And your comment about gay couples adopting children is infuriating. I don't know what situation you are privy to, and I don't care. I'm privy to several terrible situations involving straight parents. But from there I don't make the insane leap to the argument that straight people should never be parents. But I'd suggest, before you decide you do some actual (gasp) research on the subject. To my knowledge, there is no (respectable) research that suggests gay people can't be good parents. As a parent myself, who I am in the sack and who I am when I am parenting my children have little affect on each other. Gay people don't end up with accidental children. When a gay couple wants a baby, they have to move heaven and earth. If that's not a great test of commitment, I don't know what is.

So quit trying to straddle the issue with your "I don't care what people do, but..." arguments. If you support treating people differently, then you do care. And if you actually don't care, then quit arguing about it an get on the right side of history. Eventually, gay people will get the rights they deserve and I'm proud that I will be able to look back and say I always believed it was right. In the long run, I think you'd be hard pressed to ever find an example historically where persecution outlasts cultural and social growth. In the end, people figure out its just wrong.

You're third person style is weird and hard to get past, but I'm going to try because I think you're comments need a response.

First, I assume you understand that when you give examples, its not a suggestion that there might not be additional appropriate examples. But including them all is unnecessary. Jason never said he didn't recognize that women can also be abusive. But I'd suspect statistically much less likely. And beyond that, way to fixate on something that has nothing to do with his point.

Second, and more importantly, sure gay couples can do what they want in public and private now. But why should there be a difference in how they are treated by their own government? If it should be OK for them to just live their lives without their relationship be legally recognized. Then it should be OK for straight people too. The point is, one group should not be treated one way, while the rest are treated another. And you fail to recognize all the ways that not having of recognized union DOES have tangible effects on lives. Ask my cousin who will move to Holland next week to be with his Russian-born husband because his own country won't recognize his marriage.
(cont. below)

@Lifelong Greendale Resident -

"And your comment about gay couples adopting children is infuriating."

Hmm…. Hoffa's original comment pertaining to such stated "Hoffa has mixed feelings about gay people having and/or adopting children," but instead of seeking Hoffa's reasoning behind such an opinion, you instead rush right into an unfounded and erroneous chastising of Hoffa. If you're really interested, see Hoffa's response to Heather A's comment below for the reasoning behind Hoffa's mixed feelings on such issue.

"First, I assume you understand that when you give examples, its not a suggestion that there might not be additional appropriate examples. But including them all is unnecessary."

When faced with only two possibilities in a potential example pool, as we have with there being only two genders that exist in nature, to cover one but to arbitrarily exclude the other from such an analysis implicitly advances an inferred message about the other, does it not? Statistics regarding social behavior are inconclusive at best, as the honesty and credibility of the person reporting such activity is wholly subjective and premised upon perspective, is it not?

"Why should the views of the majority be allowed to decided a person's civil or human rights?"

Umm… because that's the form of governance that we've chosen to accept in this country. Because of the will of the majority, my human right to keep and benefit from the fruits of my labor, as well my right and freedom to sovereign choice, have once again been infringed upon thanks to Obamacare. And the SCOTUS just gave the federal government virtually unlimited power to attempt to control my future actions premised upon the threat of taxation for non-compliance. But, because that's what the majority wanted, we'll have to either live with reduced freedoms, try to change things, or move if we don't like it.

And what about an individual's right to justice? Because of affirmative action legislation, mandates, and quotas, many are assessed not on the basis of individual merit, but rather just because of the color of their skin. Is that proper? But again, it's apparently what the majority wanted.

There must be a consensus and uniformity in the application of our laws, otherwise there'd be chaos if everyone was just permitted to do whatever they wanted when ever they wanted. That's how our government works, in case you didn't realize it.

Jimmy, you might espouse that you don't care about what gay couples do, but certainly as a GOP supporter bet you have no problem either with this party exploiting the issue for its own benefit.

@Schmitzy -

Hoffa supports whatever candidate is most in line with his own personal views. Hoffa has been called a conservative Vulcan!

Yes, Obama suddenly "evolving" on the issue had nothing to do with a political benefit. Remember, our first gay president just came out of the closet.

The Anti-Alinsky has observed that Liberal intolerance makes it harder on adopted children than it should be. The Anti-Alinsky has been told by Liberals more often than Conservatives that children of gays, adopted or otherwise, will have a hard time. The Anti-Alinsky has observed that Conservatives are more concerned about the children, while Liberals seem more concerned about the parents.

@Heather A. -

As I stated, Hoffa has mixed feelings on the issue of gay couples having and/or adopting children. Admittedly, most of Hoffa's concerns on this subject come from the physical and current legal realities concerning such, as only one parent can either contribute to the creation of the child and/or be responsible for legal adoption of the child. Thus, in the case of a breakup or dissolution of a gay relationship, one parent has full rights to the child while the other parent is left with nothing. Such a situation has created much devastation that Hoffa has personally witnessed. That's why Hoffa is of the opinion that gay couples should not be allowed to conceive and/or adopt children unless or until both partners have equal rights in relation to the involved children, which Hoffa fully supports.

Unfortunately, the majority is not yet ready for such a situation, and while Hoffa personally disagrees with the majority on this issue, he none the less respects their decision under the chosen form of governance that we've adopted in this county.

