Gay Marrage

---

Thanks, but I'm not sure that we mean the same thing by "debating oneself".

I dont go thru my life worring about who I piss off, I wouldnt of gotten very far doing that.The one place I do worry about going is to bed, by doing so now I can stil get in 4 hours of sleep before my alarm starts making that godawful fucking noise.

Ok.. Let's play a bit, shall we? :laughing:

I've read some articles about homosexuality through history. In ancient Greece homosexual marriages between men were very common and on a higher socially grade than the common ones, since a man had much more value than a woman those days. Furthermore, some gay marriages occured at the early years of Christianity with the approval of the Church. I know, some people can have here a religious break-down, but I'm only writing what I've read.

On the other side, I appreciated pretty much Steve's arguments, but I'd like to share my opinion, too.

First of all, religious rules and constitutional law should not be related. They may have some common rules, but they have been created in a totally different manner. In the end, consitutinal law should always represent the society itself and never God. In my opinion, any goverment using religion as an argument is considered demagogue. So, George Bush acts here as dr.Evil.

As a result, the Church and religious people have the right to ban only gay marriages inside a church, because homosexuality is considered in the Bible as an extremely unethical act. It's the same thing with suicides and religious funerals. On the contrary, if most of the people approve gay marriages for any reasons EXCEPT religious ones, the laws should approve them, too. It's THAT simple.

So the problem lies within the old binding between consitutional law and religion. Plz, don't blame Bible itself here that easily, even if you disaggree with it.

Finally, the Bibles states right after this Steve mentioned above that judging someone's way of life is even a worse sin than homosexuality. Everyone here is a sinner, but this shouldn't not prevent us from believing to God and a good christian should always understand its neighbour and approve gay marriages. End of story :laughing:

Yeah, that's what I meant. But how do you explain that to someone who thinks he's carrying out God's will?

Thank you all so muchGuess who is gunna pop the question?Canada here I comeGreg

In Canada, We live in igloos, have pet beavers, beat our wifes, and have no dental. and if you don't like hockey, you die!Welcome,

In reply to:judging someone's way of life is even a worse sin than homosexuality. Everyone here is a sinner, I'm very well aquainted with the seven deadly sins I keep a busy schedule trying to fit them in I'm proud to be a glutton, and I don't have time for sloth I'm greedy, and I'm angry, and I don't care who I crossI'm Mr. Bad Example, intruder in the dirt I like to have a good time, and I don't care who gets hurt I'm Mr. Bad Example, take a look at me I'll live to be a hundred, and go down in infamy If anyone cares to have the full work or know who wrote it click here

If you are going to put your stock in religion, nearly all religions will say that it is wrong. It's going to be pretty difficult to argue against the western religious belief on gay marriage. However, there is supposed to be a seperation between chruch and state in the US. There is no reason founded in law that gay marriage should be banned, and a constitutional ammendment banning it is absolutely insane. The ammendments of the constitution exist to state what the government can't do to you, not restrict what you may do as a private citizen. I say that if a religious group chooses not to recognize gay marriage, then that is their choice. In fact, if they truly follow whatever holy book they use, they are probably right in rejecting gay marriage. But the government has no business in banning it.

WORD!

Yo, that's what I've been saying for a long time. If the religious folks want to appropriate the word marriage (as if they invented it -- they did not), then they can have it. The government should be in the business of sanctioning "civil unions", which are a legal construct. People can then have the religious ceremony of their choice on top of that.The problem without a legal union (whatever you want to call it) it that it's impossible, even with a tall stack of legal contracts and agreements, to duplicate the rights one has as a married person. Among the problems are issues with taxes, inheritance, and making medical decisions on a partner's behalf.For the most part, the hysteria about same-sex marriages is motivated by religious belief.Hard-ass fundamentalists just make the case that fundamentalist Christianity is a cruel institution. It's obsessed with arbitrary rules, real human beings be damned. There's the ever-present "I'm good, you're evil" undercurrent. That's the case with fundamental beliefs in general, though.As has been said, the U.S. is a positional republic, not a theocracy. People have a right not participate in a same-sex marriage, or to expect that people of their religion won't, but imposing their will on everyone else is not reasonable. It's certainly not libertarian.

