This morning seems to be full of good news for the more tolerant among us.
Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in California, has been overturned by a federal appeals panel. Next stop (perhaps) SCOTUS.
For those who don't live in CA and didn't have the distinct "pleasure" of getting to vote for (or against) prop 8, it was worded counterintuitively. A "yes" vote meant "no" to same-sex marriage and a "no" vote meant "yes" to same-sex marriage. There was a HUGE influx of money from the Mormon Church to defeat the measure, too.
Equality strikes a blow for equality today. Let's celebrate!
From the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … _comboNP_p
Robert Barnes, Tuesday, February 7, 9:58 AM
A federal appeals panel in San Francisco ruled Tuesday that California's ban on same-sex marriage violates the constitutional right to equal protection.
The panel overturned Proposition 8, which was approved by 52 percent of the state's voters in 2008 and amended the state's constitution to limit marriage to a man and a woman.
The court's decision upheld a 2010 decision by former Judge R. Vaughn Walker that found marriage to be a fundamental right protected by the Constitution, and that the proposition fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have the option of appealing Tuesday's decision to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit or taking it directly to the Supreme Court, which has never ruled on the matter.
*NEWS* The post title was supposed to have included the word "news" but I guess I got carried away in the moment:)
I thought you were announcing Barney Frank getting married! Well, I guess I just did.
Also, as far as getting mixed up about whether a yes vote meant no, the Mormon's did not spend enormously to defeat the proposition, but to get voters to pass it. Lol! Very happy the courts have overturned it, again.
I think the government is involved in too much of our lives as it is, in my opinion if it doesn't hurt someone else there should be no law against it.
I agree with you 100% dmop. Live and let live. No harm, no foul. Personally, I can't see where 2 people of the same sex entering into MARRIAGE can possibly hurt anyone. That is of course, unless that other person is too weak minded or closed minded to see things any other way than their own.
No one is saying not to live and let live! I'm saying I don't want that $hit taught to young impressionable kids in school and believe they should have all the benefits as married couples but just call it a civil union. Marriage is between a man and woman. Gay people can not have kids together. very simple.
Gay couples can adopt children in many or most states. That's another reason why they should be able to marry.
and they can't have them by themselves! and how would having gay unions not make them able to adopt? another stupid response as always. just the BS spin from the far left tools.
My widowed grandfather remarried a few years back at 78 and nobody seems to think his marriage is any less valid because his wife is past menopause and can't have any more kids. Likewise with my husband's cousin who is infertile.
Because only one partner can adopt and the other partner has no parental rights.
wrong again! they need two people in most instances or they get rejected! good try again ralphy boy!
I've read that there are legal complications for unmarried gay couples who adopt in the event of separation of the couple or death of the person who adopted the child or baby.
If the only difference is a name change, which is no difference at all, why don't we simply call what hetero couples have a "union" and what gay couples can have a "marriage". If, that is, there is really no difference...
because since the beginning a man and a woman was called marriage, why should it change for gay people? why is this so hard for you people? lets switch baseball and call it football and football and call it baseball it is only a name.
You should change it for gay people for exactly the same reason you want it to be different for them. That is to say, no valid reason at all.
And no, it was not called "marriage" since the beginning.
The latin term (older than English) is "matrimonium"
The Jewish term is נישואין
That would probably be the best for today's Christians: נישואין
considering their history.
Perhaps infertile men and women should be denied the right to marry, then?
I mean, if a man has had a vasectomy, or a woman has had a hysterectomy (or are just naturally infertile for whatever reason), then they can't have kids by themselves, right? So they shouldn't be allowed to marry, right? And we should shut down fertility clinics, too, since all they do is enable people who can't have kids "by themselves" to have kids anyway.
Or, could it be that the "can't have kids by themselves" argument is just a BS excuse to deny full citizenship to gay people.
Some of the comments here are so weird, If gay couple adopt children:do you mean to tell me that it is their desire to let those adopted children copy their lifestyle? as in become gays too.
if every one chose the gay option or same sex civil union concept because that is what it is, it doesn't have the characteristic of marriage, which is the union between a man and a woman.
If being a gay is the best i expect gay advocates to advocate that to the benefit of all humanity. That is every one should become gay.
Why are we promoting sodomy shamelessly, then turn around and try to use logic that are not relevant?
This is not advancement of the mind or humanity, it is simply the creativity of wickedness. The ultimate elevation of reprobate mindsets.
No, gay parents do not have a desire to have their children copy their lifestyles. Most gay people had straight parents...
I'm sure they want the same thing every parent wants, for their children to live happy and successful lives.
Gay marriage is between consenting adults, as is any other marriage. This argument about allowing people to marry animals, children, etc. is a ridiculous one. Like any other marriage, it's a commitment between two people to live a monogamous lifestyle.
Although I'd like to add that I have absolutely no opinion on who my children marry, as long as they love each other.
As (most) people who are get married are adults, why would a parent have any say in it?
I gotta wonder why Christian parents have to push their own sexuality on their kids. It's perverted.
I don't want prayer banners in my schools either. Try home schooling.
Sorry to inform you but this great country was based on GOD, it is on our Money, on the walls of every courthouse etc... do not like it move or you home school, why should things change for you?
Sorry, the country was founded by people running from God's persecutions.
Yes, it is on our money; a travesty ever since the practice was begun in the 50's along with changing the Pledge of Allegiance.
"Certain ceremonial references to God and religion in our Nation are the inevitable consequence of the religious history that gave birth to our founding principles of liberty."
Public Law 97-280, passed on Oct. 4, 1982, authorized and requested the President to proclaim 1983 as the "Year of the Bible." The law stated:
"Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people;
Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation;
Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States;
Whereas many of our great national leaders -- among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln and Wilson -- paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country's development, as the words of President Jackson that the Bible is 'the rock on which our Republic rests'..."
Michael Novak, George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote in his 2002 book On Two Wings:
"The very form of the Declaration was that of a traditional American prayer... In that document, Thomas Jefferson at least twice referred to God in Hebrew terms, and before assenting to it, the Congress added two more Hebrew names... Lawgiver (as in 'Laws of Nature and Nature's God'); Creator ('endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights'); Judge ('appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions'); and Providence ('with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Provident').
In all moments of imminent danger, as in the first Act of the First Continental Congress, the founding generation turned to prayer. In a kind of covenant, they pledged to God that the people of America would pursue His will as best they could, confident that He willed for them and for all men the exercise of natural liberty..."
Ronald Reagan, 40th U.S. President, in his Feb. 3, 1983 Proclamation 5018, which declared 1983 as "The Year of the Bible," stated:
"The Bible and its teachings helped form the basis for the Founding Fathers' abiding belief in the inalienable rights of the individual, rights which they found implicit in the Bible's teachings of the inherent worth and dignity of each individual. This same sense of man patterned the convictions of those who framed the English system of law inherited by our own Nation, as well as the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution."
Are you aware that prop 8, California, has just been found to be about as unconstitutional as it is possible to be?
And yet claim that because a law was passed referencing our history it is truthful and honest? That it is legal to pass such a law?
You say you were born yesterday and don't care that one brand of mythology is constantly pushed (quite unconstitutionally, illegally and unethically) on the rest of the country by it's followers? That such nonsense is just fine because "we are a Christian country" (and if you're not a Christian you ain't nothin')?
Think and learn, Danny - if you don't fight such nonsense you will one day find some other religion, one you hate and despise, forcing you into their way of life. Just as you promote doing now.
I do not promote Christianity. I stated this country was founded on the basis of GOD. God can be many religions. If you go to court it is about god, The president takes an oath to GOD. our money has in GOD WE TRUST.
I know - you stated this country was founded on the basis of God. The reality, though, is that 1/2 of the new world was founded by those running from God's people and requirements while the other 1/2 was founded as a prison colony. It may be convenient to "forget" these things, but that doesn't make them go away.
Sorry - if I go to court it is not about God. It will be to testify or as a jury member. In neither case will God be mentioned, at least by me. God is not a part of our court system.
The president does not take an oath to God - at most s/he will ask God to help in their duties and that, although customary, is not required.
Our money has that silly (and false) statement as a direct result of over zealous Christians in the 1950's that demanded the entire country join their belief. "We" do not trust God; only the mythologically challenged suffer that fate.
Federal officials take their oaths upon a Bible, and use the words "so help me God."
but if they want to, they can just swear without using the word "god" - it's their right! and what the heck does that have to do with gays marrying? nothing.
Did you read the very first sentence of your link? It contains the word "often". It is exactly what I said - presidents may ask for God's help (not make an oath to God) but it is not required. The link even quotes the constitution, and indicates that the words "so help me God." are not a requirement.
The link also states "Quite the contrary, those sections of the Constitution that deal with oaths of office are completely secular in content and, as such, constitute evidence that the framers intended separation. "
Thank you. The information you have provided pretty plainly makes a very good case that we are a secular nation: if even the Presidential Oath does not mention God then we cannot be based on God.
Nonsense. There is no requirement to use a Bible in making any oath, and the phrase "so help me God" is used by tradition only, not because it is required. In fact, no oaths are required at all. Government officials may elect to "affirm" rather than to swear an oath, because of religious liberty.
The USA is not, and was never intended to be, based on GOD. The constitution explicitly states that the government's authority derives from the people, and from no other source, natural or supernatural.
You've built your arguments on foundations of sand.
So we should just do away with separation of church and state?
Foolishness. Show me where it says that in the Constitution? In fact, find me one mention of God's authority in the Constitution. If you can do that, I'll send you ten dollars.
you would have no problem with hundred dollar bills with "IN GOD WE TRUST"
So do you think people who are too old to have kids should not be allowed to get married? Or if they are genetically or for health reasons unable to have children? Marriage is not about children anymore, and hasn't been since the late 1800's, when it became about love and commitment of two people.
I was very happy to read this news alert when it came to my inbox from The Washington Post. I think it is great!
I think the issues are confused concerning this particular situation.
Homosexual people have no more right to usurp the deeply held and long traditional definition of marriage than heterosexual people have to refuse them certain monetary or insurance compensation for benefits of equal work.
I don't understand why this is not understood and delineated clearly instead of making a moral issue out of it.
Spiritual/religious traditional marriage being about one man and one woman is nature's way to continue the human race...it has a certain definition to promoting practical life.
The other legal marriage unions are just as acceptable to meet the compensation concerns...the homosexuals are just causing grief for themselves by pushing to have some sense of equality and definition of traditional beliefs usurped.
How can they think they are not treating the beliefs of those in traditional marriage in an unequal way just as they claim to be being treated? Homosexuals are treating others unequally, too. Right???
What will transpire in this abomination of a same sex union is nothing more than a direct defiance of God. God will judge this Himself at a later time.
Regardless of where one stands on this issue, "marriage" is defined as a union between a man and a woman. If that definition is changed where are the limits. What if I want to "marry" the family cow or sheep? Suddenly "marriage" becomes the basis for me to argue that what I am doing behind the barn with the sheep is legal because I am married to it. Simply redefiing a word can open a large can of worms which expands the argument far beyond something which we may or may not agree with individually. Personally, I believe there is more here than meets the eye. It is not just about making marriage legal, it is about creating a level of acceptance which then is used to pry open every door to other areas. It would be so simple if all this was just about redefining a word. WB
Wherever we as a society WANT the limits to be.
Obviously. Obvious to everyone but those who insist that we'll be marrying our pets. We create our laws to reflect the values of society. That some of us are stuck in the first century AD is also obvious.
'Wherever we as a society WANT the limits to be.'
The tyranny of the majority?
So that is the end of gay rights in the US then.
You might find compromise and give and take a little more rewarding for everyone.
The tyranny of the majority as restrained by our Constitution, yes.
That's where the Right loses their battle time after time. That pesky Constitution protects the individuals they'd love to denigrate.
Well you need something to keep the tribes apart when mutual respect breaks down. Or perhaps mutual respect would be forced to break out without that pesky Constitution.
We will never agree, Will. You are part what I consider to be a great danger to this country and the world. I can't "respect" your ideas.
Oops - wrong Will.
Sorry - brain cramp!
No, as I said, brain misfire.. sorry about that!
Strangely enough, in Thailand it is considered eccentric to 'marry' animals but not completely unacceptable. Someone married a six foot long cobra not long ago.
Of course, the idea of marriage out here is nebulous and I don't pretend to understand it thoroughly. There is a bewildering mixture of Buddhist and traditional Chinese religion (fairly animist)where I live.
I am not sure what the responsibilities of either spouse entail.
