Hello conservative right wingers:

Why do you deny the happiness, that you yourself enjoy, from your fellow citizens? Isn't doing that UN Christianlike?? I think it IS!!

You are bad and wrong for doing that. Tell my why you're not.

excon

Because marriage was made for MAN AND WOMAN. Period. Most people are hetero, and a good # of them have kids. It's known that kids do better with a mom and dad in their lives. Before birth control and nursing homes/hospitals, families had to stick together. And people still get married now because of desire to have kids and have a life with a person. Gays should stop trying to muscle in on a straight tradition. It makes "real" marriage look like a joke. What would be next, marrying a horse?

Hello pass:

You're just wrong... Marriage wan't MADE. There isn't any "real" marriage, any more than there is a "real" Virginia. It ISN'T known at all that children do better with a mom and a dad. You're just making that up.

I'd like to argue with somebody who has FACTS on their side - not just more right wing Christian mumbo jumbo. Please.

excon

If marriage wasn't "made" then how does it exist, and exist with rules? Virginia is real as far as we're concerned (maybe not in the grand scheme of things) and it has it's own laws.

BTW, this question is mostly a matter of opinion, so I don't know why you are so angry about me stating my opinion along with some facts. Also, you addressed this question to Christians, or right-wingers... so duh, what do you expect?

And people still get married now because of desire to have kids and have a life with a person.

Why should this not apply to gays? Why should they not be allowed to "get married now because of desire to have kids and have a life with a person."?

Seriously, the outcome of prop 8 sickens me. For all the acceptance the american people have shown by voting for obama, the amount of sickening discrimination and manipulation shown in the campaign to pass prop 8 is truly shocking.

Hello again, pass:

I expect an argument based on facts - not Christian dogma. And, you ain't got facts.

excon

PS> Ok, I'll play with you a little while. Marriage is a religions institution. I don't think it was "made". I think it just was. If marriage REMAINED a religious institution, I wouldn't have ANY problem with it...

However, in addition to it being religious in nature, it ALSO has a LEGAL aspect. People who are married are granted specific legal rights BECAUSE they're married. Therefore, it's only fair, and CHRISTIAN like to make sure your brother gets to enjoy the very same rights YOU enjoy...

But no... Because gays are going to hell, so they don't deserve ANYTHING... Come on, pass. You can tell us how you REALLY feel.

First off "passmeby"... you offered no facts.
Secondly, your opinion that it is "known" that children do better with a mom and dad in their life is wrong.
Children do better with two parents... period. That can consist of a male and female, male and male, or female and female.

There are numerous studies that prove, giving real facts, that children brought up in a homosexual family exibit the same positive upbringings that a child brought up in a heterosexual family does. Actually, most children in a homosexual parent household outshine other children in areas of socialibility, and creativeness.

And, what, you are trying to compare a woman marrying a women or a male marrying a male... like marrying an animal?? Hardly a vaild comparison and actually hinders your answer from being consider factual or mature.

~best wishes from a heterosexual female who is married to a heterosexual male... and who truly understands that there cannot be limits on love.

I've said many times that the states should get out of marriage all together. All of the Christians want marriage to be a religious issue then it should be not be a part of state law then.
I have no problem with the state renaming my marriage to domestic partnership and then if I want the religious title of marriage I have to find a private institution willing to do it.

I feel that "marriage" is not nearly the religious institution it used to be. Many marriages are desolving because of problems ranging from abuse to adultry to who knows what. Many people get married only for the legal aspects, i.e. more tax deductions.
Yes, many people do still enter into the religious institution of marriage, and many survive and grow through it.
No matter what the reasoning of someone wanting to get married, should this not be allowed for all people, no matter their sexual preference?! It's very sad to know that so many americans are still so blinded by predjudices, that they vote to deny marriage to people who, choose a slightly different lifestyle. I personally think it's very sick and very wrong to deny people that which they deserve. Homosexuals love just as strongly as hetrosexuals, and should be given the right to marriage if that is what they choose to do.

I have answered this many times. My biggest question at this point is :why do people of California overwhelmingly vote in these Gavin Newsome types while at the same time voting for conservative intitiatives ?

Orwellians do like to change the meanings of words .But marriage is a religious institution. The term "marriage " should be stricken from the "public "records and replaced by the term "unions" .We don't want the government making decisions about baptism ,communion,or other sacraments .The government should also get out of the marriage business. On that we agree.

Where the states are involved in the contractual aspects of the relationship( joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity,child rearing ), I agree that all equal rights should apply. That would be easily solved by calling all such contracts on the state books as "unions "or "contracts " and leaving the term marriage to the authority of religious institutions.

The distinction nonetheless ,where states have both definitions, does not in my view violate your concerns about 14th Amendment rights since both "marriage " and "civil unions" where they are presently practiced afford equal rights to both.Before you come back at me with the "separate but equal " distinction of the 14th I will say that does NOT apply in this case. The reason Brown V. Board of Education was overturned was that the court believed the facilities were unable to ever be truly equal. In this case, civil unions are held to be an acceptable alternative where they have been granted .

But the bottom line is that there are apx 1000 Federal Benefits and apx an additional 400 State benefits that the contract of "marriage " qualifies .
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

Extending those rights equally to all contractual "unions " would more than satisfy all legal concerns ;it would also give the added benefit of qualifying cohabitation and other common law concerns.

Frankly, I don't think anyone should be allowed to be "married" until they have a "domestic partnership" that they go to a courthouse and get from the state.

Once you have a domestic partnership, you have all the LEGAL aspects of marriage. You are not, however, allowed to call your spouse "husband" or "wife" or call yourself "married". You have a spouse and are partnered.

If you can find a religion---ANY religion--that is willing to "marry" you, then great! You can get married in that church, and call yourself married, etc, etc, etc.

And guess what? Most pagan religions recognize homosexual marriages. I see a great uprise in people converting to MY religion because Christianity is too judgemental.

Oh--and those people against gay marriage because it's against their religion should ALSO be against divorce because THAT is against most religions. Show me where divorced people didn't end up as social outcasts, excommunicated, prior to the 1950s or so! So... those preaching "no gay marriage because it's against god" need to remember that the church vows for marriage state "Til Death Do Us Part"----which to me means you're going against god if you divorce.

So basically THAT argument means that all divorced people should be pro-homosexual marriage.

Extending those rights equally to all contractual "unions " would more than satisfy all legal concerns ;it would also give the added benefit of qualifying cohabitation and other common law concerns.Hello tom:

What I want to know, is why you don't want them to marry. I know you think it's the same... But, it ain't.

What does it TAKE from YOU, that gays can marry?? I asked a simple question at the top. I know WHY you Christians DON'T want to answer it...

Cause you can't!

excon

What you are asking for is a rejection of the morals and that won't happen here.

Hello again, tom:

At least you have to courage to say it outright. Wassa matter with your fellow righty's?

I think you're wrong. At least I hope you are.

excon

What's moral about preventing the happiness of your fellow man?

Hello Cappy:

Because gay people are an abomination. They're damned to hell and not worthy of equal rights, happiness, or ANY Christianlike attitudes. Besides, this IS a Christian country.

There, Christians. I answered for you.

excon

Reagardless of my opinion ;I have given an equitable solution for the secular state .

Hello again, tom:

I again, suggest that separate but equal, ISN'T equal, EVEN if differs in name only. Because if it truly WAS equal, you wouldn't have a problem with what it's called.

excon

I disagree for reasons I stated in my first response.

But still the main thrust of my response is that for all legal concerns, the state calling all cohabitational unions as "civil union"would satisfy your constitutional concerns.

To make it COMPLETELY equal would require that ONLY marriages made by the state be recognized as legal for any kind of legal/state benefit--like seeing your spouse in the hospital, or inheritance upon death, or legal decisions when they are incapacitated, or tax breaks.

All religious marriages would then be ONLY recognized by the church.

If you want recognition from both, then you have to get married in both.

Hello Syn:

That just makes TOO much sense...

But, the right isn't trying to make it equal. It's about MORALS - not equality. Good for tom for saying it outright.

excon

"There is nothing divine about morality; it is purely a human affair"

Albert Einstein, 1954

To make it COMPLETELY equal would require that ONLY marriages made by the state be recognized as legal for any kind of legal/state benefit--like seeing your spouse in the hospital, or inheritance upon death, or legal decisions when they are incapacitated, or tax breaks.

All religious marriages would then be ONLY recognized by the church.

If you want recognition from both, then you have to get married in both.


Exactly... except for legal purposes the word "marriage " would be scrubbed . Leave marriage as the religious institution it was intended as.

exactly ...except for legal purposes the word "marriage " would be scrubbed . Leave marriage as the religious institution it was intended as.


Some Christian denominations marry Gay people willingly as their interpretation of the Bible is different from more fundamental Christian Churches. Do we not have freedom of religion?

exactly ...except for legal purposes the word "marriage " would be scrubbed . Leave marriage as the religious institution it was intended as.Hello again, tom:

You're getting real close... but you still want a legal distinction...

What if we just called religious marriage - marriage - but call every union that has RIGHTS attached to it, governmentified?

excon

Hello again, pass:.

But no..... Because gays are going to hell, so they don't deserve ANYTHING... Come on, pass. You can tell us how you REALLY feel.

oh come on ex that is unfair. I love how you asked for our opinions and then answer it yourself.

Christians believe that the LORD instituted marriage and that it is between a man and a woman. He made adam and eve ( not adam and steve... bad joke) In the bible homosexuality is considered a sin... but so is lying, cheating, fornication etc. As a Christain woman, I do not think homosexuality is any worse than any other sin. There isn't a sin that man commits that isn't forgivable.. except of course rejection of Christ. So to say that we think all Gays are headed for hell is BOGUS.

Because I am a Christian I believe marriage should STAY between a man and a woman. That is NOT UN christian. What WOULD be un-Christian is to hate someone just because they are gay.

What WOULD be un-Christian is to hate someone just because they are gay.Hello T:

You know what?? I'll bet the gays would be OK if you hated them, but let them marry?

Denying them the rights that you yourself enjoy, is pretty un-Christianlike, in my view. But, I'm not a Christian, so I can only guess what IS Christianlike and what isn't. I hear about loving your neighbor as yourself. I hear about not doing something to somebody that you don't want done to yourselves...

I don't know. Maybe I'm not hearing you Christians correctly. Set me straight.

excon

I'd like to know where in the Bible God gave the definition of marriage, actually.

So we're back to this again? No surprise, I agree entirely with tom. I still have this nagging question though, how CAN gay "marriage" be "equal" to heterosexual "marriage?" It can't, plain and simple. We can bestow all of the same rights and privileges and the two can never be "equal" so why can't we all be happy with civil "unions" and keeping "marriage" the religious institution it has been? I know, you're going to tell me it can be equal, but how? I thought we were supposed to celebrate our differences anyway, so why can't folks be happy with the obvious differences between gay unions and heterosexual marriages if the same rights and privileges apply?

Hello T:

You know what??? I'll bet the gays would be ok if you hated them, but let them marry?

Denying them the rights that you yourself enjoy, is pretty un-Christianlike, in my view. But, I'm not a Christian, so I can only guess what IS Christianlike and what isn't. I hear about loving your neighbor as yourself. I hear about not doing something to somebody that you don't want done to yourselves....

I dunno. Maybe I'm not hearing you Christians correctly. Set me straight.

excon

Ex,

HEY... homosexual activity is a sin according to the BIBLE... not according to me. I am so far from God's standard of right that it isn't even funny! But for me to vote for something that I know God has said no to IS WORNG. We should love our neighbor as ourselves and we should do unto to others... but all of that has to line up with what God has set as right and wrong. I can love my neighbor but if he asked me to drive the get away car when he robs a bank.. I got to say no.

The problem today is that people in general don't want God's standard. They don't WANT right and wrong and God FORBID you be polically incorrect and be a "CHRISTIAN" and stand for God's WORD. I can't count the times I have been called intolerant because I believe in right and wrong. I am NOT intolerant... I just believe God's word. I don't hate Gay's I don't hate people who have abortions... I don't hate anyone. I just couldn't VOTE for something that I know God said... don't do.


Synn-

Genesis 2:24 Therfore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh. That is the biblical definition of marriage.

I'd like to know where in the Bible God gave the definition of marriage, actually.

Synnen, that's one of the earliest things found in the bible and affirmed later.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Gen 2:24

"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." Mark 10:6-9

So we're back to this again? No surprise, I agree entirely with tom. I still have this nagging question though, how CAN gay "marriage" be "equal" to heterosexual "marriage?" It can't, plain and simple. We can bestow all of the same rights and privileges and the two can never be "equal" so why can't we all be happy with civil "unions" and keeping "marriage" the religious institution it has been? I know, you're going to tell me it can be equal, but how? I thought we were supposed to celebrate our differences anyway, so why can't folks be happy with the obvious differences between gay unions and heterosexual marriages if the same rights and privileges apply?

I will assume that your authority on what constitutes marriage is from the Bible. Yet, there are some Christian Churches who interpret the Bible differently and allow the marriage of two people of the same sex.

Tell me, who amongst Christianity settles what is truth and what isn't? The majority? Now that would be a slippery slope.

Obviously each church is subject to their own authority . People are free to go to whatever denomination they are most comfortable in .

I will assume that your authority on what constitutes marriage is from the Bible. Yet, there are some Christian Churches who interpret the Bible differently and allow the marriage of two people of the same sex.

Tell me, who amongst Christianity settles what is truth and what isn't? The majority? Now that would be a slippery slope.

God's word is the final authority... not a Church and not the majority. If you look hard enough you can find a CHRUCH to stand for whatever you want it to. Doesn't make it right.

Obviously each church is subject to their own authority . People are free to go to whatever denomination they are most comfortable in .

Then why are you supporting the Government getting involved in telling those Churches who are OK with gay marriage that they can't marry gay couples? I thought right wingers didn't like Government involvement in people's lives?

Great answer, classy! So true.

Anyway, I have to say how I can't believe how nasty the OP has been through this topic. He asked for opinions, called on Christians to answer, and then slams everyone with a differing opinion.

I don 't think gays should be allowed to marry. Not even just from a Christian perspective, I just think it's unnatural. I also think the practice of gay marriage, if legal, would be greatly abused for financial gains. Being gay is a defect, obviously. All living things have one purpose-to reproduce. Just because the times we live in now, where a person can be a productive member of society without having kids, doesn't make being gay not a defect. Obviously, if you're attracted to the same sex, you can't reproduce, and therefore, in the natural world, you are useless.

And that is my opinion, and I think YOU are wrong, excon. What, did you fall in love with your cellie or something? Is this why you are asking?

If it is about morals and religion why am I allowed to get married? My wife and I are both flaming atheists.
In fact we purposely scrubbed the word god out of all of our marriage vows.
I guarantee that my marriage does more to frown on your religion then any couple that happens to be gay.

Or is that next on the agenda? First make sure marriage gets defined in the state as a religious contract. Then continue to narrow who can get married till only Christians of a certain type can get the benefits of marriage.

