[Konabumm]

Where do you stand?

 

[Echo]

Are you hitting on N8?

I don't see how it affects me, as far as I'm concerned if gays want to have their gayness made official then fine, let 'em.

But these politicians acting like it's some moral issue is a joke. Politicians don't care about morals, they just care about money and votes. If there wasn't an election coming up in a few months this would have never been discussed in Washington.

 

[Tenchiro]

Personally I feel that marriage shoud be strictly a religious ritual and have no legal implication. That way they could leave it up to the church to do whatever they wanted. Let them show the world what kind of bigotrs they are and leave the rest of us out of it.

They should then make civil unions available to everyone, gay, straight, or whatever. Of course current marriages would have to be grandfathered in.

 

[ghostrider]

Like any good conservative I hate when the federal guvment gets all involved in people's personal lives.

 

[Konabumm]

I seems like everyone here is on the same sheet of music

 

[ghostrider]

Personally I feel that marriage shoud be strictly a religious ritual and have no legal implication. That way they could leave it up to the church to do whatever they wanted. Let them show the world what kind of bigotrs they are and leave the rest of us out of it.

They should then make civil unions available to everyone, gay, straight, or whatever. Of course current marriages would have to be grandfathered in.

So a non-religious person couldn't get married? That'll fly. Actually, I could use this idea to get out of mine. Nice!

 

[Tenchiro]

So a non-religious person couldn't get married? That'll fly. Actually, I could use this idea to get out of mine. Nice!

Sure, if your not religious then why would you care about getting the churches blessing?

 

[Echo]

Sure, if your not religious then why would you care about getting the churches blessing?

You are aware that marriages happen in places other than churches, aren't you?

 

[ghostrider]

Sure, if your not religious then why would you care about getting the churches blessing?

I don't care, and I didn't get their blessing, but as far as I know I'm married. If I'm not please let me know immediately.

 

[Tenchiro]

You are aware that marriages happen in places other than churches, aren't you?

That is why I said to call those civil unions to define them as a secular bonding, instead of a religious one.

 

[stinkyboy]

“I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one.”

— Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

 

[ghostrider]

That is why I said to call those civil unions to define them as a secular bonding, instead of a religious one.

Well there sure would be a lot of forms to be updated, replacing 'marital status' with 'bondage status'. I've been happily secularly bonded for almost five years of civil unital bliss.

 

[Secret Squirrel]

Well there sure would be a lot of forms to be updated, replacing 'marital status' with 'bondage status'. I've been happily secularly bonded for almost five years of civil unital bliss.

You said bondage status...heh....

“I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one.”

— Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

That's prolly cause Vitter looks like you're avatar and some dude wants him.....And if that really is what he believes is the biggest issue, then we're all in deep kimchee.....

 

[Andyman_1970]

“I don’t believe there’s any issue that’s more important than this one.”

— Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

My question is, how does not allowing gay marriage "protect" marriage? How as a heterosexual married male does this impact me?

I mean, I believe homosexuality to be a sin according to the Bible, but why should I be holding these people who don't acknowledge the Bible as authoritative to a standard they don't live to or believe in (in a strictly civil law sense of course)?

Now people who say they are Christians and "practice" homosexuality and want to get married is IMO a who different ball of wax from a Christian persepctive, but again from a civil law point of view I don't get it.














































Unless of course those in power are trying to create a Theocracy.........

 

[dante]

Personally I feel that marriage shoud be strictly a religious ritual and have no legal implication. That way they could leave it up to the church to do whatever they wanted. Let them show the world what kind of bigotrs they are and leave the rest of us out of it.

They should then make civil unions available to everyone, gay, straight, or whatever. Of course current marriages would have to be grandfathered in.

agree 100%. what I want to know, is if some religious institution *wants* to marry gay people (Episcopalians?), and the government doesn't allow it, then isn't that a violation of freedom of religion?