Be prepared. A society's acceptance of homosexuality is a marker, a line crossed and then comes the judgement. Tolerance of abomination isn't exactly a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Quite the contrary. Laugh all you want, God has the last word.
Didn't realize we had a member of the Phelps clan here today!
I don't know what the Phelps clan is and I'm not a member. I am a Bible believing Christian.
A good Christian would be willing to let people lead their lives the way they want, not try to force them to what the Christian believes. Just in case you haven't noticed, not everyone believes in the Christian way. That is one of our freedoms, Freedom of Religious beliefs. Greg
Nice that I'm free so far to recommend the Bible and faith in Jesus Christ.
And everyone is free of course to say no thanks, just as I was once free to say no thanks to homosexuality before big brother forced me to accept it.
Why do you say you have been "forced to accept homosexuality." You will remain completely free to have a blessed heterosexual marriage or relationship. You are not being forced to accept anything. Why worry about something that has no effect on you?
Well, Ralph, a nation is judged by what that nation does. Of course God sees individuals and judges us that way, but we are also caught in a cursed land. Cursed because of the society's embrace of murder and perversion.
What would God say about a country that allows divorce and remarriage? It seems Christ was painfully clear about that. A couple of centuries later, the country is still around and not consumed in hellfire.
I believe your church happily grants divorce and allows remarried people to join, right? In a few generations, your church will also happily give gay marriages and allow gay couples to join.
Didn't God say trhat if you repent and turn from your wicked ways that He would heal the land? So you are looking at the present situation without any expectation of its getting worse. Just wait before you reach that conclusion.
Repentance from a divorce and remarriage involves returning to your original spouse. This is what Christ says in Matthew 5: 31-32 and 19:9, Mark 10: 9-12, and Luke 16:18. People in their second, third, and other marriages are considered to be in adulterous relationships; can you be in an adulterous relationship and still be truly repentant?
Again, despite such a gross and common "violation" as this, the US continues to avoid the hellfires. In fact, those religious leaders in their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th marriages often end up having a lot of clout among those very people who claim they're observant Christians. Ironic, huh?
Wow! there is also forgiveness for adultery, isn't there?
Sure...if you actually stop practicing it. In the case of remarriage, that would involve returning back to your first spouse.
Do you follow the Bible strictly, or not?
If you choose to "interpret" Jesus' words to mean whatever is convenient for you, or choose to only follow His instructions that you are comfortable with and like (or want to do anyway) are you "following the Bible" at all?
Strictly or laxly, are you following at all when you intentionally and continually violate His commandments or directions?
why must you turn this discussion into one about religion? It's unnecessary, rude, and if you want to discuss religious values and homosexuality - make your own thread about that and see if anyone wants to come discuss that.
I believe this thread was intended for those of us who want to celebrate same sex marriages and discuss, in a rational way, their validity. Not debate whether your god, your jesus and your bible make gay marriage right or wrong!!
I'm not the one arguing for strict adherence to Biblical mores. I'm not even Christian, so Christ's laws on divorce and remarriage are moot to me.
But if you (impersonal you) are, then you might as well truly follow all of the Biblical laws that Jesus spelled out, or else all of the preaching against homosexuality as being "not withing God's design" deserve a
That's my main issue with religious arguments against gay people. If you really are a fundamentalist Christian, then, well, good for you. I know exactly *one* fundamentalist Christian; she does not discuss politics and, in fact, does not vote.
The problem is that 99% of those claiming to be fundamentalist Christians (including 100% of those in this thread) really aren't; they will commit gross violations of Christian law, but still pretend to be devout whenever it comes to "sins" they're not personally guilty of.
AnnCee, what does this discussion have to do with murder and perversion? And let God be the judge if he feels that someone needs to be judged. It's not your place as man/woman to judge anyone.
It affects the nation, Ralph. It affects God's judgement on the nation. You think its bad now? We are under judgement and if the people of this nation don't repent and turn from their wicked ways you'll see truly hard times. It isn't funny.
I know it's hard for us Americans to take things seriously. It's all been so easy for us since the end of WWII. We've lived in a golden age and had limitless opportunities. We get to be teenagers for our whole lives if we want.
But truly, it is time to get serious.
Ouch. You should probably tell your parents. They'll ground him I expect.
what a ridiculous argument - you are free to say no to same=sex whatever - you just aren't free to tell other people they must say no! if you will examine your own motives - and just let the rest of us make up our own minds - no need to leave lengthy posts here, you're really not going to convince anyone. You're just stroking your own adrenaline glands and trying to make others notice you and your ego. Enough, already.
Nope, actually she and others like her are energizing the gay rights movement. They are reminding us why we need to fight harder and longer and they are showing us how bad it will be if we stop fighting.
Every movement does better when there is loud, unreasonable opposition that reminds it's members what oppression feels like. The more annoying the better, that way even the moderates are drawn to the side that looks most reasonable to the average person.
For example, the Westboro Baptist Church and it's ilk are doing more for the gay rights movement than a thousand gay rights parades could ever do. We really should send thank you cards.
Like I said never satisfied! always wanting others to conform to your ways.
Like I said, keep talking... You're making us look better Think you could organize a rally? That would be really helpful!
I doubt that anyone expects you to "conform to their ways." All they want is respect and the same rights as anyone else. You've made it quite clear that anyone who is gay won't get your respect.
Right! that just shows how ignorant you truly are sir. I never stated I want people to conform to me and my belief. I stated very clearly for any person whom can comprehend simple knowledge that everyone should live the way they feel! you always have to put your far left idiotic spin to make you feel better. I have a problem with teaching this to young children who are impressionable and have to conform to their belief because they were born with a genetic flaw! Nature never intended two of the same sex to be together or we would have been created differently. I know your up there in age but you should really try and expand your thinking. I post facts that show things being taught in school and you refute them even from your own BS leftist news. please enough
" I never stated I want people to conform to me and my belief."
Yes, you have. You said that you expect gay people to not get married, and to call their committed relationships "civil unions" instead of "marriages."
How is that not expecting others to conform to your beliefs?
You are absolutely right, gregas. No Christian would try to stop a murderer or rapist. Just let every one do his/her own thing. Nothing wrong with that, just we all get along doing what pleases us the most.
Plenty of Protestant Christian denominations support same-sex marriage. The Episcopal Church has been marrying same-sex couples for several years and welcoming them into their congregations. If memory serves the presiding bishop was a member of a same-sex couple.
Many Christian denominations including the one you mention have committed apostasy just as the Bible said they would. My Methodist church left God in the mid- 1960's. Everything changed. Same with the Presbyterian church only a few years later. My father-in-law was a pastor.
Methodist church groups now lead tours of the Holy Land where people come away convinced Israel is evil and the Palestineans are angels.
Why is everyone replying to the nut? Its obviously a waste of time, he is blind and will never see, he is ignorant yet believes he has great knowledge, he believes it is right to deny others equal rights, just ignore the poor fool.
Nothing in the appellate court's decision compels any Christian or Jewish denomination, pastor or rabbi to perform same-sex marriages.
I do believe there are some churches who never read the Bible. whyu should they? Well, for one thing, they might discover that you are not allowed to do your own thing.
Exactly. God is the sovereign center. Not an afterthought, not an aside, not a thing you can carry around in your pocket and pull out when you need something lucky to rub. Time is short to get serious. The laughter won't last forever.
Well we know you are ready to go to heaven AnnCee!
Isaiah 29:20 The ruthless will vanish, the mockers will disappear, and all who have an eye for evil will be cut down--
Have never listened to a Rabi before, but now I have! lol
Still listening! But sounds normal to me compared to other preachers what they've been saying.
Then I'd be worried if i were you, AnnCee. You've done nothing on these forums but make a mockery of Jesus' teachings, and that's pretty evil.
What is the phelps clan! lol, you guys are making me do a lot of work today! lol
That's a little rough saying someone from the phelps clan! Don't know to many christian's that go to the extreme.
That's because there aren't many. livelonger just habitually uses the Phelps Church people's actions to harrass hubbers personally when this issue is discussed. Apparently he's never learned how to discuss issues without making things personal, and he has some kind of "Big Brother" influence here because he gets by with it all the time.
AnnCee is making essentially the same argument as the Phelps clan, though - that God will punish America for our acceptance of homosexuality.
She just hasn't resorted to picketing the funerals of dead soldiers to spread the word about it. That we know of, anyway.
Don't worry about us, we're okay with being turned into pillars of salt. Your holiness is preserved.
You can pray for our misguided souls as I drink sparkling grape juice and do the happy dance.
Totally. We sinners can be "left behind" here on Earth, and the truly righteous can await their heavenly assumption on the Moon colony that Newt Gingrich is setting up.
of course the true conservatives who would like to be able to tell all the rest of us what we can and cannot do will keep battling about this - its not funny. Yesterday, while waiting to pay a tax bill in the IRS office a guy next to me said he is going to Europe to live. I wished him luck and agreed that it is crazy that one should have to pay (as he was) $130 on a bill that was 19.80 to start with simply because it got lost - and he has tried to appeal but it has cost him way more in time and energy. THEN insult to injury we both had to wait about 45 min. to PAY - the IRS is understaffed. during tax time. ok, so what I'm saying is - there seems to be enuf money to have endless voting and court judgments about something as basic as people's right to marry who they want, but there's no money to give us basic services = like tax office staffing etc. Then when I finally got to pay it - they wanted me to get a different kind of money order, and I said NO! their instructions clearly just said "money order" not what kind. So I won a small battle there. But, come on USA - why does everything have to be so difficult? Why do we have to fight for the most basic services and rights? I'm not moving. I'm staying here and being vocal about my rights. Rights have nothing to do with someone else's religious beliefs! HELLO! It 2012 not 1012 now!
"ok, so what I'm saying is - there seems to be enuf money to have endless voting and court judgments about something as basic as people's right to marry who they want, but there's no money to give us basic services = like tax office staffing etc."
But so many people want to blame the government for this situation, without realizing that in this case, it's not the government that's the problem - it's the people being governed. People scream about paying taxes, but then complain that they don't get enough service that's being paid for by tax dollars. If it weren't for the people that raised hell, filed lawsuits, and demanded Prop 8, the government wouldn't have been spending money dealing with it in the first place.
Melissa, can my sparkling grape juice have a rainbow umbrella in celebration?
God has the last word? Well, in that case, I'd prefer to ignore the blatherings of people who think they know what God wants and discuss it with him myself.
Or maybe I'll talk about it with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or Cthulthu.
What would happen if same-sex marriage was allowed? Oh yes, people would marry the person of their choice. If God condemns them for it, what business is it of yours? Let God judge and you can just turn the other cheek or maybe practice tolerance.
I agree with you Anncee, and admire your courage to stand up for what you believe in the face of ridicule. Sadly, sin must run its course, it is the way of the world; and few there are who will make the connection.
Just a question and I'm really not trying to start an argument (I'm done playing for the day) but do you also admire those who believe in gay marriage who also stand up for their beliefs in the face of ridicule? I'm just saying that all too often when only admire those who take a stand if the stand is concurrent with our own beliefs. If not, then we become the ones that are ridiculing.
You pose a very good question. The only way I can think to answer it is to address the consequence angle.
Those in support of homosexuality believe there is nothing wrong in the act of homosexuality, nor any dire consequences following the act; either now or in a afterlife. Therefore, they are confounded by Christian opposition, perceiving it as simply ugly discrimination against them, ridiculing the individual Christian who might raise their heads to voice concern.
Many Christians believe the complete opposite; that homosexuality is wrong, against the created order of things, and with dire consequences for individuals/societies that choose to embrace it - both now and in the afterlife.
For my many faults as a human, I have nothing personal against homosexuals at all and never ridicule them. However, as a member of society, and in light of my beliefs, I don't want them, or my society, to suffer detrimental consequences.
By way of an analogy (possibly a poor one), imagine you are tied to a drunk person who is too near the brink of a cliff. They may have no perception of the danger and may ridicule your concern and attempts to point out and turn them, and you, from danger. They may perceive that you are ridiculing them, but you aren't, you are simply concerned for them and the impact their beliefs will have on you and those you love.
And sometimes I really do believe that those who are opposing Gay marriage really are doing it in an attempt to save those poor drunken souls.
The problem is that we know that we are not drunk. We also know there is no cliff. We also know that we are not tied to you. So to US you are screaming warnings that make no sense. Yet we are being told we MUST heed them.