Then why are you supporting the Government getting involved in telling those Churches who are OK with gay marriage that they can't marry gay couples?
Did I say that ? No I did not . I made no opinion on churches that marry gay couples at all. What I did say was that marriage is a religious institution and that the state should not be involved in sanctioning them . I said the state instead should be certifiying unions of couples and calling it that.

Thank you for that definition.

I could get into the whole whose god's word is the final authority there are so many and where does that word come from and how do you verify that it is gods will. That's probably a topic for another thread though.

If it is about morals and religion why am I allowed to get married? My wife and I are both flaming atheists.
In fact we purposely scrubbed the word god out of all of our marriage vows.


Was your "marriage " then sanctioned in a church ;or was it a civil ceremony ?

Civil ceremony of course. Although I believe the woman that married us was a minister of some church or other. We were required to have someone that was legally able to sign the license and most of the time that means a minister of some sort they seem to be the only ones that go through the paper work to do that here in VA.

Great answer, classy!! So true.

Anyway, I have to say how I can't believe how nasty the OP has been through this topic. He asked for opinions, called on Christians to answer, and then slams everyone with a differing opinion.

I don 't think gays should be allowed to marry. Not even just from a Christian perspective, I just think it's unnatural. I also think the practice of gay marriage, if legal, would be greatly abused for financial gains. Being gay is a defect, obviously. All living things have one purpose-to reproduce. Just because the times we live in now, where a person can be a productive member of society without having kids, doesn't make being gay not a defect. Obviously, if you're attracted to the same sex, you can't reproduce, and therefore, in the natural world, you are useless.

And that is my opinion, and I think YOU are wrong, excon. What, did you fall in love with your cellie or something? Is this why you are asking?

Are you saying that I am defective because I am infertile? Seriously?

I'm not a lesbian, but I AM infertile----and that attitude is EXACTLY why infertile couples don't usually advertise WHY they don't have kids.

And by that token---are those couples that CHOOSE not to have children useless because they don't reproduce? Are they EVIL because they choose not to add to the growing population problem in the world?

Honestly, I think there are more Christian ideas that are "defective" than non-christian ideas. And again---anyone arguing that God says that marriage is a man and woman becoming one--and thank you for the quote--should NEVER get divorced, nor believe in divorce, because you're cleaving apart what GOD made to be put together.

If you're protesting gay marriages, you should ALSO be protesting divorced people being able to remarry in the church, because by the church's definition, they CAN'T divorce---GOD made them one, and only GOD can part them.

Anyway, I have to say how I can't believe how nasty the OP has been through this topic. He asked for opinions, called on Christians to answer, and then slams everyone with a differing opinion.....
And that is my opinion, and I think YOU are wrong, excon. What, did you fall in love with your cellie or something? Is this why you are asking?Hello pass:

I'm NOT the nasty one here. I have over 9,000 posts. I've been here for LOTS of years. These people are my friends. I don't attack people. I don't insult them.

What I have is opinions. I speak them loudly and vociferously WITHOUT insulting anyone. Too bad you can't live up to the standards of an exconvict. You're the nasty one, in fact.

I will answer your question, however, your insult notwithstanding.

I understand, that you cannot understand a citizen who wants to share the freedoms and bounties that our country promises, simply because the country promises it, and nothing more. You think there has to be something in for me, I suppose, because you're not able to see beyond your own selfish wants.

I understand your kind. I really do.

excon

Civil ceremony of course
The state then has no business bringing up issues of ' God 'in the ceremony then. My position is that the word marriage should only apply to the religious sacrament . Civil union then applied equally would satisfy all concerned unless the agenda was different then equal rights under the law.

I will assume that your authority on what constitutes marriage is from the Bible. Yet, there are some Christian Churches who interpret the Bible differently and allow the marriage of two people of the same sex.

Tell me, who amongst Christianity settles what is truth and what isn't? The majority? Now that would be a slippery slope.

Churches and people can interpret the bible any way they want but it doesn't make it the right interpretation. And on this subject there is no doubt what the correct interpretation is, there is nothing, nada, zilch, zero in the bible that can truthfully be interpreted to sanction gay marriage.

Are you saying that I am defective because I am infertile? Seriously?

I'm not a lesbian, but I AM infertile----and that attitude is EXACTLY why infertile couples don't usually advertise WHY they don't have kids.

And by that token---are those couples that CHOOSE not to have children useless because they don't reproduce? Are they EVIL because they choose not to add to the growing population problem in the world?

Honestly, i think there are more Christian ideas that are "defective" than non-christian ideas. And again---anyone arguing that God says that marriage is a man and woman becoming one--and thank you for the quote--should NEVER get divorced, nor believe in divorce, because you're cleaving apart what GOD made to be put together.

If you're protesting gay marriages, you should ALSO be protesting divorced people being able to remarry in the church, because by the church's definition, they CAN'T divorce---GOD made them one, and only GOD can part them.

I believe God meant for sex to be MORE than just to reproduce.

Synn, I do believe that divorce is wrong other than the reasons that God gives in His word. So, I wouldn't get a divorce just because I fell out of love, or couldn't get along or whatever. However there ARE biblical reasons for a divorce but that is for another thread.

I am not protesting Gay marriages. I just wouldn't vote for it.

If it is about morals and religion why am I allowed to get married? My wife and I are both flaming atheists.
In fact we purposely scrubbed the word god out of all of our marriage vows.
I guarantee that my marriage does more to frown on your religion then any couple that happens to be gay.

Or is that next on the agenda? First make sure marriage gets defined in the state as a religious contract. Then continue to narrow who can get married till only Christians of a certain type can get the benefits of marriage.

I'm glad you found a flaming atheists. Being married to someone like myself could be hazzardous to your health.. lol. I don't care if your marriage does more to frown on my beliefs... good for you. Sounds more like you hate god than you don't believe in him but that is my take...

Your last comment is just silly.

I'm glad you found a flaming atheists. Being married to someone like myself could be hazzardous to your health..Hello again, T:

I'm a flaming atheist. You'd LOVE being married to me. We'd have a GOOD time.;)

Exy

I don't dislike god he doesn't exist. It would be the same as saying you hate Santa Clause. You can't hate him cause he doesn't exist. You can how ever say you disapprove if someone used the legend of Santa Clause to use children as slave labor. You still wouldn't believe in Santa Clause or hate him. You would hate how people use the idea of him to get what they want. Same thing with me and god just replace Santa Clause with god.

And as far as my last comment being silly. History is full of groups that use wedges to get what they want.
Haven't you ever heard of the poem by Martin Niemöller.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

It is up to all of us to defend equal rights for everyone regardless of how we feel about how they exorcise those rights because if any of us are not equal then none of us are free.

Hello again, T:

I'm a flaming atheist. You'd LOVE being married to me. We'd have a GOOD time.;)

exy

EX,

Ever seen the show "Snapped"... well there would be my mug shot and all that would be left of you is a white chalk outline... lol lol. I crack me up.:D

If marriage wasn't "made" then how does it exist, and exist with rules? Virginia is real as far as we're concerned (maybe not in the grand scheme of things) and it has it's own laws.

BTW, this question is mostly a matter of opinion, so I don't know why you are so angry about me stating my opinion along with some facts. Also, you adressed this question to Christians, or right-wingers......so duh, what do you expect?


Because they hate GOD and anything he stands for. Gen. 3:15
They are trying to tear down Christiandom. That's all it is. Watch, this will really piss the canaanites off! The real truth always does.

All living things have one purpose-to reproduce. Just because the times we live in now, where a person can be a productive member of society without having kids, doesn't make being gay not a defect. Obviously, if you're attracted to the same sex, you can't reproduce, and therefore, in the natural world, you are useless.

And that is my opinion, and I think YOU are wrong, excon. What, did you fall in love with your cellie or something? Is this why you are asking?

So because myself along with others can't produce children naturally because they are infertile... we are defective... we are "useless".

You're stepping on all the wrong toes for all the wrong reasons.

Yet another post to back up my comment to your first one. You continue to show how immature, and ignorant you are on the subject at hand... while pulling out statements you try to pass as factual information when in fact they have zero credibility. You can't seem to back up anything you have to say with logical arguments. Instead you call people useless, defective, and personally insult people.

Maybe you wouldn't feel excon is "nasty" if you actually had anything remotely intelligent to say.

Hello mag:

I don't know if I'm one of those canaanites you speak of. I don't even know what they are. I surely don't know what Christiandom is. Course, I recognize that I'm dealing with an anti semite religious fanatic here, so I'll take that into consideration...

However, I celebrate Christianity. I'm thrilled that I live in a country that has, as one of its FIRST tenets, the freedom of religion. Of course, MY understanding of what that means, is obviously different than YOUR understanding of what it means.

To me, and to anybody who can actually read, it says that you are free to practice YOUR religion. It doesn't say that I have to practice it along with you. As a matter of fact, it says that I DON'T! You think it does.

I don't know WHY you would think so. I guess it's possible that you believe that the United States of America is a Christian nation, so it should follow the Bible instead of the Constitution... Hmmm. I know of some real bad guys who think their Bible should be forced upon you too. But, I digress...

I don't know where it says any of that in our founding documents... But, you don't care much for what the actual law IS... You just want it to be your way, and you snivel when it isn't. Poor pitiful man.

excon

PS> (edited) In case anybody is confused, NOW, I'm being nasty!

Because they hate GOD and anything he stands for. Gen. 3:15


You can't hate something you don't believe exists. That doesn't make sense. But then again its not unusual for me to not make sense of Christianity.

Synn brings up a great point about divorce. No one seems to rant and rave about divorced couples remarrying in church. But then again divorced people are like you, whereas gay people are different aren't they?

Michaelb- that quote made me a little teary, I must admit- thank you for that.

As I think many know, I am of course a proponent of gay marriage- I believe that my partner and I deserve the same legal protections as any other loving couple. We are not "defective" because we do not spawn more children in an already overpopulated world- we plan on adopting, and giving a home to a child who needs one- if that makes us "useless", then I don't quite understand what you would deem useful. Our world is much more complex than it was years ago- there are more ways to be an asset to your society than reproducing.

While the idea of separating "civil marriage" and "religious marriage" seems to be ideal, I highly doubt it will ever happen. If you're married by the state and call it a "civil union" and then married by a religion and call it "marriage"... well, there are a number of problems with that.

First, it seems from conversations I've had with friends and coworkers that many straight couples who are married by a justice of the peace through a civil ceremony would be at least a bit annoyed to be told that they were no longer "married"- true, it's just a word, but it's a word that has developed meaning to people in our society, both religious and non-religious. It has a connotation of being joined together in a special way to someone you love deeply- and straight people would likely fight to keep that word in the same way that we are fighting to be included in it. Marriage didn't always have this connotation- think back to arranged marriages, for example... love had nothing to do with it. Neither did reproduction for any noble or holy reason- it was about power, wealth, the joining of families for political reasons... but marriage changed and evolved over time as society changed and evolved- this is just the next logical step.

Now, aside from straight people not wanting to go from "married" to "civily unioned"... there would still be nothing to prevent gay people from getting "married". As someone in this thread previously mentioned, there are religions which have no qualms over recognizing a gay couple as married- so it would happen anyway.

It's the natural progression of things. Civil marriage is the business of the state, which has the obligation to equally protect it's citizens. Religious marriage is at the discretion of the religion. So even if we go the route of separating EVERYONE married by the state from those married by a religious official and call them different things at that level... gay people will still be able to get "married" in their own churches should they choose to do so.

I included a comparison to condemnations of interracial marriages on another post in the Issues section on Prop 8--- if you're interested, feel free to go check it out. Don't have the time to get into it here.

EX,

ever seen the show "Snapped"....well there would be my mug shot and all that would be left of you is a white chalk outline...lol lol. i crack me up.:D
You would kill him? Why?

You can't hate something you don't believe exists. That doesn't make sense. But then again its not unusual for me to not make sense of Christianity.

Don't worry Skell, even us Christians can't make sense of Christianity sometimes.


Synn brings up a great point about divorce. No one seems to rant and rave about divorced couples remarrying in church. But then again divorced people are like you, whereas gay people are different aren't they?

You mean this?


If you're protesting gay marriages, you should ALSO be protesting divorced people being able to remarry in the church, because by the church's definition, they CAN'T divorce---GOD made them one, and only GOD can part them.

There have been provisions for divorce from Deuteronomy on, but it was God's design for marriage to be forever. But I don't believe the bible says man can't undo the union, it says don't let man separate what God has joined together... that wasn't the plan. But to think we should protest remarrying in the church is to ask us to set aside our views on grace and forgiveness. We may find divorce a tragedy but it doesn't mean people don't deserve another chance at happiness... which of course leads to the question why don't we want gays to have that same happiness and starts this circle all over again.

It is up to all of us to defend equal rights for everyone regardless of how we feel about how they exorcise those rights because if any of us are not equal then none of us are free.

Michaleb,

I guess then you would defend one of those creepy men in a mormon cult that have 15 wives and some of them pretty darn young. So they should be free to legally marry as many woman as they like? They have their rights too??

You would kill him? Why?

NK,

I was joking on account of him being a "flaming atheist" and me being a Christian.ok OK.. it was a BAD joke... I just liked the white chalk out line thing.. lol anyway don't think I offended him. And before you reprimand me with the THOU SHALT NOT KILL... remember... Christians can make a funny too.

... which of course leads to the question why don't we want gays to have that same happiness and starts this circle all over again.

Well that is EASY.. because we are intolerant. Speech don't you know that by now?. all Christians are intolerant, small minded, evil beings. AND we have no sense of humor either. I don't even know why we are here.. why ARE we here. Maybe I will start that thread. LOL

Omg lol ? Lol!

Actually--doesn't the Bible make provision for polygamy?

I mean, if Jacob could have 2 wives, why can't Steve have one husband?

I don't have a problem, by the way, with people who want to have multiple wives/husbands----as long as the rules are the same as any other marriage: CONSENTING and ADULTS being the main two rules.

Well that is EASY..because we are intolerant. Speech don't you know that by now?...all Christians are intolerant, small minded, evil beings. AND we have no sense of humor either. I don't even know why we are here..why ARE we here. Maybe i will start that thread. LOL

Of course I know that by now, I've been reminded soooo many times. At least we're not as angry as liberals :D

Of course I know that by now, I've been reminded soooo many times. At least we're not as angry as liberals :DLiberals aren't christians?

Liberals aren't christians?Hello NK:

Not REAL Christians.

excon

Liberals aren't christians?

That's not for me to say. I just said liberals, Christian, atheist, agnostic whatever. They do seem to be an awfully angry bunch but perhaps the combination of Bush leaving and The One taking over can heal them of their anger. ;)

Actually--doesn't the Bible make provision for polygamy?

I mean, if Jacob could have 2 wives, why can't Steve have one husband?

I don't have a problem, by the way, with people who want to have multiple wives/husbands----as long as the rules are the same as any other marriage: CONSENTING and ADULTS being the main two rules.

