Gays and Gay Marriages

[BCBlondie]

Okay, well, I've been wanting to ask about this, but decided to stay off the topic during the election. Now that it's over, and abortion has been brought up, I might as well bring this up as well...

I was wondering... what are your opinions about gays or gay marriages? (PLEASE don't start any fights!! I'm just curious to see peoples' opinions) I know our President for another four years, Bush, wants to ban gay marriages.. (Anyone know exactly how far along he's gotten with that? If it's still in the process of being done or if it HAS been banned already?) I know that a lot of places no longer allow gays to be married.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with gays. I've grown up in an area where people freely express themselves, not only in speech (like rights and opinions) and religion, but also sexual orientation. It's their decision and I have high respect for them. However, I do hear about a lot of discrimination against gays. And I just don't understand... Growing up in a very diverse community, I don't understand why someone would think that being gay is wrong. I mean, gays are people too! Just like African Americans, Latinos, Asians, etc. Being against gays is almost like being racist, from my point of view, because you're discriminating against a minority. I know that gays are not exactly a race, but it's still prejudice against innocent people. They can't help who they like and it's their own decision... They should be free to be able to decide what sexual orientation they are (and respected for their decision!), just like others have the freedom to decide what religion they believe in.

Now, speaking of religion... I do understand that it is against the Catholic Church for people of the same gender to marry... I know why, but I still don't see what's so wrong about it... I mean, gays were allowed to get married in some places before Bush banned gay marriages.. *is confused* Those weren't Catholic Churches, were they? I don't know all the details.... But here's my opinion: If two people love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together, it should NOT matter what gender you are, what religion you are, what color skin you are, etc. Love is love! I don't think it's right to tell someone who you can or can't love and spend your life with. That's just my opinion.. now let's hear yours! :)

[GoldenRetrLuver]

I agree with you 100%, Di.

I have family members who are gay, and friends who are gay/lesbian. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. I do not think of them any differently. I support gay marriages 100%.

IMO, nobody has the right to say who you can and can't marry, same gender or not. I just don't see HOW it's hurting anyone by "allowing" people of the same sex to marry, and I never will.

[sammy101]

i have nothing wrong with gays/lesbians.I support them 100%,and i dont have a problem with them.
thats one of the reasons i dont like Bush,b/c he wants to ban gay marriages.:mad:

[aly]

Originally posted by GoldenRetrLuver

IMO, nobody has the right to say who you can and can't marry, same gender or not. I just don't see HOW it's hurting anyone by "allowing" people of the same sex to marry, and I never will.

I totally agree with that.

Di and I were talking about this last night. We have both cried over the subject even though we're not gay ourselves. I just can't fathom why, in this day and age, equal rights are not granted to all.

[dappledoxie]

I agree with what you guys have stated. I think that there are just too many people out there who aren't open to things just because they don't want to take the time to really think about it. I think people have the right to do what makes them happy. I want my friends to be happy and if that is a man loving a man or vice versa, hey, as long as they are happy I am happy for them. :) I think they would deserve the right to be together forever by marriage too. I mean, that's what life is about right, living and being happy, making the best of YOUR life, because it's our choice and I don't think anyone should be able to make me do something or keep me from doing something I want to do. As long as no one is harmed/hurt what's the problem....

[catnapper]

I personally would never judge what makes another person happy. If they found someone who they love so deeply that they want to marry - why should anyone or anything stop them?

I live in an area where its strictly taboo, and my husband is SOOO against it. I keep trying to tell my husband that he'd better learn to accept gays and lesbians because he has a niece that should be coming out of the closet within the next few years. He denies it, but then "jokes" about it when he thinks I'm not listening. He knows in his heart that she is a lesbian, but won't admit it. Whats going to happen when someday she finds the person that makes her happy (finally) and she wants to create a life with that woman? Is he going to deny her the happiness we all want simply because her perfect person also happens to be a female? I think that if you take it out of "those gays and lesbians" and make it more personal with names and faces... that more people would be likely to agree that its not a far-blown concept, that people and lives are greatly affected.

[leslie]

hi catnapper! Have you ever asked him what exactly bothers him about it? he may just be following suit of what he was taught and have no real reason to scoff at her decision, what do you think? I am curious for personal reasons!

[sirrahved]

I don't have a problem with civil unions, but do not support gay marriages. I find the term marriage to be a church-related term, and I think it should stay that way. My views against homosexuality are religion driven and therefore cannot apply in a political setting.

[CathyBogart]

I would say that more than half of my male friend are gay, or have had a significant romantic relationship with another man. I may even, eventually, surrogate a child for a gay couple that I know. I think anyone who finds someone they want to spend the rest of their life with they should be able to.

[Kfamr]

I see no problems with Gays or Gay Marriages, and have never understood why someone wants to stop either.

[Samantha Puppy]

Originally posted by sirrahved
I don't have a problem with civil unions, but do not support gay marriages. I find the term marriage to be a church-related term, and I think it should stay that way. My views against homosexuality are religion driven and therefore cannot apply in a political setting. Well put. I feel the same way.

[Tonya]

I think that there are so many other things that the government needs to be addressing. Who we love should be the least of their concerns. We need to put that time and effort towards violence, drug abuse, poverty, etc... They're all worried about people falling in love and getting married, yet sex offenders are walking away with a slap on their wrists. Why put so much effort forward to ban something that is so nonviolent? Marriage is about love.

[Maresche]

Originally posted by Samantha Puppy
Well put. I feel the same way.

How do you feel about couples married at the justice of the peace or in some other non-religious ceremony? Is their marriage a marriage or just a civil union? If the term marriage is going to be applied to religious ceremonies only, then hetero- couples who get married at the justice of the peace can't use the term either.

I'm not sure how well that would stand up with those who were married with a justice of the peace.

As for myself, I have no problems with homosexual couples getting married and using the term marriage. If you want to redefine the term marriage to apply only to those married in a church or with some kind of religious officiant, go ahead but it needs to apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

[Tonya]

Originally posted by Maresche
How do you feel about couples married at the justice of the peace or in some other non-religious ceremony? Is their marriage a marriage or just a civil union? If the term marriage is going to be applied to religious ceremonies only, then hetero- couples who get married at the justice of the peace can't use the term either.

I'm not sure how well that would stand up with those who were married with a justice of the peace.

As for myself, I have no problems with homosexual couples getting married and using the term marriage. If you want to redefine the term marriage to apply only to those married in a church or with some kind of religious officiant, go ahead but it needs to apply to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

Yep. And divorce is immoral and unbiblical, so we better outlaw that too while we are at it.

[Maresche]

Originally posted by Tonya
Yep. And divorce is immoral and unbiblical, so we better outlaw that too while we are at it.

I also think for the protection of marriage movement to have any kind of validity it should also outlaw adultery in all its shapes and sizes, including married couples actually having sexual relations outside the home, to "swinging", to married couples viewing porn. They are all different variation on the adultery theme.

[cloverfdx]

I have been pondering this thread for a while now, wondering if i should post or not. I am quite shy and not one to speak my mind to often so sorry about my lack of imput. :o


IMO, nobody has the right to say who you can and can't marry, same gender or not. I just don't see HOW it's hurting anyone by "allowing" people of the same sex to marry, and I never will.
Very well said.
We would not be hurting anyone, you guys live your lives and we will live ours.


I don't have a problem with civil unions, but do not support gay marriages. I find the term marriage to be a church-related term, and I think it should stay that way. My views against homosexuality are religion driven and therefore cannot apply in a political setting.

And i find the term marriage, being when a couple is willing to commit their lives to one another, does that realy bother you that much?.

http://www.smiliegenerator.de/smiley-flag/smiley-5458.png

[PJ's Mom]

If they're going to live together, have sex, raise children and basically do everything a "regular" couple would do, then why not let them get married? :confused:

[DJFyrewolf36]

Having been personally affected by predjudice against gays, I think that whom you love shouldn't be a matter of public opinion. Love is a phenominion shared between two people and I think the world should butt out. However, I don't condone obnoxious public displays of affection, from anyone. I don't care if youre hetro or homosexual, keep it in your house!

We can argue the whole civil union/marage thing until we are all blue in the face. I don't think the terminology matters much, so long as same sex couples are granted the legal rights (and drawbacks) as heterosexual couples. Legally, a marrage/civil union is a pretty powerful thing. All couples should have the right to it if they choose.

Thats just my two cents :)

[Maresche]

Originally posted by DJFyrewolf36
We can argue the whole civil union/marage thing until we are all blue in the face. I don't think the terminology matters much, so long as same sex couples are granted the legal rights (and drawbacks) as heterosexual couples. Legally, a marrage/civil union is a pretty powerful thing. All couples should have the right to it if they choose.

I agree wholeheartedly that the language aspect shouldn't matter. I was just arguing an opinion earlier.

I also agree that if you are going to have the rights to get married, you are going to have to jump through the same hopes if you want to get divorced later.

[Samantha Puppy]

In regards to Civil Unions - Civil matrimony is a contract between two people and the state, in which the state concedes certain "rights" to the couple in exchange for some "benefits". For those to whom religion isn't a large factor (or a factor at all) in their lives, this is fine and I'm sure it's all they needed to make them happy. It doesn't mean their marriage isn't valid, but I certainly don't look at it the same way as mine... And I don't mean that condescendingly - I just look at it a little differently. Not worse, not better - just different.

I am hesitant to say anything else, but I think I should. I do not want to debate, I am merely stating my thoughts on the matter. I have friends who are gay and that hasn't stopped me from being their friends, though I may not agree with their lifestyle - just as if I had an alcoholic friend, I would not stop being their friend. The best way that I can put it is this:

What the Church believes is that "homosexual marriage" can't actually exist, because "marriage" is actually the union of a man and woman for the purpose of creating together and founding a family (that is, having children and raising them up in a particular culture).

Since homosexuals cannot do that, it is not possible for them to be married. This has nothing to do with prejudice against them: it is simply that it is physically impossible.

To call something that homosexuals can do "marriage" changes the meaning of the term "marriage", and devalues the action of a man and woman coming together to found a family, since we no longer have a word for that. We lose the word that has been used to describe that by using the same word to name something completely different from that.