I understand religious beliefs, I have them. They are just as strong to me as they are to you. They are MY truth, the same as yours are your truth. Mine also stem from the Bible and being told that it says something that, in my truth, it doesn't say is just as offensive as you being told that your truth is wrong.
You will never convince me that two people loving each other will ever be a sin. I will never convince you that what you believe is unnatural is natural. By all means fight what you think is wrong. I plan on continuing to fight for what I think is right.
Just understand that the person across the table is also standing up in the face of animosity and fighting for what they believe in. Even if you don't agree with them, you do have to give them credit for their resolve. You don't have to agree with someone to respect them.
"Two people loving each other" has never been the issue.
Homosexuality is the issue.
I can credit all people because they are made in Gods image, but I cannot credit a resolve to do wrong?
However, you have indicated clearly that you "will never be convinced"; and you have spoken on my behalf, it seems, and said that I will never be convinced.
However, I am intrigued by your biblical stance in support of homosexuality; can you share more?
I politely decline to share my biblical stance. With all due respect, that would turn into one of us trying to convince the other that our religious viewpoints were superior. I've had plenty of those types of conversations on the boards and I grow weary of the same arguments. I think it's safe to assume that you have reasons that are valid to you as I have reasons that are valid to me.
"I cannot credit a resolve to do wrong?"
From what I've read and heard homosexuality is not a matter of "resolve." In nearly all cases it's a matter of congenital instinct. I've never met a gay person who said he chose to be gay.
I know a woman who chose other women to men. She says if it gets old she'll go back to men, I think this happens more than anyone would like to admit. I think it also blows the theory that you are born gay, for some its simply a choice.
And you have reached this conclusion, HOW? Does this one woman speak for the multitude of other gay women? If not, then I guess you have some data to substantiate this claim?
READ, and you will figure it out...maybe
Real life is my data, when someone tells me they made a choice, they made a choice. Lets contemplate something, men who have never had sex with another man go to prison and they have sex with another man are they born gay? There is no data to prove someone is born gay other than the words of people who said they were. There seems to be an investment in saying one is born gay, real life proves that is not always the case, prove me wrong.
Just as I said, you have no data. Interesting though, that you equate gay men with criminals. There are many studies around this issue. Try reading some. None without bias, however, as a straight man, I presume you are straight? Why would you, as an intelligent man? You are intelligent arn't you? Base your entire beliefs about gay MEN and women, because of the "choices" of one woman? When you suggest that REAL life PROVES one is not born gay, are you suggesting that you have had homosexual relationships but your REAL life has taught you it is a matter of choice?
Repairguy47, without presenting any data, common sense leads me to agree with you. I would even go as far as to suggest that most modern sexual encounters have little to do with "orientation", and everything to do with titillation leading to unexplored sexual gratification.
Homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, are flippantly overused terms, when often the more accurate word might simply be Hornysexual.
This may surprise you, but I worked in a gay parlour once (but don't jump to conclusions), and it is simply ludicrous to suggest that all, or even most, of the patrons were "oriented" to a certain gender. Bottom-line, the patrons wanted sexual gratification, they wanted it quick, and they knew were to get it.
To be completely honest, if I was to follow my carnal nature (that's a biblical term referring to the part of man that wants to go against the created order of things), I would most likely be unfaithful to my wife. What keeps me from doing so is, firstly, an acknowledgement of God and a desire to please him, an acknowledgement that I have a carnal nature that is damaging to what is best for me, and a love for my wife and commitment to making it work; in that order.
From the comments I hear many making here, I should just accept my carnal desire as an orientation to be polygamous.
That statement is offensive on so many levels. Promiscuity is not limited to people attracted to the same or both genders. Promiscuity is a behaviour of some people across all orientations including heterosexual.
To imply that gay and bisexual people just get it wherever they can is just ignorant.
So if all of the LBGT community was just looking to have promiscuous sex, why the push to get married? It seems counter-productive.
Edit: Sorry, replied to the wrong person.
I never said promiscuity was limited to such.
Not so ignorant I think.
By connecting the private, legal actions of gay people to the fate of society as a whole, you are doing the same thing as the people in the Westboro Baptist Church, who are so extreme I do not even consider them to be part of the Christian community. Do gays cause us bad luck? Do they cause us punishment in the afterlife? These are not questions our government should even be considering, because superstitions and an affiliation with particular religious belief systems are not the business of the government.
What if all of this was turned around? Let's say there is a religion that says heterosexuality is a sin and that people should only have same-sex partners and conception should all be in-vitro. These people would believe that most of society is living sinfully, and we'll all be punished for it. Should our government make efforts to appease them and discourage heterosexuality on the off chance their religion is right? Of course not. So why is it ok for things to work the other way around?
By using the beliefs of one religion in making legislative decisions, our government is showing favor to that one religion. If history serves as any guide, there is a slippery slope between showing favor toward a religion and becoming an arm of that religion, something that goes directly against the goals of the founding fathers.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton
Yes, all men are created equal and should be able to marry the one they love, man or woman.
One minute you talk religion and then you turn around and quote politics. Are you confused?
Think she's just making sure you have all the facts Gregas!
She's utterly confused if she thinks the Declaration of Independence is the document on which our government is based. But that's a common delusion for many right-wing religious ideologues: the convenient omission of the 11 years between the adoption of the D of I in 1776 and the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. Heck, the religious right often quotes the Mayflower Compact (1620) as "evidence" that the USA was founded on "Biblical principles."
Charitably, this tendency comes from confusion or ignorance.
Uncharitably, it comes from the willingness to spread deliberate falsehoods for political ends.
I hope it's the confusion thing.
they are endowed by their Creator
Well this may not go over well but my creator were my mother and father.
People can date or marry who ever they want to. Who is it hurting really? No one
Listen to the rabbi, he makes a lot of sense.
Not a rabbi. He might call himself that, but the MJAA means he's a "Messianic Jew." Messianic Jews are Southern Baptists by theology, and not Jewish at all.
Jonathan Cahn is still a rabbi. He is a Messianic Jew. Listen to him. See if any of it makes any sense to you. Why not?
You claim he's a rabbi, but you probably don't think Obama is really a Christian. Interesting.
No, nothing he says makes sense to me. I don't believe the "any day now" doomsday predictions of evangelical Christians, who have been saying the same thing for almost 2000 years.
I'm a democrat and I question Obama's Christianity! The man lies every opportunity he can. He said he never heard Reverend Wright speak like that in the almost 20 years sitting in the pews. But he dedicates a book to him? Hilary Clinton tried to bring this up and they started saying she was racist! He was living as a kid in Indonesia and registered as a Muslim...this is a fact! could he have changed his religion? sure but there is nothing to show baptism, communion, confirmation? so I'm not certain he is a Christian. His actions against the church with his health-care BS says different.
What are you talking about? Putting words in my mouth and thoughts in my head? It's interesting you find your own fantasies interesting. Play around in your own head much?
Of course he's a rabbi, it's not my claim. I'm sorry you don't understand what Rabbi Cahn is talking about.
I suppose it was a different AnnCee that posted this, then:
Only evangelical Christians consider MJs to be Jews. Not a single denomination of Judaism: Reform, Reconstructionist, Orthodox, Conservative, Ultra-Orthodox, etc. consider MJs to be anything other than Christians.
Different discussion. I am not discussing Obama's Christianity today. You are.
I am discussing God's judgement on this nation because we kill babies and glorify perversion.
I just pointed out the irony in your thinking that Obama is really a Muslim (but you oddly deny that until your own post shows you do), but that MJs are Jews.
If you believe in God's judgment, I strongly suggest reading your Bible more carefully, and not ignoring the parts that might apply to you or those that you love.
You're the one who brought a Messianic Jewish (i.e. baptist) minister into the discussion, AnnCee.
He's MINE! Get back. Every hag needs a.... oh nevermind someone else in this thread is bound to break out the word.
/end inappropriate humour
Great news indeed.
I have a question, for anybody who is interested: hypothetically, assuming there was a US Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, it seems to me it would clash with other parts of the Constitution.
So the question is, when one part of the Constitution directly disagrees with another part, what happens? How do the courts decide and which part do they give authority to?
I don't understand what the Constitution has to do with this.
Just a reminder that this nation was founded on God. Our freedom came not from man but from God. I know the founding documents are a pesky bother to the current administration but they have served us well and God has blessed us as a nation. He has also judged us.
It was founded even more fundamentally on equality. Which is why Prop 8 was over-turned as *unconstitutional*.
And it's not for YOU to judge anybody, AnnCee.
Seems to me that out freedoms (incl. marriage) comes from man--specifically secular law, for which I am grateful as Sharia law is a little on the harsh side.
If that wasn't the case Christians would just marry in church and never register the event.
"I know the founding documents are a pesky bother to the current administration but they have served us well and God has blessed us as a nation."
And I know it must be a pesky bother to be reminded that our Constitution makes no mention of God at all, that God didn't appear on our money until long after the founding, and didn't appear in the first two version of the Pledge of Allegiance.
The US was founded as a secular nation. And them's the facts. No matter how many times you repeat the lie, the truth remains unchanged.
Gregas, the title of the article in the OP is:
"Calif. same-sex marriage ban ruled unconstitutional"
Moreover, there has been a prominent move among many conservatives to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
"The BAN on same sex marriage has been OVERTURNED." Re-read it.
That's not what you said when you quoted me the title.
Ok, I'm not sure I'm getting through here, but for anybody who cares, my original comment was a question about constitutional interpretation. Gregas asked what the Constitution has to do with this topic. The answer is implicit in the story and the larger controversy--it is all about the Constitution. Just read my original comment.
Well, sooner or later, it gets repealed. Sometimes, as in the case of slavery, it takes a terrible war to right the wrong. Sometimes, as in the case of women's suffrage, it takes a long and drawn out political effort. Sometimes, as in the case of prohibition, it becomes glaringly obvious to pretty much everybody that it was a stupid idea.
I imagine that if gay marriage is banned by Constitutional amendment (It won't be, because it's already pretty obvious to most people that it's a stupid idea, and amending the Constitution is really hard, by design), pretty soon, everyone will realize that it's a stupid idea, and it'll get repealed like the other ideas that were incompatible with the intent of the Constitution.
I have no problem with Gay people having every right as a married couple but do not believe it should be called MARRIAGE. Marriage is between a man and woman. If they want to call it a Union I'm totally fine with that. It is obvious that being gay is a abnormality. If GOD or Whatever created us wanted us to be with the same sex we all would have been able to have a child together. If everyone was gay we would have died off because we would not have reproduced! Obviously some people are born with different insides than what they have on the outside. We should not treat them any differently and they should have the right to live with whom they want. I also do not like that we have to have little children taught this in school, whom can be swayed by this and then come to regret it later when they fully understand everything better. Give an inch take a yard. never satisfied.
Who says that the word MARRIAGE means man/woman. Personally, I am tired of some people telling other people what they can or can't do with their private/personal lives. Greg
It has been from the beginning of time! just because your gay doesn't mean everyone has to change for you! Like I stated can you and your boyfriend have a child??? This country whether you like it or not was based on GOD! IN GOD WE TRUST IS ON THE MONEY YOU HAVE IF YOU HAVE ANY and in EVERY COURTHOUSE IN AMERICA! If you don't like it then leave!
Gay is a abnormality! someone born with mixed insides then what the outside looks like. I do not discriminate for gender/sex/race/age etc... but I also do not want other peoples way of life spewed all over the TV and taught in schools to young impressionable children!
Well, Danny Maio,
You must have very limited options. I believe it's Boomerang that shows the oldies from the 1950s and 1960s. Maybe the Hallmark Channel meets your Ozzie & Harriet standards. TCM shows classic movies.
But that's about it.
I don't disagree that there is a LOT that I don't personally care to absorb (or have my kids absorb) spewing over the TV and internet.
Gratuitious sex (hetero but certainly not between married, loving couples), violence, glorification of sexuality and violence, really stupid people being glorified just for being stupid and gross (Jersey Shore, any number of reality shows).
Do these things bother you, too?
Niiiice points MM! Never been a big fan of stupid or gross!
Yes many of those shows bother me! These are not role models I would want my children to look up to. I have no problem with Movies, because you have to pay to see them. Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with giving any group/gender etc... every right to do as they please, I honestly believe Homosexuality should not be taught to young children in schools! I also believe Marriage is between a man and woman, Unions are fine with me, give all the same benefits as a married couple. Is that truly unfair? It's like everything else give a finger want the whole arm. Like I stated two people of the same sex can not have a child together.
"Yes many of those shows bother me!"
What shows? Why do you watch them if they bother you?
Two people of the same sex can't have a child together?
Ever heard of adoption? Or artificial insemination?
Same methods used by may hetero couples who can't naturally conceive together.
Not to mention the huge number of non-married people who have children by natural and artificial means.
That is a very narrow AND incorrect criterion for marriagability.
Marriage is a financial arrangement first and foremost.
What's kids got to do with it?
I am not only aware of adoption, etc. but have several couple friends (friendships of over 20 years) who are same sex and adopted years ago -- their kids are now in college. I'm talking about procreation with a man and a woman and that was very obvious in my statement.
Sorry. I thought I was responding to Danny Maio, not your statement.
sorry not the same, if everyone was gay we would have died off already.
And as for your thoughts on marriage being a financial arrangement, I did not marry my wife for any financial arrangement and vice versa, we actually married because of LOVE! sorry if you have, that would suck to marry someone just for money and not truly love them.
You're right, gay people don't marry for love (like you and your wife), they marry to piss the religious right off.
Don't worry, there are plenty of Bi's out there to keep the worlds population going. We'll be like little queen bees, cranking out new generations of the LBGTettes.
more BS spin, where did I say gay people don't marry for love? I hate when you people try your sorry excuse at responses that have nothing to actually do with what was actually said. Is this how you try and confuse people? go back and tell me where I stated Gay people don't love each other.
Our schools must be really behind. I checked the course curriculum, and not a single damned one of them offers "How to be Homosexual."
And if you want to start on about 'marriage has always been between one man and one woman,' well, guess again. I love people that insist that the Bible proves this. Hmmm, if you go by the Bible, polygamy is 'traditional marriage,' not the one-man-one-woman arrangement.
If you actually study history, you'll find that marriage traditionally was a property arrangement, first and foremost. Dowries and bride prices and rules of inheritance had nothing to do with religion or even love - it was all about preserving and increasing the family fortune. If there was no property to be dealt with, then the government had no involvement at all - there certainly weren't extra benefits given to married couples that didn't exist for others.
Civil unions. It's awful when people who are committed to a relationship with each other are unable to make medical decisions for each other but must be pushed aside by family that are perhaps totally alienated from the people involved. Also same sex couples should be able to have access to financial benefits available to married couples.
But society should not have to accept the "marriage" of same sex couples and children should not be forced to entertain information about a homosexual lifestyle/aka sex in public schools.
We are degrading this nation and God is judging us harshly. Obama is a curse.
The law calls it marriage. The person wanting to do it wants it to be marriage. I mean, who wants to asked their beloved to "civilly union" them.
IMHO 'separate but equal' never really works out. Actually equal is a better bet.
There are also plenty of other problems with civil unions. If you have a civil union in one state, and then travel to another state, suddenly you have no marriage-like rights whatsoever. If your spouse gets hurt and is in the hospital? Nothing.
Separate but equal is never equal.
"Separate but equal is never equal." That is almost always true. The same could be said for segregation in the Deep South in the 60s. Black public schools were terrible - old buildings, few supplies, old used textbooks, etc.
Although I'm a Christian, I have no problem with gay marriage. As I've said many times, you can't help who you love. I do have a problem, however, with prop 8 having been voted on in the first place. It was basically saying the people in the state could decide, then the courts ignored the will of the people and decided for themselves. And BTW, I would have voted FOR gay marriage.
I don't really understand the problem with the issue. How would two homosexuals getting married hurt anyone? If others are worried about the souls of the gay couple, isn't that for God to decide? And, I might add - there ARE gay Christians.
"I have no problem with Gay people having every right as a married couple but do not believe it should be called MARRIAGE."
So you expect other people to conform to your beliefs, then.
Glad we got that clear.
umm...I met someone 6 months ago and thought they were joking about pastafarians, spaghetti monsters and eating Jesus crackers, lol I never knew they were a real group. Even beer aloud! lol okay! ha ha I guess there is something you learn new every day.
Danny it is already over the networks, movies, and schools.
Well I hate to tell you this Melissa, but if it rains real hard the glitter going to come off!
I see, thanks for warning me, maybe he related to the other one I know! lol We won't mention any names!
Oh well maybe if you invite the flying spaghetti monster he might have the power to stop the rain from messing up your glitter and grape juice, but again you might have pasta all over. lol
Obviously I'm going to be in a minority here but I still fail to see why legal joining of people of the same sex can't be called "civil unions" or some other term agreeable to them -- and leave the word "marriage" to two people of male and female gender. I definitely believe in granting a same sex couple all rights afforded "married" couples and the same benefits. In the interest of finding a definitive word for joining together as a couple (other than "marriage") there's some people not wanting to go through a legal ceremony who consider themselves in a "common law marriage." My bottom line thought here -- two people who are capable of having a child together have been designated as "married" as long as I can remember. What's wrong with two people of the same sex useing another word for their union? My thoughts aren't based on bias, hate or religious grounds -- just seems like common sense to me.
Because civil unions are not legally recognized throughout the entire code (e.g. spousal health insurance, end of life decision making, adoption) or inter-jurisdictional.
I'm very much in favor of this being changed and same-sex couples having equal rights with man/woman marriages. The federal government can make every thing else in the world happen so they ought to be able to get this lined out, too. Would it be easy? No -- but they sure got Obamacare passed and a lot more than half the population was against that.
If it weren't for that pesky Constitution OBlamey could be king. Then he'd really get stuff done.
He's a curse on this Godless generation.
We definitely are in agreement on the POTUS!
According to you, isn't he a BOON to the Godless generation?
In addition, I was unaware that God judged NATIONS. I thought it was a one-to-one basis. I guess he's streamlining now... you know with the budget cuts and all.
BTW, still doing the happy dance, still not a pillar of salt.
Okay I'll log back in and respond, Melissa. The Bible is full of instances of God judging nations. Are you entirely unschooled in the Bible? You might start by reading Isaiah if you want to know about God judging nations. Or just listen to this sermon I posted earlier.
Every leader of every nation was placed there by God. Every nation that blesses Israel will be blessed by God. Every nation that curses Israel will be cursed by God. That's just the way it is. God's choice. He's the boss.
Laugh all you want, it is just your eternal soul you are dooming. You do know you are an eternal spiritual being. We all know it.
AnnCee, that was a hugely interesting video! Amen to the message!
I have a faith that believes differently than yours. Why exactly would I care what your religion says about Gay marriage? It's YOUR religion that is preventing MY religion from practicing. But I'm sure yours is better because it is the only true word... Just like I believe about mine.
So I guess it comes down to numbers.
Is NeeNeer NeeNeer appropriate at this point?
It's your soul, Melissa. Your choice.
One thing the Bible says is that not a single person will stand blameless before Almighty God because He made us in His image and it is in us to know Him. The only salvation from sin is through Jesus Christ, His sacrifice for us as he carried all the sin of all time to hell with him on the cross. He went to hell for us so our eternal souls wouldn't be doomed to hell for all eternity. God made you, God loves you, God wants you to love Him and choose Him. But it is your choice. It is in you to know Him. You already know him.
When your heart swells with love, guess what? That is God. God is love. When you gasp in amazement at beautiful nature, that is God. He shows himself to us. He shows himself in the tenderness of all animals toward their offspring. He shows himself in the deliciousness of fruit.
You can know God. He made you that way.
Once again... Why would I care what your religion says? I have my own. I think that's the root of your problem. You think your religion should apply to everyone. It doesn't.
BTW, I am a follower of Christ. I don't believe you are. Guess we'll see who's right. Good Luck, I'll be praying for your soul.
"Is NeeNeer NeeNeer appropriate at this point?"
Yes. It's usually appropriate when AnnCee posts.
Personally I think the federal government should avoid the term marriage entirely and just give everyone - gay and straight - a civil union. Then if heterosexual couples want to be "married" they can find a church willing to perform the ceremony, and gay and lesbian couples can do exactly the same. That seems fairest and most constitutional to me.
Absolutely, thank you! Common sense. Why does the government need to involve itself in people's private love lives? Abolish the whole thing and replace it with contracts.
We are going to have to go through this whole charade again in a few decades for polygamist marriage. Why not just make an all-encompassing policy now and let it be.
And then a few decades after that, marrying children, then a few after that, marrying animals, then a few after that having operations to become hermaphrodites so we can marry ourselves.
Slippery slope this thing called relative morality; the daughter of evolutionary doctrine.
Why should the word "marriage" or any other be changed to suit any group because they want it and demand it. It's not an offensive word such as racial slurs, etc. -- in fact, it's obviously coveted. Supposedly in this country majority rules and as yet it doesn't seem the majority of U.S. citizens want the word "marriage" to include same sex partners. The only way to find that out is put it to a vote nationally. Let all the states vote on it just as in any national election -- one set of laws that will apply to every state --if it's legal in Indiana it's legal in New York. If it passes same sex marriage will be law across the country and everything thereto will apply. If it's voted down -- it's time to move on to more pressing issues in an unsettled nation and world.
Our country's founding laws already give us all the right to the pursuit of happiness. Period. Would you have us all vote on the constitution? This is frivolous and unnecessary and downright dumb, to want to vote on something like this. And if the majority wants to not allow vegetarians to have vegetarian entrees on restaurant menus because the "majority" are meat eaters, would you have us vote on that too? really puerile to want to vote on somebody else's sexuality.
Sorry Missy, I do not know how you try and twist this to vegetarians when we are talking about sexuality. Try apples to apples next time to gain any real argument. Teaching young impressionable children about it, when it clearly is a genetic mishap, and you want to compare it to voting on eating veggies is asinine.
Danny - speaking of genetic mishaps . . . just sayin! because your speeches here sound kind of overblown and as if there may be a plug in there misfiring or something - in the brain, I mean. Analogies are used in arguments to help others see reason - (a waste of my time, here, it is plain, because you haven't grasped that concept) and are often about widely different things. I didn't intend for anyone to think that vegetarians are just like homosexuals - simply that the SITUATIONS are similar - and anyone who could think we should vote on others' rights to the pursuit of their own happiness is way off the track! whether these others are homosexual, vegetarian, Christian, or cheese eaters - makes no difference - if they're not harming others, they have the right to pursue their happiness. Now, just how do homosexuals harm you? If they start to harm you, our laws already protect you from their actions, but really, I doubt you could reasonably make any claims like that.
Hi Mega - you are trying to engage political shills and trolls by using facts and reason.
You are wasting your time, do what they do -
try putting up page long posts in different coloured text, randomly changing what others say to make a point that does not relate to anything, spout irrelevant god-stuff and invoke misrepresentations of the constiyushun at random intervals.
If all else fails revert to two line cynical rewrites of anyones post, or just plain abuse.
These things seem to keep them busy for hours !
yes I guess a plug is misfiring because I do believe teaching young impressionable children in school about homosexuality can be damaging. I guess your the only one who thinks correctly and your word is bond. I never stated I have a problem with Gays being able to have all the benefits of married couples or to bash them. I feel that teaching this to young children in school is not right. If you like munching on carpet that is your business or men taking a ride on Hershey highway that is their choice but children shouldn't be subjected to that or any sexual behavior at that young age gay or straight!
Doesn't the bible say you are responsible for teaching your OWN children? Don't get mad if the government sponsored baby-sitters are teaching your children things you don't want them to know.
RAISE YOUR OWN CHILDREN or stop complaining about how the strangers you hand them over to each day aren't doing what you want them to do.
I taught my own children, I have to worry about people like you whom don't teach correctly and why our society is so messed up.
I would not want to have someone with your mentality to teach my kids anything!
LMAO! Try again. Personal insults only work on the insecure. My kids are turning out just fine Are yours calling people carpet munchers? Cause I guess that is the true test of parenting... when your kids toss out tired sad insults as part of a debate.
Maybe they'll own a pickup truck with a rebel flag and gun rack some day!
well, you have quite an imagination, since never in any way has the teaching of "sexuality" or the "ways to have sex" been advocated for the public school curriculum. What is being taught is that people live their lives and loves in many ways - I really think you have learned the art of dramatic exaggeration to the exclusion of rational discussion! No one is going to teach kids how to have sex. What they are teaching at appropriate ages is that just because Billy likes guys as romantic partners and Sally likes girls in the same way, does not make them "weirdos", bad people or any of the other disgusting and derogatory names you might call them. Instead, kids are learning to accept others' and make up their own minds, when appropriate. No one is asking little ones to decide how they want to have sex. When kids are in their teens and notice that they aren't attracted to the opposite sex but they are attracted to their own - then they are encouraged to believe in themselves, accept themselves, and of course, polite and civil behavior is modeled and taught. Unlike in these forums where it seems that homophobes like to complain that they can't have their way in the world. It is what it is, don't be getting your panties in a twist, just because there are other ways to live besides your narrow, restrictive way.
