Ok.....can we handle this??? Marriage question.

[donnylutz]

All right...

For those of you that don't know, I am a gay male. My partner of 3 years is a professor at a private college, and were doing well.

My family is very supportive and have no hang-ups at all over my sexuality.

Yet......my father doesn't understand why I would want to marry another man......

So.....
I don't want to cause drama here. If your so far against gay marriage that you can't keep your mind open and learn, then please don't post in this message.

Over half of the population in this country is against gay marriage, and I am completely fascinated as to why.

But let's keep this friendly. My dad is against gay marriage, but I still love him. :) I really want to hear why people are so enraged over this issue!

Thanks!
And happy posting!
SMILE PEOPLE, SMILE!

Donnylutz :)
:SP

[Nathan]

Donny,

I myself am a gay-male and I'm going to try and attempt to answer your question.

IMO, there is absolutely NO rational reason as to why gay marriages shouldn't be illegal.

There's no legal basis for it, so the only real reason to be against it would be for moral reasons, which mostly have their roots in religious belief.

Since this country was founded on Puritan ideals, which still heavily permeate our society many people are against gay marriages, but none have a rational-legal reason for their.

I'm actually against the CHURCH or any religious faction being able to grant legal rights to people. If our country is truly the separation of church and state then NO religious body would be able to grant state rights to anyone.

IN MY SCENARIO: Marriage is done in two parts. First a legal ceromony which grants the couples or trio's or however many consenting adults that want to, the right to be married.

The next would be the religious cermony. The religious ceromony would be for those who would choose to do so.

If the church refused to perform Gay weddings than that would be competley their own choice, which they are free to make. But I don't think a religious official should be able to grant legal rights.


BTW I had a great time studying all this in my QUEER FAMILIES course at NYU last semester. My teacher was Judith Stacey a woman whose now testified in many cases concerning not only Gay Marriage, but Gay adoption rights, and other various related subjects.

Just a few extra little tid bits of info
*Gay parents are no more likely to raise gay children then heterosexual parents.
*It is statisically proven that gay men are more promiscuous and have more sexuall partners over their lifetime then heterosexual men. (That's one sterotype that's actually true)

[Maeve]

I am not against gay marriage at all, but my father is and we've had long, long conversations about this...

First, let my say that my dad is not "conservative," but he is a middle-aged Christian in the South. He would probably define himself as an Evangelical with a tiny bit of Hippie cred along the lines of a 35-year-long crush on Joan Baez and some experience hugging tress. In his corner of the world he is very liberal, which is to say he's moderate everywhere else.:lol He believes it's the government's job to take care of its citizens' well being, but sometimes the line between physical well being and HIS definition of spiritual well being is fuzzy. In Dad's mind, homosexuality is like alcoholism - one is born that way, but that doesn't make it right or good or healthy. He says since God made it clear homosexuality is wrong the government shouldn't "help someone be gay" by allowing marriage. According to him, gay marriage is tantamount to giving an addict the address to the nearest crack house. If the government keeps gay marriage illegal, it's actually good for gay people in the long run.

I'm not going to suggest for one second this is the typical southern Christian view (that's another post which would probably involve yours truly swearing at the SBC), but it is one argument with which I am v. v. familiar.

[JerryStopher]

So far as I can tell, people oppose "gay marriage" on the basis of how various religions define "appropriate" vs "inappropriate" relationships. As someone mentioned above, whether a religious body wants to allow it is a religious matter, not to be interfered-with by the state.

But by the same token, whether the state wants to allow it ought not to be interfered-with by the church.

So: Donny, if you and your partner want to call it "marriage" and if your state wants to certifiy it, thus granting you the same legal rights as a "straight" couple, I say, "why not?" Whether I think it's "moral" according to my understanding of Scripture has nothing to do with your "legal rights."

But if the state does not approve, based on the concept of "majority rule," well, you may have to live with that.

But then again ... what right has the state to interfere in peoples' relationships?

[colinmom71]

I think some of the problem stems from persons who don't understand that the word marriage is used in several different contexts. They don't get the distinction between sacramental marriages and civil marriage, and they don't tend to realize that most couples have *both* a sacramental and civil marriage.

It's likely the line is blurred for them because many marriage ceremonies occur in churches that simultaneously bond the couple in both the sacramental fashion and in the legal manner. The minister who performs the religious, sacramental ceremony *also* happens to have legal permission and authority (often as a legal notary, IIRC) to declare a marriage legally valid where all legal requirements to marry have been met by the couple. A lot of couples don't realize that the *civil* marriage didn't occur until the minister signed off on the marriage certificate and notarizes it as a legal document.

Because the line is blurred to some, they aren't differentiating the civil end of marriage from the religious. All that the legal, civil details of marriage are concerned with is whether the couple are legally fit to be married - that the couple aren't minors, aren't related to a certain degree, proper documentation is supplied (proper ID, residency, etc.), blood work is completed, etc. Once those legal requirements are met, a couple need only have the marriage certificate signed off by a legal authority (often a judge). You don't even need an actual ceremony, just tacit and verbal consent to the marriage in front of the legal authority. We just traditionally are accustomed to ceremonies, so a lot of judges tend to use the "I do" question to cover the verbal legal consent to the marriage. It's familiar...

Legally recognizing the right for gay/lesbian couples to be civilly married does *nothing* to effect sacramental marrieges. No church dogma that disapproves of gay marriages will be compelled to recognize or officiate a marriage they disapprove of. They will not be forced by non-discrimination laws to open their houses of worship to gay couples seeking a venue for a wedding ceremony (This is why churches are tax exempt - so they can remain true to their belief system without government interference.).

For an example of how legal marriages and sacramental marriages are separate, one need only look at Catholicism. Legally, any civil marriage can be ended by divorce at any time. However, Catholic dogma does not allow for divorce and is not required to recognize a legal divorce as a severence of the sacramental marriage. Only a Church granted annulment of the marriage is considered valid by the Church. The lack of recognition by the Church however doesn't make a divorced couple any less legally divorced.

The same logic holds through with entering into a marriage. Just because a couple opts to forgo a religious, sacramental marriage (courthouse ceremony, Las Vegas elopement, etc.) doesn't make a civilly married couple any less legally married. And personally, I think that should extend to homosexual couples who wish to enter into a legally binding marital relationship... Gay couples seeking to marry is not at all a threat to the institution of marriage. What is a threat to marriage are those who treat their marital partner with disrespect and a lack of honor...

IMHO,

Stacey

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

As a bisexual man, I say love knows no boundaries...

Hopefully, in 50 or 60 years, we'll look back at this period of time and see how ridiculous the policies of marriage is and how oppressive an institution it is to people who don't fit into heterosexuality.

[XPEG]

Stacey, I think you summed it up very well. For instance, my brother and his second wife were married in her house by a judge. They were in their 50's and had no intention of having children. Yet, under the law, they were married (and are now, under the law, divorced, but that's another story).

Those that argue against marriage between same-sex couples often mention religious reason as to why it's not a good thing. However, the way different religions treat marriage --who they will marry and how marriages can be dissolved in the church-- in some ways are different than what the law says. For instance, certain religious leaders will not marry two people who aren't of that faith, yet the law doesn't stipulate any religious requirement.

If the law allows benefits of marriage for certain consenting adult citizens, they should allow it for all.

[donnylutz]

I just wanted to point out that I of course am completely for equal rights to everyone....I'm just very curious to hear comments from the "other" side!

I have yet to hear a reason against gay marriage that didn't have something to do with religion........and any argument against it stemming from religion is ridiculous for so many reasons.....

Donnylutz :)
:CK

[Sparks]

I can't help you with comments from the other side...I really don't know anyone who has a problem with Gay marriage...or else they won't admit it to me...
The only arguments against gay marriage I hear are moral/religious ones. This makes no sense to me either. There are many actions, beliefs and behaviors that I find morally reprehensible. For example, I think it's immoral to use child labor in sweat-shops overseas, I think it's immoral for large corporations to not pay their fair share of taxes, and I think it's immoral to torture someone. However, I would never advocate for those people NOT to have the right to love who they love and to have the right to have their partners make medical decisions for them.

[manskater]

donnylutz -- congrats on your relationship of 3 years.My partner of 15 years and I don't get the outrage either. What I find reprehensible is that many of those who don't want to see us get "married" also don't want us to have "civil unions" which basically means they do not want us to have the same rights as a couple as they do.:rolleyes

Nice to find that so many here don't have their heads in the sands and that so many here are not afraid to state their sexual orientation.:D

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

You know... I have heard this reason...

That's not the way nature intends it to be...

I rememebr when I heard that, I went and pulled out this book about bonobos and how even in nature, homosexuality is natural.

Shoot, asexuality is natural.

[attyfan]

In California, we have a statute providing for "registered domestic partnerships", which gives gay couples the same "rights" that married heteros have; to end the partnership, the couple effectively has to divorce. Yet, there currently is a lawsuit pending to declare California's definition of marriage (limited to hetero couples) unconstitutional. I would like to know what gay couples think that marriage would give them that a "civil union", such as we have in California, won't.

[Puce]

just because california has civil unions after so many years together does not mean every state has that luxury. and also, how long does it take for these "civil unions" so be legal? maybe that waiting period just isn't feasible for some couples. also, maybe gay couples would just like their partnerships to be respected and aknowledged. just as any straight couple does.

i know a person that was very against gay marriages so i asked him why. he couldn;t come up with a good, valid reason other than the fact that he doesn't understand how a man can love another man. ( he, typically male, has no such problems with 2 women)so i asked him who defines love? and how can the government tell 2 people that their love isn't moral? or natural? or real? or just as beautiful as a man and a woman? and who would gay couples be hurting by getting the chance to live the way straight people take for granted? he has since changed his mind.

maybe the problem is that some people fear that gay couples will have a lower divorce rate, therefore making straight people seem like they are more superficial and don't respect the institution of marriage in a way that the government leaders would like to think.:b it's just like madonna says in one of her songs (i know, how lame for me to quote a madonna song, but anyways...) "...we're all made of flesh and blood. why should (gays) be teated differently? shouldn't matter who you choose to love".

[Krista]

I have no problem with gay marriage. It should be at the very least, legal to get a civil union so that the partners aren't left with nothing in case of accidents/death etc. Ive said many times there are other things these politicians should fret over, instead of two people of the same sex loving each other "oh no, not love!?!?!". If a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple, fine, its up to that church. But the couple should be allowed to go to a justice of the peace and have a ceremony, or wherever. Its like my parents who go into their "its just not right" schpiel. Im thankful Ive made it out of the brainwashed thinking that there is only one way to live. There are many varieties of people in this world, and as long as they are adults, consenting, etc then others should let them be and love one another.

[moxie]

The government's role in the whole issue would be fair & equal for all if the issues of sexuality and religion were removed & we allowed any two adults (including such possible same-sex pairings as siblings, grandparent-grandchild or two elderly widows) to form a "household unit" for the purposes of what govenment is supposed to be limited to: tax status and partner rights as to inheritance & hospital issues, etc.

This wouldn't require a ceremony and wouldn't be either a "union" or a "marriage." Laws regarding "household units" would be uniform for every state.

The issue of maintaining laws for who would be eligible for a "marriage" or "civil union" (as well as parental status and rights) would be left to individual states to decide. And, as always, churches would set their own policies as to eligibility for a marriage ceremony.

[LyraMK]

Hi donnylutz,

You said you wanted some views from the other side. Well, I will attempt to give you some seeing as how I'm as "other side":) as you can get.

I am a young 20something conservative who is a Christian missionary overseas right now. Obviously, I've had this discussion with many other conservative and here are some of our thoughts:

1. To me it is not a religious issue, but a Biblical issue. I am a Christian, and I follow the Bible which clearly and emphatically states that homosexuality is wrong. Now, as a Christian I support what the Bible says and support to me means not advocating gay marriage. Call me narrow minded -- that's ok. The Bible is narrow minded -- it says so itself. Nonetheless, I would be a hypocrit not to follow it and support its doctrines. (I want to put a little disclaimer here -- just because the Bible does not condone a gay lifestyle does not in any possible way mean it condones persecution toward any gay person -- those people drive me crazy. Yes, some say not allowing gay marriage is persecution, but that's a whole other story).

2. I also believe the issue is not can a man marry a man or can a woman marry a woman. But, it is can a person marry anyone they choose. This includes a father marrying a daughter. A mother marrying a son. It seems crazy, but to open the door on gay marriage is to open the door for that. Some nut will come to court saying that since gay marriage is now legal he should be able to marry his daughter. I honestly believe that is what allowing gay marriage will lead to.

3. Also, according to the Bible, God created marriage between a man and a woman even before He created the church. As a Christian, I view it my duty to do my best to preserve what God has ordained in the Bible.

I know this post will come across as naive to many. That's fine, I am accustomed to that. I am an intelligent, educated person and happen to wholeheartedly believe these beliefs. I truly hope I didn't offend anyone. I just wanted to show donnylutz some of the things I hear in conservative conversations and I hope I've done that.

Happy day to all!

[donnylutz]

I would like to know what gay couples think that marriage would give them that a "civil union", such as we have in California, won't.

A civil union would not give gay/lesbian/transgendered couples equal rights.....that's all they want. Nothing more, and nothing less. We don't want seperate but "equal" type of nonsence.....

Donnylutz :)
:SP

[moxie]

Now, as a Christian I support what the Bible says and support to me means not advocating gay marriage.

It's fine for you to think that for yourself, and for your church to have those teachings for its members. But why should the religious views of Christians be the basis of laws that govern everyone in this country, including millions of people who are not Christians? What is your reasoning for this?

I also believe the issue is not can a man marry a man or can a woman marry a woman. But, it is can a person marry anyone they choose. This includes a father marrying a daughter. A mother marrying a son. It seems crazy, but to open the door on gay marriage is to open the door for that. Some nut will come to court saying that since gay marriage is now legal he should be able to marry his daughter.

I owned a house with my elderly mother and it would have helped us immensely taxwise if we had been allowed to form a domestic partnership. By your reasoning, if the government had allowed us to have a "civil union," we might have then entered into an incestuous relationship. Ridiculous.

A father (or mother) who wants to sexually abuse a child doesn't need a marriage certificate to do it. Sadly, incest already happens every day -- including in some "nice" religious families that oppose gay partnership rights.

[amielou]

I would challenge you, LyraMK, to think through some things about this issue.

First of all, do you believe everything the Bible says? I worked in a very conservative Christian school for six years, and I know you are going to say yes in a millisecond. Be very careful before you do. Do you eat shellfish? According to Leviticus Chapter 11, you should not eat sea creatures that do not have scales or fins. Should we outlaw shrimp? Should we execute adulterers? The Bible says they are to be put to death (Leviticus again, chapter 20). Should we forgive everyone's debts once every 50 years? (The IRS would love that). The Bible commands it in Leviticus, chapter 25. Can we all get Canadian slaves? In Leviticus 25, it also says that you may posess slaves as long as you get them from a neighboring nation. (I could use someone to come clean my desk!)

You will refute everything in my last paragraph by saying Jesus cancelled the law of the Old Testament. And you are correct. He did, and I eat shrimp, don't believe in the death penalty for anyone, and wouldn't want a slave from anywhere (I could go for the debt cancellation thing, though!). But before you use the Bible against homosexuals, consider the message of Jesus and the Gospel. Love. He told us that the two greatest commandments were to love God and to love your neighbor. Gay people are your neighbors whether you like it or not. And Jesus told us the second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor. Dragging out a Bible to condemn them is not an act of love. He also told us to judge not, lest we be judged, also. (I challenge myself daily to remember that point so that I will always be getting the logs from my eyes instead of feeling good because I can see the speck in someone else's.)

Finally, third point, as many others have pointed out. The issue of gay marriage is about civil marriage, not marriage in a church. No one has ever suggested that your conservative church or my Lutheran church or the Catholic church I work for would ever be required against their beliefs to marry a gay couple, just as they are not required to marry every heterosexual couple that comes through the doors. The Bible should not be used to dictate civil law. It can't be. There is no way to enforce the real commands of Christianity. No government official can really determine whether or not I love God and love my neighbor adequately. And the church would be a real force in this world if it focused on creating more disciples who do those two things than on banning behaviors. Changing people's behavior doesn't change their hearts.

[Puce]

I also believe the issue is not can a man marry a man or can a woman marry a woman. But, it is can a person marry anyone they choose. This includes a father marrying a daughter. A mother marrying a son. It seems crazy, but to open the door on gay marriage is to open the door for that. Some nut will come to court saying that since gay marriage is now legal he should be able to marry his daughter. I honestly believe that is what allowing gay marriage will lead to.

this whole argument is crazy. it's the same as the argument that, if priests were able to marry, there wouldn't be priests molesting children. priests that molest do NOT molest because they are simply horny, they molest because they are sexual predators. marriage will not stop the child molesters from molesting. and not allowing gay marriage will not stop a whacked out person from thinking it's ok to marry a son or a daughter etc... you can not blame gay marriage for the ills of civilization. you make it seem like gay love is dirty and will lead to other dirty things. i absolutely disagree with this. gay marriage and gay love is NOT dirty! and these things, such as wackos wanting relations with a son or a daughter, existed long before the fight for gay rights existed.

[Sparks]

Yes, and remember that Jesus NEVER said anything about homosexuality. He NEVER in any context said that it was a sin, etc.
Amielou, your post was spot ot, imo.

[donnylutz]

I just find it hard to take any religious or biblical stance against gay marriage without laughing!

In this country, there is (or should be) seperation of church and state. That said.......any argument using religion or the bible shouldn't matter at all.

Also...saying that gay marriage will "open the door" for fathers to marry their daughters etc.........look at all the countries that allow gay marriage, some having it allowed for quite awhile now.....there's no reports of ANY of that happening there.....

Donnylutz :)
:RB

[Lanternlight]

I really think the solution is to remove civil government from marriage all together. The govt should only be granting civil unions, to any two unrelated adults who wish to enter a legal contract to share property.

Marriage should be left to a church, and if a church decides something is biblically wrong, then they are not obligated to marry someone.

But our government shouldn't be prohibiting gay unions based on religious interpretations.

[pbluu]

There are better things to be concerned about than wether I'm marrying someone that the church disagree with. Like someone here already said, why aren’t these same people outraged at the immoral injustice that’s happening? Poverty, abuse, corporations ruling the country, etc. I also don't see these same people getting outraged over the priests molestation scandal. Instead the catholic church would rather see it quietly go away by itself.

Also, I do not get the clinging to the Bible that some people have. Gosh, it's not all there is to life. The bible was written by some monks way back when. It was not written by God! It was interpreted (supposedly from god) by the monks.

Also, the bible is not supposed to be taken literally. Like a historian that I saw in PBS said about quoting the bible literally (i'm paraphrasing here), if a passage in the bible as that there is a green frog in my throat and if one interprets that there is a slimy thing in one's throat then that person is missing the whole point!

I you believe in God, then the bible should be a guide not something that you carry on your back as a burden. And that is what I saw with people that always call up the almighty little book. (can't u tell that i'm an atheist? but that doesn't mean that i'm a nonspiritual person. that's another myth that conservative religious people assume.)

[BrenMT]

Some people don't realize just how much Christians are judged in a negative way. Judgment absolutely goes both ways.

I am a Christian, and do not advocate gay marriage. I find it is extremely difficult, even when asked, to get my point across to those who do not share my beliefs. Donnylutz, you ask those on the "other side" to share their beliefs, then you laugh in our faces.

Hasn't anyone ever heard of "love the sinner, hate the sin?"
We are not called to hate any group or person. We are called to love God and our neighbors and even our enemies, whomever they may be. We are to be the loving light of the Gospel in a world that doesn't know the Light. So remember that we are called to love the sinner while we are teaching them to repent and turn from the sin that separates them from God. If we're all perfect people who never sin, then why did Jesus have to die?

Scripture says:

5Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. 6The mind of sinful man[e] is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; 7the sinful mind[f] is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. 8Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God. (Romans 8)

God loves each of us unconditionally--He always has, and all we have to do is accept His love. He loves us regardless of our sins, but He does call for us to repent of them. Like Lyra said, the Bible is narrowminded, and it does say so. No matter what anyone says, there is only ONE way to heaven, and that is through Jesus Christ. Scripture makes this perfectly clear:

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6)

This is serious stuff here, folks--not to be taken lightly. We all need to open up our minds, to the truth. What I can't understand is why nobody wants the truth, the love? It IS hard sometimes to repent of what we've done wrong and want to make a change, but you know what? Our sins COST Jesus something.

I know many of you will say "Well, that's great, but I don't believe in God, or the Bible, so I cannot agree with the basis of your argument." If you expect us to listen to you & your frustrations, you have to be willing to go the other way as well.

You can go ahead and take this all the wrong way if you choose, or you could take it one step further. How many of you are willing to thoroughly read scripture to find the answers you're looking for, as opposed to targeting only what you see as contradictions? If you look, you just might be surprised at what you find...thanks for listening...

[kwanfanatic2002]

BREN, first of all "CONGRATULATIONS" on your new marriage. I got married New Years Eve and I highly recommend it too!!!!.

I could not agree with you more. You are 100% correct. I could not have said it more.I am a Christian also and take the Bible literally. (Pbluu- YES the BIBLE was wirtten BY GOD) not by some monk. I would like some proof that a monk wrote the BIBLE> WHere in the BIBLE does it say that???????

I agree completely that our sin cost Jesus more than we can eve comprehend.

[Emerald2000]

The bible was written by God? I don't think so. The bible was not faxed down to earth by God. It was penned by men, and men are fallible and opinonated. As a Catholic who studied the bible a bit in middle school, I find it hard for anyone to take it literally. It's archaic--the message is good, but it was written too long ago. I don't think it's right to apply everything in the bible to today's world.

[Sparks]

Just to clarify:
The Bible was put together and translated by many different people (including Monks) living in different parts of history. GOD/Jesus didn't pick up a pen and jot down all the books of the Bible.

www.greatsite.com/timelin...e-history/ (http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/)

The holy scriptures are said to have been written by witnesses to Jesus' life, death, and resurrection - ie: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Much of the rest of the New Testament are letters written to certain communities- for example, Paul's letters to the Corinthians, etc. This Paul did these writings well past Jesus' death and it is often a common misunderstanding to think that this Paul was a one of the original disciples and witness to the life, death, & resurrection of Jesus.
Most, if not all of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) was written by people...Yes, people who stated that they heard the word of GOD. I can think of only one exception to this...that would be the tablets that God inscribed with the 10 commandments and gave to Moses.
The Bible often speaks in allegory and metaphor and everything cannot be taken literally. The Bible is often viewed as a great work of literature. It is written to make humans develop order, to think, to use reasoning, love, and ethics while living their daily lives. One Biblical scholar (and true Christian believer) with whom I would have spirited talks said that some of the Bible, especially the early books of the Old Testament, were stories written to explain what humans found to be the unexplainable. Also, in ancient times many Bible stories lived through oral history..stories passed on from one generation to another. These stories aren't meant literally, they are fables used for teaching about right and wrong, and humans' spiritual quests.

Regardless of how the Bible was written or how it is taken, this does not address the issue of legal Gay unions. If you 'love the sinner', can you just let them live in peace with equal rights? In the United States, we live in a Democracy where it is unconstitutional to have only one religion (or any religion) dictating government and law. The Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." therefore, the Government cannot discriminate against those who may or may not believe in all Christian teachings.
If you believe that Homosexuality is a sin, then don't you believe that this is between the sinner and his/her maker? Legal Gay unions will not harm you...Remember, judge not...

[attyfan]

I think a lot of the problem is based on the dual nature of marriage. On the legal side, marriage confers certain rights and responsibilities, such as support, guardianship of the other person (such as Michael and Terri Schiavo), or property. This is something that states can confer, and to deny these rights to adults because they are gay is (IMHO) unconstitutional. However, marriage also has a "religious" or "social" aspect, such that it is considered (in some religions) to be a sacrament, and, usually comes with a certain degree of social approval. This aspect is largely outside the government's control.

[kwanluv]

Excellent post Sparks

To expand on attyfan's post...

One problem is the word "marriage"...its very nature alligns it with religion, when in fact, the government views "marriage" as a civil union. As far as I'm concerned, marriage is a religious ceremony that should be something that only takes place within the walls of that religion. To make it a legal "civil union" the couple must then file the needed paperwork....ie: license

This is what happens, correct?

The word of the priest or minister doesn't make the marriage legal in the eyes of the law...the license does...so...two men or two women who love each other, and have the same desire to secure themselves in our society by enjoying the rights that should ALREADY be allowed under our constitution, should be allowed to engage in a legal civil union, right? They can do so at city hall, or any religious entity open enough to realize that 2 people who love each other is a wonderful thing.

Yet that isn't the case, because of outdated religious beliefs, spreading fear, ignorance and harmful values in a modern and evolving society. Why are these people so afraid? Why do they feel the need to impose their religious values on those that don't follow their dogma? Why? People of true faith should be completely secure with themselves and their beliefs, and their god...therefore why interfere in the lives of others?

Too bad.

Someday, I hope America will evolve to the point that we can truly be the free and equal society that we *claim* to be regardless of age, sex, race, religion, or sexual orientation...and that people of every religion can also be free to still celebrate, practice and follow their individual faith, but where it should be followed...in their hearts, minds and in their churches...but no longer in our government.

That won't happen though until more people start to think for themselves and start to look at life as it really is, not as they're told it *should* be.

[kwanfanatic2002]

The Bible was written by God, thru man. they were given Gods laws for man to live by, and what is expected from us in order for us to live how GOD commands us to live our lives here on earth. IF we don't live our lives according to Gods commands and accept him as our savior (as commanded in the Bible), we cannot make it to heaven. You can accept that or not accept it. That is up to you.

[donnylutz]

Donnylutz, you ask those on the "other side" to share their beliefs, then you laugh in our faces.

I wasn't laughing in anyone's faces...I was simply stating that one persons religious beliefs don't have any place in making laws. I'm not advocating that whatever church you belong to needs to marry gay people...your church can do whatever it wants. Your religious beliefs, and my religious beliefs don't have ANY PLACE making laws......none.

We have freedom of religion, and from religion. Those freedoms are being taken away.

And I would just like to add....I might be gay but I'm also a christian.....and there are MANY, MANY churches that are open and accepting of GLBT people and our struggles.

And in the end it doesn't really matter to me. My partner just accepted a posistion at a college in Canada.......so I will be moving there and eventually be married. I just hope that eventually people realize that two guys getting married will not ruin the whole world.



Donnylutz :)
:RB

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

I think it was said before that...

THERE IS A SEPERATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE

What if a religion did allow marriage between the same sex. Would te government allow that? What about marriages performed by Buddhist monks or Jewish Rabbis? How about Hindu marraiges? Do those count?

I agree that "marriage" should be taken out of government and left to the religions. The government should only worry about civil unions. Religious organizations should be the ones to worry about ritual marriage. Government should in no way be involved with a religion.

[kwanfanatic2002]

Donny, I wish you the best of luck in Canada. I was born and raised in Canada. it's a beautiful country. What part are you going to.? I actually have a cousin (female) that is a lesbian and a minister. She performs gay marriages in Toronto. (I'm pretty sure that is where she settled. She used to live here in TX, but was upset about the church and it's laws, so she and her partner moved back to Canada.
I hope you like it up there. I also hope you like the very cold weather!!!!.

[donnylutz]

Thanks! I'm moving to Toronto actually! :) I've lived in Minnesota my whole life...I'm used to cold and actually really enjoy it!

Donnylutz :)
:CH

[moxie]

The Bible was written by God, thru man. they were given Gods laws for man to live by, and what is expected from us in order for us to live how GOD commands us to live our lives here on earth. IF we don't live our lives according to Gods commands and accept him as our savior (as commanded in the Bible), we cannot make it to heaven. You can accept that or not accept it. That is up to you.

Yes, each person can consider all this and decide whether or not to be a Christian. But that is strictly a matter of religious beliefs and should have absolutely no role on how laws are written in the U.S. on who can and cannot set up a household for matters relating to taxation and property rights.

There are millions of "straight" couples in this country who follow a different religion and who follow different teachings than God's laws as expressed in the Bible. Are you saying that these couples should not be able to get married in the U.S. because they do not follow God's laws?

See, the true bottom line here is that some Christians want to use their personal religious beliefs to control U.S. laws for everyone, Christian or not.

[JerryStopher]

Moxie said ... See, the true bottom line here is that some Christians want to use their personal religious beliefs to control U.S. laws for everyone, Christian or not.

This statement accords with what I said in my previous post in this thread, to wit: Donny, if you and your partner want to call it "marriage" and if your state wants to certifiy it, thus granting you the same legal rights as a "straight" couple, I say, "why not?" Whether I think it's "moral" according to my understanding of Scripture has nothing to do with your "legal rights."

So what else is there to say about this legal matter? Some think it's wrong to allow "marriage rights" to gay couples, and that position is based entirely on religious belief. Others - including some who think gayness is sinful - don't think the State has a right to interfere in gay folks' relationships, because of the rule of separation of Church and State.

As Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."

[pbluu]

donny lutz, u can laugh all u want. i'll join ya.

some of the reasonings are just so ludicrous that one can't help but laugh.

let me ask this question to those who believe that god wrote the bible. why did he have to go thru man to do it? why didn't he just write something in like stone. that would have been more durable than say paper books.
Also, remember that humans make mistakes. So what makes one thinks that the bible is totally accurate? (Oh yeah, because it’s from God).

Sorry, but I can't help being cynical about this.

Any kinds of fanatic conservative religions just totally turn me off.

[Lanternlight]

Some Christians believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible and some believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, but not perfect, because man wrote it.

I fall into the second camp, but the former tend to be those who are most opposed to gay marriage as a general principle.

[Sparks]

The Bible was written by God, thru man. they were given Gods laws for man to live by, and what is expected from us in order for us to live how GOD commands us to live our lives here on earth. IF we don't live our lives according to Gods commands and accept him as our savior (as commanded in the Bible), we cannot make it to heaven. You can accept that or not accept it. That is up to you.
That is all fine and dandy, but as someone who is on 'the other side of this issue', could you please address some of the more meaningful questions raised here? I would appreciate it...I'm just trying to learn...(see the last paragraph of my last post)
Thank you.

[attyfan]

FWIW, a court in Nebraska has held that an initiative precluding any recognition of any kind of gay marriage or civil unions is unconsitutional, as it prohibits people from advocating (let alone securing passage) of specific laws that might give a gay couple the same rights as a straight couple.

[manskater]

attyfan -- here is the article concerning what you posted.

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/ (http://http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/)
Judge strikes down Neb. gay marriage ban
Ruling says measure interferes with rights of gays, others


As far as those who say I won't reach heaven I know how I lived my life. I've lived a great life, helping others, being honest, not judging others for how they live their life and loving my partner for the last 15 years in a very committed relationship. Those who want to judge me or try to restrict my rights for living that kind of life are going to be way behind me on the line up to the heaven.

[manskater]

www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/ (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7834478/)

Hopefully this link works.

[Emerald2000]

The bible was written by god through man...but god did not physically pick up a pen and write all his thoughts down, like men do. There are parts of the bible that are, essentially, good; and there are parts that aren't so good. How strictly we follow the bible is personal, and I have to say I don't think it's the sole measuring stick by which God determines our fate.

[moxie]

Also, the Bible has undergone many translations over the years. We don't really know how close we are right now to the original writings.

[Jayjen36]

First, while I am a Christian, or a Christ-follower, as I've been told I am, I'm also not a biblical literalist.

We are not called to hate any group or person. We are called to love God and our neighbors and even our enemies, whomever they may be. We are to be the loving light of the Gospel in a world that doesn't know the Light.

While this may be true, many of the people that you as social and religious conservatives have chosen as your leaders do not often reflect a sense of love for their (and in effect your) socio-political enemies. So you can hardly blame people, gays, lesbians, liberals, etc. for defending themselves against a perceived attack.

As a political machine, Christianity ceases to be a way to lovingly bring people to God. It becomes a battering ram with which to disable and discredit and condemn and divide. Hardly loving, hardly caring. It's hard to see the bible as a thing of beauty and wisdom if someone is using it to tell you that as citizen you are inferior, as a person you are dangerous, sick, and just plain wrong; and that a union that you have given every bit as much work, thought, hope and love as any straight person should not be acknowledged or honored by your society and cannot be acknowledged by God. Believe me, very few people are really laughing. Most who do are doing so out of disbelief or sadness.

God loves each of us unconditionally--He always has, and all we have to do is accept His love. He loves us regardless of our sins, but He does call for us to repent of them. Like Lyra said, the Bible is narrowminded, and it does say so. No matter what anyone says, there is only ONE way to heaven, and that is through Jesus Christ. Scripture makes this perfectly clear

If someone has no belief the biblical scripture, it is illogical to use it to argue the merits of Christianity. In the end what you have is who you are. I'm not sure exactly how the quote goes, but it's something like: You can recognize a tree by its fruit. A rotten tree cannot give good fruit any more than a good tree can give rotten fruit. As I said I'm not sure about the chapter and verse:o , but I think that the meaning is still clear. Many judge the worth and validity of Christianity and whether it can have a place in their lives by the way they see it in the lives of Christians around them.

And what do we see? There is Pat Robertson, a very highly visible Christian leader who railed about how the 9/11 attacks where the fault of homosexuals, pro-choice advocates and liberals. There were the Catholic priests who during this last election refused to allow those that did hold the same political views that they did holy communion. There seems to be nothing so important to Christians today as the ability to force the world to behave the way that they see fit. In all of this there is very little if any love shown, and certainly little felt by those who are not Christians, and even by those of us who are. So that is the fruit that we see. Not attractive, and not something you'd want to build your life around.

And as for there being only one way, well, that is the viewpoint of your religion. And the only proof of this that you can offer is biblical scripture, which people who aren't Christians probably don't hold in the same esteem as fundamentalist Christians do. Again, in such a case all that you have are the examples that can be found in our society of the way Christianity works in the life of a Christian. Does your life work better than someone who isn't Christian? Does Christian life better the world around it? I think you've got a problem with the most vocal Christians and the effect that they are having and hope to have on society. I doubt that the GLBT community, liberals or pro-life workers feel very loved by the growing Christo-Political movement. And I'm sorry but you can't bludgeon someone with the bible one minute and expect them to embrace it and trust you in the next.

This is serious stuff here, folks--not to be taken lightly. We all need to open up our minds, to the truth. What I can't understand is why nobody wants the truth, the love? It IS hard sometimes to repent of what we've done wrong and want to make a change, but you know what? Our sins COST Jesus something.

This truth, what is it? And how can you prove that it is the truth? While I have heard that there are Christians that believe that they can scientifically prove these spiritual things, my belief is that you cannot. Ultimately you will only hear and accept a spiritual truth that you hear with your heart and soul, not your intellect. And you simply cannot do that you are afraid of being attacked by the person who claims to have this truth. Indeed you are far less likely to listen, and even less likely to open yourself to any spiritual experience offered by them.

Again you say there is love in Christ and in Christianity, what proof do you have other than the love Christ inspires in his people? And what love have they shown in these past few years to any other than each other? In many cases people's heart's have been hardened against God or against Christianity by prejudice. However, in some cases it is what they have seen of Christians and Christianity that turns them away. They cannot be blamed for that.

You can go ahead and take this all the wrong way if you choose, or you could take it one step further. How many of you are willing to thoroughly read scripture to find the answers you're looking for, as opposed to targeting only what you see as contradictions? If you look, you just might be surprised at what you find...thanks for listening...

I don't find that people oppose the idea that the bible is filled with wisdom. Many however, (I being one of them) question the need to follow every single word of it as law.

I thank you for listening as well.

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

My God and my religion says that it is okay to have people who love each other (whether they be straight or not) allowed to be married. I take it that the government will respect my religion and that Christians will also respect my religion...

How come the U.S. government is discriminating against my religion? How do I sue the federal government for discrimination?

I have a question for the Christians (and Jews and Muslims for that matter). My religion and my God says that people can marry whom they love. My religion commands that we marry people for unconditional love. My religion also permits and even encourages women to become church leaders. Because my religion teaches me to love and care for those who may not agree with me, I totally have respect for your beliefs, you religion and your right to practice it. I would die for your right to practice it. Would you die for my right to practice my religion? Are you a lover of freedom?

My religion's scripture says that love knows no race, color or gender as all are God's children...

People should join my religion...

It called Emkayeffianity... I am a devout Emkayeffer.

[Jayjen36]

It called Emkayeffianity... I am a devout Emkayeffer.

I think that's one belief system that we can ALL agree on!
Go Emkayeffianity!!!:rollin

:knee :knee :knee

[amielou]

I am not one of the ludicrous 70% of voters here who voted for that ridiculous amendment in 2000. I don't think that opponents of gay marriage should be terribly shocked that it was found unconstitutional. People with half a legal brain in this state (which is apparently not very many of us) pointed out five years ago that it would never pass constitutional muster. The thing is so broad, that some were concerned that it would make it difficult for people of the same gender to make a business contract.

My dearest friend in all the world has experienced difficulties due to this and she is straight! She has very little family left, and some of them have questionable affiliations that she doesn't wish to support in life or death (neo-nazis--but that's a whole other thread we coud start!). So she chose to make me the beneficiary of her life insurance policy provided by her employer. He was immediately concerned that he would be in trouble because of this amendment--a single female was making another single female a beneficiary! It smacked of legal partnership in his mind and that's banned by this amendment. Never mind that we're both straight, live in different cities and have been friends since we were 10.

She also ran into difficulties with it when her half-sister moved in with her with her young son. The sister wanted to have my friend have legal rights to care for her son because she was often away in the National Guard. They had different names (different fathers) and had to provide their birth certificates to prove that they had the same mother and were half-sisters, not lesbians trying to share custody, in order to get the paperwork legally completed (never mind that they both look exactly like their deceased mother and any judge or lawyer with a quarter of a brain could see by observation that they are sisters). Thank God it got done, because her sister got deployed to Afghanistan shortly after it did.

If you are so anti-gay marriage that you think this amendment didn't reach too far.......you need to get a grip. It actually called into question who you could have care for your child in your absence, who you could will your stuff to or name as a beneficiary on your life insurance, as one activist said on the radio this morning--it banned any unmarried person from having a friend of the same gender appointed to make medical decisions or have power of attorney or even plan a funeral--never mind people in same-sex relationships. My friend has since married, but before she did, because of her family situation, there was no one who she trusted to make those decisions or wanted to leave her money (including an inheritance over $75,000) to except me and my mother. This amendment made it virtually impossible for her to appoint either of us. She ended up making my father the one legally empowered to make medical decisions for her, asking him to abide by what I said. (Now that she is married, that document no longer applies, of course).

Surely rational, freedom-loving people could agree that it went too far!

[JerryStopher]

Kwancierto said ... I have a question for the Christians (and Jews and Muslims for that matter). My religion and my God says that people can marry whom they love. My religion commands that we marry people for unconditional love. My religion also permits and even encourages women to become church leaders. Because my religion teaches me to love and care for those who may not agree with me, I totally have respect for your beliefs, you religion and your right to practice it. I would die for your right to practice it. Would you die for my right to practice my religion? Are you a lover of freedom?

Answer from this Christian: Yes. I am a Veteran and a War Orphan, and the father of a Veteran. My Daddy died, and my son and I were willing to take that risk, so you could be free.

What have you done for us, to protect our freedom?

[donnylutz]

People should join my religion...

Sign me up!

Donnylutz :)
:TOS

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

Answer from this Christian: Yes. I am a Veteran and a War Orphan, and the father of a Veteran. My Daddy died, and my son and I were willing to take that risk, so you could be free.

What have you done for us, to protect our freedom?

While I am lucky never to have gone in to war, I was until 1999 a reservist for the National Guard. I never outed myself and had to lie to serve. My cousin Jennifer is currently a reservist. I am now an educator. I am very active in my chapter of Amnesty International and lead the Amnesty International club in my school. I teach children to respect other people and to fight for social justice and environmental justice. When 9/11 happened, I protected and took care of 22 2nd graders.

My grandfather was also a World War II veteran who fought for the United States. The U.S. had promised these Filipino soldiers recruited into the American Army that if they fought with the Americans, they would receive the same veteran benefits. The Recission Act of 1948 saw the breaking of those promises. My grandfather died never seeing the benefits they were promised.

Believe that when the trucks come for you, I would be the first to fight for you. I hope that when the trucks come for me, you would be there. I would also hope that you will march with me when someday I will march for my rights to practice my belief of marrying the one I love who may be a man.

[godisamazing]

I totally agree with the Christians here who have posted on the topic. Warning: long post ahead.

People often seem to forget about the importance of humility in the Christian life these days. Jesus said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and that was one of the most important things that I realized when I became a Christian, is that my Christian beliefs allow me to be more aware of my own flaws, not allow me to judge others, because that's something only God can do.

Who hasn't experienced anger, pride, lust, greed, etc. before? No one, because we're all human. These are very serious sins (spiritually deadly sins!) that the Bible speaks of far more frequently than homosexuality. In fact, Jesus said that if one person has hatred in his heart, it is as sinful as if that person had actually committed murder. It's frustrating that for some reason, people continue to think that homosexuality is the somehow worst thing imaginable in terms of the Bible.

The Bible emphasizes over and over again that we are all sinners: "It is not by your deeds that you have been saved, but only by the grace of God, so that no man may boast." No man may boast. Pretty humbling stuff.

[kwanfanatic2002]

God is amazing, Yes HE IS!!!!!. i just wanted to say that was a cool post. very well said.

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

Lord Buddha, Yahweh, and Allah are AMAZING too!

But the Goddess of my religion (Emkayeffianity), M'Quan, is triple-size amazing!

I am a devout Emkayeffianer and I have to say that Emkayeffianers are some fo the coolest people ever.

I love that qoute "Let he without sin cast the first stone." Not that I even think homosexuality is a sin because it isn't. I feel like many Christians don't know Jesus at all.

Judge not lest you be judge.

[probativev]

I don't know Donny, I kind of think that the whole issue isn't religion. I think that in certain parts of the country there are established ways of life. I think the disintegration of families over the last decades, and emergence of alternative lifestyles make people who are more traditional feel that their ways of life is under attack, and it's personal. I suspect that it's disconcerting when those who hold traditional views of marriage might be good folks who did their best to do right by their lives based on what they were brought up to believe. Then over time, they are told that everything they hold true, and are their values, are no longer important or eve necessary. It's really a struggle to maintain and preserve a way of life as they know it, while those on the opposite side are struggling to create a new way of life. The religion and Bible thing, I don't doubt their faith, but their religion too goes back to the whole big picture of preserving a way of life.

When you combine the changing social mores and values to the fact that Christianity has been pushed far out of the public realm for the same period, it all combined to create a blacklash that we see today. I do not agree at all that government should be mixed with religion, but it really has become extreme how far Christianity has been banished to support political correctness. There are certainly major transgressions against separation of Church and State that upsets me, but there are also many things that groups like ACLU and anti-Christians push for that are extreme, silly and ridiculous. Unfortunately, the gay rights and marriage issues are all tied up with this blacklash right now and it's all a complete and utter mess.

There are also non-Christians against gay marraiges. Again it's a attack/destruction of way of life thing. I have a friend who doesn't accept Christianity or gay marraige. Her grandfather was a Baptist minister but she herself doesn't believe in God at all. As far as marriage goes, well she equates her own success as ultimately finding a man, getting married and having babies. She's in her mid 30s and that still hasn't happened yet. I think she's against gay marriages and relationships because the concept of gay marriage would destroy her ultimate dream by challenging her fundamental belief that marriage of a man and woman and having children is the highest achievement possible. If marriage can be all sorts of other things, like man marrying man and woman marrying woman, marriage would no longer mean the same thing for her. In effect, gay marriage would shatter her ideal of life success. See what I mean.

Ironic thing is that she doesn't even have a marriage prospect, but a lot of gay couples in love do. Gay couples' dreams of marriage conflicts with her dream and way of life.

All I can say about the current situation: life's tough baby.

[IzzyS]

I don't like the concept. It reminds me too much of "Separate but Equal."

[donnylutz]

No gay person I know is trying to ruin anyone elses way of life....we just want the same rights.

If my partner of 3 years went into the hospital today, they hospital would have to right to not let me in because I'm not "family", and the reasons just go on and on.

I don't see how 2 men getting married would ruin someone else's morals or views......me marrying a man would not effect anyone except me and my family, and my partners....

In countires where gay marriage has been legal.....the "family unit" has just become stronger.

Love is love.

Donnylutz :)
:SP

[godisamazing]

Donnylutz, I understand what you mean, and your stance makes a lot of sense. But, on the other hand, I understand that there are questions which are hard to find answers to. Just to give an example, there are people who say that if indeed "love is love," then:

1) Why couldn't two consenting adults in an incestuous relationship (like brother and sister) be able to get married as well? You could say that incestuous marriages carry a higher risk of birth defects for children, and so they shouldn't be allowed, whereas for gay marriages that's not an issue. But then, if we can restrict two people from getting married simply on the basis that they would have a higher chance of having birth defects in their children, then we would have to prohibit a lot of marriages and say that people with carrier alleles for certain diseases cannot marry each other, and that seems wrong. Also, women who have a smoking or drinking habit have a significantly higher chance of having birth defects in their children, but they are still allowed to get married, so birth defects doesn't seem to be a good reason for not allowing incestuous marriages. You could say that incestuous marriages commonly involve child abuse, but gay marriages do not, so we should not allow incestuous marriages. But still, that doesn't explain why we shouldn't allow siblings of similar ages to get married.

2) Why couldn't polygamous marriages be allowed as well if all involved are consenting adults? You might say, polygamous marriages should not be allowed because in polygamy, one person is frequently taking advantage of the others involved. But then, taking advantage of another person can occur in any two person marriage, and in fact frequently does. Also, what if the polygamous marriage doesn't involve any taking advantage of others? If all involved consented to it, chose it as their way of life, and treated one another as equals, then it would seem that we should allow polygamous marriage as well as gay marriage.

Like I said, I don't know the answers to these questions, and I doubt anyone else does for certain, but hopefully this will stimulate some further discussion.

[Skatekwan6]

I think it is absolutely absurd to compare a gay couple to a brother and sister who want to get married. I think it's a cop- out to say "Well if we let gays get married, then brothers and sisters will want to." It doesn't make any sense to compare the two situations. In that case, "If two men who are not brothers want to marry each other and ONLY each other, then what do you do if a man a woman who are not related and are not brother and sister want to get married?" For this argument, I prefer to ask why men and women who are monogomous and not brother and sister should get special treatment? The Bible says be fruitful and multiply, but many couples do not have children. No where does it say you HAVE to have children or you're sinning. And then there are people who never marry...not everyone marries.

[donnylutz]

Ellen Degeneres covered it best in one of her stand up shows.........

I'm quoting horribly here...

"When you talk about gay marriage, people all ways to go..."if we allow that, then we'll have to allow people to marry goats..".....I don't wanna marry a goat......I don't even want to live with a goat.........Can you imagine telling your parents? Mom, dad,....this is Billy.....we're in love!"

Anywho, I guess my point is that........I don't really know....I've lost track with this whole thread (yes I know I started it.)

Between this thread and dealing with this stuff ALL DAY EVERY DAY, I'm getting burnt out. I guess this is how all oppressed groups have felt, and continue to feel.

Donnylutz :RB

[godisamazing]

Skatekwan6, I'm not trying to compare incestuous marriage to gay marriage. I'm trying to compare incestuous marriage to the society's concept of marriage in general. Since you don't know me, please don't assume, based on some new information I have added, that I hold certain views or that I have a certain agenda. Is it possible that maybe I'm just trying to have an objective discussion? :eek If you disagree with the information, feel free to say why, I'm curious to see what people's opinions are, that is why I posted it! You may think I am being ridiculous by bringing up incest and polygamy, but there really are people in these types of relationships who believe that they should be allowed to be married, and you have not provided a reason why they should not be allowed to do so.

donnylutz, funny Ellen line! Please understand that I'm not saying gay marriage would lead to marriage with animals and I regret if you interpreted my post that way, or if you feel oppressed by my post. I was talking about types of relationships that only involve human beings. Since you began the thread discussion, I wanted to throw some more material out therethat has more to do with our general notions of marriage and how it is defined in our society. I assumed that you began this thread to begin such a discussion about marriage, but if you are getting burnt out, maybe you could ask the mods to close this thread. I'd actually much rather talk about Ellen's one liners :)

[manskater]

Godisamazing, what I find troubling and hurtful are those Christians who talk about "love" and then (1) compare my relationship with my partner to not only incest and polygamy but "murder". (2) and then say I will not reach "heaven". I certainly believe in a higher being but it must not be the one these people believe in. When you have nutjobs like the Rev Phelps and his ilk in Wyoming calling gays derogatory names and saying he hopes they will burn in hell I wonder very much whether he is actually speaking for many in the mainstream religious community but who just stay in the background and do not fight this behvavior. When you have someone like James Dobson or Focus on the Family suddenly becoming mainstream with his views on gays and trying very hard to get an amendment passed in Colorado to prevent not only same sex marriage but also civil unions I wonder just where is this hatred coming from. I have many religious friends who are straight and they do not look at me as "evil" but I am sure some in the religious "right" do and they probably think that sanctioning same sex marriage is sanctioning evil. I want to have the same legal rights in a committed relationship as you. I should not have to get extra paperwork to make sure that I am allowed to be in the hospital with my partner or that my partner gets property that we share. I can't even have my partner get my social security if something should happen to me. How equal is that??

I'm not unleashing my anger on you Godisamazing, this is a very personal topic for me and I'm sure others here.

[godisamazing]

Wow. I am comparing your relationship to incest, polygamy, and murder? You want understanding, but apparently you can't give it in return, either to people like me who are trying to have an objective discussion or to people in those types of relationships. You say you are not "unleashing your anger" on me and in the same breath you personally attack my character, religion, and say that I am a hypocrite who wants you to burn in hell. If you interpreted my posts the way you did, I can't help you. As a Christian, I have been taught to forgive, but that doesn't mean it's okay for you to attack me however you want to; I'm human and my patience is not unlimited. You could have PM'd me if you wanted clarification about something that I posted, but you didn't. As much as I love MK and everyone in this online community, you've crossed the line. You can rest assured that I will never come to this board again. I hope that solves your problems. To everyone, thank you so much for everything! In year I've been here, I've really enjoyed and appreciated your advice, thoughts, stories, and gushing about MK. I'll definitely be rooting with you all for MK in 2006!!! :FL

[probativev]

No gay person I know is trying to ruin anyone elses way of life....we just want the same rights.

Donny, it's not that there are gay people out there with mission to ruin anyone's way of life. What I was saying is that the change of the institution of marriage itself becomes a destruction of a way of life for some people who feel that the way it's always been is important to them. Kind of like what happened in Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton. The exclusive upper class New York Society, and the ultimate change in the next generation where everything that made that society the way it was, changed, and to a point where the way it was no longer existed. When the new money people started joining in that society, the society as it was known eroded a bit. When people of that class started marrying those who weren't part of that society, at first it was scandalous, but over time the society itself diminished. Think of the gay people as the New Money and those who oppose it as the blue-blooded Old Money, and you get my drift.

If it gives you any comfort, well, in Age of Innocence, the whole upper crust New York joined forces to suppressed the potentially scandalous pairing of Archer and the divorced Countess Ellen, and made things right as they saw fit...Archer back to his non well-brought up wife May Welland....much like the recent passage of anti-gay marriage laws in 11 states. Mind you, the Countess and Archer didn't have any agenda to destroy the close-knit society either. But by the next generation, Archer's own son hooked up with Fanny Beaufort, the daughter of new money and no one even blinked an eye. The institution collapsed. While I doubt that the institution of marriage will collapse, I do see that it changes. And all changes displease those who hold that way of life valuable.

[IzzyS]

I don't think that allowing same-sex marriage would change anything about heterosexual marriage at all. Why would it? What would change?

The closest historical example I can think of is interracial marriages. Not allowed, some places, in our history. Why? Because "it's always been that way," because people "don't like change." It seems preposterous, now, but that's the way it was.

Heterosexual couples will still be able to marry. Churches that don't want to perform the ceremony don't have to. Heterosexuals who don't feel comfortable with homosexuals don't have to be around them, don't have to go to their weddings, don't have to let their kids play with them. Whatever.

But one's own discomfort with homosexuality should not determine whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to participate fully in a rite that the rest of the population takes for granted.

I believe, with all my heart and soul, that 100 years from now--maybe less--this issue will be settled and people will wonder why there was ever even a question about allowing gays to marry. But until then, I just hope and pray that my sister will be someday be allowed full participation in all areas of life, including marrying the person she chooses.

[manskater]

Oh please godisamazing, I wrote my last sentence just so that you would not think I was talking to you directly. If you want to think that I can't stop you. You are the one that is showing the exact intolerance that I see amongst the religious right.:rolleyes

[Skatekwan6]

Skatekwan6, I'm not trying to compare incestuous marriage to gay marriage. I'm trying to compare incestuous marriage to the society's concept of marriage in general. Since you don't know me, please don't assume, based on some new information I have added, that I hold certain views or that I have a certain agenda.

I didn't assume anything about you. I didn't attack you. I simply kept the objective discussion going by responding to your post.

[BrenMT]

Oh gosh, please don't compare most Christians to Rev. Phelps and his bandwagon. I did a lot of research on him last year in college, and they are looneybins for sure, who protest at the funerals of homosexual men and women. They put such a bad spin on the "mainstream" Christians, and they should not be taken to heart. As a Christian I cannot believe what they do. It sickens me. I am sorry for anyone who has ever felt hurt or offended by them. What I can't believe is everytime there's a controversial thing on TV involving gay marriage...the ordination of Gene Robinson, etc...they interview Phelps & co. and then portray their views as the beliefs of all Christians...this also makes me sick...

Like others have said, homosexuality is only looked at as A sin in the Bible, not THE sin. Maybe Phelps needs to look at this again...

[manskater]

BrenMT, thanks for your post. I certainly do not think the majority of Christians are like Rev Phelps. He is just one of the examples I used to explain why I feel so angered by those who try to use religion to quash the rights and humanity of others. I think it is great that you did research on that group.

[probativev]

I don't think that allowing same-sex marriage would change anything about heterosexual marriage at all. Why would it? What would change?

It won't change any specific person's marraige, but the institution of marriage will change. Of course inter-racial marriage changed things. Before that, the separation of race in marriage was part of a tradition to keep certain things in the world exclusive to certain people. Inter-racial marriage, along with other civil rights, changed the world as people knew it.

In a nutshell, some people want marriage to remain a way of life involving mom, pop, 2.5 kids and dog. It's not that their own marriages will be affected in any way, but once gays achieve the right to marry, the way of life which they hold dear... which is marriage and family involving mom, pop, 2.5 kids and the dog, will not longer be the way of life as they know it. They way of life will be mom & mom and kids, or pop and pop with just dog, etc. Their way of life as a family culture, will no longer be what it used to be.

I just want to clarify that I'm not speaking in defense of one side or another. I'm just posting the reason I believe to be behind the anti-gay marriage sentiment.

[probativev]

On another note, all this emotions about the gay or straight marriage and God issue...thing is, it's only in recent history and still only in advanced parts of the world that marriage is about declaration of love or some holy validity. The history of marriage is really not all that inspiring. It's mostly about property, arranged by others not involved in the marriage. Really historically it's a very oppressive and depressing institution.

[kwancierto de aranjuez]

To those who feel like gay marriage is going to ruin their way of life, I say this...

<span style="font-size:x-large;">"GET OVER IT!"</span>

You're ignorance and bigotry is ruining our way of life...