Gay Marrage

---

Let two gay guys try showing up over in Iran to get married and see what happens...I don't think it'd go down to well there either. Is Iran your ideal? You would be an apostate there.You're saying that marriage is defined and a union between a man and a woman and therefore it should remain that way. Using that logic, slavery was once defined as the rightful dominion of God's chosen over lesser people. Thankfully thinking evolves as civilization progresses, although the thinking of religious fundamentalists does not evolve at all. That does not work for a non-theocratic constitutional democracy, as the U.S. purports to be (unlike Iran).Thor, as far as driving the political/social agenda, your days (and those of your right-wing fundamentalist brethren) are numbered. If you've followed the polls for the past 20 years, you will see that people are getting more comfortable with homosexual marriage. People under 35 have much less of an issue with it than people over 45 do. Certain areas (the same areas that were dragged kicking and screaming into the civil right era) will be slower to get on board, but it will happen eventually.The same bible that condemns homosexuality, and purports to define marriage, also says that you can sell your daughter into slavery (Ex. 21:7), that people who work on the Sabbath should be put to death (Ex. 35:2), that eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10; it's not anymore? Than why is homosexuality? Jesus never said anything at all about homosexuality's being a problem). Shouldn't you put to death your neighbors who trim the hair around their temples (Lev. 19:27)?Running a government based on scripture is fine for an Islamic republic, but not for an actual democracy. And I have news for you: the United States is not a Christian nation. We've been through that one before. Are the intentions of the framers of the Constitution still a mystery to you?By the way, as far as the government is concerned, marriage is a legal contract. If it's a religious one, than the government needs to get out of the business of sanctioning marriage, and just sanction civil unions. If you want a marriage, then you can go to the mosque of your choice.

Shouldn't you put to death your neighbors who trim the hair around their temples (Lev. 19:27)?Is that why the Orthodox-Jews have those funky locks of hair from their temples? If so, I learned something new again today.

Yes indeed. Also, the fringy things they wear around their waste.

If homosexuality is an abomination to God, why isn't contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual_ uncleanness (Lev.15: 19-24) also an abomination?

Go eddie!

In reply to:The Bible already has rights on the term "marriage" and has defined what it means.It appears that the concept of marriage is older than Judaism; it is certainly found in nearly all societies, of any religion or none. It appears that society as a whole has prior rights to the term.

Since he appears to be a fundamentalist, he probably thinks that the universe was formed 6000 years ago ("young Earth"), and there was no previous civilization. His great grandfather had a brontosaurus as a pet.You need to understand the fundamentalist mind: The answers to all important questions were revealed a long time ago, inspired by the angry, vengeful God of the time, and what is written (even though originally written in ambiguous language and translated differently in its various incarnations) is inerrant. There is really nothing to debate. Arguing about religious doctrine with a fundamentalist is like pushing against a wall -- almost. A wall doesn't push back. What he doesn't get is that no one "owns" the word "marriage". He also doesn't get the fact that our laws don't come from the bible, and that non-Christians, and even non-believers, are every bit as much legitimate citizens as he is, and deserve the same rights under the Constitution. The U.S. is not a Christian nation. Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution, and the Constitution is the defining document for the republic.

If you look all over the world, yes...but we are in the US. Here, it is the Christian (and therefor Jewish also) God...hence the Bible definitions which Christians (and Jews the OT) accept as God's word.BUT...since you mention it...I wonder if we went to other religions (Gods) and looked at what their definition (and therefor rules) were concerning marriage if we'd find gay marriage acceptable. Something tells me the answer would be a big "NO".

\> hence the Bible definitions which Christians (and Jews the OT) accept as God's word.
No, it's what **fundamentalist** Jews, Christians, and Moslems believe.
Since the U.S. is a Republic based on a secular Constitution rather than on any holy book, what various religions think of the definition of marriage is irrelevant. Slavery is acceptable according to your scriptures. According to the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, slavery is not acceptable.
Society is coming to accept same-sex marriage as it now accepts interracial marriage. Your biblical ideas are irrelevant. Sharia law (or its Hebrew or Christian equivalent) do not exist here. What other religions think of marriage is also irrelevant.
Ancient Greek and Roman civilizations had a pretty liberal attitude toward homosexuality, didn't they?