God does make mistakes, self-admittedly in fact. Remember the Noah's Ark flood and God's reaction to such? God is just as fallible as you or I, who were created in his image, although, it would appear that God is much better at learning from mistakes than we are.

@Hoffa - you raise an excellent point about equal rights of both partners for the possibly children who could be raised by gay couples. I think this bolsters support for gay marriage because then, just like in heterosexual marriages, both partners do have equal rights so in the case of a split, the legalities of custody, visitation, and support would follow the same laws.

Actually, the best data we have suggests that children do better when both parents are not the same gender. That said, children with gay parents are better off than children with no parents, of parents that don't care for them properly.

I, therefore, am in favor of gays adopting.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/06/16/why-mark-regnerus-study-shouldnt-matter-even-if-it-were-the-most-scientifically-robust-study-in-the-world/

Actually, the best data we have suggests that children do better when both parents are not the same gender. That said, children with gay parents are better off than children with no parents, or parents that don't care for them properly.

I, therefore, am in favor of gays adopting.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/06/16/why-mark-regnerus-study-shouldnt-matter-even-if-it-were-the-most-scientifically-robust-study-in-the-world/

@Greg - I agree with you about the sanctity of marriage and how the lack of understanding of commitment is really the issue.

But I wonder, too, why do people jump to such extremes when gay marriage is mentioned? Dogs and polygamy? Really ... I always wonder just what it is about gay marriage that some find so threatening? Not you, necessarily, going by what you said, but overall.

Greg you are using the slippery slope argument, and it fails to pass a basic test of scrutiny (What is the likelihood these things happen). The likely hood of The USA ever allowing an adult to marry an animal or child is absurd. We are talking about 2 fully consenting adults, and it seems that is where the law should stop.

As far "the will of the majority should be what determines the law" I honestly hope you misspoke, because that is absurd. If this were the case we would have not ended slavery and minorities would always be hurt by the majority. The governments job (one of them) is to protect the rights of the minority from the will and power of the majority.

Heather, The extremes you mentioned have nothing to do with my views of gay marriage, they were a check on the level of freedom. But I really don't see polygamy as being that much of a reach.

Matt, I just asked a question, then made a point. And your second comment seems to contradict your first.

Why should the views of the majority be allowed to decided a person's civil or human rights? I'm guessing you wouldn't want your rights put up to a vote every time you wanted to make a personal choice. Civil rights were extended to blacks, in many ways, against the will of the majority. Because it was RIGHT. Eventually, when people had a chance to simmer down and start thinking with their brains and not their prejudices, most people realized it was the right thing to do all along. But if we had waited until the majority was able to be clear headed on the subject, blacks might still be drinking from separate drinking fountains. This isn't an issue of my OPINION about gay people. Or my crusty great uncle who will be free to hate people who are different than him til the day he keels over, despite whether or not gay people get to marry each other. Its about the fact that in a free country, law abiding adults shouldn't be oppressed. And if some backward church does not want to perform or recognize gay marriages, fine. I'm guessing no gay couple would want to be married or worship longterm with those types of people anyway.

I think Matt and Lifelong both are wrong. At the time of passage both the Abolishment of Slavery and the Civil Rights Act were supported by the majority of Americans. There were very active groups opposed, but popular opinion supported both.

Greg, you are quite right about most of the country not evolving. And this ridiculous argument for limitations is a distraction tactic...no more. People marrying dogs or kitchen tables, as I believe one politician put it... Is significantly different from people marrying people. As to polygamy, it was acceptable far longer than not in human history. maybe it should be acceptable now...assuming all are consenting adults. The divorce rates for monogamous marriages are so dismal that marrying more than one person at a time really seems like asking for a crazy time .... And huge legal bills.

@Greg - I don't understand your reference here.

It was humor. Explanation: Jason is such a manly man that he could not possibly be gay, so I called him a chick.
In the real world gay men like curtains, read Opra's magazine and have bent wrists, so scratching is difficult.

The "conservative" fixation with gay sex strikes me as inappropriate as the one with young females having sex and babies. The key word here is "sex." This fixation makes me uncomfortable, as all anti-social behavior does. These folks apparently need to titillate themselves, bringing their personal sex fantasies to the brink of disclosure and inflicting this discourse on a busy public. For every fiery, anti-gay preacher it seems there's a gay affair scandal: http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne

Here's a wonderful link to a variety of scandals, both parties (but at least Democrats don't hypocritically claim to be the moral standard of the country): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States

I've listened to Santorum's nonsense about "man on dog" and the other "conservative" talk about marrying a table and whatever. Santorum is free to think about man on dog if he wishes (and apparently has) but I would infinitely prefer not to be forced to bear witness to "conservatives" playing out fantasies in the media spotlight.

Fortunately, in the real world people are increasingly unconcerned with sexual orientation.

@Bren -

Thanks for covering the anti conservative / Republican vitriol that Jason left out of this one. We knew we could count on you to turn a social issue into a political issue!

Mr. Hoffa, do you honestly believe there isn't a political aspect to this issue? Targeting and demonizing small population groups to fire up the base worked well for the Nazis. Fanning the rightist fringe in this country has had a similar success in this country, but this meme is fortunately beginning to lose its teeth.

