Hundreds More Gay Couples Marry in S.F.

[crow]

If a law doesn't follow the constitution, then the law violates the constitution and must be overturned. Things like slavery, women's suffrage, and now the right for gays and lesbians to marry. I think one of the most memorable ones for me is the 1882 Chinese exclusion act and, pertaining to marriage, the 1880 California anti-miscegenation law (that means: no marriages outside of your race. As in, black people can't marry white people etc.) When a law is wrong, you have to get rid of it. I will agree that the mayor is jumping the gun by breaking the law outright instead of trying to go with the legal path. You're dreaming if you think he will start breaking laws left and right, though. If it became that extreme, he'd be out like Gray Davis. Besides, why do you think the constitution allows the people to possess firearms?

 

[SloRoll]

This is an issue for the "people" to decide. The mayor is not simply "jumping the gun", he's breaking the law he swore to uphold. I believe it was prop. 22 (I might be wrong on the number, I live far away. pls excuse me.) that was voted on 4 years ago in your state that defined marriage as between a man and a woman. This was the voice of the people. If the voice needs to be heard again, so be it. Re-introduce it at the legislature. Having a mayor take the law into his own hands is never a good thing. Just ask me, I've lived in Chicago long enough.

 

[crow]

I agree. But what can I do? =P I'm actually kind of curious how things would turn out if they let us vote on it again.

 

[Shotline]

Crow,

You seem to be making some valid points (I need to think on them a bit), but your use of profanity does you a diservice.

Please do not use the swear words in your posts, it makes you come off just as bad as the other intolerant idiots.

Thanks.

 

[outlikeatrout]

outlikeatrout,

I really don't give a fuck about religion.

No kidding.

But because you do, and that's what you choose to follow, for us to argue that one is wrong and one is right really wouldn't go anywhere. I already know and accept this.

Agreed. Arguing the philosophy of religion rather than the religion itself is pretty much useless.

You keep citing the bible as your source of reference, as what you follow for everything. I think the more correct term, though, would be that you're citing your interpretation of the bible. Here, take a look at this. http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

You can do your own due diligence to determine that the King James and New International versions are accurate translations.

In a nutshell,

Follow the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek writings and attempt to understand precisely what the writers taught. If so, then you will find that these same passages condemn specific homosexual activities (rape, prostitution, etc.) But the Bible appears to be silent about same-sex, committed, monogamous relationships.

That's not true. The bible says one should not lie with a man as one lies with a woman. Furthermore, the bible illustrates that sex is integral to marriage by says that the man and the woman will become one flesh.

Passages often relate to customs of a long-past era that cannot be applied in today's society. Verses which accept and regulate slavery or limit the rights of women or condone what we now regard as child abuse are ignored. Passages which might be interpreted as condemning homosexuality might also be not applicable today.

Biblical slavery is not the same as the slavery practiced in the US during the 1800's. You're just using the same word in order to elicit emotion.

If you completely follow the bible.. are you into that child abuse and slavery and women are lower than men stuff? ...

The bible does not say child abuse is okay, or that woman are lower than men (although you'd have to define what you mean by "lower" because I'm not sure.)

Woman are loving, caring and submissive by nature.
Men are protective, providers and dominant by nature.

And damn do these things fit well together.

 

[outlikeatrout]

I understand that there was a law in CA defining marriage as between a man and a woman and that the mayor of SF chose to disregard that law. What if he decides to disregard other laws? Laws like polygamy, gun control, drivers licenses? Am I the only one here that fears gangs of polygamous, gay, gun toting people driving around illegally that don't have to testify against each other because they're married? Am I??

 

[Shotline]

Shotline:
here is a list of books taken from this site: http://www.cf.ac.uk/hisar/teach/ancthist/postgraduate/themes/homosexuality.html which address homosexuality in ancient cultures.

the original latin texts cited would be most interesting as online translations tend to be of extremely poor quality but as you can see from the list it is a well documented phenomena.

