Conservatives Give Gay Wedding Guidance

Conservatives Give Gay Wedding Guidance

forward.com

Rabbis Adopt Two New Frameworks for Same-Sex Marriages

On May 31, the assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards approved templates, culminating a six-year-long process that began in 2006 when Conservative leaders first officially sanctioned gay relationships. Created by Rabbis Daniel Nevins, Avram Reisner and Elliot Dorff, the ritual guidelines detail two types of gay weddings, as well as gay divorce. “Both versions are egalitarian,” said Nevins. “They differ mostly in style —

(visit the link for the full news article)

— one hews closely to the traditional wedding ceremony while the other departs from it.”

The guidelines passed on a vote of 13 to 0 in the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, with one rabbi abstaining.


forward.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by bokonon2010


I think you have the wrong forum??
Where are your fifty personal words concerning the headline??
Why did you post this?

Starred and Flagged, even though this post may be in the wrong forum, but at least in the "Breaking News" forum, it has seemed to fly under the homophobic radar of the Über-Christian zealots.

reply to post by bokonon2010

if i wanted to just comment on the article, id go to the source.

How about some of your own ideas on this news?

My mother is a marriage and civil union celebrant and we have had more than a few conversations about what my wedding would be like.

I'd love a bbq or a hangi (traditional meal in New Zealand), a few formalities and a good day with people I love. She wants me to consider walking down the aisle witth my partner and our parents, or some variant but I can't get even her to comprehend how that concept makes me feel - sheepish at best. "Heterosexual men deal as best as they can with the ceremonies and certainly don't swish down an aisle like a girl" is the best recallection of what I said to her and she tried to enlighten me with examples of the hundreds of same-sex ceremonies she had performed.

If I can't agree with my Mum about it, I have no idea why there is any pseudo-official 'guidance' at all!

I'm touched that these people made such effort though - good on them.

reply to post by longjohnbritches

reply to post by stanguilles7

reply to post by ...


You have asked for it:

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

reply to post by stanguilles7

 

reply to post by ...

 

You have asked for it:

You sir are homophobic .
why should we heterosexual men / women care about who gay men and woman want to commit to as life partners and have the same legal rights as we heterosexuals do as man & wife ?

Originally posted by pillock

Originally posted by bokonon2010

You sir are homophobic .

Ad-hominem label

Use of homophobia, homophobic, and homophobe has been criticized as pejorative against LGBT rights opponents. Behavioral scientists William O'Donohue and Christine Caselles state that "as [homophobia] is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality" itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the user does not approve.

Homophobia = Ad-hominem label

Originally posted by pillock

Originally posted by bokonon2010

why should we heterosexual men / women care about who gay men and woman want to commit to as life partners and have the same legal rights as we heterosexuals do as man & wife ?

Taxes - just for the beginning.

Gay married couples look to high court on benefits

Friday - June 1, 2012
by DENISE LAVOIE
AP Legal Affairs Writer

BOSTON (AP) - Fresh from a favorable ruling by a federal appeals court, Dorene Bowe-Shulman can't wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on whether same-sex married couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

"I really look forward to the next step," said Bowe-Shulman, one of 17 people from Massachusetts who sued to challenge the constitutionality of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On Thursday, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the law's denial of an array of federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional, affirming a ruling by a federal judge in 2010. Opponents and supporters of gay marriage said the case is now almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court.

www.federalnewsradio.com...

reply to post by bokonon2010


Conservatives giving gay wedding advice?

Isn't this like big game hunters giving advice to animal conservationists?

What's next, the Pope instructing gay couples what to do with each other in the privacy of their bedrooms?

Nobody's telling me what I can or cannot do with my pet squirrels in the privacy of my own little property.

Taxes - just for the beginning.

reply to post by bokonon2010

If same sex marriage was legalized then how could taxes differ from heterosexual marriage ?
I am a heterosexual man but I also believe that people who are born attracted to the same sex should have the same rights as anyone else .