The Church considers the action of a man and woman coming together to found a family to be absolutely essential to the health of society and for its future, but the action of two homosexual persons coming together is purely optional: society would never be harmed if they never did that, so it would be a whole lot better to call that something else, and to keep encouraging men and women to be married, in the true sense of the meaning of that word.

Homosexuals have no need of "legalization" of their relationships in today's society, because the law does not go into the bedrooms of consenting adults, anyway. They are free to do whatever they want, already.

Having said that, I would appreciate it if I weren't attacked for sharing my own personal beliefs on this subject. I don't know who's right - all I know is that this is what I believe what with having been raised in the Church and still remaining active in it today. No one will know what was right and what was wrong until Judgement Day. I'm not pushing my views on anyone, I'm merely giving you insight as to my thoughts on the subject. So let's not turn this into a Christian bashing. 'kay?

[caseysmom]

samantapuppy...no attacks but just my opinion on your opinion:)

Lots of people marry with no desire to raise children to me lots of these ideas are very outdated...I just think we need to adapt to our changing society...lots of change has been good...look how blacks were treated just 40 years ago.

Also I don't think you should view your gay friends in the same category as alcoholics but just my opinion.:)

[Samantha Puppy]

Originally posted by caseysmom
Also I don't think you should view your gay friends in the same category as alcoholics but just my opinion.:) I didn't mean it like that. I meant, just because my friends may have issues (in my eyes) doesn't mean I won't still be their friend. I know that alcoholism and homosexuality are very different subjects.

[Maresche]

Firstly let me say, I hope you don't take this as a personal attack because I, in no way, mean it to be.


Originally posted by Samantha Puppy
[B]It doesn't mean their marriage isn't valid, but I certainly don't look at it the same way as mine... And I don't mean that condescendingly - I just look at it a little differently. Not worse, not better - just different.


To call something that homosexuals can do "marriage" changes the meaning of the term "marriage", and devalues the action of a man and woman coming together to found a family, since we no longer have a word for that. We lose the word that has been used to describe that by using the same word to name something completely different from that.

These are two statements I completely do not understand.

If civil matrimony and marriage are equal why not call them the same thing. In my mind calling them different things when they are at the fundamental level the same, is saying that one is better that the other. The way I interpret it is Marriage is civil matrimony with the backing of religion, and since it is both it is better. This may not be the way others see it, but it is only understanding I can come up with.

I also don't see why calling the union of a homosexual couple a "marriage" in any way degrads the "marriage" of a heterosexual couple. How does the fact that two other people love each other and are willing to make the same commitments to each other that you made to your spouse in anyway belittle the commitments you made? This makes as much sense to me as saying no one else can get married because there isn't enough love in the world to go around.


[B]Homosexuals have no need of "legalization" of their relationships in today's society, because the law does not go into the bedrooms of consenting adults, anyway. They are free to do whatever they want, already.[B]

I believe this statement to be completely untrue. While it is not illegal to be homosexual and participate in a homosexual relationship in most states (there are still a few where sodomy is illegal), those in committed, long-term homosexual relationships do not have the same rights as those in committed, long-term heterosexual relationships. If one is in the ICU of a hospital, the other is not considered family and therefore not permitted to visit. If they jointly own a home and one dies, the other does not automatically inherit the home through probate, as a heterosexual spouse would. The list goes on and on.

Again, I DO NOT mean this as a personal attack on you Samantha Puppy. I enjoy our conversations/debates too much to do that. But you are not the first person I've heard voice these opinions and I just want to try to understand them.

[caseysmom]

mareshe, I completely agree with you...I have been married for 24 years...lots of people I know get married...then get divorced some commit adultery...that doesn't lessen my marriage in any way.

[Ally Cat's Mommy]

If someone is lucky enough to find their soulmate, I think they should be entitled to formalise their union in whichever way they prefer.

(Assuming that if it was a service in some kind of church, it would probably be church they are already attending, where they have found acceptance)

[guster girl]

SamanthaPuppy, please don't take this as an attack, because that's not what it is. I want to know what you call a marriage where the couple has no intent to have children or can't have children? That's where I'm fuzzy. I've heard a lot of people voice your opinion, but, yet to hear someone answer that question when it's posed to them. All I've gotten so far is "It's just different". I don't know, like I said, I'm just curious....

[heinz57_79]

Here's my take, since it affects me personally...

I couldn't care less if the Catholics want me to marry in a church. I ahve no desire to be married in a church. I just want the same rights afforded to everyone else. I don't think a lot people understand how hard it is to have rights in a same sex relationship. Did you realise that if Bella was sick and in the hospital, the chances of my being told that I am NOT allowed to see her because I'm not FAMILY are huge. In order to make sure I will be able to see her, we will need to get a power of attorney, stating that I am considered family. Do straight people have to do that? No.

say we buy a house, and it's in HER name. Because Bella is quite a bit older than me, this is actually a concern. Should something happen to Bella, even tho we've been together (hypothetically) for 20 years, I could lose the house because I have no rights afforded to me in that instance. We have to make extra sure that it goes into the will.

And children. We want to have children. But because of her age, I'm going to be the one to carry. We have to get all sorts of paperwork filled out so that Bella will be their "guardian", not even PARENT! if something ever happened to me.

Married couples don't have to go through all of this. It's easy. You know who the parents are. Most property is in both names, so that's not a problem. Why should I be denied the same tax breaks, and rights regarding property and children as anyone else? I pay the same taxes. Bella has close to $1300 in taxes taken out a month. I have to abide by the same laws. I am not allowed to murder, steal, or harm anyone. I was born in this country. I am an American citizen. So where the hell does ANYONE get off telling who I can and cannot marry! And how can anyone tell us we're allowed to do what we want? This obviously comes from someone who has never been a victim of a hate crime, or has ever been harrassed because of their sexuality. You know that if it were the straight people's rights being questioned, there would be RIOTS! WHY THE HELL AM I SO DIFFERENT?!?

Edit: Sorry if I sound upset. I AM upset. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's one thing to live it. I appologise for sounding heated. I do NOT appologise for anything else .

[Samantha Puppy]

For a couple who finds they cannot have children, there are other options - adoption being the most popular, surrogacy being another.

For a couple who enters into marriage with no intent to have children, it's obviously still a marriage. Since I'm not a clergywoman, I don't know the Church's view offhand so to try and come up with something would be misleading and ignorant on my part. I can't answer technical questions like that. I can only answer questions based on my own personal opinion. While I'm religious and active in my faith, I do not know all the official views of the Church. (By the way, the Church I mention is not Catholic. My husband is Catholic but I am Missouri-Synod Lutheran.)

There are always going to be loopholes and what not - there always are in every situation because people scrutinize until they're found - but that doesn't change my basic thoughts on this matter...

Thank you for keeping this civil.

[Tonya]

I also understand Samantha's point of view.

I am a Christian and in my church, I don't think they condone homosexuality. But also, they don't condemn it. I believe that in God's eyes, a sin is a sin. Also, I believe that it is up to God to decided what sins are. Everyone sins...and what is a horrible sin to one person, may not be a big deal to another. This world is full of different people and different opinions on how we should live. I try not to stress to much on what everyone else is doing unless it directly affects me. God is the big judge.

As far as rather or not homosexuality is a sin, I really don't know. I really don't care. Even if it is, I've done some sins that are much worse then loving a person.

Two of my closest friends are a lesbian couple. It breaks my heart to see the struggles that they go through. All they want is to be left alone and to have a normal life. Their relationship is alot more true and real then some hetrosexual marriages that I see. They've been together for seven years, are raising a wonderful well balanced son, and are currently trying for another baby (through invitro). They're college educated law abiding hard working citizens, why can't they have a tax break and a some rights?

Out of all honesty, the one downside for me, is talking about this to my son. I've avoided the conversation, and he thinks of them as just close friends. It hasn't crossed his mind to ask how they wound up sharing the same room or having kids.

I want to raise him as a Christian, yet I don't want to raise him thinking that gay people are sinners or horrible people because in my heart, I don't think they are. I guess you can say in that area, the bible contradicts what my heart feels. I have just been avoiding the subject until I am sure how to explain in.

[RICHARD]

If we allow civil unions and then the couple fights, would that make it an un-civil union???:confused:

[Tonya]

Originally posted by Samantha Puppy
For a couple who finds they cannot have children, there are other options - adoption being the most popular, surrogacy being another.

For gay couples who find they cannot have children, there are other options - adoption being the most popular, surrogacy being another.

They can be a well rounded family. I have gay friends who's family is way less dysfunctional then mine or my husband's was. I grew up in a hellhole. I'd take two normal mothers any day over my psycho parents.

[Tonya]

You have every right to be upset, Heinz. For all those reasons you stated.

[Edwina's Secretary]

An interesting note to the marriage in church question. The Puritans did NOT allow marriage in the church as they felt it was a civil matter -- not a religious one.

And as to homosexual marriage diminishing hetrosexual marriage -- I see it on the contrary. It -- marriage -- is such a great institution that homosexual want to enjoy it too!

And in Texas... a gay couple was having sex in their own bedroom when the police broke in and arrested them for sodomy...

[lizzielou742]

My personal opinion - keep the government out of marriage. If a church wants to allow same-sex couples to get married there, fine. If they don't, fine. The Federal government shoudl keep out of the marriage business. I don't see a problem with civil unions at all. The government should provide something to same-sex couples so as not to deny them the same rights as the rest of Americans, in terms of health care, living wills, etc. Call it a civil contract if it makes people feel better about it. They could offer the same civil contract status to straight people who want to live together legally but without the sanction of a church.

If the federal government was out of the marriage business, then moderates/Democrats would be happy (separation of Church and State!) and so would the religious crowds, who could simply ban gay marriages in their churches, if they so choose. But, this will never happen in America, because then the whole issue would collapse on the Republican party, and there would be nothing to wedge between the two parties. It would become a non-political issue.

[Maresche]

I like your proposed settlement of the issue Lizzie but I completely agree with you; it'll never happen this way, but I think it is because it'll require compromise on both sides. Both of these parties are too much my way or the highway in their mindsets.

