Are you for or against Gay Marriage?

I've chewed around on this question. At this moment in time, I am all for gay partners having some kind of legal contract for property rights and for inheritance and for other rights. For instance, my lesbian sil had to adopt a newborn as a single mom since she and her partner are not considered a legal couple.

Marriage is a religious union, and I don't think the religious part of being a legal couple concerns that many gay partners. Of course, there could be some kind of religious dedication ceremony written that might help gay couples take their union even more seriously.

As far as gay unions or marriage destroying the institution of marriage, that's horse feathers. The straights are and have been doing a nice job of that all by themselves.

Nope.
Not a bit.
People of the same gender falling in love is just as pheasable as two people of the opposite gender falling in love. And it is awful to deprive homosexuals of marriage.


That help?

I really do not care - it is their personal business, not mine. I would not want someone sticking their nose into my relationships.

I just wanted to here some opinions from people. In the province I live in it is still illegal, but I'm am for it. I've just herd a lot about it the last few days from watching USA news on TV since it is a major political thing with the election going on down there.

Well, I'm from the UK.

It's possible for gays to have 'Civil Partnerships' over here.

Hello:

I think the government ought to get OUT of the marriage business. Why is it their business WHO we marry??

excon

I've chewed around on this question. At this moment in time, I am all for gay partners having some kind of legal contract for property rights and for inheritance and for other rights. For instance, my lesbian sil had to adopt a newborn as a single mom since she and her partner are not considered a legal couple.

Marriage is a religious union, and I don't think the religious part of being a legal couple concerns that many gay partners. Of course, there could be some kind of religious dedication ceremony written that might help gay couples take their union even more seriously.

As far as gay unions or marriage destroying the institution of marriage, that's horse feathers. The straights are and have been doing a nice job of that all by themselves.


Wondergirl said it better than I can.
I have a gay son who I have had this discussion with and it is one that I try to steer clear of with him because we don't have the same opinion. My son told me about a story of two men who had lived for many years as a couple sharing all the bills and paying for a house together. When one of the men died it was left in his will that everything go to his partner. The family of the deceased fought it and won. Because there was no legal marriage everything went to the family including the house that both men paid for together. This poor guy not only lost his mate he lost the home he paid for. What the hell good is a will? I am very torn on the subject of gay marriage. On one hand I believe there should be something that will make a gay couples union as legal as a straight couple, but on the other hand I'm not sure it should be called a marriage. That is where my son and I disagree. As he says people get married everyday who doesn't have a religious bone in their body, yet they can do it so why should it matter if they are gay? I guess he is right but... I just don’t know.

That is a very sad story. I feel very bad for him, that's awful!
I totally agree with you.

I'm against it.

Why?

mjl disagrees: They aren't telling us who to marry.Hello again, mjl:

Telling you who you CAN'T marry is the same thing as telling you who you can.

excon

You are very passionate about this topic.
You are obiously for gay marriage, and so am I. Why so pushy?

The day a gay person chooses to be gay is the day you chose to be straight. And on the news there were twins, one who was a normal every day boy. The other one, very femine, did his nails, like barbies, had a pink room, etc... I believe he is gay. So are you able to tell me a child of 6 chose to be gay? No. So everyone should be able to get married. Marriage is a close and intimate relationship, which gay people can have too

You are very passionate about this topic. Why so pushy?Hello again, mjl:

Chill out, Dude. What you see as passion and pushiness, I see as nothing more than a pleasant discussion.

Oh, I can get passionate and pushy, but this ain't it - not even close.

excon

Marriage is the union of one man and one women leave their parents to join together and become one being. It is a spiritual and physical union. The only one that fits together is women and man.

Now this is a very touchy debate, question? I am unsure of your intention of this.

You asked for opinions. I believe that Marriage is only for one male and one female joining together. Marriage is through God, Through the church. Not State, or country has no right to interefere with something that has been Church matter since the beginning.

Am I against it, Yes.

Am I against two same sex couples being together, No. That is their own personal choice that does not effect me. As far as trying to change the meaning of marriage and what it represents I do not think is right.

I have nothing against gay people but I believe that a man and a woman were supposed to be joined not man and man or woman and woman. They just don't fit. If you know what I mean

I'm for gay marriage.
Why shouldn't homosexuals have the same rites as heterosexuals?

I am for gay marriage, even though it is related to religion, because there are many kinds of religions in the world, and regarding the christian ones, there are some churches that support gay marriage.

However, I am not against civil unions. For me they can be used instead of marriage.

Besides I am from Eastern Europe. The attitute there toward homosexuality there is very hostile. The homosexuals there do not even have basic human rights ( like right for peaceful walk demonstration on streets) which is very sad.
I come from Poland. I no longer live there, but I still get some news from there. Last year, polish watchdog of Children Rights investigated wheter Teletubbies promote homosexuality. The government made it up to distract people from their scandales and left business. This year governemtn got replaced with new, but is still against supporting gay/lesbian rights, even passing anti-discrimination laws. I am glad I live in the U.S, in the Chicago area, where attitute toward these people is more civilized.

I don't care either way. I don't feel it is my business what people do with their lives and who they want to be with. My husband and I are in love, so if two men or two women are in love just the same, why shouldn't they be able to get married? Of course, that's just my opinion. :)

Hello:

I think the government ought to get OUT of the marriage business. Why is it their business WHO we marry??

Excon

I couldn't agree with you more... love and commitment is between 2 PEOPLE... not 2 people and the government.


Wondergirl: Marriage is a religious union, and I don't think the religious part of being a legal couple concerns that many gay partners. Of course, there could be some kind of religious dedication ceremony written that might help gay couples take their union even more seriously.

This ties in with my agreement with excon as well... marriage is about love and commitment between 2 people... not 2 people and religion.
I am not religious, nor do I believe in god (and I'm hoping this statement doesn't spin off to another religious debate)... I am just stating, that I am married and its not a religious union... should should I have not been allowed to marry my husband?

Love shouldn't have laws or limitations.

I am against it. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
I have no problem with gay couples. If they want a civil union, great. Things are starting to change - you can have your partner listed on your health insurance, etc. I just don't think a union with 2 ssame sex people should be called "marriage".

The government provides a contract for two people, ( normally man and women currently) to join into a civil contract in which each takes on specific liabilitys and duties toward the other. The actual terms of this contract is not national in the US, but by state, I believe even in canada the terms of the contract are by provinence and vary some.

The fallicy that this is called marriage has come from over time, the state taking over the place of the church, in early times there were no civil contracts but all marriages were arranged and tracked by the church, and in other times and cultures there were no actual legal contracts merely a custom or tradition that joined the couple with no written legal contract.

So as customs moved, and governments make laws, marriage was controlled by the state , which is not the right of the governmetn to do so. So a couple can marry without a license from the state, but they do not get reconised for legal rights, this is where the state is interfering with religious culture and rights.

So does a gay couple have the right to marry, by whose standards, if they belong to a religious group that allows it, of course they can but that does not mean a governemnt has to reconinse it. That is a different standard.

The laws of a government is set by the culture and moral fiber of its citizens, in such the nature in the US today is that such marriages are not to be allowed, and as such the laws of the nation should reflect that if the government is going to control it. ( which it should not)

Should a religious body be free to refuse to perform a gay marriage of course, and in some areas where religious groups are being forced to have to reconise these, that is another abuse of state power.

So the nation as a law should not even be issuing marriage.

As for me personally, no gay marriage is against the moral laws of God, against nature and is disgrace of how low man can move down the ladder of evolution.

You all bring up very good points.

I have no problem with gay couples being married, but the question comes into what are you going to call it? For the record, I don't care what you call it, but maybe there's a way to appease others who DO care.

