Quote:
As far as I know, no civilized society in history has ever granted that right.

Certainly they have. Ancient civilizations allowed for the marraiage of owners to slaves even when the slaves were of the same sex. The Bible condones slavery so why not same sex marriage if you read with a "liberal" outlook and do not cherry pick that which does not conservatively support a point of view. Other religious texts were written to approve of such relationships but we don't read those texts today since they might also discuss more than one god. Isn't it C. Hitchins who says the difference between aetheists and Xtians is the Xtians believe in one more god than the aetheists?

The custom continued into the mid 1700's when especially atractive eunichs and castrati were "married" to various officials, quite often religious leaders who had a certain proclivity toward specific behavior which could be condoned by a "liberal" reading of the Bible (Old Testament that is, Jesus never made a comment about same sex relationships. Read the Old Testament to find out how you should deal with an adulterous wife - public stoning - or that eating shell fish is an abomination).

Transvestites were taken as mistresses and wives even when their true gender was a well known fact to the public that counted such things, to score some of these impersonators as your personal prize was considered quite an honor in high society of the day and these spouses were presented in the Royal Courts of the time.

In many "uncivilized" cultures such as African tribes, South American peoples, Aboriginals and Native Americans, shamans would be taken as the wives of high ranking members of the community and many of the "wives" would take part in the female rituals and activities of the group, some to the extent they would cut their inner thigh or genital region each month to participate in the communal act of female menstruation.

And you really dont buy that legend that Annie Oakley was a good shot just to get in the travelling side shows because she liked Bill Cody, do you? That's like believing cables don't make a difference just because it's easier that way.

Same sex relationships have been condoned in numerous civilizations throughout history, even honored as something special in cases such as the Native American Shamans. Take a trip into some research and you'll find your answers, though you might not like what you find if you have already made up your mind to the "facts" as they have been fed to you.

Or, we could return to the days when we put people in stocks and on public display, making them pee in their own pants, when they were both gay and happy.

Quote:

Quote:
I can't see a counter argument to what you have stated, other than outright bigotry.

While I agree with Doug (and others) that there is nothing scary about gay marriage, it is fair to recognize that for many that oppose gay marriage it is a religious/moral issue.

This isn't bigotry but a different moral code. Consider the the pro-choice/pro-life debate; neither side is "bigoted".

On the other hand, for those that it is not a moral issue I would like to learn the reason for objecting to gay marriage.

But consider this, Elk,

Those that consider it a moral/religious issue can deal with that by their choice of church. They can simply join a church that doesn't condone or perform gay marriage.

When they vote to ban civil gay marriage because of their religious beliefs they are guilty of bigotry, IMO.

After all, if they are truly religious then civil marriages are not "real " marriages anyway since they are not "blessed" by "god". Therefore they shouldn't be concerned with civil gay marriage. It doesn't infringe upon their religious freedom.
The state is not requiring their church to perform gay marriage ceremonies.

Some of these same bigots would also fight "civil unions" which shows just how mean spirited these supposed xtians really are.

Quote:
Those that consider it a moral/religious issue can deal with that by their choice of church. They can simply join a church that doesn't condone or perform gay marriage.

Agreed.

However my impression is that their moral objection goes much deeper than this. That is, they consider gay marriage - and any acting upon being gay - is inherently immoral.

Thus, they assert that the state absolutely should not condone any such behavior.

While I disagree, I can respect the position.

It is similar to those that object to embryonic stem cell research. I strongly disagree, but I appreciate that there are many that have a strong religious/moral objection.

It's time for someone that objects to civil unions/gay marriage to jump in and explain their position.

Quote:

Quote:
Those that consider it a moral/religious issue can deal with that by their choice of church. They can simply join a church that doesn't condone or perform gay marriage.

Agreed.

However my impression is that their moral objection goes much deeper than this. That is, they consider gay marriage - and any acting upon being gay - is inherently immoral.

Indeed. But their strong feelings on the matter are not transportable to anyone else.

Quote:
Thus, they assert that the state absolutely should not condone any such behavior.

Except in a country founded on a Constitution that separates State from Religion, the State _must_ ignore demands on it to conform to someone's religion-based personal ideas of morality.

Quote:
It's time for someone that objects to civil unions/gay marriage to jump in and explain their position.

Yes indeed. The silence is deafening!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Quote:
The silence is deafening!

Maybe they're in church praying for our sorry souls. I wish someone would.

My wife is a fine Christian woman (Presbyterian, if that counts) who loves Jesus and thinks that if gay people want to get married, then what's it to her.

I think many many many Christians believe that way.

I wanna give Christians some props. There are an amazing number of great ones. The person I love most in the world happens to be one!

Also, most Christians I know also call heavy bullshit on the notion of "choosing" to be gay.

My 6th grader likes girls. I asked him why, he said, "I just do." he can't seem to recall making a choice that way.

So, my wife, me, and my son cannot in any way validate any theory that someone 'chooses' his/her gender preferences.

That's as crazy a notion as demag.....err...never mind, I don't want to get too controversial.

As we move along on this thread, maybe some of the fine hetero Christians opposed to gay marriage can also tell us about their struggle with choosing to be gay or straight and how they finally made that potentially soul saving lifestyle choice of straightness?

Talk about fascinating! The story of how people "choose" their sexuality! Lucky dogs, I was born straight. No thrills or the exciting option of choosing differently for me.

Last question...how come, other than George Michael, the only people who get caught crusing men's rooms are all 'straight?'