Thank you for trying to employ a "universalism" when "we" all recognize it for the type of ploy it is! ; )

"Targeting and demonizing small population groups to fire up the base worked well for the Nazis."
It kinda worked for Democrats too, and Graeme Zelinski still has his job because of it.

Bren - I am with JRH on this. You would find the political divide in a turtle race. It is just absurd in this case.

Actually, it appears it has more to do with your unresolved sexual feelings than any political aspect.

Ima, your opinions are your own. My opinion is that you are one of the most sapience-free posters on Patch. I enjoy your comments much as Mr. Hoffa embraces AWD, but between the two of you AWD exhibits moments of clarity.

@JB Schmidt - good points all! And the visual of Jason's dog pooping rainbows cracked me right up! I needed that giggle today.

Now I'm having second thoughts about eating those Rainbow Oreos. Thanks J.B.

http://www.foodiggity.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/rainbow-oreo-2.jpeg

I don't care if your dog poops rainbows either.

@superdavefive
How do you legislate that? Those are social vices and need to be addressed socially. By playing a heavy hand on homosexuality you alienate a group of people you could bring God's Word. As a Christian, the emphasis is not on ensuring condemnation of all sinful acts; but rather, sharing the love of Christ and allowing that to work in people so they see and repent of their own sins.

I didn't say anything about homosexuals being condemned. Everyone has an opportunity to repent for any sins they have committed. If you believe and are baptized you will be saved. You ask for the forgiveness for sins and they are washed away with the blood of Christ.
My personal thinking is that if you believe in Christ you will try not to commit the same sin again. He died on the cross for my forgiveness. I think that I am disrespecting the Lord when I commit the same sin all over again. How hard would it be for me to pray for forgiveness? Pretty hard!
You cannot change the word of God to draw more people in. If the truth forces alienation then the sinner is aware of their own sin.

You accuse me of only showing "the warning" at Jude 7:7 when I want to show you God's message at Jude 7:20-24.

@superdavefive....Sorry Dave but Sodom was not destroyed over homosexuality. If you go back to the original texts and information from biblical scholars, Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their acceptance and treatment of strangers. Quoting scripture is dangerous due to varied interpretations, which can be twisted for one's own purposes.

superdave.... I think Paul also said it would be better for all men if they were celebate as he was. God also does not approve of killing.... is it ok then to perpetrate our military invasiveness on the planet? Many religious folk have their pet sins.... they focus on things they really dont like...beat their drums about that...but turn a blind eye to some of the most egregious examples of religious law breaking.

If I am wrong about God's view on homosexuality please explain to me Genesis 19:4-6

Leviticus 18:22?

@superdavefive...According to Kaplan's translation and interpretation of Genesis 19:4-9, the great sin was not "knowing them", but the violation of hospitality. To show how righteous that Lot was is that he would sacrifice his daughters rather than violate the importance of hospitality. In Judaism, we interpret both the knowing as sexual, but violating the rules of hospitality carried a higher condemnation. As of this point there wasn't any law or ruling given by G-d concerning homosexuality but there was law concerning hospitality.

@superdavefive...Leviticus 18:22 is better interpreted as the wasting of seed. It is also subject to the ancient interpretation. The Torah wasn't written down until probably somewhere around the 8th or 9th century B.C.E. The Tanach (Hebrew Bible) wasn't canonized until 200 C.E. and the final Tanach wasn't officially translated into its current form until the Mazorites, between 600 - 800 C.E., completed the work giving us our current translation. The bible of Christianity were taken directly from the Septuagint and much was lost in the translation from Aramaic and Hebrew to the Greek. From the Greek to Latin and other languages more confusion was introduced with improper interpretation.

@Mike Knight...You are incorrect about marriage being a religious institution. It began and has remained a civil contract. Our current marriage contract has, at its roots, the philosophical and culture foundations of Bronze Age Mesopotamia. Initially the civil contracts were between families. Many cultures still observe these customs. In our and other western societies have a system where marriage is between to consenting adults. However, it remains a civil contract with rights, responsibilities and privileges contained within the contract. That is precisely why marriage must be registered with the governing authority to be valid.

Homosexuality and masturbation was discouraged in ancient cultures because of the needs of society to maintain a positive birthrate because of the high mortality rates. It became common for cultures to prohibit such practices from purely pragmatic reasons.

I disagree with this article because it shows a false religious viewpoint. I agree with you, Nicki, that it is possible to have two people of the same sex successfully raise a child. You can argue for homosexuality from the view of our society, but God has made his point of view very clear. That is what we all need to "get a clue" about. We are in a society filled with sin and this is just another one of them.

The Bible, for instance, does not speak out against slavery. Most humane people would agree, none the less, that slavery is horrific and always has been wrong. Why did Christ not mention this? To be completely steered by an idea of the meaning of the contents of a book written and rewritten by men...not GOD...as someone suggested... particularly a book written piecemeal over thousands of years time, that occurs in something like 1200 versions now... is an amazing act of faith at best... an abandonment of god given reason and rationality in any case.

@Jason -

1) To Hoffa's knowledge, the government isn't involved in anyone's bedroom or personal relationship unless or until the relationship turns sour, so what exactly are you even talking about here?

