Gay Marriage

[Tere2]

For what's its worth I clicked the "I don't care" on the poll and leave it at that.

[justinbrink5]

i honestly believe that God made man for a woman and a woman for a man. there should not be anything other than that. now without a biblical perspective, you cant say much either, because all you can say is that is changes the definition of marrige as we have thought about it for thousands of years...i dont think it is right.

[aspenl]

Thank you discardedheart.  I too was not trying to start an argument or force my views onto anyone.  I merely wanted to make sure that all sides of the situation were viewed at the same time.  I also tried to only bring up christian issues with people who stated that they were christian.  I am not trying to make everyone christian or believe the same way I do.

[aspenl]

It also says that if a child is disobedient to his/her parents, the child should be taken to the town elders and stoned by them.

It also says eating seafood is an abomination.

It also says to stone witches.

It also says to stone women who lose their virginity prior to being married.

It also says that if a man is caught raping a woman, he must pay 50 silver pieces to her father then marry the woman because he violated her.

It also okays slavery.

The list goes on and on...

If this is the same book you're trying to derive morals on homosexuality from, why don't you follow or promote the previously mentioned orders?

(I suppose I'll get yelled at for asking questions again or even daring to criticize a religion!)

Thank you for your opinion.  I have mine and you have yours.  I didn't try to bash what you believe nor was I trying to make you believe in the bible.  I will not go further because it is clear you are not interested in my opinion.

[mlbevins]

I come from a extremely strong Christian familing and I am a Christian.  I do not believe in gay marriage.  This (oo) and this (--) just don't fit.  It doesn't work that way.  The way I see it, women and men are differnet for a reason.  They fullfill the differences that women and men have and complete the circle to carry on life.  Homosexuallity ends that.  It doesn't work.  My sister recently came out that she was gay and I am just hoping this is a stage she is going through.  This day in age it seems like people just find anyone to have a relationship just to have one regardless of gender.  I understand that no matter what I say or how I believe their will continue to be homosexuals that will continue their relationships, and in most cases their families abandon them and the only people they have are each other.  I do not believe that they should be able to marry.  Marriage comes from the bible and it is stated that it is to be between a man and a woman.  With saying that I do not feel that they should be denied the right to decide medical attention for each other, nor should their property be kept from each other if something should to someone in the relationship, but all of these things can be taken care of by a living will.

[kesto4]

Its sad when people say it's genetic. If so, then why are twins not always both gay or both straight. Fail.

[jmiddleton21]

I don't know how to quote, but the comment about God creating humans for the purpose of "breeding" is irrelevant. Straight couples have just as much trouble in relationships as gay couples. And the multiplying part, as far as it goes, we all know that gay couples can't have children, but if you look at the orphan rate, and take into consideration the fact that many children can't find home after a certain age, I think that allowing gay marriage should be allowed, followed by adoption. I mean the fact that gay couples can't have children is a blessing in itself. Using religion in this topic can go either way. Yes, your God made men and women different, but if it wasn't for men and women having children and for reasons all their own, not being able to care for them or what not, then we wouldn't have abandoned children out there. Gay marriage and relationships decrease this. (I know that this is a forum on marriage...) As said before, to each his/her own. I just don't think a lot of things are taken into consideration when discussing this. I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, and it is a touchy subject, but I myself believe it is going to be another, and pardon this analogy, but a type of "civil...war??" type of conflict. By denying any one any type of civil freedoms, aren't we becoming a type of communism? On the other hand though, it does take patience and I completly understand gay couples not wanting to be so any longer, but the truth is that even though written up as seperation of church and state, the government has not yet seperated them. The church still controls a rather large portion of things. If the church suddenly said it was ok, don't you think that the state would legalize it? And not all religions are the same, there are some that believe in homosexual relationships!

