Same Sex Marriage

This isn’t a joke.

What are your veiws on this, it’s kindaof old now.

But still, it’s a worthy discussion.

I think it’s retarded(no offence). God, didn’t make us so that we would be sleeping with our own sex. It just doesn’t work.

If this violates, any rules. I’m sorry.

:nerd: SM

Ok, I have given this a lot of thought. You last post really got me junahu. I sat back and said, wow, I really don’t have any reason to think gay marriage should not be legal. That got me thinking about what I truly believe. And I came up with this:

Deep down I believe homosexuality is wrong, naturally and spiritually. However, who am I to judge. I don’t care one bit what 2 or 3 or 10 consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. I don’t want the sex police telling me how to do things, and neither should anyone else.

Now, with that in mind, I still don’t want legalized gay marriage. Just as I don’t want to tell someone what to do in their bedroom, I don’t want them telling me what they did in their bedroom. If the law states that 2 men can be married then that means I have to accept that, which I cannot do.

This brings up the legal things like group health care and that poor dying man in the hospitals whos boyfried-husband could not visit in the hospital. Here I believe is where the line needs drawn from leagl marriage and human rights. We need to get marriage out of law. Why do we need rules that say only married people can get the group insurance rate, or that only married people can vist someone in the hospital, or that only married people can get a tax break? We don’t. I think the laws/rules need re-writen to allow people that live in the same household to afford these things which any married couple can have.

So, what I am saying is that every “couple” should have equal rights, but I personally don’t want to be force to recognize gay people as married. I can’t explain why. I have tried for days now to write what my hold up is and I can’t. That is the problem with faith, it can’t always be explained. So, I think the answer is to remove the marriage clauses from our laws and replace them with co-habitating couples clauses. Then the law can give everyone equality without forcing everyone to accept homosexual marriage.

If it’s made a law, you don’t have to accept it, you just have to deal with it. There are plenty of laws out there people don’t agree with, but they deal with them anyway.

And as for your marriage clause thing. In some states there is a common law marriage clause… which sounds pretty much like what you are saying…

http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectid/709FAEE4-ABEA-4E17-BA34836388313A3C/catID/697DBAFE-20FF-467A-9E9395985EE7E825

No, I don’t like the idea of common law marriage either. While they give rights to people who aren’t married in the traditional sense I still don’t like the idea of call those people married either. Why do people need to be married to get these “benefits”. Take the marriage out of the benefits and you solve the delima. In my views marriage is between a man and a woman in front of God. It is a committment to each other, blah blah you get the idea. That doesn’t fit in a common law marriage.

What I am would like to see is that any 2 people living at the same residence can get what today is the marriage benefit in healthcare, taxes, etc… You see remove the need for marriage in law and you solve the gay marriage ban.

so all marriage is religeous?

is there a secular marriage in your views?

if not, then this argument is moot.

Rev

I believe all marriage between a man and a woman is religious, even if they do not.

Remove marriage from law and you remove marriage altogether.

A wedding would then be nothing be an incredibly expensive religious ceremony (a ceremony required by many religions) that is just for show and really doesn’t mean anything.

Marriage is sacred, it’s true committment to ones significant other, not everyone get’s married just for benefits.

*Originally posted by lostinbeta *
**Remove marriage from law and you remove marriage altogether.

A wedding would then be nothing be an incredibly expensive religious ceremony (a ceremony required by many religions) that is just for show and really doesn’t mean anything.

Marriage is sacred, it’s true committment to ones significant other, not everyone get’s married just for benefits. **
Exactly, no one should get married for the benefits. Marriage is a union of a man and a woman infront of God. If you aren’t getting benefits from law out of it, then there is no need to do it except for religion.

So non-religious people shouldn’t be able to get married even if they don’t care about benefits? Just because they feel that marriage is a committment to eachother for the rest of their lives instead of being a union in front of god?

Gay people can be religious too, so if they profess their faith in their god, then aside from gender, what makes them different from anyone else wanting to “unioned before god”?

*Originally posted by blindlizard *
**I believe all marriage between a man and a woman is religious, even if they do not. **

Then why are you arguing here. It is obvious by that statement that your preception is skewed toward religeos law, and ignores Civil law.

If we lived in a Bible Oriented America, your version is fine. However, one of America’s first and most sacred ‘commandments’ is the separation of Church and State.

Your statement above suggests that you are forcing your beliefs upon others. As if you hold their committment to a higher standard than they do…

Am I correct?

Rev

America’s first and most sacred ‘commandments’ is the separation of Church and State.
Where is this writen in the Constitution?

I don’t want to force my beliefs on others, that is why I am saying take marriage out of law. By making gay marriage legal I am forced to accept homosexuality, and by making it illegal is forcing homosexuals to not accept homosexuality.

*Originally posted by blindlizard *
**Where is this writen in the Constitution? **

you are serious?

In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This was ratified by the States in 1791.

Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the “wall of separation”. The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

these are just a couple of references I quickly googled…

Rev

For those who harp on the religeous issue(s), I’m reminded of this old satire that passed arround the intarnet a few years ago…it says alot meThinks as there are many such archaic laws out there…

I mean, just (for the record?) where are the lines drawn between ‘laws’ of the old testement that are and are not in-force today ?..and where, pray tell, did Jesus reinforce certain old testement edicts and not others ? Did he not emphisize love and tolerance ?

[size=1]Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a US radio personality who dispenses advice to
people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an
observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to
Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The
following is an open letter to Dr.
Laura penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It’s
funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the
homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus
18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need
some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws
and how to follow them.

  1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
    pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours.
    They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

  2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
    Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
    price for her?

  3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
    period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how do I
    tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

  4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
    female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend
    of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
    clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

  5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
    clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill
    him myself?

  6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
    abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality.
    I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

  7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
    a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
    my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

  8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
    around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by
    Lev.19:27. How should they die?

  9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
    unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

  10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
    different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
    made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyesterblend). He also
    tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to
    all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
    -Lev.24:10-16 Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family
    affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)
    I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you
    can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal
    and unchanging.

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan,
Jack
[/size]

*Originally posted by reverendflash *
**you are serious?

In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This was ratified by the States in 1791.

Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the “wall of separation”. The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

these are just a couple of references I quickly googled…

Rev **
Nowhere does the Constitution say separation of Church and State. The only place those words were written was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson.

the first amendment was just a letter from Thomas Jefferson?

try actually reading my post, then respond.

Rev

I have read the Constituition and I have studied Jefferson. I even read your post, my argument still stands.

no, it doesn’t. The first amendment ensures the separation of Church and State.

go back under your rock.

Rev

It does not, it gaurantees the right that everyone can worship freely.

and…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

if the gov’t can’t do anything in regards to religion, then that guarantees separation of church and state.

besides, you have already said that the laws concerning marriage are moot to you, and that you have your own “standards” to which you personally hold people and their committments…

therefore, the laws of the USA are moot to you, and you feel we should live in a religious state (as long as it is your religion), etc…

That… is imposing your beliefs on others.

Rev

That… is imposing your beliefs on others

yes as ive said before blindlizard is a militant christian…so thats about right for him.