2) Who's advocating that religions not recognize the validity of a marriage? No one on this board. Why does the government have to recognize something in order for it to have meaning to you? We all know how much you love government, but if the only way you see something as having meaning is for the government to certify and/or recognize it, well, that's actually kind of pathetic, isn't it? Do you need a certificate from the government stating that you're a good father in order for you to feel good about loving your kids?

The highest poll number in favor of gay marriage that I have seen is 39%. I think you may have a better chance of a 35 year old Tea Party member being in favor of it, over a 64 year old Democrat. I think social issues do take time. I have seen great advances in gay rights over the past 30 years, and I think they will continue.

Jason,

Duck! I see an Obama sponsored drone overhead! Take that back. It has GE painted along with the stripes.

Unfortunately the force of the queer lies within humankind. This is most blatantly seen by men in prison who commit despicable queer acts due to their inability to control themselves. Women lesbo it up in prison as well to a lesser extent because they're not sex crazed animals, and perverts like many men are deep down whether they want to admit it or not. If these guys in prison were really heterosexual then they wouldn't be resorting to their depraved ways. Unfortunately it seems that the majority of the human race is bisexual. This is what happens when you put intelligent sentient beings in animal bodies.

Why the need for two ceremonies? Currently, a marriage in a church is recognized as having legal status--the person performing the ceremony just has to sign the marriage license/certificate. I don't see why that would have to change if gay marriage (or civil unions) were legalized.

@Keith Best...Wow, what insight! You remind my of a "Chatty Cathy" from years ago. Pull the string and hear the prerecorded message. You are nothing but looped recording of the Republican Party. It's going to come as quite a shock when marriage will be redefined to what it really is, a civil contract between consenting adults. I hope I'm around to see your reaction to that.

I consider us all sinners .

@mau...Religion has nothing to do with marriage. It is a civil contract period!

@Lyle
I agree that it is a contract. A contract that in the past we have used as a basis for stability of the family unit. However, it is a contract that has grown less and less meaningful over time as our culture has cheapened the act of marriage. With our desire for easy divorce and postponing marriage in favor of living together; we already have a contract that is barely worth the paper it is printed on. Hence our family unit has suffered currently as this contract has lost its value. Once we begin changing the terms to include any loving relationship, even those non-traditional ones, we might as well remove the contract completely. It has become a symbol of love, rather then terms of commitment.

@J.B. Schmidt...Just as with any contract, the marriage contract outlines the rights and responsibilities of the parties subject to that contract. It doesn't matter that some choose not to engage in such contracts because they are not subject to the terms. It is illogical that people's behavior outside of the contract affects the nature of the contract. Therefore, your contention that it cheapens the contract is meaningless. Now if you consider it from certain established religious doctrine and ideology, then violation of such does lessen the meaning of such religious contracts, but they do not have the weight of law.

To place in the state constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman could easily be interpreted as imposing religious law as civil law, which under the U.S. Constitution could be considered unconstitutional under the establishment clause. Not all religions recognize such as a tenet of their religious dogma. Certain groups of the LDS hold that polygamy is a G-d given tenet.

@Lyle
"It is illogical that people's behavior outside of the contract affects the nature of the contract" I completely disagree. If being faithful and to death do us part, is language within the contract and it has been ignored in mass, then it has been cheapened. The result has been less marriage and more living together. The consequences of such has been the destruction of the nuclear family unit, because society has failed to uphold that contract as a pillar of our culture.

Since the tradition is that marriage is between man and woman (religious or not), the contract is based on that basic structure (again traditionally). If, as I have stated above, we already feel that commitment aspect of this contract is meaningless; then to remove that basic structure (1man + 1woman) that society has traditionally accepted will only work to destroy the remaining contractual components. Those living together outside of marriage have more reason to not bother with the contract, those unwilling to accept the commitment aspect of marriage have more reason to ignore it as more of the contract we traditional held is erased and finally it begins to make the contract open to endless interpretation (as you mentioned polygamy).

There is a secular benefit to holding the traditional view of marriage, regardless what religion has to offer.

@J.B. Schmidt...Whether one honors the terms of the contract or not is between the parties of the contract. If one party or the other decides that the contract terms have been broken, then it is upon them to terminate the contract. Just as the contract was recognized by law, then the dissolution must also be recognized by law, divorce. It is purely a civil function.

If the institution of marriage, in any form, is not recognized by the population, then the nature of social order will change, hence the government becomes the ad hoc guardian of children when parents refuse to honor the expectations of pairing and parenthood. Since homosexual pairings and relationships produce no natural children, then it has absolutely no social consequences. Therefore, it only follows that since there isn't any cost to society from such pairings, there shouldn't be any official restrictions to such relationships and that civil recognition protects and obligates the parties to the distribution of property and access to other services and rights.

@Lyle
Since marriage is a contract that most will engage in, the concept that it is strictly between the two parties involved would be inaccurate. Not unlike speed limits (which is a social contract between you and the municipality), since law enforcement has become hesitant in punishing violators, they no longer hold the same value. We all know that driving 5-10 over on the expressway is now the new speed limit and not the 55-65 limits posted. Why should the same not happen with marriage? If see that 50% of marriages fail then what strength does the contract truly hold? Granted I am contractually obligated to my wife and no one else; why should my obligation to this contract be any greater then any one else? As a culture, we live to the standards set by the culture. If the standard for marriage has been lowered, why should we expect people to exceed those standards any more then we expect people to hold the speed limit on the expressway? Therefore a change to the contract that loosens the restrictions even further only exacerbates the problem of adherence to the original contract and the stabilization of the nuclear family. It makes no difference whether gays can love each other, raise kids or stay committed. They can do all those things without marriage. It is the traditional nuclear family that suffers and the foundations of our society that become fragile.

