mr2tony - 2007-07-18 11:15 AM I just wanna drop a line to say kudos to DonTracy for being the seemingly lone dissenter in this thread and not flipping out from all the attacks on his beliefs. By now I'd be challenging people to pistols at 20 paces.

I don't think this is a fair assessment of the exchange at all. The only "attack" on Don's belief has been a couple of tongue-in-cheek comments that he is wrong.

His logic and reasoning are being challenged. His assertion that natural/religious law should be the basis for making civil law is being challenged. His (mis)use of words. His slippery slope argument.

But as for his beliefs, I don't think it's fair to say they are being attacked. Did anybody attack Don for saying sex outside of marriage is immoral (one of his beliefs)? Don't think so.

Here's what my state has to say about marriage: it's a legal partnership, not unlike a corporate partnership. With a legal partnership comes rights and obligations with respect to property, revenue (income), liability (debt), distribution of income and property.  A partial from the Clerk of the Circuit Court's "Family Law Handbook:"

mr2tony -  Don your beliefs are wrong and stupid. There, now someone attacked his beliefs and my post is correct.

LOL...

Now just get Rick or Marma to move this post before your other one and the universe will be in balance...  

I can appreciate that.

I've been thinking a lot about something ChrisM wrote to me the other day, about sometimes seeming arrogant. There's some truth to that, and it's something I've been working on for a while. I really don't know yet how to write and talk about issues like this without that kind of tone, and at the same time stay true to my beliefs. It's a work in progress.

So just so you know Michael/runningwolf, and Hollis/Possum, and anyone else out there who feels like screaming at me, I love you right where you're at.

Hey, are you stalking me????

Hate the sin, love the sinner type of thing? [presumptively assuming you think homosexuality is a sin]

See, now, Don, THAT sounds really condescending. I am sure you don;t mean it to, but it sounds like "I love you where you are at (and am praying that you'll eventually be where I am....)" or some other variation.

I love me where I am at too. It is my faith that has me where I am, and I thank God for that. I don;t need to scream at you, I have plenty of allies to do that.

I am under enormous pressure to be respectful, well behaved, etc, as I might be the only gay person many BTers has ever "met" and what I do and say reflects, to some, my entire community.

Your love for me is small consolation for the mean way you categorize/consider me and who I fundamentally am, Thanks be to God. The idea that you know what is best for me, personally and for our country is hurtful. Incredibly hurtful. But I guess I could just get over it by being straight, (insulting God in the worst way by denying who He made me to be)and converting to your brand of natural law and/or Christianity.

So how should someone who holds beliefs such as mine express them without being "mean"?  Or is it that simply having these beliefs is "mean"? 

I think that's the point. Meanness, (a word I settled on after a zillion others like inferior, ) just is what it is.

But that whole love thing?  Nah.  You don't love, you fear. 

OK, so if I disagree with you, then I'm mean. (or some similar word) 

And when I say I love, what I really mean is that I fear.

That about sum it up? 

Fair enough. 

Disagreement is one thing.

Pursuing and supporting legislation that is fundamentally anti-gay, is mean.

This isn't weighing in one one side or another, but the rights outlined are in most jurisdictions are open to gay couples.  In Florida persuant to Florida statute you can designate anyone to be your medical serogate to make medical decisions for you including end of life decisions, you just have to execute the appropriate document.  Additionally, inheritance rights have always been obtainable for gay partners it's called a will, and you can leave anything to anyone (or anything, leave everything to your cat, it's legal), but again it's simply a matter of executing the appropriate legal documents.  Many states now already allow for designation of  insurance beneficiaries to any person, again simply formalizing your beneficiarie.  So for the majority of rights that are claimed to be denied, are actually available, it's simply a matter of getting off your a$% and executing the appropriate legal documents: a will, a medical surogate and limited power of medical proxy, listing your insurance beneficiarie.  I conceed that health insurance as a family plan isn't available, but likewise it isn't available to smae sex partners that aren't married.

So I've often thought that this denial of rights thing isn't actually all that accurate.  No if the right people are talking about is simply the right to have a relationship and have it called a "marriage" and recognized by the state, for whatever that's worth, than say that.

If I'm correct you're an attorney...if laws aren't to be based up notions of "morality" then what are they in fact based upon?  All laws are based on notions of "morality" one way or another.    I've never really understood this type of argument, and I've heard it often.  The arguement that laws shouldn't be based upon "morality" it doesn't make any sense to me.  In my experience when these arguments are made it's really an argument about the specific "morality" that is being demonstrated.  Typically when the notions of morality mirror the notions of morality of the speaker there is no argument against laws being based upon morality.

ANd for the record too many kids in orphanages and foster care, if they can be given a loving family, traditional marriage, single person or same sex, great. 

I believe that the liberalism of the 70's lead to a acceptance of having children out of wedlock.  This "acceptance" removed many, if not most, of the negative conotations of having children out of wedlock.  Those negative conotations did serve a purpose, there was a deterent effect in the 50s and 60s about getting pregnant.  That seems to have disappeared.

Does that make sense?  Does it seem too harsh?  I'm not arguing for branding single mothers with a scarlet letter, or institutionalizing girls that get pregnant.  I'm just thinking out loud.  The number of unwed mothers has increased as has the number of actual children in orphanges and foster care.  There most be some cause for the increase.  I believe one (1) (one of many) contributing factor is the removal of the negative conotations of having a child out of wedlock. 

If you ask me, that sounds a lot like "separate but (un)equal," which, as we all know, was struck down by Brown v. Board of Education.

I don't know how I can be any clearer...

Homosexual couples should have the same right to enter into the marriage contract, and enjoy all the rights and obligations that are conferred upon the married couple, as heterosexual couples have.

When I was married, I didn't have to get offmyass and hire an attorney to draw up this, that and the other document to ascertain my rights to assets and liabilities and decision making powers. I think homosexual couples should be able to secure the same rights and obligations, in the same manner, as I had/have.

Don't know why that is so hard to understand.

If I want to drive to Atlanta, my destination, I get on I-75 and go north. It's like saying if a homosexual wants to reach that same destination, they can but they have to jump on I4, then go north on I95 then cut across to....

About this time someone's gonna quote some Frost...