[CalliesMom]

As having many gay friends myself, I do not understand in any way how someone would want to prevent them from marrying someone they love. Marriage today could be considered a "joke" between heterosexuals--it's not like two men marrying each other would desecrate the ideas of marriage in the first place.

You see so many heterosexual couples marrying and getting a divorce, remarrying and getting a divorce, etc. With a rate of over 50% of marriages leading to divorce, I would state that a large majority of heterosexuals do not take this union seriously. If two people who love each other want to marry, so be it. Who is the government to deny them this right?

It's honestly none of the government's business. They put no legislation on heterosexuals getting married and divorced, why do people care what homosexuals do then? Two people who want to be together either man/woman, woman/woman, man/man should not have the option of marriage denied to them- period.

[Tonya]

Originally posted by lizzielou742
My personal opinion - keep the government out of marriage. If a church wants to allow same-sex couples to get married there, fine. If they don't, fine. The Federal government shoudl keep out of the marriage business. I don't see a problem with civil unions at all. The government should provide something to same-sex couples so as not to deny them the same rights as the rest of Americans, in terms of health care, living wills, etc. Call it a civil contract if it makes people feel better about it. They could offer the same civil contract status to straight people who want to live together legally but without the sanction of a church.

If the federal government was out of the marriage business, then moderates/Democrats would be happy (separation of Church and State!) and so would the religious crowds, who could simply ban gay marriages in their churches, if they so choose. But, this will never happen in America, because then the whole issue would collapse on the Republican party, and there would be nothing to wedge between the two parties. It would become a non-political issue.

Amen.

[dukedogsmom]

So, man and woman shouldn't marry if they don't want kids? How did that come about? I don't see how allowing people to be happy could threaten a "normal" marriage. Just because one person doesn't have the same beliefs as another, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to be happy. It's not like they're commiting murder. I don't know why people get so worked up over things like this. I've known some gay people in my life and they have been some of the nicest people I've come across. Why shouldn't we just let them live their lives?

[snappy]

In Ohio we had Issue One on our ballot. Much to my dismay it passed. Not only does this have a direct effect on Gay/Lesbian couples it also has a direct effect on any hetero couples living together. Not all the clergy/churchs are against a marriage of the same sex. I can post some of the comments here....

*IT VIOLATES RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Rabbi Bernard Barsky, Beth Abraham Synagogue, Dayton

I have been asked to address the question of how Issue one is offensive to religious liberty. This is a subtle question, and difficult to address easily in the allotted few minutes. Those who have initiated this measure surely understand that the question of what constitutes a marriage has always been defined by a community's religious context. But in the pre-modern world, no distinction existed between a community's religious organization and its political structures. Certainly this was the case in the religion of ancient Israel, whose catalogue of religious law included its incest prohibitions, its rules for who may marry whom -- or more accurately, who may not marry whom. That ancient law also permitted a man to have many wives.

Despite their biblical authority, these marriage rules have evolved over time, and continue to evolve. In ancient Israel, for instance, it was expected that a man would marry his deceased brother's widow, if he died childless. But rabbinic law discouraged the practice, and eventually it disappeared. Polygamy continued to be permissable among Jews, though it was rarely practiced, until it was prohibited by rabbinic decree in the year 1000. Divorce was and is permitted by Israelite and Jewish law, but the Catholic Church prohibited it. The Episcopalians among my colleagues will recall that the Anglican confession had its origins in a dispute about whether Henry VIII was legitimately married to his dead brother's widow. Out of that divorce came the English Church's separation from Rome.

In our pluralistic community -- a community of many religious traditions living side-by-side in harmony -- many of our faith traditions continue to evolve, and are currently engaged in passionate discussion about some of our marriage rules, and in particular whether homosexual marriages may be consecrated. And so it is offensive to religious liberty in our country and community when adherents of a particular belief attempt to short-circuit and cut off that solemn and serious discussion by using the heavy-handed power of the state to enforce its own will. One group tells us, in effect: "Don't bother even talking about this, we have made up your minds for you. What we call marriage has to be what the state will call marriage."

If I may draw an obvious parallel between "pro-choicers" and "pro-lifers" in the abortion debate. Judaism has its own three thousand year old history of sensitive and careful discussion about abortion -- we were engaged in this debate before Christianity or Islam were even born -- and it has continued to evolve into our own time. It has of course at all times given careful weight to the teachings and values of scripture, to the values of human life, to the God's providence over the life of the child in the womb. So, frankly, it is repugnant to the spiritual liberty of Judaism to have the law of the land made so fixed and rigid that our own teachings are made irrelevant in one fell swoop.

A nation that is serious about its religious liberty and its pluralism, and which takes seriously the notion that the marriage relationship is a sacred bond, will let our various and varied religious traditions work out these questions according to their own spiritual lights. What does the power of the state have to do with telling us which relationships are sacred before God? "My Father's house has many mansions," taught the prophet. But some would rather cram us all into a one-room efficiency apartment and insist that we call that our Father's house. Where will this intolerance and religious repression end? *

I found this very interesting...and this was just one of the folks who responded to this issue.....

I can state that I am glad I have a family who loves all of us...my sister is in a same sex relationship, and she and her partner are the proud parents of a beautiful baby girl. My sister gave birth to her, but her partner is just as much a parent as my sister is. Now with Issue One passing, if my sister passes on - one of the family in fact could take that baby from her other mother. And my family could take my house away from my partner in the same manner. :(

[tatsxxx11]

Very thoughtful post Snappy.

I believe that it is hypocritical, and a convenient cop out, to state that one is "for civil unions" but not "gay marriage." In my work as a nurse, my heart has been broken several times as I had to deny admittance to the ICU to a gay person's partner, as that lifelong partner lay critically ill or dying. That person was denied the ability to make medical decisions, arrange for dispostion of the body and funeral arrangements. For me, a person committed to another in love, whatever be their orientation, is rightly due the same respect and legal rights given to heterosexual couples.

In the U.S., marriage is a secular contract, sanctioned by and subject to the laws of the government not the "church." One may choose to have their ceremony conducted in a church/synagogue/mosque and have the ceremony performed by a leader of that religious institution. But it is the laws of that state that ultimately determine which rights and privileges are guaranteed under that contract. Many of us, induding myself, were married in a church by a minister with the blessing of God as I believe it to be. But many heterosexual couples, those of faith as well as agnostics and atheists, are legally and legitamately wed in civil ceremonies each and every day and their unions are no less valid than mine. I do not understand why other couples, gay couples, should be denied the same LEGAL safeguards as myself. Whatever religious component you choose to bring into the marriage is a personal choice, one made by you and your partner.

I live on Cape Cod, the site of the first landing of the Pilgrims (Provincetown) and just miles from Plymouth, were the colonists first settled. The Pilgrims were a group of Calvinist separatists, (who faith later evolved into the Puritan and Presbyterian sects of Protestantism) who fled England in order to practice their religious beliefs without persecution OR intervention from the government. They were indeed a rigid, staunchly religious group and their beliefs guided they daily lives in ways we can only imagine. But they risked their lives and abandoned their homes and property, in order to safeguard their right to practice their beliefs as they choose without persecution or interference. And as Snappy has said, marriage for them was a civil affair and not one of their two sacraments, those being baptism and the Lord's Supper


The Pilgrim's Religious Beliefs


Sacraments and Poperty.
To the Pilgrims, there were only two sacraments: baptism and the Lord's Supper. The other sacraments (Confession, Penance, Confirmation, Ordination, Marriage, Confession, Last Rites) of the Catholic and Anglican churches were inventions of man and were therefore not Holy. The Pilgrims opposed the mass, and considered marriage a civil affair (not a religious sacrament). The legitimacy of the pope, the saints, and the church hierarchy was rejected, as was the veneration of relics. Icons and religious symbols such as crosses, statues, stain-glass windows, fancy architecture, and other worldly manifestations of religion were rejected.

Marriage.
The Pilgrims considered marriage a civil affair, not to be handled by the church ministers but instead by civil magistrates. See: Of Plymouth Plantation, Ch. 12. Marriage was a contract, mutually agreed upon by a man and a woman. Marriage was ordained by God for the benefit of man's natural and spiritual life. Not getting married (and thus remaining a virgin) was not considered a sign of piety. Marriages were considered important for two main reasons: procreation of children, and to avoid the sin of adultery. The important characteristics to find in the proper spouse, according to Robinson, are (1) godliness, and (2) similarity--in age, beliefs, estate, disposition, inclinations, and affections. In the marriage, "the wife is specially required a reverend subjection in all lawful things to her husband", and the husband is "to give honour to the wife", and the Lord requires "the love of the husband to his wife must be like Christ's to his church". See: Observations Divine and Moral, by John Robinson (1628), chapter 59 "Of Marriage."

Cape Cod has the most elderly population, per capita, of any place in the U.S. And most people are also familiar with the dour conservatism, rigdity and practicality associated with the Yankee mentality, harckoning back to that Puritan heritage. Here on Cape Cod I worship at the Congregational Church and my fellow parishoners, average age appx. 65, can hardly be described as "left wing," "liberal," "Godless," unpatriotic and most certainly, NOT "valueless." Yet my church welcomes and embraces people of all backgrounds, races, nationalities, ethnicities and sexual orientatation. It is our belief that God embraces all of his creatures and that none of us goes without sin.

[aly]

Wonderful posts Sandra and snappy. I share the same views, but I haven't commented as much because I knew others (like you!) would be able to express it better than me. I also completely agree with Lizzie when she said this:


keep the government out of marriage. If a church wants to allow same-sex couples to get married there, fine. If they don't, fine.

If some of you are saying marriage should be a religious thing, then why can't a homosexual couple get married in a church that accepts them? If you don't agree with that, then you are saying that every person should practice your form of religion.

Also, I have to strongly disagree with the old notion that marriage was meant for people to create a family. If a married couple doesn't want kids, that is still a marriage. If a married couple doesn't go to church and were wed by a justice of the peace, that is still a marriage. To me, a marriage is a union between two people who love each other and are promising to committ for the rest of their lives. I, for one, will not sit on a throne and try to tell people what they can and cannot or should and should not do :(

[carole]

I have no concerns whatsoever if Gay couples are allowed to Marry, I donot feel threatened by it in any way at all.