Bottom line is non-heterosexuals are pushing for legalized marriage for the benefits. Even without a marriage license many companies are giving them benefits that 2 unmarried heterosexuals are not entitled. So if you want to be politically correct, if the homosexuals are getting benefits without legalized marriage then the heterosexuals should be too. And the whole thing turns into a snowball going downhill getting bigger and bigger the further it rolls. Then if any couple can get the benefits without the contract, then why bother requiring a contract.

@J.B. Schmidt...The committment between two individuals is their business. I don't disagree that not honoring the committment contract may weaken the nuclear and extended family structure. However, that is a separate issue from one of legal recognition of a civil contract. For the government to interfere with the workings and conduct of a couple legally married is an issue that most people would be hard pressed to support. The idea of civil marriage to establish rights for non-traditional couples is a worthy goal. There are many advantages to recognized civil contracts, including taxes, inheritance, property ownership and distribution, survivor's benefits and healthcare coverage. I don't agree with offering these benefits to non-married couples. I think if they want such benefits then they should be willing to enter into a civil contract via marriage.

@Lyle
Then you have reduced marriage to a contract enter into for material gain. Not unlike getting married in order to gain US citizenship. Doesn't that premise speak exactly to my point that the traditional view of marriage, as a family sustaining commitment, is dying? If you are marrying for the insurance/tax benefits; rather than a comment to your partner, you are abusing something that others place great faith in. More importantly if we accept this notion of marriage for material gain and I didn't need that benefit, I won't get married. By not holding marriage to the level if commitment between man and woman, but treating it as a legal title, we no longer have a mechanism within society that placed a boundary of acceptable behavior for a nuclear family.

@J.B. Schmidt....You are confusing two separate issues; marriage as a religious committment and marriage as a civilly recognized contract. If one looks to current trends with people foregoing marriage in favor of cohabitation, then they are doing so for reasons other than to receive the material gains and benefits that formal marriage endows. It is fairly common now that couples remain unmarried until such time as they take on the committment to have children. This doesn't weaken the nuclear family, but in fact strengthens the institution by people not entering into marriage contracts without knowing the full consequences of such a union.

If you are looking to why more people are opting out of marriage compared to past generations; my take on it is that women, in general, have more choices than they once had. They no longer need to enter into marriage for financial security. Once children inter the picture, then most marry to raise children in the more stable environment that formalized marriage provides. The social environment has also changed, whereas, the need for additional education and establishment in careers has also delayed when people enter into marriage. This has resulted in smaller families, older first time parents and more financially secure families. As the new social environment becomes more fixed, then the new social order will stabilize and the family structure will settle into a new order.

@Lyle
I am confusing nothing. You and those that deem marriage as a contract whose clauses can have an endless amount of alternative possibilities require your challengers take a religious angle because without that your argument fails. Aside from pointing out to Bren that Christ does discuss marriage, I have not used any religion in defense of marriage.

Cohabitation has done nothing good for our society. There is no study that points to a positive gain to society or individuals when a couple opts for cohabitation over marriage. In fact, cohabitation is typically built around immature relationships and over time they may get married, but not out of a desire for life long commitment; rather they feel obligated because of their shared possessions. On average, couples that cohabitate earn less then married couples and cohabitation may be a large factor in your dreaded income equality gap. These relationships are also notoriously unstable and in most instances lack the boundaries established by marriage. Which by the way our cultural has established and while they may reflect a religious presence, are by no means strictly religious in nature. Most atheists will expect the same level of commitment from their spouse as Christians will.

Marriage has and will produce a better family dynamic. Yet supporters of cohabitation always point society needing to adapt rather than condemn the this lifestyle choice as destructive to the individual and to traditional marriage.

Romans 6:23

Where in my comment did I say that I advocate the death penalty for homosexuals? I quoted 2 Bible passages because the writer of the blog says that Jesus did not say sex with a man is a sin. And I guess if you want to get technical about it, HE did not. But God did say go out and populate the earth.

Mau you quoted an ancient law from Leviticus that stated if men lie with men... They shall surely be put to death. I am sure many were. That makes it appear you support the death penalty for gays.

That assumption makes about as much sense as if I were to quote something about the Nazis final solution, and you took it to mean I agreed with it.

@Bren
You are correct, Jesus never called homosexuality out as a sin. However, he did refer to marriage as an act intended for 1man and 1woman as was established by God in Genesis 1.

There are many actions that Christ did not call out directly that Christians accept as sinful.

J.B., I agree that there are many actions that Christ did not call out directly that Christians accept as sinful. That's the problem, when people move away from Christ's teachings and in some cases, actually contradict His Words.

Treatment of the poor being a prime example. Christ tells us the poor will always be with us, and infers in Revelations that how we treat those in need is how we treat Him (separation of lambs/goats). But some are abusive of the poor and suggest that poverty is somehow a lifestyle choice, that the poor are dishonest ("Welfare Queen"), etc.

