http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18287945/

Two Catholics with differing views. No surprise, I like Dodd better.
Here's a quote by Brownback that helps illustrate why the religious right irks me:
Huh? What people say that? Who the #$%@ is he talking about?
You might complain that people feel less special when their institutions are shared with the "profane"... but are they actually so lame and weak as to feel their own use of those institutions is meaningless? I doubt it.
Otherwise wouldn't they be so sick to death that my wife and I, both agnostics, are married? What an abomination! Kills the whole sacrament!
Anybody feel that their marriage is meaningless now? Didn't think so. We'll move on.
They both seem to agree that the war is going to require compromise between partisan hacks.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

It's a moot point, JB - Neither can legally be elected. According to Rosie O'Donnell, Catholics in government are a big violation of Church and State...
http://newsbusters.org/node/12157
Good thing no one found out about JFK. Why, such a thing would be as unheard of as "fire melting steel"...

__________________
One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings. --Diogenes

People actually did argue something like that in Kennedy's day. They feared he would take orders from the Pope and subvert America to the Vatican.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

Well for one...it’d be appropriate to note that the defense of marriage is not grounded on this one concept. There are many other religious and secular reasons for not changing the definition of marriage (for the first time in civilization), and can be found in the Gay & Lesbian Rights Forum.

For two, a lot of people say that. He is probably talking about people he knows and people he’s met on the campaign trail.

It’s not the matter of “sharing with the profane” it’s a matter of redefining it. Marriage has always been between one man and one woman since its existence....you start swapping around the words in its definition and it begins to lose meaning.

(all hypotheticals of course)
Recently married Couple A has past their 2yr Anniversary mark and still feels the marriage has 100% of its meaning. Then their government decided to allow men to marry post-pubescent girls, and Couple A might feel that their marriage lost a little meaning and is around 90%. Then their government decides to allow siblings to marry, and Couple A is disgusted by incest and feels their marriage only has 75% of the meaning it had on their wedding day. Then their government decides to allow homosexuals to marry, and Couple A’s meaning drops to 65%. Then their government allows polygamy, and Couple A’s meaning of their marriage is hardly recognized.

Recently married Couple B has past their 2yr Anniversary mark and still feels the marriage has 100% of its meaning. Then their government decides to allow homosexuals to marry, and Couple B’s meaning drops to 55%. Then their government allows polygamy, and Couple B’s meaning of their marriage is hardly felt.

Recently married Couple C has past their 2yr Anniversary mark and still feels the marriage has 100% of its meaning and anything the government does will not affect it.

Whether or not all couples think definition of marriage affects their marriage shouldn’t matter. It is a big concern for a great majority (at least the vast majority I’ve known) of them, but obviously its not a blanket generalization.

What I find most interesting is you’re saying: “Look at Couple’s A & B!!! By golly their nuts! Getting their feelings hurt and saying their marriage doesn’t mean anything because it’s no longer defined by its bigoted, sexist, homophobic traditional definition of one man and one woman.”

...but then you look a tiny minority of homosexual couples who actually want to marry...and claim: “Screw what couples like A & B think, these poor homosexuals want to marry and we should let them...”

...and then you call yourselves Progressive and the Right’s support for a societal definition that dates allllllllllll the way back to the founding of Western Civilization and still manage to claim...”You’re Extremeists”!!!



Some are just uneasy about the proper Titles and Economics. As I’ve said on other threads before, I support traditional marriages 100%, but I would be okay with States allowing homosexual couples to receive State Side economic breaks and handouts.

__________________
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

The Solution for Illegal Immigrants (Gray areas discussed throughout the thread)

Actually, he's right. It's called the art of perversion. Yup. You've successfully convinced me you are not a man of Principle. Is it just my imagination or are you drifting more to the left lately?

__________________
I'll never Forget. To pull You Closer is to Pull You Down. Ignorence can be an envy. Applaud us as the old American Power goes quietly into the night.

Please show me how gay marriage could possibly harm anyone. I don't care whether you think it is perverse or not (though to be honest, I continue to suspect that you are a liberal who is trolling). Please show me how the legal recognition of two men or two women marrying could make a victim of anyone. If you cannot (and no anti-gay activist ever has), then you are free to hold and express your opinions about homosexuality and homosexuals are free to marry.

Coming from you, that is the ultimate compliment.

