• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Since we're on the gay marriage issue (yet again)

Status
Not open for further replies.

shoplifter

Member
Here's a news story about the guy who's trying to get the amendment to the state constitution passed.

http://www.theotherpaper.com/substory1.html

Oct. 7, 2004

Bigotry is an ugly word, but most of us are guilty of it in some form or another. Whether we're willing to admit it or not, most people harbor prejudice against somebody because of what they are, rather than who they are.

For the majority of people, bigotry is a character defect that we try to work on. For Phil Burress, it's been a career.

Burress is the Cincinnati activist who's leading the campaign in favor of Issue 1, an amendment to Ohio's constitution that would prohibit same-sex marriages or civil unions and keep unmarried partners from receiving the legal benefits thereof.

Burress also testified in favor of Ohio's Defense of Marriage Act, passed earlier this year to strengthen the state's policy against same-sex unions. In 1993, he spearheaded the successful fight in Cincinnati to pass a charter amendment that made it illegal to enact or enforce any law protecting gays from discrimination.

Burress would have you believe that his career crusade against gays and lesbians is motivated not by hate but by Christian love.

That isn't true. If it were, Burress would apply Biblical teachings to everyone, not just those whose sexual orientation is different than his.

Burress is a schoolyard bully with a grudge against gay people.

"Activists promoting a self-destructive, same-sex lifestyle have aligned themselves with sympathetic, tyrannical judges to do the unthinkable—'redefine' the Divine truth of marriage as the union of one man and one woman," says the website of Ohio Campaign to Protect Marriage, Burress's pro-Issue 1 organization.

But if the "Divine truth of marriage" is to be found in the Bible, Burress has quite a bit of explaining to do.

He wouldn't talk about it this week, but Burress told the Dispatch earlier this year that he's on his third marriage. His first two were destroyed by his admitted addiction to pornography. He shared this with the Dispatch in hopes of promoting himself as a redeemed sinner.

But according to the doctrine that Burress would have the rest of us live by, he's not redeemed at all. In fact, he's mocking the institution of marriage.

The Gospels don't record Jesus saying anything about homosexuality, but they do quote Jesus speaking very specifically to the issue of divorce and remarriage.

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her," Jesus said, according to the 10th chapter of Mark, Verse 11. Jesus says the same thing in Matthew 5:32 and Luke 16:18.

However, Burress doesn't like to talk about life as a practicing adulterer.

When asked about it this week, Burress refused to say how he reconciles his own lifestyle choice with his purported religious faith.

Maybe he's been so busy telling other people to live by the Bible that he hasn't found time to read it himself.

The Bible aside, I think most of us would be happy for Burress if he's found true love. It doesn't seem too much to ask for him to allow his fellow Ohioans to do the same.

But Burress's tolerance for nontraditional marriage doesn't extend beyond his own. Through Issue 1, he now seeks to further dehumanize gays and lesbians, and to do so in the name of God.

According to the polls, the issue will pass easily on Nov. 2. If so, it won't just be hate-mongers voting for it. A lot of decent people will vote for Issue 1 because they think it's the right thing to do, because they've been convinced it's what Jesus would do.

Truth is, we don't know what Jesus would think of gay marriage. We only know what he'd think of a hypocrite like Phil Burress.

-Dan Williamson

The Other Paper is a weekly here in Columbus with lots of artsy stuff, and some good humor. I suppose you could say it leans left.
 

Catalyst

Banned
Good read. Jesus taught love, though, and tolerance. Thought I'd add that in. To Him it was more important than gay marriage, although Paul was highly against it. And love is above all.
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
That's just atrocious that this amendmant is trying to deny gays rights. It's totally backwards and i'm ashamed to live in Ohio because of this man.

Politicians are in no position to enact his/her religious beliefs on the population. That is just wrong. What other people want to do is in their best interest and these gay marraige bans (basically gay rights bans) are disgusting.
 

Goreomedy

Console Market Analyst
Catalyst said:
Paul was highly against it.

Paul never once spoke of homosexuals. Or do you confuse his mention of male prostitutes, their johns, and worship of androgenous idols with same-sex couples in a committed relationship?
 

Matlock

Banned
I love that guy, only because he made me spit out my lemonade when I saw the following page in my voting book:

gaymarriage.gif
 

Catalyst

Banned
Goreomedy said:
Paul never once spoke of homosexuals. Or do you confuse his mention of male prostitutes, their johns, and worship of androgenous idols with same-sex couples in a committed relationship?
I believe it's in one of the Corinthians books.

