Fellas, gals, you've got to admit that this country's debate about same-sex marriages is pretty civil, though some feathers obviously get ruffled. I'd like to recall September 11 with you all, in connection with this subject. The civil and legal protections our society affords to homosexuals is one of the reasons Islamic Jihadists believe they have a divine right to destroy us.

In reply to:

---

“This sin, the impact of which makes one’s skin crawl, which words cannot describe, is evidence of perverted instincts, total collapse of shame and honor, and extreme filthiness of character and soul… The heavens, the Earth and the mountains tremble from the impact of this sin. The angels shudder as they anticipate the punishment of Allah to descend upon the people who commit this indescribable sin.” (1)

There are many sins in Islam that may fit this description, from idolatry, atheism, and apostasy, to drunkenness, adultery, and questioning the divine origin of the Koran. In this particular instance it refers to homosexuality, for which a death sentence remains on the statute books and is enforced in several Islamic countries.

In Saudi Arabia on April 16, 2001, five homosexuals were sentenced to 2,600 lashes and 6 years in prison, and four others to 2,400 lashes and 5 years’ imprisonment for “deviant sexual behavior.” Amnesty International subsequently reported that six men were executed on charges of deviant sexual behavior, some of which were related to their sexual orientation, but it was uncertain whether the six men who were executed were among the nine who were sentenced to flogging and imprisonment in April (2).

It is difficult to establish precisely the number of homosexuals that have been executed in Iran since the Islamic revolution in 1979, since not all sentences are widely publicized, but estimates range from several hundred to 4,000 (3). According to Amnesty International, at least three homosexual men and two lesbians were publicly beheaded in January 1990. The Islamic Penal Law Against Homosexuals, approved in July 1991 and ratified in November of that year, is simple. Article 110: “Punishment for sodomy is killing; the Sharia judge decides on how to carry out the killing.” Article 129: “Punishment for lesbianism is one hundred (100) lashes for each party.” Article 131: “If the act of lesbianism is repeated three times and punishment is enforced each time, the death sentence will be issued the fourth time.”

While the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, it regularly executed homosexuals. Islamic jurists in Kabul and Kandahar only differed on the method of killing. One group of scholars believed the condemned should be taken to the top of the highest building in the city and hurled to their deaths, while others advocated placing them in a pit next to a wall which was to be toppled on them, so that they are buried alive. Both methods were solidly grounded in authoritative tradition, and both were applied. At least five men convicted of sodomy by Afghanistan’s sharia courts had been “placed next to walls by Taliban officials and then buried under the rubble as the walls were toppled upon them.” In one such incident, three homosexuals were punished thus while Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar watched along with thousands of spectators. After the 30-minute waiting period, the three men were still alive, but two died the next day. What became of the third is unknown

---

Don't we all agree that there's a world of difference between arguing about whether civil unions or marriage is appropriate for homosexual relationships, as opposed to arguing whether the proper means of execution is beheading, the piling of stones or stoning to death?

2x6 - I have been waiting for SOMEONE to point out what the world of Islam thinks of homosexuality... Thank you !

By the way... What I approached in my last post was the idea of making our entire society more free, rather than to make more laws...

PM... I really think your heart is in the right place... so rather than try to anger you.. I have been trying to put some of your points into perspective...

Example - You questioned me wondering id "ALL INSURANCE SHOULD BE OUTLAWED BECAUSE THERE IS FRAUD?" ... Because there is fraud, there are those hired to prevent fraud. Insurance fraud is a CRIME... You can go to jail...

So... let's say a couple of guys DO get married fraudulently, do we now need a "Gay Fraud" investgative source ? And if they turn out to be straight, do was charge them with Fraud ? I am thinking of Don Knot's character in "Three's Company" as the lead on this... ... I think he was Mr. Farley...

OR ... If we simplified all this BS in our current laws, and recognized that people should keep at least 75 % of what they earn, whether gay OR straight, regardless with WHOM they live, we would ALL be better off.

In reply to:

---

Are you suggesting that all the single guys you employ are going to "marry" their buddies to get them benefits?

---

Actually, I would. If my best friend, who happens not to have insurance, needed care badly enough, I would. No one would ever know that I weren't having an actual relationship with him. All I'd need to do is let him use my spare bedroom and mailing address for a while.

I could deal with the embarrasment of having people at work think I was gay if I were saving his life in the process. I love him like a brother.

In reply to:

---

Michael, your extrapolations don't work at all. Peeing on someone else's property, breaking and entering, and car jacking all violate the rights of others. Gay marriage does not infringe on anyone else's rights (beat me to it, Turbodog). And frankly, comparing gay marriage to such criminal activities as car jacking and breaking and entering is more than a little offensive.