Don't get married, incorporate!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by frazzle
Don't get married, incorporate!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that is something that should be printed in every news paper
Although that is very clever , I still think we should all have the same rights under the marriage law.
I know two women who are so in love that they would each take a bullet to save their partner & some of my buddies who are married would push their wives in front of a bus .

Originally posted by pillock

Originally posted by frazzle
Don't get married, incorporate!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that is something that should be printed in every news paper

Although that is very clever , I still think we should all have the same rights under the marriage law.
I know two women who are so in love that they would each take a bullet to save their partner & some of my buddies who are married would push their wives in front of a bus .

Well thanks, but it wasn't intended to be clever, it just seems to me that any couple looking to really protect one another and get even better benefits/rights than can be expected under current marriage laws/privileges, might want to look into it. Especially the part about exchanging powers of attorney instead of vows, those are made to each other, not to a judge or priest.

reply to post by frazzle

I am not advocating a gay life style , but if that is how they are born then so be it.
I think we should all be treated the same when it comes down to relationships .
Your take on this is very smart but why should they have to be clever to get what should be a right ?
Props to you for thinking outside of the square though

reply to post by pillock


Advocating lifestyles isn't my primary interest either ~ that's highly individual. As for marriage law, precisely what IS that? People talk about these "laws" but I can't seem to find any etched in stone rules and they seem to morph depending on the situation.

But the idea of incorporating rather than a standard marriage isn't limited to gays. This could work for equally well for anybody who doesn't want the government as a third party in their personal relationships.

Originally posted by CaptainLJB
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

Conservatives giving gay wedding advice?

Isn't this like big game hunters giving advice to animal conservationists?

What's next, the Pope instructing gay couples what to do with each other in the privacy of their bedrooms?

Nobody's telling me what I can or cannot do with my pet squirrels in the privacy of my own little property.

It depends on where and what you do:
en.wikipedia.org...
In the U.S. you can enjoy free sexual interaction with your pet in 14 states and DC.
Though, be sure to check animal cruelty and pornography laws.

US Army is another popular retreat for pet and animal lovers:

U. S. Senate Approves Sodomy and Bestiality for the U.S. Military

by Tom Davis
December 6, 2011

As reported in CNS News under the byline of Pete Winn, dated December 1, 2011, the United States Senate by a vote of 97 to 3 passed Senate Bill S. 1867. What should have been simply a routine appropriations bill turned into something grotesque and far, far outside the pale of American decency.

Quoting directly from American vision news in an article by Joel McDurmon, "Yes, it's true: the "indefinite detention" bill passed this week also repealed the Army's prohibitions of sodomy and bestiality. In addition, unbelievably, the Senate voted in favor by overwhelming 93 to 7 majority.

Subtitle E, Section 551(d) states plainly: "Repeal of Sodomy Article-Section 925 of such title (article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) is repealed." (See p. 174, lines 4-6.)

And what exactly is repealed here? The repealed Section 925. Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice clearly states,

(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

These laws are gone, which effectually means a legalization of not just gays in the military, but the gay sex act in the military.

"It's all about using the military to advance this administration's radical social agenda," Family Research Council President Tony Perkins told CNSNews.com. "Not only did they overturn Don't Ask Don't Tell, but they had another problem, and that is, under military law sodomy is illegal, just as adultery is illegal, so they had to remove that prohibition against sodomy."

patriotpost.us...

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by longjohnbritches

 

reply to post by stanguilles7

 

reply to post by ...

 

You have asked for it:

I asked for your fifty words to be within the T+C of posting in Breaking Alternative news.
Are you saying you are the one with text or the mute?

PS I now see it is in an appropriate forum.

Well, guys, I'm waiting... Where's all the "It goes against the Laws of God and Nature" bunch? Where are all those who fear the birth of homunculi and half-human beasts? Where are all those guys ready to quote the biblical "He who layeth with another man..." crap?

I get more entertainment combing the Moral Majority sites than this place!

reply to post by CaptainLJB

Goatina is pleased with that silence of the lambs.