Trefor Heywood

Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I am sometimes amazed about how people will claim that their opposition is logical and not biased and that is based upon love and compassion. They extend "logic" to ludicrous lenghts and introduce all kinds of ludicrous material to obscure the issue which is actually being talked about. It's almost like an attempt at fillibustering. No matter how many times these ludicrous assertions are countered they are raised time and again. When people are opposing they should at least try to find something original to say! Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

"Queer" is a term that some gay people have seized upon in order to turn what was a term of abuse into a term of affirmation and pride - ie that the word is no longer hurtful. "Sodomite" is technically incorrect as the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. It is further incorrect in that what is tehcnically called "Sodomy" is not practiced by many gay people and it is also a heterosexual practice. Whatever term is used we are still people and human beings. Words no longer have the power to hurt that they once did. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

MJ412: And the point of civil rights is to deal with reality and not of theology. Is it not more moral to believe that if people are going to do something that you disapprove of that they are encouraged to do it more safely? Is it not better to encourage an ethos of relationships rather than just of sex? Is it not better to offer responsibility and commitment than to deny it? You acknowledge that you cannot stop people doing things they choose to do. Religious reasons and civil reasons can be different and it is the civil reasons we are thinking of. You can offer heterosexual couples living together an alternative to "living in sin" and they can choose to take it or leave it. Gay couples do not have that choice and even if you still think it is a sin, you may be helping them to keep their level of "sin" down. There are not many useful things that I remember from PFAL but I am reminded of the story that VPW related about the alcoholic who came to his church. He preached against it with all the strength he had and thought he had earned brownie points with God. Did that help the alcoholic at all? Not at all, because the alcoholic knew far more about what it was like than VPW did. Gay people know far more about what it is like to be gay than heterosexuals do. They know what it is like to love, they know what it is like to be disapproved of and discriminated against. They know that what they ask for in civil terms will be a problem for many people with a religious faith, they know it is an uphill struggle. But they know that their homosexuality is not going to go away, they know whom they love and wish to share their lives with. Christian ones will already have examined their faith and their homosexuality and have come to a different conclusion about it than others do. They do not ask for religious toleration but for civil toleration which does not require religious approval. There are many civil freedoms which go against one group or anothers view of the Bible. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges civil divorce, whilst at the same time reserving to itself the right to decide whether a marriage truly existed or not in the case of divorced persons wishing to be remarried in the Catholic Church. Mormons may not like tobacco or alcohol or tea or coffee and encourage abstinence from them but even in Utah they are not prohibited for sale. Just a few items for thought. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Something I found on the net which may be pertinent to the thread as concerning the Commonwealth of Massachussetts: Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Long Gone: If I get you right it could be more the terminology rather than fact itself? Also you are concerned that the "full faith and credit clause" aspect might have impact where you don't think it should? This kind of thing is a problem of the Federal system - that's one of the reasons why Congress panicked and passed DOMA. Here in the UK an act of parliament affects the whole country unless it is specified to affect only part. Scotland for example historically has different legal arrangements and historically what defined a legal mariage was diferent to that of England and Wales. Hence many couple used to run off to get married at Gretna Green but when they returned home their marriage was accepted as legal even though it would not have been legal if it has taken place in England or Wales. This would appear to be something similar to the arrangements that you have. Now marriage has been standardised. I can fully appreciate that states are proud of their own independance in non-federal matters and that Texas, particularly, has its own history as an independant republic. Yet some rights by their nature have to apply federally and this would seem to be the main area of contention. It's not just a case of "well you can go and get married in another state or live in one that suits you better." I honestly wish there was an easy way of sorting it out that would work for all parties. Marriage has more international implications that individual states cannot in themselves resolve. If a US citizen marries a foreign national for example then the foreign partner is allowed an immigration status. My cousin married an American girl and now lives in Philadelphia. Quite a few Brits married Americans through TWI and now live there also. Now that status applies to all US states. No individual state may determine its own immigration laws. So even if you have some states which accept gay marriages or civil partnerships and some which do not, there are still other implications that need to be resolved. International gay relationships have long been a problem all over the world. These are being resolved in countries which have allowed civil gay marriages but, failing a federal solution in the US is still going to lead to problems there. As Lincoln said you cannot have a country that can work properly being half slave and half free. There are some things that have to have wider implications beyond the preferences of individual states. Every so often things that have been in tension have to be resolved. It's not always a painless process because states may take different views. In the nineteenth century is was slavery. In the 20th it was civil rights and possibly in the 21st century it is gay marriage and equal civil rights. This is not making an argument so much as stating a possibility based upon what has happened in the past. We will have to see. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Long Gone: If you cannot accept that people regard it as a legitimate civil right that will end the current discrimination I don't see how we can progress to a concensus. In a free society, the rule of thumb is that things should be allowed unless there is a pressing reason why they should not be allowed. It is not whether a part of society agrees or disagrees. Nobody is forced to be a carnivore or a vegetarian, to drink or not to drink alcohol, to vote or not to vote. People are able to make choices the option for either is available. Heteros can choose to marry or not to marry, gays are denied that option and to claim that it is because they can marry a member of the opposite sex is a non sequitur. Laleos points regarding marrying non humans is equally a non sequitur. Further is it an argument ad adsurdam. No matter what arrangements humans may choose to make and there can be very complex arrangments, marriage requires a level playing field definition. If the state wishes to define it a one plus one at any given time then it is only discriminatory if if it states that only a certain one plus one human combination is allowed. Animals are incapable of making informed moral choices, they cannot make promises and say "I do". Animals are not citizens, they cannot vote or pay taxes and they are not the same flesh. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Calling it crap does not lessen the possiblity that power has something to do with it. I did not write the piece but there is certainly an element of power when it comes to religious leadership, it was not limited to the leadership of TWI. Well if you cannot accept fairness and equality as a crucuial issue and fall back upon tradition as the last word upon any subject I cannot see how to progress with you. You either accept that it is a reasonable proposition or you do not - enough arguments have been made that should show that tradition needs to be questioned. If VPW ever said a true word it was "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I will argue that unless you can show a good reason to the contrary then you should consider the possibility of allowing it. Traditional marriage and families will not collapse, the sky has not fallen in those countries that now allow same sex marriage and heterosexual marriage in those countries carries on as it did before. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Another interesting take upon gay marriage that I found: Gay geneology should be of interest to the Mormons at least! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