Perhaps the government should get out of "marriage" and only recognize "civil unions". You are only "married" in a church ceremony, and the government couldn't give a hoot.

Not religious? Gay? Don't have a church you belong to? That's a civil union, recognized by the state and the federal government.

Religious? Belong to a church? Found a church who will marry you? Then you have a ceremony and you are "married" in the eyes of the church. Again, it means squat to the government; sort of like if you get baptized. The state doesn't care, only you, your church and your family care.

It's all semantics. It's all coming up with a word that gives the same rights and equal treatment to everyone, but just making sure that word isn't "marriage". Because really, if the government allowed everyone to get married, and then the churches developed a new thing; "marriage in the eyes of god" or something, what's the difference? What it comes down to is you either think gays should have the same rights as others or you don't. Take the language out of it - it's rights versus no rights.

I don't care who gets married, since half of them don't work out anyway.

Marriage today, to me, is nothing more than an economic union. Anyone should be able to marry anyone they wanted. We have a separation of church and state, and the only logical reason we have to ban same sex marriages is because of religious reasons.

Im against it. I used to try hard to not get red dots, and just wouldn't answer on these types of questions... but Ive come to realize that in modern society, true Christianity is just one big red dot. Don't think that Im a homophobe by any means... Im also against pre marital sex, and smoking, drinking, cursing, and anything else that God has said isn't right.
Homosexuals say they are born that way... that's fine, everyone needs to be born again anyway... I promise you'll come out straight at that point. :)
Just a side note, any person that skips over anything in the Bible, saying its less important, or trying to rationalize, they're making up their own god, and belief system. If you're a Christian you are of the Bible, straight up.
~Ash

No one is the bible "Straight up"

This one is surprisingly simple for me:

I don't care what anyone else does. Its not for me to judge or decide what's right for someone else.

I don't mind if there want to marry there should be allowed cause it doesn't matter what sex you are, if you love someone you should be allowed so I agree its no ones business once the two people involved are happy
So yes I think gays have a right to get married like a man and woman do

no one is the bible "Straight up"
No one is the Bible? You mean no denomination has it right?

No I meant that no christian would be a christian if the therms you said. You said that a true christian would follow the bible strictly but everyone sins

For a christian, we are not judging when we compare a persons works, to the guidelines set for us in the bible, The main issue on sin, is that most homosexuals will not admit that their sexual activitiy is sin. They want it to be accepted as a choice, not a sin.

And with alll sin, the Christian is suppose to be working hard, not to sin,
If a person is a drunk, they are to try and stay sober, not move in with a bartender and live in the bar.
If a person is a thief, they don't form a gang and go out to rob on a regular bais, they try hard to stop stealing.

So if the homosexual admits their sexual actions are sin, and they repent of them and try hard to stop sexual activities,?

That is the difference, a sinner is to admit their sin, and repent and try to turn from the sin, Whan a homosexual does that, they then move towards forgiveness.

No i meant that no christian would be a christian if the therms you said. You said that a true christian would follow the bible strictly but everyone sins
I definitely agree that everyone sins, that is withough doubt, the thing it though that many people try to pick what they want to follow knowing fully that it is taught in the Bible as sin, and they call themselves Christian.
Homosexuals aren't the only ones to blame about it though... people who smoke weed say "well God made it... its all natural" but then they ignore that the ground has been cursed in Genesis.
People ignore the verses that talk about profain and vain babblings and say that cursing "is a cultural thing" and people try to say that fornication isn't a sin as long as you truly 'love' the other person, and some even go as far as saying stuff like "wel fornication is from the word porneum which means sex while married or sex with a woman on her period" (no Ive really heard it)
The fact is that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but in order for repentance to take place, which is necessary for salvation, one needs to take note of the fact that what they are doing is a sin. Repentance is a sorrowful submission, and a constant servanthood to the One who was merciful to look past it all.

PS. I really don't want to get into any debates about weed fornication or cursing... those were examples...
~Ash

Hello Ash:

I didn't know the Bible says that smoking pot will send you to hell. If you can show me the passage, I'm going to stop that evil weed.

excon

Well, to me... Gay marriage is just fine.

As far as MY interpretation of the Bible goes: If homosexuality is a sin, then incest is okay (Lot and his daughters) and so is tricking your brother out of his inheritance (Jacob and Esau). It's also a sin to masturbate (isn't someone struck down for spilling his seed on the ground?) and everyone should have to marry their widowed in-laws.

If you try to tell me that THOSE are just cultural differences of the times--well, I'm going to tell you that being gay is too. The reason (from MY interpretation) that being gay was bad is that god only wanted sex for children. Well... if you're not trying to have kids, then, you shouldn't be having sex! (by those standards).

Love is love. There is so much hate in this world already, why are we NOT celebrating love wherever it is found?

sorry it seems every time one starts to discuss homosexuality as a sin, this is what they do, they just won't admit it is, they start bringing up a 100 other sins, well OK those are sins, ( well smoking pot is not in the bible) but losing control compared to drinking is, so lets say it is a sin, that is just an excuse for the drug users and it is still a sin and they are just as wong at not admiting their guilt.

And those things like incest, and lying is also a sin, many people in the bible sin, but they would turn from their sin.

Love is great and just calling sin a sin is not hate, it is merely the truth, truth is not hate, but is considered hate to those not wanting to hear the truth

The only reason the State has to be involved, and it's a good one, is that the courts have to adjudicate disputes about property, child custody, inheritance, medical decisions, and who can be compelled to testify in court (spouses don't have to). So the real issue isn't about marriage as much as it is about death, divorce, kids, and property. In all those matters, gay and lesbian couples deserve every bit as much legal protection and rights of due process as straight people.

I agree with jillianleab, invent whatever classifications and call them by whatever names the various political factions can live with, but don't try to deny basic legal rights to people because of sexual orientation.

Hello Ash:

I didn't know the Bible says that smoking pot will send you to hell. If you can show me the passage, I'm gonna stop that evil weed.

excon
Romans 6:23

Also the bible says to obey the laws of the government, the overused but still adequate body being the temple of God, the fact that if something you're doing could make your brother sin, even if it isn't a sin, not to do it for the blood of their soul in on your hands at that point... also, it says to keep your conscience clear so that if at any man condemns you that you will proclaim blamelessness without fault, but those are given to believers... don't bother unless you're doing for the glory of God and to follow Him in thought and deed, lest you only gain a sober man in hell.
~Ash

Well, to me...Gay marriage is just fine.

As far as MY interpretation of the Bible goes: If homosexuality is a sin, then incest is okay (Lot and his daughters) and so is tricking your brother out of his inheritance (Jacob and Esau). It's also a sin to masturbate (isn't someone struck down for spilling his seed on the ground?) and everyone should have to marry their widowed in-laws.

If you try to tell me that THOSE are just cultural differences of the times--well, I'm gonna tell you that being gay is too. The reason (from MY interpretation) that being gay was bad is that god only wanted sex for children. Well...if you're not trying to have kids, then, you shouldn't be having sex! (by those standards).

Love is love. There is so much hate in this world already, why are we NOT celebrating love wherever it is found?

Well... lets see... firstly we must understand that even the righteous men of the Bible fell, and also that "incest" at one point wasn't a sin. Actually it was necessary consdering everything began with one man and one woman.
The Bible mentions masturbation as a shameful act, which I personally wouldn't want to displease God, but that's you. However, if you need stimulation consisting of lust, any type, yeah that's sin.
As far as widowed in laws, there were 4 different types of convenants, 3 of which have been fulfilled, blood, israeli, moral and dietary. All of which but the moral have been fulfilled. The marrying widows law pertained to the israelites.
The moral laws, such as the ten commandments and everything mentioned as abomination and such, still stand, and they stand firm.
~Ash

everything mentioned as abomination and such, still stand, and they stand firm.