Anyway, I like the idea that this guy's compromising the idea of no gay marriage with the idea of no specific rights granted to non-married heterosexual couples (kind of like my uncle being "common-law" married, yuck). Sounds fair to me. But granting homosexuals rights is like granting blacks or white or Asians rights because of their association. We're all people, aren't we? Or maybe the point is letting people have the choice...but men and women have been getting married for thousands of years, I think that's the point, and perhaps it should stay that way.
 

Seth C

Member
eggplant said:
The government hasn't always been treating married couples differently. If anything, the government should get the heck out of marriage and treat individuals the same.

Now that I can agree on.
 

Vark

Member
"We're all people, aren't we? Or maybe the point is letting people have the choice...but men and women have been getting married for thousands of years, I think that's the point, and perhaps it should stay that way."

Well thousands of years ago there weren't highly complicated tax and property laws or visitation rights to stop people from visiting their husbands or wives on their deathbeds.

It's completely retarded to bring religion into the issue. People can have all the convictions they want but when they try to apply them to mass society and start stepping on peoples RIGHTS then its completely out of line. It's a state and legal issue, if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple then it doesn't have to, its a private organization, a couple should still be within their full rights to be married by a judge or a justice of the peace.

Remember the whole seperation of church and state thing? Anyone? Hello, is this thing on?
 

Catalyst

Banned
eggplant, people are treated the same. Some people just make it a bigger deal than others, hence the begging for homosexual marriage rights, lol.

I don't believe property rights and all that have anything to do with gay marriage. And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc, and everyone disagreeing is going to be called a bigot, etc, etc. This is why the country's setup, so shit like this wouldn't have to happen. So then there are the few radicals pushing for gay marriage, all the gays rise up, and this happens.

It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.
 

IJoel

Member
Catalyst said:
eggplant, people are treated the same. Some people just make it a bigger deal than others, hence the begging for homosexual marriage rights, lol.

I don't believe property rights and all that have anything to do with gay marriage. And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc, and everyone disagreeing is going to be called a bigot, etc, etc. This is why the country's setup, so shit like this wouldn't have to happen. So then there are the few radicals pushing for gay marriage, all the gays rise up, and this happens.

It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.

Now, you HAVE GOT to be a joke member.
 

jiggle

Member
Catalyst said:
eggplant, people are treated the same. Some people just make it a bigger deal than others, hence the begging for homosexual marriage rights, lol.

I don't believe property rights and all that have anything to do with gay marriage. And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc, and everyone disagreeing is going to be called a bigot, etc, etc. This is why the country's setup, so shit like this wouldn't have to happen. So then there are the few radicals pushing for gay marriage, all the gays rise up, and this happens.

It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.


:lol wtf
 

Goreomedy

Console Market Analyst
Catalyst said:
eggplant, people are treated the same. Some people just make it a bigger deal than others, hence the begging for homosexual marriage rights, lol.

I don't believe property rights and all that have anything to do with gay marriage. And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc, and everyone disagreeing is going to be called a bigot, etc, etc. This is why the country's setup, so shit like this wouldn't have to happen. So then there are the few radicals pushing for gay marriage, all the gays rise up, and this happens.

It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.

Holy... fucking... shit.

Why do I enter these threads?
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Catalyst said:
It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.

Yeah, women in the kitchen, blacks in the back of the bus, and them "immigrants" screwing up everything.

Let's be clear: If two gay people want to get married, and they find a clergy within their religion that will perform the ceremony, who is the government to say that it's an invalid ceremony? Why can't they receive the same legal benefits from the government as a heterosexual couple?

You need to acknowledge - and it will go a long way, believe me - that there is no basis in REASON for a stance against gay marriage. It's ad hominem, strawman-rolling-down-a-slippery-slope bullshit that has no solid ground to stand on outside of a religious context. Which is funny, you know? Because I could swear there's something about seperating church and state on the books somewhere in DC...
 

duderon

rollin' in the gutter
Catalyst said:
eggplant, people are treated the same. Some people just make it a bigger deal than others, hence the begging for homosexual marriage rights, lol.

I don't believe property rights and all that have anything to do with gay marriage. And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc, and everyone disagreeing is going to be called a bigot, etc, etc. This is why the country's setup, so shit like this wouldn't have to happen. So then there are the few radicals pushing for gay marriage, all the gays rise up, and this happens.

It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.

Dude, just go back to live-journal, or whatever that uber-conservative site is. We don't need this anti-gay shit spewed here.
 
Catalyst said:
And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc, and everyone disagreeing is going to be called a bigot, etc, etc....So then there are the few radicals pushing for gay marriage, all the gays rise up, and this happens.

seriously, wtf?
 
