Same-sex marriage and politics. What say you?

[james2mart]

One of the biggest problems with same-sex marriage is the fact that it can lead to other types of marriages. While same-sex marriage still only involves two people, don't you think Polygamists will start to argue "Well, you let the {censored} marry, why not us?"

 

Then you could list 50 wives on your taxes. :-)

[John the Geek]

One of the biggest problems with same-sex marriage is the fact that it can lead to other types of marriages. While same-sex marriage still only involves two people, don't you think Polygamists will start to argue "Well, you let the {censored} marry, why not us?"

 

True, but those types of situations would suffer from credibility issues. {censored} marriage still holds the human ideology of "two people love only each other." Polygamy dilutes that love among several people. More extreme arguments regarding bestiality and pedophilia still fail the consenting adult test. There aren't a lot of odd situations I can think of that involve two consenting human beings who just want to be recognized as the couple that they are. So it's still a unique and well defined set of circumstances.

[killbot1000]

One of the biggest problems with same-sex marriage is the fact that it can lead to other types of marriages. While same-sex marriage still only involves two people, don't you think Polygamists will start to argue "Well, you let the {censored} marry, why not us?"

 

Then you could list 50 wives on your taxes. :-)

 

 

Oldest excuse in the book, seriously, it wont be a problem, people will stand up for other peoples lack of rights ({censored} people, they are attracted to the same sex and by all intents and purposes they CANNOT get married and be happy, so let them marry who they want to make them happy)

 

polygamy on the other hand is different, youre not only supporting somebodies right to do something, youre supporting somebodies right to do something 7 times, which by most people's standards is a bit excessive, and people are alot less willing to fight for peoples right to be excessive in their lives.

 

Also, i find the subject of marriage silly, I mean, why wouldnt you support {censored} marriage? I mean when youre at the alter, who are you really marrying? The body standing in front of you? Or the mind? Hopefully its the latter, and it SHOULD be. If you find somebody that makes you happy, that you really care about, why not marry them? Who cares if {censored} get married, it has nothing to do with you, if you dont lilke it, dont marry the same sex, problem solved.

 

On the subject of polygamy, I have no problem with it at all (provided women can have multiple husbands as well) but back to what john the geek said: consenting adult test, good point

[wildcat69410]

Who cares if {censored} get married, it has nothing to do with you, if you dont lilke it, dont marry the same sex, problem solved.

 

Hmm, by applying your adept logic I can conclude that who cares if I kill my next door neighbor. It has nothing to do with you, if you don't like it, don't kill your neighbor, problem solved.

 

And although I agree the tradition argument can sometimes be overused, I'm sticking by it. Marriage is a bond between a Man and a Woman. Religion can also come into play with my opinion, not neccesarily that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, but by the fact that God Created Marriage as a sacred bond between a Man and a Woman.

 

They can call it civil union, civil bond, whatever the heck they want. It's not a bond that they want, they already have that, they just want the tax benefits that come with it.

[killbot1000]

Hmm, by applying your adept logic I can conclude that who cares if I kill my next door neighbor. It has nothing to do with you, if you don't like it, don't kill your neighbor, problem solved.

 

And although I agree the tradition argument can sometimes be overused, I'm sticking by it. Marriage is a bond between a Man and a Woman. Religion can also come into play with my opinion, not neccesarily that homosexuality is a sin in the Bible, but by the fact that God Created Marriage as a sacred bond between a Man and a Woman.

 

They can call it civil union, civil bond, whatever the heck they want. It's not a bond that they want, they already have that, they just want the tax benefits that come with it.

 

 

well, if you would have bothered to read the rest of my post, I said that my moral code is one in which "if it doesnt harm the society, allow it" being {censored} is one of those things, the entire fabric of the world isnt going to fall apart if you allow {censored} to marry, murdering somebody however without consequences does...

 

I also said that people being {censored}, or whether they get married or not is none of my business, really its a non issue and it really...doesnt matter in the long run, just let em have it, theres not really a real hard reason to not let them other than its distasteful (to some people).

[BMC6053]

Here is my opinion:

 

Marriage licences have been and silll are a form of control. They have been used to keep common people separated from the powerful... they have been used to keep seperate the races and on and on it will go.

 

The history of marriage being institutionalized isn't very present... I believe marriage in its institutionalized form is just another form of control.

 

So with that said and knowing that marriage will probably remain institutionalized... I am pro same sex marriage. Really- Who cares?

 

One thing though - I still respect the commitment of the faithful who believe otherwise. However in a land that is intended to be a republic .. we should be ruled by law not by 80% of the population.

 

Cheers!

[gwprod12]

Agreed. However, the issue at hand is the muddling of religion and secular society. I see no problem with Marriage being a religious-only institution, with no governmental subsidy or control. Or it should just be abolished altogether.

 

{censored} people who want to be able to call themselves married can now. It's just a word. What most {censored} people want is a form of legitimate coupling under the eyes of the law. Which basicly amounts to a domestic partnership law for everyone.

 

If people want "marriage" rights, they go down to the county clerk and get a domestic partnership license, and they are legally "domestic partners". If they want to call themselves married, {censored} or straight, who cares?

 

What "anti-{censored}-marriage" proponents dont really understand is that (some) {censored} people want to form lasting relationships with legal rights. A few rights that are given to married people are: Tax filings, student financial aid consideration, survivors benefits, insurance benefits, etc.

 

I'm {censored}, and my (potential, cause I cant get anyone) husband/partner would like is to get the same advantages as married people. What is so wrong with that?

[johan]

I'm {censored}, and my (potential, cause I cant get anyone) husband/partner would like is to get the same advantages as married people. What is so wrong with that?