dmiller: It's interesting that this should be the case. Anybody applying for US citizenship has to take a test on such matters. My cousin in Philly had to learn this stuff and be able to answer questions about it - also on US History. And yet native born citizens do not and I wonder how deeply it is covered in schools? It's like somebody visiting a city often knows more about the facilities and attractions than somebody living there! Even here we learn stuff about the USA even though it's not directly applicable to us. It can be easy to mix up what is in the Declaration of Independance, the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights. People may well remember a phrase but cannot remember where it is. I can remember the phrase (off the top of my head): "Congress shall not enact any law regarding the free exercise of religon or the establishment thereof"... Now it might not be word perfect and I cannot cite whether it is in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but I think that is the phrase people are thinking of when they say "separation of church and state." But I'm a Brit and therefore have an excuse :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

laleo: Not at all. Zix has consistently demanded a reason that justifies homosexuality to him and no argument that I made appeared to satisfy him. I don't think for one moment that Zix means that gays do not have the right to exist as human beings! It was in that sense that I said what I said, to question the need to justify to an individual our lives, feelings, aspirations to equality etc. I lose count of the people who come up with the same old chestnut that it is fair because I can marry a woman like any other man can. When the object of one's love (as opposed to one's lust) is a man it hardly solves the problem and indeed creates others. The claim was made that marriage was there for the protection and the dignity of the woman. I merely pointed out that this was not always the case. Many women had no choice - they could not work, their families arranged it etc. You cannot have "family stability" without children. A man and a woman without children are a couple, not a family. Yet there are gay couples, on the other hand, who do produce families one way or another, by adoption or other means. They raise the children as decent citizens, there is no indication that this influences the development of their sexuality, just as being part of a family does not prevent gay people from being gay. As to this hostility and jealousy towards women - not at all. This case is on behalf of Lesbians as well as gay men. Mysogyny was for centuries practiced by (presumeably) heterosexual men - goods, chattels, temptresses like Eve, cannot vote etc. It was once even questioned whether or not a woman had a soul! Gay men on the other hand often have close female friends and lesbians close male ones. The only difference is the sexual attraction is not there. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

