Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NowWhat

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NowWhat

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kraz

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alyssarox32

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Love-Life

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BMI

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BMI

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BMI

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.