Cantarella, E., Bisexuality in the ancient world (1992)
Cohen D., 'Law, Society and Homosexuality in Classical Athens', Past & Present 117 (1987) 3ff.
Cohen D., Law, sexuality and society. Cambridge. 1991.
Davidson J., Courtesans and Fishcakes (HarperCollins, 1997)
Davidson J., ‘Dover, Foucault and Greek Homosexuality: penetration and the truth of sex’, Past and Present 170, 2001, 1-51.
de Vries K., ‘The "Frigid Eromenoi" and their Wooers Revisited: A Closer Look at Greek Homosexuality in Vase Painting’, in Duberman (ed.) (1997), Queer Representations: Reading Lives, Reading Cultures. New York, 14-24.
Edwards, C., The politics of immorality in ancient Rome (1993)
Foucault, M., The use of pleasure and The care of the self History of Sexuality vols. 2 and 3 (1985, 1990)
Hallett J.P. and Skinner M. B. (eds.), Roman Sexualities (Princeton, 1997).
Halperin, D.M., One hundred years of homosexuality (1990)
Halperin, D.M, How to do the History of Homosexuality (2002), Halperin, D.M., Winkler, J.J., and Zeitlin, F.I., eds, Before sexuality (1990)
C.Hindley/D.Cohen, `Law, Society and Homosexuality in classical Athens', a Debate', Past and Present 133 (1991) 167ff.
Hindley C. (1999), 'Xenophon on Male Love', CQ 49, 74-99
Hubbard T.K. (1998), Popular Perceptions of Elite Homosexuality in Classical Athens’, Arion 6, 48-78.
Hubbart T, Greek and Roman Homosexuality: a sourcebook
Sergent, B., Homosexuality in Greek myth (1987)
Williams, C.A., Roman homosexuality (1999)
Winkler, J.J., The constraints of desire (1990)

as far as the greek practice, i believe it was called pederasty. it's modern definition is a criminal one as it involves sex btwn a man and boy, but it's historical context is not. this is off the web http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/words/pederasty.htm

Thanks for the bibliography, maybe in three years we can discuss those books (after we both have read them) however since they are just titles they do little to contribute to this discussion.

However, that website appears to be describing a seminar on homosexuality in ancient times and does not say that it did or did not occur or in what manner.



A: General conceptual issues: How has the our thinking about ancient ‘homosexuality’ been changed since the 1970s. by the work of Dover, Foucault and others? Are ideas of sexuality, ‘heterosexuality’ and ‘homosexuality’ all ‘social constructs’ with complex histories (‘constructionalism’), or have homosexuality and homosexuals always existed in all societies (‘essentialism’). Is it proper to use the term `homosexuality' at all in ancient contexts?

It appears that they were discussing the issue and offers no conclusion or any judgement as to right or wrong and again it contributes little to the discussion.

 

[crow]

Crow,

You seem to be making some valid points (I need to think on them a bit), but your use of profanity does you a diservice.

Please do not use the swear words in your posts, it makes you come off just as bad as the other intolerant idiots.

Thanks.

Okay. I have a cussing problem I do it too much, but then again.. a lot of the posts I've been reading on this thread are more profane to me than any string of cusswords I could ever formulate. I wouldn't submit my thoughts in this form if this were a research paper, but it ain't. It's a fucking forum.

 

[Shotline]

If it were a "fucking" forum, we wouldn't be talking about gay marrieage.

 

[crow]

Dude, I thought you read the bible. Even I don't, and here are some my favourite verses:

Proverbs 13:24
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Proverbs 22:15
Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13
Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die.
(the author of Proverbs was mistaken - children can and have been beaten to death with rods)
Ecclesiasticus 22:6
Lecturing your children can sometimes be as out of place as singing to people in morning, but a whipping is a wise choice of discipline at any time.
Ecclesiasticus 30:11
Don't give him [your son] freedom while he is young, and don't overlook what he does wrong. Whip him while he is still a child, and make him respect your authority.


Exodus 21:15 (supposedly spoken by God to Moses)
And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.
Exodus 21:17 (supposedly spoken by God to Moses)
And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9 (supposedly spoken by God to Moses)
For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21(supposedly spoken by God to Moses)
If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.
Matthew 15:4-7 (Jesus himself speaking)
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

This is getting too long. Take a gander at this. http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm Oh, here's one of my favourites: Genesis 19: The men of Sodom gathered around Lot's house, and asked that he bring his two guests out so that the men can "know" them. This in frequently interpreted as a desire to gang rape the visitors, although other interpretations are possible. Lot offers his two virgin daughters to be raped instead. Yet, even after this despicable act, Lot is still regarded as an honorable man, worth saving from the destruction of the city. Allowing one's daughters to be sexually assaulted by multiple rapists appears to be treated as a minor transgression, because of the low status of the young women.