I guess real gay men don't need bathrooms to meet people to date.

As a straight guy, I'm constantly amazed by all the outlandishly humiliating things straights do.

If we really wanna protect marriage, let's outlaw divirce.

You make good points about this being one of a perceived moral and religious threat. For any aspect of another's life that directly defies one's own religious doctrine, it is of course within one's right to separate oneself from that individual- within one's own religious and social sphere. But that's the thing: society is made up of much MORE than any religion, doctrine or lifestyle!

That's why we can have a country that allows the Amish, yet also allows Buddhist monasteries, freakish cults, swingers clubs, leather bars, Catholic convents, New Age retreats, hippy farming collectives, white bread suburbia and on and on and on. It's not always pretty, and not a perfect mix by a long shot, but it's been working and growing and has allowed some pretty incredible things to come out of that soup.

Civilization has been an evolving arc from family/clan, to tribe, to state, to nation-states governed by kings and priests, and on up to inclusive democratic nations that are part of the world stage. Just because we include MORE in our society, we don't invalidate the parts that make up the whole. The state including gays into the social norm of marriage doesn't invalidate a persons individual religious belief NOT include gays in their Church if they so choose. But it takes a a certain level of awareness to see this.

For instance: A people who still live in a family-based clan are not going to get the idea that geographic and economic cooperation is a valid reason to give up blood feuds with a competing clan. They would need to get to a bit of broader level to see that they actually SHARE the interests of other clans. This follows right up to today. It's why most big nations like ours can't just "export" our model to countries still quite comfortable with warring tribes, competing ethic clans, and a religion-based state. We aren't speaking the same language any more than Galileo was when he went up against the Catholic church. They could not hear something that went against their world view.

Sometimes it takes a REAL leap of faith to trust that an open mind won't destroy what you hold dear.

Quote:

Yes indeed. The silence is deafening!

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

I find your political chest thumping and masked insults offensive, Atkinson. It would be really comforting to see you stick to reviewing gear, and to stay out of the political debates..this nonsense coupled with JVS sermonizing on the climate is sickening.believe me, the magazine has enough shortcomings as it is.. Ill be letting my subscription go,but hope for the sake of future readers, that you stay in your lane(s).

Scandinavia has changed the legal definition of marriage. Do some reading, see how that has worked out. Men and women produce children. That is an incontrovertible fact. How does a nation grow? Can two men bear children?

I do not believe that the definition should be changed to accommodate such a small section of our society. The institution of marriage as traditionally defined is important. I do not believe that this is a civil rights issue, I believe that it is a choice, and as such not subject to the same protection..

how much better off is the nation now that so many are turning their backs on the church, or "traditional" moral codes? The USA is a sick nation, getting sicker by the moment. I am really disgusted by things that have become societal norms. I am terrified to see my daughter grow up in this "hey, anything goes" sort of climate.

while I am not really a bible thumping type , I did grow up in a traditional family with traditional values, and yes, I do believe that homosexuality is immoral and unnatural.

if my thinking that makes me a bigot, so be it. Hell, ive been called worse.

Equal rights is about everyone having the same, or "equal" rights under the law. Today, as we have for pretty much the entire history of our nation, we all have the right to marry anyone we choose of the opposite sex, as long as they are consenting and as long as we are not closely blood-related. Does anyone not agree that that constitutes the very essence of "equal rights"?

On the other hand, I do NOT have the right to marry a man, and neither does any man, at least not in my state of Missouri. And this has been the status quo for as long as my state has been in existence (1821). Again, we are all equal under the law with regards to marriage.

If we can't agree on this point, there can be no discussion on the real issue, which is whether or not the state (any state) should sanction a new right, which would be the right for all people to marry someone of the same gender as themselves. And that discussion is a separate issue all together. But first, it must be made clear that this is not an "equal rights" issue at all, regardless of one side's desire to frame it in those terms.

if my thinking that makes me a bigot, so be it. Hell, ive been called worse.

OK, you are a bigot, but I do salute your self awareness for recognizing that.

BTW, there are many married heteros that don't have children and there are many gay couples that do have children.

Bush has contributed to the destruction of our society far more than any gays have.

Quote:
Equal rights is about everyone having the same, or "equal" rights under the law. Today, as we have for pretty much the entire history of our nation, we all have the right to marry anyone we choose of the opposite sex, as long as they are consenting and as long as we are not closely blood-related. Does anyone not agree that that constitutes the very essence of "equal rights"?

On the other hand, I do NOT have the right to marry a man, and neither does any man, at least not in my state of Missouri. And this has been the status quo for as long as my state has been in existence (1821). Again, we are all equal under the law with regards to marriage.

If we can't agree on this point, there can be no discussion on the real issue, which is whether or not the state (any state) should sanction a new right, which would be the right for all people to marry someone of the same gender as themselves. And that discussion is a separate issue all together. But first, it must be made clear that this is not an "equal rights" issue at all, regardless of one side's desire to frame it in those terms.

What if I wanted to marry two chicks, like everyone on the old testament?

If we are consenting adults, why can't I have multiple wives, or a woman multiple husbands?

Ncdrawl, please don't get mad. I believe in the seperation of church and Hi Fi, but sometimes, we break loose and talk about other stuff. JA is a fine man, from the years I've "known" him. This is all stimulating chat, not life and death.

If we all have equal rights, then why can chicks only marry guiys, and guys chicks? Seems like asymetric rights.

