[SK6]

As soon as you said it was biblically a fact, I stopped reading. That's what I do when someone starts off with the really big (and really lazy) argument from authority.

The fact that Muslims are against same sex marriage is irrelevant, for the same invisible friend reason. And please don't do the "Christians are such an easy target" whine. It's patently false, and if Jesus existed I'm sure he'd be more than a little pissed off. You're hardly persecuted in this country (and no, not being able to force religious beliefs on others doesn't count as persecution.)

(One thing to clarify: When you say you're against gay marriage, do you mean that you wouldn't do it yourself, or do you think that no one should be allowed to? If it's merely the first, you have my apologies.)

Most Christians know very little about the Bible. I'm not the only one to make this claim, I know for a fact AndyMan has made it before, and it looks like even $tinkle agrees with me on that. I'm hardly speaking from a position of ignorance on the Bible (and especially on Calvinist theology), for what it's worth.

OK, couple things, Jesus did in fact exist, there is proof, NONCHRISTIAN proof, and so there is no need for faith based argument. (The Romans where very particular with there record keeping.) The attack Christianity isn't a whine; it is based on your argumentation. While Andyman has made the assertion, you have not cited any authority to solidify your assertion.

And yes, Muslimism is a valid reference, and is not in fact irrelevant; simply to show that you’re strictly accusing Christianity is bigoted. The reference to the Muslim religion is to indicate and show that it is not only a Christian issue, henceforth invalidating your argument to the contrary on both points, and is certainly not patently false. No other religion that opposes this form of union has once been referenced, strictly Christianity, until such time I mentioned it.

I myself do not agree with the same sex union. However DO NOT confuse that with a militant abhorrence or vehement disagreement. I also respect the people, for a same sex union, however, NOT the militant perspective.

I fully agree that Jesus would most certainly be pissed off; after 2000 years, we still don’t get it; Christian or non-Christian alike.

So before you offer the whiney Christian argument, offer authorative proof.

However, this is for a different thread altogether.

 

[BurlyShirley]

But there is a need for the government to offer water fountains. Water drinkers and urine drinkers need it to survive. There isn't a basic human need for marriage.

There is a societal need, I believe. I wish it were as simple as not allowing the govt. to be involved.

 

[Slugman]

Quite frankly I see marriage itself as a religious concept and should be ignored by the government altogether..

100% agree - and that is where the gay community has screwed up. If they would just fight for equal rights, but using a different term, I think they would have a chance. But marriage is a concept driven by religious beliefs, and endorsed by the government.

 

[SK6]

That SK6 quote doesn't even make any damn sense.

Oh, sorry, I should have typed in Canadian!

 

[Westy]

There is a societal need, I believe. I wish it were as simple as not allowing the govt. to be involved.

That is the whole thing about it. It is a societal issue. The government could collapse tommorow and it wouldn't affect traditional marriage one bit because it is not a legal state but a relationship between two people, at least all the "sacred" bits that people seem so bent on protecting by keeping others out of their little club.

 

[SK6]

That is the whole thing about it. It is a societal issue. The government could collapse tommorow and it wouldn't affect traditional marriage one bit because it is not a legal state but a relationship between two people, at least all the "sacred" bits that people seem so bent on protecting by keeping others out of their little club.

Its a big ass little club! LOL!!!

 

[SK6]

The irony of all of this is this all becomes invalid when that bitch gets all my sh!t in the divorce!

(meaning my ex-wife of course!)

 

[Slugman]

Uh oh... burley may be right!!!

Drink water from your own cistern, flowing water from your own well. (The Book of Proverbs 5:15)*

But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you? (Isaiah 36:12)* (See also 2 Kings 18:27)*

So all you bible thumpers grab a glass and hit the restroom....

But seriously - Urine is water with impurities.

So if you think about it - the government simply gives us water and allows us to create our own urine. If they were truly against us drinking Urine - they would have to outlaw us drinking water.

The irony of all of this is this all becomes invalid when that bitch gets all my sh!t in the divorce!

(meaning my ex-wife of course!)

Divorce is a sin against god... you are going to hell (well, a different version).

 

[BurlyShirley]

Does it say "piss" in the bible?