Catalyst said:
eggplant, people are treated the same. Some people just make it a bigger deal than others, hence the begging for homosexual marriage rights, lol.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal then others.

Catalyst said:
It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.
Where women didn't have the right to vote, kids had to work in factory's to keep their famalies fed, blacks were lynched, and the federal government was taking Native American children from their famlies to be stripped of their cultural heritage?

Not exactly a time I would want to live.
 

Catalyst

Banned
Nooooooo!

People should be treated decently. Goddamn. Good Lord...why do I allow myself to be attacted to these threads?

But with all that I've said, at least the world wasn't madness like it is today. Oh well. Remind me not to talk about these things.
 

Dilbert

Member
Catalyst said:
eggplant, people are treated the same. Some people just make it a bigger deal than others, hence the begging for homosexual marriage rights, lol.

I don't believe property rights and all that have anything to do with gay marriage. And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc, and everyone disagreeing is going to be called a bigot, etc, etc. This is why the country's setup, so shit like this wouldn't have to happen. So then there are the few radicals pushing for gay marriage, all the gays rise up, and this happens.

It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.
Catalyst, consider this a warning. You are trolling like hell, and your comments in the other thread indicating that you find it amusing at how people get riled up over a few stray comments are damning. Your "slippery slope" about gays wanting to avoid taxation is particularly stupid. The next time you pull any crap like that...you're gone.

As for property rights not having anything to do with gay marriage...as long as married couples in this country enjoy special rights under the law, then you will see gays pushing to be "married," or at least have access to a civil union which is INDISTINGUISHABLE under the law from heterosexual marriages. Or, as others have pointed out, remove all special considerations for married couples. Either one is a fair solution.
 
Catalyst said:
Nooooooo!

People should be treated decently. Goddamn. Good Lord...why do I allow myself to be attacted to these threads?

But with all that I've said, at least the world wasn't madness like it is today. Oh well. Remind me not to talk about these things.

Madness?!? I'm sure that we can add a couple more things to ConfusingJazz's list... like blatant imperialism, eugenics, continent wide preparations for war, etc
 
Catalyst said:
I don't believe property rights and all that have anything to do with gay marriage. And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc,

Why don't we take away tax breaks for married heterosexual couples then? That would be a step in making everything equal. How does that sound?
 

shoplifter

Member
Catalyst said:
I don't believe property rights and all that have anything to do with gay marriage.

Then you clearly don't understand the issue at all.


And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc, and everyone disagreeing is going to be called a bigot, etc, etc. This is why the country's setup, so shit like this wouldn't have to happen. So then there are the few radicals pushing for gay marriage, all the gays rise up, and this happens.

It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.

i won't even dignify this with a response.
 

maharg

idspispopd
Catalyst said:
Nooooooo!

People should be treated decently. Goddamn. Good Lord...why do I allow myself to be attacted to these threads?

But with all that I've said, at least the world wasn't madness like it is today. Oh well. Remind me not to talk about these things.

No, the world wasn't madness. There was only a massive war (larger than any previous in history) triggered by what could be characterized as a terrorist act (assassination).

Yes, it was oh so different then.
 
People need to get smart. Propose an "Anti-gay marriage" ammendment, followed by pages upon pages of bullshit. Then in the second to last page slap on the equal benefit relation union junk. Place a bunch of ads like that missouri shit. That mofo will pass faster than the patriot act. :D
 
Catalyst said:
But with all that I've said, at least the world wasn't madness like it is today. Oh well. Remind me not to talk about these things.

I am really curious, what do you mean by this? What madness?
 
I am an atheist, and I am a reverend. There is no conflict here, as the former is my religious belief, and the latter is a classification within a secular government. Marriage should similarly have no conflicts.
 
eggplant said:
Oh yeah, then the gays would be dead or beat up instead. It makes me feel great to know how you feel.

Ugh, I don't know where Catalyst was going with that comment, or what he was meaning by "madness" but I'm sure as hell curious. I can stand, and respect, political differences or even different views from a religious standpoint. But that last comment was completely off base.

Anyways, I don't quite understand how people don't see that gays are treated as being lower than others by the government. Individual people are little more understandable, but as far as the general warefare of the nation, it shouldn't be like that. I really hope that byt he time I'm able to settle down with one particular person, that I'll be able to get married, adopt a kid, and live like in other person to the government. Society won't accept it anytime soon, but I'd like the technical aspects to have already been decided. If this doesn't look to be the case though, I'll be ready to head out of here and settle down elsewhere.
 