I found this in one of my newsgroups and thought it pertinent to share. I am not asking people to agree or disagree - I didn't write it, but I think is gives an interesting take upon the proposed amendment to the US Constitution: Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

HAPe4me: Thanks. I wondered if I had missed a few pages too! :D--> When you put your head above the trenches you need a thick skin. Bit of a mixed metaphor there! ;)--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

This is such a difficult question to answer because few things are totally good or bad and we had experiences and met people etc that otherwise we would not have done. It's much easier to reply to the question "Are you glad to be out of TWI?" There is no doubt that our lives could well have taken different courses and we might not be where we are now. But thinking of what might have been is always speculation. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

HAPe4me: Yes, I just noticed Zix's post and was wondering that myself! I have tried not to get ad hominem and to attack viewpoints, not people. I would appreciate Zix quoting where I called him a gay basher... Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

outofadog: I don't think it for the financial reasons (apart from pensions, survivor benefits etc), nor for a nice day to celebrate with family and friends - that can be done at the Metropolitan Community Church and others anyway. But it is to give a relationship official status in civil terms, just as a heterosexual marriage does. If a man and a woman want to get married they are not asked to justify their decision, whether or not they believe it is in God's eyes or not, or whether they intend to have children. They are only asked if they are not within a prohibited degree of consanguinity, that they do it freely and they do not have any spouses still living from they have not been legally divorced and that they are of the relevant age of consent. The reasons are best known to the couple and they will all have different reasons from other couples. The state does not wish to know their reasons so it is speculation for others to conclude one reason more than another. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mark: I bring up DOMA because that is the current state of affairs. I am not claiming that it is not a dogs breakfast as far as legislation goes but many states have used that law to amend their state constitutions. It is not unconstitutional unless and until it goes before the Supreme Court for a ruling - it is their duty to consider what is constitutional or not when challenges are brought before it. That can be a long and slow process. And yes, I do know about Prohibition, I have cited it more than once already. Its major result was to encourage the growth of organised crime. The posting about was animals was interesting and much in line with other things I have seen upon TV. It shoots down the arguments of those who were claiming that it was unknown in the animal world. LCM included - he once asked in a meeting I was at if anybody had heard of a gay kangaroo. Pity I didn't have material like this to throw in his face at the time. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Cynic - you attack Dr Truluck's site without citing one example of where you disagree. It obviously sticks in your craw. I do not read his site the way you do. The American Psychologist Associsation has ruled that Homosexuality is not aberrant behaviour so I will not be drawn into your attempt to link it with those that are. It's a red herring. Mark - the full faith and credit clause is not applicable unless and until DOMA is overruled by the Supreme Court. I am sorry that your blood should be boiling - that is an emotional reaction. Others have had boiling blood for a very long time about things they had no control over. No doubt the abolutionist's blood boiled over the Dredd-Scott case and the KKKs did when full civil rights was finally granted. That's life. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Abigail: A good question. I often wonder if many things are illegal because those who have the power don't like them rather than any real or demonstrable damage to the public good. I have somewhere a list of really weird local laws and prohibitions no doubt because somebody there didn't like a particular thing. Members of the Supreme Court are supposed to deal on point of law, not on their own individual viewpoints or to pander to the interest group that they may have been nominated by. They are human like everyone else, as are legislators but they have greater security of tenure and therefore can afford to be a little more dispassionate. That it was illegal for the slaves to have a voice once did not guarantee that viewpoint for ever. It's funny also how reasoning you may not agree with has to be dubious zix, no doubt any that you yourself agree with has to be wonderful! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Gosh, I go to bed and when I return to this thread after a night's sleep there are two more pages, there is name calling and discussions about the Reformation! :D--> zix: You are still making the same old "take it or leave it argument", that the status quo is the best that there is or ever will be. You are still comparing chalk and cheese. Single heterosexual people have a choice to marry if they want the benefits, homosexual people do not have that choice of marrying the person thay they love. You may be surprised to know that here in the UK first cousins may marry and have children without any legal restriction. The fact that it is illegal elsewhere does not invalidate the marriage and I am sure that were two cousins who had got married elsewhere were to immigrate the the US that their marriage would be still accepted - after all it's one man and one woman! cynic: Culture changes, the understanding of the bible changes and marriage occurs in cultures that have not been biblically influenced. What you are saying is that because we have always done something a certain way based upon a set of beliefs influenced by society that nothing should be amenable of change. The fact that they have been "historically viewed as aberrant" does not mean that this view was ever right. Again I challenge you to look at the bible from another viewpoint. Dr Truluck is a biblical scholar and there are many other scholars who have reached the same or similar conclusions. It might be shocking for you to discover that this "historical view" is in fact wrong but nevertheless the possibility is indeed there. laleo: For centuries a woman that got married became a chattel of her husband. She had no legal rights, all her property went to him as did the children, should he desire, if they separated. Men had a legal right to have sex, forced if necessary, with their wives, were allowed to beat them also without legal penalty or redress. One therefore has to question the amount of advantage to the woman that she supposedly gets than if they did not marry. Children only have stability when a relationship has stability and looking at the statistics for divorce I find this argument hard to swallow. There is no evidence that children brought up by a same sex couple are any less disadvantaged when the "parents" remain together. Some have argued that they are missing the vital role model of a father or a mother but many children are already devoid of one or the other because of divorce. I have said so before but I will repeat it - marriage is not granted on the grounds that the couple will have children - it may be an expectation but it is not obligatory and the inability to have children is no barrier or the complete lack of interest in having any is no bar to marriage. Any relationship exists when two parties consent to it, male and female, male and male, female and female, they do not require anybody else's approval. Men and women can, however get their relaitonship legally recognised should they wish it. Benefits, prvileges and responsiblities flow from that. A gay man whose partner dies however is not considered to be his next of kin. He may lose the home they have built up, he may even be excluded by the family from his partner's funeral. If the partner had been in hospital beforehand he may have been refused access. He could lose out on survivor and pension benefits which would have been his otherwise. Thanks for your kind wishes, when I have a mate about vows. Vows are, however made, to each other, before God and witnesses. A religious marriage is not in itself sufficient to make a marriage in the eyes of the state - it has to be registered as a contract for all the legal recognitions etc to ensue. Divorce always requires a legal act and in some churches, such as the Roman Catholic church, even a civil divorce does not invalidate the marriage. But that's another story. Personally it is not what you call a legally recognised relationship that is important. I am quite content with the arrangements that are being made over here in the UK. If the USA offered similar accomodations and called it something other than marriage I would not object but in the absence of such accomodations being proposed or even opposed I must speak my mind. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

cynic: Or rather your reading of scripture, or the reading of scripture you have been taught. After all, scripture can be read,understood and translated mamy different ways. Take a look at http://www.truluck.com/index.htm sometime. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

It's not for me to argue one way or another about polygyny or polygamy - I was merely making some observations about its practice cynic. All I argue is that there is a level playing field. If the state allows two people to enter into the legal contract of marriage then it should allow any two people of either sex the same. The state does not allow anybody to have multiple marriages and therefore nobody is advantaged or discriminated against or rather everybody is discriminated against equally. We are talking about legal recognitions, not what arrangements that are not legally recognised may occur. Many heterosexual men have their harems, their mistresses, their "other women". VPW was only legally married to Dorothea and LCM is only legally married to Donna. Joseph Smith was only legally married to Emma no matter what other arrangements his religion came to allow at the time. Yet Bob and Tom are not allowed even one legal marriage to each other. That is the discrimination. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