 

[Westy]

The irony of all of this is this all becomes invalid when that bitch gets all my sh!t in the divorce!

(meaning my ex-wife of course!)

We certainly wouldn't want to ruin the sacred act of hatefully suing the crap out of each other by letting homos in on the action.

 

[$tinkle]

That is the whole thing about it. It is a societal issue. The government could collapse tommorow and it wouldn't affect traditional marriage one bit because it is not a legal state but a relationship between two people, at least all the "sacred" bits that people seem so bent on protecting by keeping others out of their little club.

in some parts of our society (i write "some" b/c i expect there are either exceptions or different wording), you must affirm a few things to a gov't official before you get your marriage license (age, marital status, relation to future spouse, etc.). in some jurisdictions, you must get some labs done.

if there were no gov't mandate for these (and probably a few other things), there would indeed be an observable affect upon traditional marriage more than just one bit. furthermore, what would stop someone from going to village to village gathering spouses (property)?

our gov't is involved with traditional marriage quite a bit more than you let on.

 

[Slugman]

That is the whole thing about it. It is a societal issue. The government could collapse tommorow and it wouldn't affect traditional marriage one bit because it is not a legal state but a relationship between two people, at least all the "sacred" bits that people seem so bent on protecting by keeping others out of their little club.

Wrong. Read the bible and you will find 8 different types of marriage, and I think only 1 of them is based on mutual feeling of love.

 

[$tinkle]

Does it say "piss" in the bible?

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 36:12&version=9;

read for yourself (king james version).

wasn't "piss" one of george carlin's 7 words?

 

[BurlyShirley]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah 36:12&version=9;

read for yourself (king james version).

wasn't "piss" one of george carlin's 7 words?

Why wont that fit in my sig?

 

[Westy]

There is a lot of legal crap involved in marriage but what are the bases of those requirements? Why can't you marry multiple people, because it is a social taboo that has made it into law. Not marrying close relatives is a good idea but the idea behind that is to prevent inbreeding, now anyone who things that preventing marriage prevents sex is crazy. What I was trying to get across is that the aspects of marriage that the people trying to prevent same sex marriage will exist no matter what the law says and really shouldn't be law in the first place.

 

[$tinkle]

http://www.erenkrantz.com/Humor/SevenDirtyWords.shtml

"piss" is #2
does this mean RM is using king james filtering?

 

[Slugman]

There is a lot of legal crap involved in marriage but what are the bases of those requirements? Why can't you marry multiple people, because it is a social taboo that has made it into law. Not marrying close relatives is a good idea but the idea behind that is to prevent inbreeding, now anyone who things that preventing marriage prevents sex is crazy. What I was trying to get across is that the aspects of marriage that the people trying to prevent same sex marriage will exist no matter what the law says and really shouldn't be law in the first place.

I know - I was just pointing out that the whole marriage deabte is a load of crap when people start citing the bible...

We have found eight types of marriages mentioned in the Bible:

The standard nuclear family: Genesis 2:24 describes how a man leaves his family of origin, joins with a woman, consummates the marriage and lives as a couple. There were quite a few differences between the customs and laws of contemporary North Americans and of ancient Israelites. In ancient Israel: Inter-faith marriages were theoretically forbidden. However, they were sometimes formed.
Children of inter-faith marriages were considered illegitimate.
Marriages were generally arranged by family or friends; they did not result from a gradually evolving, loving relationship that developed during a period of courtship. A bride who had been presented as a virgin and who could not be proven to be one was stoned to death by the men of her village. (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) There appears to have been no similar penalty for men who engaged in consensual pre-marital sexual activity.


Polygyny marriage: A man would leave his family of origin and join with his first wife. Then, as finances allowed, he would marry as many additional women as he desired. The new wives would join the man and his other wives in an already established household. Polygyny was practiced by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons, until the practice was suspended, a least temporarily, in the late 19th century. It is still practiced by separated fundamentalist Mormon groups which have been excommunicated from the main church.

There are many references to polygynous marriages in the Bible: Lamech, in Genesis 4:19, became the first known polygynist. He had two wives.
Subsequent men in polygynous relationships included: Esau with 3 wives;
Jacob: 2;
Ashur: 2;
Gideon: many;
Elkanah: 2;
David: many;
Solomon had 700 wives of royal birth;
Rehaboam: 3;
Abijah: 14.
Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives.

From the historical record, it is known that Herod the Great (73 to 4 BCE) had nine wives.

We have been unable to find references to polyandrous marriages in the Bible -- unions involving one woman and more than one man. It is unlikely that many existed because of the distinctly inferior status given to women; they were often treated as property in the Hebrew Scriptures.


Levirate Marriage: The name of this type of marriage is derived from the Latin word "levir," which means "brother-in-law." This involved a woman who was widowed without having borne a son. She would be required to leave her home, marry her brother-in-law, live with him, and engage in sexual relations. If there were feelings of attraction and love between the woman and her new husband, this arrangement could be quite agreeable to both. Otherwise, the woman would have to endure what was essentially serial rapes with her former brother-in-law as perpetrator. Their first-born son was considered to be sired by the deceased husband. In Genesis 38:6-10, Tamar's husband Er was killed by God for unspecified sinful behavior. Er's brother, Onan, was then required by custom to marry Tamar. Not wanting to have a child who would not be considered his, he engaged in an elementary (and quite unreliable) method of birth control: coitus interruptus. God appears to have given a very high priority to the levirate marriage obligation. Being very displeased with Onan's behavior, God killed him as well. Ruth 4 reveals that a man would be required to enter into a levirate marriage not only with his late brother's widow, but with a widow to whom he was the closest living relative.


A man, a woman and her property -- a female slave: As described in Genesis 16, Sarah and Abram were infertile. Sarah owned Hagar, a female slave who apparently had been purchased earlier in Egypt. Because Hagar was Sarah's property, she could dispose of her as she wished. Sarah gave Hagar to Abram as a type of wife, so that Abram would have an heir. Presumably, the arrangement to marry and engage in sexual activity was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to what she probably felt were serial rapes by Abram. Hagar conceived and bore a son, Ishmael. This type of marriage had some points of similarity to polygamous marriage, as described above. However, Hagar's status as a human slave in a plural marriage with two free individuals makes it sufficiently different to warrant separate treatment here.


A man, one or more wives, and some concubines: A man could keep numerous concubines, in addition to one or more wives. These women held an even lower status than a wife. As implied in Genesis 21:10, a concubine could be dismissed when no longer wanted. According to Smith's Bible Dictionary, "A concubine would generally be either (1) a Hebrew girl bought...[from] her father; (2) a Gentile captive taken in war; (3) a foreign slave bought; or (4) a Canaanitish woman, bond or free." 1 They would probably be brought into an already-established household. Abraham had two concubines; Gideon: at least 1; Nahor: 1; Jacob: 1; Eliphaz: 1; Gideon: 1; Caleb: 2; Manassah: 1; Saul: 1; David: at least 10; Rehoboam: 60; Solomon: 300!; an unidentified Levite: 1; Belshazzar: more than 1.


A male soldier and a female prisoner of war: Numbers 31:1-18 describes how the army of the ancient Israelites killed every adult Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter in cold blood of most of the captives, including all of the male children who numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women - all virgins -- were spared. Some of the latter were given to the priests as slaves. Most were taken by the Israeli soldiers as captives of war. Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month had passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife. It is conceivable that in a few cases, a love bond might have formed between the soldier and his captive(s). However, in most cases we can assume that the woman had to submit sexually against her will; that is, she was raped.


A male rapist and his victim: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a female virgin who is not engaged to be married and who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. A man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. There is one disadvantage of this approach: he was not allowed to subsequently divorce her.


A male and female slave: Exodus 21:4 indicates that a slave owner could assign one of his female slaves to one of his male slaves as a wife. There is no indication that women were consulted during this type of transaction. The arrangement would probably involve rape in most cases. In the times of the Hebrew Scriptures, Israelite women who were sold into slavery by their fathers were slaves forever. Men, and women who became slaves by another route, were limited to serving as slaves for seven years. When a male slave left his owner, the marriage would normally be terminated; his wife would stay behind, with any children that she had. He could elect to stay a slave if he wished.