I actually could not care less, there are so many more important issues facing our world today, that I would much rather address.

Heinz you have my full empathy, I can only imagine the prejudice you feel , until you have felt discrimination of any kind, one really has no idea how it feels, The only time in my life I came across it myself was when I was a Solo mother, I was tarred with the same brush as all the bad Solo mothers around and I did not fit the bill and it hurt so much to be made to feel a second class citizen, So Heinz I can imagine that is exactly how you are being made to feel.

I don't think anyone chooses to be Gay, I mean who would with all the controversy, and nastiness towards Gay people, its the way you are, and who am I to say you are wrong or bad.

If a gay couple love one another and want to make that committment, why the heck shouldn't they.

I am hoping it will become legal in NZ, soon and will welcome this bill, EVERYONE deserves the same rights, Black or white, Gay or Straight.

This is the 21st century and it is time to move on with the times.

For those of you who are against it because of religious beliefs, I can respect your opinion , even though I strongly dis-agree with it.

[guineapiglover4ever]

i think that it's not god's will
if god intended people to marry their own sex god would have only created man and there would be no woman
well you think
well i think that the presedent is totally right!!
i say ban all gay and lesbo marriages

[Tollers-n-Dobes]

I have no problem with gays or gay marriages. I know quite a few gay people and I don't think they're any different from straights.

[lizzielou742]

Originally posted by guineapiglover4ever
i think that it's not god's will
if god intended people to marry their own sex god would have only created man and there would be no woman
well you think
well i think that the presedent is totally right!!
i say ban all gay and lesbo marriages

Wow.......

...that just comes off as completely insensitive....

I can't even think of how to respond to that!!

[lizzielou742]

Originally posted by snappy
*IT VIOLATES RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
Rabbi Bernard Barsky, Beth Abraham Synagogue, Dayton


Hey, cool! I'm originally from Dayton, and I grew up about a mile from Beth Abraham!! :eek: :)

[aly]

Originally posted by lizzielou742
Wow.......

...that just comes off as completely insensitive....

I can't even think of how to respond to that!!

I'm baffled myself *mouth still hanging open*

I'm trying to come up with some words to reply to that, but I don't think I can.

[tatsxxx11]

I agree Aly. I am unable to have kids and consider my marriage no less legitiamate than those who can and do!!!:(

And I believe with every fiber of my being, that those of same gender persuaision were born that way and that we should love and embrace them as I believe God does. Forgive me if that sounds patoronizing.

Being gay a choice? A very intelligent and wise (and straight) older male friend of mine once asked a big, hulking, heterosexual male friend of his while having that debate...

"Ok, so one male chooses to be gay. So, when did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual???"

He didn't know how to reply because yes, he had never thought about it because it was never a concious choice.

[Uabassoon]

Originally posted by guineapiglover4ever
i think that it's not god's will
if god intended people to marry their own sex god would have only created man and there would be no woman
well you think
well i think that the presedent is totally right!!
i say ban all gay and lesbo marriages

Wow I can't believe you just said "lesbo".

[heinz57_79]

Originally posted by guineapiglover4ever
i think that it's not god's will
if god intended people to marry their own sex god would have only created man and there would be no woman
well you think
well i think that the presedent is totally right!!
i say ban all gay and lesbo marriages

I'm furious right now, and trying very hard to keep my anger in check. This is just ignorant. You have just insulted numerous people on PT. We have debates all the time where there is a difference of opinion, however NEVER do we openly BASH someone for being different or having a different opinion. This "lesbo" would like to thank you for demonstrating just what is wrong with much of this country.

And if you want to bring God into it, if you want to get TECHNICAL the Bible states that "man shall not lay with man", it says nothing about woman laying with woman. So maybe the MAN who wrote that part was like so many other guys I know, a homophobe when it comes to 2 men... but 2 women.... Yeah, baby, yeah!!!! :p

[Uabassoon]

JC I wouldn't take too much offense at what guineapiglover4ever said. Have you read some of her other posts?

[lizzielou742]

Originally posted by heinz57_79
I'm furious right now, and trying very hard to keep my anger in check. This is just ignorant. You have just insulted numerous people on PT. We have debates all the time where there is a difference of opinion, however NEVER do we openly BASH someone for being different or having a different opinion. This "lesbo" would like to thank you for demonstrating just what is wrong with much of this country.


I feel the exact same way. I just try to remember guineapiglover4ever is 13 and probably (hopefully?) didn't realize she was being so offensive. :(

[heinz57_79]

About choosing my sexuality, carole has the right of it. If I had had a choice, why would I want this life? Why would I choose to have fewer rights than "normal" people? Why would I choose to have to be looking over my shoulder when I leave a Gay owned establishment because of the number of hate crimes? I love my girlfriend with all my heart. She makes me glad to be who I am. But there are times, like now, when I almost wish it had been a choice. Then I can choose to be straight, and not have to worry about all this BS.

For the most part it seems the GLBT community has a lot of support on here, and for that I thank you. Sometimes it seems as if our friends are few and far-between.

[K9soul]

Originally posted by guineapiglover4ever
i think that it's not god's will
if god intended people to marry their own sex god would have only created man and there would be no woman
well you think
well i think that the presedent is totally right!!
i say ban all gay and lesbo marriages

This sounds to me like the response of a young person parroting words that the adults around her have used. I feel it is sad and disgraceful that no matter what beliefs one may have, they speak around young people in a deliberately derogatory manner about people of different beliefs and ethics and teach them to mock and hate others.

Some of you have made very good, thoughtful and interesting posts, and I have really appreciated reading those. I sure hope it doesn't degrade now into a petty name-calling situation. I hope that people are able to just ignore those who stoop that low.

[heinz57_79]

Originally posted by lizzielou742
I feel the exact same way. I just try to remember guineapiglover4ever is 13 and probably (hopefully?) didn't realize she was being so offensive. :(

Unfortunately, I think she knows exactly what she's saying. So many teens today are being taught to hate. :( I think she's trying to rile people up, which is why I didn't explode ;) but I think her feelings are 100% real. My gf's nephew is gay, and went to his prom in a dress. So far, he's had little trouble at school, but I still worry that some little neo natzi punk will take it upon himself to teach the queer a lesson. *sigh* Kids learn hate from their parents and family, for the most part. My question is, why would you want your child to hate? Isn't acceptance and tolerance much better traits to teach?

[dukedogsmom]

Originally posted by lizzielou742
I feel the exact same way. I just try to remember guineapiglover4ever is 13 and probably (hopefully?) didn't realize she was being so offensive. :(
Which is EXACTLY why no children should be in the dog house in the first place.

[lizzielou742]

OK, so maybe I'm just using the "she's only 13" line to try to keep myself from getting upset! That's also why I didn't reply to her other thread about abortion - trying not to get upset here!

Heinz, I agree with what you said about sexuality not being a choice.

[tatsxxx11]

We all need to take a deep breath...discussing these issues over the internet, among people we think we know, but don't really know, can be difficult at best. While I totally disagree with guineapiglover's comments, I do believe that being only 13, she's not expressing a truly educated, mature opinion. But I understand how it would upset you.

[Kfamr]

"guineapiglover4ever"

One of the problems with your reply is that not EVERYONE believe in your "God" or "God" her/himself... therefore the way "God" intended things to be aren't for everyone.



THIS is one of the cases where i'd blame something on age. I generally HATE the statement "He/she's just <insert age>" But I clearly do think that this was a statement made by a child who's just formed an "opinion" for his/her own peers.


I'd hate for children not to be allowed in the Dog House, Val, because that would include me.

[Kfamr]

Originally posted by heinz57_79
My gf's nephew is gay, and went to his prom in a dress.


Haha, for some reason I find this totally cute.

My friend Preston has been made fun of many times, including online. He wears skirts, girly clothing, etc.. He also has a very girly figure, and hair about to his shoulders. Now, he's not Gay, so it doesn't really go along with the subject, but The dress thing made me think of him. He gets called Homosexual, and all of the derogative words used for it..... many other of my friends are treated the same.

I despise how people make fun of him for his clothing. People even make fun of this kid Justin, who is on our school's morning announcements, because he talks with a lisp.

Today's society totally sucks and so many people don't understand their religions/beliefs aren't to be followed by everyone.

[heinz57_79]

Kay, Bella's nephew has anything but a girlish figure. hehe He's about 6'5", probably 200+ lbs, and VERY goth. :D He takes more time to get ready in the morning than I do! He's also started doing a teen drag show at Wingspan, our local GLBT meeting place/support center.

It's a far cry from when I was in high school. I was overseas and almost got thrown out of school because of "rumours" going around that I was gay.

As for kids in the DH... I'm thinking maybe you should have to be 16+ or something. But then, I don't really care. 13 or 63, as long as you're MATURE enough to carry on a decent conversation or debate.

[Tonya]

Originally posted by heinz57_79
And if you want to bring God into it, if you want to get TECHNICAL the Bible states that "man shall not lay with man", it says nothing about woman laying with woman. So maybe the MAN who wrote that part was like so many other guys I know, a homophobe when it comes to 2 men... but 2 women.... Yeah, baby, yeah!!!! :p

LMAO!

[guster girl]

Just to voice my opinion on at least what ******pig*****4ever had to say. I do believe she knew what she was saying was offensive. I also believe that it probably does have to do with her age that she said it. However, and, I'm not sticking up for her, there are people in here way over the age of 13 that have said things that were just as hateful. Ignorance knows no age limit, unfortunately.

[BCBlondie]

Thank you all so much for remaining civil and not being afraid to voice your opinions and points of view. :)

I completely agree with the majority of you.

As for what guineapig-whatever said, I, too, think that was really insensitive.. BUT I guess I did ask for peoples' opinions and that was hers. As much as it may have been hurtful, I have to respect her opinion, and just wish that one day she will open up and become more open-minded to people that are different from her. *sighs*

[PJ's Mom]

Look at this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041106/ap_on_re_us/textbooks_marriage&e=3

:rolleyes:

[aly]

Originally posted by PJ's Mom
Look at this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041106/ap_on_re_us/textbooks_marriage&e=3

:rolleyes:

Ugh, I saw that on the news :rolleyes: They also took out any mention of condoms and other forms of birth control from the sex ed/health textbooks. They will only teach about abstinance.