Equal rights is "marry who who you love and want to spend your life with."

The Bible supports polygamy, slavery, stoning of adulterers, and...the golden rule.

The golden rule tells me that gay marriage is a non-issue.

Hope that ddn't sound like when I talk to Fremer.

Quote:
Equal rights is about everyone having the same, or "equal" rights under the law. Today, as we have for pretty much the entire history of our nation, we all have the right to marry anyone we choose of the opposite sex, as long as they are consenting and as long as we are not closely blood-related. Does anyone not agree that that constitutes the very essence of "equal rights"?

On the other hand, I do NOT have the right to marry a man, and neither does any man, at least not in my state of Missouri. And this has been the status quo for as long as my state has been in existence (1821). Again, we are all equal under the law with regards to marriage.

If we can't agree on this point, there can be no discussion on the real issue, which is whether or not the state (any state) should sanction a new right, which would be the right for all people to marry someone of the same gender as themselves. And that discussion is a separate issue all together. But first, it must be made clear that this is not an "equal rights" issue at all, regardless of one side's desire to frame it in those terms.

Let's see, the right of women to vote was a "new" right, the right of African Americans to vote was a new right ..... should the state not have sanctioned those rights ?

Quote:
Men and women produce children. That is an incontrovertible fact. How does a nation grow?

Perhaps you have missed that no one is suggesting outlawing hetero-marriages.

Or hetero sex for that matter.

Somehow I think we will produce enough kids to keep the world turning, with or without gay marriage.

It feels to good to light the fuse for the population explosion to stop.

Quote:

Quote:
Men and women produce children. That is an incontrovertible fact. How does a nation grow?

Perhaps you have missed that no one is suggesting outlawing hetero-marriages.

Or hetero sex for that matter.

Somehow I think we will produce enough kids to keep the world turning, with or without gay marriage.

It feels to good to light the fuse for the population explosion to stop.

LOl, thanks for that , Elk

By what definition is NCdrawl a bigot? To condemn an act as wrong is certainly not the same thing as being intolerant of that act.

Quote:
By what definition is NCdrawl a bigot? To condemn an act as wrong is certainly not the same thing as being intolerant of that act.

I can only assume you are being ironic.

I don't think labeling or name calling helps.

Ncdrawl has not, to my understanding, acted as a bigot; one who treats the members of a group with hatred. He appears to have a moral objection, but this alone does not make him a bigot.

I similarly don't find those on opposite sides of the abortion debate bigoted - just passionate in their respective moral stance.

Quote:
What if I wanted to marry two chicks, like everyone on the old testament?

If we are consenting adults, why can't I have multiple wives, or a woman multiple husbands?

Equal rights is "marry who who you love and want to spend your life with."

The Bible supports polygamy, slavery, stoning of adulterers, and...the golden rule.

The golden rule tells me that gay marriage is a non-issue.

Hope that ddn't sound like when I talk to Fremer.

You can't "marry two chicks" because the state in which you live has not given you that right. The state has also not given you the right to wed your dog or your cat or your automobile. What's your point?

"If we all have equal rights, then why can chicks only marry guiys, and guys chicks? Seems like asymetric rights."

We all have the same rights. That makes us equal. What part of equal do you not understand?

Oh, and why do you mention the bible? I thought we were talking about civil law.

Quote:

Quote:
Equal rights is about everyone having the same, or "equal" rights under the law. Today, as we have for pretty much the entire history of our nation, we all have the right to marry anyone we choose of the opposite sex, as long as they are consenting and as long as we are not closely blood-related. Does anyone not agree that that constitutes the very essence of "equal rights"?

On the other hand, I do NOT have the right to marry a man, and neither does any man, at least not in my state of Missouri. And this has been the status quo for as long as my state has been in existence (1821). Again, we are all equal under the law with regards to marriage.

If we can't agree on this point, there can be no discussion on the real issue, which is whether or not the state (any state) should sanction a new right, which would be the right for all people to marry someone of the same gender as themselves. And that discussion is a separate issue all together. But first, it must be made clear that this is not an "equal rights" issue at all, regardless of one side's desire to frame it in those terms.

Let's see, the right of women to vote was a "new" right, the right of African Americans to vote was a new right ..... should the state not have sanctioned those rights ?

No, those were not new rights at all. Those were cases of the state extending the same rights to all that some already had. Those truly were "equal rights" cases! ...and they're not the issue here, are they.

Quote:

Quote:
What if I wanted to marry two chicks, like everyone on the old testament?

If we are consenting adults, why can't I have multiple wives, or a woman multiple husbands?

Equal rights is "marry who who you love and want to spend your life with."

The Bible supports polygamy, slavery, stoning of adulterers, and...the golden rule.

The golden rule tells me that gay marriage is a non-issue.

Hope that ddn't sound like when I talk to Fremer.

You can't "marry two chicks" because the state in which you live has not given you that right. The state has also not given you the right to wed your dog or your cat or your automobile. What's your point?

"If we all have equal rights, then why can chicks only marry guiys, and guys chicks? Seems like asymetric rights."

We all have the same rights. That makes us equal. What part of equal do you not understand?

Oh, and why do you mention the bible? I thought we were talking about civil law.

Pardon me, but, with all due respect, that is the dumbest effing thing I've heard all year.

Are a dog, cat, or car consenting adult human beings?

You think two adult females wanting to marry is the equivalent of someone wanting to marry a cat?