I like how my search on google for "bible beating children" came up with sites named "Godly Tips on How To Punish and Beat Your Christian Child" and "Beating Children Saves Lives" Like I said, what you're following is your interpretation of the bible.

 

[msa]

...

what you're following is your interpretation of the bible.

ya two peoples interpretation

two peoples idea of the bible


If you are going to use a article make sure you use all of it. THis was two peoples interpretation of versus in the bible.

You can step down now

 

[girish]

Re: ...

The bible is silent about it because God did not create it.

I am still wondering if anyone can answer this question.

Do you really think that since the creation of man that God intended for a MAN and a MAN or a WOMAN and a WOMAN to be married under god? or even in a civil union? This is a question for the Red diaper doper baby Left Wing Liberals and please give a honest answer.

We went through this thing already.... Seperation of Church and State. The minute you say.. "God intended", the argument is throw out of court. Please re-ask your question without god in it.


edit: and another thing...
"The Roman empire fell due to lack of morals. If it was so accepted then why is the Roman society non existent."

I failed to see the connection of the fall of roman empire, the morals and Homosexuality. Homosexual people do have morals, the are just different than the ones you might hold.

 

[msa]

..

Homosexual people do have morals, the are just different than the ones you might hold.

that is the funniest thing I have heard ever

 

[girish]

Re: ..

that is the funniest thing I have heard ever

Was that along with "Black people have morals too"?

 

[msa]

...

typical liberal response....dont try and throw the race card...like you libs always do.....stick to the discussion

 

[girish]

Re: ...

typical liberal response....dont try and throw the race card...like you libs always do.....stick to the discussion

Dude, you just laughed at my statement, I cannot believe people in this day and age, after all these lessons in history can be so obtuse. You don't think homosexuals are people? Or are you one of those people who thing that Homosexuality is just a "phase" or a "rebellious" thing that people do just to get attention or something? I'm trying to figure out if you actually believe in homosexuality exists or not.

edit: About the race card, it works here, because it's TRUE. People did think that a couple decades ago.

 

[Nahullo]

I skipped to the last page… Is this thread about gay marriage or bible interpretations? Yeah, I have to go back and read them but here’s my thought (on the original issue – gay marriage) – hopefully, I’m not repeating anything…

If you do not believe in gay marriage do not engage in it. Frankly, finding one person you can spend the rest of your life with is tough enough – lets try to let people figure out whom they should be with on their own.

There are economic, legal, and social advantages to marriage. The idea that “any religion” is used to prevent anyone from marring is repulsive to me – If you want that type of religious state, go hang with the Taliban.

What does your sexual preference (or disposition – whatever) have to do with morals? As long as the people are consenting adults, who are you to say “Verboten!” ?

 

[msa]

...

I know they exist...I have to watch it on TV every day.

I dont go out and flaunt my sexuality to others. I dont need to show that I am a man that loves a women.

Yet homosexuals have to cram there sexuality down everyones throat.

I laughed because it was funny in every since of the word homosexuality is immoral by many standards of life.

 

[Nahullo]

I have (on a daily, weekly, monthly, etc.) basis a lot of things that will take up the 350,632 or so hours of life I have left. Worrying about two people, of the same sex, engaged in their pleasures is not one of them.

I’m not sure about the flaunting issue, I have lived in SF three times over the last 16 years and excluding the Gay Pride Parade; I’m not too sure what you mean by “flaunting”. Yeah, there is a TV show (maybe two) that features gay couples and occasionally you actually see two men or women kissing in public. But this still does not seem like flaunting to me. You don’t have to watch these shows – use the remote… Could you give some other examples of the flaunting…

I would say there are, perhaps, as many standards of life, which do not consider homosexuality immoral. That is if you consider immoral to be Wicked; sinful; criminal; vicious; unjust; dishonest; depraved; impure; unchaste; profligate; dissolute; abandoned; licentious; lewd; obscene.

edit: Oh yeah, I was eating at Delphina's (sp?) during the Lesbian Parade one year and the flaunting was fantastic! (said the heterosexual cynical new age guy)

 

[Eisernkreuz]

Re: ...

Yet homosexuals have to cram there sexuality down everyones throat.

It's a big part of who they are, and a big part of their life. People who feel strongly about something tend to talk about it. Vietnam vets tend to talk about Charlie and their battles, self-absorbed bikers tend to talk about their motorcycles, and I'm sure if you had to live through some adversity that affects your life every day, you would discuss it, too. I'm sure most gay people would rather not deal with the bullshit they have to put up with.