:rolleyes:

[BCBlondie]

Originally posted by aly
Ugh, I saw that on the news :rolleyes: They also took out any mention of condoms and other forms of birth control from the sex ed/health textbooks. They will only teach about abstinance.

:rolleyes:
Oh boy.... :(

[Cincy'sMom]

I guess what I find most interesting about this issue, is it all seems to come down to the word marriage.
Those who are against gay marriage, often say civil unions are okay. Many who are for gay marriage, say they are most concerned about getting the rights of a married couple, but it seems they want to be able to call it a marriage.

So if most, no matter which side of the issue they are on, are okay with gay couples being given the rights of a married couple...why is that M word so important?

I know that is making the whole issue too simplistic, but the more I hear the debate, that (to a very uneducated about the matter, me) seems to be what alot of it boils down to.

[guineapiglover4ever]

ohh i am srry i didnt mean for my point of veiw to be mean.
sometimes i write entensivly when i am expressing my opinion:o
well my mom also said that it wasnt god's will so i also added that into it

[heinz57_79]

Originally posted by Cincy'sMom
I guess what I find most interesting about this issue, is it all seems to come down to the word marriage.
Those who are against gay marriage, often say civil unions are okay. Many who are for gay marriage, say they are most concerned about getting the rights of a married couple, but it seems they want to be able to call it a marriage.

So if most, no matter which side of the issue they are on, are okay with gay couples being given the rights of a married couple...why is that M word so important?

I know that is making the whole issue too simplistic, but the more I hear the debate, that (to a very uneducated about the matter, me) seems to be what alot of it boils down to.

Why shouldn't I be able to call any "union" i have with my partner a Marriage? Some people associate the word marriage with the church, however as it was pointed out earlier, a man and a woman having a ceremony with a JOP is still considered a marriage. I want to be able to MARRY my gf and have it recognised. Civil unions are, IMO, a sort of a cop out. "Let's sort of give them equal rights, but we're not really because they still can't legally be married! Muahahahaha!" If you're willing to let us have a Civil Union, then why not a marriage? And if it's religion people are concerned about, what about the gay and gay friendly churches and temples, etc? Mostly, I think they're all excuses so as to not afford us the same rights as all the "breeders". ;)

[CathyBogart]

I have gotten very involved in these discussions here in the past, because even though it's not an issue that directly affects MY life, it's an issue that affects and hurts a lot of my friends. Overall I'm really impressed with this thread....minus one person who I'm completely appalled at! (And I don't give breaks because "They're only 13".

My brother just turned 14, and he has NEVER been hateful towards any person or group of people. Age has nothing to do with hate, unfortunately.

I'd like to add more but I'm exhausted....I hope this thread keeps going the way it has been, I really enjoyed reading all (but one of) the responses!

[carole]

Heinz I can only imagine the pain and fustration and anger you must feel when you read statements that are so against you having a marriage with your partner.

I can only hope that in time it will change, I believe in NZ it will, and as I said before I will be the first to appauld it.

I really feel in some way, some people do feel threatened by it all, and it is beyond me as to why?

As for our 13 yr olds comments, I really think one should forgive her insensitivity, she has apologised, she is rather new to this board, and I also believe it is more what she has been taught in her home by the adults around her, again she has the right to her opinion and beliefs, but yes she should have chosen her words better, hopefully she will have learned a valuable lesson from it all.

I have a 12 year old daughter, and I can only hope she can grow up to understand a union such as yours heinz and that she does not have her mind poisioned by peer groups or others, I sure hope I have managed to set her a good example, and that she will be accepting of others who are different to her.

There are just too many people in this world ready and willing to start a witch hunt, it is a sad world we live in, I just wish we could all get along, now wouldn't that be a wonderful thing.

[cloverfdx]

I sure hope I have managed to set her a good example, and that she will be accepting of others who are different to her.
What is so different, We are all human.

*Sigh* I will post more indepth a little later.

[carole]

I think you are mis-construing my words a little here, Yes we are indeed all human, agreed on that , but we are all different too,I don't think I was saying anything wrong here, I think it is important to teach a child that everyone is different and to be accepting of them no matter what our differences are, simply the point I was trying to make, nothing else ok.:)

Really that was exactly my point, we are all different, whether it be by colour, race, whatever, but yes we are all Human.

[mugsy]

1. I have absolutely no problem with gay marriages, and am not sure exactly what the big issue is. 2 people love each other and are committed to each other, they should be able to get married. Mike and I were married by a judge, and we're still married and committed to each other, why should I or anyone else take that right away from someone else becsause they are in love with a member of the same sex?

2. If the "13 year old's" response had been ignored, then she/he wouldn't have gotten the attention she/he was seeking.

3. I am a firm believer in keeping morality OUT of legislation. What is moral or immoral to one person, may or may not be moral or immoral to someone else...it's a matter of beliefs.

4. I was appalled that OH voted in the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions...it goes right back to my point 3.

[Karen]

What I have found fascinating in our culture as long as this debate has been going on is this:

People who are against "gay marriage" or sometimes even "civil unions" say that they are "defending marriage."

I think that is completely untrue.

If they are "defending marriage" then what are they doing to effect the astronomically high divorce rate in this country?

If they are "defending marriage" then what are they doing to educate children and young adults, male and female, about the responsibilities marriage entails?

If they are "defending marriage" then what are they doing to help single parents raise children and provide positive role models of two-parent homes?

If they are "defending marriage" then what are they doing to counsel childen of "serial-divorcers" or the adults in question?

If they are "defending marriage" what are they doing to effect the teen pregnancy rate?

Or the rate at which young urban men are drawn into lifestyles that land them in jail?

If they are "defending marriage" what are they doing to effect the number of young people engaged in casual, pre-marital, or even not-even-close-to-dating-never-mind-married sexual activity?

What are they doing to PROMOTE marriage itself, never mind protect it, which is an even more difficult and serious job.

To all of those in the world who say they are "defending marriage", do not lie to me and say you are defending marriage when you are simply attacking people you don't want to have the "right" or the "privilege."

[K9soul]

Originally posted by WolfChan
My brother just turned 14, and he has NEVER been hateful towards any person or group of people. Age has nothing to do with hate, unfortunately.

Age alone doesn't of course but how someone is raised and taught does. Someone who is 12 and has been taught to think and believe one way by parents hasn't always been out in the world enough to realize those opinions might be wrong. At 12 I held a lot of the same beliefs and views of my Mom, thankfully most of them were tolerant views, but some of the things I think and believe changed after I got older and I came to form my own opinions on them. Yet at 12 I would have vehemently stated that my views were my own and not just that of my Mom's if someone had told me that. I'm not about to claim that if by the time I was 12 I had been taught and told over and over to believe that say, Mexicans are lazy, that I wouldn't have believed it. (That was just an example pulled out of the air).

[K9soul]

Thoughts after Karen's post:

I think the people really against it are just against homosexuality completely, and they feel by keeping the marriages illegal they are at least putting a curb on something they feel is wrong. Some probably tell themselves they are defending the institution of marriage and believe that but in the end I think it just comes down to a lifestyle they don't agree with and they think legal marriage will make it more accepted.

I think the "it wrecks the institution of marriage" argument is easier for them to say than "I don't like homosexuality and don't approve of anything that supports it and makes it acceptable in society."

[heinz57_79]

You made some great points, Karen. And I can tell you what they're doing about teen pregnancy........ teaching abstinence and taking away contraception as a form of sex ed. :rolleyes: While abstinence is all well and good, it's really not that practical today.

I have 2 female friends that have been together for 38 years! How many 'straight' couples make it that long? With a divroce rate of over 50%, not many. It has been my observation that when a same sex couple get into a relationship they plan to be long term, they do what they can to make it work. I know more same sex couples in loving, committed relationships than I do straights. Mind you, I mean no disrespect to those that don't "choose" (haha!) my lifestyle. I think it's just that we have to work so hard at other things, that we almost want to set an example, to prove that not all gays jump from one person to another, that we are capable of raising wonderful, well-adjusted kids, and that we are no different than anyone else.

What almost makes me laugh are the people who act like we're a cult... out to convert children and teens. LoL (Meetings are held at my place every monday, @9pm... new victims, i mean MEMBERS, always welcome! muahahahahaha!)

[Cincy'sMom]

Originally posted by mugsy

4. I was appalled that OH voted in the Constitutional amendment banning gay marriages and civil unions...it goes right back to my point 3.

Not just Ohio...it was on the ballot in 11 states, and passed in
ALL 11! I was very surprised the votes went that way.

[buckner]

Originally posted by DJFyrewolf36
We can argue the whole civil union/marage thing until we are all blue in the face. I don't think the terminology matters much, so long as same sex couples are granted the legal rights (and drawbacks) as heterosexual couples. Legally, a marrage/civil union is a pretty powerful thing. All couples should have the right to it if they choose.
If marriage is just a sign of love, as Tonya put it, then why can't gay couples just go on without that certificate? Obviously, the certificate doesn't mean anything if it's just about love. If it's just about love, then why do gay couples needs the drawbacks that hetero couple have?

I agree with Samantha Puppy. I don't have a problem with homosexual people, but I do have a problem with them wanting to get married. Issues like health insurance and hospital visits should not be up to the state. The insurance companies and hospitals should decide whether or not YOUR situation is okay in their facilities/company.

People are given their individual rights and the state is just about them. No, a gay person doesn't have the right to get married to someone other gay person, but I don't the right to get married right now, either. Should I get peeved and growl about the fact that I'm underage and can't get married without my parents' signatures? I think not. It's illegal for just anyone to carry a concealed weapon. You have to get it approved, and registered/licensed, among other things. Does that mean I should growl about me wanting to have a gun, but I'm only 16 so I can't?? No.