Serriously, thet is so effing stupid, I'd think you were Glotz.

You equate what adult humans in love would like to do with beastiality or a sexual fetish with inamimate objects?

Please, say this with a deep southern accent: "That idea is the idea of some who is a 'retired.'"

Gay marriage = dog, cat , car marriage?

That statement is so stupid, it makes me think Geiko is not easy enough for you.

Dude, I'll buy you a beer just to hear you say that stupdid thing again.

Say something rational and I'll respond.

I awoke at 7:30 AM, and within five minutes was downstairs turning on my amps. At 8:45, Bob and Tim came to set-up for the Bay Area Audiophile Society DAC comparison. At 9:45 the first of two groups of 16 audiophiles each (minus the no-shows) arrived. I listened to the same four tracks eight times each, as I adjusted volume, connected and disconnected wires, and held a lot of the demos together. Then there were the two high-res tracks to play as icing on the cake, and the discussion. Then there was clean up. Right after I finished, shortly after my husband returned home to find everything in place, I discovered that the concert I was committed to review tonight began, not at 8, but at 7. Five minutes to eat, and off I went to 95 minutes of beautiful choral music, all in praise of the Christian god. And now I'm home, totally exhausted and drained, discovering the majority of you being wonderfully supportive.

For your support and understanding, I thank you from the bottom, middle, and top of my heart.

I also discover a few condemning the way I was born to love. You proclaim that I have no rights to legal union. And because you claim to reflect a moral and religious point of view, you claim to be free of bigotry.

It is good to learn that the murder of over 6 million Jews (including many of my relatives) which in some ways had the support of the Catholic Church, the burning of witches, the Inquisition, Jihad, and all sorts of other abominations are moral acts free of bigotry. It clears the air.

Yes, I'm being cynical. I'm tired, and this war of words wearies me further.

Love is love. That's what Jesus taught. That's what true Christianity is all about. It's a teaching I accept. Living it 100% of the time is a challenge I frequently fail to meet. But I do try.

To those of you who are secure enough in your love to extend it to others, more power to you. With your support, all will achieve the right to marry in this country.

To all, I wish a fond goodnight.

jason

For what it is worth, my best friend in God's green earth is gay, ive known him since elementary school. I go out with him, have drinks,go to concerts with him and his partner.. he and my wife go places together... I dont have any hatred of homosexuals. I just think that marriage is for men and women. Thats all. Pretty simple really.

Quote:

Love is love. That's what Jesus taught. That's what true Christianity is all about.

Yes, the bible says to love , God is love..... but spiritual love and love that is "of the flesh" are different things. If there is scripture somewhere stating that homosexuality is ok, I will eat my words, and revoke my position.
I don't hate you, or any other homosexual.I love all human beings. If I was some sort of homo bashing skinhead, I sure as hell couldn't sing classical music professionally(and last anyway). I just believe that marriage is for men and women. I grew up in a traditional southern household, and traditional values seem right to me. I believe that if more showed restraint, adopted traditional values, the world would be a lot better off. as it is, weve strayed far, far away from what is good and right.

now that the world is a more liberal place, more "anything goes, ive got the ACLU telling me that it is ok".. are we better off? I think not. The US is a much worse place to live now..

Quote:
Say something rational and I'll respond.

If you want rational like "A gay marriage is like a person marrying a cat," then it ain't gonna get rational, in your twisted sense of the word.

JHC that was dumb, dude.

Seriosuly, you equate two people of the same gender getting married to be equivalent to man on cat action?

There are no words for how stupid that is.

If there was a prize for stupid, you'd win it. Triple gold medal stupid.

Can you tie your own shoes?

And then, you answer with, "I won't reply...?"

Good move. What you said was so effing stupid, you are best off not replying.

I can't believe you speak a the Engrish and can manage to spit out something that stupid.

World record stupid.

____

JVS, on behalf of hetero idiots everywhere, I apologize for that troglodite. He so stupid, I can't image how he manages to breath.

110% stupid.

For those others of you opposed to gay marriage on other grounds other than it's like sex with a dog, this is not directed at you; only the effing idiot who thinks it's like marrying your car.

Man, that is stupid.

I can't believe you typed that on your own.

Quote:
I also discover a few condemning the way I was born to love. You proclaim that I have no rights to legal union. And because you claim to reflect a moral and religious point of view, you claim to be free of bigotry.

It is good to learn that the murder of over 6 million Jews (including many of my relatives) which in some ways had the support of the Catholic Church, the burning of witches, the Inquisition, Jihad, and all sorts of other abominations are moral acts free of bigotry. It clears the air.

Yes, I'm being cynical. I'm tired, and this war of words wearies me further.

Love is love. That's what Jesus taught. That's what true Christianity is all about. It's a teaching I accept. Living it 100% of the time is a challenge I frequently fail to meet. But I do try.

To those of you who are secure enough in your love to extend it to others, more power to you. With your support, all will achieve the right to marry in this country.

To all, I wish a fond goodnight.

jason

You're not being cynical, you're being ridiculous. Speaking out against homosexual marriage is comparable to being complicit in the holocaust? That's one heck of a stretch there, Jason!

"Love is love. That's what Jesus taught."
That, most assuradly(sp?) is NOT what Jesus taught, as the phrase does not appear in the bible. What Jesus preached was "repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand". And that IS in the bible.

Quote:

Quote:
Say something rational and I'll respond.