 

nothing

 

it's indeed about civil rights,

 

everybody should be able to enjoy those rights

 

its a shame that religious extremist are trying to stop {censored}'s of having the same civil right like everybody else

 

if churches don’t want to bless {censored} marriages. I say that’s there good right

 

but religious people should stay out of public affairs

[wildcat69410]

but religious people should stay out of public affairs

 

I wouldn't go that far... Religious people have just as much a right in public affairs as every other person.

 

{censored} people who want to be able to call themselves married can now. It's just a word. What most {censored} people want is a form of legitimate coupling under the eyes of the law. Which basicly amounts to a domestic partnership law for everyone.

 

I'm fine for giving that, I have nothing against a legitimate partnership as viewed by the Government. That's not the issue with me, it's the naming of that that is my only problem in it. My religious viewpoint is that Marriage was created as a bond between a Man and a Woman. I want Marriage to stay as such. However, I am not at all against the rights of {censored} people to have a partnership. I believe they can and should if they want to, but I'm against calling it Marriage.

 

That's All.

[jgrimes80]

...

I'm fine for giving that, I have nothing against a legitimate partnership as viewed by the Government. That's not the issue with me, it's the naming of that that is my only problem in it. My religious viewpoint is that Marriage was created as a bond between a Man and a Woman. I want Marriage to stay as such. However, I am not at all against the rights of {censored} people to have a partnership. I believe they can and should if they want to, but I'm against calling it Marriage.

...

 

 

Why not marriage? Afraid it will compromise your marriage? Perhaps sexual virility?

 

To tell me you don't care about publicized proclaimations of homosexual partnerships, but they can't call it marriage? That's like saying Mormons can have a house of belief, but they can't call it "church." <- Why not raise hell about these people? What? Are they not different enough?

 

If marriage is THAT sacred/important to you, you should familiarize yourself with divorce rates, adultery etc.

 

What someone else calls their "partnership" is their business not yours. YOU, or any other combination of bible/koran/etc thumpers don't bear the right to determine the term for homosexual relationships. It comes down to the fact that you don't want to (or are afriad to) be put into a group that accepts homosexuality. You, like many others, think it's acceptable to differentiate/outcast other because of varying beliefs, lifestyles, customs and cultures. Everyone at some point has been deemed outcast by society at some point in history. Everytime, hindsight's 20/20.

 

Don't cloak your concerns with some coinage of the term, say what's on your mind... better yet. Do me a favor and switch the roles. I know damn well you were taught the golden rule. How would you like it if you were outcasted, set aside, classified, stripped of priviledges simply because you're naturally attracted to women. It's plain WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'll tell you what... I'll start a religion that explicitly states "a marriage is between ANY two poeple" ... then the courts will be happy to comply 1st Amendment rights which includes the freedom of religion. hahaha

 

(I'm not {censored}, but my brother was. I'd bet if you grew up with the same experience. You'd think WAY differently.)

[killbot1000]

Why not marriage? Afraid it will compromise your marriage? Perhaps sexual virility?

 

To tell me you don't care about publicized proclaimations of homosexual partnerships, but they can't call it marriage? That's like saying Mormons can have a house of belief, but they can't call it "church." <- Why not raise hell about these people? What? Are they not different enough?

 

If marriage is THAT sacred/important to you, you should familiarize yourself with divorce rates, adultery etc.

 

What someone else calls their "partnership" is their business not yours. YOU, or any other combination of bible/koran/etc thumpers bear the right to determine the term for homosexual relationships. It comes down to the fact that you don't want to (or are afriad to) be put into a group that accepts homosexuality. You, like many others, think it's acceptable to differentiate/outcast other because of varying beliefs, lifestyles, customs and cultures. Everyone at some point has been deemed outcast by society at some point in history. Everytime, hindsight's 20/20.

 

Don't cloak your concerns with some coinage of the term, say what's on your mind... better yet. Do me a favor and switch the roles. I know damn well you were taught the golden rule. How would you like it if you were outcasted, set aside, classified, stripped of priviledges simply because you're naturally attracted to women. It's plain WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'll tell you what... I'll start a religion that explicitly states "a marriage is between ANY two poeple" ... then the courts will be happy to comply 1st Amendment rights which includes the freedom of religion. hahaha

 

(I'm not {censored}, but my brother was. I'd bet if you grew up with the same experience. You'd think WAY differently.)

 

I have a lot of {censored} friends who are close to me, and I couldnt agree with you more.

[BMC6053]

My opinion again *bLiNkS*

 

With respect to calling it marriage - to each their own :-)

 

Maybe the government aught to just make it easier to gain all the rights with marriage without marriage... sort of like when one gives their life over to another while they are ill or in a coma.

 

Besides - its hard enough being {censored} in the first place. So many drama queens LoL.

 

*shrugs* again - to each their own.

[wildcat69410]

Why not marriage? Afraid it will compromise your marriage? Perhaps sexual virility?

 

To tell me you don't care about publicized proclaimations of homosexual partnerships, but they can't call it marriage? That's like saying Mormons can have a house of belief, but they can't call it "church." <- Why not raise hell about these people? What? Are they not different enough?

 

If marriage is THAT sacred/important to you, you should familiarize yourself with divorce rates, adultery etc.

 

I'm not worried about compromising my marriage, the reason I don't want to call it marriage is because marriage isn't a bond between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it is, and I see no need to call it marriage. The reason that this is an issue is because of the fact that they want the Government and the Law to recognize the partnership. I'm fine with that, but please just don't call it marriage. Your calling it something it isn't. You can call it a Union or anything, but not Marriage.