If we can redefine the definition of marriage, I propose we redefine 3/4 of the English language just because we have the right to growl about it! Not. There's a reason homosexual couples can't get married - it's ILLEGAL! Judges were trying to amend the laws, and that's not their job. I propose we change the marriage laws and say I can marry my dog because I just love her SO much! Woot. Not. Why? Because it's illegal. I think it's PATHETIC that states even had to put an admentment change question on the ballots this election. I think it's pathetic that judges took matters into their own hands just because they thought it was wrong. I find it even more pathetic that people in this country are proposing we allow homosexual couples get married.



Originally posted by lizzielou742
If the federal government was out of the marriage business, then moderates/Democrats would be happy (separation of Church and State!)
I'd also like to point out if the government was out of a lot of "social" but legal acts, this country would be in one hell of a hole. Correct, I don't feel the government should be taking MY money because they don't realize how much they already have, but there are reasons we have LAWS.. for people to obide by them.

And another thing, it says no where in the constitution about Separation of Church and State. Find it, and show me.. but I can guarantee that won't happen because it's not there. I've looked, many times. It does say that we can't shove one religion down someone's throat and enforce it, but no where does it say we can't have Church and State coincide.

And heck, why can't issues that MATTER to people be based on religion? This country was founded upon religion! First a person says they want religion to be taken out of the matter, and then for the government and laws to be taken out of it to. What's going to be left?

[Kfamr]

If marriage is just a sign of love, as Tonya put it, then why can't gay couples just go on without that certificate? Obviously, the certificate doesn't mean anything if it's just about love. If it's just about love, then why do gay couples needs the drawbacks that hetero couple have?
Why shouldn't they? Why should they be denied the same rights hetero couples have? Why do hetero couples need that certificate?


It's illegal for just anyone to carry a concealed weapon. You have to get it approved, and registered/licensed, among other things. Does that mean I should growl about me wanting to have a gun, but I'm only 16 so I can't?? No.

I think it's very bizzare that you use such a comparison.
A gun is capable of harming someone, killing somone.

Two people of the same sex getting married, gettings rights that every other married couple has, and getting a piece of paper saying that they're in love and are together -- will not hurt someone or kill someone.


There's a reason homosexual couples can't get married - it's ILLEGAL! Judges were trying to amend the laws, and that's not their job. I propose we change the marriage laws and say I can marry my dog because I just love her SO much! Woot. Not. Why? Because it's illegal. I think it's PATHETIC that states even had to put an admentment change question on the ballots this election. I think it's pathetic that judges took matters into their own hands just because they thought it was wrong. I find it even more pathetic that people in this country are proposing we allow homosexual couples get married.

I think it's pretty damn pathetic the way some people think about Homosexuals.
The reason you cannot marry your dog is because your dog cannot say "I do". Again, your comparisons are pretty bizzare.


why can't issues that MATTER to people be based on religion?

Not everyone believes in the same religion, nor does everyone believe in "God", thus laws should not be made on the beliefs of a religion.

Also, I forget what exactly my teacher said, but he said something along the lines that the country wasn't founded on religion, but something else. I'm not saying that it's factual, but that's what he said.

[buckner]

This country was founded on Freedom For Religion. If you'd like to just say Freedom, then go for it. But it was founded on freedom for religion - understand what you wish.

[buckner]

Originally posted by Kfamr
Why shouldn't they? Why should they be denied the same rights hetero couples have? Why do hetero couples need that certificate?

I don't think Hetero couples "need" that certificate. I know people who are perfectly happy with just being "together" and never getting married because they're scared of the idea of marriage. I think if a couple is to just get married because they want that legal status of being married and for that certificate, then they're being blinded by the real reason of marriage.

And they're being denied of the right to get married because it's illegal. Plain and simple. Again, health concerns and liabilities should be brought up and decided by the company itself. Not by the state or laws. That's all they want, right? Health insurance, life insurance, hospital visits, etc., correct? They don't have to be "married" to love eachother... right? Then why not fight for the companies and insurance policies to change, as opposed to letting homosexual couples get married? I guarantee, that if homosexual couples ever are allowed to get married, the same insurance companies and hospitals will DENY the same things they are denying now. Think about it.

[Kfamr]

But WHY should it be illegal??
It's not plain and simple.

It's plain ole stupid. There's no reason for them not to be able to get married, there's no reason for it to be illegal.
They're human beings, just like a Hetero couple.

I think people just need to learn how to open their minds and accept the fact that Homosexual people are no different than Heterosexual, nor should they be treated differently.

The whole subject just makes me sad because today's society is just so screwy.


Oh, and I wanted to add... BRAVO KAREN.. that was an excellent post.

[guineapiglover4ever]

Originally posted by guineapiglover4ever
ohh i am srry i didnt mean for my point of veiw to be mean.
sometimes i write entensivly when i am expressing my opinion:o
well my mom also said that it wasnt god's will so i also added that into it

again i am soo srry

[lbaker]

I have not participated in so many of these threads - the election, gay rights, abortion etc. etc. because it's hard to stop with just one statement. But now I just have to wonder about the term I'm reading/hearing all over the place about how "family values" are first and foremost in everyones mind right now. "Family Values"?? I don't know about some of you (some I do) but in my family (weird as it is/was) we believe in tolerance, acceptance, forgiveness, love and kindness to the less fortunate, individual rights. Well, I could go on but don't speak of "family values" as if yours is the only one that matters if for whatever reason your FAMILY does not have the same values as mine. Good for you, but that doesn't make mine wrong. Heavy sigh:

[Karen]

Originally posted by buckner
I'd also like to point out if the government was out of a lot of "social" but legal acts, this country would be in one hell of a hole. Correct, I don't feel the government should be taking MY money because they don't realize how much they already have, but there are reasons we have LAWS.. for people to obide by them.

And another thing, it says no where in the constitution about Separation of Church and State. Find it, and show me.. but I can guarantee that won't happen because it's not there. I've looked, many times. It does say that we can't shove one religion down someone's throat and enforce it, but no where does it say we can't have Church and State coincide.

The First Amendment to The Constitution:


Article [I.] (See Note 13)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[micki76]

Originally posted by buckner
There's a reason homosexual couples can't get married - it's ILLEGAL! I think it's PATHETIC that states even had to put an admentment change question on the ballots this election.

You do realize that times and laws change, right?

It used to be LEGAL to own people. The 13th Amendment freed all slaves in the United States. The 14th Amendment made all freed slaves US citizens. The 15th Amendment was made to let all freed slaves vote in the US. Would you prefer that these amendments were not ratified?

Women were granted the right to vote via the 19th amendment. Would you prefer that hadn't passed? Of course not. Was that pathetic?

Many people were opposed to these amendments in their times. Many thought they were pathetic, but after years of fighting a war and fighting for the right to vote, we became a little more enlightened here in the USA.

Hopefully, one day soon, everyone can have the right to marry.

I wish the world could be tolerant, less frightened of people who are “different” from what they may be used to, and less frightened of progress and change. If a law is unjust why shouldn't it be changed? Is it unjust to forbid people to marry and create families, if they want to? If not, why? Because those families would be "different"? There are already many different types of families.

I just simply don't understand intolerance. It baffles me.

[Uabassoon]

Bucker, I don't think that wanting rights blinds the idea of marriage. Yes, many hetro couples choose not to get married, but that is their choice they have that option. For me, if I decide I want to spend my life with them I want to have the rights that everyone else is allowed. If my partner is dying, I want to be allowed to be there by her. Not forced to sit in a waiting room because I'm not "family". If gay marriages were legal I doubt that hospitals would deny them their rights. Why? Because hospitals already get a large amount of lawsuits a year, why add to that?

If I wanted to my parter and I could walk into any of Tucson's gay friendly curches and ask for a wedding, and they would actually give us a ceremony. Yes, there actually are pastors out there that will perform a marriage ceremony for gay and lesbian couples! However, if I ever decided I wanted to get married I would still like to have the rights that every other american citizen is allowed.

Personally I think baning gay marriages promotes hate and intolerance. It teaches people that if you are gay you are less of a citizen and don't deserve the same rights as everyone else. People are allowed their religious freedom, you are free to hate me for being gay or free to love me but disagree with me. But that doesn't mean I'm not an american citizen who wants to be treated with the same rights and respects as everyone else.

[lizzielou742]

In Kentucky, we already had laws that prevented same-sex couple from marrying, so the whole point of passing a marriage amendment to the Kentucky Constitution was kind of pointless in that respect. Here is the text of the amendment:

Are you in favor of amending the Kentucky Constitution to provide that only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be a marriage in Kentucky, and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized?

The stupid part about this is that the second part of the amendment, "and that a legal status identical to or similar to marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized" can apply to straight AND gay couples. It's so vague. The fear is now that the amendment will put unmarried heterosexual AND homosexual couples "outside the purview of family court, deny them protection afforded by domestic violence laws and prohibit institutions from providing domestic partner benefits to employee."

http://www.kypost.com/2004/10/26/amend102604.html

I don't think the ramifications of these amendments, at least in Kentucky's case, were fully thought out. Now we're going to have a lot of judges struggling to rule from this amendment and trying to decide how to uphold it. That's one of the many reasons I voted against it. Of course, it passed.....and most of the people in Kentucky who voted for it weren't even aware that gay marriage was already illegal in Kentucky anyway. :rolleyes:

[CamCamPup33]

I support it 100 million percent. (Support Gay marriages that is.)

Who's to say that two men or two women can't marry? The government obviously but its NOT their place. It's not the governments LIFE, so why should they even think about banning it?

It shouldn't have been an issue to vote on, and it still shouldn't be one now, Gay marriages SHOULD be allowed. Everywhere. Period.

It's not fair to them, at all.. Imagine how YOU would feel, just put yourself in their shoes when your saying "It's wrong." and "It needs to be banned, because thats GROSS!"

Say you and the love of your life, wanted to get married, but you couldn't because the laws opposed it. Thats got to be a horrible HORRIBLE feeling..

:(

[cookieluver7]

In my opinion, I do not find it right for gay people to get married. I don't think it is right and I don't think that is the way it should be. However, I do respect other people's choices and if their choice is to marry somebody with the same gender as themselves, than that is their choice, and they can live their life as they please.

[BCBlondie]

Thank you PCB, as well as many others of you, for voicing your opinions! I think it's really interesting to see what everyone thinks, even though we may have opposing views. :)



I agree with Amber...
I also really liked Karen's post, and Kay also made some good points, as well as many others of you!

