Clark in an interview with the gay magazine The Advocate published this month said 'Marriage is a term of art'...

Bush last night said we 'must defend the sanctity of marriage'.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004

Answers

Clark? Wesley Clark?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 21, 2004.

yep, Gen Clark.

Article is linked on the Drudge Report (didn't want to link that magazine here).

bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 21, 2004.

I wasn't happy with what he had to say on Nightline last night either. He weaseled around all over the place trying to say our brave servicepeople died in vain in Iraq without coming right out and saying it. That's a slap in the face to the family members left behind, and as a general he should be ashamed of himself.

We do need to defend the sanctity of marriage. As far as "domestic partners" and other euphemisms, I see it also as a way to extort and siphon off benefits (medical, etc.) for people who otherwise aren't entitled to them. If someone can just "shack up" and get good benefits from one party's employer, I should by rights be able to get benefits for my parents, grown siblings, or adult children--all of whom have more "rights" to those benefits than some stranger.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 21, 2004.

I would even say , marriage is a signed contract !!

If one the 2 commits adultery , than that person is breaking the contract !!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 21, 2004.

GT, as a servicemember, i cant agree with you more about the insult dealt by all those leaders who are so boldly stupid as to look in retrospect and say "taking saddam down and peicemealing the al quaida was a bad thing" ESPECIALLY when some of said parties voted IN FAVOR of the actions. because i am a loyal citizen, i will serve whoever is commander in cheif, but to be honest, i would not be personally satisfied with someone who beleives that picking off a terrorist is not a praiseworthy act.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), January 22, 2004.

I would even say , marriage is a signed contract !! If one the 2 commits adultery , than that person is breaking the contract !!

Breaking, yes; just not rendering null & void.

-- jake (j@k.e), January 22, 2004.

We need to remember why marriage is important. It isn't just a contract between two adults, but it has been setup, may actually be in natural law, as a way to nurture children. We have found out lately, that on average, a husband and wife are the best people to raise a child. This really is not an issue about contracts or rights, this is an issue about kids.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

Bill, in one way I disagree. Isn't marriage more of a covenant?

Also, I take issue with saying that it is always in the best interest of the child to have parents who are married to each other raising them. If the parents are married in name only, the children might be better off brought up by someone who really does care. Just because one is married and can bear children doesn't automatically make them qualified to bring up children.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 22, 2004.

Bill, I did notice that you said "on the average"....." but taking into account that most Americans today don't think of marriage as a lifetime thing, I still stand by what I wrote earlier. I think that many American marriages are more on the dysfunctional side, sad to say.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), January 22, 2004.

Ok. So the Catholic Church beleives that homosexuality and gay marriage are immoral. That is their right; more power to them. But this is America, and our laws are not dictated by those of the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter. So where does the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT get off saying that THEY will now control the definition of marriage? Not only is it unconstitutional in that it uses religion to dictate civil law, but it also goes against the 9th Amendment, which states that all rights not specificaly given to the government are reserved for the people. And unless I'm mistaken, the Constitution does not give ANY part of the government the right to determine what constitutes a marriage and what doesn't.

Tell me, how does it hurt you? If two homosexuals love each other and want to get married, how does that hurt you, other than the fact that it violates YOUR idea of marriage?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

Isn't marriage more of a covenant?

Yes, one between a man a woman and God, but there are 2 reasons for marriage:
1) a union between a man and a woman
2) procreation and the nurturing of children

From the Catechism:
1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory." [GS 48 § 1; 50]

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 22, 2004.

Tell me, how does it hurt you? If two homosexuals love each other and want to get married, how does that hurt you, other than the fact that it violates YOUR idea of marriage?

It's obviously , it seems IT HAS TO BE: Mom & Dad & Kids , house & garden ??

Marriage is NOT BAD , but why some people get married ; knowing they can keep their hands of someone else ?? __ It will hurt their partner !! __ Also some people get married for the wrong reason !! __ Why ?? __ Like: Because of the BIG Money ??

btw: Lawyers , they kick on divorces , they can make a lot of money out of it !!