Marriage as an institution, as I understand it, was established long ago to legitimize heirs to wealth and trickled down to the general populations. Christ did not, to my knowledge, establish marriage as a religious law. Therefore it is a man-made construct, like the papacy.

Personally I would support civil contracts across the board. We have siblings and/or multiple generations living together. A divorced or widowed, uninsured man or woman with children may live with a sibling who has coverage. Why can't that family be covered if the employer agrees? There are a number of scenarios of living arrangements that would benefit from this opportunity. I believe a discussion of how to help people in these circumstances would be fruitful.

Bren:

Is there anything in the law stating that an employer cannot cover unrelated or unmarried people living in the same household?

Cow, I don't believe that coverage limitations are employer-based in most circumstances, it generates from (you guessed it) the insurance companies, and employers generally go along because the alternative is the much higher (and generally profit-motivated unnecessary) cost.

Even within the immediate family coverage, there are coverage evasion tactics practiced by insurance companies that employers must accept, again due to cost. Successfully applied, the EOB (Explanation of Other Benefits) process can push off a claim or series of claims for many months. The "birthday rule" can often be used to ward off new employees who want to transfer family coverage from the spouse (usually because the new insurance is better). If the spouse's birthday comes first in the calendar year, the new insurance company may invoke the birthday rule to disallow the transference of family members for primary coverage under the plan. If successful, and the employee tries to access secondary coverage in an eligible circumstance, the EOB maneuver can push off and frustrate the employee to the point that they pay for the additional expenses out-of-pocket, which frequently occurs. That's a victory for the insurance industry, when clients can be induced to pay covered charges out-of-pocket.

A tangent, but I'm sure Christ would want individuals to have access to health care for an affordable price, since He did heal several sick people.

Well, there are quite a few traits passed on genetically, or do you think identical twins can choose to have completely different bodies? Personality and character traits, like many physical traits, are influenced by the effects of many genes interacting with one another in complex patterns that vary by individual along with the epi-genetic layer which is subject to change by environmental influences. The genetics influence the production of many powerful chemicals in microscopic amounts that regulate body and brain function. The exact interplay between that and the brain waves that compose thoughts is beyond human understanding. Most people can't handle genetics being more complicated than a shopping list where you could just cross off one trait and add another, but sadly real life requires above-average intelligence to understand.

I seem to recall a few years ago that homosexuals, cross-gender, etc., did not want their life style to be labeled genetic. They wanted it to be looked at as a life style choice.

I don't have that recollection. The only 'choice' that I recall is if they choose to 'come out' or not.

@CowDung, they also considered it a mental condition in the 70's.

Gay people didn't like the idea that they were considered to be mentally ill. Considering it to be a mental condition only strengthens the argument that being gay isn't a 'choice', but rather something that one is born with or perhaps acquires at some point. I suspect that the change was made because of the negative stigma that having a mental illness tends to carry.

While it may be politically incorrect, I think that homosexuality probably is a mental condition. As homosexuality tends to inhibit one's ability to reproduce sexually (from a mental standpoint), it likely can be considered to be a 'defect' of sorts. Just as we would consider it a defect if heterosexuals are unable to reproduce sexually.

That said, I see no reason to deny marriage because of homosexuality.

@CowDung...I was in practice as a psychotherapist during the late 1960s and through the decade of the 1970s, even though homosexuality was considered a diagnosable condition by the APA, I never used such a diagnosis or did any of my colleagues. By then we were in full understanding that homosexuality was not a mental condition, hence it was not something to be cured. Also, by then it was pretty clear that homosexuality was not a matter of choice but a matter of birth. Subsequently, research has confirmed such.

Just as with any other birth condition that isolates the person from what is considered the norm, homosexuals struggle with cultural identity and their place in society. Just as heterosexuality incorporates a limited portion of who a person is, homosexuality, for the affected individual, plays a small part in the person's functionality. What makes homosexuals different from others in society is the reaction and definition that others place on them. This was why homosexuality was kept in the closet for so long, homosexuality has no outward tangible indications of sexual preference. Whereas, certain mental conditions actively interfere with the affected person's functionality, homosexuality does not. Homosexuals suffer from all the maladies of mental illness that the general heterosexual population does, but homosexuality is not one of them. To consider them as somehow suffering from a mental condition is not only insulting, but is just plain incorrect.

Lyle:

Isn't the inability to reproduce an 'interference with the affected person's functionality'?

@CowDung...The inability to reproduce for a homosexual is a choice not a dysfunction. I have known many men who have married and had children, yet were homosexual. You see this quite often in the African-American Community where they are "playing the down low". Lesbians often are or have been married and have children. Sexual preference doesn't inhibit functionality.

I suppose that it could be a matter of being bisexual rather than homosexual as well. I can understand that gay people would make the choice to live as a hetero. It is is a coping mechanism to deal with being different from the norms of society--having a 'traditional' family structure is usually more socially accepted than living with one's gay partner.

I would think that if someone chooses to deny or ignore their natural attraction to their same sex in order to have (or father) children, it isn't normal or healthy. I think that one of the benefits of gay marriage would be the freedom to live as homosexuals and still have a family rather than having to play the role of a heterosexual in order to have a family.