So we are to abide by them all?

So we are to abide by them all?
What do you think?

I asked first.

What do you think?


I think that while some of the IDEAS in the Bible are great---unless you live by ALL of them, then don't start quoting just one or two of them to me.

I also think that this is exactly the reason I'm NOT Christian. I don't HAVE to call it a sin, then. And... marriage is a valid Wiccan tradition too--and most Wiccans don't have a problem with same sex couples. So--let the same-sex couples get married in the Wiccan faith, and there's no problem, then, right? I mean, it's not a CHRISTIAN marriage, it's a WICCAN marriage.

I just hate the fact that people are so dead set against the use of the word "marriage". Want to call it by the Sanskrit name for marriage, then? Or the Roman word? I don't care!

I agree with what someone else said earlier--gay couples aren't destroying the "sanctity" of marriage--straight couples are doing a great job of it themselves, with the high divorce rate.

Are you for or against Gay Marriage?
All for it! Gay people are human just like the rest of us.

I believe you can't help who you fall in love with

i believe you can't help who you fall in love with
Gay or straight, this is a dangerous belief.

i believe you can't help who you fall in love with

You do have choices though, and you can help what you do, about who you love. Its called dealing with reality.

I would say that there are 3 types of people that are affiliated with the gay marriage debate:

1st type: is the kind of person who is against it because A.) They are extremely religious and believe that it is immoral and against God's wishes or B.) They have a vengeance on someone who affected them in that way (ie:their parenter left them for the opposite sex, their daughter or son became gay etc.)

2nd type: is the kind of person who really doesn't give a crap about what someone else does with their life as long as it doesn't involve them

3rd type: is the kind of person who is all for it because A.) They are gay B.) They have a daughter/son or realitive who is gay C.) They are neither gay nor bi but feel strongly for a free will country

This debate is depended on the majority beliefs. Can you guess which one it is? And tell me, which kind of person are you?

And tell me, which kind of person are you?
The kind who doesn't divide the world into two or more kinds of people.

This debate is depended on the majority beliefs. Can you guess which one it is? And tell me, which kind of person are you?Hello alyssarox:

Actually what the majority believes has NOTHING to do with it. It's what the Constitution says that matters.

Let's see. I'm not against it. I don't care how people live. I don't care about people's free will. I Do, however, give a crap about peoples rights. I'm not gay.

I never have fit anybody's mold….. S'fine with me.

excon

PS> The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says that we ALL are afforded "equal protection under the law".

How can it be equal when heterosexual couples get government benefits, that homosexual ones don't?

One could argue a topic like this for years and years.

I personally am against same sex marriage. I am Catholic and do believe it to be a sin, however, I come to the conclusion not based solely on what the Bible or other religious works say about it.

I just think it is an un-natural thing,homosexuality in general. I mean the human body was made for specific reasons and man figured outlong ago that if you put this there it feels good and sometimes a small little person comes out in te near future. It makes sense, putting something where it does not belong is un-natural. The penetration of the tool into a place that is not intended for it to go is again, un-natural. Viewing it like this makes sense to me and it is consistent with religious teachings, I believe the Bible refers to the act as an abomination and the Koran mentions it being un-natural as well.

I take no issue with those who are gay, I sin too and so my sins of being straight may be even or even more serious than that of a gay person, so I have no issue with the individuals themselves. However, if any one agrees that it is un-natural human behaviour, it would stand to reason that one would not support marriages and openly flaunting exhibits from the gay population. My city has a HUGE parade in the summer and I don't support it being so "out in public" because I do believe it is a sin.

Who says I was "dividing" the world into kinds of people? I was talking about the issue of gay marriage not dividing everybody whatever that means. Get your facts right ordinaryguy!

Yea, and even the people who took part in the constitution had opinions. It was based on their opinions (or beliefs) and the majority opinion won. Good thought about the 14th amendment though. Maybe you should look into that and when you're deciding who is president, maybe you should consider that factor.

I am for it. As long as they keep to there selves and I don’t mean socializing with other people I mean showing affection to one another in public. All the power to them. WOOT :)

i believe you can't help who you fall in love with
I agree you can't help who you fall in love with either a man or a woman when you fall in love it just happens and you can't stop who you fall in love with

Who says I was "dividing" the world into kinds of people? I was talking about the issue of gay marriage not dividing everybody whatever that means. Get your facts right ordinaryguy!
I didn't say anything about you. You asked what kind of person I was, and I answered the question.

I am for it. As long as they keep to there selves and I don't mean socializing with other people I mean showing affection to one another in public. All the power to them. WOOT :)
So do you get offended when a hetero couple show affection in public?

Questionshelp:
Obviously not all the power to them, because you have some sort of problem with them showing affection in public. Hey, maybe they think it it totally revolting when you show affection in public.

Something a lot of people don't take into account also, is that if gay marriage was permitted then those peoples, like ministry would legally be obligated to perform the ceremony... Either way you look at it a persons 'rights' are going to be violated... although I agree with BMI that it is indeed sin.

Committing adultry is sin, stealing is sin, murder is sin, loveing someone is not

Hello L:

Never heard of a civil ceremony, huh? I didn't think so.

excon

Leid... where is a law that says that a minister has to perform a gay persons ceremony. I can't believe that.. Why couldn't they just say no.

So do you get offended when a hetero couple show affection in public?
I don't, not at all, if a heterosexual couple is married and in love, go for it. I don't want to see a gay couple together, as much as I don't want to hear the music played in the bistro, or the TV they subject you to in the doctors offices or anything else. Its just something we have to ignore on a personal basis and stand up for when you're opinion will actually get somewhere.
Christians mix up love to be tolerance all too often. Its kind of pointless for me to even be on this site, nothing gets across like this anyway... blah.

So it is OK to kiss in public and hold hands only if your married but if anyone else does it it is wrong?
For myself I don't care who holds hands or gives a quick peck... but I don't want to see anyone swallowing tongues or feeling anyone else up. I think there is a time and place for everything, whether you are a christian or not.

All too frequently, the "rules" are an intellectual guilt factory. To accept your fellow man as yourself, it may be necessary to leave the church and forget the dogma. To become closer to God and the homosexual sitting next to you try thinking for yourself. Take responsibility for your own decisions, quit falling back on what has been written and taught, in words. Actions, including religious wars speak louder.

Leid...where is a law that says that a minister has to perform a gay persons ceremony. I can't believe that..Why couldn't they just say no.

Anyone with a license to authenticate any legal document is obligated to do so, and to deny is considered prejudice, like if a minister refused to marry a black couple, only difference, before someone jumps on that one, is that there's nothing wrong with your race.

Commiting adultry is sin, stealing is sin, murder is sin, loveing someone is not
Of course not, its actually a commandment TO love... but what you're talking about isn't love, its motivated by selfish desire/lust.
What do you think about NAMBLA? North American Man Boy Love Association. Is that okay? I mean, everyone is entitled to 'love' right? Because that is the type of love you're referring to, a sexual, intimate love, naturally created to be shared by a one man, and one woman.
Ive known a 14 year old who dated a 19 year old, terrible I know, but a good example. The 14 year old thought through and through that she was completely in love with the grown man, and as did he, but they were involved in a relationship that wasn't appropriate, even to sexuality.
I had to use that because I could see someone using the argument that "well in NAMBLA the little boys dont have a choice, or dont love back"
But the catch is this, that the 14 year old didn't understand sincere and true love, and it turned into a sick, and inappropriate relationship that should not have ever been.