Kai Dracon

Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Someone once said this about doctrines:

Where doctrine denies life, the interpretation is wrong.

Where any interpretation of doctrine denies life, the doctrine is false.



I support this and feel it goes for any kind of "doctrine" - religious, political, economic, social. Falling in love with someone or having sex with them is life. Regardless of what anyone's abstract doctrine which attempts to represent reality says, the map is not the territory. If the territory has people in it in bed who happen to be the same gender, it is the height of pretentious absurdity to squeal "NOT THERE! NOT THERE! NOT THERE!" because your little map doesn't have that marked down on it.
 

Catalyst

Banned
ConfusingJazz said:
I am really curious, what do you mean by this? What madness?
Tool's "Aenima" is a great song. It's elaborated [the madness I speak of] pretty concisely. Examples on this board....people fretting. Both sides should stop fretting.

It's so neat...but can be horrifying and grotesque.
 

Catalyst

Banned
-jinx- said:
Catalyst, consider this a warning. You are trolling like hell, and your comments in the other thread indicating that you find it amusing at how people get riled up over a few stray comments are damning. Your "slippery slope" about gays wanting to avoid taxation is particularly stupid. The next time you pull any crap like that...you're gone.

As for property rights not having anything to do with gay marriage...as long as married couples in this country enjoy special rights under the law, then you will see gays pushing to be "married," or at least have access to a civil union which is INDISTINGUISHABLE under the law from heterosexual marriages. Or, as others have pointed out, remove all special considerations for married couples. Either one is a fair solution.
That's what I meant. Remove special considerations from married couples. I think I mentioned that, or I did in some form.

But on the other note....some of you are so touchy. You want to speak of tolerance yet you have none, and this issue still yet has to be touched.
 

shoplifter

Member
Catalyst said:
That's what I meant. Remove special considerations from married couples. I think I mentioned that, or I did in some form.

This is a solution I would also support, provided things like power of attorney were still provided to all couples regardless of orientation. It's just another method to make marriage religion based again, and makes secular 'marriage' a different thing altogether.
 

Catalyst

Banned
shoplifter said:
This is a solution I would also support, provided things like power of attorney were still provided to all couples regardless of orientation. It's just another method to make marriage religion based again, and makes secular 'marriage' a different thing altogether.
Yes...I just reiterated because I believe my wording could perhaps confuse people. So yeah. But hey, what's wrong with religion-based marriage? It's been that way for millenia, why stop now? If people don't want to be wed based on religious practices, they don't have to. But they should also obey the law if they're going to take the long road. I'm not saying that *just* because I'm against it, it's just...the law. Someone lay down the big deal to me, because I seem to be missing it. Big time.
 

Fusebox

Banned
If the Govt wants gay people to stop having sex then it should let them all get married - everybody knows married people don't have any sex.
 

xsarien

daedsiluap
Catalyst said:
Yes...I just reiterated because I believe my wording could perhaps confuse people. So yeah. But hey, what's wrong with religion-based marriage? It's been that way for millenia, why stop now? If people don't want to be wed based on religious practices, they don't have to. But they should also obey the law if they're going to take the long road. I'm not saying that *just* because I'm against it, it's just...the law. Someone lay down the big deal to me, because I seem to be missing it. Big time.

Which law are you speaking of?
 

Che

Banned
Catalyst said:
eggplant, people are treated the same. Some people just make it a bigger deal than others, hence the begging for homosexual marriage rights, lol.

I don't believe property rights and all that have anything to do with gay marriage. And when the gays win, they're then going to be begging to not be taxed, etc etc, and everyone disagreeing is going to be called a bigot, etc, etc. This is why the country's setup, so shit like this wouldn't have to happen. So then there are the few radicals pushing for gay marriage, all the gays rise up, and this happens.

It's all madness. I wish everything was like it was back in the early 1900s. We wouldn't need to have such a conversation.

I would like to thank and congratulate the mod who managed to ban him first.
 

Bogeyker

Banned
I am all for gay marriage. I firmly believe that there are way too many reserved people in our world that need to open and expand their minds.
 

Hawksley

Member
Bogeyker said:
I am all for gay marriage. I firmly believe that there are way too many reserved people in our world that need to open and expand their minds.

I don't want you as my spokesman. Shut up.
 
Catalyst said:
Tool's "Aenima" is a great song. It's elaborated [the madness I speak of] pretty concisely. Examples on this board....people fretting. Both sides should stop fretting.

It's so neat...but can be horrifying and grotesque.

WTF?

That doesn't make a damn lick of sense. How the hell does that pertain to the early 20th century?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom