Gays and Gay Marriages

Quote:

---

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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?

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. :(

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.

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:

Quote:

---

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 :(

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.

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 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.

Quote:

---

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!!