But get this: If there are kids involved , they are always THE victims ,'cause mom or dad must win that bloody war , no matter what , even using the kids as their playtoy !!!!

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 23, 2004.

''And unless I'm mistaken,'' [says antiBush] ''the Constitution does not give the government a right to determine what constitutes marriage and what doesn't. --Tell me, how does it hurt you? If two homosexuals love each other?''

Or if one homosexual makes love as he pleases, with eighty others? Or even if a heterosexual is promiscuous and has no spouse?

All are sinful, and have damnation coming. (Unless God is mistaken.)

Let's see clearly; a nation's constitution makes order of the people's will, and all laws should proceed from the constitutional rights of those people. Today we live under one law not given force by our Constitution. The right to abortions by the million, every year. The people were not consulted, and no legislature of our citizens gave anyone these ''rights''. It was the activist Court made a mockery of the constitution. But that's history.

Now another ''right' is rearing its head in the world; to add more shame and corruption to our nation's life. This is a right to come together as socially acceptable, righteous 'married spouses'' by licentious men and women. Licentious because they have no God-given rights to become husband and wife. This would be a misnomer and an insult to every true family.

Fortunately for America, our Constitution cuts both ways. We have recourse to constitutional marriage ammendment by law. --We the people; not a government. We the people and our moral principles doing lawful service to our country. If it's by law, you must respect it, anti-Bush. You have no squawk coming because homosexual love tickles your fancy. When the referendum is called, you will have a vote. Cast your vote for sin; as the depraved of this country surely all will. But you'll be out-voted by decent and religious people who do not accept some things socially, no matter how you dress them. You cannot put a white wedding gown on a man and a tuxedo on another one and call them married. It's not socially acceptable anywhere in the world. You must live with it, Pal.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

"Or if one homosexual makes love as he pleases, with eighty others? Or even if a heterosexual is promiscuous and has no spouse? "

That is probably the biggest argument against homosexuality and by far the most valid; that they tend to be more promiscuous. But consider this: wouldn't making marriage a possibility for them encourage them to put more effort into establishing long-term, committed relationships?

"All are sinful, and have damnation coming. (Unless God is mistaken.)"

That is your opinion, or that of your religion. No one is asking for the Roman Catholic Church to accept gay marriages. This is America. If you want, you can shout your displeasure with homosexuals from the rooftops. But our laws should not be based solely on the teachings of your religion.

" Today we live under one law not given force by our Constitution. The right to abortions by the million, every year. The people were not consulted, and no legislature of our citizens gave anyone these ''rights''. It was the activist Court made a mockery of the constitution. But that's history"

From a purely constitutional viewpoint, you couldn't be more wrong. The constitution (specificaly, the ninth amendment as quoted in my last post) clearly states that all rights not specificaly given to the government by the constitution shall be reserved for the idividual. The constitution says nothing that prohibits abortions. Therefore, it is the right of the people to have them if they so choose, however immoral you or I think they may be.

"Licentious because they have no God-given rights to become husband and wife. This would be a misnomer and an insult to every true family."

Again, that is the beleif of your religion. The fact is that under United States law these people are granted the same rights as heterosexuals. What kind of stuck-up, holier-than-thou family would be insulted just because some people they don't even know got married? I'd tell that family to chill out and get off their damn pedestal.

"We have recourse to constitutional marriage ammendment by law. -- We the people; not a government. We the people and our moral principles doing lawful service to our country. If it's by law, you must respect it, anti-Bush."

All talk, no action. Bush will pander to the conservatives with promises of a Constitutional ammendment, but he can't make it happen. It all comes down to Congress. I doubt it will happen any time soon. I think it would be a travesty. You conservatives tend to be for limited government, yet you are ready to hand over all control of morality to the federal government! Is that hyocracy or what?

"You have no squawk coming because homosexual love tickles your fancy."

Um...I hope that was a joke...you do know I'm not gay, right?

"Cast your vote for sin; as the depraved of this country surely all will. But you'll be out-voted by decent and religious people who do not accept some things socially, no matter how you dress them."