 

And yeah, Marriage is important to me, and I find it so unfortunate that people out there put so little into their marriage, which is what causes all of the Marriage problems out there. Don't blame Marriage for all of the problems, it's society that is causing so many marriages to fall apart. I've familiarized myself with the statistics, and I know probability says that my marriage is going to fail. I don't care though because I know I've put thought and care into my marriage, and it won't be falling apart on me.

 

Don't cloak your concerns with some coinage of the term, say what's on your mind... better yet. Do me a favor and switch the roles. I know damn well you were taught the golden rule. How would you like it if you were outcasted, set aside, classified, stripped of priviledges simply because you're naturally attracted to women. It's plain WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

If you even read my previous posts then you'll realize I'm not against homosexuality. I believe its wrong, but it isn't my right to tell them that they can't be homosexual. That's their decision. Society doesn't outcast them because they want to get married, they're outcast because they're homosexuals. I don't condone what society is doing, I want them to have rights, but I don't believe those rights should be put under Marriage.

 

Oh, and I'll tell you what's wrong, having a sacred religious act being turned into something it isn't just because people want their rights back. I'm all for giving them their rights back, but what about my rights. Marriage is a bond between a Man and a Woman. Defining it or giving it to other people who don't fit that critera is just plain WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You guys are the ones asking me to change my beliefs here, to accomodate what you want! And in the end, is it really marriage? Or is it simply a bond that will give you all of the tax benefits?

 

And do you really think that calling it marriage will change any of it? Do you think that society still won't try to treat them as outcasts? Giving them marriage won't give them anything from the society's point of view. I understand their perspective as best I can, but they don't even give a damn to look at mine.

 

I'll tell you what... I'll start a religion that explicitly states "a marriage is between ANY two poeple" ... then the courts will be happy to comply 1st Amendment rights which includes the freedom of religion. hahaha

 

Haha, go for it then. Then of course the Government will be forced to ban any discussion of {censored} Marriage at schools, and anyone doing so will be fired due to an extensive and unnecessary ACLU suit. Then anti-religious crazies will walk in and criticize you for your concept of life and Marriage and want everyone to live in a secular anti-religious America. Oh, whoops, I was confusing your new religion with something as persecutable as Christianity. My bad.

 

(I'm not {censored}, but my brother was. I'd bet if you grew up with the same experience. You'd think WAY differently.)

 

I really don't think I would. I'm not really that influenced by my family, I try to think for my own.

 

You might want to give it a try sometime.

[gwprod12]

Marriage is breeder bullsh*t. They're welcome to it.

 

However. My boyfriend is 19. If he was my wife, he would qualify as an independant student for financial aid. Since he isnt my wife, he doesnt. His parents make too much money, he makes too little, and I cant afford to put him through school, even though I'm trying. Where's the fairness in that?

 

If he wanted to, he could marry a woman and get those advantages. But then it would be a sham marriage. What benefit that to the institution?

[wildcat69410]

If he wanted to, he could marry a woman and get those advantages. But then it would be a sham marriage. What benefit that to the institution?

 

Like I said, society has unfairly used Marriage, and that is why we now have such a high divorce rate.

 

Listen, I'm all for giving the same rights to {censored} people, and allow for {censored} bonds. However, I do not in any way wish to call it marriage. I understand that currently, due to all of this, your rights are being violated and because of this you aren't getting what you should be getting from the Government. I understand this, and that's why I want you to get those rights. However, I want it to be called something other than Marriage.

 

I'm not trying to call Marriage something perfect, nothing in this world is. But leave it between a man and a woman, I'll give you the same rights that you would normally receive and everything, but let Marriage be.

 

The biggest issue here is {censored} Rights, which I'm for. But for me its more of an issue of treating Marriage what it is, not what it isn't.

[gwprod12]

Like I said, Marriage is breeder BS.

 

The problem is that the benefits in question are "Marriage" benefits, when what they really should be are "cooperative relationship" benefits that Married people get, by virtue of being in a cooperative relationship.

 

When government goes out of it's way to incentivise "Marriage", then you have a problem, on a million fronts.

 

If marriage is a fundementally religious notion, then it really ought not be codified as law at all.

[wildcat69410]

Like I said, Marriage is breeder BS.

 

The problem is that the benefits in question are "Marriage" benefits, when what they really should be are "cooperative relationship" benefits that Married people get, by virtue of being in a cooperative relationship.

 

When government goes out of it's way to incentivise "Marriage", then you have a problem, on a million fronts.

 

If marriage is a fundementally religious notion, then it really ought not be codified as law at all.

 

The reason Marriage ever received Governmental Benefits at all is because a Married Couple was more likely to spend more money, pay more taxes, do more things, etc etc. They wanted to encourage people to get married, because the Government would then get more money. That's why there are incentives for Marriage.

 

The only reason Marriage ever became law is because of all of the things that are tied with it. Marriage is virtually like a contract, with certain paramaters and other things that must be followed. Possesions and Assets are tied together, and whenever a divorce comes into play, you'll see a lot of legal things that followed. It was written into law to make it more orderly, and to allow decisions to be made legally so that all marriages and divorces would be fair.

 

If Marriage wasn't carried on by the legal system, then we'd have a hell of a lot of issues. Marriage licenses and divorces would be done based upon local religous people rather than in a court system, it would be widely disorganized, less people would get married, far fewer would stick with it.