---

I'm sorry that you're feelings are hurt. However, I stand by my position that being gay is just flat out abnormal. There is a problem. We should try to cure it rather than accomodate it. It's OK for 2 guys to love each other, but the physical consumation of that love requires the improper use of the anatomy that they were given. If we allow it to be considered normal, then we are propogating the problem, not addressing it in a corrective fashion. One of the basic human instincts is the subconscience need to procreate. In gay humans, this instinct is present, but the basic "instructions" that cause males to gravitate towards females (and vice versa) to accomplish the propagation of the species are just screwed up. If all humans were gay, the species would be extinct in just one generation. So how in the world can anyone say scientifically say that something is not defective in a gay human? It's just common sense that there is a malfunction somewhere.

Considering this behavior "normal" could possibly affect the proper development of what otherwise might be normal children. Keep it hidden from children less than 16, and make sure that none of my hard earned money is stolen from me and given to someone who may or may not be scamming the system, and I'm fine with it. You can put whatever you want into wherever you want, on whoever you want, just do it in private and keep it away from the little ones. If they have the problem, they will eventually figure it out on their own.

Quite frankly, I have been offended that my views, which correlate with what have been considered "social norms" for thousands of years, are said to be offensive by anyone. My advice to you. Get used to it. After a while, you get numb to being offended. I'm sick and tired of being offended. I've just stopped being quiet about it. As this issue gets ramrodded down people's throats, you're gonna see more and more people put their foot down. So yes, my extrapolations do work. From my point of view, marrying 2 men, or 2 women is just as bad as stealing someones's car at gunpoint. Both are equally wrong.

Craig - Breath deeply. First of all, I reread my post and I realize now that one could infer that I was calling you ignorant, fearful and hateful. Truthfully, that was not my intention. It's a fuzzy line, I agree, but I truly was really talking in a historical context. My intention was only to draw a similarity between what I perceived to be your argument and those made in the past in darker times.

So, for this I do apologize. It was not remotely my intention to offend you like that.

Now, to address some of your points.

I was not saying that it was ever illegal for blacks to marry. I was asking if they should be allowed to. They're a minority who have suffered greatly under policies allowed by our government in the past. Using the same logic, one could spew some racist sentiments that they would be more inclined to cheat the system (THIS IS JUST TO MAKE MY POINT - NOT MY THOUGHTS), so should we allow the government to distcriminate against them because of some perceived benefit to white people? You may not want to draw this comparison, but it's the same tune we're hearing here.

In your obvious frustration with my comments, you blasted me for missing some of your original points. To be sure, I went back through your original text and I think that it is a bit less clear than you might have thought. I did see that you clarified that the dictionary is only a reflection of the times, but you followed it by a seemingly harshly emphasized statement that the definition in the book doesn't mention same-sex marriage. This alone led me to believe that your point was the standard conservative stance that the definition of marriage in the dictionary somehow should be treated as a dictate to not allow same-sex marriage. Then, your statements following that talked of a position that government should not be involved in marriage in any way. Based on those two sentances on their own, it's easy to see how I inferred that your point was to assert that this issue should remain under the church's domain and not the governments....again, one could infer that this was another religious-based argument for leaving marriage as it is framed in the bible and not even entertaining the idea of modification.

Now, onto the latter part of your post and your subsequent posts....

After reading your post and the subsequent posts, I think I am beginning to realize that your position is that this problem can be solved by revamping the existing laws. To this I partially agree with you. Your proposed positions are a good step forward. However, you are missing the point here.

All of those things will remedy some of the issues and concerns, but they don't address the core problem. Our existing laws discriminate against gay people. No matter how you sugar-coat it, those arguing for leaving marriage laws as they are are advocating discrimination. So, yes, you are right, I truly hope that no one ever gives me a valid, cogent, and persuasive argument against giving gays the same rights as heteros. However, I will never stick my head in the sand to avoid listening to anyone's arguments. I never blindly hold any belief without constantly reevaluating and modifying as I learn more and gain more insight. Therefore, your assertion that I don't want to hear opposing views and will not allow my positions to be swayed are off the mark.

In closing, Craig, let me say something without trying to sound too condescending....you should try and slow down in your posts. Sometimes you jump around too quickly, which leaves out some details and leaves the door open for misinterpretation.

Oh yah....to address your question...yes, I wanted to make sure that it was answered by more than one person ....I also agree with PM about this, one's race, gender, and sexual orientation should be inconsequential to the rule of law. Government is here to protect the rights of all of it's citizens, regarless of these differences.