[mlbevins]

I don't know how to quote, but the comment about God creating humans for the purpose of "breeding" is irrelevant. Straight couples have just as much trouble in relationships as gay couples. And the multiplying part, as far as it goes, we all know that gay couples can't have children, but if you look at the orphan rate, and take into consideration the fact that many children can't find home after a certain age, I think that allowing gay marriage should be allowed, followed by adoption. I mean the fact that gay couples can't have children is a blessing in itself. Using religion in this topic can go either way. Yes, your God made men and women different, but if it wasn't for men and women having children and for reasons all their own, not being able to care for them or what not, then we wouldn't have abandoned children out there. Gay marriage and relationships decrease this. (I know that this is a forum on marriage...) As said before, to each his/her own. I just don't think a lot of things are taken into consideration when discussing this. I respect everyone's opinion on this matter, and it is a touchy subject, but I myself believe it is going to be another, and pardon this analogy, but a type of "civil...war??" type of conflict. By denying any one any type of civil freedoms, aren't we becoming a type of communism? On the other hand though, it does take patience and I completly understand gay couples not wanting to be so any longer, but the truth is that even though written up as seperation of church and state, the government has not yet seperated them. The church still controls a rather large portion of things. If the church suddenly said it was ok, don't you think that the state would legalize it? And not all religions are the same, there are some that believe in homosexual relationships!

I was not only talking as you refer to it as "breeding" I was also talking about the different ways that men and women think to their counter parts.  I feel as if men and women complement each and complete each other in a heteralsexual relationship unlike a homosexual.

[Kymberli0529]

I believe in Gay marriage.  I don't understand why it should be any different than straight marriage.  A man or woman is gay, they're still human and as such should have the same rights as other humans.  There is a seperation of church and state for a reason.  Love is love, there shouldn't be any boundries.

[tu2mama]

Whether or not you believe in it, nothing needs to be said in public about it especially by beauty queens.

[nellet]

gay people are still people. if they want to be with someone of the same sex it's up to them. it's not something i wanna try, but i'm not going to think less of people because they're gay. why should they be denied the same rights straight people get? doesn't make sense.

[LittleDebbieG]

I think gay people should have just as much right to be miserable as the rest of us.

On a more serious level:

As far as religion and faith go, I'm not going to look down on those who practice and believe. That is because America is a melting pot of faiths and religions - not one is better than another. For this reason, no one faith should be placed on high and used as a reasoning and backing for laws of any sort.

An a-theist approach to governing is the best approach as it includes everybody and excludes none.

When it comes to gay marriage, I see absolutely no reason why two men or two women cannot be treated the same as a man and woman would. It is well within your moral convictions to feel that "homosexual marriage" should not be legal - whether for religious or other reasons.

With saying that I do not feel that they should be denied the right to decide medical attention for each other, nor should their property be kept from each other if something should to someone in the relationship, but all of these things can be taken care of by a living will.

Trying to sound as polite as possible (with such a heated topic, I'd like it to remain civil), America has tried the "separate but equal" approach. It failed in the past; it fails today.

For your statements, why should two men or two women have to jump through legal hoops just so that one can see the other inside the hospital or make medical decisions? Even with a living will, a living family member (even from one of those families that abandon their children for this) can come in at any time and trump that living will and put the partner out in the cold.

Families already do this with heterosexual marriages and sometimes win - the rate for homosexual "partnerships" being much higher. Sadly, I've seen first hand what happens when a god-fearing judge makes the ruling on such cases.

Marriage comes from the bible and it is stated that it is to be between a man and a woman.

In America, marriage is a legal institution. That is why there are people capable of marrying couples without a church. That is also why there are some pastors/preachers/religious figures who do not have privilege to enter a couple into a legally-binding marriage.

My marriage, for instance, was void of religion and religious connotations.

However, if people want marriage to remain a religious institution, would it be fair to change all legally-binding marriages into civil unions and therefore let homosexuals partake in such civil unions? This would then end the separation between homosexuals and heterosexuals.