 

I don't know if I like the whole cooperative relationship deal. Cooperative relationship is very open sounding, and no matter how well it is defined, could be exploited by greedy politicians. I don't want every boyfriend/girlfriend or boyfriend/boyfriend unmarried couple to get governmental benefits. Marriage is a religious function, that's why it is such a big deal to a lot of people. When you start opening the door, more questions will be asked, and more people will go, "Hey, if {censored} people can get married to eachother, why can't I get married to my horse or my dog."

 

Okay, maybe not the greatest example, but if society is the best predictor for itself, then more and more people will want to try to fill the Marriage void. Marriage isn't a bandwagon, it's a sacred bond and commitment. People don't join because its a fad, or they get money because of it (although unfortuantely some do), people do it because it's sacred. I feel that if we open the door here, it'll never end.

[drcreek]

I think the problem is that people are confusing legal marriage and religious marriage. I think we should remove the word marriage from law. Call it something else. If some church wants to call that marriage, so be it.

 

 

They have this in the UK

 

It's called Civil Partnership.

 

I went to a "Civil partnership" ceremony last week. it was just as exciting and emotional and a "marriage" those two guys love each other very much. I think they will always be together just by the way they seem to love each other flawlessly.

 

isn't that what marriage is about. Oh.... no it's about bringing children in to the world. pfft. too many of the annoying buggers as the way i see it.

 

I hate all religions. Just for the fact that 90% of all wars would not have happened.

 

In MY belief religion was a way to get us over the fear of death and to answer things that current science couldn't answer.

 

Now that science can answer these things. It IS MY belief that there is no reason for religion.

[wildcat69410]

I hate all religions. Just for the fact that 90% of all wars would not have happened.

 

Well of course! Any time people believe in something, and there is a conflict in those beliefs, fighting is going to occur. That's like saying if we had no nations, nothing at all to inspire us, nothing to believe in, then 99.9% of all wars wouldn't have started. The main reason religion has caused so many wars is because it inspires so many, and gives many people such a deep feeling of understanding with their place in the Universe, that it can make a person do crazy things.

 

But, just for clarity's sake, let us imagine a world without religion. Some of the greatest scientists, Galileo for example, did his work because he believed it brought him closer to God. Religion has pushed people to overcome incredible barriers. Religion has instilled a greater sense of morality within us, and has taught us the value of human life. Religion has connected two radically different cultures that otherwise would not have been connected.

 

Blame all the wars on Religion, but just try to imagine a world without it first.

 

In MY belief religion was a way to get us over the fear of death and to answer things that current science couldn't answer.

 

Religion is something that shows us that we are more then this a biological composition of carbon. Religion says that people are more than just organs put together, but rather a person with a soul. It's not to get over a fear of death or answer questions that otherwise couldn't (okay, some of the earlier ones did, but still), it rather has given us a new perspective on life. Religion isn't about answers, and denial. Religion is about uplifiting the human spirit.

 

Now that science can answer these things. It IS MY belief that there is no reason for religion.

 

Can Science fill the gap that Religion would leave? Of course not! Science can explain certain answers sure, like how the Sun rises and sets, or how diseases are spread and cured. But Science has no bearing, no measure on the human soul. Sure, science can provide us with answers, with technology, maybe even a wider perspective on the world around us. But it is Religion that provides us with the morals, and the spiritual well being to use this technology wisely. Religion has shown us that we are part of something greater, not just a pointless individual in a world of many.

 

 

Just think what we'd be like without Religion, and then you'll see why it's so important in today's society.

[jgrimes80]

I'm not worried about compromising my marriage, the reason I don't want to call it marriage is because marriage isn't a bond between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. Marriage is between a man and a woman. That's how it is, and I see no need to call it marriage. The reason that this is an issue is because of the fact that they want the Government and the Law to recognize the partnership. I'm fine with that, but please just don't call it marriage. Your calling it something it isn't. You can call it a Union or anything, but not Marriage.

 

Ignorance... where, oh where does it say that a marriage IS between a man and woman? Churches are regularly holding ceremonies for homosexual relationships so religion is a little lax.

 

And yeah, Marriage is important to me, and I find it so unfortunate that people out there put so little into their marriage, which is what causes all of the Marriage problems out there. Don't blame Marriage for all of the problems, it's society that is causing so many marriages to fall apart. I've familiarized myself with the statistics, and I know probability says that my marriage is going to fail. I don't care though because I know I've put thought and care into my marriage, and it won't be falling apart on me.

If you even read my previous posts then you'll realize I'm not against homosexuality. I believe its wrong, but it isn't my right to tell them that they can't be homosexual. That's their decision. Society doesn't outcast them because they want to get married, they're outcast because they're homosexuals. I don't condone what society is doing, I want them to have rights, but I don't believe those rights should be put under Marriage.

 

Oh, and I'll tell you what's wrong, having a sacred religious act being turned into something it isn't just because people want their rights back. I'm all for giving them their rights back, but what about my rights. Marriage is a bond between a Man and a Woman. Defining it or giving it to other people who don't fit that critera is just plain WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You guys are the ones asking me to change my beliefs here, to accomodate what you want! And in the end, is it really marriage? Or is it simply a bond that will give you all of the tax benefits?

 

No where in the bible does it explicitly calls for an "abomination" ... it's all merely interpretations. To implicate that homosexuals aren't entitled to pursue MARRIAGE because it's not a marriage and it's all about $$$ is absolutely absurd. Why do so many heterosexuals recieve fiscal benefits.

 

And do you really think that calling it marriage will change any of it? Do you think that society still won't try to treat them as outcasts? Giving them marriage won't give them anything from the society's point of view. I understand their perspective as best I can, but they don't even give a damn to look at mine.