If you want rational like "A gay marriage is like a person marrying a cat," then it ain't gonna get rational, in your twisted sense of the word.

JHC that was dumb, dude.

Seriosuly, you equate two people of the same gender getting married to be equivalent to man on cat action?

There are no words for how stupid that is.

If there was a prize for stupid, you'd win it. Triple gold medal stupid.

Can you tie your own shoes?

And then, you answer with, "I won't reply...?"

Good move. What you said was so effing stupid, you are best off not replying.

I can't believe you speak a the Engrish and can manage to spit out something that stupid.

World record stupid.

____

JVS, on behalf of hetero idiots everywhere, I apologize for that troglodite. He so stupid, I can't image how he manages to breath.

110% stupid.

For those others of you opposed to gay marriage on other grounds other than it's like sex with a dog, this is not directed at you; only the effing idiot who thinks it's like marrying your car.

Man, that is stupid.

I can't believe you typed that on your own.

OK. I let the first verbal assault pass. I actually thought you might re-read (read?) my post and see that you are totally and completely misunderstanding what I said. Or else you are intentionally misrepresenting it. I'll go over it again.

But first, get this straight: DO NOT MISQUOTE ME!! You are attributing things to me that I DID NOT SAY, then wrapping it in quotation marks! Please refrain. If you want to quote me, quote me. But don't misquote me. Do you understand that?

Now, I did not equate homosexual marriage with...ANYTHING! Do you get it? I listed other kinds of marriage the state does not sanction. You could fill in the blank with ANYTHING YOU CHOOSE. I chose dog, cat and automobile. These are called E X A M P L E S !! Do you get THAT?

"A gay marriage is like a person marrying a cat," --those are totally your words, NOT MINE.

Dude, you are completely out of line with the childish name-calling. It's hilarious: you spend two posts calling me stupid, when you are the one who's having trouble understanding plain English! And your spelling ain't so good, either!!

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Say something rational and I'll respond.

If you want rational like "A gay marriage is like a person marrying a cat," then it ain't gonna get rational, in your twisted sense of the word.

JHC that was dumb, dude.

Seriosuly, you equate two people of the same gender getting married to be equivalent to man on cat action?

There are no words for how stupid that is.

If there was a prize for stupid, you'd win it. Triple gold medal stupid.

Can you tie your own shoes?

And then, you answer with, "I won't reply...?"

Good move. What you said was so effing stupid, you are best off not replying.

I can't believe you speak a the Engrish and can manage to spit out something that stupid.

World record stupid.

____

JVS, on behalf of hetero idiots everywhere, I apologize for that troglodite. He so stupid, I can't image how he manages to breath.

110% stupid.

For those others of you opposed to gay marriage on other grounds other than it's like sex with a dog, this is not directed at you; only the effing idiot who thinks it's like marrying your car.

Man, that is stupid.

I can't believe you typed that on your own.

OK. I let the first verbal assault pass. I actually thought you might re-read (read?) my post and see that you are totally and completely misunderstanding what I said. Or else you are intentionally misrepresenting it. I'll go over it again.

But first, get this straight: DO NOT MISQUOTE ME!! You are attributing things to me that I DID NOT SAY, then wrapping it in quotation marks! Please refrain. If you want to quote me, quote me. But don't misquote me. Do you understand that?

Now, I did not equate homosexual marriage with...ANYTHING! Do you get it? I listed other kinds of marriage the state does not sanction. You could fill in the blank with ANYTHING YOU CHOOSE. I chose dog, cat and automobile. These are called E X A M P L E S !! Do you get THAT?

"A gay marriage is like a person marrying a cat," --those are totally your words, NOT MINE.

Dude, you are completely out of line with the childish name-calling. It's hilarious: you spend two posts calling me stupid, when you are the one who's having trouble understanding plain English! And your spelling ain't so good, either!!

Well, I try to type 'real time.' Spelling and typing don't always meet up.

"Engrish" is intentional, so if "effing." The others, no telling.

OK, I will back up.

Your "E X A M P L E S" are so effing stupid, I can't believe you found your way on to the "inter nets" (sp) to mention them.

"S T U P I D."

You: "A man wanting to marry a man? Well, you may as well have men marrying cats..."

Dude, your example needs to rise up 100 levels to reach the level of descriptive language for stupid.

Calling your example stupid falls so short of reality, it's like me calling the Universe, "somewhat kind of maybe big ish."

Please, give a reason other than the idiot's guide to illogic and the Domino Effect of gay marriage leading to people marrying vibrators.

Forrest Gump would mock you.

Well, there you go again.
I said not to misquote me and you just did it again. Actually, you went beyond merely misquoting. That was an outright lie, as I said nothing of the kind.

I'm through with you.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

It's time for someone that objects to civil unions/gay marriage to jump in and explain their position.

Yes indeed. The silence is deafening!

I find your political chest thumping and masked insults offensive, Atkinson.

Why do people who disagree with insist on addressing me by my surname? But I wasn't "chest thumping," merely asking those who feel like you do exactly _why_ allowing two homosexuals to marry is such a threat to heterosexual marriage or to society? I am sincerely interested in the answer to that question and it is far to note than none has been offered, other than vague refereneces to "morality" or to the Bible.

Quote:
It would be really comforting to see you stick to reviewing gear, and to stay out of the political debates..this nonsense coupled with JVS sermonizing on the climate is sickening.believe me, the magazine has enough shortcomings as it is.. Ill be letting my subscription go,but hope for the sake of future readers, that you stay in your lane(s).