Be naive all you want when young kids hear about boy to boy and girl to girl they ask questions. There isn't any need to teach young kids until high school! I will have my way of thinking you can have yours. I taught my children to respect everyone regardless of race/sex etc... I live in NY and if you see how the gay parade goes here it is not something for young kids! you can live your life the way you want, I will live mine with dignity and be boring according to you.
No kidding about parades!
I'm from NY too and man, that St. Paddy's Day Parade isn't for the faint of heart, neither.
Even though I educated my kids early about the evils of liquor, I didn't want to take any chances. Leprechauns, green beer. Bagpipes. Men in SKIRTS.
Why, didya ever see such a ting?
Nope. I didn't let my impressionable children near that cultural display until they were 18 and could make up their own minds.
NY! oh, they must really be evil there. You see men holding hands with other men all the time in San Francisco - and I guess, some people are saying that is going to warp little children so terribly, that they will need to have their homophobe parents telling them what to do until they are at least 30! Because, we all know that kids can't decide for themselves who they want to hold hands with!
Restrictive isn't necessarily "boring" and vice versa. Restrictive is trying to make the rest of the world live by your own rules, no matter what. What I am objecting to is that people who are trying to make other people's sexual preferences illegal and restrict the way the live their lives, and continually claiming that others are not "allowing" them to have their opinions. You and others in these forums don't understand that having your opinion and insisting that others shouldn't have certain rights, are two very different things. There is a big difference between having an opinion about how things should be done, and making others live the same way you do because you think they are bad for being different. I think if you sat in one of those classrooms where they are talking about different lifestyles - different kinds of families - different behaviors and the difference between behaviors that are harmful and behaviors that are just "different" you would see that no one is making children have bad thoughts in school - just the opposite. A lot of the bullying and abuse that children learn comes from their perception (enforced by ignorant parents) that people who are different than them should be punished or abused. This is the kind of thing good education can help stop. Homophobia in our society has abused people and done great harm. It is not easy for youngsters to be good citizens when their parents are ignorantly abusive and have restrictive opinions and pass on these behaviors to their kids.
Heh, that's funny. I remember a conversation from my preschool days that went something like this:
Tony: I went to my cousin's wedding last week.
Billy: I don't want to ever get married. Girls are gross.
Tony: I think you have to get married when you grow up.
Billy: Then I'd rather marry a boy.
Me: I don't think it works like that.
See, kids talk about it whether we want them to or not.
How can teaching about homosexuality be any more damaging to our kids than wars, killing and ctooked politics and all of the other crap they learn in school now?
Nobody is going to be teaching kids about homosexuality in the way the RR fears. There isn't going to be any tips for picking someone up or anything like that, any more than there are heterosexual ones.
It'll go no farther than "Some families have two dads, and some have two moms. You don't have to like it, but that's the way things are."
That's what really bothers them. Nothing infuriates the RR more than having homosexuality losing its demonic status in popular perception. If so, then the focus on sin might turn to *gulp* those that they're committing.
Or maybe it's because without the gay rights/abortion issues then there is nothing to base a political platform upon.
It helps to have a political platform as a straight, male evangelical leader about homosexuality and abortion, two "sins" you could never possibly be guilty of. Makes you look more holy. (How many "reverends" would have any moral authority at all if we were talking instead about marital infidelity, greed, or any of the other things Jesus condemned repeatedly?)
Well Danny lets see if you can think like a scientist, you say homosexulity is a genetic flaw, so lets examine this premise. Now we both know that evolution occurs through mutation, a mutation occurs and if it is succesfull then it stays and if it is not then it dies out, if you really believe that more people is what humanity needs right now then you are just wrong, but having accepted that overpopulation is an issue we are faced with several distasteful methods of combating it from one child policies to starvation none are very pleasing. Furthermore there are also in our world unfurtunately many children who grow up without parents usually insitutionalised or on the streets these children show much higher crime rates, higher mortality rates and are as a whole less beneficial to their community, homosexuality often leaves couples who want children but cannot have them, the convenient overlap is a safe enviroment for disadvantaged children and even if you have doubts about same sex parenting its definitely better than growing up on the street or an orphanage (I grew up on both so trust me on this).
Our sum conclusion therefore is that homosexuality quite apart from any emotional component is a very beneficial mutation for humanity as whole as it goes some way to solving two very difficult issues as such from a scientific perspective it would seem that this mutation should be encouraged for the good of humanity as a whole.
IF homosexuality is a mutation, your argument is quite good. But there is plenty of evidence that homosexuality was there from the beginning - that in all the animals species homosexuality is practiced to some extent - not as a mutation, but as a way of sexuality expressing itself. And bisexuality as well. The truth is that mankind is no better or worse than other animals and it is a natural thing to express one's sexuality with both same sex partners and opposite sex ones. Some have one bias, while others have another. What is not natural is for someone to come along with a unprovable god theory that says any kind of sexuality is bad if its not intended for procreation. All you have to do is observe all the animal kingdom to see that sexuality just for pleasure is practiced by everyone - if they haven't been brainwashed by the "god" sets - THAT is what is freakish and unreal and unkind.
You have a very good point Josak. That is a subject that no one ever wants to face or have to deal with, but they will have to in the not to distant future.
You are quite right, the doctrine of evolution ultimately places everything man might choose to do in the realm of normal, natural and healthy (after all, how can we fault an innocent mutation).
Sexuality is seen as a fluid thing, just as evolution is an unpredictable thing. And, since we are nothing more than animals, we justify our morality by their behaviour... though we are guilty of extreme prejudice as to what behaviour we want to justify (no one seems to be using evolution to justify cannibalism, yet).
This is exactly the line of thinking that will (has) ultimately lead society down a very dark path of self-destruction; while they spout love and freedom all the way.
We no longer recognise homosexuality as unnatural and an indicator of deeper problems with individuals and/or society; instead we have elevated male-to-male sex as good and responsible behaviour.
Who knows, next it may be pedophiles being elevated to just a mere mutational decision of evolution.
Actually, it's started already.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-01 … tem-greece
Our country's founding laws definitely do give us all the right to pursuit of happiness. The intent of that language is clear-- as Americans we have the right to work and live peacefully and comfortably in this country. Taken in another context -- it's very broad language and if taken literally we couldn't have a law in this country or enforce one of any kind because we might be interfering with someone's right to pursue happiness. In any event, it's highly doubtful that any one of us commenting will have our opinion changed by another whether on this forum or elsewhere -- and so, goodnight all!
It's always so nice when someone comes into a conversation, drops a bomb, and then leaves, isn't it? The pursuit of happiness does not include behavior that harms others or impedes other's pursuit of happiness - thus we have laws that punish thieves, murderers, kidnappers, and in general destruction of a kind and just society. You tell me where in all of this does homosexuality, when practiced between two consenting adults, harm others or impede their pursuit of happiness. But no, you are going now, because you know your statement is very full of holes and does not defend your opinion at all. But farewell, for now Angela Blair, I'm sure you'll be back another time with your same ignorance!
My thoughts exactly, but these greedy a$$holes need to push it further and then want to teach it too young impressionable children. like I keep stating give a finger they want the arm. sad
I'm not aware that anybody is "teaching it" to children? What are they teaching, in your opinion? And where?
California Require Teaching of Gay History
Now we all know Ralphy boy that you love the NY times and read it all the time and you forget this? please
The article says California may require teaching of gay history. So what. You said you are tired of schools teaching gay sex. Which schools are teaching gay sex. And so what if they are making children aware of the existence of homosexuality and encouraging them to be tolerant. Of course tolerance of homosexuality is not consistent with homophobia.
California Gov Signs Landmark Law to Teach Gay History
Published July 14, 2011
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 … z1lkB78dv7
Teaching Gay History is like teaching Black History or Women's History.
What is the danger of little Johnny turning "black" or "female" simply by being exposed to the role of same in history? Zero.
"Black history or Woman History didn't focus on their sexuality and what they did in the bedroom. Yet that is what this legislation will impose on every public school dealing with heterosexuality, homosexual role models, transgender role models, all the way down to the kindergarten level."
sorry not right in my book
Thanks, MM. You took the words out of my mouth.
"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."
My God a conversion - from what politics to religion,
even more divisive.
Can you think of any single non-religious reason why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married?
The fight against slavery and bans against interracial marriage ended up devolving into matters of scriptural interpretation, too.
Because lesbian pron wouldn't be so deliciously naughty if they were married?
Because they don't like it so it shouldn't happen?
Because handsome intelligent well dressed men hunt more efficiently in pairs?
Because lesbianism means there are less women to fail at picking up in bars?
Because IKEA is a foreign run business that will take over the home-decorating sector if gay men start creating wedding registries?
Because the formal cargo pants and Birkenstocks trade will double if lesbian weddings become common?
Watch this for a laugh about the silliness of Prop 8:
LOL! Thank you Jeff. BTW, Jack Black himself should be a divinity. Of course the fact that I have a huge crush on him (I like chubby funny guys) has nothing to do with that opinion.
Money is the Answer again
Bring on more Sodom and Gomorrah
Oh God will judge alright. Nothing to do with me or you or what we think. He is sovereign and everyone will know it for sure one day.
As you were.
Some do believe it takes a community to raise a child. Parents have a big responsibility, but the teachers influence the children just as much. As well as the neighborhood you live in. Environment does shape a child whether it is negative or positive.
Yes, it does. And society is moving towards more tolerance and education. I certainly don't want someone who spouts things like "carpet munching" and "Hershey highway" deciding what to teach children. If he wants to raise his children in hatred, that is his right. If he truly cared about his kids he would do such.
more lies! I did not raise my kids in hatred, that is your BS spin. My youngest is 20 years old the oldest is 25. I live in NY so your redneck line is another one of your ridiculous posts.
LOL! Redneck is as redneck does. Doesn't matter where you live.
You amuse me! Only YOU can spin and only YOU can criticize other people's parenting. And only YOUR religion counts. People like that are so much fun to play with, since the world obviously is all about them then anything that is said about anything obviously is a direct challenge.
BTW, Dr. Spock, if you hate your children will hate. Or do you just do homophobic hate speech on line? You know, shield the kids that way.
Mega in from 5th to 8th grade they have sex ed classes in the schools around here. They are educating the children because of teen sex, birth control, and teen pregnancy!
Its the Ninth circuit court of appeals, what did anybody expect? A competent court AKA the Supreme court of the United States will overturn it.
Bigotry never dies MightyMom! I have a gay brother, and we live in Oklahoma, so it's not likely to happen here anytime soon. But I am glad to see progress in other parts of the nation.
Die Proposition 8, Die totally up to the Supreme Court! Hope it stops from there and it will not be heard anymore by the SC!!!!
@repairguy47, if you are gay, then come on out. Not a bad thing here, love. No offence intended, you talked about real life as if you were a gay man who'd experienced it, just asking the question. This is a great place to come on out, though. Well done.
One more example of the hypocritical liberal. You back the gay agenda and use their lifestyle to belittle. Sad, no I'm not gay, but unlike you I don't mind if someone else is.
Why have I used the gay "lifestyle" whatever that means, to belittle? Just because someone has asked you if you were gay doesn't mean that they see a gay man or woman as inferior, why would you think that? I don't mind if someone's gay, I accept that as part of REAL life. I'm glad you don't mind either, it may mean you will stop making silly assumptions about choices, after all, you're not gay are you? You wouldn't know personally.
Same sex marriage is just weird. Why would anyone seek validation in a religion that has persecuted their sexual orientation for a couple of millennia? I mean how masochistic can you get?
I know there are plenty of answers to this question (all them weirder than I want to think about) but frankly I would prefer the conservative Christians to keep their values unmolested. And the Gays to just liberate themselves enough to realize that they don't need Christ to bless their union.
I have never met a deeply Christian Gay, thank heavens. It would test my tolerance well beyond the limits anyone should be expected to bear.
1. Christian isn't the only religion.
2. Marriage is as much societal as religious.
3. My church would happily marry a gay couple. Who are you to tell my church that it wouldn't count because we aren't "Christian" enough? Or are you trying to tell churches that would marry gays what they should do? That's a pretty dangerous precedent.
3(a) There's a question... If marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution doesn't refusing to let churches perform gay marriages violate separation of church and state? If it ISN'T a religious institution, then why is religion being brought into it at all?