 

[cannondalejunky]

agree 100%. what I want to know, is if some religious institution *wants* to marry gay people (Episcopalians?), and the government doesn't allow it, then isn't that a violation of freedom of religion?

exactly what i think...i'm episcopalian and EVERYONE is welcome gay straight it doesn't matter...if someone marries out of love it shouldn't matter if they're gay or not and the goverment saying who can and can't get married breaks that whole speration of church and state

 

[jimmydean]

I didn't get married in a church, but I only did it for the tax brake and medical benefits anyway. If you allow same sex couples to get the same advantages, then great.

If "partnerships" of any kind had the same bennies, I wouldn't have cared about the paper. My wife and I have been together as a "married" couple for 6 years on Friday.

I have know gay people and couples, most could care less. I fail to see the big deal since I don't feel like it changes how I feel about my wife and our relationship.

 

[Changleen]

My question is, how does not allowing gay marriage "protect" marriage? How as a heterosexual married male does this impact me?

I mean, I believe homosexuality to be a sin according to the Bible, but why should I be holding these people who don't acknowledge the Bible as authoritative to a standard they don't live to or believe in (in a strictly civil law sense of course)?

Now people who say they are Christians and "practice" homosexuality and want to get married is IMO a who different ball of wax from a Christian persepctive, but again from a civil law point of view I don't get it.

Andy, whilst I am very pleased you have no desire to push your ideas on others, I have a question:

How do you reconcile teh Gay being a sin with the fact that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 30 of any given sampling of people are homosexual? Do you think that gay people 'choose' to be gay? I know quite a few gay people and most of them didn't choose their lifestyle. Homosexuality is older than the bible anyway. How does someone who professes love for all mankind somehow single out one segment of the population as sinners and judge theri lives to be wrong when it would appear scientifically to be no different to picking on people who say had green eyes? The way I see it it's practically the same as overt racism.

Isn't this one of those sections of the bible it's time to disregard, much like stoning people to death?

Unless of course those in power are trying to create a Theocracy.........

Bush is trying to create a leadership based on unproven and irrational fear of other people. It's really not to far away, and the techniques used are very similar.

 

[LordOpie]

Let's put it to a national vote.

The only people that can vote on it are those it affects: queers and the people who say no because of the sanctittie of marriage... which means you have to be married, never have been divorced, and you've been faithful to your vows.

 

[Changleen]

Sanc'tittie' hehheh Bevis, he said 'tittie'.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

exactly what i think...i'm episcopalian and EVERYONE is welcome gay straight it doesn't matter...if someone marries out of love it shouldn't matter if they're gay or not and the goverment saying who can and can't get married breaks that whole speration of church and state

Actually, no it doesn't in this case. There is a distinction between state granted marriage (the license the state gives out) and church marriage. One can go into a church and get married, gay or straight, but not have gotten the license from the state and the state will not recognize that marriage.

Now, the fact that the reason that states won't recognize gay marriages due to the religious sensitivities of those in charge or the general population is what violates the separation of church and state, and tramples the rights of the minority in the process.

What you say about marrying out of love reminds me of a blog entry that I saw posted on another forum. It's well written. You can find it here.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I didn't get married in a church, but I only did it for the tax brake and medical benefits anyway. If you allow same sex couples to get the same advantages, then great.

If "partnerships" of any kind had the same bennies, I wouldn't have cared about the paper. My wife and I have been together as a "married" couple for 6 years on Friday.

I have know gay people and couples, most could care less. I fail to see the big deal since I don't feel like it changes how I feel about my wife and our relationship.

The big deal is:
1) The benefits that you mentioned. Gay couples are denied those benefits for no good reason.
2) The acceptance of society. For a group that has been marginalized (it's the only form of prejudice that is really allowed now-a-days) it's one more step toward being seen as a normal part of our society.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Andy, whilst I am very pleased you have no desire to push your ideas on others, I have a question:

How do you reconcile teh Gay being a sin with the fact that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 30 of any given sampling of people are homosexual? Do you think that gay people 'choose' to be gay? I know quite a few gay people and most of them didn't choose their lifestyle. Homosexuality is older than the bible anyway. How does someone who professes love for all mankind somehow single out one segment of the population as sinners and judge theri lives to be wrong when it would appear scientifically to be no different to picking on people who say had green eyes? The way I see it it's practically the same as overt racism.

Isn't this one of those sections of the bible it's time to disregard, much like stoning people to death?

I'd like to second that.

Anytime I hear people say something like, "I don't hate gay people, but what they do is a sin." I ask them the same question. The usual answer is, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." But, this is unsatisfying to me. Perhaps, Andy, you can shed some more light on how this isn't antiquated and prejudicial.

 

[fluff]

Let's put it to a national vote.

The only people that can vote on it are those it affects: queers and the people who say no because of the sanctittie of marriage... which means you have to be married, never have been divorced, and you've been faithful to your vows.

Good idea. Won't need too many ballot papers I imagine. Only trouble would proving fidelity, after all everyone knows that women are congenitally unable to remain faithful eh?

Was "sanctittie" deliberate?

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andy, whilst I am very pleased you have no desire to push your ideas on others, I have a question:

How do you reconcile teh Gay being a sin with the fact that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 30 of any given sampling of people are homosexual? Do you think that gay people 'choose' to be gay?

I can’t comment on if it’s a choice or not, I’m not gay so I can’t comment with any authority on the matter. I do know from the type of women I find attractive and desirable that I didn’t choose that type to be desirable over a different type of woman (say blond vs. brunette for instance). The type of person one is attracted to, from my experience, is not really something someone chooses as much as it is how one is “wired”.

I know quite a few gay people and most of them didn't choose their lifestyle.

As do I, so this isn’t some ethereal issue for me……..just an FYI.

Homosexuality is older than the bible anyway.

I guess I don’t realize how this rationale makes something “null and void” from the Bible.

How does someone who professes love for all mankind somehow single out one segment of the population as sinners and judge theri lives to be wrong when it would appear scientifically to be no different to picking on people who say had green eyes?

First, everyone is a “sinner” according to the Bible, not just gay folks. Second, IMO the church has absolutely no business judging people outside the faith in a public manner such as has become of the gay marriage issue. We have more than enough skeletons in our collective closet that we still have problems dealing with. The non-Christian world is not going to listen to a bunch of hypocrites that’s for sure.

The way I see it it's practically the same as overt racism.

The way some of the fundies view this subject I would not disagree with you on this.

Isn't this one of those sections of the bible it's time to disregard, much like stoning people to death?

Statements about homosexuality are also in the New Testament, and not just in the Torah. So for a Christian that’s not really a “doable” solution to the matter.

Anytime I hear people say something like, "I don't hate gay people, but what they do is a sin." I ask them the same question. The usual answer is, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." But, this is unsatisfying to me.

Why is that unsatisfying to you? We as followers of Jesus are to love others unconditionally, that doesn’t mean we have to approve of everything they do however. I think many times that cliché you cite is all lip service and not really how that person feels. They don’t really unconditionally love gays. I unconditionally love the guys I know that are gay, I disagree with some of the activities they partake in, but I love them and go out of my way to be respectful, generous, kind and loving to them every chance I get. I don’t preach to them about what they are doing, in fact the topic rarely comes up.

Perhaps, Andy, you can shed some more light on how this isn't antiquated and prejudicial.

I think the evangelical Christian community tends to put the spot light on this sin, and tends to overlook things like lying politicians, national policies that marginalize the poor or oppressed (just to name a few), which a Biblical justification could be made for just like the case “against” homosexuality. They conveniently ignore the things the republican party does that is contrary to the Bible yet tend to automatically view anything not republican as “not of God”. More times than not in the rabbinic debates of His day Jesus sided with the more progressive rabbinic school (Hillel) rather than the more conservative rabbinic school (Shammai).