In reply to:we are in the USI'm not.In reply to:Here, it is the Christian (and therefor Jewish also) GodIsn't that assertion unconstitutional?

He can't seem to disentangle the ideas of "Constition" and "scripture". Some people's ideas may be motivated by their religious beliefs, but at the end of it all, the U.S. is driven by the will of the people, and not the scriptures. If the majority of people believe that same-sex marriage should be legal, it will become legal.

After all, abortion is legal. Embryonic stem cell research is legal (even if not funded by the federal government). Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and has been for a number of years. So far the sky hasn't fallen anywhere in Massachusetts.

But what can you say to a person who thinks that homosexuality is an abomination before God (presumably the same God who made said homosexuals).

Hmmm... following some these definitions I don't think I'm allowed to marry. Although I may be straight, it seems that it is a requirement to believe in god.Personally I don't give a shit about what it says in the Bible/Koran/Torah etc. (as interesting as they may be) for me marriage means a commitment for someone (supposedly...) for life.I think that definition would come across with the overwhelming YES. Marriage has become a non-religious tradition just as much as a religious one. I don't think any religious groups having defining rights over it. Although I do concede Thor's point that a civil union or the like is the same in all but name, I think the name does count. One day I'd like to say I'm MARRIED to so-and-so rather than I'm "civil unionedededed" to so-and-so.Just my 10 cents (as we don't have 1s, 2s and as of a few months time 5 cents left here in NZ )

> Marriage has become a non-religious tradition

As it almost certainly was at the beginning of human civilization, before the religious folks appropriated the word.

Why would it be sad that the US just removed that theory unless you wanted it there?Clearly you miss understood the underlining idea that it sad that they just NOW removed it, when it should have been removed years ago. I am happy they removed it, but it should have been done a long time ago.Though Steve already covered it I want to reiterate that the USA is not a Christian nation, we are a democracy. We are not to be run by religion but instead by the people. Religion is still going to influence people, though I think if you are going to hold any political office a requirement needs to be that they can truly separate their religious beliefs from their political office. An idealistic notion, but I still hold on to it.Thor I would love for you to go back and awesome some of the questions I laid out before you. They were some pretty basic and straightforward questions that I would love to hear the answers too, unless you don’t have any or I made too much common sense for you?

"Since the U.S. is a Republic based on a secular Constitution rather than on any holy book, what various religions think of the definition of marriage is irrelevant."We've had this disagreement before. Get yourself a few books, do some research and get a clue.

"Though Steve already covered it I want to reiterate that the USA is not a Christian nation, we are a democracy. We are not to be run by religion but instead by the people. Religion is still going to influence people, though I think if you are going to hold any political office a requirement needs to be that they can truly separate their religious beliefs from their political office. An idealistic notion, but I still hold on to it."This nation was created by Christians who wove the Bible into the documents that stand as a backbone to this country and the freedoms we have here. If you wanted only non-religious types in office you'd have had no founding fathers. Are you getting it yet? The very foundation of this country that created the great freedoms we have here are the result of Christian values that came from Christian folks who held office here. Christians are the most tolerant lot on the planet, and yet you would choose to wipe out that which created a safe haven for your open lifestyle that would have to have been held in the closet had it been most any other religion. So instead of saying "Thank You", you think it's OK to undermine the institution of marriage as defined long before this country ever existed. You think you have the right to change what marriage means for everyone else. I call that self-centered and arrogant. You asked."Thor I would love for you to go back and awesome some of the questions I laid out before you. They were some pretty basic and straightforward questions that I would love to hear the answers too, unless you don’t have any or I made too much common sense for you?"If you really want my answers, I'll answer what questions you like right here if you'll ask them again. I'm not big on going back and trying to sift through everything you've written trying to find what questions I feel I've answered and which I haven't. So, if you REALLY want my answers...

>This nation was created by Christians who wove the Bible into the documents that stand as a backbone to this country and the freedoms we have here.