I love it; Adam, Eve and Jane? Speaking of things in and not in the bible; just exactly where did Cain and Abel get their wives? Sisters? :eek:

I love it; Adam, Eve and Jane? Speaking of things in and not in the bible; just exactly where did Cain and Abel get their wives? Sisters? :eek:

It's the only thing that makes sense and you got to start somewhere ;)

That's not for me to say. I just said liberals, Christian, atheist, agnostic whatever. They do seem to be an awfully angry bunch but perhaps the combination of Bush leaving and The One taking over can heal them of their anger. ;)Haven't you noticed that it isn't the liberals starting the angry threads here?

Haven't you noticed that it isn't the liberals starting the angry threads here?

Yes speech, haven't you noticed?. geesh I got to teach you everything!. the LIBERALS are kind, understanding, sensitive, caring, loving and just plain adorable.. I mean you want to just reach out and squeeze their little cheeks. Their topics are just informative... they are NEVER angry and this is a big one... THEY ARE ALWAYS politically correct.. well dog on it.. lets' just call a spade a spade.. they are always CORRECT... period. :rolleyes:

You're a weird one indeed.

NK,

It is called SARCASM!

Speech, we may be ONE up on them... they appear not to be too bright.

Sorry ex... I am off the topic.

Hello Cappy:

Because gay people are an abomination. They're damned to hell and not worthy of equal rights, happiness, or ANY Christianlike attitudes. Besides, this IS a Christian country.

There, Christians. I answered for you.

excon

UGH... you didn't answer for me. I just read this fyi... homosexual activity is a sin... not because I said so but because GOD did. What you don't understand ex.. is that ALL of us NOT just Gay people are NOT worthy of anything and we are ALL born damned to hell.I didn't say that... GOD did. So do me a great big favor and quit acting like Christians somehow THINK we are better because we are NOT. You do NOT understand Christians... you THINK you do but you don't. Don't answer for me and I won't answer for YOU.

Michaleb,

I guess then you would defend one of those creepy men in a mormon cult that have 15 wives and some of them pretty darn young. So they should be free to legally marry as many woman as they like? They have their rights too???


If all of the wives are over 18 and consent to the marriage, sure, why not?


Obviously, if you're attracted to the same sex, you can't reproduce, and therefore, in the natural world, you are useless.

Huh. So gays are all sterile? I just learn sumpthin' new e'ryday...

Lol about all of us homos bein' sterile...

That really made me laugh out loud.

Thank you.

:)

I just don't understand how people can be so cruel. Take away the religion and politics…what you have left are people…living, breathing people. Who cares if they are gay, straight, etc. People don't wake up one day and decide “hum, I think I'm going to be gay!” They are born this way. Therefore, their rights should not be denied. If a gay couple wants to take their relationship to the next level and get hitched, they should be able to. If they want to start a family, they should have that freedom. Let's get out of the Stone Age people. If God's so good then why can't he love everybody despite their differences? Yes, gay is a difference, not a flaw, not a sin.

Huh. So gays are all sterile? I just learn sumpthin' new e'ryday... [/QUOTE]

OK, where did I say all gays are sterile? I guess I have to put this into simpler terms for those who don't get it. OK... a gay person is attracted to another person of the same sex. Two people of the same sex can't conceive a child together. Clear? Every living things purpose is to reproduce, name one living thing that doesn't (besides gays and people with fertility issues). Therefore I believe being gay is a flaw as it interferes with the proliferation of our species.

wow! You started a big discussion!
I just wanted to put my two cents in that I don't think there is anything wrong with two gays getting married. I can see where the church would not want to be a part of it... however the church marries alcoholics, pedophiles, and adulterers... so I think the church should allow gay marriage and love them the say way they love the drug abusers and murderers. Homosexuality is a sin... that can't be contested in a christian setting but we all sin and no one sin is worse then another. Just so everyone knows... I am very happy in a heterosexual marriage. I think that being gay is a sin and is wrong but I also think it is wrong to compulsively work and make work your idol... or to do drugs, drink, cheat, lie, steal, kill, etc!
If the time ever comes for a vote on gay marriage in my area I will definitely vote to legalize it... my religious views should not be imposed on anyone... that is why we live in America!! And that is why my husband fights 6000 miles away from me for years to ensure that we all have the freedom to practice whatever religion or even bad mouth the people fighting for us... I agree with the people who said that marriage should be a state thing in the sense of legal marriage and if you want a godly union then you can do that separately through your church or temple or synagoge or where ever you worship. I feel like someone is going to challenge me on this but I can take it! Im opinionated but respectful.

kraussnumber2
Thank you and your husband for you do for the country. I have been the one advocating the complete separation of the civil laws and religious ceremony. I think it would be the solution for the issue respecting magog85's well stated counterpost. I'll agree to disagree on the specifics.

My own view is that this will not get settled on a state by state basis. As I pointed out to Excon his objection of the separate but equal 14th amendment Brown v Board of Ed decision historically only applies when it is proven that separate but equal cannot be achieved. Also in play as everyone is mentioning is the 1st amendment " separations ".

But the biggest reason this will have to be settled federally is because of the 'full faith and credit " clause in the constitution[Article IV, Section 1] that says states have to respect the "public acts, records, and judicial rulings" of other states.As Justice Scalia argued in his dissent of Lawrence V Texas once one state permitted 'gay marriage' the "full faith and credit "clause arguably mandates that all states recognize the contract. NYState has taken that interpretation . We do not have gay marriages but the Governor recognizes ones that were performed out of state.

So because of issues of the full faith and credit clause,the 1st and 14th amendments ; the question of gay marriage will need to be settled nationally ;either by SCOTUS decision or constitutional amendment.

Haven't you noticed that it isn't the liberals starting the angry threads here?

Believe it or not there's a whole other world outside of this place, NK. Have you not paid attention to the last 8 years of Bush/Palin/McCain/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld/DeLay/fill-in-the-blank Derangement Syndrome? It would seem you confuse concern on our part with anger.

Anger is Jill Greenberg doctoring photos (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/14/the-atlantic-should-have-googled-jill-greenberg-before-hiring-her/) of McCain.

Anger is a liberal radio (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kerry-picket/2008/11/02/lib-radio-host-karel-calls-joe-wurzelbachers-death-air-obscenity-laced) host saying "“F__G__D__Joe the G__D__M__F__plumber! I want M__F Joe the plumber dead.”

Anger is "Abort Sarah Palin" bumper stickers (http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/item/abort-palin-sticker-bumper/305510100), graffiti and signs.

Anger is DU's Sarah Palin nickname contest (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/02/the-dregs-democratic-undergrounds-palin-nickname-contest/).

Anger is "peace" protesters burning an American soldier in effigy and defecating on the American flag (http://michellemalkin.com/2007/03/26/full-of-crap/).

Anger is a Nobel Peace Prize winner saying “Right now, I could kill George Bush (http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070712_lj_nobelprize.69f13db9.html).” 'Nonviolently' of course, which must be how the left came to endorse assassination chic (http://michellemalkin.com/2006/08/31/assassination-chic/).

But hey, nobody ever accused the left of having a sense of humor did they?

Believe it or not there's a whole other world outside of this place, NK.
But I was only speaking of this place.

Yes speech, haven't you noticed?....geesh i gotta teach you everything!...the LIBERALS are kind, understanding, sensitive, caring, loving and just plain adorable..i mean you wanna just reach out and squeeze their little cheeks. Their topics are just informative...they are NEVER angry and this is a big one....THEY ARE ALWAYS politically correct ..well dog on it..lets' just call a spade a spade..they are always CORRECT...period. :rolleyes:

Yeah, just makes me want to reach out and do something all right. ;)

But I was only speaking of this place.

And I like to consider the bigger picture.

Therefore I believe being gay is a flaw as it interferes with the proliferation of our species.Hello again, pass:

Being dumb is a flaw too, but you can still get married.

excon

And I like to consider the bigger picture.
Only when it helps you promote your hatred.

Only when it helps you promote your hatred.

LOL, you crack me up with your desperate attempts to turn the tables. Like I said, you seem to have a problem distinguishing between concern and hatred. What I posted earlier was hatred. Questioning an Obama/democratic regime is concern.

Huh. So gays are all sterile? I just learn sumpthin' new e'ryday...

OK, where did I say all gays are sterile? I guess I have to put this into simpler terms for those who don't get it. OK......a gay person is attracted to another person of the same sex. Two people of the same sex can't concieve a child together. Clear? Every living things purpose is to reproduce, name one living thing that doesn't (besides gays and people with fertility issues). Therefore I believe being gay is a flaw as it interferes with the proliferation of our species.

NOW you are clear - but you didn't say that before. You said gay people can't reproduce. They can. They can even reproduce with other gay people. So it's NOT a flaw. We don't have to reproduce with people we are attracted to.

And now you're saying people with fertility issues have no purpose... I don't have fertility issues that I know of, but I like to think I have more purpose in this life and world than simply being a baby factory.

Hello conservative right wingers:

Why do you deny the happiness, that you yourself enjoy, from your fellow citizens? Isn't doing that UN Christianlike???? I think it IS!!!

You are bad and wrong for doing that. Tell my why you're not.

excon

How, if the majority of Californians, and I'm sure they were not 100% right wing Christian conservatives, voted for the prop, are they exactly denying these folks happiness?

They can't be happy because they are together, in a civil union?
Are the folks in California denying gays good food, nice clothes, acess to health care, jobs, etc..

Why don't gays come up with their own institution of monogamy? Why do they have to co-opt a religious institution by getting the government involved in it?


Many Obama supporters also backed Prop. 8 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/MNH413UTUS.DTL)
EX, will you include Obama supporters among those you consider "bad and wrong?"

I'm saying that, in nature (not our society and what we have become), that being gay would be a flaw considering any organisms only real purpose is to reproduce. So if someone is only attracted to/has sex with someone of the same sex, obviously they can't reproduce. How would that not be a flaw (in nature)? We have created a society where we can do other things to be productive with or without having kids, plenty of people will populate the world so it's not really a concern.

I have nothing against gay people, I have close gay relatives and one gay friend and I couldn't care less about who they sleep with and it in no way affects my relationships with these people. I just don't believe in gay marriage.

And excon, I'm not dumb and you're the one who asked for opinions. Why are you being so hostile towards anyone who has a differing opinion? Get over yourself and your precious 9,000 posts. Maybe you need to get out more, you should be happy to be free to go out now that you're out of the big house. Or are you?

Again---the logical answer is this:

NO ONE can get "married" by the state. EVERYONE must get "civil unionized" in order for the state to recognize their relationship for legal purposes.

Once you are civil unionized, THEN you can go to your church and get "married". This way, every single church out there can ONLY marry who they think their god allows them to marry.

However, since all the legal aspects ONLY come from a civil union, everyone who was married in a church ONLY will either have to be grandfathered in, or have their marriage reaffirmed by a courthouse.

This would solve EVERY problem with the whole gay marriage issue. Church and state are separated, the church can't perform a LEGAL marriage, and the state can't perform a RELIGIOUS marriage.

There's no separate but equal about this--it's straight up equal.

So--MY question is this: Why are the really religious people against this: Is it because you're losing rights that you took for granted until someone pointed out that you were discriminating against homosexuality if you didn't allow them the same rights?

Or is the REAL problem the fact that you don't like that YOUR church wouldn't be the final say on whether someone could say they were "married"? I mean, really---if someone says they were married by the High Priest of the Cult of Nyarlathotep for their "marriage" after their civil unionization----who could say they couldn't CALL themselves married, since they got "married" in a church?

Doesn't it really just come down to that word--married? Isn't it really that you don't want gays to have the right, no matter HOW roundabout they got it, to use the word "married"?

Sounds kind of small minded, to me.

Synnen:

I agree, and would have no problem with your proposal

Passmeby,

You might not be dumb but you are misinformed.

Even in nature many organisms don't reproduce. Take ant drones for example, they don't reproduce but they certainly have purpose they assist the queen making sure of her offspring are successful. Once animals group up evolution gets much more complicated, it is no longer as simple as the high school overview we all got of "Kill or be killed". It become more of how can I be valuable to the group.
However for us to try and gauge some ones usefulness on an evolutionary scale is pointless. For two main points.
1. The human population has reached a point of stagnation of evolution. Our population is so large and intermingled. We aren't evolving anytime soon.
2. We have no idea what's useful. Something that may appear to be useless my be a very important pillar we just don't know enough even about ourselves to know.

As far as I see this issue. You have two choices that are reasonable.

1. Get the government out of marriage. Make marriages a private function and allow the government to only make civil unions.

Or

2. Allow gays to married.

You're the majority you better vote on one of the two otherwise you may get the one you don't like.

Synn
I am glad to see many of the experts are agreeing with my initial posting #10.
Regarding the word marriage ;it is not a small minded thing if you understand the religious importance.For Christians marriage is a religious act a sacrament. All Christian sects have continued to regard it as religious. The fact that it is elevated to a sacrament illustrates the importance that Christians place on the institution of marriage. Although there are provisions for annulment it is considered an insoluable bond between man and woman in most Christian churches.

Yes it is best to separate the religious sacrament and civil contract.

But then again... my question becomes this:

If the gay community can find a church that is willing to "marry" them (and believe me--they can find these churches. MANY pagan religions will recognize it, for sure), are the Christians going to throw a fit that they (the gay community) can call themselves married?

Because seriously---if that's the case--I'd like Christmas, Easter, and Halloween back to their original pagan meanings, and you Christians can go find other dates and traditions that DIDN'T come from the pagan religions--which are now completely ignored, much to the dismay of many pagans, because Christianity became more powerful and completely twisted the pagan traditions for their own ends.

Isn't that exactly how Christians are seeing it? That someone else is twisting their religious traditions for their own ends?

Synn,

I still see Easter, Christmas, and Halloween as pagan. So? I don't celebrate them that way but I see them that way, I understand how they came to be. Big deal. They are what they are.. it is up to YOU how you want to celebrate them.

Look everyone is blaming the Christians voting down Gay marriage. It isn't just Christians, there a plenty of other people that don't like the idea. I will always vote with what the Bible has to say because I believe it to my core. You can't fault me for that.. I have that right. And if more people are voting it down than get over it and stop blaming the Christians it Isn't JUST CHRISTIANS. Sorry but it ain't.

Fair enough that it isn't JUST Christians.

However---the Christians are the loudest and most vocal about it.

My point is that marriage may have STARTED as a religious thing, but has moved past that. People still SEE it as a religious thing, but don't have to "celebrate" it as religious.

As you said---big deal. Marriage is what it is--it's up to the people IN the marriage how to "celebrate" and define the marriage.

I can't speak for all Christians . My view of Christian churches that administer the sacrament of matrimony to gay couples is that they are violating Christian dogma.


I'd like Christmas, Easter, and Halloween...
Isn't that exactly how Christians are seeing it? That someone else is twisting their religious traditions for their own ends?

The dates may coincide but the events celebrated by Christians on these holidays are not pagan at all..