Haha, go for it then. Then of course the Government will be forced to ban any discussion of {censored} Marriage at schools, and anyone doing so will be fired due to an extensive and unnecessary ACLU suit. Then anti-religious crazies will walk in and criticize you for your concept of life and Marriage and want everyone to live in a secular anti-religious America. Oh, whoops, I was confusing your new religion with something as persecutable as Christianity. My bad.

 

You clearly seem to think preventing the "change" of the meaning of marriage will prevent something from occuring. I think this one goes back to your fear of being put in a group that accepts people (previously mentioned, conveniently left out of your response)

 

I really don't think I would. I'm not really that influenced by my family, I try to think for my own.

 

You might want to give it a try sometime.

 

There is also a difference between independent thinking and selfish thinking. You're the one who has jumped on a bandwagon to persecute {censored}... why? Denying rights to MARRIAGE even under religion isn't your place to do so. THERE ARE HOMOSEXUAL THAT ARE RELIGIOUS! Churches already marry homosexuals. The Senate has already shot down a ban of same-sex marriages and "{censored} Pride" has gained phemonmenal popularity and acceptance particularly in CA. California has always set the standard/ raised the bar... face it, you're on the losing end.

 

Oh, yeah! Here's a thought:

belittle yourself, not others.

 

Well of course! Any time people believe in something, and there is a conflict in those beliefs, fighting is going to occur. That's like saying if we had no nations, nothing at all to inspire us, nothing to believe in, then 99.9% of all wars wouldn't have started. The main reason religion has caused so many wars is because it inspires so many, and gives many people such a deep feeling of understanding with their place in the Universe, that it can make a person do crazy things.

 

But, just for clarity's sake, let us imagine a world without religion. Some of the greatest scientists, Galileo for example, did his work because he believed it brought him closer to God. Religion has pushed people to overcome incredible barriers. Religion has instilled a greater sense of morality within us, and has taught us the value of human life. Religion has connected two radically different cultures that otherwise would not have been connected.

 

Blame all the wars on Religion, but just try to imagine a world without it first.

Religion is something that shows us that we are more then this a biological composition of carbon. Religion says that people are more than just organs put together, but rather a person with a soul. It's not to get over a fear of death or answer questions that otherwise couldn't (okay, some of the earlier ones did, but still), it rather has given us a new perspective on life. Religion isn't about answers, and denial. Religion is about uplifiting the human spirit.

Can Science fill the gap that Religion would leave? Of course not! Science can explain certain answers sure, like how the Sun rises and sets, or how diseases are spread and cured. But Science has no bearing, no measure on the human soul. Sure, science can provide us with answers, with technology, maybe even a wider perspective on the world around us. But it is Religion that provides us with the morals, and the spiritual well being to use this technology wisely. Religion has shown us that we are part of something greater, not just a pointless individual in a world of many.

Just think what we'd be like without Religion, and then you'll see why it's so important in today's society.

 

You're trusting the words of "Man" written thousands of years ago... The same words which have been proven wrong time and time again; those very words to tell you how to live life. If those words were truly divine, why does there exist faults. You shouldn't need a book to tell you how to be a good person... but then again, you wouldn't read it if you didn't need to...

 

Wait NO! You're just some non-influenced independent genius. My bad.

[wildcat69410]

Ignorance... where, oh where does it say that a marriage IS between a man and woman? Churches are regularly holding ceremonies for homosexual relationships so religion is a little lax. blink.gif

 

Uhm, apparently you don't read the Bible, because Genesis 2:21-24 speaks of God's original plan for marriage. “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” By joining together into one Flesh it not only mentions his plans for sexual intercourse, but also for Marriage. Marriage is a sacred bond that unifies Man and Woman as God designed it.

 

But even still, if you don't get the metaphor, Corinthians clears it up for the mentally deficient.

 

No where in the bible does it explicitly calls for an "abomination" ... it's all merely interpretations. To implicate that homosexuals aren't entitled to pursue MARRIAGE because it's not a marriage and it's all about $$$ is absolutely absurd. Why do so many heterosexuals recieve fiscal benefits.

 

It does indeed call it an abomination. And just so I don't here a translations argument, I'll present a couple.

 

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22 (NIV)

 

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 (King James)

 

Don't call me ignorant when you try to tell me what the Bible says when you've apparently never read it, not even spent 5 minutes researching what it actually says. And don't tell me money isn't involved! If you read the previous posts and not just mine, you'd see that people think it's unfair because they don't get the governmental cash benefits that others do. It's not just about the name here, it's more so about the benefits the Government gives to married couples. The only thing absurd here is the fact you didn't read the entire thread before posting in it.

 

You clearly seem to think preventing the "change" of the meaning of marriage will prevent something from occuring. I think this one goes back to your fear of being put in a group that accepts people (previously mentioned, conveniently left out of your response)

 

Oh yeah, conveniently left out my response. I ignored it because I already stated I wanted {censored} to have rights! I don't mind being grouped with {censored}, and I don't mind being in a group that accepts people. For God Sakes I do indeed have friends that are {censored}! I hang out with those friends, and I'm not some homosexual hater that deals in bigotry or anything like that.

 

The only thing left out of responses here are yours to my arguments. You refute virtually none of my points, such as the fact that Marriage won't really cause society to look upon them differently or anything like that. I guess that makes about 90% of my points conveniently left out of your responses.

 

There is also a difference between independent thinking and selfish thinking. You're the one who has jumped on a bandwagon to persecute {censored}... why? Denying rights to MARRIAGE even under religion isn't your place to do so. THERE ARE HOMOSEXUAL THAT ARE RELIGIOUS! Churches already marry homosexuals. The Senate has already shot down a ban of same-sex marriages and "{censored} Pride" has gained phemonmenal popularity and acceptance particularly in CA. California has always set the standard/ raised the bar... face it, you're on the losing end.

 

You must have dyslexia or ADD or something, because you never read the entirety of my posts. I said that I support {censored} rights! What bandwagon have I jumped on there? I don't support {censored} marriage but I support {censored} rights, that's one hell of a bandwagon huh. I don't persecute {censored} at all, I support them. I want them to get rights, thats not the issue here. Not one message have I at all been hateful towards {censored}. If you'd ever learn to read before spewing the same senseless posts, then you actually might be able to make meaningful responses. (Just a little tip for you in the future)

 

Denying a right to Marriage because of Religion is definitely my right to do so, seeing as Marriage ORIGINATED from the Bible. I think if I have a right to deny anything it's something that deals with my religion. And I know there are homosexuals that are religious, and although they are rare, they are great people. The homosexuals I know are religious and are great guys, and they understand me when I tell them that Marriage is between a man and a women. Churches only marry same sex couples because they want to make it into the news, come on. Every same sex marriage gets headline coverage, and its only temporarily legalized because of some hotshot lowercourts judge that wants to get his name in print. The senate's only shot it down because right now its being handled through the court systems. That's the same reason you don't see abortion bills heading through Congress.

 

California has set the bar? That's a joke. Yeah, its sure set the bar in so many different circumstances, like electing an idiot Governor, or having massive riots, yeah California sets one hell of a bar to follow. We can always count on California to be the leader of America! And yes, we know {censored} Pride is gaining momentum, everything eventually does. And like I've previously stated at least a half dozen times, I'm not at all against {censored} Rights! So what if its gaining momentum, I want it to!

 

Oh, and I'm really on the losing end when {censored} Marriage is banned in just about every state.

 

Oh, yeah! Here's a thought:

belittle yourself, not others.

 

How about you try first? Or at least when you do, spend enough time reading about them so it won't backfire into your face like it did here.

 

You're trusting the words of "Man" written thousands of years ago... The same words which have been proven wrong time and time again; those very words to tell you how to live life. If those words were truly divine, why does there exist faults. You shouldn't need a book to tell you how to be a good person... but then again, you wouldn't read it if you didn't need to...

 

Wait NO! You're just some non-influenced independent genius. My bad.

 

They've been proven wrong time and time again? That's interesting. What did Jesus say that has been proven wrong time and time again? I don't exactly see a multitude of instances where the Bible was just outright wrong.

 

And what divine words are wrong? Words like thou shalt not kill, love thy neighbor as thyself, when have those been wrong? Most of the events, if any, that have been proven wrong are not words spoken from God or Jesus, but rather human accounts of the times that refer to God.

 

Unfortunately if you look at today's society, you'll find that there are a lot of people who don't know how to judge right from wrong. I don't believe myself capable of making some of the supreme judgements out there. Sure, some of them are obvious, like don't kill. But nobody's perfect, we all need guidance at some point in our life, and Religion guides us. Tells us spiritually what we need.

 

I'm influenced by the Bible, yes. I don't exactly see how that's a bad thing though, being influenced by something that promotes morals, goodness, thinking for other people, intelligence, a lot of things this society and particulary yourself are lacking.

 

I wasn't saying I'm uninfluenced by anything, I'm just stating that I don't spew rehashed arguments someone could hear by watching their nightly news program. I think for myself in most ways, and I don't let other people with their own interests at heart sway me.

[jgrimes80]

Uhm, apparently you don't read the Bible, because Genesis 2:21-24 speaks of God's original plan for marriage. “And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” By joining together into one Flesh it not only mentions his plans for sexual intercourse, but also for Marriage. Marriage is a sacred bond that unifies Man and Woman as God designed it.

 

Thanks for giving me an interpretation of Genesis... and an insult

 

But even still, if you don't get the metaphor, Corinthians clears it up for the mentally deficient.

It does indeed call it an abomination. And just so I don't here a translations argument, I'll present a couple.

 

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Leviticus 18:22 (NIV)

 

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." Leviticus 18:22 (King James)

 

Here's a translations arguement... you tried to avoid one by giving me two... one based on the other... if you'd like, I'd be happy to elaborate... I've done my fair share of Bible (not biblical) history.

 

Don't call me ignorant when you try to tell me what the Bible says when you've apparently never read it, not even spent 5 minutes researching what it actually says. And don't tell me money isn't involved! If you read the previous posts and not just mine, you'd see that people think it's unfair because they don't get the governmental cash benefits that others do. It's not just about the name here, it's more so about the benefits the Government gives to married couples. The only thing absurd here is the fact you didn't read the entire thread before posting in it.

 

I wouldn't draw conclusions... and I didn't say money wasn't involved, simply equally involved in heterosexual marriages. I helped get this thread started, clearly YOU haven't read the whole thing.

 

Oh yeah, conveniently left out my response. I ignored it because I already stated I wanted {censored} to have rights! I don't mind being grouped with {censored}, and I don't mind being in a group that accepts people. For God Sakes I do indeed have friends that are {censored}! I hang out with those friends, and I'm not some homosexual hater that deals in bigotry or anything like that.

 

Why raise hell about a word; marriage. Clearly you think something would be compromised... what and/or why? The only reason it's important to me, is because it's important to you.

 

The only thing left out of responses here are yours to my arguments. You refute virtually none of my points, such as the fact that Marriage won't really cause society to look upon them differently or anything like that. I guess that makes about 90% of my points conveniently left out of your responses.

 

Marriage probably won't change society's opinion. However, it prevents a means of denotions. Why do you feel the need to differentiate between homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages?

 

You must have dyslexia or ADD or something, because you never read the entirety of my posts. I said that I support {censored} rights! What bandwagon have I jumped on there? I don't support {censored} marriage but I support {censored} rights, that's one hell of a bandwagon huh. I don't persecute {censored} at all, I support them. I want them to get rights, thats not the issue here. Not one message have I at all been hateful towards {censored}. If you'd ever learn to read before spewing the same senseless posts, then you actually might be able to make meaningful responses. (Just a little tip for you in the future)

 

Here we go again with the insults (the whole thing: Ad hominem)... ONE WORD: MARRIAGE! You simply don't get it.

 

Denying a right to Marriage because of Religion is definitely my right to do so, seeing as Marriage ORIGINATED from the Bible. I think if I have a right to deny anything it's something that deals with my religion. And I know there are homosexuals that are religious, and although they are rare, they are great people. The homosexuals I know are religious and are great guys, and they understand me when I tell them that Marriage is between a man and a women. Churches only marry same sex couples because they want to make it into the news, come on. Every same sex marriage gets headline coverage, and its only temporarily legalized because of some hotshot lowercourts judge that wants to get his name in print. The senate's only shot it down because right now its being handled through the court systems. That's the same reason you don't see abortion bills heading through Congress.

 

NO IT DIDN'T, READ THE WHOLE THREAD!!!! (I'll prove it again if I must) And no, that same interpretation of the book that says you can't judge others among other assorts, like the golden rule. Your "divine" religion has been greatly manipulated over the years, what makes you think it immune to change/alteration today?

 

Thanks for offering a very conclusive dissertation... it's all about getting 15 minutes of fame. My brother was married, his wedding didn't make no headlines. What's the answer here???

 

California has set the bar? That's a joke. Yeah, its sure set the bar in so many different circumstances, like electing an idiot Governor, or having massive riots, yeah California sets one hell of a bar to follow. We can always count on California to be the leader of America! And yes, we know {censored} Pride is gaining momentum, everything eventually does. And like I've previously stated at least a half dozen times, I'm not at all against {censored} Rights! So what if its gaining momentum, I want it to!

 

That "idiot" governor has a very decent reputation. HE may be an idiot, but the people around him are doing one hell of a job. California brings in more money to the Fed government than any other state. There is more wealth, both liquidable and not than in any other state... As far as {censored} Pride, I'm glad you agree!

 

Oh, and I'm really on the losing end when {censored} Marriage is banned in just about every state.

How about you try first? Or at least when you do, spend enough time reading about them so it won't backfire into your face like it did here.

.... majority rules. And yes you are one the losing end. Your sole arguement is that you BELIEVE marriage is between a man and a woman.

 

They've been proven wrong time and time again? That's interesting. What did Jesus say that has been proven wrong time and time again? I don't exactly see a multitude of instances where the Bible was just outright wrong.

 

And what divine words are wrong? Words like thou shalt not kill, love thy neighbor as thyself, when have those been wrong? Most of the events, if any, that have been proven wrong are not words spoken from God or Jesus, but rather human accounts of the times that refer to God.

 

How old is the earth? ... The entire bible is of human accounts. Hell most of it is coincidently alike Babylonian myths. Don't bother trying to dumb me down further, I'm already there... lol

 

Unfortunately if you look at today's society, you'll find that there are a lot of people who don't know how to judge right from wrong. I don't believe myself capable of making some of the supreme judgements out there. Sure, some of them are obvious, like don't kill. But nobody's perfect, we all need guidance at some point in our life, and Religion guides us. Tells us spiritually what we need.

 

To believe (stricty) a text written by a person some x years ago... but yes, for the most part, religion is a good thing. Imperialistic religion is another.

 

I'm influenced by the Bible, yes. I don't exactly see how that's a bad thing though, being influenced by something that promotes morals, goodness, thinking for other people, intelligence, a lot of things this society and particulary yourself are lacking.

 

You're influenced by the Bible, but not your family? Some "independent" thinker...

 

I wasn't saying I'm uninfluenced by anything, I'm just stating that I don't spew rehashed arguments someone could hear by watching their nightly news program. I think for myself in most ways, and I don't let other people with their own interests at heart sway me.

 

Rumsfield: Hey, Bush what's going on?

Bush: Rum, we've got a serious problem!

Rumsfield: What's that?

Bush: That wildcat is a flippity flip flopper! (all in good humor)

 

Good for you, what does that have to do with me? You explicity stated you hardly influence by family. Are you implying that my arguments came from the news?

[killbot1000]

Honestly, I dont understand why this issue is a big deal, who cares if they get married, it doesnt matter...just let them get married if they want to...

 

Frankly, I dont think marriage is that important, but thats just me, the contract means nothing if you dont have the feelings to support it, and if you do have the feelings to support it, why do you need the contract?

 

I probably wont get married, but I may have kids, and I will probably stay with the same person for the rest of my life, I just, dont really care about marriage, other than the benefits it gives you financially, thats really the only reason I could see in tieing the knot...

[wildcat69410]

Thanks for giving me an interpretation of Genesis... and an insult

 

You're welcome for the interepretation, and I apologize for the insult. When I get into the topic, I sometimes throw in a few extra "arguments", and some of which go over the line.

 

Here's a translations arguement... you tried to avoid one by giving me two... one based on the other... if you'd like, I'd be happy to elaborate... I've done my fair share of Bible (not biblical) history.