 

[Westy]

Wrong. Read the bible and you will find 8 different types of marriage, and I think only 1 of them is based on mutual feeling of love.

Wrong? As far as I am concerned the bible is a "sacred societal" thing.

 

[$tinkle]

young's literal translation:

But Rabshakeh said, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, to eat their own dung, and to drink their own water with you?

puts in a different light westy's apples-to-oranges argument.

 

[$tinkle]

back on track:

here's some anecdotes about congressional districts according to usatoday:

• Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people.
• Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married

anyone care to speculate what changing marriage laws would do to these numbers (if anything)?

 

[Westy]

back on track:

here's some anecdotes about congressional districts according to usatoday:

• Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people.
• Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married

anyone care to speculate what changing marriage laws would do to these numbers (if anything)?

I doubt changing the laws would have any affect but I'd say settling the issue would hurt the Republicans as it would no longer be a rallying cry that would distract people from issues that really matter. These hot button social issues tend to be a big part of campaigns and election results but hardly ever make a difference in actual legislation. Even the Va state amendment that started this thread really makes no changes in state law. Politians probably prefer it this way as they can talk trash about issues that will never get resolved and distract the public from their true dastardly deeds.

 

[SK6]

back on track:

here's some anecdotes about congressional districts according to usatoday:

• Republicans control 49 of the 50 districts with the highest rates of married people.
• Democrats represent all 50 districts that have the highest rates of adults who have never married

anyone care to speculate what changing marriage laws would do to these numbers (if anything)?

The true irony of it all is this, the statute as it reads, affects single people, and NOT married folks. In other words, if you are with your significant other for lets say, 10 years, and the significant other dies, the surviving significant other has NO rights whatsoever.

 

[dante]

I doubt changing the laws would have any affect but I'd say settling the issue would hurt the Republicans as it would no longer be a rallying cry that would distract people from issues that really matter.

Like the Roe v Wade decision settled that thorny issue 35 years ago?

 

[Silver]

OK, couple things, Jesus did in fact exist, there is proof, NONCHRISTIAN proof, and so there is no need for faith based argument. (The Romans where very particular with there record keeping.) The attack Christianity isn't a whine; it is based on your argumentation. While Andyman has made the assertion, you have not cited any authority to solidify your assertion.

So maybe he existed. That doesn't mean he still does. I'm willing to accept that a Jew named Jeshua lived 2000 years ago. (Even if it's not quite as clear cut as you may think...you have Roman evidence of Jesus of Nazareth getting crucified laying around? Because the gospels weren't exactly written in a timely fashion. There's controversy about William Shakespeare, and that was only 400 years ago.) It's the whole idea that he happens to be God where I'm getting off that train. No, I can't prove that he wasn't God, but then again, you can't prove that I'm not.

You want some proof about Biblical literacy? Look at the massive upswing in Evangelical Pentacostal churches and stuff like Prosperity Theology. And, arguing anecdotally, from my experience growing up in a hyper Calvinistic church, even they don't know jack about the Bible. But I don't need that anecdotal argument, because every popular megachurch around is skinny on doctrine at best.

And yes, Muslimism is a valid reference, and is not in fact irrelevant; simply to show that you’re strictly accusing Christianity is bigoted. The reference to the Muslim religion is to indicate and show that it is not only a Christian issue, henceforth invalidating your argument to the contrary on both points, and is certainly not patently false. No other religion that opposes this form of union has once been referenced, strictly Christianity, until such time I mentioned it.

Huh? If you are under the impression that Islam is a good thing because Christians are bigots toward gay people, you are sorely mistaken. Islam is WORSE. The fact that they think gay marriage is a bad thing doesn't make your argument any stronger. They also like to dress women up in tents when they go out in public.

I myself do not agree with the same sex union. However DO NOT confuse that with a militant abhorrence or vehement disagreement. I also respect the people, for a same sex union, however, NOT the militant perspective.

You know, if they could visit each other in the hospital and not be demonized on a daily basis, maybe the homosexuals would lose a little of the militancy. It's not fair to marginalize them and then get shake your head when they get uppity.