I am sorry to hear that. Perhaps Stereophile is not the magazine for you, given that it covers a wide spectrum of beliefs and opinions, from the far right (Sam Tellig, John Marks) to the far left (Michael Fremer, Art Dudley), with all stops in between. And this diversity is also reflected in the vast range of audio preferences these writers possess. Tolerance for others' behavior is built into the fabric of the magazine.

Quote:
Can two men bear children?

No, but they can adopt. I know two same-sex partnerships raising children, and both appear to be doing so successfully.

Quote:
I believe that it is a choice, and as such not subject to the same protection.

Your beliefs notwithstanding, there was an article in the conservative Economist magazine a couple of weeks back that concluded that homosexuality is not choice but is genetically determined.

The question is: how does a trait that prevents reproduction sustain itself in evolutionary terms? You would think that the gene would rapidly die out. The answer appears to be that the same gene that codes for homosexual preference also codes for increased fecundity in women and increased sexual activity in men. Thus the gene perpetuates itself, the corollary being a constant proportion of homosexuals in the population.

Quote:
how much better off is the nation now that so many are turning their backs on the church, or "traditional" moral codes?

Again, this country is not founded on the teachings of the church. It was the Founding Fathers, children of the Enlightenment all, who "turned their backs on the church." We are all the beneficiaries of their wisdom.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Like John, I would also ask those in the "opposition" camp whether they actually know any homosexuals, let alone committed gay couples. I know several, two of the couples having been together for over 15 years- a better average than many of the straight couples I know. None of couples live or support what you could call an "alternative" lifestyle- other than the fact that they are of the same sex. They have good solid jobs like being financial advisor, stock brokers, communications directors and the like. They work, pay their taxes, keep up nice houses and yards.

The point I think the opposers cannot seem to allow is that we are simply talking about other human beings who do not have any choice in the matter as growing scientific evidence suggests. Plus if they actually knew any gays they would almost all tell them they knew they were different from an early age. They are not asking for special treatment, just the same that you and I expect. It's really a lot simpler than you pretend- and of course I can mention once again: it's been tried and it's worked, with no ill-effect to society at large. They REINFORCE tradional values like family, loyalty and being good citizens, not go against it. Marginalizing gays won't make them go away or "choose" a straight lifestyle, it just says we can't be big enough to include them.

There was this radical guy a long while back- hung out with whores, corrupt tax collectors, lepers, the poor. All the low lifes no one wanted to include or had been marginalized. He flouted all the religious leaders of the time and told the occupying military officials they didn't matter. He said his table was open to any and all who wanted regardless of what law or society said as long as they wanted to walk the way of peace. Too bad the power brokers arranged to have him killed for that kind of talk. Sounded like a guy that might have something to say in this very debate, like "Who are you to judge?"

Quote:
Like John, I would also ask those in the "opposition" camp whether they actually know any homosexuals, let alone committed gay couples.

apparently you have failed to read my posts.

Quote:
I know several, two of the couples having been together for over 15 years- a better average than many of the straight couples I know.

that means nothing to me.

Quote:

The point I think the opposers cannot seem to allow is that we are simply talking about other human beings who do not have any choice

I cannot I nor will I ever allow that homosexuality is something one is born with.

Quote:
in the matter as growing scientific evidence suggests.

again, that means nothing to me. there is some scientific evidence in support of the big bang, in support of the idea that we evolved from apes... but I dont buy into those, either.

Quote:

Plus if they actually knew any gays

I probably know more folks with an alternative lifestyle than you do.

Quote:
they would almost all tell them they knew they were different from an early age.

different how? I am curious to know. My best friend is gay, and ive known him all my life nearly.

Quote:
They are not asking for special treatment, just the same that you and I expect.

are you the patron saint of alternative lifestyles now?

Quote:

There was this radical guy a long while back- hung out with whores, corrupt tax collectors, lepers, the poor.

are you equating homosexuality with promiscuity and disease??

Quote:
He said his table was open to any and all

my table is open to anyone, too, but the bible does not condone homosexuality. Period.

And there we have it. The Bible is the absolute word on all things (except when it comes to the things we ignore). Homosexuality is a choice, Darwinism is a crock, and audio should only focus on audio. We're talking about unshakeable belief systems. It's the same mentality that spouts off eternal about audiophile voodoo and snake oil while refusing to take a listen, and demands inherently flawed DBX proof rather than trusting ears and heart.

Argue if you will. But only Fundamentalists can alter a fundamentalist mentality. Methinks time is better spent enjoying the music.

jason

Quote:

Quote:
Like John, I would also ask those in the "opposition" camp whether they actually know any homosexuals, let alone committed gay couples.

apparently you have failed to read my posts.

Quote:
I know several, two of the couples having been together for over 15 years- a better average than many of the straight couples I know.

that means nothing to me.

Quote:

The point I think the opposers cannot seem to allow is that we are simply talking about other human beings who do not have any choice

I cannot I nor will I ever allow that homosexuality is something one is born with.

Quote:
in the matter as growing scientific evidence suggests.

again, that means nothing to me. there is some scientific evidence in support of the big bang, in support of the idea that we evolved from apes... but I dont buy into those, either.

Quote:

Plus if they actually knew any gays

I probably know more folks with an alternative lifestyle than you do.

Quote:
they would almost all tell them they knew they were different from an early age.

different how? I am curious to know. My best friend is gay, and ive known him all my life nearly.

Quote:
They are not asking for special treatment, just the same that you and I expect.

are you the patron saint of alternative lifestyles now?

Quote:

There was this radical guy a long while back- hung out with whores, corrupt tax collectors, lepers, the poor.

are you equating homosexuality with promiscuity and disease??

Quote:
He said his table was open to any and all

my table is open to anyone, too, but the bible does not condone homosexuality. Period.

Now you have revealed yourself as an idiot and a bigot, congratulations.

Quote:

Quote:
Like John, I would also ask those in the "opposition" camp whether they actually know any homosexuals, let alone committed gay couples.

apparently you have failed to read my posts.

Quote:
I know several, two of the couples having been together for over 15 years- a better average than many of the straight couples I know.

that means nothing to me.

Quote:

The point I think the opposers cannot seem to allow is that we are simply talking about other human beings who do not have any choice

I cannot I nor will I ever allow that homosexuality is something one is born with.

Quote:
in the matter as growing scientific evidence suggests.

again, that means nothing to me. there is some scientific evidence in support of the big bang, in support of the idea that we evolved from apes... but I dont buy into those, either.

Quote:

Plus if they actually knew any gays

I probably know more folks with an alternative lifestyle than you do.

Quote:
they would almost all tell them they knew they were different from an early age.

different how? I am curious to know. My best friend is gay, and ive known him all my life nearly.

Quote:
They are not asking for special treatment, just the same that you and I expect.

are you the patron saint of alternative lifestyles now?

Quote:

There was this radical guy a long while back- hung out with whores, corrupt tax collectors, lepers, the poor.

are you equating homosexuality with promiscuity and disease??

Quote:
He said his table was open to any and all

my table is open to anyone, too, but the bible does not condone homosexuality. Period.

Well, I can respect your own right to fervently believe what you want- even when it directly goes against the laws of physics! It's just too bad you can't extend that respect outward.

Respect for what someone IS, is not the same as condoning his behavior. Regardless of what majority religion this country practices, it has no place for it deprive the rights of anyone based on religious doctrine. That's why we have the seperation of Church and State in the first place.

You start basing all the laws of the State on the laws of YOUR inflexible faith and what you have is the American version of the Taliban. Not a comforting thought.

And now as Jason suggests, it's time to go listen to a more Universal Spirit: that of music. Cheers!

Quote:
Now you have revealed yourself as an idiot and a bigot, congratulations.

So what does your name calling make you? Not accepting evolution and the big bang makes one an idiot? What an intelligent conclusion!

Quote:
Methinks time is better spent enjoying the music.

id much rather you do that, Jason. More time spent enjoying the music, less time prosetylizing re the environment.

Quote:
It's just too bad you can't extend that respect outward.

I respect my homosexual colleagues, my best friend.. I dont have to agree with what they do to respect them.

I dont agree with what you say, either.. but I respect you.

Yes, not accepting the theory of evolution makes you an idiot.

I am not name calling, rather I am simply describing your seeming lack of intellect.

Quote:

Quote:
Now you have revealed yourself as an idiot and a bigot, congratulations.

So what does your name calling make you? Not accepting evolution and the big bang makes one an idiot? What an intelligent conclusion!

Quote:
there is some scientific evidence in support of the big bang, in support of the idea that we evolved from apes... but I dont buy into those, either.

We didn't "evolve from apes". Rather, humans and apes have a shared ancient ancestor.

This may make the concept a bit more palatable.

And consider, there may be Biblical support for the Big Bang: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light".

Pretty cool way to start a universe.

Psssh, if I were starting a new universe I'd go to Congress for a handout, I'd give part of their cash back to those guys to make sure nobody was watching me real close so I could buy my light real cheap from China, make a lousy product that nobody understands so I could sell it off in bits and pieces then I'd run the entire universe into the ground while taking as much cash and as many benefits for myself as I could figure out how, then I'd head back to Congress claiming the universe is about to come to and end if they don't bail me out and I'd blame the workers for doing a lousy job and the public for providing terrible support and ask them lawmaking people for another handout. All this "Let there be Light" stuff ... too much work - no real bene's.

Quote:

Quote:
there is some scientific evidence in support of the big bang, in support of the idea that we evolved from apes... but I dont buy into those, either.

We didn't "evolve from apes". Rather, humans and apes have a shared ancient ancestor.

This may make the concept a bit more palatable.

And consider, there may be Biblical support for the Big Bang: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light".

Pretty cool way to start a universe.

Elk,

Thanks for the civil tone you consistently model in your posts.

What do you think of the article I have linked below? It is a Catholic viewpoint of the possible civil consequences churches might be subjected to with state-sanctioned gay marriage.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=5568

BTW, I voted against Prop. 8 in CA, despite the fact my recent presidential/vice pres'l. choices are on record against gay marriage.

I guess that makes it so then. With statements like those, you are in no position whatsoever to be pointing out intellectual shortcomings in others. I hope for your sake, and the sake of those around you that you have more sense, God help you if you if it aint an act..

Quote:
Yes, not accepting the theory of evolution makes you an idiot.

A shared ancient ancestor? Could you elaborate a bit more?

I also appreciate your humility, Elk. The name calling nonsense is childish.

Quote:

Quote:
there is some scientific evidence in support of the big bang, in support of the idea that we evolved from apes... but I dont buy into those, either.

We didn't "evolve from apes". Rather, humans and apes have a shared ancient ancestor.