Why worry about the 10% FOREVER, live and and let live
Accept civil unions and you will have no problem. Why try to force Christian Churches to marry same sex couples?
Why even hit the reply button if you aren't actually going to reply? My church calls it a marriage. How are you going to force a church to call it a civil union?
I don't think anyone is trying to force a certain church to marry anyone. Why are you trying to force MY church not to?
Hypocritical ideas suck don't they?
It is nice that you have your own church. Does it have a name?
If you aren't going to answer the questions and must result to sarcasm to divert the focus, could you at least be clever about it?
Your church is extremely unusual if it is supportive of gay marriage. If it has a name it would be helpful if you mentioned it.
Actually, it's not all that unusual for a church to support gay marriage. Conservative Christians seem to be the big opposition.
I'm a Unitarian. It's not just my individual church, the Unitarian denomination in general supports gay marriage.
Unitarians are extremely unusual and not necessarily Christian as I understand it. I think you are being misleading when you seem to suggest that broad currents of Christian thinking are or ever will be supportive of gay marriage.
Read the list and graphic linked above and you will see that the position of Christian churches on homosexuality is very mixed.
Here's the link--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch … osexuality
I said that the major opponents of gay marriage are the conservative Christians.
Not all Christians oppose gay marriage and not all churches are Christian.
And it doesn't really matter whether every single christian in the world was against it. We are not seeking recognition of our marriages by Christians, just by the government. In general, we honestly don't care what private-interest groups think.
However, if the churches that we do belong to (christian or not) choose to marry us in a religious ceremony, who are you to say that we have to call the marriage a civil union? That would infringe upon our right to religious freedom.
The Episcopal Church supports gay marriage and had a gay bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire. Other churches do as well and welcome gay and lesbian couples. Do you belong to the Church of England? Probably not.
Here is a summary of Christian churches' positions on homosexuality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch … osexuality
I was brought up C of E. I wouldn't want to see it damaged by demands which might serve a few very demanding individuals but certainly don't serve the wider community.
Will, I think you have misunderstood the goal of the gay rights movement. We are not trying to force churches to marry gays. I don't think your average gay couple would want to get married in a church that adamantly opposes gay relationships in the first place anyway (nor attend such a church).
Exactly. Why would any sane gay want to get married in a church that disapproves of them. And why should political correctness be used as a stick to beat people whose very identity revolves around their religious beliefs?
You're missing the point. Plenty of churches, synagogues, temples, etc will marry gay people (mine, the largest Jewish movement in North America, has since 1996). And, besides, civil marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. In the US, it carries with it over 1,100 rights and privileges, most of which civil unions can not fulfill. Most atheists are married, too.
So you support gay marriage as long as your church isn't forced to perform the ceremony?
A civil union is not a marriage. Trying to bar civil unions between gays is unethical to say the least. Barring gays from being priests or preachers is highly unpleasant. But Christian marriage has always been about sanctifying a sexual union for the production of children, the continuance of life and the glory of God, etc. Why should gays expect to be included? Please don't come up with fuzzy cuddly stuff about being in love. Love is one of the lesser ingredients.
Then why do churches bless the unions of people who couldn't possibly conceive children? (Like the elderly)
And what about gay couples who do have children?
Those are sort of good points. I imagine the elderly issue is left to God to decide (and lo there was a miracle! Or not). As for gays who have children- we haven't come to the point where two members of the same sex can produce children from their sexual union, so what would you be blessing?
It would have to be if they were post-menopausal, or if the woman had had a hysterectomy, right?
Some had children as part of a heterosexual relationship from before; we allow people to change their minds and end relationships/marriages if they're not fulfilling, but not the obligations of parenthood.
Also, gay couples use the methods infertile heterosexual couples use: IVF and adoption. Are infertile couples who use these methods not worthy of blessing?
"A civil union is not a marriage."
Right. That's why it isn't good enough to let gay people get "civil unioned" while everyone else gets to get "married."
It serves no other purpose but to create a group of second-class citizens.
Other religions have marriages too. And there are christian churches who have performed marriages.
Why should I care what the Christian definition of marriage is? If your church doesn't consider my marriage a marriage, wtf do I care? We are talking about government recognition. Which really isn't any of the church's business anyway.
Not all marriages are "Christian marriages." Christians don't have a monopoly on marriage. Marriages are performed by justices of the peace, judges, rabbis and I suppose clergy from other religions. Take your blinders off and look around the wide, wide world.
Indeed. By this reasoning atheists should not be allowed to marry, or infertile people (incl. the elderly) or those not planning to have kids.
Only at sea, on a ship that's a certain distance from land, and it's possible that "international waters" figures into it somewhere.
But I'm pretty sure it's still going to be recognized as a legal marriage.
Some places go as far as marriage of anyone over the age of 18
Yet that another can of worms, not too many are ready for.
Marring my Mother EEEHHHKK
It isn't. Nobody is trying to force anyone's church to perform gay marriages, or approve of them.
All gay people want is the right to get married (just like straight couples) in any church that will let them get married there. I couldn't get married in a Catholic church, for example, 'cos I'm not Catholic. Nobody cares, and nobody should.
But if the Catholic church tried to stop me from getting married anywhere else, then we'd have a big damn problem.
Funny, I obviously have not read this thread properly. I've missed the post where gay man and women are DEMANDING that the C of E marry gay men and women. I've only noticed that anti gay marriage campaign. C of E subscribers must be feeling pretty insecure if they think that such demands might be forced upon them.
There are plenty of "deeply Christian" gays, Protestant and Catholic, laymen, clergymen and even bishops.
I know. And you have to wonder at their distress. No amount of fudging the issues or creative re-reading of the bible will ever change the fact that marriage is very much intended as a union of men and women for the purposes of sanctioned reproduction.
I suppose my stupefaction is that overwhelming and incomprehensible need to fit in, be sanctioned by, be declared fit to exist by institutions that will never willingly give their blessing and were never designed to be inclusive.
Yes, what the world need most, is more population and more Religion
"No amount of fudging the issues or creative re-reading of the bible will ever change the fact that marriage is very much intended as a union of men and women for the purposes of sanctioned reproduction."
And no amount of fudging the issues or creative re-reading of the Constitution will ever change the fact that the Bible doesn't enter into it.
I suppose my stupefaction is that overwhelming and incomprehensible need to drive away and oppress people who never asked to be members of your exclusive "institutions" in the first place.
"Same sex marriage is just weird."
So are coin-collecting, battle reenactment, quarter-sized motorcycles, steampunk, and furries, but we don't try to ban those.
Not as weird as someone who talks about REAL life when discussing gay issues, only to later announce that they are NOT gay and have based their REAL life gay reality based on the life of one gay woman they have met, whom poporteredly , wasn't gay but had made a "lifestyle" choice. Yes, I was left feeling confused, too.
Anyway, that is more than enough for this evening.
I will just say before I go, that I was brought in the UK where believers are a rarity and I was subjected to hardly any religious propaganda.
My attitudes towards the Christian view of marriage were formed through conversations with a devout and very intelligent Catholic woman.
She was able to give me a glimpse of what she saw as one of the central and most powerful Christian mysteries and one of the cornerstones of her life. To my eyes her marriage was pretty so, so but to her it was filled with the light of God and other worldly powers etc. I mean there really was a completely other world for her and her sensitivity and intelligence were enough to give me a glimpse of it.
I don't happen to have any mystical or religious inclinations but I do feel the urge to protect the rights of those whose identity is bound up in their religious beliefs.
I reckon that if you can appreciate just what a religious ceremony like marriage means to people like this woman, you wouldn't be getting involved in trying to bend it out of the shape it has been in for the last two thousand years (or all eternity).
Her marriage would probably mean as much to her as my marriage means to me. As I am bi-sexual, if my marriage were to a woman it would mean EXACTLY the same thing.
And I was brought up in the US, which is supposedly full of religious propaganda. Based on our differing views on this hot-button topic of the day, you can't stereotype based on religious leanings or national citizenship when it comes to civil rights.
We aren't. You still don't grasp that. The Catholic Church will not perform gay marriages for quite some time, and when they eventually do, it will be because Catholics, not the state, demand it.
Do you know that the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for non-Catholics, or people who have been divorced? Non-Catholics and/or the divorced still have a legal recourse to get married: they can go to another church, or have a civil ceremony. Today, gay couples have no such recourse.
'Do you know that the Catholic Church will not perform marriages for non-Catholics, or people who have been divorced?'
Why on earth should they perform marriage for non-catholics? Why should they perform marriages for the divorced? Catholics take their beliefs seriously. They take vows made to their God seriously.
Culture wars in the US are starting to become a genuine issue because of a fundamental lack of respect for others beliefs.
This desire for everyone to meld together into one depressingly bland world view is a real enemy of diversity and the human imagination.
And I have seen a lot of studies that say that a lot of Catholics do use birth control.
Hmm... well, let me be clearer.
My point is that the Catholic Church is already not forced to perform marriages that it doesn't want to. In matters of policy, it responds to its adherents, not contemporary mores or statute. So all the fears that suddenly the Catholic Church will be forced to grant marriages to gay people by the state or "activists" are totally unfounded.
The culture wars in the US...and in your home country, and everywhere else...have always been an issue, and most often they are due to one group of people trying to exert control over another group of people. In the cases of gay marriage, abortion, and stem-cell research, to name a few, there is one group that wants to force everyone else to abide by their own standard of behavior. It's the "live and let live" vs the "do as I say (but not necessarily as I do)" crowds.
How you get that people fighting the restriction of other people's rights is an attempt to homogenize our culture is really rather silly.
It's the "live and let live" vs "do as I say."
It is more to do with the preservation of values and culture.
Catholic belief existed in the final era of the Roman Empire, throughout feudalism and will outlast capitalism.
It is a reservoir of the thoughts, feeling and experience of many millions of people.
When I see just how many entire cultures have perished in the last 2 hundred years- partly as a result of the lack of regard for peoples identities and inner worlds- I am obliged to cheer on those who will stay true to their causes.
As for forcing the Catholic church to marry people they don't want to marry- I realise that is not an issue. They simply would not do it no matter how many laws were passed or how many priests were burnt.
The voters said slavery was a good idea for a long time. And voters are never wrong, are they?
When the majority vote to remove the rights of a minority -- THAT is the Achilles' heel of a democracy which turns it from just to unjust.
Luckily, the wise creators of our Constitution recognized that problem and said we CAN"T vote to remove the rights of a minority. Which is what the court ruling said: it's unconstitutional to do that, and Prop 8 did that, so it was struck down.
You know the real irony?
The biggest outcry I saw yesterday was from Newt Gingrich complaining about meddling judges, when the judges were upholding the constitution. I think Newt's attitude is, "The gays didn't protect MY marriages, so they can't have any! Ha!"
It's also ironic that the biggest lobby that poured BILLIONS of dollars into California to get prop 8 passed was the Church of LDS. Mormons, of course, are experts on the fact that marriage is, and has always been defined, as "one man and one woman."
I don't know. I just know that as long as Prop 8 was up, I couldn't marry the person I love. Now I can. Now I'll have legal grounds to provide for my spouse and children. How on earth is that threatening anyone else's marriage!?
Just last week I was talking with my conservative father about tax considerations, and he figured out that I'm paying a much, much higher tax rate even though my income is much, much less partly because I have to file as an individual. I pointed out to him that gay couples have to file as individuals no matter if they've been together 50 years, and that each can only claim a dependent if the other person hasn't, and he finally got it. We're talking about the legal institution of marriage... which IS a legal institution.
Your religion may define the COVENANT of marriage for you in certain ways particular to that religion (Christian, Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindi or whatever -- each have their own definitions), but the government can't define the religious side of things, because that's religion's job -- and vice versa. Religions don't get to define legal institutions to enforce beliefs unique to one religion... because they'd be doing it against the beliefs of other American citizens!
Can a government define the moral side of things?
Yep, sure can.
America always has.
Morality can be defined and legislated, and America has done so since the inception of American law. We legislate situations like murder and situations like lying, all of which are moral issues. The only reason we're having a hard time legislating sexual issues is because the Left wants to bring their bedroom activities into the public eye, for what ungodly reason they won't admit.
They want your blessing, Brenda. They cannot bear that you might disaprove of them. Poor lambs.
LMAO! Yes, the entire gay community is actively seeking Brenda's blessing.
Actually, I think what bothers people like you and Brenda is that we honestly don't give a flying fig what your opinions are. We know that you all are essentially having temper tantrums because-try as you might-you are loosing more of your control over society each day.