Fair enough that it isn't JUST Christians.And it isn't ALL Christians either.

It just seems strange to me...
I agree that it appears the only solution to this would probably be to allow everyone civil marriage through the state and then religious marriage through their churches-- It seems to be something that both sides can agree on, at least in this discussion here. But at the same time, I feel like this isn't really doing anything except over complicating things.
For example...
If gay marriage were legal tomorrow, a gay couple couldn't just walk into ANY church and demand they be married. That was outlined in CA by the Supreme Court when the gay marriage ban was deemed unconstitutional... that no religion would be required to perform the marriages if it was against their religious beliefs. Just like churches who turn away couples from getting married if their divorce wasn't annulled, for example. So gays would either get married in their churches, where it was permitted by their religion, or go to a justice of the peace.
If we did this whole separation of civil unions done by the state and marriages done by the religion... then it just adds an extra step in for EVERYONE. Because gays could then go get civil unionized and then go to their church and get married. They'd STILL be married. It would still be the same thing... so why over complicate it?
From what I understand, when a couple gets married through their church, it's basically just combining all of these steps anyway- the couple is "married" in the eyes of the state for legal purposes by the same religious official who is blessing their marriage as a sacrament. The priest or minister or whoever is performing the ceremony is acting as both an agent of the state and a religious authority. They were given the ability to do both of these things to make the process simpler.
I don't know- maybe I'm not explaining myself clearly, I feel like I'm not (just woke up so forgive me!)- but it seems like we're creating extra processes unnecessarily all for the sake of a WORD that people want to hold onto. If gay people will still be able to get married in their own churches and still say that they are a married couple based on their religion... then why go this route? Why not just continue to call ALL couples married like we do now, regardless of whether they're married by a justice of the peace or through a church?
I mean...
... does it bother religious people if atheists get married by the justice of the peace and call their union "marriage"? To that couple, it's not a "sacrament" in any religious terms- it is a union which offers them #1 legal protection and #2 a way to publicly declare their love for one another.
For a lot of gay people, it's the same thing.
And for a lot of other gay people, if their church is willing to perform the ceremony and marry them, then why not?
I think that this proposed solution would probably work and be accepted by people... maybe. It's a big change, and might not be easy... But if a change of this type occurs and this ends up being the solution... I feel like we're just playing games at this point with words and processes to achieve the same end as we would be just simply saying "Yes, gay marriage is legal. If you can get married in your church, go for it. If they won't do it, you can't force them- just find someone else who will."
Doesn't it seem to complicate things unnecessarily?

What exactly is the point of charging Christians with observing pagan holidays? I understand too many ignore the real meaning of these celebrations but do we celebrate Christ or do we celebrate some other god? Really, I find that whole argument silly and irrelevant.

Doesn't it seem to complicate things unnecessarily?

What we have is a complex issue with 2 intractable positions . The attempt here (at least on my part) is to reach an equitable compromise.

Again---the logical answer is this:

NO ONE can get "married" by the state. EVERYONE must get "civil unionized" in order for the state to recognize their relationship for legal purposes.

Once you are civil unionized, THEN you can go to your church and get "married". This way, every single church out there can ONLY marry who they think their god allows them to marry.

However, since all the legal aspects ONLY come from a civil union, everyone who was married in a church ONLY will either have to be grandfathered in, or have their marriage reaffirmed by a courthouse.

This would solve EVERY problem with the whole gay marriage issue. Church and state are separated, the church can't perform a LEGAL marriage, and the state can't perform a RELIGIOUS marriage.

There's no separate but equal about this--it's straight up equal.

So--MY question is this: Why are the really religious people against this: Is it because you're losing rights that you took for granted until someone pointed out that you were discriminating against homosexuality if you didn't allow them the same rights?

Or is the REAL problem the fact that you don't like that YOUR church wouldn't be the final say on whether or not someone could say they were "married"? I mean, really---if someone says they were married by the High Priest of the Cult of Nyarlathotep for their "marriage" after their civil unionization----who could say they couldn't CALL themselves married, since they got "married" in a church?

Doesn't it really just come down to that word--married? Isn't it really that you don't want gays to have the right, no matter HOW roundabout they got it, to use the word "married"?

Sounds kind of small minded, to me.

I wish I could give little greenie things in these topics...

This is one of the most intelligent posts I have read yet.

What exactly is the point of charging Christians with observing pagan holidays? I understand too many ignore the real meaning of these celebrations but do we celebrate Christ or do we celebrate some other god? Really, I find that whole argument silly and irrelevant.

The point was that the argument against gay marriage that I hear from far too many people is that it changes the definition and historical aspects of what marriage IS.

Christians define the winter holiday, with all of its trimmings, as a CHRISTIAN holiday, to celebrate the birth of Christ, with traditions that they state are all Christian traditions. Easter is considered a holy day which celebrates the resurrection of Christ.

Yet all of the traditions from both of these holidays come from Pagan traditions. The Yule log, giving gifts, celebrating the birth of the "sun" and the freedom from darkness. The tree, the ornaments, the carols---every last one of these traditions stems from a few pagan traditions to celebrate the Solstice.

Easter is a fertility holiday in pagan tradition--the eggs, the bunnies, the baskets, all of these are pagan traditions. Yet there was no problem with swiping those traditions and giving them new definitions to fit a changing society.

So essentially my point was that if a religion can take aspects of something else, basically change their definition to make it fit a "new" order---well, why can't we change the definition of marriage to fit with the new order?

The pure definition of a word or tradition changes with time. There are very few words you can find in modern society that have NOT changed in the last 500 years... and sometimes now mean the exact opposite of what they originally did. The same thing happens with traditions---see my explanations of the holidays above, or ask a family to tell you their holiday traditions going back 6 generations. I bet you find that their traditions, in just one family, have changed to adjust for the changes in society. Go back a few hundred years, for example, and you will find almost no references to celebrating ANYONE'S birthday--with the exception of Christ, of course. Yet try to tell that to even a 6 year old now, and see what their definition of a birthday is.

The point was that society CHANGES to adjust to the things that stimulate society. Why can't the tradition of marriage change, or the definition of the word?

What we have is a complex issue with 2 intractable positions . The attempt here (at least on my part) is to reach an equitable compromise.

Right, I understand that- but doesn't it seem like we're kind of going around in circles and adding more steps with that solution, but in the end, the result is exactly the same?

I'm not saying I have answers or a better solution- it just seems like that to me, that's all.

And honestly, I don't think the issue is as complex as people are making it out to be. Gay people want the same rights as everyone else has- the ability to marry in their own churches or by a justice of the peace, and have it recognized the same way and have the same rights.

It just seems that would be accomplished by both methods- either by separating and re-naming civil marriage and requiring people get civil unionized and then married in their own religion, or by just saying that gays can get married in their own churches if their church is okay with doing so, and then the state recognizes them as married- So if the same thing is accomplished either way, why add the extra steps and complicate the process- why, if we have the same result, make the process of getting there so much more complex for everyone?

So essentially my point was that if a religion can take aspects of something else, basically change their definition to make it fit a "new" order---well, why can't we change the definition of marriage to fit with the new order?



Synnen,

I think I a can answer your question. The Bible doesn't really tell us to celebrate the birth of Christ... but we do it because it is our culture and tradition. The bible doesn't even tell us to celebrate EASTER (imagine THAT) we are to remember Christ in his death by taking the wine and the bread. But the Bible never directly says.. pick ONE day and celebrate the resurrection. We are told to remember his death until he comes. All of these celebrations are man made NOT GOD made.

GOD is the one that defined marriage. I didn't. I don't hate Gay people, I don't hate anyone and I am not out to get anyone. I just want to vote the way I believe that GOD wants me to. I can't change God's order. I don't have the authority.

The point was that the argument against gay marriage that I hear from far too many people is that it changes the definition and historical aspects of what marriage IS.

As tom said earlier and which I've agreed with is why can't we "reach an equitable compromise?" Granting civil unions with all the associated rights and benefits to me should be an equitable compromise. Marriage is more than "historical aspects" just as Christmas and Easter are more than traditions.


So essentially my point was that if a religion can take aspects of something else, basically change their definition to make it fit a "new" order---well, why can't we change the definition of marriage to fit with the new order?

What new order? Typically, a man is still a man and a woman is still a woman whether they are gay or not.


The point was that society CHANGES to adjust to the things that stimulate society. Why can't the tradition of marriage change, or the definition of the word?

Why can't gays be happy with the compromise and they do their thing and we do ours? That my friend is the crux of my objection, it is we who are always asked to compromise and it's never enough. It makes one wonder if people really want to compromise or not, and the more they refuse the more I will dig my heels in. I have to take a stand somewhere or I would not be true to myself and my values.

Like I said ;intractable positions. You see it as a right . But really it is not from the religious viewpoint.
Sacraments are considered gifts.No one is entitled to them.

like I said ;intractable positions. You see it as a right . But really it is not from the religious viewpoint.
Sacraments are considered gifts.No one is entitled to them.Hello again:

I don't know why this part continually gets glossed over, because it IS central to the argument. As long as the government bestows "rights" on the married, then getting married IS a right. It ISN'T a privilege. It isn't a sacrament. It's a RIGHT!

I don't care what you want to call it in your church. I don't care ANYTHING about your church. My argument has NOTHING to DO with religion. It has to do with the state granting "rights" to some of the people, but not to others.

THAT is ALL this is about.

excon

Hello again:

I dunno why this part continually gets glossed over, because it IS central to the argument. As long as the government bestows "rights" on the married, then getting married IS a right. It ISN'T a privilege. It isn't a sacrament. It's a RIGHT!

I don't care what you want to call it in your church. I don't care ANYTHING about your church. My argument has NOTHING to DO with religion. It has to do with the state granting "rights" to some of the people, but not to others.

THAT is ALL this is about.

excon

Ex.. you said it was UN-Christian like. We are responding as Christians (at least I was) and defending why it wasn't UN-Christian.. I gave you my Christian answer... hmmm? Did that even make sense?

Ex what I have offered in my answers addresses your civil concerns.

like I said ;intractable positions. You see it as a right . But really it is not from the religious viewpoint.
Sacraments are considered gifts.No one is entitled to them.

Just out of curiosity then...

... why don't Christians get upset at atheists married by the justice of the peace calling what they have "marriage"? They clearly didn't enter into their marriage as part of any religious sacrament, nor do they view it as such.

And if some Christian churches, which see marriage as a sacrament, believe that gays can receive this gift as well, why should one church dictate what another church can do? And really, if sacraments are a gift from God, and certain churches or religions believe that their God offers this gift of marriage to everyone... how can a church dictate what another church believes their God can do?

Hello margog:

You just make entirely too much sense.

excon

I think so too... lol

Thanks. :)

Oh come on, it was a good question but it's not that difficult to understand why a Christian doesn't get upset that atheists get married by JP's. Do we really have to spell it out?

Yes, please.

Hello again:

I dunno why this part continually gets glossed over, because it IS central to the argument. As long as the government bestows "rights" on the married, then getting married IS a right. It ISN'T a privilege. It isn't a sacrament. It's a RIGHT!

I don't care what you want to call it in your church. I don't care ANYTHING about your church. My argument has NOTHING to DO with religion. It has to do with the state granting "rights" to some of the people, but not to others.

THAT is ALL this is about.

excon


Many Obama supporters also backed Prop. 8 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/MNH413UTUS.DTL)

What "right" is deprived that can't be had by civil union?

Why your OP against right wingers and not Obama supporters, or blacks that favored a ban on gay marriage by 70%?

Gay-Marriage Ban Protesters Target Mormon Church : NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96756702)

Why do they protest Mormons and not blacks or latinos?

I'd like to know where in the Bible God gave the definition of marriage, actually.

How about here?
Matt 19:4-5
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
(KJV)

Are you saying that I am defective because I am infertile? Seriously?

I'm not a lesbian, but I AM infertile----and that attitude is EXACTLY why infertile couples don't usually advertise WHY they don't have kids.

And by that token---are those couples that CHOOSE not to have children useless because they don't reproduce? Are they EVIL because they choose not to add to the growing population problem in the world?

Honestly, i think there are more Christian ideas that are "defective" than non-christian ideas. And again---anyone arguing that God says that marriage is a man and woman becoming one--and thank you for the quote--should NEVER get divorced, nor believe in divorce, because you're cleaving apart what GOD made to be put together.

If you're protesting gay marriages, you should ALSO be protesting divorced people being able to remarry in the church, because by the church's definition, they CAN'T divorce---GOD made them one, and only GOD can part them.

Actually, God permits divorce when either party breaks the marriage contract by infidelity.

In reading all these posts (or most, anyway) something comes to mind.

The same source, even the same passages, that we Christians believe condemns same sex unions also condemn adultry, fornication, incest, and bestiality.

So why is there so much push to change the very concept of marriage? Why not legalize and promote EVERY form of deviant sexual behavior?

Oh, well, I expect that will begin sometime next month.

Yes, please.

For starters, it's a marriage between a man and a woman.

For starters, it's a marriage between a man and a woman.

Isn't the denial of God a sin, just like homosexuality is a sin?

Okay, wait a minute.

In MY interpretation of the Bible, multiple partners/polygamy (Just look at how much trouble would have been saved if Sarah hadn't given her handmaiden to Abraham, or if Jacob hadn't married sisters!) and incest (it's always amazing to me that Sodom and Gamorrah are brought up AGAINST homosexuality, but that Lot's daughters weren't REALLY punished for their incest [and technically, really, fornication--they weren't married to their father]) seem to be okay.

Really, what it comes down to for a whole bunch of people is that the Bible was written by a bunch of men, and put together in the order it is in, with the specific books that are in it, for political reasons. There are gospels that have been found that tell the story of Jesus completely differently, and other books of the Bible (especially the New Testament) that have been left out completely because they don't jive with the rest of the Bible.

The OTHER side of it, for me, anyway, is that to me your god isn't a valid rule maker. I don't believe in Him, therefore I don't have to live by His rules---especially when the government and Constitution make the rules for this country, not any ONE religion.

It doesn't really matter how people feel on this, though. At some point, it's going to be ruled un-Constitutional to have one set of rules for one sort of people (civil unions ONLY) and a different (and maybe considered better?) set of rules for other sorts of people (marriage). It will come down to what I've already said in order to pacify everyone: EVERY couple has the right to have a civil union, and that will be the ONLY form of "marriage" the government can recognize for tax breaks, legal issues, etc. And EVERY church will have the right to decide who they can religiously marry, though a religious "marriage" will be recognized by only the church without the accompanying civil union to make it "civilly" legal.

[/URL]Why do they protest Mormons and not blacks or latinos?Because mormons are the biggest funders of the campaign,
"The site attributes $15 million in donations to Mormons, or nearly half the Yes on 8 war chest in a state where Mormons make up 2% of the population."[URL="http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-13-Mormon-gay-marriage_N.htm"]source (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/05/MNH413UTUS.DTL)

Isn't the denial of God a sin, just like homosexuality is a sin?

