or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › San Francisco Issuing Gay Marriages
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

San Francisco Issuing Gay Marriages - Page 5

post #121 of 134
Well, my intelligent reply was, "You need to listen to NPR more!"

Thanks for the responses. All good points for the next time.
post #122 of 134
This is a letter from Bette Midler to President Bush. I hear she handed copies of this letter out at a concert in her current tour. It is well-written and certainly timely and touching.

Dear President Bush,

Today you called upon Congress to move quickly to amend the US Constitution, and set in Federal stone a legal definition of marriage. I would like to know why.

In your speech, you stated that this Amendment would serve to protect marriage in America, which I must confess confuses me. Like you, I believe in the importance of marriage and I feel that we as a society take the institution far too lightly. In my circle of family, friends and acquaintances, the vast majority have married and divorced - some more than once. Still, I believe in marriage. I believe that there is something fundamental about finding another person on this planet with whom you want to build a life and family, and make a positive contribution to society. I believe that we need more positive role models for successful marriage in this country - something to counteract the images we get bombarded with in popular culture. When we are assaulted with images of celebrities of varying genres, be it actors, sports figures, socialites, or even politicians who shrug marriage on and off like the latest fashion, it is vitally important to the face of our nation, for our children and our future, that we have a balance of commitment and fidelity with which to stave off the negativity. I search for these examples to show my own daughter, so that she can see that marriage is more than a disposable whim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

As a father, I'm sure you have faced these same concerns and difficulties in raising your own daughters. Therefore I can also imagine that you must understand how thrilled I have been over the past few weeks to come home and turn on the news with my family. To finally have concrete examples of true commitment, honest love, and steadfast fidelity was such a relief and a joy. Instead of speaking in the hypothetical, I was finally able to point to these men and women, standing together for hours in the pouring rain, and tell my child that this is what its all about. Forget Britney. Forget Kobe. Forget Strom. Forget about all the people that we know who have taken so frivolously the pure and simple beauty of love and tarnished it so consistently. Look instead at the joy in the beautiful faces of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon - 51 years together! I mean, honestly Mr. President - how many couples do you know who are together for 51 years? I'm sure you agree that this love story provides a wonderful opportunity to teach our children about the true meaning and value of marriage. On the steps of San Francisco City Hall, rose petals and champagne, suits and veils, horns honking and elation in the streets; a celebration of love the likes of which this society has never seen.

This morning, however, my joy turned to sadness, my relief transformed into outrage, and my peace became anger. This morning, I watched you stand before this nation and belittle these women, the thousands who stood with them, and the countless millions who wish to follow them. How could you do that, Mr. President? How could you take something so beautiful - a clear and defining example of the true nature of commitment - and declare it to be anything less? What is it that validates your marriage which somehow doesn't apply to Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon? By what power, what authority are you so divinely imbued that you can stand before me and this nation and hold their love to a higher standard?

Don't speak to me about homosexuality, Mr. President. Don't tell me that the difference lies in the bedroom. I would never presume to ask you or your wife how it is you choose to physically express your love for one another, and I defy you to stand before Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon and ask them to do the same.! It is n one of my business, as it is none of yours, and it has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage". I'm sure you would agree that marriage is far more than sexual expression, and its high time we all started focusing on all the other aspects of a relationship which hold it together over the course of a lifetime. Therefore, with the mechanics of sex set aside, I ask you again - what makes a marriage? I firmly believe that whatever definition you derive, there are thousands upon thousands of shining examples for you to embrace.

You want to protect marriage. I admire and support that, Mr. President. Together, as a nation, let us find and celebrate examples of what a marriage should be. Together, let us take couples who embody the principles of commitment, fidelity, sacrifice and love, and hold them up before our children as role models for their own futures. Together, let us reinforce the concept that love is about far more than sex, despite what popular culture would like them to believe.

Please, for the sake of our children, for the sake of our society, for the sake of our future, do not take us down this road. Under the guise of protection, do not support divisiveness. Under the guise of unity, do not endorse discrimination. Under the guise of sanctity, do not devalue commitment. Under the guise of democracy, do not encourage this amendment.

Bette Midler
post #123 of 134
I think that is a beautiful letter.

Unfortunately, it is false.

post #124 of 134
post #125 of 134
For the self-righteous: vow to quit meddling
By Beth Quinn, in the Times Herald-Record

I was going to leave the gay marriage issue alone just to save myself some grief.

But then I thought, what fun would that be? Somebody's got to irritate the self-righteous folks who tell the rest of us how to live, and it might as well be me.

You know who you are, so get your writing implements ready because you'll want to damn me to hell by the time we're done here.

For me, there is one central question in the whole gay marriage controversy: What do you care?

What difference does it make in your own life if two gays or lesbians get married? It simply mystifies me that you feel threatened by this. What possible harm could it do in your personal, little life whether the two guys living at the end of your block say "I do"?

I keep hearing the same pat answer from your prophets of doom - that allowing homosexuals to marry will "destroy the institution of marriage."