Your right JBW .. you are just a machine you have no soul no freewill to do what you want to do .. just electrial impulses flying around your brain .. how could we blame anyone for doing anything they just had a bad electrical signal. Yeah i can choose to have no eyes or ears like your identical twins logic, you talk jibberish because real life is way beyond anyones understanding

@Lyle, you're getting too technical. I had a lot of homosexual friends and co-workers in the 70's. None were in the closet. All were openly and actively practicing their sexuality. We all socialized together with no problem. Had long discussions about our beliefs without any arguments, name calling or any hate. One of them took me on a personal tour of all the bars on Plankinton and 2nd street. Quite an eye opening experience I must say. Did I hold their beliefs against them NO. Did they hold my beliefs against me NO. As time went on some of them got radical, we took different life paths and our friendships ended.

Why is it that homosexuals forcing their lifestyle on society is ok, but Christians doing the same thing is not. I don't believe either side should be flaunting their sexuality and I don't want to hear about or see their sexual activities.

@Brian
Your questions are irrelevant to my point. I was challenging the assumption that Christ was mute on the topic of marriage. I was also responding to some one who appeared to be a Christian. Therefore I was conversing with some level of mutual understanding. It is of course not the same argument I would pose to a person who did not accept the Bible as most Christians have chosen to accept it.

I do not accept that 'every word' is as it was originally put on paper (or scroll, papyrus, or stone); however, the find at the dead sea revealed that in the last 2000+ years and thousands of translations later the meaning and intent of the original authors has not changed. As for the books kept or not kept, most people like to find more conspiracy theory in that then actual fact.

Most of the history as written in the bible has archeological evidence to back it up. While you might point to giant fish swallowing people and demand proof or request evidence to the miracles of Christ; it requires you ignore massive amounts of other historically accurate information. Does it cover every detail of earth's timeline? No. However, the theory of evolution has holes as well and requires a certain level of faith for belief.

When one questions Genesis, the choice clearly comes down to Peter Gabriel or Phil Collins.

@J.B. Schmidt...Hmm; let's see - Jesus was over thirty and still not married in a society and culture that commanded that a man must marry, hung around men all the time, didn't openly condemn homosexuality; is it just possible that Jesus was gay?

@Lyle
Prove to me that Christ was or was not married.

@J.B. Schmidt...If you go to the Gnostic Gospels, he was certainly married. However, in the official canon it makes no claim as to his being married. If he was married, what was, who was his wife and did he have any children? From the gospels Paul certainly didn't support marriage, but if one couldn't abstain, marriage was better than not marrying.

Lyle:

Interesting question Lyle, but if Jesus were indeed gay, I would have expected Paul to be more open to homosexuality than his writings tend to reflect.

Although, it is possible that Paul may have never actually met Jesus personally...

@CowDung...It is my understanding that from the Christian Gospels that Paul didn't meet the incarnate Jesus on the road to Damascus only an apparition of the Christ.

@Lyle
There is reference to Paul and other apostle being married. He was supportive of marriage as he dedicates large sections to the relationships if husbands and wives. You are taking out of context his passage on abstinence.

The bible leaves a lot to be known about the personal life of Jesus. For instance what color was his favorite tunic or what did he like to eat. That doesn't mean he went naked or ate nothing, it means it is pointless to the over all meaning of the Bible, that is salvation thru Christ.

@J.B. Schmidt...This is the problem when using religion to justify behavior and action. There are as many interpretations as there are people. That is why I am always suspect when someone calls on scripture as authority. In Judaism, most of us don't read the bible literally and look to alternative interpretations. That's one of the reasons that Jews stay aware from single dogma and doctrines.

I know that a number of the apostles were married. From my reading I don't remember that Paul was, but he could have been since he was an observant Jew prior to his conversion.

I know there were dinosaurs but no one really knows what they looked like or their exact age. Even now they are questioning the drawings that they have. Same with the bones they find of humans. You can have a skeleton but who knows what their features really looked like or their body composition.

@$$andSense -

So, in other words - you think that Hoffa is "da' man!"

Coming from a paraphiliac dendrophiliac such as yourself, I'll take all of that as a compliment!

Good day, sir!

What Hoffa? Do you have any idea what you posted? Non-humans and trees as a turn on? Nice try at a topic deflection. Damn, I hit a nerve root home run with you. This is definitely going into the "save for later" file. Your springs are wound way too tight. Have fun with the trees and whatever turns you on (please leave your cat alone). There is your compliment "da man". Yuck! But thanks for staying away from the name calling. auf Wiedersehen!

@$$andNonsense,

That post made no sense at all!

@$$andSense -

Of course I know what I posted - do you think that Hoffa is stupid?

As The Anti-Alinsky pointed out, your initial slam against me made little to no sense at all, and given the topic of conversation my completely emphatic response seemed wholly appropriate. But you're right, I shouldn't have used your personal lifestyle choices as comedy relief.

BTW - Please stay away from my oak tree, as it's very old and fragile ;-)

Something tells me that "paraphiliac dendrophiliac" are words you learned on your arrest warrant when the DA charged you with both. It is now obvious you have something for trees with the oak tree comment. Do you really want an answer to the "do you think that Hoffa is stupid?” Uh, using a union gangster name and claiming to be anti-union? Really?

"I shouldn't have used your personal lifestyle choices as comedy relief."
I see. Judeo-Christian child rearing principles isn't your thing but comedy relief. Really? Stay with the oak tree.