 

[SK6]

Huh? If you are under the impression that Islam is a good thing because Christians are bigots toward gay people, you are sorely mistaken. Islam is WORSE. The fact that they think gay marriage is a bad thing doesn't make your argument any stronger. They also like to dress women up in tents when they go out in public.

OK, Your filling in the blanks to advance an irrelevant point, and covering with redirects. I NEVER gave an indication of Islam one way or the other. Therefore, let's eliminate Islam, and insert the word Buddhism, or Judaism.

if you want to argue Islam, find someone who cares, because I don't

The RELVANT POINT IS, there is NO religion that condones the same sex union.

As far as biblical proofs and time-lines, when you establish for me your authority in the matter, or what area of study you've done beside personal opinion mixed with randomized facts from the History or Discovery Channel, then lets discuss it.

Again, this threads relevant discusion is on the rights of indivisuals to marry, or rights when they are not, and the religous implications thereof.

Your assertions don't add up, therefore your conclusion is can't stand true.

Any of the points I made about your debate is all based on critical thinking and argumentation.. For more information ref.:

Walton, D.N. (1989). Informal Logic; A Handbook for Critical Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 

[syadasti]

The RELVANT POINT IS, there is NO religion that condones the same sex union.

In Western religions alone there various well known cases in which this isn't true.

Quakers to varying degrees do condone or even celebrate it. The United Methodist Church has appointed openly gay ministers, can't really get any more accepting than that.

Regardless of organized religion, the behavior is condoned by nature in animals. Just as evolution is a truth built on reality, not fantasy, so is this behavior. Its not evil, its natural variant of animal behavior that has happened since the dawn of time. Ignorance is the source of evil.

 

[blue]

Religion is a crutch for a non-existing injury.

Please be healed.

 

[Silver]

The RELVANT POINT IS, there is NO religion that condones the same sex union.

Letting that assertion stand uncorrected, that doesn't matter. It also wouldn't matter if every religion in the world taught that marrying outside your race was wrong. In a non-theocratic state, religious arguments are non-privledged. In other words, who gives a rats ass?

As far as biblical proofs and time-lines, when you establish for me your authority in the matter, or what area of study you've done beside personal opinion mixed with randomized facts from the History or Discovery Channel, then lets discuss it.

What's the point. I'm willing to grant you that Jesus existed as a human being 2000 years ago. So?

Again, this threads relevant discusion is on the rights of indivisuals to marry, or rights when they are not, and the religous implications thereof.

Your assertions don't add up, therefore your conclusion is can't stand true.

Any of the points I made about your debate is all based on critical thinking and argumentation..

My assertion is simple: In a non-theocratic society, what the church thinks about civil marriage should matter only to members of that church. I'll be complimentary and refrain from pointing out that once you start out with a fantastic premise, all the logic in the world doesn't make that premise any more true...

 

[BurlyShirley]

It just dawned on me that I use "piss" far too often in my analogies.

 

[Silver]

It just dawned on me that I use "piss" far too often in my analogies.

Sometime flowing rivers of piss are just flowing rivers of piss. I wouldn't worry about it.

 

[Transcend]

The RELVANT POINT IS, there is NO religion that condones the same sex union.

And this makes a civil rights violation ok? Religion is about as hypocritical as it gets.

"Love everyone, everyone is equal! Oh sorry, no gay marriage though."

BTW, you are wrong. Many north american religions support gay marriage.

 

[BigMike]

The RELVANT POINT IS, there is NO religion that condones the same sex union.

Ralph, that is not neccissarily true. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism is looking to Lift the Ban on Gay Marraiges and Gay Rabbis. Linky 1 Linky 2



However, all this talk about gay marriage is not why I started the thread. I knew it was kind of inevitable it would go this way, but the original reason was to alert Virginians to the fact that this was out there, and show how the Marshall/Newman agreement went to far. Thats why it was started in the VA forum, and not here. Like I said at the beginning, this does not only deal with gay marriage, but the rights of all unmarried people in the state. Hell, even the Governer is speaking out against it!

 

[Old Man G Funk]

The true irony of it all is this, the statute as it reads, affects single people, and NOT married folks. In other words, if you are with your significant other for lets say, 10 years, and the significant other dies, the surviving significant other has NO rights whatsoever.