Sure, but I have yet to mention the word sin, I’ve only spoken of marriage the way God intended. And I believe God’s plan is what God intended for everyone, believer or not and regardless of the subject.

Hello again, Steve:

I think our founders had it right when they determined what God intended, "... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... "

That's just what I believe. If you're interested in STRICT interpretations, I don't know how you, as a patriotic AMERICAN, could believe it says anything other than what it does.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I think our founders had it right when they determined what God intended, ".... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..... "

That's just what I believe. If you're interested in STRICT interpretations, I dunno how you, as a patriotic AMERICAN, could believe it says anything other than what it does.

I never said anything about strict interpretations did I? Do you honestly think the founders would have ever considered gay marriage to be a right?

Do you honestly think the founders would have ever considered gay marriage to be a right?Hello again, Steve:

Let's see if we can elevate this argument to its core issues. You, like any good right winger, keep on throwing up red herrings.

As you and I have discussed many times on these pages, the Constitution doesn't list rights. I've told you why dozens of times. You have the right to own a fork too, but you won't find that right, LISTED either. So, you have to look at the words, and what they actually mean...

What I know about the founders is they spoke of the lofty principals the country was founded upon. We have not yet reached them. We may never. In truth, the founders DIDN'T mean ALL men when they used those words... But, when we realized that women were, indeed, part and parcel of the words "all men", we fixed that mistake. We did the same thing when we realized that black people were really part of all. So we fixed that too.

I don't know who the founders meant when they said ALL men. I know what it MEANS. It means that EVERY one of us has the same rights EVERY other one of us has. It matters not, that you're gay, black or some other member of the subculture that I'm sure you'll find...

THAT'S the America I live in. It's the America that makes me proud. It's the America I went to war to fight for. It's the America that I'll die for again, if need be.

But, I'm not proud of an America that denies rights to certain segments of society based upon religious beliefs. I didn't fight for a country that separates its people into those worthy of rights, and those who're not. I'm not proud of people who want to LIST rights for the specific purpose of denying them to others.

The Constitution says ALL men. I happen to believe it.

That's ALL I have to say on the subject... Until next time.

excon

I never said anything about strict interpretations did I? Do you honestly think the founders would have ever considered gay marriage to be a right?

Not gay marriage, just marriage. Marrige is a right. For everyone. Well, it should be.

And we have repeatedly offered to compromise. Isn't that also part of what makes America great?

And we have repeatedly offered to compromise. Isn't that also part of what makes America great?

Ok, YOU call your marriage a "civil union" and let the gays call theirs "marriages". That's compromise too.

Ok, YOU call your marriage a "civil union" and let the gays call theirs "marriages". That's compromise too.

How is it compromise to completely abandon your principles?

How is it compromise to completely abandon your principles?

How is it a compromise to forbid someone from the same right you are afforded, even if in name only?

How is it compromise to completely abandon your principles?

EXACTLY!!

You are asking those of us who believe that ALL MEN are created equal to give up THAT principle for YOUR principle.

The difference is that OUR principle is based on the laws of this country. YOUR principle is based on a SPECIFIC religion.

Religion can not dictate law in this country. That's the thing right there! You're asking us, like slave owners asked the abolitionists, to believe that SOME men are not created "equal".

Marriage has been a state institution for centuries. Maybe it's religious too, but its primary purpose is to LEGALIZE a relationship. I remember hearing about times in history where the church was allowed to make all the laws. They came out with witch burnings, the Spanish Inquisition, and torturing heretics. There were serious civil wars over whether the King of England was the ruler of the church and could make church law, or whether it was the Pope. Sounds to me like religion HAD its chance to rule, and the founders of our country decided they were going to keep religion AWAY from law making.

If you're saying that gays aren't part of ALL MEN, well... sounds to me like you're a bigot, not morally right.

EXACTLY!!

You are asking those of us who believe that ALL MEN are created equal to give up THAT principle for YOUR principle.

The difference is that OUR principle is based on the laws of this country. YOUR principle is based on a SPECIFIC religion.

Where have the laws and constitution of this land historically granted equal rights to relationships?


Religion can not dictate law in this country. That's the thing right there! You're asking us, like slave owners asked the abolitionists, to believe that SOME men are not created "equal".

Marriage has been a state institution for centuries. Maybe it's religious too, but its primary purpose is to LEGALIZE a relationship. I remember hearing about times in history where the church was allowed to make all the laws. They came out with witch burnings, the Spanish Inquisition, and torturing heretics. There were serious civil wars over whether the King of England was the ruler of the church and could make church law, or whether it was the Pope. Sounds to me like religion HAD its chance to rule, and the founders of our country decided they were going to keep religion AWAY from law making.

If you're saying that gays aren't part of ALL MEN, well... sounds to me like you're a bigot, not morally right.

It had to happen, the discussion has digressed into name calling. That's another reason we'll never agree, you guys can't seem to restrain yourselves from accusations or suggestions of bigotry, comparisons to slavery, torture, witch burnings and implying we seek a theocracy. That's old, it's ridiculous, it's not constructive - it's bullsh** plain and simple.

I figured given enough time the conversation would degenerate. This is not a new conversation ;I've had it before and see where it leads. Given the choice I will drift towards a hard line position since everyone else seems to be . For now my powder is dry .

Where have the laws and constitution of this land historically granted equal rights to relationships?Hello again, Steve:

You're trying your best to spin it... But, I ain't going to let you. It's not difficult. I KNOW you get it. I don't know WHY your religious half blinds you...

"Relationships" don't have rights. If you look, you won't find relationships LISTED. However, I must remind you again, the Constitution DOESN'T list rights.

INDIVIDUALS have rights. If YOU have a right that the state bestowed upon YOU because you are married, I, and EVERYBODY else, has that SAME right.

It says so, very plainly in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, where it says, ".... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Again, I ask you to explain why this DOESN'T pertain to the discussion at hand?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

I think we can wrap this up... I'm going to answer for you...

You're going to say that a homosexual DOES have the same right you do, to marry a person of the opposite sex...

And, of course, you'll have missed the whole thing...

excon

Um... hello? Did you READ what I wrote?

I wrote that a country RULING by religion DOES, historically speaking, degenerate to torture, witch burnings, etc.

If you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on LAW, then you ARE seeking a form of theocracy. If your reason for not allowing someone EQUAL rights under law because of their sexual orientation, then you ARE prejudiced.

Historically, the people opposed to giving equal rights to a group of people have justified it by using God and the Bible. Blacks could be slaves because it was their punishment because Ham looked at Noah naked and drunk and laughed at him. Witches could be burned because women shouldn't have that much power--and because the Bible SAID so.

I use these examples as comparisons because they have HAPPENED. They are situations where someone HAS used religion/God to justify doing something that isn't really a very nice thing to do.

What I would like to know is this: How would it hurt YOU to allow to people who love each other to get married?

Because mormons are the biggest funders of the campaign, source (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-11-13-Mormon-gay-marriage_N.htm)

But who actually voted for the measure:

70% of blacks voted for the measure - probably 90% of whom voted for Obama-
So where is the indignation by these gay protesters or by EX?

I think the radical gay groups
1] know Mormons, unlike Catholics, are not used to being targeted by gay radicals
2] it is politically correct to target Mormons but not blacks and latinos.

Hello again, Steve:

I think we can wrap this up.... I'm gonna answer for you...

You're gonna say that a homosexual DOES have the same right you do, to marry a person of the opposite sex....

And, of course, you'll have missed the whole thing...

Please ex, don't answer for me... that was nowhere near my answer. Secondly, the inalienable right the founders determined is the "pursuit" of happiness, not a guarantee of happiness which is what the left seems to think it means. And no, I haven't missed the whole thing, it's just that you guys aren't going to stop until we see it your way and that's no compromise. Now is that your last, last word in this for now? ;)

Now is that your last, last word in this for now?;)Hello again, Steve:

I spose it is, cause separate but equal, ain't equal. You either have a right, or you don't. There ain't no in between.

excon

um... hello? Did you READ what I wrote?

Come on Synnen, please, that's almost as bad as implying I might be a bigot.


I wrote that a country RULING by religion DOES, historically speaking, degenerate to torture, witch burnings, etc.

If you are trying to impose your religious beliefs on LAW, then you ARE seeking a form of theocracy. If your reason for not allowing someone EQUAL rights under law because of their sexual orientation, then you ARE prejudiced.

I'm not trying to impose my religious beliefs on anyone, I stand for current and historical laws that determine a marriage is between one man and one woman. Trying to force me to accept that a homosexual marriage is equal to a heterosexual marriage, now that's imposing someone else's beliefs on me. I believe my first argument to this was the two types of unions can never be equal so why call them equal? Face it, two gays cannot do everything a man and a woman can do. You can pretend adoption or surrogacy is the same thing, you can pretend one is the husband/dad and the other the wife/mother, you can pretend it's a traditional, natural family but it isn't. If we're offering the next best thing, equal rights and privileges, why do you insist we call it something it isn't? How the heck does that make me prejudiced to offer equal rights and benefits - and even though hour constitution makes no such guarantee? If it did, why is there still a push to pass the Equal Rights Amendment?


Historically, the people opposed to giving equal rights to a group of people have justified it by using God and the Bible. Blacks could be slaves because it was their punishment because Ham looked at Noah naked and drunk and laughed at him. Witches could be burned because women shouldn't have that much power--and because the Bible SAID so.

I use these examples as comparisons because they have HAPPENED. They are situations where someone HAS used religion/God to justify doing something that isn't really a very nice thing to do.

And that's exactly what I spoke to, in this day it's a ridiculous suggestion for this country. It's been used as a fear mongering tactic for the past 8 years by the left (something they supposedly don't do) over Bush's alleged plans for a theocracy (with our blessing and encouragement of course). It's stupid, asinine and damned offensive to use that line of "reasoning" toward us. It treats us as if we're some sort of vile, religious ogres that are less than human and does nothing to further a resolution. It's like the Pink Mafia and others out in California, targeting Mormons and every other person that exercised their right to vote their conscience with hateful protests, white powders in the mail, and who knows what other sort of intolerant vile acts. And you expect us to give our blessing to people like that?


What I would like to know is this: How would it hurt YOU to allow to people who love each other to get married?

It won't hurt me one bit, but certainly the decay in morals brought about largely by the liberal agenda has most definitely had a negative impact on society. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, because am not budging any further from the compromise I've offered. If I move toward you I expect reciprocation, not domination.

Ex
This was in my first response to this posting .It is still true.


The reason Brown V. Board of Education was overturned was that the court believed the facilities were unable to ever be truly equal. In this case, civil unions are held to be an acceptable alternative where they have been granted .

If we're looking at historical laws that a marriage is between one man and one woman, I'd like to hear from those cultures where even currently, there is a model for MORE than one woman with one man. Legally, in their societies. Some religions persist in marrying one man to more than one woman RELIGIOUSLY without having the benefit of LEGAL marriage. One man/one woman doesn't fly with me because there are too many examples of polygamy historically and currently for that to even come CLOSE to being an accurate position. And, as I said before, even in the Bible men had more than one wife.

As far as traditional, natural families---seriously? Well, then we'd better outlaw single parents, because THAT isn't traditional, and extended step-families with 3 kids from one marriage and two from another and 1 more from the current union, because THAT isn't exactly traditional, either. And really, while you're at it, let's make divorce illegal when there are kids involved, because having divorced parents that remarry and all that jazz isn't traditional or natural either.

And again comes the stereotype that raising children through adoption or surrogacy isn't natural--gee, thanks for telling me that adoption isn't a valid way to become a parent. I'll be sure to tell that to my daughter's adoptive parents, and make sure to tell my husband that since we're infertile together that we will NEVER have the same natural, traditional family that others have---I mean, it's just not NATURAL or TRADITIONAL to use infertility treatments, or adoption, or surrogacy to have a child. We should just give that dream up, never be parents, and take up mountain climbing because it's just not the same thing as being REAL, traditional, natural parents.

Frankly, I believe I was the first person in this thread to offer a reasonable compromise on the whole situation: NO ONE has a legal religious marriage. The only legal "marriage" is a civil union---for EVERYONE. If you want a religious ceremony, a marriage, then EVERYONE has to find a church willing to marry them.

No one gets the "right" to a religious ceremony, and to keep it equal, then everyone has to go through 2 ceremonies to say they're married. Otherwise they're just civil unionized.

I think that's a pretty fair compromise, honestly.

Face it, two gays cannot do everything a man and a woman can do.


But they can be happy, and enjoy a tax break. Then can get a divorce just like any body else.

I know a guy who even had his wife's baby.
The world is changing, and you can fight if you want, and not compromise at all.

That won't stop people from doing what they want. Maybe not in California, but they can in Connecticut.

But they can be happy, and enjoy a tax break. Then can get a divorce just like any body else.

I believe the compromise we offered makes that all possible.


I know a guy who even had his wife's baby.
The world is changing, and you can fight if you want, and not compromise at all.

Doctors can do lots of things now, but like I said, you can call something anything you want but it doesn't make it so.

Facts don’t cease to exist because they are ignored.

— Aldous Huxley

If we're looking at historical laws that a marriage is between one man and one woman, I'd like to hear from those cultures where even currently, there is a model for MORE than one woman with one man. Legally, in their societies. Some religions persist in marrying one man to more than one woman RELIGIOUSLY without having the benefit of LEGAL marriage. One man/one woman doesn't fly with me because there are too many examples of polygamy historically and currently for that to even come CLOSE to being an accurate position. And, as I said before, even in the Bible men had more than one wife. .

I thought we were discussing the situation in the US, which historically and traditionally held to a marriage as between one man and one woman hasn’t it?


As far as traditional, natural families---seriously? Well, then we'd better outlaw single parents, because THAT isn't traditional, and extended step-families with 3 kids from one marriage and two from another and 1 more from the current union, because THAT isn't exactly traditional, either. And really, while you're at it, let's make divorce illegal when there are kids involved, because having divorced parents that remarry and all that jazz isn't traditional or natural either.

And again comes the stereotype that raising children through adoption or surrogacy isn't natural--gee, thanks for telling me that adoption isn't a valid way to become a parent. I'll be sure to tell that to my daughter's adoptive parents, and make sure to tell my husband that since we're infertile together that we will NEVER have the same natural, traditional family that others have---I mean, it's just not NATURAL or TRADITIONAL to use infertility treatments, or adoption, or surrogacy to have a child. We should just give that dream up, never be parents, and take up mountain climbing because it's just not the same thing as being REAL, traditional, natural parents.

What is it with you guys twisting people’s words? This is what, the 6th time or so in one thread that people have twisted and/or put words in my mouth? Thanks everyone, but I can speak for myself. I spoke of ideals and intentions. It is I believe ideal for a child to have a married, committed, monogamous mother and a father, preferably living together in love. The idea that it doesn’t always turn out that way in no way invalidates the ideal or relegates the single mom, remarried couples or adoptive families to a lesser status. In the same vein I don’t believe civil unions with all the rights and privileges of a heterosexual marriage discriminates, as different versions of “marriage” can never be equal – they’re different for crying out loud. But I never gave any hint that “adoption isn't a valid way to become a parent” or that there is only one legitimate type of family. But tell me, how does anyone become a parent without a male and a female? As far as I know there is no such thing as asexual reproduction in humans, so all you happy married gay parents out there, you had to have the other sex involved anyway, didn’t you?