Anyone with a liscense to authenticate any legal document is obligated to do so, and to deny is considered prejudice, like if a minister refused to marry a black couple, only difference, before someone jumps on that one, is that theres nothing wrong with your race.Actually I would side with bushg on this one. I am for gay marriage but the church should not be forced to do it since it is against their doctrine. A civil ceremony should suffice... for anyone really.

I really don't think a gay couple would want their special day marred by someone that found their love to be replusive.
Anyway that is a pretty lame excuse for not legalizing it.
Look at birth control... some people don't believe in it. Look at mixed/interracial marriage... get my point.

I really don't think a gay couple would want their special day marred by someone that found their love to be replusive.
Anyway that is a pretty lame excuse for not legalizing it.
Look at birth control...some people don't believe in it. Look at mixed/interracial marriage...get my point.
On a normal basis no, but there are plenty out there who A. want to make a point and would look for the excuse to make someone definitely against it have to do so, or B. Plenty out there looking for some extra spending cash, how easy! Just sue a minister!

I don't see why anyone would be against it. It is an individuals decision to marry someone they are in love with, sex should have nothing to do with that. And why shouldn't it be legal? I would like someone to give me one good educated, logical reason why a person cannot be gay and marry someone of the same sex. For one, it does not effect anyone else, number two, it is nobody's business who we marry. It's the same as saying you can't marry someone because they are too short or too ugly! If we love that person it doesn't matter, its our life right? I believe people who don't accept it are uneducated and close-mined, (close-mindedness is usually from being ignorant about something). Its kind of like racism in a different form. And its not right! Gay people are people too.

Are you for or against Gay Marriage?
Stonwilder's story is sad, and I agree there should be the same legal protection for all couples.

Just asking, if a house is in joint names can it sill be taken away by the deceased's family?

One could argue a topic like this for years and years.

I personally am against same sex marriage. I am Catholic and do beleive it to be a sin, however, I come to the conclusion not based soley on what the Bible or other religious works say about it.

I just think it is an un-natural thing,homosexuality in general. I mean the human body was made for specific reasons and man figured outlong ago that if you put this there it feels good and sometimes a small little person comes out in te near future. It makes sense, putting something where it does not belong is un-natural. The penetration of the tool into a place that is not intended for it to go is again, un-natural. Viewing it like this makes sense to me and it is consistent with religious teachings, I beleive the Bible refers to the act as an abomination and the Koran mentions it being un-natural as well.

I take no issue with those who are gay, I sin too and so my sins of being straight may be even or even more serious than that of a gay person, so i have no issue with the individuals themselves. However, if any one agrees that it is un-natural human behaviour, it would stand to reason that one would not support marriages and openly flaunting exhibits from the gay population. My city has a HUGE parade in the summer and I don't support it being so "out in public" because I do beleive it is a sin.

Yes and I can say Im Buddhist or Muslim. I don't like it when people use religion as an excuse for being rude and ignorant towards specific types of people. I am atheist and I am just as much as a person as you. Im not gay but that doesn't matter. It may be sinning in your eyes but you obviously don't look beyond the sexual part, which I believed Christians were souposed to do? You cannot judge anything with a full compassionate heart because you allow your religion to control your morals with a set of guidelines, one being against gays? God is souposed to love all his children right? A person cannot control their feelings of love towards someone else, same sex or not. If we they never souposed to feel that way, God would've created them so it would never happen right? Please answer that.

I think that while some of the IDEAS in the Bible are great---unless you live by ALL of them, then don't start quoting just one or two of them to me.

I also think that this is exactly the reason I'm NOT Christian. I don't HAVE to call it a sin, then. And...marriage is a valid Wiccan tradition too--and most Wiccans don't have a problem with same sex couples. So--let the same-sex couples get married in the Wiccan faith, and there's no problem, then, right? I mean, it's not a CHRISTIAN marriage, it's a WICCAN marriage.

I just hate the fact that people are so dead set against the use of the word "marriage". Want to call it by the Sanskrit name for marriage, then? or the Roman word? I don't care!

I agree with what someone else said earlier--gay couples aren't destroying the "sanctity" of marriage--straight couples are doign a great job of it themselves, with the high divorce rate.
I couldn't agree more. Sex has nothing to do with this matter. Getting a divorce is a sin too probably, everything is a sin.

I'm completely for gay marriage.

First of all, marriage isn't about religion. And until a few hundred years ago, a bond between a man and a woman didn't involve any ceremony at all (except for the wealthiest families). Modern marriage ceremonies exist for the purpose of creating a legal bond that protects the rights of 2 people and their union, as well as any children that might be born as a result. The ceremony that goes with it can be for religious purposes or just as a celebration of love, but the ceremony itself is unnecessary.
If a church doesn't want to recognise gay union, that's fine. That church is perfectly entitled to refuse gay couples to get married according to their doctrine... however, this should not have any impact whatsoever on the couples right for legal recognition. If they're not married under God (whatever god you happen to believe in) there's no offence given to those of the faith... so what's the problem? You can't just say "it's wrong". And there's no point arguing that it's a sin against God if the marriage isn't a religious one.

Also, in the western world the divorce rate is approximately 50% of marriages, so it's not as if the sanctity of marriage is exactly going to be under threat at all.

The gay couples I know, and have been living together for a long time, have legal documents, and wills to protect their partners.

So do you get offended when a hetero couple show affection in public?
No but I sure would like for it to be discreet.

If someone is having a make-out session on a public bench - it isn't appropriate. Gay, straight - whatever. There is a time and place for everything.
I don't want to see ANYBODY get their groove on in public.
Saying that - a simple kiss or hug is different. I kiss my husband in public. I don't care if a gay couple do the same.
It is when it is taken to the next level that it bothers me. But, again, I am equally "offended" by gay OR straight.

If someone is having a make-out session on a public bench - it isn't appropriate. Gay, straight - whatever. There is a time and place for everything.
I don't want to see ANYBODY get their groove on in public.
Saying that - a simple kiss or hug is different. I kiss my husband in public. I don't care if a gay couple do the same.
It is when it is taken to the next level that it bothers me. But, again, I am equally "offended" by gay OR straight.
I agree totally.

Yes. I agree

If someone is having a make-out session on a public bench - it isn't appropriate. Gay, straight - whatever. There is a time and place for everything.
I don't want to see ANYBODY get their groove on in public.
Saying that - a simple kiss or hug is different. I kiss my husband in public. I don't care if a gay couple do the same.
It is when it is taken to the next level that it bothers me. But, again, I am equally "offended" by gay OR straight.

So you're saying you are for gays or you're against it?

Just asking, if a house is in joint names can it sill be taken away by the deceased's family?
Half-interest in the house is an asset that is part of the dead person's estate. So in settling his estate, the executor must dispose of that asset as called for in the will, if there is one, or in accordance with state laws that govern inheritance. If the will specifies that the other joint owner is to receive his (the decedent's) interest in the house, the decedent's family or other heirs wouldn't be able to do anything about it, except maybe challenge the will.

If there is no will, and the partner wants to and is financially able to purchase the decedent's interest from the estate, they could do that. If the partner was unable to purchase the decedent's interest, the estate could force a sale of the property, and half the proceeds would go to each owner. In this particular situation, being legally married would only change the outcome if there were no will, in which case, the decedent's interest would automatically go to the spouse.

I am for it. Why not, they are not hurting anyone. Why should people judge of who and what they are. If it came to your offspring or even a family member would you treat them different? Look I am not here to argue. I just think that what ever people won't to do it's totally up to them. If people worried about other things like global worming rather then what or who a person loves we would have nothing to worry about. I hope people would be less racial about this topic.

So you're saying you are for gays or you're against it?

Well, I have said this earlier on in the thread, I am against gay marriage. In my opinion, marriage is one man and one woman.
If they want a civil union or whatever, fine. It's really symantics to me.