JavaBlack has long been on the Left, but as is the case with MerlinX, who is on the Right, I take all of his views into consideration because he is intelligent and thinks for himself.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Thank God. I was starting to think I was drifting too far to the right and ruining the whole balance of power here!
I've always been liberal with a streak of fiscal moderate-conservatism (or what they call that since socialism became mainstream liberalism) and a distance from the really really weak liberal ideas that irk me. Lately I've been complaining so much about weak liberal ideals and socialism that I thought I was getting too conservative.
Now I feel better!

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I understand what he's saying. It's not because one gay person gets married that one hetero couple feels their marriage is less. If the sanctity of marriage is violated then the entire definition and meaning of marriage in society is lessened. And yep divorce, infideility, etc have cheapened marriage. That is a poor and illogical argument for adding something else that will cheapen marriage even more. It's like having your kids come up to you and say it's ok to throw a rock through someone's window simply because his or her sibling got away with something worse.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

Gay marriage is only an abomination of marriage for Christians. I do not feel threatened by gay people getting married. I see it as a sign of their willingness to engage in responsible monogamy and commitment. Promiscuity and irresponsibility disgust me, not gay people. The more people who are responsible the better. What hurts my view of marriage is the divorce rate because that is a clear indication that marriage is reversible and often entered into lightly. So long as a gay couple does not enter in lightly, I do not see how it is an offense to marriage. The reaction against gay marriage is not over the responsibility marriage entails... but over a certain visceral disgust and exclusivism. I say the more people who wish to live in responsible monogamy and commitment and are willing to sign for it- the better and stronger our society.
An offense to marriage? How about these %#@% "promise rings" these kids have today. What the $#$^^ are those? They're "kinda engagement" rings... "I'll marry you maybe some day if I feel like it unless someone better comes along." This is the attitude young people have about marriage.
If gay people are willing to step up and get committed to one person for life and willing to put it on the line... then I feel they will strengthen marriage.

The gay marriage claim made by Brownback is that gay people getting married will hurt marriage. I don't see it. And I never see a reason for government saving traition. Tradition is made by the people as a group of individuals. It is supposed to gradually change according to the way people slowly take it. I'll even concede that these kids and their "promise rings (what exactly is their definition of "promise" anyway?)" are not something government should crack down on.
Marriage has begun to mean nothing because promiscuity is rampant and people are way too selfish and uncompromising to make the sacrifices necessary for marriage. I believe what marriage needs as an institution is more people willing to be monogamous and compromising and RESPONSIBLE.
The stereotyping of gays is what removes them from this. Gays are stereotyped as promiscuous, irresponsible, and selfish. I do not believe stereotypes should get in the way of the ones, even if few, who defy them. Otherwise I'd suggest none of us are good enough for marriage. #$#^#$ it! All of us are destroying marriage. Just look at the huge percentage of straight people in bad marriages and divorces and promiscuous relations!
We should exclude everyone because we are just not worthy.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

...and for American Patriots who pay attention to European trends...

Well you’re not addressing the issue: the issue isn’t “how do you feel towards gay people” it’s “what would be best for America”.

That’s quite a statement, so all the homosexual marriage propositions that continue to be rejected by the voters are only rejected because the American majority is disgusted with gays? Nonsense.

A correct generalization would be that the vast majority of traditional marriage supporters are friendly to gays at the personal level, only a tiny percentage I’m guessing (since I don’t know any) would be disgusted by them.

The average American is apparently capable of not voting with their emotions and feelings, but instead for what is best for America. Only the “enlightened” ones think that if it feels good....do it....not only “do it” but form American policy on it.

Funny you step back from the typical “it’s a civil rights issue and people shouldn’t vote on it” to allowing the “tradition made by the people as a group”...since you can then realize that “the people as a group” have already denied homosexual marriage...many....many times.

“Gradually change according to the way people slowly take it” is basically saying let any “tiny” minority pressure group continue lobbying in our government until they become a “small” minority pressure group...and now that it’s “small” and not “tiny” the people are slowly starting to take it.....let’s just push it into law and shove it down their throats.

Just because people die in car crashes doesn’t mean they shouldn’t drive cars. You just find ways to drive more carefully and continue to add safety precautions. With divorce and marriage, people haven’t stopped getting married because of the divorce rates, they just marry more carefully and look more at the character of their partner.

Yes promoting the things you mentioned: monogamy, compromise, responsibility, etc. will help any and every marriage. But it’s foolish to say: “Well people are dieing in car accidents, let’s add dune buggys to the road and see if it helps.” “People are getting divorces in heterosexual marriages, let’s add homosexual marriages and see if it helps.”

__________________
"A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away."

The Solution for Illegal Immigrants (Gray areas discussed throughout the thread)