In short I think the inordinate focus on this particular sin vs. addressing others that are just as rampant in the Christian community (or the republican community) is certainly prejudicial and biased.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I can’t comment on if it’s a choice or not, I’m not gay so I can’t comment with any authority on the matter. I do know from the type of women I find attractive and desirable that I didn’t choose that type to be desirable over a different type of woman (say blond vs. brunette for instance). The type of person one is attracted to, from my experience, is not really something someone chooses as much as it is how one is “wired”. <snip>

It is unsatisfying because of what you said in your first paragraph. The gay person is what they are. They did not choose to be gay, but you think that expression of that characteristic is a choice that you are right to condemn. Should we similarly tell heteros not to engage in sexual activity with a person they are attracted to? Should a hetero man only be allowed to engage in sexual activity with a woman he finds unattractive?

When you say that you unconditionally love your gay friends, you don't really mean it. You can't if you are condemning an expression of who they are. You might not like their choices in life, but you've already admitted that being gay is not a choice.

 

[BurlyShirley]

This thread is gay

 

[Andyman_1970]

….that you are right to condemn.

I’ve not condemned them anymore than I’ve leveled condemnation at myself or any other Christian in my posts on this subject.

Should we similarly tell heteros not to engage in sexual activity with a person they are attracted to?

If they aren’t married to that person then sure, if we’re going to keep this to a strictly Biblical conversation. I can’t just go screw any blond I think is hot and expect my wife to be cool with it and not be a violation of the whole adultery deal as a Christian.

Interesting you bring that up…………where’s the legislation to ban all the movies or what have you that depict adulterous relationships as acceptable???? I would argue that probably is more of a threat to the Christian heterosexual marriage than legalizing gay marriage is.

When you say that you unconditionally love your gay friends, you don't really mean it.

I don’t really think you’re in a position to judge (or shall we use the term prejudge) how or how I don’t love my gay friends.

You can't if you are condemning an expression of who they are. You might not like their choices in life, but you've already admitted that being gay is not a choice.

Again, you are not privy to the relationship I have with these people to it’s a bit presumptuous on your part to assume I condemn them, disagree yes, condemn absolutely not.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

I’ve not condemned them anymore than I’ve leveled condemnation at myself or any other Christian in my posts on this subject. <snip>

Andy, you have called them sinners for being what they are, above and beyond being a sinner for being human. I'm not trying to pick on you or accuse you of things, but you're a reasonable guy and I think that maybe you can come to the understanding that condemning a person for who he is (and that's what you are doing) is not right. You are trying to separate the act from the person, I get that, but that's why I asked about whether heteros should have to mate with people they find unattractive. It wasn't about whether you should go out and cheat on your wife, but it was about whether you should have been allowed to marry your wife if you found her attractive. You have the ability to be with the person you are attracted to, but you would say that it is sinful for a gay person to do that. Do you not see the problem with that?

 

[The Amish]

They can stick their dicks wherever they please and munch on all the carpet they want and I don't care, but marriage is, has been and always should be between a man and a woman. They want to get married thats fine. STOP BEING FAGS! Otherwise accept that a civil union is as good as it gets and eat a rainbow you goddamn crack smokin gypsies

 

[Tenchiro]

They can stick their dicks wherever they please and munch on all the carpet they want and I don't care, but marriage is, has been and always should be between a man and a woman. They want to get married thats fine. STOP BEING FAGS! Otherwise accept that a civil union is as good as it gets and eat a rainbow you goddamn crack smokin gypsies

Tell us how you really feel.

 

[Andyman_1970]

Andy, you have called them sinners for being what they are, above and beyond being a sinner for being human.

I’ve also said from the Bibles point of view is that everyone is a sinner…….being a human means that we sin. So I’m not singling homosexuals out.

Obviously this point of view would not be authoritative to someone who didn’t acknowledge it as such, nor am I attempting to try to enforce a particular set of morals on others that don’t acknowledge them.

I'm not trying to pick on you or accuse you of things, but you're a reasonable guy and I think that maybe you can come to the understanding that condemning a person for who he is (and that's what you are doing) is not right.