zix's analogies get more mysterious The armed forces and sales privileges are not a matter of society at large. Both hetero and homo soldiers are entitled to them because they are in the forces. They have voluntarily entered into the service of their country. As to polygamy. You can at least argue that there is biblical precedent for it but it appears to have been practiced by the few rather than the many. Whereas the Utah Mormon fundamentalists may have several whom they call wives as far as the state is concerned they have only one legal wife. It is not illegal to cohabit with as many women as one wants as long as one has not attempted to enter into more than one legally recognised marriage. The state authorities can therefore only intervene when there is underage sex or benefit fraud or some other such reason. Yet there is still no recognition of even one legal same sex spouse. I do not hear of many calls for gay polyandry - like the polygamists of Utah, any number of gay men could live together and cohabit but you don;t hear much about that kind of arrangement - gays who want multiple partners can pick them up by various ways wihtout any intention of living with them or having a meaningful relationship. But there are many gay people who want a meaningful relationship - they want to have one legally recognised partner. They can already find churches who will marry them in a religious ceremony but as far as the state is concerned it has no legal meaning or validity. This is the area of argument that one part of the population may have one legally recognised partner if they wish to and another section may not. How one defines rights as opposed to privileges can be difficult, I agree. Even if you think marriage a privilege rather than a right, the inequality nevertheless remains that one part has this privilege and another does not. Looking at a level playing field any adult citizen who fulfils their obligations of citizenship, pays their taxes etc, contributes to society should expect the same privileges to be accorded to them as each other. When it comes to framing documents the general rule of thumb is normally that what is not specifically forbidden or covered must be allowed and where the language is not watertight or capable of more than one interpretation, that is when the courts have to be brought in. This can happen in any country where the legislation is unclear and the judiciary is called in to rule upon points of law - it happens here in the House of Lords just as much as it does in the Supreme Court. It is unfair to accuse the judiciary of interference - they are making rulings upon points of law that are brought before them precisely because the law is unclear. It is for the legislators to ensure that the laws being made are not flawed and unless they do then the judgements must stand until overruled by legislation or by a reversal. There are literally whole libraries of case law precedents on all kinds of matters precisely because the legislation was badly framed and they remain in force unless or until fresh legislation replaces it. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

zix: You seem to be making the argument that priestly celibacy is in some way an eternal truth that is set in stone. It is in fact only a discipline of the western rite of the Roman Catholic Church and is subject to amendment at any time (although not under the current Pope). There are in fact married Catholic priests of other rites and some who were Anglican priests who came over are also married. Yes, homosexuals have entered into heterosexual marriages for some of the reasons you stated, I even did so myself. Even when you make the argument that you can always go to another church that becomes difficult to apply unless you are suggesting that all homosexuals should desert the USA for Canada or other more progressive nations, which in itself creates all sorts of difficulties, and in any case why should a significant group of people have to be exiles from their own land? The USA is not some institution that people can easily choose to leave for a competitor. It is not a theocracy run by celibate old men who do not allow decisions to be made by others. It is "we the people" and gays are people. If it is truly the land or opportunity and equality, the beacon to the world that it is always proclaiming itself to be, then it has to acknowledge that a take it or leave it attitude will no longer wash. People have a right to make their voices known and heard. The fact that you might not like what they have to say is neither here nor there. I have little time for "political correctness" myself. But I do have time for freedom and equality. Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"

Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created problems between states over slavery, the rights of states to secede from the union (ok in principle but if they do in fact secede we will fight a bloody civil war), the rights if states to discriminate against their own citizens etc. They could not foresee how some provisions they made would be abused - the right to bear arms, the separation of church and state etc. Not could they foresee that a time would come when people who had always been there in the population would have aspirations to equal treatment in the area of marriage. That is one reason why the Supreme Court is there - to interpret the Law where there are no specific provisions one way or the other as to whether they can be applied under other provisions or not. As society evolves new things have to be taken into consideration, new tensions and conflicts resolved, areas of doubt and disagreement highlighted. Such experiences are not unique to the USA but the system by how this is done varies from country to country. There are additional tensions and problems that a federal system creates and all legislation has to be tested to see if it is in fact watertight or a dogs breakfast with flaws. Maybe that is why so many politicians are lawyers! :D--> Trefor Heywood "Cymru Am Byth!"