BigWill - I speak of gay marriage only in the sense of government and the law. I do not care about this issue in the context of religion, as it is not pertinent to the issue of law. Whether or not the church's accept gay marriage is between the church and it's parishoners (spelling?). I am arguing solely based upon the legal benefits and standing of the present status of "married".

Craig - Again, I apologize for ruffling feathers here. I respect everyone's opinions here....on both sides of any issue (except those that support Kerry ) If I truly wanted to call you an ignorant hateful idiot, I would have said so directly in my post. I may live in the south, but I'm from New England where we tell it like it is.

Peace Brother.

I'm going to try to respond to you in a civil manner.

In reply to:

---

being gay is just flat out abnormal.

---

If by abnormal, you mean the majority of the population is not gay, then I agree with you.

In reply to:

---

but the physical consumation of that love requires the improper use of the anatomy that they were given

---

I certainly hope you frown upon oral sex.

In reply to:

---

So how in the world can anyone say scientifically say that something is not defective in a gay human?

---

If all humans were gay, then it would be a defect, yes. Are all humans gay? Are we at risk of becoming extict? Use your head, not your gut.

In reply to:

---

From my point of view, marrying 2 men, or 2 women is just as bad as stealing someones's car at gunpoint. Both are equally wrong.

---

Ok, but WHY is it wrong, other than the fact that you find it disgusting?

Human beings have evolved to a point where genetic are not a determinant factor for behavior. Who the hell cares if a penis was designed to go only one place. Humans have great imaginations, expecially where sex is concerned. Who are YOU to tell people how to act. You certainly have a right to be offended, I'll give you that.

How does a homosexual union infringe on YOUR rights?

Michael_A - WOW....It must be comforting to live in a world that is so black and white.

Let's try to test your position a bit. Let's go ahead and assume for argument's sake that homosexuality is indeed an abnormality in the human makeup....some difference in hormonal development....whatever. Would this not put them in the same situation as dwarfs?...or perhaps albinos? Both arguably do not fit the logical progression of evolution. So, if we are assuming that gays are a genetic abnormality, they they are in the same boat as dwarfs and albinos. I am assuming by your arguments that you are opposed to granting gays marital standing in they eyes of the law. Then, logically, we have to assume that you are against allowing dwarfs and albinos to get married. Is this the case? If not, then there is potentially a flaw in your position.

In the end, you can stand on the pulpit, pound your fists, and scream that gays are abhorent...whatever you want to do...it's your right....but you still can't justify discriminating against them. They are citizens of the United States and deserve the same protections that you and I enjoy.

By the way, you seem pretty angry about this. How do you think that gay man feels who can't stay overnight in the hospital with his partner of 20 years?

"How does a homosexual union infringe on YOUR rights?"

PM - That's the million-dollar question.

Turbo - You think I am not clear sometimes... then feel free to ask me to clarify. I will be happy to oblige....

As for changing laws... Perhaps this will help make a point.

In 1900, If two men wanted to live together in a "civil union", all they needed to do was move in together. period.

There were no Social Security taxes to pay, no income taxes, either. Nor were there any estate taxes. As the government has grown, rights have been taken away. In the case of marriage, the government says a man and woman being married is good. They give a small tax break. The government says a marriage between two men is bad. Whoops ! ... no tax break.

I say, If they were not confiscating as much money as they currently are, they would not have this POWER to micro-manage.

My point is this: take away all these government controls on our lives, and none of this stuff matters.

In the example above, let's say the gay couple managed to save $1,000,000. NOW let's say that they were both old, and wanted to give all but $10,000 to relatives, they could in 1910.

Today, that would be illegal. Really... look it up. If you, in today's world, had $100,000,000... and wanted to give it away, you are going to be taxed on doing so... even though you paid taxes on the money when you earned it.

In the meantime, the government discriminates against ALL sorts of people. In our current method of government.... the following occurs regularly:

1. Some people are taxed $1 for making $100, others are taxed $40, while another is given a credit of $10.

2. Some people pay into Social Security for 45 years, and never get a dime back out. Others pay nothing, yet get hundreds of thousands.

3. Some people get higher education paid for by using taxpayer moneys, while others must foot his/her own bill.

4. My small business pays a far higher tax burden on income than does General Electric.

I could type for hours... but to summarize, since 1787, the US Government has taken away freedoms. Each new law takes more of our freedom. The solution to this is not MORE laws, it is repealing current laws...

In reply to:

---

could type for hours... but to summarize, since 1787, the US Government has taken away freedoms. Each new law takes more of our freedom. The solution to this is not MORE laws, it is repealing current laws...

---

I'm with you 99.3% on this. I reserve the .7% as a safety net for future disagreements.