As humans we all sin, I can’t change that, I am just as “condemned” for the addiction I’ve struggled with (porn), as a homosexual, as the Enron dudes who stole all that money……etc.

You have the ability to be with the person you are attracted to, but you would say that it is sinful for a gay person to do that. Do you not see the problem with that?

Let’s say I couldn’t marry the woman I find attractive due to some Biblical reason (again keeping the discussion within framework which not all may agree with or accept and that’s fine) I can choose to a) marry her and sin or b) not marry her. The human I am enjoys getting sexual gratification from watching pornographic videos…..it’s who I am, which according to Matthew 5 Jesus equates this to adultery. So as a Christian I can either live by those teachings that I’ve chosen to orient my life around or not.

As for do I see a problem with this (labeling homosexuality a sin), actually yes, just like I have a problem with loving those who hate me, being generous when I don’t feel like it, and not indulging my every lustful impulse.

Please note: I’ve actually tried to engage in a discuss on this rather than the often coined “cop out” of “I didn’t make the rules God did….”.

Anyway…………feel free to blast away………..

 

[MudGrrl]

andyman...


everybody loves pron


it's ok


didja wanna hug?

 

[fluff]

Embrace your addictions, addictions need love too.

 

[macko]

They can stick their dicks wherever they please and munch on all the carpet they want and I don't care, but marriage is, has been and always should be between a man and a woman. They want to get married thats fine. STOP BEING FAGS! Otherwise accept that a civil union is as good as it gets and eat a rainbow you goddamn crack smokin gypsies

Sounds like someone's over-compensating with this display of gay-bashing. :love:

 

[BadDNA]

Personally I feel that marriage shoud be strictly a religious ritual and have no legal implication. That way they could leave it up to the church to do whatever they wanted. Let them show the world what kind of bigotrs they are and leave the rest of us out of it.

They should then make civil unions available to everyone, gay, straight, or whatever. Of course current marriages would have to be grandfathered in.

I agree 100%. Who cares what goes on between two ADULTS who love one another. It's not like hetero marriage/unions are some bastion of moral perfection. Cheating and divorce are rampant in our society, I say if two gay men or women want to enter into a legally recognized form of commitment then good for them. I'll wish them my best and go on with the rest of my life, it really has no effect on me personally at all.

 

[BurlyShirley]

it really has no effect on me personally at all.

This is incorrect. Once you give a "minority" such legal standing, this sets a precedent. Why limit it to "two" in a marriage?

Once the govt. gives gays legal standing, then the ACLU can sue for things like Affirmative action, where some companies would be required to hire a certain number of "gay" employees. Etc. The NFL just got in trouble for not having enough black coaches, what's next, not enough gay coaches? Not enough pictures of Gay couples in kids textbooks?

Crap just gets out of hand once you legitimize oddities.

 

[BadDNA]

This is incorrect. Once you give a "minority" such legal standing, this sets a precedent. Why limit it to "two" in a marriage?

Once the govt. gives gays legal standing, then the ACLU can sue for things like Affirmative action, where some companies would be required to hire a certain number of "gay" employees. Etc. The NFL just got in trouble for not having enough black coaches, what's next, not enough gay coaches? Not enough pictures of Gay couples in kids textbooks?

Crap just gets out of hand once you legitimize oddities.

Hey why not just go back and repeal all the laws giving equal rights to women, blacks, and all other groups aside from healthy, able bodied, hetero, white males?

I belive that for any given subset of people, you should be able to find a realistic representaion of the whole. I'm not aware of any corporations that have anti-gay hiring policies, it's already illegal. I fail to see what ones sexual orientation has to do with the ability to lead others or direct a bunch of sportsmen on a playing field. As far as the textbook example, why not? It is a part of our society, you may not like what they do with each other but as long as they're not harming anyone what's the problem.

 

[Andyman_1970]

andyman...


everybody loves pron


it's ok


didja wanna hug?

AAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW thanks................:love:

 

[Silver]

Crap just gets out of hand once you legitimize oddities.

And besides, seperate water fountains just mean shorter lines for everyone!