It sucks to become a minority when you have had power so long. There are now 7 out of 50 states that allow gay marriage. In ten years, I expect that half of the states will allow and by the time my grandchildren marry, most if not all will. It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
I could see a future for myself as a Christian apologist. In a recent survey of protestant ministers in Holland, 6 per cent described themselves as atheists.
I can respect that. Meaning is at least as important as truth for those people. And human beings are central to their beliefs.
Not quite. But gays and Brenda have something in common: neither of our marriages are recognized as valid by the Catholic Church. Marriages between 2 men, 2 women, or a man and a woman that had been divorced, apparently all horrify Catholics (and maybe you by extension). Jesus Christ didn't mention gay people, and condemned second marriages between divorced people, hence the Catholic Church's doctrine on the matter.
But, like Brenda, gays don't really care that there are churches like the Catholic Church that don't recognize their nuptials; as long as the state does, so they have access to those rights and privileges reserved for married couples, the lack of recognition by many churches is irrelevant.
And, much like the fact that Catholics can peacefully coexist with divorced people who have remarried and have their marriage recognized as valid by the state, so will Catholics coexist with married gay people. In fact, they already do.
Finally, a post of yours that I find relevant and interesting.
Not that I agree with it, nor that I find some of the comparisons valid. One point I can relate to, however. I have friends in the Catholic Church, and even though I disagree with some of the basic doctrine, I don't take personal offense if they don't include me in things like communion; I simply see it as a doctrinal error on the part of the Catholic leadership and hope that someday they'll see their way to correcting their error from the top down, or perhaps from the bottom up. After all, they're not the American Legislature, so I can't hold them to legal accountability unless they try to impose their specific doctrine upon everyone.
Just compelling enough to ask this question---
Do you think that the average nonChristian such as yourself sees Catholicism as the epitome of "Christianity", and that's why they're so adamantly oppositional to any perceived moral authority or imposition in the Christian community?
I can't speak on behalf of all non-Christians, but Catholicism is just one of many Christian sects. On matters of marriage, they are clearly much more fundamentalist than the more liberalized Protestant branches. That's right, Brenda: you're a liberal.
That's why I tend to when Christians condemn gay marriage, but then get divorce and remarried themselves.
No, I'm not a liberal, unless by some off-chance you mean actually FREE. Which I am. But not in the way you mean it. I'm free by the blood of the perfect Jesus Christ's option of gaining absolution from my sins through His forgiveness. Something I've told you about time after time but which you obstinately refuse to consider. Otherwise, you'd see that Jesus Christ's sacrifice is indeed the only way anyone can ever be truly free. It comes at the cost of His death and was finished when He resurrected, praise His holy name!
The cost to a person, though, is minimal. All it requires is trusting Him to help us with our temptations. Seems like such a small price, but apparently it's above the pay grade of those who are rebellious.....
You, too, Jason, can be FREE. Free from all the confusion, free from all the issues that keep you in disbelief. I've seen it happen to alcoholics, and I've seen it happen for homosexuals too, seen lives changed at the foot of the Cross. Nothing is impossible.
And I'm not alone in having seen such things. There are others, both famous and unknown, who have witnessed in the public eye about the power of Jesus over all of mankind's frailties toward temptation.
There are, I'm sure, many many who you would surely find worth listening to; whether you consider me worth listening to or not is irrelevant to your soul, it's only relevant to mine; but that you listen to someone IS relevant. I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but I am a witness for Jehovah. I'm not a Jew, but I am still, and simply, a watcher on the wall sounding the shofar as commanded.
"No, I'm not a liberal, unless by some off-chance you mean [someone who picks and chooses which bits of scripture to obey, and which bits to conveniently ignore]."
There, fixed it for you.
My, you're so handy today Jeff!
I could use someone to re-finish my wood floors and fix the wiring in my house. Are you an electrician and construction worker too, by any chance?
Thanks, Brenda. In turn, I hope you one day become a good Christian, who follows in Christ's path instead of just constantly speaking on his behalf.
And since this is a political discussion, instead of a religious one, let's return to that. You can begin breathing fire about liberals again.
It's fine with me if religion isn't discussed on this thread. You should of course note that it wasn't me who brought up religion! There was already religious talk in it before I came into it, including the post of yours where you accused someone of being from the Phelps Church.
So, take credit where credit is due, how 'bout that?!
No, you're right, that was AnnCee. But, as I said before earlier in this thread, the only opposition you see these days to gay marriage rights tends to come from very religious Christians and Muslims, so the religious aspect is unavoidable.
But spending an entire post trying to get someone to convert to your sect is really more of a threadjack, Brenda.
Unlike your posts where you enjoy using entire posts to convert people to the heterophobia sect, right?
And actually, Mighty Mom brought religion into the original post to start with! So there ya go.
Try actually considering parrster's posts. Now there's some common-sense questions that address the legal issue from a political view as well as a religious view; good stuff; I'm personally finding the first link and the last link hugely interesting and readable, and thinking of reading the other links too.
(Thanks to parrster!)
Why would marriage between divorced people horrify me? I am not a Catholic.
Having said, I accept that to Catholics it is unacceptable because it represents a breaking of the vows that they have taken to God.
If you cannot respect other peoples customs you should be wary of travel and you should probably never think of living outside of California.
I was responding to your posts, even though it was clear you weren't reading mine through very well. With this type of disrespectful suggestion, I'll give up now.
It can be disheartening to be told that one is not the center of the universe either in space or time.
That's why people like you and Brenda turn a deaf ear when people say it to you I guess.
Denial sucks. Good luck with that.
I guess the sadism of her form of "God" passes on to the followers too.
"The only reason we're having a hard time legislating sexual issues is because the Right wants to bring their prying eyes to bear on people's private bedroom activities, for what ungodly reason they won't admit."
There, fixed it for you.
So far only Brenda has offered an answer to the question: Can a government define the moral side of things?
Because if they can, the next question is whether homosexuality is a moral issue.
Many approving of homosexuality claim it is not a moral issue, thereby placing ethics at arms-length so as to focus on the social and political promotion of homosexuality.
However, most definitions i could find commonly define morality as encompassing “right conduct"; that is, a person's behaviour. Marriage commitment and sexual conduct are both laced with moral issues such as 1) What ought marriage be defined as? 2) How should a marriage be dissolved? 3) What ought to be the age restrictions on marriage? 4) Should we be free to have sex with anyone we want to? 5) Should sex be restricted to marriage partners only? 6) Who decides what is right and wrong inside of marriage? These issues are, by nature, moral, and the claim that homosexuality is not a moral issue is simply false.
What is the basis of morality?
Many claim the 'moral right' to have sex with anyone they want, or have the 'right' to marry a person of the same sex, but on what are such morals and rights based? If they reply that society and personal preferences determine morality, there are problems that arise.
First, what would they do if society said that homosexuality is morally wrong and homosexuals should be isolated from everyone else? Logically, it would mean that homosexuals would have to agree with such isolation.
Second, if a society determines what is right morally, then why did the homosexuals work against society to get the moral standards changed to agree with their moral preferences?
Third, if a society determines what is right and wrong, then can they legitimately complain against the Nazi Society that murdered Jews in World War II?
Fourth. If morality is based on personal preferences, then what do you do when the preferences of one person contradict the preferences of another in moral issues?
Lastly. If morality is based on personal preferences and one person's opinion contradicts another, who's morality is right?
Rather than address these questions, the imagery of homosexual sex is downplayed and gay rights reduced to an abstract social question with “anti-discrimination” as its theme.
So, I ask again. Can governments define the moral side of things?
If they can't, you have a lot of problems to address.
If they can, how?
http://www.reformedonline.com/view/refo … omosex.htm
Great stuff, from viewpoints of legalities and personal conscience too.
And CARM is great, a site where secularists & atheists as well as Christians and other religious people are free to discuss all manner of topics. I think there's only one subject where I disagree with Matt Slick, and that would be Calvinism (although I don't necessarily disagree with all the points of that either). I haven't been there for a while; this reminds me that I've been missing it.
Thanks again for your post and links; all very relevant to this thread topic.
"So far only Brenda has offered an answer to the question: Can a government define the moral side of things?"
A wrong answer, but yeah.
What is the basis of morality?
Many claim the 'moral right' to have sex with anyone they want, or have the 'right' to marry a person of the same sex, but on what are such morals and rights based? If they reply that society and personal preferences determine morality, there are problems that arise.
The assertion of the right to marry a willing partner is based on the fact that as long as the partner is an informed, competent, consenting adult, nobody's rights are violated. As many of the Right have argued when someone makes a stink about state-sponsored religious observances, you don't have the right never to be offended.
First, what would they do if society said that homosexuality is morally wrong and homosexuals should be isolated from everyone else? Logically, it would mean that homosexuals would have to agree with such isolation.
No, that is not a logical conclusion. I mean, really, how did you reach it?
Second, if a society determines what is right morally, then why did the homosexuals work against society to get the moral standards changed to agree with their moral preferences?
Society does not determine what is right morally. Society merely agrees upon how it wants its members to behave. Homosexuals worked against societal standards because the standards were wrong. Morally.
Third, if a society determines what is right and wrong, then can they legitimately complain against the Nazi Society that murdered Jews in World War II?
If society determines what is right and wrong, then nobody can legitimately complain against any societal act. But society doesn't determine what's right and wrong.
Fourth. If morality is based on personal preferences, then what do you do when the preferences of one person contradict the preferences of another in moral issues?
Well, are your preferences interfering with someone else's rights? If so, then you ought to stop (as the preferences of the Religious Right are interfering with the rights of gay people, they should stop, and be satisfied that they, in their own opinions, at least, are morally superior.)
[b]Lastly. If morality is based on personal preferences and one person's opinion contradicts another, who's morality is right?[b/]
As long as nobody's rights are being violated, it doesn't matter.
Two gay guys getting married doesn't infringe upon anybody's rights of free exercise of religion or anything else.
But trying to make it illegal for two gay guys to get married does infringe on someone's rights: those of the two gay guys who want to marry.
It interferes with their restful sleep and affects their digestion. Also, we have confirmed cases of apoplexy and increased blood pressure.
Lol, PQ. I'm a non-homophobic Christian, so I sleep just fine! I just don't understand the general attitude toward gays. According to my Methodist minister pal, sin is sin in the eyes of God. If homosexuality is a sin, it's no bigger sin than lying or taking God's name in vain, and I'm relatively sure that there's not a Christian in the world who hasn't done one of these. Why can't we, as Christians, stop being so judgmental? I really try to adhere to Matthew 7:1 and not judge others whose actions are not harming anyone. And that brings me to another point. Some say that gay marriage will open the door to marrying children or animals. Children are not of legal age for consent, and animals can't voice their consent. We're talking about CONSENTING ADULTS with gay marriage. Big difference.
I sin. I overeat, I lust, I smoke, and I sometimes tell what I consider "little white lies." I don't want to be judged by the Christian community. I'd rather leave my fate in the hands of God. According to Emily Dickinson, He's "a noted clergyman." lol
By any chance for older men? :-)
Lol, Ralph. I love men - older, younger, same age, etc. Not too young, though. I think 35 would be the limit at the low end. The high end would be around 80. BTW, I'm married to an older man - Johnny is 65. He's great! He puts up with all my flirting - he knows he has my heart.
And Ralph, you're a sexy guy! Attractive, intelligent, and considerate, with a sense of humor. Four biggies! BUT...even more important, do you love big dogs, southern cooking, horses, and saltwater fishing??
I sin. I overeat, I lust, I smoke, and I sometimes tell what I consider "little white lies."
Habee, you sound like mind kind of woman.
You still haven't answered my question; Can a government define the moral side of things?
And another question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a morally superior position on any subject?
You have asserted that as long as the homosexual relationship consists of partners that are “informed, competent, consenting adult[s], nobody's rights are violated”. However, this raises only more questions; Informed about what? Competent at what? And are we only talking of legal adulthood? Because that age will change depending on the country. And what do you mean by 'rights'? Is this a right that was given by someone, or just inherent in the human condition; that because we are human we have the 'right' to do what we want?
You have asserted “Society does not determine what is right morally. Society merely agrees upon how it wants its members to behave. Homosexuals worked against societal standards because the standards were wrong. Morally.”
I'm sorry, but that was pure gobbledygook. On the one hand you are saying society doesn't decide on morals (standards), but they do decide on behaviour (are you saying behaviour has nothing to do with morals?). But the standards (morals?) they decide upon, homosexuals work again because they're wrong.