But how do you explain that to someone who thinks he's carrying out God's will?There are many ways. The most exciting one is to get dressed like Pope and simply tell him what to do. The one who thinks he's carrying God's will can be an extreme arrogant, but he cannot compare himself to the Pope. So, he will follow ANY orders and this is the funny part grvtykllr: awesome lyrics!Btw, I am really curious to watch a gay marriage and the party after. I think it should be fun :P

Well already, Helms, it's possible to have a civil wedding without a church's being involved. The state [at least here] treats marriages the same, whether the celebrant is a Christian minister or a minister of a different religion, or a civil celebrant. In fact here, although the minister may say "I now pronounce you man and wife", the marriage does not become valid in the eye of the law until the registry is signed.So if there is already a separation between the Christian or other sacrament and the state's view of marriage, and the latter does not require the former, why should the state's view be based on what the church thinks? In a democracy the principle is supposed to be that the will of the people decides.I should point out, perhaps, that I am a practising Christian (meaning of course that I'm trying and never quite getting it right). But other Christians have argued in the past that the state should not impose the marriage views of a church on those outside it.

I had a civil marriage since i am not religious and the thought of the whole church thing really isn't appealing to me.

You have no idea how many times a week I have this arguement with my family and how many times I have to defend my beliefs to them. I was raised to accept people as they are and not to judge them, and then my family gets pissed off because I do! I'm tired of that, so I don't feel the need to debate my beliefs, I know what I believe and I stand by it. End of discusion.If someone who is homosexual wants to marry thier partner, then I say go for it! I'm not going to be the one to stand in thier way of happieness.

The language in the Old Testament regarding homosexuality seems pretty clear (although, as I said, is debatable). If you think same-sex marriage is OK, then you're either separating your religious beliefs from your political beliefs, or you have a unique way of interpreting the scriptures, which makes you non-fundamentalist...unless you've discovered a new translation of the bible.

This isn't to you Steve__________________________________To clarify:Somebody somewhere back in the infancy of this thread made some reference to the Aztec and at some point the claim was presented that probably no where in the world was homosexuality sanctioned or tolerated or something like that.(I hesitate using the term "marriage" because apparently, according to this thread, it is a copyrighted label owned by Christianity and Judaism in some sort of joint venture, but for lack of a better term...)I do not assume to speak for all tribes but most held the same or similar view as my own tribe and that was a "marriage" of the same sex was religiously and governmentally sanctioned and in no way any less sacred than any other marriage. Some modern native Fundamentalist Christens would try to argue the point but the history is really undeniable, despite their claims.The evidence seems to suggest that sanctioned and unsanctioned same sex, sexual, contact was prevalent in the "new world" before the European invasion. I would assert that, on these shores, it wasn't really that much more prevalent, just that there was no shame in it and it didn't have to be hidden.Not that it matters anyway, because we were, and in some cases, still are, viewed as a trash cultures if not outright demonic cultures. So, our views on homosexuality have no societal merit anyway.__________________________________________I honestly don't get why you (the objector) even care at all, about two people of the same sex marrying. It is at the limit of my understanding. However, I shall ask the same question I always do, the same question asked previously in this thread, knowing no reasonable or logical answer is forthcoming. That is; How will you (the objector) be injured by a same sex couple marrying? Not your beliefs, not your idea of how things "should be", not your definition of a word, but you? Where is your injury? Is it physical, monetary, does it cause you undo mental duress? Where could the law find that you are injured by a same sex marriage?

Thank you so much Katie lou

> How will you (the objector) be injured by a same sex couple marrying?

If you and a select group of people have a Ferrari, or a flat screen TV, it has a lot of cachet. But once everyone has one, it's not as cool, not as valuable, even if your Ferrari is just as sleek and fast as it ever was, and even if your TV is just as sleek and flat as it ever was.

That is to say, the problem lies within oneself. It's the idea that if other people have what you have, what you have is not as valuable or satisfying.

Some would argue that good can't exist without evil. For God to exist, Satan must also exist. Beliefs are absolute, yet they're relative.

And some people can't feel good about themselves unless there is someone below them. That is probably the principal reason that poor white Southerners were largely unconcerned with the plight of black slaves, when you would think that they would be the most sympathetic. It's insidious when one's religious beliefs reinforce the misplaced feeling of superiority.

Oh Lord.. for cryin out loud!! Here we go again!

Actually, I think this thread had pretty well petered out.