 

Please do elaborate. I just mentioned the most obvious and direct mentioning of homosexuality in the bible, but there are many more. Translational or not, King James is considered to be the de facto in terms of Biblical Accuracy today. If anything between two current translations are conflicting, they most often check King James to get a more accurate representation of the verse.

 

I wouldn't draw conclusions... and I didn't say money wasn't involved, simply equally involved in heterosexual marriages. I helped get this thread started, clearly YOU haven't read the whole thing.

 

You're right, you didn't say money was involved, but you insinuated that it wasn't nearly as large of an issue as Marriage. Money is involved in a far larger way than others, imo. The fact that two people are considered Married (in some eyes, not mine), is not as important as the Governmental Benefits that come along with it. I personally don't like the Governmental Benefits that come with Marriage, as I believe that it has increased, along with other factors, the divorce rates in America, and has dumbed down Marriage from a sacred ceremony to a Las Vegas drunken quick fix.

 

Why raise hell about a word; marriage. Clearly you think something would be compromised... what and/or why? The only reason it's important to me, is because it's important to you.

 

Yes, something would be compromised. That something would be the definition of Marriage, the origination of Marriage, and what Marriage actually means. Marriage, since it was instituted in the Bible, has been between a Man and a Woman. It was created by God for the people, and that is a gift that I believe should stay as God has given it to us. You may think that I'm a religious crazy or something, but that is a serious part of my belief.

 

Here we go again with the insults (the whole thing: Ad hominem)... ONE WORD: MARRIAGE! You simply don't get it.

 

Again, I apologize for the insults, but you in your previous post accused me of being a homosexual basher, which I am not. I am not at all for restricting {censored} Rights, and I support them to gain rights. I just tend to get upset when somebody calls me a bigot, and a {censored} basher, when I have in fact done the opposite. Yes, it is one word, Marriage. But it is a very important word with very strict meanings. You simply don't get its importance.

 

Marriage probably won't change society's opinion. However, it prevents a means of denotions. Why do you feel the need to differentiate between homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages?

 

Society doesn't denote people simply because they're married or not. In my opinion, it doesn't even provide a means for denotions. I feel the need to differentiate because they are indeed different things! A man and a woman is a Marriage, as defined by the Bible. A man and a man, and a woman and a woman, is a civil partnership or whatever you want to call it. Marriage is a sacred bond given by God to Men and Women. There is need to differentiate when they are two entirely different things.

 

NO IT DIDN'T, READ THE WHOLE THREAD!!!! (I'll prove it again if I must) And no, that same interpretation of the book that says you can't judge others among other assorts, like the golden rule. Your "divine" religion has been greatly manipulated over the years, what makes you think it immune to change/alteration today?

 

What makes you think you can change it today! I'm tired of society lowering its standards because people want to do things that currently aren't allowed. Whenever we let a society judge itself, and set standards for itself, we are literally asking for a failure. Whenever you have the power to severely start changing things, it loses a lot. Unfortunately, people have manipulated the Bible over the years, but there are certain things in there that remain the same, and I'd like to keep them that way.

 

Thanks for offering a very conclusive dissertation... it's all about getting 15 minutes of fame. My brother was married, his wedding didn't make no headlines. What's the answer here???

 

Fame as in for the ministers that went through it, Fame as in for the Judges that allowed it. Although Fame may not be involved for those taking their part in the partnership, Fame has a certain level of impetance for those who are allowing it, and legalizing it. It has become such a politically charged issue, that we can't ignore the public implications that it has.

 

That "idiot" governor has a very decent reputation. HE may be an idiot, but the people around him are doing one hell of a job. California brings in more money to the Fed government than any other state. There is more wealth, both liquidable and not than in any other state... As far as {censored} Pride, I'm glad you agree!

 

The only reason California brings in so much money is because of the fact it is the most populated state? How about that, the state with the most people can bring in the most money. That's a marvel! I'm glad your current administration has figured that out! Just because a state is wealthy, doesn't mean it is setting any bar by the way it runs itself. California isn't this amazing standards setting state.

 

 

I'll answer the rest later, I'm in a quick rush. I know that sounds dumb, but I have to get off to work.

 

You do make some good points though...

[BMC6053]

The bible is left to interpretation - Its been used to keep slaves and kill many.. an interpretation of any text is always prone to error both when it is read in context and when read without none. As far as I can tell, when it comes to Christianity anyway.. there is a certain amount of fuzzy logic required to read the texts of the bible. Nothing is really black and white and since Christians believe Christ died for their sins most of the old testimate is no longer rules to live by...

 

Most people use mosaic law to persecute {censored} in modern times, even though one of the main emphases of the New Testament like the epistles of Paul, is that Christians are no longer under the rule of the mosaic law.

 

(see Rom. 6:14; 7:1-14; Gal. 3:10-13, 24-25; 4:21; 5:1, 13; 2 Cor. 3:7-18).

 

As for Lev. 18:12 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." - that is part of mosaic law and the cult of moses, a group of rabbi's and so then the mosaic law is intended for the rabbi.

 

So with that said, there is good reasoning not to have religion as basses for law. People should know what is right (look at how well atheist do).

 

So why can't we let individuals decide for themselves what to call their civil union? If I want to get married I will – My faith allows that no matter what my sexuality and so I will get married one of these days. If someone is a devout Christian, they to would be able to marry no matter what their sexuality unless they interpret their sacred text in a way that would not allow them.

 

The law should be clear in that it will not persecute. Homosexuals still do not have the same protections under the law as heterosexual couples (in most states anyway) and I believe that is the gist of this thread no?

 

& The contract is the flesh of it.