Do gay people bother me? No. There are people in my life that are gay and I love them dearly. But, again, marriage is a man and a woman.

Yes and I can say Im Buddist or Muslim. I dont like it when people use religion as an excuse for being rude and ignorant towards specific types of people. I am atheist and I am just as much as a person as you. Im not gay but that doesn't matter. It may be sinning in your eyes but you obviously don't look beyond the sexual part, which I beleived Christians were souposed to do? You cannot judge anything with a full compassionate heart because you allow your religion to control your morals with a set of guidelines, one being against gays? God is souposed to love all his children right? A person cannot control their feelings of love towards someone else, same sex or not. If we they never souposed to feel that way, God would've created them so it would never happen right? Please answer that.


Using religion for being rude and ignorant? Most of the worlds population is governed by some form of religious belief, if scripture was removed what would you base right and wrong on? Being gay is a sin in ALL religions (well the main ones to my knowledge) and that is the obstacle facing gay people, if you remove religion from the argument than what stands in the way of any issue, any sin for that matter? I could tell you that selling drugs to kids is right and necessary for me to do, without scripture to guide our laws and ourselves what argument would you base it being wrong against?

Allow religious beleifs to control your morals? Yes, this is the basis for all religion is it not, hence the argument at hand. Curiously, what exactly do you base your moral beleifs on?

Finally, your comments about God loving his children and making it so that it would never happen is a nonsensical argument. God loves all his children indeed, however, man has free will choose his path or create one's own. God loves drug addicts, serial killers, and all who sin. However, if God removed all temptation from the world than we would all be perfect no? We choose what we do and accept the consequences of doing the wrong thing. This applies to God letting it happen, it was not his idea for it TO happen I would think, but nor was war, famine, and murder, it was man who caused all of this. So saying that if a man loves a man it is o.k because God loves you is a very simplistic answer. I believe he still does no matter what, but in judgement you must atone for your sins.

I was only responding to your previous post, my intention is not to turn this into our own personal belief argument nor detract from the original posters question.

MY religion (Wicca) believes that love is love, regardless who it's between.

No, it's not exactly a mainstream religion--but it IS older than Christianity.


Yes--remove scripture! Scripture was written by men, right? Therefore, it's flawed!

Morals are morals regardless. The big rules for every religion are pretty much the same--Love your god, honor your parents, don't kill or hurt anyone else. How hard is it for people to just use common sense for morals? Hurting someone else is bad, because you don't want someone else to hurt you!

If we went back to the Bible for EVERYTHING (or any of the other Judeo-Christian texts) we'd still be stoning people for adultery. In America, that means we'd be stoning people (to death, mind you) about every 5 minutes. Give me a break!

What I hate is the hypocrisy of accepting SOME rules of the Bible and not others. If you're going to do it, go all the way. Women should cover their hair, men should have multiple wives, you should be able to sell your brother into slavery because he has a better coat than you.

Jeesh.

if scripture was removed what would you base right and wrong on? I always found this argument humorous. I don't read 'scripture' yet I seem to know what is right and wrong.


I could tell you that selling drugs to kids is right and necessary for me to do, without scripture to guide our laws and ourselves what argument would you base it being wrong against?You mean to tell me that without a book you wouldn't know that drugs are bad? Or that murder is bad? Or that sleeping with your neighbour's wife is bad? Then by all means tie that book to hip and keep it handy. Many of us know these things without the need for a book to tell us.

Wow this topic is going in so many directions. What will come next? Hmmmmm

I'm really shocked at the responses when one mentions th Bible and Scripture in arguments. Seems like a lot of religious bashing going on, especially towards the Christian religion. Coming from an atheist and a Wiccan I'n not too sure you have any substantial teaching on the Bible to be using examples from it to prove your points. Just seems like ignorance to me.

The Bible was written by man inspired by God, not by man alone. You also take a very literal approach to what is being said in the pages you may or may not have read, and once again it is a simplistic look at religion and sin as a whole. The purpose of this thread is not to express you limited views of religion (at least Christianity) and make arguments based on misrepresenting what the Bible is actually teaching.

Remove scripture? I doubt you thought that through and through, seeing as how the ramifications of such a suggestion would be far more widespread than you may think, almost all of society and societies past are based on it (eg.laws).

Being gay is a sin in religious books, therefore, someone with a strong faith may be inclined to look upon the act as a sin because it is against what their religion teaches them. IF you choose to disregard what the scripture says than fine, I did not say you were any less of a person than I. It is un-natural, I doubt you can argue that really.

People that believe in scripture and God believe it is a sin, well some. So sitting here saying things about stoning people and removing scripture is very insulting, especially when words like sheesh are used. Like you find it to be such a silly thing, y'know Christianity. I don't know anything about the Wiccan religion and soi do not make comments about it, perhaps you should dothe same in matters you know little about.

It's not bashing. You can't comprehend how anyone could live their lives without scripture and we are telling that we do it just fine. Take it as you wish.

By the way this question is posted in the Marriage forum, not the Christianity forum.

Sorry, I just read NeedKarma response.

You don't need a book to tell you that this is wrong or not right? In many belief God instilled upon birth what is right and wrong into every being, so by that belief you would not need a book to tell you but rather guide you on how to live a good life. One does not simply read scripture once andthats it, it is carried around for a lifetime.

NeedKarma,from a Spiritual perspective you must take a lot of credit for what "you" have done to negotiate your way through life, perhaps your just more enlightened than the rest of us common folk who must attach books to our hips in order to gain direction in life.

I have a question for those against gay marriage because it is a sin. I'm being honest, I'd really like honest responses, I really am confused about this.

You (the collective you) say gays should not be allowed to marry because being gay is a sin. What does that sin have to do with marriage? There are a lot of sins - and no one else is forbidden to marry because of their sin. Murderers, adulterers, liars; they all still have the right to marry. Is the "gay sin" worse than those other sins, and that's why they aren't allowed to marry?

I just really don't understand the logic. I thought you were supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner; and if that's so, why are gays given unequal treatment in this regard? To me (and maybe I'm missing something) if one's only reason for disapproving of gay marriage is that it is a "sin" that person should also be against liars, adulterers, murderers, etc getting married because those are also "sins". If one is NOT against those others getting married, then it indicates to me there is prejudice against gays, and the objection is to gays, not to sinners. And then we get into ugly words like racism and judging...

I'm willing to admit I might be missing something; maybe no one has explained their argument fully enough for me to "get it". But this is how I see the logic - and it just doesn't work. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I have a question for those against gay marriage because it is a sin. I'm being honest, I'd really like honest responses, I really am confused about this.

You (the collective you) say gays should not be allowed to marry because being gay is a sin. What does that sin have to do with marriage? There are a lot of sins - and no one else is forbidden to marry because of their sin. Murderers, adulterers, liars; they all still have the right to marry. Is the "gay sin" worse than those other sins, and that's why they aren't allowed to marry?

I just really don't understand the logic. I thought you were supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner; and if that's so, why are gays given unequal treatment in this regard? To me (and maybe I'm missing something) if one's only reason for disapproving of gay marriage is that it is a "sin" that person should also be against liars, adulterers, murderers, etc getting married because those are also "sins". If one is NOT against those others getting married, then it indicates to me there is prejudice against gays, and the objection is to gays, not to sinners. And then we get into ugly words like racism and judging...

I'm willing to admit I might be missing something; maybe no one has explained their argument fully enough for me to "get it". But this is how I see the logic - and it just doesn't work. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Ya why is that?

Hello jillian:

I don't have the answer - only a follow up question.

I suspect that the answer, however, to your question might be that the "institution" of marriage will be ruined or destroyed if gays were allowed to marry.

