Will gay marriage be a major issue in the 2008 presidential election?

[Torie]

How would civil unions end this issue where the government is still explicitly identifying one type of relationship as "superior"?

So you're not even happy with extending every other marriage benefit to gays? Unbelievable. It's not a matter of "superiority."

What is it a matter of? The "game" of capture the word?  Why is that important?  Some say it is important precisely because it does serve as a little dig at "the other." If it is not that, than what is it?

[Torie]

I am not sure you have answered my question. If all substance has been drained out of the matter, other than the use of the word "marriage," as nomenclature that is used in the civil law, why is that so important? Tradition? And why if that is the case, why should that in and of itself be the policy trump card here?

[Torie]

Give it 10 or so years and the debate will be civil unions vs gay marriage.

Civil unions are pretty accepted now, although the issue of extending federal benefits to those bound by a "mere" civil union, will be a firefight. But that is not Phil's point here. He's "conceding" the fiscal issue. It is the use of the term, in and of itself, without more.

[Torie]

So the thing is that the term "marriage" has religious overtones, that the civil law should not "degrade," by making the term more inclusive, is that it? Actually, if that is  your argument, I think the way I stated it, states your case the best. That is why folks pay me the big bucks! Best.

[Torie]

What I meant Phil, is the possible fear that the use of the term "marriage" in the civil sphere for gay unions, might be viewed as degrading it in the sacred sphere, as one leaches into the other. Does that make any sense?

No, I don't share that concern, but perhaps it is yours. The core of your concern remains veiled to me.  Maybe I am just being obtuse.

[Torie]

Phil I know what you want, I just don't know why. I don't understand what fuels your concern as to the terminology used in the civil law. I don't mean to corner you, or embarrass you, I just can't get my mind around the ultimate wellspring of your public  policy views here. Maybe you need to think it through a bit more. Even when you get as old as I am, you will find, that on so many issues, more thought is required, and even then, one will be stalked by uncertainty. It comes with the territory.

[Torie]

I did not mean to be condescending, Phil. Sorry. In fact, I persisted, precisely because I do respect you, and your points of view. I still don't understand the why however. Have a good evening.

[Torie]

How about lesbians who "reproduce?" Of gays who adopt? They might not be "reproducing" literally, but they are shaping a young person into an adult, the most awesome responsibility that one assumes on this mortal coil. I think this is a very weak ground on which to tread really.

[Torie]

frankly encouraging gays to stay in the closet and have no acceptable position in the community has led to some real tragedies there.

The ignorance of the masses when it comes to "the Church" (Roman Catholic Church) and the role of gays is almost sickening. No one is encouraged to stay in the closet.

Just chaste right?

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, look at the bright side, it could be worse. You could live in Saudi and get stoned to death, or in Iran, which according to the its President, has no gays, which has a certain ominous sound to it, doesn't it?

Phil, I have read in a variety of places, that about 50% of Catholic priests are gay, although some of those obviously are celibate. That is also a figure Andrew Greeley uses, and one a serious Catholic who knows a lot about Church affairs on another forum I participate in, also thinks is about right. What do you think the percentage it?

[Torie]

Phil, I have read in a variety of places, that about 50% of Catholic priests are gay, although some of those obviously are celibate. That is also a figure Andrew Greeley uses, and one a serious Catholic who knows a lot about Church affairs on another forum I participate in, also thinks is about right. What do you think the percentage it?

And how is that information gathered?

I don't know. I could inquire if you are interested. Obviously, it must be some sort of guesstimate, unless Rasmussen has done a poll or something.

[Torie]

That's very good VB; very well written and composed.

Here is my little query for those who at once believe in the existence of a loving God, and that one of "His" laws is sex only for married dual gender couples (words deliberately chosen, since I assume sex is OK for a gay and a lesbian who are married to each other).  Assuming some are indeed born gay, as a hard wired predisposition, and yet are "burning with passion," just why would a loving God consign them to a life of unhappiness and alienation by virtue of having to obey "His"  stricture of celibacy? 

[Torie]

VB stated: What would I say to a gay Christian?  I would say, stop sinning.  Everyone struggles with sin, some more than others, but indulging in sodomy is a choice, just as being angry is a choice, eating to excess is a choice, and hitting someone is a choice.

Alcon stated: Coming against from my secular moralism, I see where you're coming from, but I will point out that all of your other examples are also wrong in the conventionally secular sense.

Alcon, the "wrong in the conventionally secular sense," confuses me a bit. Eating to excess, anger and pugilism (ah I was able to slip in that word again) are not sins in the "conventionally secular sense?" Maybe I am just being obtuse here to an obvious meaning.

[Torie]

JS responds to the query of "why would somebody choose to be thrown out of their home at age 15?", with the response "Because the gays are in control of the liberal, left-wing media...Hollyweird ... ."

Trying to to connect the dots over rather rugged terrain here, I guess the point you were making JS is that the omnipotent gays want 15 year olds to move out of the parents' home and into theirs.  How perspicacious of you!