Gay "marriage". Newspeak.

I'm all for the traditional "gay" [ "happy", before the homosexuals co-opted the word ] marriage, and I am against sad marriage ;)

Best way to have a child without getting the opposite sex involved? Adopt!

Second best way to have a child without having intercourse with the opposite sex? IVF or surrogacy.

HETEROSEXUAL couples use this as a valid way to become REAL parents all the time. If it's valid for heterosexuals to become a family by use of these infertility options, then it is valid for homosexuals to become a family the same way.

And considering that in the Mormom religion, in the United States, polygamy was allowed until 1878 when the Supreme Court ruled that law cannot interfere with beliefs, but it can interfere with practices.

And frankly, I've been thinking about that quote from Genesis, Genesis 2:24 Therfore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh.

That's in Genesis, right? That's the definition that everyone is basing the "one man, one woman" thing off, right?

Well, why then did men in the Bible have MORE than one wife AFTER this definition of marriage?

If that definition is the basis of the "one male, one female" argument, the Bible itself contradicts this not long afterward, with the stories of Biblical men and their multiple wives.

Look, I really am trying to see where you're coming from. Honestly---I'm reading your side, and trying to relate. But what it seems to come down to, to me, in every post, is that those who are against gay marriage base that on their RELIGIOUS feelings, and I don't feel like their religion should dictate the LAW.

I guess my question comes down to this: If we were to compromise, and EVERYONE had to get civil unionized before they could get married, and EVERY church had the right to decide who they would marry--would you still have a problem with Steve saying he's married to Gary, even if they didn't get married in your church? Would you be okay with your daughter ONLY being able to say she's civil unionized if she never got "married" in a church but only had the courthouse ceremony?

To me, this is equal, and gives people their religious rights AND their civil rights. Sure, it creates an extra step for the people who used to just be able to get a marriage license and have a pastor marry them, but so what? It would be EQUAL for everyone.

Synnen, I said there were alternative ways to have a child... but it still requires both sexes (that is until we start cloning people like sheep). As for the bible and multiple wives, there are certainly conflicts with God's ideal and what man has actually done, otherwise we might still be living in a perfect world... but Adam and Eve blew that right off the bat.

...but Adam and Eve blew that right off the bat.

Yeah, but it was entrapment. Like locking a four year old in his room with a full cookie jar and then punishing him for the rest of his life for taking a cookie. You'd think God would give it a rest with the eternal punishment.

I haven't read all the other posts, too many, not enough time. So I'll just pipe in. ;)

Why is Gay marriage such a big deal? No one is saying you have to be in a gay marriage, no one is saying that you have to accept gays.

Yes, to some people marriage is a holy union between man and women, but really people, it's just a contract, a legal document.

You can get married in the biggest, fanciest church, have the pope himself officiate, it's still just a legal document.

So, why can't gays legally marry? They aren't going to muddy up anyone's churches, they aren't going to come to Sunday mass and expect you to let them join. You still have the right to turn them away just like you do so many other people whose lifestyles you don't agree with.

What's the big deal?

Maybe we should do away with marriage altogether, because I really thought that you married someone because you loved them, not because of their sex!

Sorry, a bit disturbed, a little mad, I'll go now. :(

They aren't going to muddy up anyones churches, they aren't going to come to Sunday mass and expect you to let them join.

Of course not, they'll just disrupt your services and yell things like "Jesus was a homo (http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369)," vandalize your church (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/479857.aspx), publish blacklists (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/29/anti-prop-8-mob-watch-a-new-blacklist-published/), bully you, (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-elcoyote15-2008nov15,0,4504577.story) and otherwise act like a$$es and expect everyone to bow to their demands.

I don't know any gay couples that goes around starting trouble in churches.

It's funny because I know a couple that is in a same sex marriage that lives in NC and they both are Christians. One of them is a pastor of a church and she is very good. Meanwhile I have another friend that lives here in NY and he is an Christian too but when they met at a party he became livid because not only was he mad because she was a Christian but he was mad that she was a lebian. Once he found out she was a pastor forgot about it. I come to realize that even though they are both Christian he is always mad about things then she is. Sometimes I don't even bother talking to him because his mouth is so foul and I have idea where he gets his twisted views.

Everyone should be free to marry who they want. What happens if your child told you they were gay, would your view change, would you accept that your child was gay, or disown them? My mother didn't approve of a person being gay until my sister advised everyone she was a lebian and my mother view completely change and she has no problem with it now.

My mother didn't approve of a person being gay until my sister advised everyone she was a lebian and my mother view completely change and she has no problem with it now.

If you already love someone, it's hard to stop loving them just because you found out something that was always true, especially if they have harmed no one. I'm so glad your mother accepted your sister. I'm always amazed by parents who reject their own children because they are gay. I can't imagine doing that.

Belief in god doesn't seem to keep people from being filled with fear and loathing. I really don't think that homophobia is based in religion. I think the Bible is just used as an excuse to condemn something that is scary to some people. You can be homophobic and either religious or not religious. You can be accepting of homosexuals and be either religious or not. There's no particular connection between belief and acceptance of gays as far as I can see. Just my two cents.

Geez, give them the piece of paper, and a tax deduction, and lets move on!

Of course not, they'll just disrupt your services and yell things like "Jesus was a homo (http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369)," vandalize your church (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/479857.aspx), publish blacklists (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/29/anti-prop-8-mob-watch-a-new-blacklist-published/), bully you, (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-elcoyote15-2008nov15,0,4504577.story) and otherwise act like a$$es and expect everyone to bow to their demands.


Really, wow, I must have gone to church with a lot of homosexuals then. The Christians blacklisted me, they acted like a$$es when I didn't bow to their demands. So, if you think the gays will do all that you claim, seems like they'd fit right in.

Really, what are worried about? Do you think you'll turn gay just being around them? I hate to burst your bubble, but it's not a disease, it just is.

Think about it, with all the gay bashing, gay hate crimes, people (like you) who don't accept gays, why would anyone choose to be gay? I'll tell you why, it's not a choice, you either are, or you aren't, just like you're either short or you're tall. It's been proven.

So what do you hope to gain from stopping gay marriages? How would allowing gay marriages disrupt your perfect little life?

Dang, I'm mad!

I am Roman Catholic... which we do not accept or condone gay marriages at all in our belief system. BUT if a man/woman was gay and came into the Church to pray... does the priest honestly have a right to say your not a man/woman of spirituality and because you are sleeping with another man/woman you must leave? I don't think anyone has the ability to interfere with ones faith or relationship with their God. What rights does a priest have as they are also sinners born into this world?. who is he I should have to confess to, just because the Church says he is a man of God? That's BS, everyone has a right to believe and attend services, everyone has a right to the holy eucerust... even a murderer can repent and be forgiven... so why not a gay/lesbian? Why can they not be accepted? I don't think we would be better then the people who nailed Jesus to the cross whatever happened to not judging. Its not like their getting married in Church before the eyes of God and there is no way in hell that would ever happen - nor is that what gays want. But if it's a legal piece of paper allowing them to reap the same benefits as every other married couple and say I love you and I want to spend the rest of my life with you... then to hell with it who cares? I know the Church came out and say that the protesters are vandalizing the Church and that is not acceptable but then why is the Church participating in this movement... it is only coming to the Church's stairs because the Church is getting involved. Which, might I add is inappropriate as well - they should never be involved in Government decisions... this isn't politics and religion? Is it? I take my ten commandments seriously and I do follow my faith but I don't believe everything the community/society/church tells me... I am an independent individual and have a right not to agree with everything I am told and I am sorry if I offended anyone.

I can tell you that I have nothing against gays and nothing against lesbians so long as they respect my wishes... and they always do. They are people just like us (straight) no different... I love my husband and he loves me... if he was a woman (I would be a lesbian :)) You don't choose who you are in love with and if you are in love with someone, you and your partner have every right to be together just as anyone else.

Of course not, they'll just disrupt your services and yell things like "Jesus was a homo (http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20081112/NEWS01/811120369)," vandalize your church (http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/479857.aspx), publish blacklists (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/29/anti-prop-8-mob-watch-a-new-blacklist-published/), bully you, (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-elcoyote15-2008nov15,0,4504577.story) and otherwise act like a$$es and expect everyone to bow to their demands.

I don't agree... take a look at both arguments in detail and you might change your mind on that. I understand that marriage is a holy sacrament between man and woman... I couldn't agree more but the times are changing and the Church can't fight this anymore... it will pass. If the gays where asking to get married in the Church I would have a problem with it but their not, they simply want the same benefits as a married couple... in the eyes of the Government not the eyes of the Lord. Do we really have a right to stop them? To judge them? If they don't interfere with our religion or culture why can't we give them the same respect?

Of course not, they'll just disrupt your services and yell things like.....Hello Steve:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

A GREAT conservative said that.

excon

What's funny here is I linked to actual examples of the insane rage, intolerance, violence and criminal activity of gay activists and you're all defending them. Their behavior certainly makes me want to sit down and talk things out.

Their behavior certainly makes me want to sit down and talk things out.Hello again, Steve:

Ain't interested in talk. We KNOW what you guys think. Interested in ACTION!!

excon

Back on page 10 I said the positions were intractable. I will also add that now positions are hardening making compromise virtually impossible. Thus any action by proponents of either side suddenly becomes acceptable?

Frequently abortion clinic bombers are condemned and rightly so ;not so easily excused as extremism in defense of a cause.

Hello tom:

I don't think bombing is what Goldwater had in mind. You know there IS a difference between disobedience and committing a criminal act.

Here's the problem. When considering someone's civil rights, there is NO acceptable compromise. Would you compromise YOURS?? I don't think you would.

excon

Hello again, Steve:

Ain't interested in talk. We KNOW what you guys think. Interested in ACTION!!!!

excon

And we offered compromise, that WAS action. You're asking us to concede everything instead of finding a solution that could be agreeable to all.

And we offered compromise, that WAS action. You're asking us to concede everything instead of finding a solution that could be agreeable to all.Hello again, Steve:

The solution that is ALREADY agreeable to us all can be found in the Declaration of Independence. I don't think you understand. We're talking about RIGHTS here. We're not negotiating a contract.

What compromise is there from the word ALL?? Some?? Almost?? Maybe? Close, but not quite??

There is NO compromise in our founding documents. Jefferson didn't say SOME. He said ALL men are created equal and they are ALL endowed with certain unalienable rights... Those are the rights that YOU have, yet you want to compromise on others having the same rights. It ain't going to happen.

No, let me rephrase what I said above. You DON'T understand if you think compromise is a solution.

Maybe you don't understand the founding documents. I actually think you DO, but I think you're so blinded by your religion, that you just can't see the words that Jefferson wrote...

I don't know, Steve. But, I'm going to keep on trying with you.

excon

There is NO compromise in our founding documents. Jefferson didn't say SOME. He said ALL men are created equal and they are ALL endowed with certain unalienable rights....

And we've addressed that, the founders appealed “to the Supreme Judge of the world” and relied on “the protection of Divine Providence” to ensure these rights “endowed by their Creator” such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If we want to base our arguments on the Declaration of Independence then we have other issues to discuss, but I’m always told the Declaration is irrelevant in those discussions.

The compromise I’m referring to allows for equal benefits for a relationship that can never be equal to heterosexual marriage. Why should we call something the equivalent of something it can never be equal to, and if the benefits and privileges are the same why isn’t that enough? That’s all they wanted before, and what will be the next configuration of “marriage” we allow?

If the founding documents began and ended with the Declaration then I might agree with you . But the operating manual of our government ;the Constitution is itself a tribute to compromise. It would not have been adopted without them.

Marriage as defined is a "right" no one is denied. Changing the definition is the issue .

Marriage as defined is a "right" no one is denied. Changing the definition is the issue
The compromise I'm referring to allows for equal benefits for a relationship that can never be equal to heterosexual marriage. Why should we call something the equivalent of something it can never be equal toHello tom and Steve:

Sorry, fellas. You are still looking at this issue through the prism of your church... I am looking at it through the prism of the Constitution. I am right.

If we were talking about RELIGION, then your arguments have merit. But, we're NOT talking about religion. We're talking about CIVIL RIGHTS!!

To wit:

Tom you see marriage defined as between a man and a woman. To me, that's a RELIGIOUS viewpoint.

I see marriage as an event the state recognizes and grants rights to the married. That's a secular viewpoint.

Steve, you see a homosexual marriage as unequal, I suppose because they can't propagate. That a religious viewpoint.

I see marriage as a bond between two people, and whether they can propagate or not, isn't an issue. That's a secular viewpoint.

You cannot force your religious values on people. It's UNAMERICAN. It's an anethema to the American way. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It ain't right. And, it ain't going to fly.

excon

It isn't going to fly ? Unless the courts do another imperial fiat and force cultural change on the country then it will fly.
The fact is that everywhere it has been put to the ballot ;gay marriage has been voted down... even in the bluest of blue states California.

Hello again, tom:

As I've said many times on these pages, the majority cannot vote out the civil rights of the minority.

Even in the blue states, where the RED stated Mormon church spent zillions to pass the proposition. I wonder why they did that if it WASN'T a religious issue.

Nope, the civil rights of the oppressed WILL be recognized. This is a GREAT country, where even though it might take a while, we DO recognize our core values. Those values are ones of INCLUSION - not exclusion as you would have it be. I don't know where you get that exclusion stuff.

I have every confidence that Obama WILL appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rectify this wrong. We shall overcome.

excon

PS> Fiat?? Tom, you CAN read where it says ALL, can't you?? Bwa, ha ha ha.

I intentionally omitted the church in my position, someone else injected the church into this, not me. But since those rights you mentioned are endowed by our Creator as defined by the founders I suppose it is appropriate to consider the religious view on this, right? But since you’ve backed away from justifying your position based on the Declaration, at least show us exactly in the constitution guarantees the right to gay marriage since I must have missed that somewhere. The people in California have spoken, what is the constitutional basis for overturning their will?

What I stated is simply a fact. It is entirely impossible for a gay marriage to be equal to heterosexual marriage, they may both be “a bond between two people” but they cannot be equal, in procreation, sexually, emotionally or otherwise. Face it, men and women are different, marriage is historically, traditionally, predominantly between a man and a woman for good reason and calling it something else doesn’t change that.

Hello again, Steve:

Do you want me to give you the "Constitution doesn't list rights" lecture again? Nahh, we're going round in circles.

Good thing Obama is going to fix it. But, I'll bet the California Supreme Court will fix it first.

excon

I knew we would just go around in circles right off the bat. We'll see what the courts do soon enough I'm sure.