Well I gotta' tell you, a lot of gays and lesbians have been getting married in San Francisco lately, and so far my own institution of marriage is doing just fine. I checked. When I heard they were lining up for licenses, I asked my husband if he felt our marriage was going downhill on account of it. He just ignored the question and wanted to know what kind of perennials I thought we should put in this spring. I took that as a good sign. Perennials are an investment in the future, so I figure he's sticking around despite what those homosexuals are doing.

So, self-righteous folks, I guess I'm wondering what's wrong with your own marriages that you feel so threatened by another couple's happiness. Are you unable to sustain a good sexual relationship knowing that two gay guys are sleeping together in wedded bliss? Are you unable to have an intimate conversation with your spouse because you're distracted by the notion of two women going off on a honeymoon?

Because if your marriage is that unstable, you should stop worrying about what others are doing and tend to your own problems before your divorce contributes to the decline of the institution of marriage.

I've given this a lot of thought, and I've completely failed to come up with ways that gay marriage will have an impact on your life. It won't raise your taxes. It won't cause the kid who shovels your driveway to quit. It won't make your laundry dingy. It won't alter the weather. It won't cause your dog to start passing gas. It won't affect your relationship with God. It won't cause you to develop a tumor on your head.

Those of you who would talk about grand concepts like society and institutions and pillars and guideposts and moral fibers and whatnot, I say this is just your excuse for meddling. And history has shown us that nothing good ever comes of meddling in other people's affairs. Every time Christians showed up to mess with heathens, for example, we just ended up with a lot of unhappy heathens with syphilis and smallpox.

Those of you who would point out that the dictionary definition of the word "marriage" involves a man and a woman, let me point out that the dictionary is a living, breathing document that changes as word usage changes. If you doubt it, look up the word "dot" in a current edition.

We the people get to decide what's in the dictionary. The dictionary doesn't get to dictate our societal conventions. Your hair isn't going to catch on fire if the definition of marriage is eventually changed to read, "two consenting adults" instead of "man and woman."

As for the Bible, which is always the last refuge for those of you who want to impose your will on us savages, we're not all reading out of the same book.

More fundamentally, the Bible is not a legal document. If it were, those who fail to love one another would be rounded up and thrown in jail. The prison budget would go through the roof what with all the new cells we'd be needing for the neighbor haters.

I have only this advice to offer those of you who oppose gay marriage: Don't marry a homosexual. If you're a man and you don't want to marry another man, for crying out loud, stick to your guns! That would be a terrible idea.You'd be miserable! Same for women. Marry someone of the opposite sex if that's your personal preference.

After all, no one's got the right to meddle in your private affairs.
post #126 of 134
That article is just perfect!

I love the statement about how the bible is not a legal document. Right on!
post #127 of 134
Who on earth would want to marry their own sibling?
post #128 of 134
This letter shows the fallacy on relying on the bible verbatim and using it against not just same-sex marriage but homosexuality.

I have copied and paste it here for you people:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
post #129 of 134
Thread Starter 
That's a mouth shutter!
post #130 of 134
I love that!!!
post #131 of 134
One thing you forgot is the new testament freed us of the old testament teachings.
post #132 of 134
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by hissy
One thing you forgot is the new testament freed us of the old testament teachings.
Dear sir,

I am sure you know that the new testament has freed us from the old testament teachings. However, jews do not seem to agree. How should they be punished?

Your devoted fan,
post #133 of 134
Thread Starter 
Folks, you remember when it was mentioned here about some of the arguments against gay marriages was that there can be no offspring and it was mentioned that then we might as well anull all the marriages of people who can't bear children.

Well, thinking about gay marriage laws, I decided to check Puerto Rico's civil code about Marriages.

In the first parragraph it defines marriage and expressly says that same sex marriages are outlawed and those made in other jurisdictions are not accepted here. (It was an amendment made in 1999).

However, it is in another parragraph that you gag. Listing as among the people who cannot marry it says: "Los que adolecieren de impotencia fÃ:censor:sica para la procreación." (Those who suffer of some phyisical impotence to procreate).

Now, you may think they are only talking about men with problems of impotence (The makers of Viagra have made themselves rich thanks of this). Now, first of all.... how many married people are out there who are facing such problem? And second... it is too loose the language. It just as easily apply to anyone who cannot procreate. Infertile people, etc.

I mean, this is outrageous! What on earth did those legislators had inside their minds? It's something that not even the most conservative state politician in the bible belt would conceive!

That law was made in 1930... and it still is the law of the Commonwealth regarding marriage... in what is technically U.S. soil.

Definitely, This is nut country.
post #134 of 134
I'm against gay marriage. I think that is something that should be between a man and a woman. I also think that we DO NOT NEED a constitutional amendment. I also think that there should be a way for gays to get equal rights for taxes and such,something like civil unions but give them equal rights the same as if they were married.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › San Francisco Issuing Gay Marriages