If that is indeed the answer, I'm really interested in how that would occur. Oh, I understand you don't want the "institution" tampered with, but how, on a one to one level, does it ruin marriage?

I truly don't see how it could affect YOUR heterosexual marriage - nor your children's marriage or anybody else's heterosexual marriage.. I too, may be missing something.

Are your children NOT going to marry because gays can? Will it disgust them to marry if gays can too? Will the church look askance at your children's marriage because gays can marry? Will you lose government benefits?

I truly don't know. Thanks for letting me but in, jillian.

excon

I agree, excon. I think it has more to do with the word "marriage" than the act, but again, I might be wrong. Not everyone here has said they are a-ok with civil unions for gays, but opposed to marriage for gays. In my mind, if you are opposed to both, you have a prejudice, but still, perhaps we're missing something. :)

I still like my original idea - "marriage" is a church thing, "civil unions" are a state/federal thing. Blah blah blah, semantics, blah blah blah.

LOL!

NeedKarma- Thanks for pointing out this is in the marriage category, I was confused myself with your posts about how amusing scripture is to you.

As for me not being able to comprehend you not reading scripture, really I couldn't care less if you do or don't. Most people against gay marriage are angainst it because oftheir religious beleifs, how can you speak of a topic like this without SOME biblical reference, after all it is about sin. What's even more plexing is talking about sin without any understanding of it.

Hello BMI:

If it were JUST about sin, then I wouldn't be making an issue of it. I couldn't care less about sin.

But, the government bestows certain legal benefits upon those who are married. So, I'm talking about RIGHTS - not sin.

excon

NeedKarma- Thanks for pointing out this is in the marriage category, I was confused myself with your posts about how amusing scripture is to you.
As for me not being able to comprehend you not reading scripture, really i could care less if you do or don't. Most people against gay marriage are angainst it b/c oftheir religious beleifs, how can you speak of a topic like this without SOME biblical reference, after all it is about sin. Whats even more plexing is talking about sin without any understanding of it.I was raised catholic, went to catholic schools, even to a Jesuit private school. I know about all it; I know you wish I was ignorant but I'm not. I just decided that being religious did not make you a better person.

No, no, NeedKarma I do not wish you were ignorant. WE just do not agree with spiritual issues as this is not the first time we have argued over the subject.

As for the issue of sin, well a great deal of the argument against gay unions comes from the fact of whether the action is considered a sin or not. IF considered a sin than churches cannot go along with marriages and so the state makes civil unions to compensate. The state does not express for or against gays in many ways as to not infringe on one's religious beleifs. Really, I don't think that state and religion are separate and apart and the whole civil union idea was derived out of this same argument I'd wager. Whether it is sin or not.

I have a question for those against gay marriage because it is a sin. I'm being honest, I'd really like honest responses, I really am confused about this.

You (the collective you) say gays should not be allowed to marry because being gay is a sin. What does that sin have to do with marriage? There are a lot of sins - and no one else is forbidden to marry because of their sin. Murderers, adulterers, liars; they all still have the right to marry. Is the "gay sin" worse than those other sins, and that's why they aren't allowed to marry?

I just really don't understand the logic. I thought you were supposed to hate the sin, not the sinner; and if that's so, why are gays given unequal treatment in this regard? To me (and maybe I'm missing something) if one's only reason for disapproving of gay marriage is that it is a "sin" that person should also be against liars, adulterers, murderers, etc getting married because those are also "sins". If one is NOT against those others getting married, then it indicates to me there is prejudice against gays, and the objection is to gays, not to sinners. And then we get into ugly words like racism and judging...

I'm willing to admit I might be missing something; maybe no one has explained their argument fully enough for me to "get it". But this is how I see the logic - and it just doesn't work. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

I'm sorry I wasn't making this the point from the beginning... I, nor any true follower of the Bible and Christ, will ever tell a homosexual that they are any less of a person for being gay. In reality, that's the common misconception about sin altogether, is that with or without certain ones you are a better or worse person because of them.
All have sinned, every one and for us to think that abstaining from 'the majority' of sin makes us any better, makes us actually worse, and right in with the brood of vipers that Jesus himself condemned.
The reason that any true Christian would not approve of gay marriage, is because its putting the sinner, (just like any person) into a situation that they are bound to. Its making it even more difficult to turn from your sins of the past and follow God (repentance) because you are not only emotionally bound, which God can break in a moment, its called deliverance, but legally.
Im not going to use the "oh Ive got friends that are gay so I MUST not have a problem with it" thing. Psh.
I sin, we all sin, and we all need God, I just wouldn't want someone who God LOVES and created to commune with Him to have any more of a difficult time to come to Him by legality.

I'm sorry I wasnt making this the point from the beginning... I, nor any true follower of the Bible and Christ, will ever tell a homosexual that they are any less of a person for being gay. In reality, thats the common misconception about sin altogether, is that with or without certain ones you are a better or worse person because of them.
All have sinned, every one and for us to think that abstaining from 'the majority' of sin makes us any better, makes us actually worse, and right in with the brood of vipers that Jesus himself condemned.
The reason that any true Christian would not approve of gay marriage, is because its putting the sinner, (just like any person) into a situation that they are bound to. Its making it even more difficult to turn from your sins of the past and follow God (repentance) because you are not only emotionally bound, which God can break in a moment, its called deliverance, but legally.
Im not going to use the "oh Ive got friends that are gay so I MUST not have a problem with it" thing. Psh.
I sin, we all sin, and we all need God, I just wouldnt want someone who God LOVES and created to commune with Him to have any more of a difficult time to come to Him by legality.

Well, that certainly isn't the response I was expecting - You oppose gay marriage because it makes it harder for the gays to form a relationship with god. So you're against it, for their ultimate "best interest".

No, I certainly didn't expect that.

I, too, was raised in a Christian family. My mom Catholic, and my dad Lutheran.

I went to Sunday school, Bible camp, Confirmation Camp, all that rigamarole.

I CHOSE my religion as an adult.

I "understand" the Christian perspective--I just find it hypocritical.

Jillian raises the best point, though--and it's really what I was trying to say. Why can OTHER sins be ignored for the sake of marriage, but not homosexuality? Why shouldn't someone who was once an adulterer, who was divorced for it, not be denied the sanctity of marriage a second time, then?

I just don't understand why giving someone a way to publicly express love AND that gives them legal rights at the same time is so bad.

A person who committed adultery can be forgiven, they can turn from their sin, just like a gay person, they can turn from their sin and get married to someone of the other sex.

That is the real difference, being sorry for their sin, and asking forgiveness for their sin.

nothing had to understand about the Christian idea of sin, it is not a double standard, it is a fact that the homosexual community does not want to admit it is a sin at all.

Hello again:

I'm still blown away that Leiden would deny gays the right to marry because he's looking out for 'em.

I live in sin daily. Don't you want to look out for me too? What rights should you take away from me that would make be a better person?

excon

A person who committed adultery can be forgiven, they can turn from thier sin
Do you advocate that adulterers and fornicators should be denied equal protection under civil and criminal law until they "turn from their [sic] sin"? Why should one class of sexual sinners (homosexuals) be denied legal rights and protections that other classes of sinners (adulterers, fornicators) are afforded?

You think it's a sin? Fine, don't marry them in your church. But don't try to deny basic secular legal protections to people just because your church defines them as sinners. Civil and criminal law deals in guilt and punishment, not sin. In case you haven't heard, the Supreme Court put the final nail in the coffin of sodomy laws a year or two ago. I suppose it's a moot point now, but I always wondered if lesbians could commit the crime of sodomy. You used to be in law enforcement, do you know?