I agree with you that Homosexuals work against societal standards, but you have not made it clear why those standards are wrong; or right.
Then you assert “But society doesn't determine what's right and wrong.”
But that just raises the question: How do we determine what is right and wrong, if society does not have that capacity?
And lastly, you use the term “rights” five times in your closing paragraph. However, what do you mean by 'right'?
Was that 'right' determined arbitrarily?
To what do you go to for authority to say mankind has 'rights'?
"You still haven't answered my question; Can a government define the moral side of things?"
Yes, I did: no, it can't.
A government doesn't get to decide what is moral and immoral. It gets to make laws. An immoral act does not become moral simply because it has been made legal, and a moral act does not become immoral simply because it has been made illegal.
Is that clear enough?
However, this raises only more questions; Informed about what?
Informed about the arrangement they are entering into. If one partner has withheld important information, for example, a marriage can be ruled invalid (there is legal precedent for this).
Competent at what?
Competent at operating a remote-controlled aircraft. Mentally competent, of course.
And are we only talking of legal adulthood? Because that age will change depending on the country.
We have to talk about legal adulthood. Sure, I've known some 15-year-olds who are more mature than some 30-year olds I've met online, but there needs to be some line drawn legally for across-the-board legal fairness. In a nation ruled by a benevolent dictator, we can determine adulthood on a case-by-case basis, but in a nation ruled by law, we must of necessity draw an arbitrary line, knowing that even though in some cases it will be unfair, in most cases it will be fair.
And what do you mean by 'rights'? Is this a right that was given by someone, or just inherent in the human condition; that because we are human we have the 'right' to do what we want?
It's just inherent in the human condition; because we are human beings, we have the right to do as we want, as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of other humans.
And lastly, you use the term “rights” five times in your closing paragraph. However, what do you mean by 'right'?
Do you genuinely have no idea what I mean by 'right,' or are you just trying to nitpick? What do you mean by "mean?" What do you mean by "you?" What do you mean by "paragraph?" Define all of the terms you use to my satisfaction, and maybe I can answer you.
To what do you go to for authority to say mankind has 'rights'?
Ah, here's where the Religion+State apologists will insist that all authority comes from God, and without God, there are no rights. I assert my rights on my own authority. Because I think justice is important, I assume that any right that I assert for myself is also extended to every other human being.
There are plenty of things that don't hurt other people, but that I have no wish to do. But that doesn't mean that nobody has the right to do those things.
Yes, two men can have a child. It's called adoption. What about women who cannot conceive? Should they not be allowed to marry?
I have no problem with gays joining in a legalized recognition of their commitment. Marriage is a religious concept, it has only become a man thing because of a piece of paper. I think the paper is useless. and that all unions should be between one person and another. I don't even think a holy representative should be involved. Marriage would be that two people agree they are married. Divorce, the same way.
As several have pointed out above, marriage is not solely a religious concept and certainly not the concept of a single religion. Many people are married in non-religious ceremonies and in ceremonies of many other religions than the Christian religion.
Athiests get married all the time, so much for a religious concept. Marriage (between two people, regardless of sex or beliefs) should be a right for everyone. As far as gay marriage, again, it should of been a right to begin with. There's no need to but the issue on the ballot. By doing that, you're letting total strangers decide if you can get married or not. My message to people who are against gay marriage, mind your own business because it doesn't concern you!
I imagine atheists who marry are thinking of children, like the idea of the commitment and want legal protection for each other. I doubt if many atheists get married in a church.
I strongly suspect that many of the gays who want a church marriage are struggling with very different issues- principally of not genuinely accepting themselves. They hope that the blessing of thier church in a marriage ceromony will make them feel better.
Should a sacrament be used for this purpose? Well if you think sacroments don't really matter, maybe. A modest church ceromony is probably cheaper than several years of therapy.
Personally, I think the self-persecuting would be better off learning to bear their own burdens or, better still, finding support from people who genuinely want to give it.
I've known, friends with and worked around gays and lesbians most of my life and I never met one who didn't accept themselves. They except their sexuality as much as you accept yours.
I agree atheists, and I'm sure same sex coules would rather get married by a judge or in a netural place like the beach or a community center. But usually it comes down to who's paying for the wedding. lol
I'm not quite sure why anyone thinks that gays want to get married for reasons that are any different from the reasons that straights get married.
And although it seems to have been repeated over and over again, sometimes it just doesn't seem to sink in. Marriage equality has absolutely NOTHING to do with a religious ceremony. A gay couple that wants a religious service can already have one in any number of churches, while any church that finds the idea to be too far outside their dogma has the option to not perform such ceremonies, and neither of these facts would be changed.
Marriage equality is nothing more and nothing less than the legal recognition of the agreement between two gay partners in *exactly* the same way that the union of two heterosexual partners is legally recognized. And despite what many people with religious objections want to insist, their 'church wedding' is legally irrelevant. The *only* marriage that is legally recognized is the civil agreement represented by the marriage license.
Maybe we should adopt the French policy. In order to receive legal recognition, the marriage *must* be performed at the French equivalent of city hall by someone with the civil authority to perform marriages; religious ceremonies are not recognized legally, at all, ever. If you want a religious ceremony, you're free to have one after the civil ceremony is taken care of, but it has no legal standing. Sure, two ceremonies might be a bit annoying for some people, but at least it makes the point that the legal side has nothing to do with the religious side.
'despite what many people with religious objections want to insist, their 'church wedding' is legally irrelevant.'
I don't think this is true. Church marriage is as legal as any other where I come from.
The question is why do some gays crave the blessing of their church? The issue for them is not legality or they would be happy with civil unions- it is psychological or perhaps spiritual.
You answered your own question...without having to ask any gay Christian who belongs to a homophobic church, none of whom are in this thread.
I would actually listen to a gay Christian since I have never encountered one. And I certainly wouldn't try to talk anyone out of their own experience.
The issue for me though, is the way so many people seem to think that core sacraments in major religions can just be changed lightly to suit the moods of the time and their selfish needs. And the expectation that conservative adherents should swallow their objections or be labelled evil.
No, not really. The vast majority of same-sex marriage proponents are talking about the civil institution. I have yet to hear of any of us asking churches to change their policies.
Whether any particular church chooses to marry same-sex couples or not is entirely an internal matter to the church.
The problem is that the issue is constantly confused, and civil marriage equality proponents are continually being accused of trying to meddle in ecclesiastical matters, when we are not.
Well, there we are. A point where we can agree.
Something I would say- if I choose to address the issue of gays who want church marriages (and there are some) that is my prerogative. If you want to stay on message as an advocate of civil unions, I wish you well.
You can get legally married in a church, but simply being married in a church does not make it a legal marriage. If the person that performs the ceremony is not recognized by the state as having the authority to perform marriages, then you're not legally married. If the state has not issued a marriage license to you and your partner, then you're not legally married. If that marriage license is not properly completed and returned, then you're not legally married.
On the other hand, if the person that performs the ceremony has the legal authority to do so, you have a valid marriage license, and that license is completed and returned properly, then you're legally married, no matter what words are spoken during your 'ceremony.' For that matter, there's no real requirement for any sort of ceremony, religious or otherwise. The only thing that counts in a legal sense is that license - legally, marriage is nothing more than a state-approved contract between two consenting adults. And marriage equality is about nothing more than the state recognizing those contracts in exactly the same way regardless of the gender of the two adults involved.
@parrster a few years after this marrying monkeys. humans we are serious threat to ourselves.
Here's a case of some Christians thinking civil unions "don't count"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religio … uests.html
Much simpler to have gay people properly marry to make the discrimination clear cut and harder to deny (not that they got away with it).
Ok, I was little harsh with Livelonger. But then he had told me I was silly earlier. And we do agree on civil unions.
I simply cannot understand why anyone wants to interfere or even offer a critical commentary on the religious beliefs of other people.
Just as an example, I happen to think it is harsh and unnecessary that Catholics won't marry divorcees but what does it matter what I think?
That kind of viewpoint is entirely too sane Will Apse.
What do you think would happen if more people thought like you?
Too horrible for any truly righteous person to even contemplate.
I agree completely. What you seem to have been missing all along is that I've been agreeing with this point the whole time. Churches can believe and do whatever they want. They have been. The Catholic Church has been running to its own tune on marriage for a very long time. More power to them.
This discussion has only been about civil marriage (a state institution, which confers hundreds of unique rights), which is different from both civil unions (a second-class status only for gay relationships) and religious marriages (a religious, cultural sacrament).
By the way, I didn't call you silly. I said one of your arguments was.
'By the way, I didn't call you silly. I said one of your arguments was.'
Sorry, but the ninja assassins have already been dispatched and cannot now be recalled.
Please know that I forgive you, though.
Edit: I forgo to mention that in the UK, Civil Unions (though, I think they are called civil partnerships now), convey rights that are almost identical to Civil Marriage. There is nothing second class on the legal front.
I suspect that the word marriage will always stick in the throats of Christians so why not campaign for the rights not the word? There is no need to crush ones opponents entirely.
It matters because States provide "marriage licenses".
If States only offered "civil unions" and you had to go to a church if you wanted a "marriage" and if all laws referred to "civil unions" where they now mention "marriage", then no, it would not matter.
But because it is as it is, it DOES matter.
I do think you should give due weight to the entirely legitimate feelings of Christians in this area. Trample on any group and they become bitter.
Do you really need any more bitterness than already exists in US politics?
There are a lot more important issues than gay unions.
More important because they affect more people?
I would agree, but giving attention to this doesn't dilute my attention to the others and these things can be VERY important to individuals.
Right is right even if only one person is wronged.
"I do think you should give due weight to the entirely legitimate feelings of Christians in this area. Trample on any group and they become bitter."
Sure, but in what way are Christians being trampled on, exactly? Are they being stopped from doing anything they want to do?
we should all just go straight to the "attitudes" thread - becuz that is really what this is all about!
Maybe thirty more years and this social issue will die bec. by that time most permissive societies like the US (and most states) will approve the same sex marriage (hopefully not only civil but church union). By then, laws towards family formation is better. It is inevitable and most of us can't wait for it to happen.
If you can persuade Christians that this is the right way to go, that would be wonderful.
I think it might be a tough ask with the Pope of today, one thousand years ago or thirty years hence.
Persuade Christians? Persuade homosexuals that having sex with the other gender is normal, can you do it?
Having sex with the other gender is normal for heterosexuals. 10% of the animal kingdom, including humans, are homosexual who consider having sex with the same gender IS normal.
Why would anyone need to persuade the Christians who oppose gay marriage of anything? I'm fine with them believing whatever they like.
I missed this yesterday, Christians need to know that the heterosexual way of marriage and having children thanks to them has now lead to the over population of the planet, so maybe gay marriage might just be a good thing, especially in keeping the numbers down
I agree that the Catholic church is more restrictive and this is the reason why their membership is declining, while other Christian denominations are becoming more permissive.
There are also knowledge, attitude towards social issues and practices gaps among members of the different churches.
Here's another example: In the state of Florida, a Notary Public can perform a marriage ceremony.
Is a couple 'really' married if a Notary Public performs the ceremony? According to many churches, no, they aren't. But according to the laws of the State of Florida, yes, they are.
So why can't a notary public marry two dudes? No reason other than to ensure that a certain small minority will always be second-class citizens.
by Prophecy Teacher5 months ago
Is it reasonable to assume that 13 different Christian Chartered Colonies, would send to a convention in Philadelphia a group of men - to make a Constitution - that allowed their way of life to end? Is it further...
by Nicola Thompson3 years ago
Just after Same-Sex marriage was legalized in California - It's been immediately asked to be "intervened by the court". Should it be? After all, isn't that how a democracy works?
by Laurel Rogers6 years ago
Thank God for civil rights!NPR BREAKING NEWS:Reports: California's Ban On Same-Sex Marriages Ruled UnconstitutionalA federal judge in San Francisco has overturned Proposition 8 in a landmark case that could eventually...
by Specificity7 years ago
I know we already have a same-sex marriage thread in Politics, but that one has already grown so large that I thought I would start something different here. Generally, my political leanings are Libertarian, which...
by mohamedhmm7 years ago
I believe we are as human kind we should defend our human rights and our wellness from any harmful act such as same sex; so, let's come together to protect our human rights and keep our society safe for us and next...
by Holle Abee4 years ago
Is he for it, or against it? In 2008, he said he was against it. Now Axelrod says the POTUS is for it. I'm really curious. Have his views evolved?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.