And BTW, you left Saul in the dust with your "paraphiliac dendrophiliac" comment because the statement "That post made no sense at all!" left them hanging. Care to educate the 70+ hour a week cubicle rat Saul what it means? Keep your buddies informed Hoffa! :)

I don't think that anyone is proposing that marrying outside of one's species should be permitted...

Donny Show... That is a ridiculous diversion. You may extend any potential change in law to absurd extremes...but it has nothing to do with whether or not the proposed idea is a good one. Should women be allowed to become combatants? Well what about cows, what about four year old children? Come on.

Jason said we are free. There are people that want to marry multiple spouses. Why do we not allow this?

That's a good question--why don't we (as a society) allow multiple spouses? As long as they are all consenting adults, I don't see why it needs to be illegal.

That is my ENTIRE point. If we are FREE like Jason suggets why have limits? Why not allow many different sorts of marriages? Who are we to say who can and cannot marry if all parties are consenting?

It is already allowed and in fact honored and promoted. There are certain segments of our society, in particular professional athletes and entertainers, who have multiple children by multiple women. Some through marriages but way too many not. Society castigates Mormon's or others who practice polygamy. But they accept and idolize others who are actually practicing the same life style.

Why must the government recognize something as being valid before it has meaning to an individual?

@Brian Carlson...Amen!

Of course you can't PROVE it cuz it is history .. just like Evolution ... But evolution is forced on us in the Public Indoctrination school system ... The Bible says there were dinosaurs .. They just found trace amounts of carbon in ALL fossils and in Diamonds, so why are forced to learn this BS theory of evolution ... I am sick and tired about being forced into something .. Get the government out of it

@Brian
I fully agree that the Bible has been used by Christians as a tool for judgement rather then a as it should be use, a tool for salvation.

As for absolute proof, I obviously can't. However, the experiences of my life and the words of the Bible provide me the faith I need to trust it is true.

@mau...I don't think that anyone is justified to argue the New Testament to attempt to prove that it's incorrect. For people who accept it as their book, it is meaningful to them. To use it as justification for actions against others is wrong. It's like people telling me, as a Jew, what my bible really means. We can't even agree on that between us and to have others dictate to us what it means, is just plain ridiculous. I must say that I have studied many of the books and documents that you mentioned, but it has not been to prove or disprove anything. It is for knowledge and to gain an understanding of the foundation of other people's belief systems. Critical thinking is the means to uncover truth and knowledge. Too many people are either incapable or haven't the desire to approach learning through critical thinking.

Being raised in the Catholic Church, our priest did not speak from the Bible. He spoke from their prayer book which was selective passages. I have not studied the Bible in depth. My greatest interest was Revelations as it seemed they did not preach about it in depth. I also was very interested in Genesis and the fact that there are 2 stories of creation. Also if I heard something that peaked my interest I would get out the Strong's Concordance and the Bible and read about it. I was also curious about Angels because as an adult what I learned about Angels is that they are not these cute cuddly friends like I was taught as a child. I also studied some of the Ancient religions as they are practiced today. But all this was pretty much 20-30 years ago and my memory of the details are gone. But I gathered enough knowledge that I will never belong to any organized religion again. I don't care what religion if any a person practices. If I like someone I like them for themselves and that is it. I may be outspoken and critical of one's beliefs and practices but that does not stand in the way of a friendship.

@Luke...Incest is not allowed for a number of reasons. Parents marrying children, siblings marrying each other are all forbidden. When I say that marriage is merely a contract, that is precisely what it is. Ask any attorney. Since it is a civil contract it must be registered by the governing authority to be considered in force.

Lyle,

You say that incest is forbidden. So is same-sex marriage.

Again, why would you prohibit same-sex siblings from getting married?

(After you aswer that, I want to ask you about the other issues I brought up.)

Funny how the gay marriage nuts want to discriminate against the polyandrists,polygamists, incest and beastiatily folks, what about their rights?

Lyle,

One more thing....As you say, marriage is a contract. It is a socially-engineered contract. It is not a "mere" contract.

@Luke...Incest carries severe consequences with any resulting offspring. It weakens the species and ancient man discovered this. Thus the prohibition with incest. As far as same sex marriages, that is an entirely different matter. No children are involved.

Lyle,

So it isn't incest when two same-sex siblings are involved?

So what's wrong with brothers and sisters marrying other than the fact that they might have children? After all, there is birth control available. Also, the fetus is not a human until after it is on this side of the birth canal.

If marriage is merely a contract, why are you so uptight about family members having that mere contract?

@Luke...Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract. Of course it's socially engineered as a function of a society.

Lyle,

I'm glad you agree that it is a contract. It is not a "mere" contract.

Now let's get back to the questions I brought up. Why can't parents marry their kids, and why are you getting involved in how a fetus comes about in the privacy of their own homes?

Lyle,

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why parents can't marry their own kids and why you would want to control how a fetus comes about. I believe that your objection reveals the flaw in your logic, and shows why the original intent of marriage law is the only one that makes sense.

necromancers? I think you mean necrophiliacs, and yes, what about their rights?

Sodomy, beastiality, incest, all deviant sexual behavior, yes they can be thrown into the same bucket of perversion.

Not to mention Ephebophilia Brian, defend that.++