, 5 months ago

Thanks goatdog, but I think I will keep Him in my heart. Appreciate the thought though.

0

Redneckgal 9 years, 5 months ago

Some things are to sacred to be screwed with. Marriage is one of them. It should be between a man and woman only.

0

lunacydetector 9 years, 5 months ago

that shemale or whatever was one ugly looking he/she dude/girl - IT.

0

The_Original_Bob 9 years, 5 months ago

Why would a transgendered couple be able to marry if regular, good ol fashioned homosexuals can't? This seems to be a non-issue. Is it a slow news day, LJW?

0

goatdog 9 years, 5 months ago

Hey craigers! Take your filthy god and shove it up your arse!

0

The_Original_Bob 9 years, 5 months ago

"I don't think anyone should be married. It's an outdated concept for our times."

  • Shawn Reaves, occupational therapist, Oskaloosa

I think we have found Lulu.

0

Hi_Jinks 9 years, 5 months ago

Isn't the term "transsexual" kind of "old school"?? The more politically correct term nowadays is "transgendered", yes? (Not that it really makes any difference! I just thought I'd ask!)

0

craigers 9 years, 5 months ago

Marriage is between a man and a woman. The act of homosexuality, not the people, is an abomination to God and that is enough for me.

0

tell_it_like_it_is 9 years, 5 months ago

No one of the same sex should be allowed to marry period.

0

jasoniniraq 9 years, 5 months ago

I don't think that same sex marriages should exist. However, times are changing. The bible is against same sex marriages and I have to agree. If the government felt the need to make a law to allow this to happen I am fine with it only because our government is suppose to act under god.

0

spym00se 9 years, 5 months ago

I agree with all of their comments. How often does that happen?

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.