Thanks again for sharing your opinions, everyone! :)

[CathyBogart]

Originally posted by popcornbird

The fact is, homosexuality has always been disapproved of in most places, since the beginning of time. Its not something 'new' or something 'this society' disapproves of. 'Today's society' is actually more accepting of it than the world has ever been.

First, your post was very interesting and not offensive in any way that I could see. I do just want to point out that if you do some research you will find that the above statement is very untrue.

MOST societies, particularly earlier ones, had no problem with homosexuality. The ancient Greek religion had a beautiful story about love, and finding your "other half", be it male or female.

I know there are almost endless other examples (Native American culture, Druids, etc) but I'm wiped right now. I'll break out my books tomorrow and find more information.

Buckner: The constitution does not say the exact words "Separation of Church and State", BUT the passage Karen quoted says the EXACT same thing, just different wording. :)

[Lady's Human]

Quite frankly, the government needs to get out of people's personal lives. If you're not doing something that can cause harm to someone, let it be. If you're doing something that can cause harm, then and only then the government needs to step in.

My problem with the extremists on both the left and the right is that they continuously override the constitution, and do it without following the process in place to change it. The 10th amendment explicitly leaves the states a great deal of power, and it has been ignored for years. It has become a document of convenience, put into play only when one side or the other deems it to be in their interest. At least in placing an amendment to the constitution in play, the President has followed the process outlined in the constitution, rather than pass a law and hope the courts adjudicate it the way they want (Campaign finance reform, anyone?). The amendment has to be passed by a super majority in both the house and the senate, and then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures (38 states), which through the years has rarely happened.

[skydiveaddict]

I truly don't understand how gay marriage affects anyone .....except people that are gay. I can understand individual religions or churches banning marriage, they even have the right to refuse to marry heterosexual couples for some reasons.........but absolutely not the government. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country and that clearly isn't the case. Like it or not, this country is a melting pot of different races, different religions (not all Christian I might add) and different sexual preferences. Our leaders should keep that in mind a bit more. It comes down to this IMO: If you don't believe in same sex marriage.....Don't marry someone of the same sex as yourself. A lot of people frown on couples that only live together and here you actually have couples that want to get married and people complain! Mind boggling.

And the following is a joke, so don't beat me up about it: When my husband and I argue I like to say: I don't see why gays can't marry.........why should heterosexuals be the only ones allowed to ruin their lives!

[Kfamr]

Originally posted by skydiveaddict

And the following is a joke, so don't beat me up about it: When my husband and I argue I like to say: I don't see why gays can't marry.........why should heterosexuals be the only ones allowed to ruin their lives!



LMAO!!!!! :D :D :D

[carole]

Skydiveaddict I see this is your first post here, so Welcome and may I say what an interesting post you wrote, I am in complete agreement with you there, and your joke was in good taste, can't see anyone getting upset with that, it was funny.

[Amber]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I'm going to voice my opinion on this subject.

In my beliefs, i believe a marrige should be between a man and woman. It's the awful truth you know, but just because I don't support gay marriages doesn't mean I dislike homosexuals or anything.

[heinz57_79]

I love how people equate my marrying my concenting, adult girlfriend to marrying my DOG! You make it seem like we are dirty and should be ashamed of who we are. We are PEOPLE, citizens, human beings. NOT animals! I vote. I pay taxes. I work. I live. and I love. How dare someone try to make it sound like Homosexuality should still be considered a mental disease. Because that's what it sounds like when you jump from gay marriages to bestiality.

And as much as I hate to bring culture and religion into it... here goes........ America, as a culture, is young! Very very very young! And founded off of so many different cultures, we really don't have one to call our own. The same goes with religion. Christianity is such a young religion compared to most of the others. Most American Indian tribes revered homosexuals as holy people, believing they had special insight. The same is true for Pagans and Hawaiian culture. Buddhism, one of the oldest religions, does not condemn homosexuals. In fact, it seems to be only the 'newer' religions that seem to do more condemning rather than condoning.

I can't believe anyone would want to put my right to see my partner in the hospital in the hands of the insurance companies!! How would you feel if you went to see someone who was critically ill, possibly dying, and they told you you couldn't. Because you weren't considered family? I'd like everyone to think about all the hell homosexuals have to go through..... all the pain, all the hassles, all the denied rights, all the hate crimes...... and pretend that it was happening to the straight community. How would you feel?

[micki76]

Originally posted by heinz57_79
In fact, it seems to be only the 'newer' religions that seem to do more condemning rather than condoning.

Because the Bible says its wrong, and we all know the bible is 100% correct. Right? ;)

[snappy]

Heinz57-79 I understand how you feel. Most here in Ohio didn't really read past the first line of the amendment to see that this issue will effect many more than just "those gay people". I am a heterosexual female who has made the choice NOT to marry my partner. Until recently I didn't think I would need to because he would have rights to see me in the hospital etc. I actually thought everyone would have that right. Guess I was looking at the world through rose colored glasses.

I have many other religious leaders I can quote here that state they are FOR same sex marriage and if you would like to read the whole thing....PM me and I will gladly send it to you.

IMHO I always thought the constitution (be it state or federal) was there to GIVE rights, not take them away. Didn't we try that with the ban on acohlol in the '20's? It didn't work, and I know that at some point my sister and her gf as well as other friends will be able to join in marriage and receive the same bene's (and heartach ;) ) as the 'straight' crowd. Until then, we who believe in a persons right to freedom and happiness should continue to try and help those who do not understand how two women or two men can and should be married and allowed the same rights as a man and a woman in a marriage.

[heinz57_79]

Originally posted by micki76
Because the Bible says its wrong, and we all know the bible is 100% correct. Right? ;)

Like I said... the Bible just says it's wrong for 2 MEN to be together. So that means I'm free and clear right? hehehe ;)

[carole]

Heinz until someone has been in your shoes, they really cannot know what if feels like, we can only imagine, you are being made to feel like a second class citizen, which is so wrong, me I just cannot believe the intolerence in this world still happening, when are we going to move with the times, and let people be who they are,if you are not harming anyone else, it is no business but your own, how you live.

In this thread I can really hear your pain, and it is shameful that anyone should feel that way in this day and age.

HUGS.:)

[aly]

Originally posted by skydiveaddict
I can understand individual religions or churches banning marriage, they even have the right to refuse to marry heterosexual couples for some reasons.........but absolutely not the government.

I completely agree and I would like to hear opinions on this from the people who agree with it being banned by the Government.

If certain religions want to label it as evil, that is their business. The country should not be expected to follow the same philosophies.

Tell me how two gay people marrying will hurt anybody, and I'll tell you I'm against it. Until then, I will support it 100%.

It really is disgusting that people compare homosexuality to beastiality. Two consenting adults is different than adult and animal with no voice of its own. To even compare the two is horrifying. I'm extremely offended and I can only imagine how offensive that is to someone who is gay.

I am sad that we don't live in a tolerant world.

[RICHARD]

If I had a gay son I would be ALL for him getting married.....


That way I wouldn't have to shell out for the wedding.


;)

[guster girl]

Originally posted by aly
It really is disgusting that people compare homosexuality to beastiality. Two consenting adults is different than adult and animal with no voice of its own. To even compare the two is horrifying. I'm extremely offended and I can only imagine how offensive that is to someone who is gay.


I am not religious, so, I don't have that guiding my decision on what's right or wrong. But, I think when people are comparing homosexuality to beastiality, it's basically saying that according to the bible, a sin is a sin is a sin. But, I'm going to read back and see if there's something else in this thread, to make sure. But, yeah, according to the bible lying is just as sinful as murder. Anyway....yet another reason I refuse to go to church. ;)

[guster girl]

Ok, so I read a little more of the posts, and, found the one mentioning something goofy about marrying your dog. I mean, really, it's a completely different species, but, if you'll notice the context surrounding that statement, it's not the only goofy thing said. I'd take it with a grain of salt. It honestly made me laugh, it's so absurd.

[NoahsMommy]

This thread has provoked something that has always been in the back of my mind. Probably since the first day I heard that being gay was a "sin".

A few thoughts that have stemmed from this thread:

*God created us all. He knows our heart, He knows who we are.

Lets say that it is a sin. Well, lots of stuff is a sin. Why do we sin? We sin for different reasons, depending on what that sin is. Only God is allowed to condemn us. That's it. No one else can tell us what we've done wrong unless it hurts someone else. So why, why, is sexual preference such a taboo sin? Is not thinking impure thoughts (evil/hateful), stealing, murdering, etc. worse? Love, regardless of who its for, is wrong? Why, aren't we to love our neighbor? Isn't loving our neighhor suposed to symbolize everyone?? If someone is brought into our lives, presumibly by God (right??) and we love them, that's wrong because they are the same sex?

I don't get it. I've always had a hard time with this issue. I've actually walked out of my in-laws church and have NEVER set foot in the place since because they were PREACHING that it was a sin.

*I also believe that through prayer and listening, I communicate with God. If, this is such a horrible sin, and its always been on my heart, how come He hasn't taught me otherwise?

*How come we have laws that disclude any loved one, related or not, in situations like Sandra stated? Some of my friends are MORE THAN family...if I were on my death bed, I'd have to have them there. When I was in the hospital, three of my friends came to visit, granted, my parents were out of town, but compared to David and my mother-in-law, they were who brightened my days.

Why cant a friend and I, heterosexual or homosexual, buy a home together and not have the same rights as someone who is married? Why on earth did someone think that once someone was married they were entitled to these benefits? Where's the logic behind that?

*How come, just because the beliefs of our current president, do we have to live and be effected by his beliefs? Don't we have voices? If we're going to blaim the current president and his beliefs, don't we need to address the rest of the worlds leaders? (forgive me, I don't know if its legal in many countries :o )

I will continue thinking and praying on this issue.

[Sara luvs her Tinky]

I have tried so hard to stay out of this thread but here goes...

I believe in the Bible and what the Bible says. I believe in spiritual things and that they effect our lives and the way we choose to live.

I believe marriage is a union between a man and a woman because that is the covenant God gave us. We can't rewrite the Bible or change God's mind.