1) It wouldn't be my vote, it would be the vote of two-thirds of the Senate and the House (or something like that).

2)I can't vote yet.

3)I would be casting my vote for equality.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 23, 2004.

New York Times / CBS News 21 December 2003 Poll Results:

GAY MARRIAGE Favor 34% Oppose 61%

GAY CIVIL UNIONS Favor 39% Oppose 54%

VIEWS OF MEN & WOMEN

Civil Unions

Favor Men 35% Women 43%

Gay Marriage

Favor Men 30% Women 38%

Homosexual Relations

Legal Men 40% Women 43%

Looks like people don't want it in this country. The gay community doesnt want equality anyway they want acceptance. People of all faiths disapprove and are horrified with this behavior. Do they have any rights? We will see if this president has real faith and truly believes.

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 23, 2004.

--To anti-Bush:
Just wanted to have my say. I already knew you would fight back like an irritated swine.

You're correct about some things. Wrong on some other counts. Of course no secular government is forced to make laws according to MY wishes, or the Church's. God won't impose Himself. But we the people have every right to choose morality. The fact you aren't impressed is irrelevant. You have never impressed anybody here.

As for the President, we pray for him. He means well. You may pray for your candidate, anti-Bush. He won't mean well, being in your camp. This is the world; if it were Paradise, we wouldn't be dying.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 23, 2004.

Anti-Bush:
This is how an amendment is added to the Constitution of the United States:

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

The problem wiht Gay Marriage is, to restate, one of the fact that Marriage is always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, Homosexuality is no part in this.

It's not just a Church thing. ( Heck, I am not even CATHOLIC...)

See, the problem here is that you want, for the sake of a minority, want to destory an institution that is both time honoured and proven to uphold society.

Further, you claim to be for equality...problem is, Homosexual marriage ISNT aout equality. Upu claim it is, two people in ,ove shpudl be able to marry,a nd gay coples shoudl have equel rights... WRONG...

equel oportunities arent about opening oportunities for oeople that didn tpreviously existed, itsa giveing each INDIVIDUAL the SAME rights. Not couples. Not allowing Homosexual Marriage is NOT being discriminatory agaisnt Gays, its upholdign the current law and definition.

Gays CAN marry women, just as lesbians can marry men. They just cant marry each other.

This is, again, not inequality, its smpley NOT what the law provides.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF@JUNO.COM), January 24, 2004.

Ok, so they wouldn't be "marriages" in the traditional sense. Call them civil unions. Call them whatever the hell you want. The point is, committed homosexuals should have the same legal rights that committed heterosexuals do, such as being able to own property jointly, recieving tax benefits, and having access to each other's medical and other important records.

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

They already have the same rights. Marriage is for a man and woman. Man and man is an aberration. You desire another man? OK; just call it something else, not marriage. I know, you're not a homosexual. You're a liberal arguing the usual politically correct nonsense. What do you want here?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), January 24, 2004.

We already have rights for friends. You are asking for super rights if the friends happen to be of the same sex and engage in sin.

The reason we elevate the state of marriage is because of the children. This is an arguement that centers on if selfishness is as important as the nurturing of children.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45@hotmail.com), January 24, 2004.

"committed homosexuals should have the same legal rights that committed heterosexuals do, such as being able to own property jointly, recieving tax benefits, and having access to each other's medical and other important records"

A: Anyone can own property jointly. Anyone can make their personal records available to anyone else by simply signing a release form. Concerning tax benefits for married couples, the government allows this precisely because it recognizes that families are the basic unit of society, and that marriages are the principle means of maintaining that society by producing the next generation - something utterly irrelevant to the matter of homosexual unions.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), January 24, 2004.

Gays CAN marry women, just as lesbians can marry men.

Euh .... , that would be lying to eachother , and that would a very bad beginning for a marriage !!

They just cant marry each other.

So what , if they love eachother !! __ For most of the people , it's the picture they get to see , like when they are kissing eachother , they just don't like it , than they say , yakkeeeee !! __ Groupsex , no matter how , that's wrong , the same counts for paedophiles !! __ Oh yeah , I was yesterday on a concert , after while , I went to the toilet , and I saw 2 lesbians just kissing eachother (I did know them) , and outside the building , 2 gays , I don't care , it's none of our business !! __ Or would you try to stop them , and going to tell them , what they are doing is evil ??