It's not natural, it's not normal and it is a further deviation from the traditional family…I say no to same sex marriage.

A person who committed adultery can be forgiven, they can turn from thier sin, just like a gay person, they can turn from thier sin and get married to someone of the other sex.

That is the real difference, being sorry for thier sin, and asking forgiveness for thier sin.

nothing had to understand about the Christian idea of sin, it is not a double standard, it is a fact that the homosexual community does not want to admit it is a sin at all.
Although I understand your point of the fact that... true repentance is turning from your sin, and it can't be true turning if you know that you'll do it again, I have to disagree with you about the adultery thing. This could definitely begin a whole other spill, but the Bible says that if a person is married and then decides to divorce, thus sins and is causing the other to sin, except on the grounds of unfaithfulness...
I appreciate your point though
~Ash

It’s not natural, it’s not normal and it is a further deviation from the traditional family…I say no to same sex marriage.

So is living together, a deviation of traditional marriage, as far as normal, that's what gay people, do so its normal among homosexuals, and I doubt saying that its unnatural will find agreement in the gay community. I think its up to the church, not the law, whether they will marry a gay couple, and as everyone knows the institution of marriage is only working half the time, and falling steadily. I think they should have to go through a divorce, just like us married people.

Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/)

AWW MAN based on the above link over 1500 species of animals are going to hell :( They have been known to have sexual relationships...

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them."

I'd understand homosexuality being a choice if it was just humans, but sorry animals don't choose if they are gay... Try to explain that...

SIDENOTE: And instead of some quote from the bible that has nothing to do with animals or homosexuality, actually find a quote that has to do it with, anyone can twist words.

Of course there is no real protectoin under the law for homosexual marriage, this is a desire that the constitution be rewritten to say it, but it does not.

But they have all the same rights, if they wish to find someone of the other sex and marry they have all the same and EQUAL rights to everyone else.

And yes, animal sexual desires, so you are saying that homoseuxals are down to merely animal sexual desires?? I would give them more credit as to making a choice in their actoins.

In the end, it is really not a natural sexual act, as mentioned eariler, but of course those that are homosexual will not admit that ither, any more than admit it is a sin.

But God will forgive you when you are really to repent, he loves everyone, no matter what their place in life. But of course bible quotes mean little to those that don't want to accept his word anyway.

But of course bible quotes mean little to those that don't want to accept his word anyway.

Your correct, that's for christians to worry about and as a non christian and with all due respect the bible is a book, written by man for man, as are all the "bibles" and cannot replace a personal relationship between God and the individual. As to the question, Is homosexuality natural, of course it is, and will always be. It may not be popular, and history tells us it isn't, but among those who are homosexual, its as natural as man and women, and there are many examples in nature, to back up that claim. Even further there are some animals that actually change their sex to compensate, for the lack of a gender, so they can procreate.

Well humans are animals just more educated, I'm simply saying its not just not a human choice just like retardation, cancer, and such. Now like above someone will say I'm sayinng being gay is like being retarted. Its not, and I'm bi so I would be insulting myself if I said otherwise. Im saying its like your eye color and height, you can't change it.

And therefore gay marriage should be accepted. We let crimminals get married and killers and yet 2 guys just seem wrong, not a person who kills people.

Your correct, thats for christians to worry about and as a non christian and with all due respect the bible is a book, written by man for man, as are all the "bibles" and cannot replace a personal relationship between God and the individual. As to the question, Is homosexuality natural, of course it is, and will always be. It may not be popular, and history tells us it isn't, but among those who are homosexual, its as natural as man and women, and their are many examples in nature, to back up that claim. Even further there are some animals that actually change their sex to compensate, for the lack of a gender, so they can procreate.

Those animals go to animal hell then... Least that's what the bible says in a sense.

Those animals go to animal hell then... Least thats what the bible says in a sense.

Um, Sgt, that's how some interpret those verses. Others interpret them differently.

Its not natural, I have truly been biting my tongue here. I have posted my stance earlier. I feel this thread has gone all over the place and is never ending. This thread was about gay marriage and nothing else.

Joe

If it was about gay civil unions (no church involved) do you think the answers would be different?

KalFour disagrees: Firstly, animals having occasional homosexual tendencies aregues that it IS natural. And secondly, the new testament states that you can be forgiven if you love Jesus, you don't have to repent for every detail of your life.Had to spread it but I wanted to give a balancer. This is a totally inaccurate statement.

I think they should have to go through a divorce, just like us married people.I have to admit this is a good point.

If it was about gay civil unions (no church involved) do you think the answers would be different?

Yes! I, for example, have stated that if you want to call it a civil union - go right ahead. And that I am against gay marriages So I think the answers would be different.

Its not natural, I have truly been biting my tongue here. I have posted my stance earlier. I feel this thread has gone all over the place and is never ending. This thread was about gay marriage and nothing else.

Joe
Whatever you mean by "natural" and whether you think homosexuality is or isn't such, the point is that homosexuality is no longer illegal. People who commit homosexual acts are not breaking the law. So there is no legal basis for denying them the right that the rest of us have to enter into binding and enforceable legal contracts to protect their property and family rights. If it makes you feel better to use a different word to refer to their contracts, I doubt that most of them would care, as long as the legal effect is the same.

Gay animals out of the closet? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15750604/)

AWW MAN based on the above link over 1500 species of animals are going to hell :( They have been known to have sexual relationships...

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them."

I'd understand homosexuality being a choice if it was just humans, but sorry animals dont choose if they are gay... Try to explain that....

SIDENOTE: And instead of some quote from the bible that has nothing to do with animals or homosexuality, actually find a quote that has to do it with, anyone can twist words.
Yes it’s true, some people do still live like an ANIMAL, but rational people don’t. What you are talking about is animal lust for SEX. If marriage between the same sexes were natural it would be natural to have offspring. The male hole used between two men is for another reason... excrement.:)

Those animals go to animal hell then... Least thats what the bible says in a sense.
Not really, actually it says animals don't have a soul, which differenciates them from the humans.

If it was about gay civil unions (no church involved) do you think the answers would be different?
Not mine. The fact that ministry is obligated to carry out the ceremony is just another reason not to legalize it, but that its wrong, and our country having been founded on the Word of God should not condone it.

Not mine. The fact that ministry is obligated to carry out the cerimony is just another reason not to legalize it, but the fact of the matter is that its wrong, and our country having been founded on the Word of God should not condone it.

It's your interpretation of the Scriptures that it's wrong. And our country was not founded on the Word of God.

Yes, I'm a lifelong Christian.

and our country having been founded on the Word of God should not condone it.That's so very incorrect.

If marriage between the same sexes were natural it would be natural to have offspring. The male hole used between two men is for another reason...excrement.:)
It's not about biology or reproduction, it's about equal protection under the law--a constitutional guarantee of citizenship.

It's not about biology or reproduction, it's about equal protection under the law--a constitutional guarantee of citizenship.
It’s not about rights at all; there is no natural Right for two men to slosh around in each others excrement for their individual pleasure, it’s filthy and a crime against humanity and therefore it is not a right that ought to be granted by government.

It’s not about rights at all; there is no natural Right for two men to slosh around in each others excrement for their individual pleasure, it’s filthy and a crime against humanity and therefore it is not a right that ought to be granted by government.You seem to be fixated on anal sex. Are you not aware that many good christian couples engage in anal sex as well?

You seem to be fixated on anal sex. Are you not aware that many good christian couples engage in anal sex as well?
I fix on it because we should explain it for what it is, not in the benign term of 'homosexual' 'or 'same sex marriage.' I fix on it because that is exactly the filthy act it represents.

I don't believe most Christians would agree that “Good Christians” engage in sloshing around in excrement.