Ex : recommended reading :
Amazon.com: The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (American Politics and Political Economy Series): Gerald N. Rosenberg: Books (http://www.amazon.com/Hollow-Hope-American-Politics-Political/dp/0226727033)

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's 2003 gay marriage decision led to over 30 States taking it to the ballot and approving bans . Gerald Rosenberg in the book above correctly argues that judicial fiat in fact sets back the social change that was sought by the decision.

Civil unions on the other hand are supported by the majority because it is a reasonable solution.
Polls: Gay civil unions favored - Same-Sex Marriage - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4496265/)

You claim it is our religion that is the problem ;but it seems to me that you are the absolutist .
Maybe when the populace becomes "more enlightened " then support will grow .But for now the political waters have been tested and the country isn't there yet.

But for now the political waters have been tested and the country isn't there yet.Hello again, tom:

Well, me and my pink tighted friends are going to see if we can't coax it along.

excon

Synnen, I said there were alternative ways to have a child...but it still requires both sexes (that is until we start cloning people like sheep). As for the bible and multiple wives, there are certainly conflicts with God's ideal and what man has actually done, otherwise we might still be living in a perfect world...but Adam and Eve blew that right off the bat.

I think I heard my brother say... the reason why they had multiple wives... is because men are pigs! - He said it not me :) So I couldn't agree more.

Eventually gay marriage will have equal protection under the law, as we well know, nothing changes until the oppressed, or the minority, have raised enough hell. That's been true of every rights movement in history. It looks as if the gay marriage folks have escalated to invading churches. Good for them. Wonder what's next?? Is denying them a piece of paper, and a few tax breaks, worth holding on to some outdated traditions?

I think I heard my brother say...the reason why they had multiple wives...is because men are pigs! - He said it not me :) So I couldn't agree more.

No argument there, I tell all the single women I know to remember the motto "all men are scum" and they'll do OK. ;)

Eventually gay marriage will have equal protection under the law, as we well know, nothing changes until the oppressed, or the minority, have raised enough hell. Thats been true of every rights movement in history. It looks as if the gay marriage folks have escalated to invading churches. Good for them. Wonder whats next??? Is denying them a piece of paper, and a few tax breaks, worth holding on to some outdated traditions??


Exactly! I wish I could give you a greenie Tal, because I couldn't agree more. :D

The solution is simple; the government and the courts support Civil Unions between human beings of either sex and stays out of the religious aspect of marriage.

As for churches, if one church decides that they won't marry people of the same sex then they can choose not to; however, if another church chooses to marry people of the same sex because their interpretation of the bible is different then they can.

Separation of church and state; and freedom of religion.

The evangelical or fundementalist Christian's do not hold the monopoly on the truth as there are dozens of different Christian denominations who interpret the bible differently and who is to say that their interpretation should trump other religions as well or those without a defined religion?

The solution is simple; the government and the courts support Civil Unions between human beings of either sex and stays out of the religious aspect of marriage.



Bingo ,back to the sensible solution offered by Steve and myself in the early responses to this thred.

I think I also offered that solution on page one of this thread :P

Is there another solution, or is that the only one you have, because that one was already rejected. Now what?

First of all I think that are you sterotyping ALL christians. That we all hate homosexuality and hate the people who choose the lifestyle. Yes, here are Christians out there who choose not to talk to, be near or love a homosexual person. I personally abhore Christians who persecute homosexuality and judge them... who are they to judge? Their anger and hate makes us all look bad. We, as Christians are supposed to love everyone. God did not only love the Christians he loves the non-believers too.

I think as a Christian, you choose to live a certain way. You choose to live by God's laws and life guidelines. So in that aspect, I do believe that I also have a right to choose to protect what I believe is right. Granted, it's my choice, my opinion but I still have a right to it and to vote for it. Just like people who believe that gay marriage has a right, they choose to support it and vote for it.

I find that so many people want me to be open minded, but no one wants to be open minded to my beliefs, especially if they are Christian.

Open mindedness goes both ways. Why can't you be opened minded to my beliefs too?

Hello u:

Our founding fathers made that decision long ago, and we don't have a right to vote on it. It's like your right to own a gun. We can't vote that right out of existence because that right is guaranteed to you in the Constitution.

By that same token, and by that same document, gay people have the right to marry, if YOU have a right to marry, and you do.

You may have another opinion. You're welcome to it, and you're welcome to voice here. But, to DO something about it is abhorrent. We're not a nation that excludes people from participating in the political process. We're a nation that celebrates INCLUSION. That's the American way.

Fortunately, it's also WRITTEN into the Constitution.

excon

First of all I think that are you sterotyping ALL christians. That we all hate homosexuality and hate the people who choose the lifestyle. Yes, here are Christians out there who choose not to talk to, be near or love a homosexual person. I personally abhore Christians who persecute homosexuality and judge them...who are they to judge? Their anger and hate makes us all look bad. We, as Christians are supposed to love everyone. God did not only love the Christians he loves the non-believers too.

I think as a Christian, you choose to live a certain way. You choose to live by God's laws and life guidelines. So in that aspect, I do believe that I also have a right to choose to protect what I believe is right. Granted, it's my choice, my opinion but I still have a right to it and to vote for it. Just like people who believe that gay marriage has a right, they choose to support it and vote for it.

I find that so many people want me to be open minded, but no one wants to be open minded to my beliefs, especially if they are Christian.

Open mindedness goes both ways. Why can't you be opened minded to my beliefs too?

I don't have a problem with your beliefs, so long as you don't expect everyone else to live by them.

I don't have a problem with your beliefs, so long as you don't expect everyone else to live by them.Ah but there's the crux of the matter, most christians expect everyone to live by their beliefs.

Ah but there's the crux of the matter, most christians expect everyone to live by their beliefs.


Very true NK. That's where we run into trouble with the issue of Gay marriage. This shouldn't be about religion, it should be about their rights as human beings.

Very true NK. That's where we run into trouble with the issue of Gay marriage. This shouldn't be about religion, it should be about their rights as human beings.That's kind of where I'm on the fence. I don't think all priests should be forced to be allowed to marry gay people in their church. Their religion is based on knowledge 2000+ years ago and I don't expect them to change. I do believe of course that a gay couple should have all the rights that a heterosexual couple does. Now where does this thinking leave the gay couple who want to be Christians? I don't know but I suspect they would be ostracized by what I read here.

Ah but there's the crux of the matter, most christians expect everyone to live by their beliefs.

NK, that is unequivocally a bunch of bullsh*t.

Yes the Christian beliefs are old, we cannot expect them to change, but not all churches feel this way, not all Christians do from what I've read here.

Can we find a middle ground? I don't know.

If being married in a church is important to a gay couple, then we're crossing a different line. Can we force the Christian community to open their doors to gay couples? Well, it's always been my understanding that Christians are supposed to open the door to anyone who wants to enter, but I guess that I was reading between the lines.

Bottom line is that gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion, it's a basic human right, or it should be.

If we ostrasize one group of people based on their lifestyle, who do we go after next? When do we draw the line? When they go after Christians and their way of life?

NK, that is unequivocally a bunch of bullsh*t.It's what I get when I read the religious postings on this site.

It's what I get when I read the religious postings on this site.

It's what you assume, NK. There is a difference between desiring others to live your beliefs and "expecting" them to do so, or as you guys are fond of saying "imposing" our beliefs on everyone. I for one have never "expected" anyone here to believe or live as I do, in fact I'll defend your right not to. "Expecting" or "imposing" goes against everything Christianity is about, and it's no more an affront for Christians to desire and work toward certain societal standards than it is for non-Christians to do so. In reading these boards it would be just as easy to conclude many of you don't think we should have a say, so who is doing the imposing here?

I don't think all priests should be forced to be allowed to marry gay people in their church.

This is a red herring/straw man. No church can be forced to marry anyone. In fact, churches turn heterosexuals down for all sorts of reasons. No reason they can't refuse gays, as well. That's part of what makes them churches. They can discriminate in ways that other institutions are not allowed to.

Allowing marriage for gays would NOT force churches to marry gays. Some churches already do marry gays, and they could continue if they chose, but otherwise anyone can get married in a civil ceremony, just getting a marriage license at city hall or similar.

A church is not required for a legal marriage. A church wedding is a RELIGIOUS ceremony only.

There is a difference between desiring others to live your beliefs and "expecting" them to do so,That's a very fine, gray line isn't it.

That's a very fine, gray line isn't it.

In your mind perhaps. We all want things, most of us don't "expect" them all.

Desire (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/desire): 1: to long or hope for : exhibit or feel desire for <desire success> 2 a: to express a wish for

Expect (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expect): 4 a: to consider probable or certain <expect to be forgiven> <expect that things will improve> b: to consider reasonable, due, or necessary <expected hard work from the students> c: to consider bound in duty or obligated <they expect you to pay your bills>

There is no gray area between the two words.

I always feel vindicated when my favorite lib agrees with the position I take :



Another hot-button issue: After California voters adopted Proposition 8, which amended the state Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, gay activists have launched a program of open confrontation with and intimidation of religious believers, mainly Mormons. I thought we'd gotten over the adolescent tantrum phase of gay activism, typified by ACT UP's 1989 invasion of St. Patrick's Cathedral, where the communion host was thrown on the floor. Want to cause a nice long backlash to gay rights? That's the way to do it.

http://ad.doubleclick.net/activity;src=1537054;met=1;v=1;pid=31558751;aid=20 9737023;ko=0;cid=29312204;rid=29330083;rv=1;&timestamp=6280054;eid1=9;ecn1=1;etm1=0; http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.cgi/www.salonmagazine.com/paglia/content/large.html@Right (http://judo.salon.com/RealMedia/ads/click_nx.cgi/www.salonmagazine.com/paglia/content/large.html@Right)
I may be an atheist, but I respect religion and certainly find it far more philosophically expansive and culturally sustaining than the me-me-me sense of foot-stamping entitlement projected by too many gay activists in the unlamented past.

My position has always been (as in "No Law in the Arena" in my 1994 book, http://www.amazon.com/Vamps-Tramps-Essays-Camille-Paglia/dp/0679751203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228881969&sr=8-1") that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious concept that should be defined and administered only by churches. The government, a secular entity, must institute and guarantee civil unions, open to both straight and gay couples and conferring full legal rights and benefits. Liberal heterosexuals who profess support for gay rights should be urged to publicly shun marriage and join gays in the civil union movement.

In their displeasure at the California vote, gay activists have fomented animosity among African-Americans who voted for Proposition 8 and who reject any equivalence between racism and homophobia. Do gays really want to split the Democratic coalition?

I completely agree with a hard-hitting piece by the British gay activist Mark Simpson (which was forwarded to me by Glenn Belverio), "Let's Be Civil: Marriage Isn't the End of the Rainbow." (http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008/12/05/lets-be-civil-gay-marriage-isnt-the-end-of-the-rainbow/)
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2008/12/05/lets-be-civil-gay-marriage-isnt-the-end-of-the-rainbow/

Simpson, who has been called "a skinhead Oscar Wilde," is famous among other things for a riveting 2002 Salon article that put the term "metrosexual" into world circulation. I appreciate Simpson's candor about how marriage is a very poor fit with the actual open lifestyle of so many gay men, which is far more radical. Marriage may be desirable for some gay men and women, but at what cost? Activists should have focused instead on removing all impediments to equality in civil unions -- such as the unjust denial of Social Security benefits to the surviving partner in gay relationships.

Camille Paglia on Obama choosing Hillary as Secretary of State, and more | Salon (http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/12/10/hillary_mumbai/)
(on page 3 )

I love it when libs take a sensible and reasonable stand on hot-button issues.

Yes, a stand that, I think synnen proposed, which I think most can agree with. Marriage is a religious institution and the government has no business dictating religious doctrine.




g&p

Watch this :) Its done by Jack Black and some other acters. Its on propsition 8, but it's their opinion on it and the bible.

And jack black plays jesus lol


"Prop 8 - The Musical" starring Jack Black, John C. Reilly, and many more... from FOD Team, Jack Black, Craig Robinson, John C Reilly, and Rashida Jones (http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c0cf508ff8/prop-8-the-musical-starring-jack-black-john-c-reilly-and-many-more-from-fod-team-jack-black-craig-robinson-john-c-reilly-and-rashida-jones)

Thanks Sarge, and I just almost made it "a day without a gay" until that.

Well, I want to add something to this discussion. I know one guy who is completely straight , he has a girl friend too, and pretty much happy with her.
He has got this very close friend, they've been roommates for 4 years in college. He really like that guy, every moment he has spent with him, he enjoyed it, loved it. He love this guy more than his girl friend, and he still want to live with this guy rather than his girl friend. But it doesn't mean that he's a gay. My point is, loving a person doesn't make you gay or lesbian. Its just feelings. Its just about loving a person. What if these 2 guys marry, if that's necessary for them. I completely support it.
I don't think there should be any issue in gay marriages. Every person has a right to choose his or her life partner.

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's law. I have learned a great deal from you, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend homosexuality, for example, I will simply remind him or her that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other laws in Leviticus and Exodus and how to best follow them. To wit:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Leviticus 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as stated in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Leviticus 15:19-24). The problem is, how can I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Canadians, but not Mexicans. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine says that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Leviticus 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Hello pass:

You're just wrong..... Marriage wan't MADE. There isn't any "real" marriage, any more than there is a "real" Virginia. It ISN'T known at all that children do better with a mom and a dad. You're just making that up.

I'd like to argue with somebody who has FACTS on their side - not just more right wing Christian mumbo jumbo. Please.

excon

I don't know of any official data that proves that children do better with a mom/dad vs mom/mom or dad/dad situations. On the other hand, I personally know some children that have a horrible set of worthless straight parents. I've also seen kids in a same sex union that are happy and thriving and well adjusted. Mom/Dad parents are not necessarily any more or less qualified than same sex parents. At least in my circles.

Great answer, classy!! So true.

Anyway, I have to say how I can't believe how nasty the OP has been through this topic. He asked for opinions, called on Christians to answer, and then slams everyone with a differing opinion.

I don 't think gays should be allowed to marry. Not even just from a Christian perspective, I just think it's unnatural. I also think the practice of gay marriage, if legal, would be greatly abused for financial gains. Being gay is a defect, obviously. All living things have one purpose-to reproduce. Just because the times we live in now, where a person can be a productive member of society without having kids, doesn't make being gay not a defect. Obviously, if you're attracted to the same sex, you can't reproduce, and therefore, in the natural world, you are useless.

And that is my opinion, and I think YOU are wrong, excon. What, did you fall in love with your cellie or something? Is this why you are asking?



Well, I agree with excon about gays having the same rights as other couples but, like you, I thought his presentation was a little rude. You had a point there Until, you had to get that little cheap shot in on your last paragraph. Shame on you.

Hello mag:




excon

PS> (edited) In case anybody is confused, NOW, I'm being nasty!

Got It:D

It's the only thing that makes sense and you gotta start somewhere ;)

No really? Where did they get their wives? It is the only thing that makes sense, but isn't incest pretty far up on the list of major sins? Why would God set up a situation where there was no getting around this sin? That is the trouble with the biblical story of creation. It required too much incest.

