Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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 of McCain.

Anger is a liberal radio 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, graffiti and signs.

Anger is DU's Sarah Palin nickname contest.

Anger is "peace" protesters burning an American soldier in effigy and defecating on the American flag.

Anger is a Nobel Peace Prize winner saying “Right now, I could kill George Bush.” 'Nonviolently' of course, which must be how the left came to endorse assassination chic.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Believe it or not there's a whole other world outside of this place, NK.

---

But I was only speaking of this place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by classyT

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

But I was only speaking of this place.

---

And I like to consider the bigger picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeby

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

And I like to consider the bigger picture.

---

Only when it helps you promote your hatred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by passmeby

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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
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.

Quote:

---

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Many Obama supporters also backed Prop. 8

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

Why do they protest Mormons and not blacks or latinos?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.