It’s not about rights at allHello DC:

I agree, it's not about filthy sex. But, as long as the government grants RIGHTS to the "married" amongst us, and then refuses to let some people get "married", then this argument IS about rights. IF the government would take away the rights of the married people, then I wouldn't care if those filthy sex deviant's ever got married.

excon

I don’t believe most Christians would agree that “Good Christians” engage in sloshing around in excrement.Then you would believe wrongly. You have no idea of the amount of hypocrisy that exists out there.

Hello DC:

I agree, it's not about filthy sex. But, as long as the government grants RIGHTS to the "married" amongst us, and then refuses to let some people get "married", then this argument IS about rights. IF the government would take away the rights of the married people, then I wouldn't care if those filthy sex deviant's ever got married.

excon
Hay EXCON
Rights are something that is guaranteed under the constitution, you appear to be confusing them with law. Laws can be written and rescinded, rights cannot. Therefore Marriage is not a right but rather a law. :)

Then you would believe wrongly. You have no idea of the amount of hypocrisy that exists out there.
You’re right, I haven’t been peeking into people’s bedrooms, but then I doubt that you have been either. So how is you can KNOW.:)

You’re right, I haven’t been peeking into people’s bedrooms, but then I doubt that you have been either. So how is you can KNOW.:)How about you tell us what sex play you and the wife do that is condoned by the bible.

It’s not about rights at all; there is no natural Right for two men to slosh around in each others excrement for their individual pleasure, it’s filthy and a crime against humanity and therefore it is not a right that ought to be granted by government.
You're fighting the last war--the one over whether sodomy laws are constitutional. That war is over, and your side lost, sorry.

THIS debate is about whether citizens who are not lawbreakers can be denied the right that other citizens have to enter into binding legal contracts that protect their property and family rights, solely on the basis of their private, and now legal, sexual behavior.

What's the Bible have to do with it? That feces is not something to play in was taught to me by my mother.

What's the Bible have to do with it? That feces is not something to play in was taught to me by my mother.Ok, what sex play does your mom say is OK.

Rights are something that is guaranteed under the constitution, you appear to be confusing them with law. Laws can be written and rescinded, rights cannot. Therefore Marriage is not a right but rather a law. :)Hello again, DC:

No argument there. It's a law all right.

However, if you read the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, you would find that it guarantees citizens EQUAL protection under the law.

To me, that means you can't make a law that confers rights upon one group, and excludes another. Like ALL Constitutional rights, this one is clear as a bell.

excon

You're fighting the last war--the one over whether sodomy laws are constitutional. That war is over, and your side lost, sorry.

THIS debate is about whether citizens who are not lawbreakers can be denied the right that other citizens have to enter into binding legal contracts that protect their property and family rights, solely on the basis of their private, and now legal, sexual behavior.
As I pointed out to Excon, it is about law and not rights. Laws are written and sometimes rescinded and one day my side, as you put it, may yet again prevail.

Sodomy laws were overturned and a right to privacy prevailed; but that is a far cry from legalizing sodomy i.e. “slosh around in each others excrement.”:o

excon
Do our tax laws protect everyone equally…not in my opinion? So just what does EQUAL protection under the law mean? Well, as I understand it we may be hearing from the Supreme Court on it.

Out of curiosity--do "good Christians" have sex for pleasure and not procreation?

Because seriously--that's the REAL debate here: whether a sexual act can produce offspring, not whether it's "dirty". By your definition, ORAL sex between partners should be bad too--and having sex any time on a woman's period, or basically using birth control.

If sex for pleasure is okay, then why can't ANY sex for pleasure be okay?

As I pointed out to Excon, it is about law and not rights.
Of course it's about rights. What else are laws for if not to protect and enforce rights?

Laws are written and sometimes rescinded and one day my side, as you put it, may yet again prevail.
Perhaps, but until then, sodomy is not against the law.

Sodomy laws were overturned and a right to privacy prevailed; but that is a far cry from legalizing sodomy i.e. “slosh around in each others excrement.”:o
No, it is not a far cry from legalizing sodomy. That's what "overturned" means--laws that forbid it are invalid and unenforceable. However much you despise it, and however grossly you characterize it, sodomy is now legal behavior. Nobody can be arrested and prosecuted for it. Get over it.

You missed the distinction between natural rights and government granted rights. A key aspect of this intellectual tradition is the notion that natural rights are not created by government but exist anterior to it and that governments are in fact created to “secure these rights.” My contention was and is, is that there is no natural Right for two men to slosh around in each others excrement.

But hay, if it suits you and the majority what can I say. The ruling by the court did not specifically write a law that said this sloshing around was legal; it is still of course illegal except in privacy.

Well actually sodomy is still on the laws of many states as illegal, but merely not allowed to be enforced because of current supreme court ruleings. The reason these states leave the laws on the books, but not they can not be enforced, so that if the courts ever rule they can enforce them, they will already be in place and on the books.

And of course there is no natural right for homosexual activity, and there is no constitutional rights even under the US constitution.

My contention was and is, is that there is no natural Right for two men to slosh around in each others excrement.
Contend as much as you like. Natural or not, it is no longer an illegal act.

The ruling by the court did not specifically write a law that said this sloshing around was legal
Courts don't write laws, that's the legislature's job. Courts determine the validity and enforceability of laws, and in this instance, they ruled that the law is invalid and unenforceable.

it is still of course illegal except in privacy.
Sure, having sex in public is illegal no matter who does it or what is sloshed around in, which of course has nothing whatever to do with the topic under discussion.

You seem to be really fixated on this "sloshing around in excrement" terminology. Does that mean you're OK with lesbian or other homosexual acts that don't involve anal penetration? Are you equally incensed by heterosexual couples that do it? Do you think they should be denied the right to marry as well?

And of course there is no natural right for homosexual activity
Whether it's a "natural" right or not is immaterial. It is not illegal, and nobody can be arrested and prosecuted for it.

and there is no constitutional rights even under the US constitution.
On the contrary, the U.S. Constitution guarantees the rights of equal protection under the law, and due process of law to EVERYONE.

Whatever you mean by "natural" and whether you think homosexuality is or isn't such, the point is that homosexuality is no longer illegal. People who commit homosexual acts are not breaking the law. So there is no legal basis for denying them the right that the rest of us have to enter into binding and enforceable legal contracts to protect their property and family rights. If it makes you feel better to use a different word to refer to their contracts, I doubt that most of them would care, as long as the legal effect is the same.

The fact is that Marriage is meant to be between a man and a women. That is a fact.

Gay marriage, well if they want to live common law that is their choice. As far as Marriage the fact remains that Church marriage, Religion marriage is about a man and a women coming together in a family unit. To create a family unit for future generations. Nothing can change that. Not even wording.

Yes due process, they get the rights to sue and the rights to our courts.

As for as equal protection, yes, they can marry someone of the other sex anytime they want. There is no special protetion for them What they want is extra and special rights, They are not listed as a protected right.
In fact is is not politically correct ( and thank God I am not) but to speak the truth about such relastionships is also a right, to free speech.

And as was mentioned, while I see the morals of american going down quickly, so I doubt that homosexually will be illegal ever again, but I can hope and pray that America would turn from its sin, before God turns from America

I don’t believe most Christians would agree that “Good Christians” engage in sloshing around in excrement.

What cave have you been hiding in?

a crime against humanity

Yes, gay sex is certainly on par with genocide, apartheid, forced sterilization, slavery, torture...

All on the same page in my book!

:rolleyes:

Yes, gay sex is certainly on par with genocide, apartheid, forced sterilization, slavery, torture...

All on the same page in my book!

:rolleyes:

So true, it is part of a whole that is lowering society to unknow levels of human destruction.

It has been requested that the post be closed.