That's the most important thing to take away from this, and what I hope enough Virginians will take away from this to defeat the amendment.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

There is a lot of legal crap involved in marriage but what are the bases of those requirements? Why can't you marry multiple people, because it is a social taboo that has made it into law. Not marrying close relatives is a good idea but the idea behind that is to prevent inbreeding, now anyone who things that preventing marriage prevents sex is crazy. What I was trying to get across is that the aspects of marriage that the people trying to prevent same sex marriage will exist no matter what the law says and really shouldn't be law in the first place.

I will point this out one more time it seems...

Although bans of that sort may have started as social taboo, there are secular reasons for disallowing such unions which stem from the fact that most of them involve abuse of some sort or duress. It may not prevent the abuse, but it does at least give the government some recourse to do something about it after the fact.

There is no similar need for same-sex marriage.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

So urine fountains should be installed so as not to alienate urine lovers?

And coke fountains and pepsi fountains and juice fountains and etc.?

Nevermind the fact that drinking urine is not against the law, but you would outlaw gay marriage.

Nevermind the fact that there isn't anyone pushing for urine fountains.

Nevermind the fact that people need water for survival but don't need urine.

Give it a rest.

 

[SK6]

My assertion is simple: In a non-theocratic society, what the church thinks about civil marriage should matter only to members of that church. I'll be complimentary and refrain from pointing out that once you start out with a fantastic premise, all the logic in the world doesn't make that premise any more true...

Refer to the aformentioned book.

 

[Westy]

I will point this out one more time it seems...

Although bans of that sort may have started as social taboo, there are secular reasons for disallowing such unions which stem from the fact that most of them involve abuse of some sort or duress. It may not prevent the abuse, but it does at least give the government some recourse to do something about it after the fact.

There is no similar need for same-sex marriage.

Are you saying abuse does not occur in same sex couples??

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Are you saying abuse does not occur in same sex couples??

Abuse occurs in all relationships.

What I'm saying is what I've been saying throughout this whole thread. Usually incestual and polygamous marriages are the result of abuse and duress. Thus, the government can conceivably say that they are outlawed in order to protect people from this type of abuse.

 

[Old Man G Funk]

Refer to the aformentioned book.

You may not like how Silver addresses you, but he has a point.

In a non-theocratic society, we are supposed to have a separation of church and state. What any religion thinks about government practices is simply what they think, and should not be used by the government to enforce morals and norms on the rest of its people.

 

[SK6]

And this makes a civil rights violation ok? Religion is about as hypocritical as it gets.

"Love everyone, everyone is equal! Oh sorry, no gay marriage though."

BTW, you are wrong. Many north american religions support gay marriage.

That's like saying, "Love everyone, everyone is equal! oh, sorry, you can't listen to rock music though, its evil." It simply a a matter of subject and context.

And a MAJOR point everyone uses ("Oh there are religions that allow gay marriages") is false. NOT ONE church allows gay unions. as far as religions and recognizing gays, are doing what the general population in this thread is bitching about tolerance...

So, if one want to assert a position, make sure the facts unambiguous, otherwise it's circular reasoning.

So, what we have now is a confusion of tolerance and acceptance of some religions of a lifestyle. However, the assertion still stands, gay marriages are not yet accepted by Religion. Now granted, many churches within a denomination may go against there own doctrine, and hold ceremonies, but it certainly does not speak for the over all denomination.

And as an overall statement, I personally do not condone same sex unions. However, it does not mean I'm a bigot. If any wants to believe that, then its complete ignorance on their part. because I do not believe in same sex unions does not automatically make me a homosexual hater or homophobe.

And to make my final statement on the subject, if one is going to make a point or opinion, make sure you have an authority to back it up, otherwise it is strictly personal opinion, and that in and of itself does not make your viewpoint correct. Not only does it not make it correct, but makes it worthless drivel. Objectivity far outweighs subjectivity.

BigeMike and Old Man G Funk made points and backed it up with facts and authorities, that's the proper way to make a point.

Great debate. I enjoyed stirring the pot, and enjoyed learning from the different viewpoints!