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 25, 2004.

Laurent,

Are you trying to evangelize us? You have nothing to offer a Catholic but lies and moral relativism. Your way leads to destruction (literally) in this world and the next.

We as Catholics are so upset about this issue because we believe that all human beings have been blessed with an immortal soul. We will all live forever but it is through our free will that we choose where that will be. God does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle and these souls are in jeopardy by thumbing their collective noses at Him. We desperately want them to join our Father in Heaven. That is why countless missionaries, priests, sisters have literally given their lives to evangelize the ignorant and the pagan.

Are you so sure of your belief? Would you ask others to bet their immortal souls on it? Like most young people, you think you are a rebel but in the end it is you who are the conformist following hook, line and sinker all that the media tells you and we (the faithful) are the true rebels.

May God have mercy on your soul

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 25, 2004.

Are you trying to evangelize us?

Hell No , I will not even try too !!!! __ I only said what I was thinking of this all , it's up to you what YOU think of it !!

You have nothing to offer a Catholic but lies and moral relativism.

That's not my intention !! __ It's a free choice !!

Your way leads to destruction (literally) in this world and the next.

Who says ??

Terrorists & idiots , they destroy the world , literally !!

You don't need sex to survive , but you need sex to survive , but today they can do it another way , that's science today !! __ But I agree , don't mess with life or nature , like clones (read clowns) ==> especially to create an über mensch , 'cause one day , nature hits back !!

We as Catholics are so upset about this issue because we believe that all human beings have been blessed with an immortal soul.

That's your point of view !! __ But who says it's the rightone ??

We will all live forever but it is through our free will that we choose where that will be.

Life after death , please , gi'me proof ??

also , free will , in some cases , peoples get killed because they don't agree with a bunch of terrorists , nice , we all live forever !!

Also , some peoples here try to get/force the catholic faith in me , some even call me slug , some of them blocked my e-mail , well , that's their good right , just as it's my good right not to joint your/their world !!

god does not approve of the homosexual lifestyle and these souls are in jeopardy by thumbing their collective noses at him.

That's your point of view !! __ But who says it's the rightone ?? __ I'm open-minded , I accept peoples as they are (except for inhumans) !!

We desperately want them to join our Father in Heaven.

Euh .... please , show me heaven ?? (PS: this is not ment as a joke)

That is why countless missionaries, priests, sisters have literally given their lives to evangelize the ignorant and the pagan.

For example: Africa , before it was "discovered" by the western world , it was a free part of this world with their own typical habits - culture !! __ Peoples there , were forced to enjoy another culture !! __ That's what I really don't get !! __ Who said all peoples & creatures want to be converted ??

In some cases even mankind tries to force the faith into the people by violence , or just try to scare peoples to conquer them !!

Are you so sure of your belief? Would you ask others to bet their immortal souls on it? Like most young people, you think you are a rebel but in the end it is you who are the conformist following hook, line and sinker all that the media tells you and we (the faithful) are the true rebels.

Well , I'm sure of my vision , just as you think of yours' !! __ What those media tells , I don't care !!

PS: I'm 37

Salut & Cheers from a NON BELIEVER:

-- Laurent LUG (.@...), January 25, 2004.

Laurent,

As a soon to be Catholic, I am here to learn more about the faith I will be joining at the age of 36 (we are contemporaries). You sadly think like my father (who is a very bright scientist). I will not debate either of you on these issues as it is clear we will agree to disagree in the end. I will say that in the end even if I am wrong (which I deny) I prefer my fantasy to your reality.

I will pray for you

-- David F (dqf@cox.net), January 25, 2004.

My point was that Gays and Lesbians ALREADY havr the same rights as we have... not that tyhey shoudl marry opposign sexes, though I do think it may be more helpful for them to at least try to solve their issues withte idea...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF@JUNO.COM), January 25, 2004.