If homosexuals want to unite in a way that joins them as a couple and gives them rights, like benefits, and rights when their partner is sick and such... then I believe they are entitled (sp) to those rights... I don't believe President Bush is trying to keep homosexuals from having certain rights... I think he is just trying to protect the covenant God gave us in the Bible. And for the record... I believe they should make some kind of ammendment regarding heterosexuals and divorce and adultry and such. Marriage is a beautiful thing.. and heterosexual couples should respect it more. I believe too that it should be made DIFFICULT for a couple to get a divorce. The Bible says God hates divorce.!!

:)

[dukedogsmom]

I'm glad it's not difficult for divorce. I was married to a horrible man and had been put through enough. To have to jump through hoops to get a divorce would have made it even worse.

[Sara luvs her Tinky]

Originally posted by dukedogsmom
I'm glad it's not difficult for divorce. I was married to a horrible man and had been put through enough. To have to jump through hoops to get a divorce would have made it even worse.

Well of course if there is enough reason.. Im talking about the people like "BRITTANY SPEARS" who take it as a joke or divorce just because their husband doesn't make enough money to buy them all they want.

[Andie]

Ok it's time for my (usual late) 2 cents.

I was actually afraid to look at this thread because it has come up so often at work in the break room. I have been so emotionally tore up lately that I didn't think I could handle this. But I realized quickly the major difference: at work this coworker was shoving her beliefs down my throat making me feel like she was backing me into a corner. Here everyone states their opinions as just that their opinions so I guess I could digest them much better.

About the statement that hate is taught; I truely believe love and tolerance is taught through family just as well. I was raised through the first 5 years of my life by only my single 20-something mother and my grandparents. Grandpa in particular taught my respect of other's culture and beliefs because no one but the God or Gods knows for sure what is right and what is wrong. I've had gone through my family history trying to figure out what we believe in and I've found out we believe in love for our fellow man.

I have no reason to be against gays or gay marriage, I'm all for it.
Those who have told me that gays have no right to marriage I take as a personal attack. (I'm not talking about anyone on here) Not an attack against me but my family. I have family members (cousins mainly) who are gay and I feel that by saying they have no right to marry; you're saying that they have no basic rights as a human to love who they want to love and be the person they want to be. My theory is God made all of us the way we are (gay, straight, black, white, a little out there ect.) for a reason only known to him/her/them. Maybe when we get to where ever we personally believe we are going in the end, he/she/they will let us know.


Disclaimer: The preceeding comments were written purely on the author's opinion and is not meant to demean or belittle other's beliefs nor was it meant to tick anyone off

[catlady1945]

Don't care - if gays want to marry it is fine with me. I'm not threatened.

[Uabassoon]

I think he is just trying to protect the covenant God gave us in the Bible. And for the record... I believe they should make some kind of ammendment regarding heterosexuals and divorce and adultry and such.

Yes, but if he did that heteros would complain because of seperation of church and state. However they look the other way when it comes to gays and lesbians. It's not the presidents job to protect the convenant of God.

[Kfamr]

Hey guys -- would you mind if I were to use some of your opinions for an essay in school?

I have to create an essay about a subject I feel strongly about.

I have to come up with two different sides, although I completely disagree with one side.

I need to state my opinions, and then the opinions of those who disagree with Gay Marriages.

My side of the essay will be simple.. but i've never understood the other side, so it will be very hard.

So, with everyone's permission to use the reasons why they are against Gay marriages, it'd be a lot easier.


Would you guys mind? :)

[Amber]

I don't think we should flame each other for our beliefs. Don't make one side the bad guys here, ok?

I want the people who do believe in it to keep believing in it, because its what you stand for, and I respect that.

Why I don't belive it is because for 1) Has alot to do with my religion, and 2) the way my parents brought this subject to me.

I just think that it should be between man and woman, like it always has been. Even though some of you all disagree.

-Kay, even though my info isn't the greatest explained feel free to use any of it.

[heinz57_79]

Kay feel free to use anything I"ve said. :)

[Logan]

I have not responded to this thread, but have been reading all of your responses with interest, and it has prodded me to find out more of what my church believes about this issue. I did a web search tonight because I don't have an updated copy of the Book of Discipline, but what I learned was interesting. I'm going to absorb more of it....I have bookmarked the page, and maybe I'll come back and say more after I understand it better. It pretty much follows my own belief that regardless of whether homosexuality and same sex marriages follow our Christian beliefs, our church practices tolerance and embraces all. Clergy members are not allowed to perform same sex marriages, according to what I read, but the church, overall, has broadened it's views and is much more tolerant. I am comfortable in saying that I am proud of the stance my church has taken on the issue. While recognizing some biblical issues, all are welcome, and that is the way that I have always felt, personally.

Logan

I should have started studying up on this and other issues a long, long time ago. :o

[leslie]

Kfmar- you may want to note in your essay that the word "Lesbo" is actually not a bad/swear word! If you do a search, you will get the full greek history on the Isle of Lesbos. There is nothing insulting about it! So when people throw that word out there, it's really harmless (at least in my opinion, they don't know what they are talking about). You may want to put a little poem or quote in the beginning of your essay to introduce the topic. (Or a quote by Sappho). That will grab the readers attention- it's a writer's technique! Good luck!

[Shelteez2]

Originally posted by leslie
Kfmar- you may want to note in your essay that the word "Lesbo" is actually not a bad/swear word! If you do a search, you will get the full greek history on the Isle of Lesbos. There is nothing insulting about it! So when people throw that word out there, it's really harmless (at least in my opinion, they don't know what they are talking about). You may want to put a little poem or quote in the beginning of your essay to introduce the topic. (Or a quote by Sappho). That will grab the readers attention- it's a writer's technique! Good luck!

Not to get off topic, but I felt I had to comment here. Many words when taken by themselves aren't bad/swear words. It's the context in which they are used that makes them bad.

For instance the word bitch.....used for many many years to describe a female dog.... then was used as a derogotory term to describe a female human.

Or take cracker. Nothing wrong with cracker. Unless it's being used in a derogatory way to describe a white person.

So it's not the words themselves but the way in which they are used.

I hope that makes some kind of sense?

[leslie]

My point was to say something about the way we RESPOND to words thrown at us as alleged slurs. Take "nigger" a word that is clearly a slur created by white men made to hurt. Or bitch towards women. But when teens are using the word Lesbo- they have no idea where that originated from. They are hearing Lesbo from the streets and simply repeating what they hear; and assuming it is a slur. It doesn't have to be. Like "fag". Gays took back the word. It is no longer hurtful, it means nothing. Dyke is no longer a hurtful slur. (or perhaps it depends on what end of the country one lives on). "Lesbo" is a very adolecsent term. A slur. Insulting but definatly indicatory that someone needs a bit of education....!

[leslie]

Let me clarify- when someone uses the word "Lesbo"- the intent is to BE insulting. The recipient can choose not to be insulted but to be instead, well, simply a recipient of a person who has a lack of the english language (a thug) and chooses to speak like an imbecile. And therefore, there is nothing for which to be insulted.

[leslie]

And since this topic is about gay marriage: Republicans claim that Democrats want too much government interference. Hence the move towards less taxes, etc.. When do the Republicans plan on getting the government out of the bedrooms of Americans? Isn't that a govt. violation of privacy? To say who can marry and who can't? This is only one of many issues.... Since when does govt tell me what to do with my body? I thought the Republican's were about privacy... I guess not......
Does being Evangelist conflict with government? Are we up against separation of church and state? (DUH).

[lbaker]

Kay, if anyone could write about this subject, from intellegent view points from "both sides" I'm betting it would be you. I for one would love to read what you come up with. You never cease to amaze me. :)

[pitc9]

It has taken me a while to write this and check it and check it again to make sure it sounds the way I want it to.. so.. here goes:

My sister is gay, she has been with her partner for about 9 years. My other sisters, their husbands and myself and my hubby have all accepted their union. We refer to Julie as "my sister's partner" My parents on the other hand, when introducing her to people call her "Barb's Friend"
It upsets them and they don't understand why my parents can't just say "PARTNER"

My sister and her partner had a small ceremony 7 years ago, (It was nothing legal, just a ceremony in a house) with white dresses and all, flowers, my father walked my sister down the isle. My sister even asked me to stand up for her in the ceremony, and I did!
The person doing the ceremony, was a lesbian ordained minister. Don't know how ... but she was and still is. She dresses like a priest, all black with a white collar. Wears robes, and the cloth she wears around her neck over the robe is rainbow striped. I don't know what church they belong to, I don't know anything, because I'm afraid I would just not understand. I was raised catholic, and no longer go to church because I feel the world is going to Hell in a hand basket, and everyone hates each other for one reason or another. Priests can't even be trusted anymore... anyway.. that's another subject.

ANYWAY.... I am torn between my sisters feelings and the rights my parents have to their own feelings. My parents are in their 60's and don't see being gay as being "normal". My parents love my sister and Julie very very much, but they just don't understand the fact that they are uncomfortable with the fact that their daughter is gay. Yes we all are happy for her because she is happy, and they are a wonderful couple, and we all spend a lot of time with them. But I wish that they would realize that just because some people are uncomfortable with accepting gays, does not mean that they hate them, or are against them.

My feelings:
I feel there is nothing wrong with being gay, I have nothing against people that are gay, I get the same sick feeling in my stomach when I see a man and a woman kissing in public that I do when I see two men or two women kissing in public.
I feel the word marriage should be kept for the union of a man and a woman. I feel the words "Legal Union" could be used for same sex couples, not the word "marriage". If my sister and her partner were to tell me they wanted to have kids, I would not be comfortable with it.
So as you all can see.... I have very mixed emotions... I love my sister and accept her as being gay, and I love her partner as if she were my 4th sister!!! But yet still have some reservations on a few subjects when it comes down to it.

[NoahsMommy]

Originally posted by Logan
While recognizing some biblical issues, all are welcome, and that is the way that I have always felt, personally.


Logan, this is exactly how I feel. :) The bible teaches love and tolerance. I know the subject of this thread is more on if gay marriage should be legal, but I think its also important to know that this as well.

Interesting thread. :)