In the end, if my husband was blessed with female parts, I would love him/her all the same.

[liljp617]

Marriage comes from the bible.

Plain and simple, no it doesn't.  Neither in its history nor in the present laws of the United States.  Marriage in the United States is entirely a legal right.  You're not married because a random priest says so, you're married because the state approves it and hands you your marriage license.  Please do some reading on the history of marriage as well before stating factually that marriage has any origin at all in the Bible.  It was around centuries and centuries before your book and the definition and purpose of marriage has changed dozens upon dozens of times throughout history.

Its sad when people say it's genetic. If so, then why are twins not always both gay or both straight. Fail.

It's more sad when people completely deny it could even be genetic (nobody knows at the moment, it's entirely up in the air) and follow that up by using fundamentally flawed logic and questions that have been answered many times by educated specialists.

i honestly believe that God made man for a woman and a woman for a man. there should not be anything other than that. now without a biblical perspective, you cant say much either, because all you can say is that is changes the definition of marrige as we have thought about it for thousands of years...i dont think it is right.

The definition of marriage has changed even in the last few decades.  In 1967, over a dozen states barred blacks from marrying.  Interracial marriages (of all kinds, not just blacks and whites) were socially and legally barred for decades.  Over 50% of marriages end in divorce.  Celebrities and average people alike are getting married three and four times (or more) in their lifetimes.  Marriage used to have little purpose except for a dynasty to keep power.  It used to have little purpose outside of a man acquiring the woman's dowry from her father. 

Marriage -- socially, morally and legally -- has changed dozens and dozens of times in history...it has not, in any form or fashion, maintained the same definition and purpose for thousands of years.  It is consistently changing quite frequently.

Regardless, again, religious convictions have no place in determining laws of this country.  Your moral convictions due to your religion are your own problem and you're free to have them all you want, but they're not justification for legally barring a minority from equal rights or for excusing discrimination of a minority by the majority.

It also says that if a child is disobedient to his/her parents, the child should be taken to the town elders and stoned by them.

It also says eating seafood is an abomination.

It also says to stone witches.

It also says to stone women who lose their virginity prior to being married.

It also says that if a man is caught raping a woman, he must pay 50 silver pieces to her father then marry the woman because he violated her.

It also okays slavery.

The list goes on and on...

If this is the same book you're trying to derive morals on homosexuality from, why don't you follow or promote the previously mentioned orders?

(I suppose I'll get yelled at for asking questions again or even daring to criticize a religion!)

Thank you for your opinion.  I have mine and you have yours.  I didn't try to bash what you believe nor was I trying to make you believe in the bible.  I will not go further because it is clear you are not interested in my opinion.

You don't have to try to make me believe the Bible...what I believe is irrelevant on this topic.  I'm asking you a question...a simple one in my opinion.  Perhaps I'll ask again:

If this is the same book you're trying to argue the morals of homosexuality from, why do you completely decline using the morals clearly outlined above (or any number of other acts of brutality from the Bible)?  Are they not the laws of the same god?  Are these laws not as infallible as the ones supposedly against homosexuality?  Are there varying degrees of infallibility?  Why are you cherry picking "the word of God" to fit your own agenda (which appears to be oppressing a minority, for whatever reason)?

Do you have an answer to this?  Why would I ask the question if I didn't want an answer, from you specifically?

[nicatnite7777]

im straight but i really dont see the big deal why gay's cant marry they are people too. on this issue i think gay's are treated like they are some kind of animal or something out of this world. its not really fare if they love eachother they should have the right to say "I do".

[jester2dr]

Regardless, again, religious convictions have no place in determining laws of this country.  Your moral convictions due to your religion are your own problem and you're free to have them all you want, but they're not justification for legally barring a minority from equal rights or for excusing discrimination of a minority by the majority.

not to open yet another can of worms.... but this countrys laws were based on the religious convictions of the founders....