Great answer, classy!! So true.

Anyway, I have to say how I can't believe how nasty the OP has been through this topic. He asked for opinions, called on Christians to answer, and then slams everyone with a differing opinion.

I don 't think gays should be allowed to marry. Not even just from a Christian perspective, I just think it's unnatural. I also think the practice of gay marriage, if legal, would be greatly abused for financial gains. Being gay is a defect, obviously. All living things have one purpose-to reproduce. Just because the times we live in now, where a person can be a productive member of society without having kids, doesn't make being gay not a defect. Obviously, if you're attracted to the same sex, you can't reproduce, and therefore, in the natural world, you are useless.

And that is my opinion, and I think YOU are wrong, excon. What, did you fall in love with your cellie or something? Is this why you are asking?

I'm am not going to join in on this conversation, because it seems to be going nowhere. BUT, I could not passby without commenting on this. I can't believe the hatred being spewed here in this comment and a few others, from someone who claims to be a Christian.

I am incensed that you would refer to a HUMAN BEING as purposeless, defective, and useless, just because they were born gay! You also made a comparison to a marriage between same sex couples to a person marrying a horse! Do your gay family members and friends (mentioned in another of your posts) know that you find them purposeless, defective, and useless? Thou shalt not lie! It was also a contradiction to say that you didn't have a problem with said relatives and friends, yet you find them to be abominations. I find this very hypocritical! The comment made at the end of your angry, right winged words, was just pure venom!

However, I would like to thank you! Thank you for reminding me why I left the church, and organized religion. It's once again cemented in my mind, the reason I will not return to a place that is filled with people like you. You have once again raised my awareness! Your church must be proud of you for keeping another former member out! I will abide by your username, and "pass you by."

Hello Starby:

*greenie*

Ex

Hello Starby:

*greenie*

ex

Thanks Exy! :)

Second greenie from myself. I echo your sentiments.

Second greenie from myself. I echo your sentiments.

Is it my birthday? LOL!

A standing ovation (and a greenie too!) from me, Starby.

A standing ovation (and a greenie too!) from me, Starby.

My Birthday AND Christmas all over again! Yeay! :D

Thanks Synn!

I am going to comment.

Marriage is between a man and a women. Marriage has been created for man and women. It has been through the ages within the church.

As far as if homesexual or lesbians want to have a union that is up to him or her. But as far as having that union within the church, it was not meant to be.

That does not mean that Men - Men, Women - Women can not live together and be happy.

I am going to comment.

Marriage is between a man and a women. Marriage has been created for man and women. It has been through the ages within the church.

As far as if homesexual or lesbians want to have a union that is up to him or her. But as far as having that union within the church, it was not meant to be.

That does not mean that Men - Men, Women - Women can not live together and be happy.


Like I've said before in this thread: marriage has been defined in several different ways over the centuries. 1 man and as many women as he can support is STILL acceptable in some cultures.

Like I've ALSO said before: the only way to make this fair is to have EVERYONE have to have 2 ceremonies. One for the state, for the legal stuff, and one for the church for the religious stuff.

No, you can't make a church accept gay marriages, but you CAN make the state say they will not recognize legally any union that is ONLY done in a church and not through the state as well.

Hello Joe:

Happy New Year to you...

Nobody here is arguing with you or your church about how YOU define marriage. The problem comes when the GOVERNMENT starts to define it, by denying rights to those who THEY think shouldn't be married.

You do agree, that the government shouldn't take the position of the church, don't you? You DO agree, that they're NOT the same thing, that they don't serve the same constituency, and that government should abide by ITS principals instead of the CHURCH'S?

excon

When you get married you get a tax break, but if you can't, you don't. Its one thing to have that option, and not use it, but its another thing to not be afforded the option. That's not fair.

And a greenie for New Years Starby, for standing up to hypocrisy,

Thanks Tal! :D

I said I wasn't going to get involved in this after my comment, but hey you guys know me! Haha! It's not only the tax break issue that bothers me. I was watching a show on TV just last week. An unmarried gay couple had been together for I believe it was 15 yrs. They had adopted a child, and they were a very "normal" and well adjusted family. They had a beautiful home in a nice neighbourhood, they provided well for their 10 yr old child, they were well respected in their community, and in their neighbourhood.

Well, one of them was in a terrible accident. Neither the partner, nor the child were allowed in the hospital room. That person died without being able to say goodbye to the people that they loved the most.

Then the family of the deceased stepped in. They took everything, including the child! They left the grieving partner without their child, and took everything that the three had shared over the yrs. All of their assets and possesions, and the child was no longer allowed to see the surviving parent.

Now someone tell me how this is fair, or for that matter, HUMANE! And all because they were not ALLOWED to be married.

It burns me up!

A greenie from me too Starby, that was very well said, and very true.

It's sad that some people care more about some words in a book then they do about the human beings on this planet.

If this continues, I don't see the peace everyone claims to want. It won't happen, and it's so in everyone's power to make it happen.

Okay, clunk, off my soap box. ;)

Like I've said before in this thread: marriage has been defined in several different ways over the centuries. 1 man and as many women as he can support is STILL acceptable in some cultures.

Like I've ALSO said before: the only way to make this fair is to have EVERYONE have to have 2 ceremonies. One for the state, for the legal stuff, and one for the church for the religious stuff.

No, you can't make a church accept gay marriages, but you CAN make the state say they will not recognize legally any union that is ONLY done in a church and not through the state as well.

Very good points. I know I did not read through the whole thread. I really like your last point the best.

Take care.

Hello Joe:

Happy New Year to you....

Nobody here is arguing with you or your church about how YOU define marriage. The problem comes when the GOVERNMENT starts to define it, by denying rights to those who THEY think shouldn't be married.

You do agree, that the government shouldn't take the position of the church, don't you? You DO agree, that they're NOT the same thing, that they don't serve the same constituency, and that government should abide by ITS principals instead of the CHURCH'S?

excon

Yes, Excon that is true.

Thanks Tal! :D

I said I wasn't going to get involved in this after my comment, but hey you guys know me! Haha! It's not only the tax break issue that bothers me. I was watching a show on TV just last week. An unmarried gay couple had been together for I believe it was 15 yrs. They had adopted a child, and they were a very "normal" and well adjusted family. They had a beautiful home in a nice neighbourhood, they provided well for their 10 yr old child, they were well respected in their community, and in their neighbourhood.

Well, one of them was in a terrible accident. Neither the partner, nor the child were allowed in the hospital room. That person died without being able to say goodbye to the people that they loved the most.

Then the family of the deceased stepped in. They took everything, including the child! They left the grieving partner without their child, and took everything that the three had shared over the yrs. All of their assets and possesions, and the child was no longer allowed to see the surviving parent.

Now someone tell me how this is fair, or for that matter, HUMANE! And all because they were not ALLOWED to be married.

It burns me up!

No, That is not fair at all.

Well, one of them was in a terrible accident. Neither the partner, nor the child were allowed in the hospital room. That person died without being able to say goodbye to the people that they loved the most.


That's why legal recognition of domestic partnership is a must.

that's why legal recognition of domestic partnership is a must.

Absolutely! Both straight AND gay partnerships!

Absolutely! Both straight AND gay partnerships!

That needs to happen to protect people. Especially innocent children that don't have a say in this. Those two loving parents were not both legally able to adopt that child. So one of them had to, and that just happened to be the one that died. Shame on the family members that allowed this to happen in this little innocent child's life. I'm sure that the child is hurting enough losing one parent. Why cause her to lose two at the same time? :(

That needs to happen to protect people. Especially innocent children that don't have a say in this. Those two loving parents were not both legally able to adopt that child. So one of them had to, and that just happened to be the one that died. Shame on the family members that allowed this to happen in this little innocent childs life. I'm sure that the child is hurting enough losing one parent. Why cause her to lose two at the same time?? :(


When this couple adopted the child didn't they know there was possibility that this could happen?? Little irresponsible on the part of the parents too wouldn't you agree

Little irresponsible on the part of the parents too wouldn't you agreeHello Dare:

Yeah, blaming the victim is an old right wing trick... But, we got you figured out...

excon

Hello Dare:

Yeah, blaming the victim is an old right wing trick.... But, we got you figured out....

excon

It's a valid question, no need to get all riled up. I just wanted to see what people think about it
For your information I am for gay marriages.

Dave what else you think they could have done?

When this couple adopted the child didn't they know there was possibility that this could happen??? Little irresponsible on the part of the parents too wouldn't you agree

Actually, I can't remember all of the details of the story, but from my understanding the couple thought that they had their I's dotted and their T's crossed. But as the way things often happen, their was obviously a glitch in the system somewhere that failed them. So the relatives that had frowned upon their gay union, found the loopholes I assume.

Because in a homosexual relationship, the relationship is not deemed "legal", the family, who DOES have legal recourse, can overturn things like wills and stated child custody preferences.

Basically, there is no legal protection for the surviving partner in a gay relationship if the family of the deceased contests his or her wishes. Because the family DOES have a legal connection to the deceased (next of kin), they can contest any legal document the deceased has--like a will--for their own benefit.

THAT is why gay marriage needs to be allowed. They should be allowed to have the SAME legal rights as any other spouse in the country if something happens.

So true! Can you imagine how many other things like that happen to these couples all of the time? Everything from legalities concerning children, to banking, healthcare, legal dealings, insurance policies, and the list goes on. I can't even imagine being in a situation like that, where you are treated as less than person. And still people think that being gay is a choice. Who would choose this?

I'm not gay but I'm all for gay marriage
Its what will make some people happy
There isn't nothing wrong with that

I support civil unions.

I thought we live in the land of the free. Freedom of speech and to marry whoever we choice whether if it is the same sex.

Lots of freedom in the US Constitution, but there is actually no "right" to marry at all listed,
Marriage was a state law to be regulated by the state. At 16 some states allow you to marry, others don't, at 16 some states allow you to have sex, others don't,
And there can not nor should there be "complete" freedom from morality, since there has to be a limit at some point

I agree that there has to be a limit Chuck, but with gay marriage? What's the harm?

Sex before 16 can be harmful, so can marriage before a certain age, but there is no harm in gay marriage.

And there can not nor should there be "complete" freedom from morality, since there has to be a limit at some point

There is the rub! Who's morality are we talking about?

There is the rub! Who's morality are we talking about??

I'm curious to know that as well.

Also, what does morality have to do with two people that love each other getting married? I thought that was a moral act.

I agree Tal. I don't think this is just an issue of morality. I think this is more of an issue understanding, and empathy for gay people, to have the same rights under the law as others. Some may not agree, but people who are BORN gay, deserve to be recognised and be able to live a happy and fulfilling life, just like anyone else.

I have met several gay people in my life, and came to realise that they all put on their socks and shoes just as we do. They are not "freaks of nature", as some of them are seen and treated as such.

We have had young children commit suicide because they thought they were living in the wrong body, and were ostrasized (sp) by others... children and adults alike.

I think morality needs to start with compassion for the young children that are faced with this. How do you tell a young child, that what he or she is feeling is wrong?

Just on a personal note. I'm a straight heterosexal female. I once knew a man where I worked, in a professional setting. He was incredibly handsome, and didn't fit the stereo-typical role of a "gay" male. He had all of the hot woman clamouring around him. I couldn't figure out why he was always "dateless" when we would go out to the bar, or other social events. I found that he seemed very uncomfortable in social settings. He would get up and dance and socialize with the girls, but it was obvious he wasn't himself.

One day I got up the nerve to ask him if he was gay. At first he denied it, but both he and I knew he was lying. When he admitted it, he felt so ashamed, and was so afraid that he would lose me as a friend, because now I was one of the very few that knew. Others had left him when they found out. They quite obviously were not friends.

Fast forward several yrs. Stuart and I remained very good friends. We hung out all of the time, and he was always the type of person that just wanted everyone else to have fun and be happy. He was in a few short lived relationships, and I know that is because he was afraid of being made fun of.

Well, Stuart was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. (same thing Patrick Swayze has) It was in it's later stages. I went to many of his Dr.'s appt's with him, and sat with him in the hospital, while he was hooked up to all sorts of machines and tubes. He didn't live long after the diagnosis. It was heartbreaking!

Does anyone want to guess what the rumour around town was when he died? Go ahead, take a guess? Of course!. he MUST have died of AIDS right? What a wonderful send off for him!

So if we are going to talk morality here, lets think about how moral that was, and then we'll talk.

I agree that there has to be a limit Chuck, but with gay marriage? What's the harm?

Sex before 16 can be harmful, so can marriage before a certain age, but there is no harm in gay marriage.


I don't agree with this.How is sex before 16 harmful?

The legal age for marriage in most countries is 16, in some Asian countries its 14
Marriageable age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age#Europe)

Even though I agree that same sex marriages should have exactly the same rights as any other marriage.but the same arguments that are made for same sex marriages could be made for polygamy.
Society has to draw a line, but that line is based upon morality Which morality you ask, the morality of the majority, since we live in a democratic society.

lots of freedom in the US Constitution, but there is actually no "right" to marry at all listed,
Marriage was a state law to be regulated by the state. at 16 some states allow you to marry, others don't, at 16 some states allow you to have sex, others don't,
And there can not nor should there be "complete" freedom from morality, since there has to be a limit at some point

You mean YOUR morality according to YOUR religion?

Hello again:

I read the Constitution. The word "moral" isn't in there. You'd think that if the government was supposed to DO something about morals, the Constitution would say so.

It doesn't.

Those founders were pretty smart guys. If they wanted MORAL laws, they would have said so.

They didn't.

Therefore, ALL laws based upon the Christian idea of morality, are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Let freedom ring!

excon

One day I got up the nerve to ask him if he was gay. At first he denied it, but both he and I knew he was lying. When he admitted it, he felt so ashamed, and was so afraid that he would lose me as a friend, because now I was one of the very few that knew. Others had left him when they found out. They quite obviously were not friends.



Now, THIS is immoral. For a society to shun you or for you to feel ashamed of who you are, or afraid that friends will drop you if you admit your truth. This is so wrong!

Society has to draw a line, but that line is based upon morality Which morality you ask, the morality of the majority, since we live in a democratic society.

That's only partly true, as we all cannot be denied equal protection under the law. No matter who you live with, and what you do with them. Being a democratic society is precisely why the majority cannot dictate morality to the minority.

While the law cannot dictate what a church does in its own religion, it can give its citizens the same rights shared by all. If one church will marry gay people, and another will not, so be it, as that has nothing to do with law, but city hall should not have a choice to discriminate, and favor one set of beliefs over another, but that's just my opinion. That goes for tax discrimination between marrieds, and singles, and deductions for dependents. Its made to favor people who are married, and should not say who can marry, and who can't. Just my opinion again.

don't agree with this.How is sex before 16 harmful?

You're kidding, right? Well, a 16 year old is not physically, emotionally, financially old enough to have a child, and we all know that sex produces children. Are you saying that you would be okay with a 15 year old girl having sex? Wow! Now that's morally wrong.