This may make the concept a bit more palatable.

And consider, there may be Biblical support for the Big Bang: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light".

Pretty cool way to start a universe.

Man created god , not the other way around. A figment of man's imagination is hardly in a position to give me help I don't need in the 1st place.

Religion was created by man as a way to explain the universe. If there is some sentient prime force behind the creation of the universe man still has no idea what that force is.
Science has a shot, but no certainty, at explaining things far more than the religious impulse.

You hide behind the cloak of religious morality to disguise your primitive bigotry.
Denying gays the same rights as heteros, the right to marry, is bigotry no matter how you try to dress it up.

Quote:
I guess that makes it so then. With statements like those, you are in no position whatsoever to be pointing out intellectual shortcomings in others. I hope for your sake, and the sake of those around you that you have more sense, God help you if you if it aint an act..

Quote:
Yes, not accepting the theory of evolution makes you an idiot.

Quote:
Elk,

Thanks for the civil tone you consistently model in your posts.

I second it regarding Elk.

After 15 pages of posts, I really did not want to get into this discussion, which seems to be going nowhere. I would offer some humble observations.

Prop 8 in California was essentially a "one-liner". It simply says that marriage is between a man and a woman. It does not explain "marriage" itself.

This discussion has started without any definition of marriage, and I'm not enlightened enough on the historical basis of marriage to comment.

Without groundrules and definitions, any discussion is bound to degenerate into one opinion against another, because differing working definitions abound. It would be nice to get back to the HiFi topic. But if the members wish to continue this topic, please offer some agreed-upon definitions so we can proceed on equal footing.

Let's get back to fundamentals:

Define marriage, man, woman, husband, wife

If we all agree, then this discussion may get somewhere.

Quote:
Like John, I would also ask those in the "opposition" camp whether they actually know any homosexuals, let alone committed gay couples. I know several, two of the couples having been together for over 15 years- a better average than many of the straight couples I know. None of couples live or support what you could call an "alternative" lifestyle- other than the fact that they are of the same sex. They have good solid jobs like being financial advisor, stock brokers, communications directors and the like. They work, pay their taxes, keep up nice houses and yards.

I don't see what the fact that they may otherwise be exemplary citizens has to do with the issue at hand. John Wayne Gacy was an outstanding citizen too, until they found 25 bodies or so under his house. And before someone pitches a fit about it, no, I'm not equating homosexuality with mass murder.

Quote:
The point I think the opposers cannot seem to allow is that we are simply talking about other human beings who do not have any choice in the matter as growing scientific evidence suggests.

I simply don't buy that self-serving argument. We all are born with certain proclivities. That does not excuse us from self control.

Quote:
They are not asking for special treatment, just the same that you and I expect.

I don't expect to marry a person of my gender. Isn't that what they are wanting? Therefore they definitely DO want something I don't expect.

Quote:
There was this radical guy a long while back- hung out with whores, corrupt tax collectors, lepers, the poor. All the low lifes no one wanted to include or had been marginalized. He flouted all the religious leaders of the time and told the occupying military officials they didn't matter. He said his table was open to any and all who wanted regardless of what law or society said as long as they wanted to walk the way of peace. Too bad the power brokers arranged to have him killed for that kind of talk. Sounded like a guy that might have something to say in this very debate, like "Who are you to judge?"

Oh boy. So you think Jesus condoned sin? Absolutely not! What did He tell the woman taken in adultery? To "go and sin no more". Why did He command all men to repent? Because of their good works? No, because of their sin!

Merely voicing an opinion about right and wrong is hardly the same as judging. Don't you think some things are wrong and should not be condoned or sanctioned by society?

There is not one shred of evidence in the fossil record that supports Darwin's bullshit. The only thing Darwin has going for him is the government telling public schools to teach it. Oh, and the Darwin Awards. Now, those are funny. Tee hee.

http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1999-48.html

And the the 8th day God created Legacy.

You guys haven't seen 2001 A Space Odyssey (not the book the movie)? The Monolith for Christ's teeth. The Monolith, man! You're looking right at it. Even HAL had a panoramic view of the world around him.

Darwin is dead. That is proven. Nietzsche was wrong with a head stuffed full of syphilis. BTW, he is dead too.

Quote:
Yes, not accepting the theory of evolution makes you an idiot.

I am not name calling, rather I am simply describing your seeming lack of intellect.

Quote:

Quote:
Now you have revealed yourself as an idiot and a bigot, congratulations.

So what does your name calling make you? Not accepting evolution and the big bang makes one an idiot? What an intelligent conclusion!

Wow. What planet are you on where you can call someone an idiot and then deny name-calling in the same post? And with an apparent straight face. Amazing.

So everyone who doesn't "accept" evolution is an idiot, huh? And everyone who believes homosexuality is wrong...well, they're obviously an idiot too. This is rich. And surprising considering how much you liberals prize diversity and tolerance. Many of you seem to be quite a bit less than tolerant yourselves, in light of the fact it is you doing all the name-calling.

Quote:

So everyone who doesn't "accept" evolution is an idiot, huh? And everyone who believes homosexuality is wrong...well, they're obviously an idiot too. This is rich. And surprising considering how much you liberals prize diversity and tolerance. Many of you seem to be quite a bit less than tolerant, yourselves, in light of the fact it is you doing all the name-calling.

Its what gay people do. Didn't you catch the symbolism of the Village People. They looked like idiots. That was the whole point. The Village Idiot.