Will I debate that our founding fathers were Christians? No I won't. But they did not base the constitution completely off the bible. They created the constitution so ALL people are treated equally. In this topic homosexuals are not being treated equally. Not just in the context of marriage but there are also many states that it's legal to fire someone simply because they are gay. In most of the country it's also not a hate crime to attack someone or even kill someone for simply being gay, something they have no control over.

>Christians are the most tolerant lot on the planet, and yet you would choose to wipe out that which created a safe haven for your open lifestyle that would have to have been held in the closet had it been most any other religion.

ROFL! What fantasy world do you live in? Now I am not saying there are not tolerant Christians out there, because I know there are. But to say they are the MOST tolerant I think is a bit extreme. Perhaps you have no seen the Christians that have been picketing homosexual funerals saying they are going to hell and they are glad they were killed, have you missed these? Or what about the Christians thanking god for hurricane Katrina and for 9-11? How tolerant are they?

How tolerant are these people that they will not allow people who love each other to marry each other under the eyes of god? How tolerant are these people that they would judge me and said I am an abomination and I am going to hell? How tolerant are these people who call my house saying they are Christians that want to stop the progression of homosexuals in the USA (granted they hang up once they get an ear full from me about how rude and ignorant they are)? And you have the nerve to tell me Christians are the most tolerant of people? Sometimes I am ashamed to call myself a Christians, not because I don't love my god but because these Christians give the rest of us good true Christians a bad name.

>So instead of saying "Thank You", you think it's OK to undermine the institution of marriage as defined long before this country ever existed.

I'm sorry I should be saying Thank You?? I'll be saying thank you when I get an apology for treating me like a second rate citizen and trying to make me less of a human being. When I get an "I'm sorry" than they will get a "Thank You" from me.

And I am not trying to undermine the institution of marriage; I want to be allowed to have under the eyes of the law and my god to be part of the institution of marriage. I find it sad that two people who love each other are denied a basic right of getting married and having it recognized in their family and government not to mention their religion.

You also keep forgetting that the bible original defined marriage as two people who love each other under the eyes of god, NOT a man and a woman. It wasn't until years later when the bible was re-written to make it easier to read and understand did the Christian community decide they would alter the words in the bible to state it was between a man and a woman. If you don't believe me, do some research.

>You think you have the right to change what marriage means for everyone else. I call that self-centered and arrogant. You asked.

Incase you haven't noticed, most people define marriage as being between two people who love each other. If you ask random people to define marriage, most people will say "two people who love each other". So we are not trying to change anything, we are just trying to enforce the true meaning behind marriage. Even away from the whole religious side of things, people should be allowed to have the same rights as others in this country which includes recognized marriage by law.

I certainly don't call wanting equal rights as being self-centered or arrogant. I call it deserved if we are expecting to pay the same taxes as everyone else. We certainly should not be discriminated against and be made to be less of a citizen. You said before that marriage is to be used to have children, should people who are straight but want no children be revoked the right of marriage since they want no children?

As for the questions, considering I don't think you answered any of them, it should be pretty easy for you.

Wake up and smell the coffee...marriage is NOT a right guaranteed by the Constitution or anything else. That's a lie fostered by folks like you who want to change what marriage is and will use any excuse to do so. Driving a car is also not a right...though many seem to think so. You have to meet certain qualifications first...one of them being able to see. But does a blind person scream about not being granted the privelidge of driving a car? No...and well they should not! So what justification do you have for screaming? You got it into your mind somehow that marriage is a right. Sorry, but you're wrong. Male/male and female/female couples don't qualify.Homosexuals are not being treated equally? Well...in certain areas they're not equal are they? Can you guess which areas? Now perhaps can you guess what the results of not being quite equal in these areas may mean? Men don't go into a gynecologists office and demand pap-smears...those things don't apply to men. Marriage doesn't apply to homosexuals in the same way. Don't forget now...marriage is NOT a right. If you want to be TREATED equally, however, you go get yourself some kind of civil union. Why are you so hung up on calling your union a marriage anyway? Why does it have to be a marriage or it's not good enough? Can you come up with any logical and/or practical explanation for that one?

Wake up and smell the coffee...marriage is NOT a right guaranteed by the Constitution or anything else.You are wrong. The constitution is there to make sure everyone gets EQUAL RIGHTS. When are you going to get that through your head? As of right now the constitution does not state a marriage it between a man and a woman. There for everyone should be allowed to get married regardless of orientation. I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee, the times are changing and close-minded people like yourself are going to have a HUGE wake up call.>Driving a car is also not a right...though many seem to think so. You have to meet certain qualifications first...one of them being able to see. But does a blind person scream about not being granted the privelidge of driving a car?Huge difference. Being blind is a disability, being gay is not. Homosexuals do not have a disability, WHICH is why we are screaming and wanting EQUAL treatment under the rights of the constitution and also as equal tax paying citizens. You cannot treat part of a population different than another section of people who are equal when it comes to citizenship and not call that discrimination. Like it or not homosexual are being highly discriminated by this country. This whole idea of marriage should have no baring on religion as there is to be a separation of church and state. Marriage is a government run process now, more than it is a religious process; like it or not. >Male/male and female/female couples don't qualifyIs our love less equal to those who are straight? Should we be treated as less of a citizen because we were born homosexual? Should straight people have more rights than gay people because they were born straight, like they won some sort of prize? I don’t think so. Again I stress, there should be equal rights for everyone!>Homosexuals are not being treated equally? Well...in certain areas they're not equal are they?I seriously hope you are not serious. We are just has human as a straight person. We bleed blood, we think, we eat, we drink, we piss, we shit… hell I think we’re just equal!! Don’t you even try and tell me that straight people are some how more superior and deserve better treatment. Maybe you dislike the thought that homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals, but guess what? We are!>Don't forget now...marriage is NOT a right.If it’s not a right than why is it only straight people can get married? I mean if it’s not a right than logically straight people shouldn’t be classified as the only people who can get married since it’s not a right or only destine for straight people. Gee seems odd to me!>If you want to be TREATED equally, however, you go get yourself some kind of civil union. Why are you so hung up on calling your union a marriage anyway? Why does it have to be a marriage or it's not good enough? Can you come up with any logical and/or practical explanation for that one?Want a logical reason for it? Why should we have to be singled out and forced to get something called a Union when what we want is already formed and in society? Why should we form something that gives us the identical benefits as marriage but yet call it something else? Is the word marriage all that important? No, it’s meaning of love and unity that is meaningful of marriage. So if we had something that was 100% identical to marriage but called it a Union, would it still be the same as marriage? Yes it would, so there is no need to create a new ceremony.You keep trying to bring religion into marriage. What about the people who are not Christians, should they not be allowed to get married since they are not a Christian? Should they be forced to create their own ceremony that’s not called marriage? What about those people I have asked twice about now that don’t want children, should their right to marry be revoked? Should they have to create their own form of marriage as well?

If the minority opposition to such traditions can't get along in life working with the traditional beliefs and traditions they should create their own NEW ones.So back when black people were not allowed to get married, instead of fighting for equal rights, should they have just created a new form of marriage instead of wanting equal rights? Should they have accepted that they were less than white people and didn’t deserve the word marriage, even though they were just as religious and deserving of marriage? I certainly think not.

No it's not. Black people were the minority back than (And statistically are still a minority) and they had to fight for equal rights just as us homosexual people are doing now.You said the minorities need to just basically accept they are the minority and shouldn't expect the same treatment as the majority. If the minority doesn't like that than they should just create their own traditions. That’s just a complete ignorant and self-absorbed statement.Well, black people rose above the ignorance and got what they deserved with equal treatment and so will we homosexual people. I think it's plain ignorance to expect others to accept being treated as second-rate citizens and create something that is identical to what the majority has just because the majority doesn’t want the minority to have the same title.I’ve said it once and I will say it again; some people just need to get their self-righteous heads out of their there-than-thou asses and see that we homosexuals are just as normal as they are and deserve equal treatment that any other tax paying citizen gets.