Finally, some good news on gay marriage

[leekohler]

So gay adoption is allowed, but gay marriage isn't? I find that rather hypocrital, so that's stating that your parents are not allowed to marry.

Very weird indeed

Well- that's the US for ya! We tend to do things a little backward sometimes-don't know if you've noticed.

 

[Omen88]

Well- that's the US for ya! We tend to do things a little backward sometimes-don't know if you've noticed.

Oh we notice that alright

 

[leekohler]

Oh we notice that alright

Ha-ha! I'm sure you do!

 

[angelneo]

Well, it's too late for everything else (premarital sex, gluttony, etc.), so why persecute gays? No, I would not try and pass a law against it. It doesn't affect anyone but the parties getting married or whatever. I don't see how allowing gay marriage would affect my life at all.

Actually, why do you think gay is immoral? Given that you most probably have gay friends, you must have thought that they are immoral as well. The problem I have understanding your thoughts is that immoral is a strong word, saying an action is immoral but it is ok for others to do, sounds like you are trying to sit on both side of the fence. For example, I would consider killing innocent as immoral and I would certainly not consider another person who did that as my friend.

However, I must say I am not a religious person, my thoughts about right or wrong are based on how it affects other people, myself and the environment.

 

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

You know, this is really sad. We (as a people) have come a very long way, and to still see that there are so many people so judgemental, hypocritiocal, and full of opression makes me sick. So many of you are saying "I'm against gay marriage, but I don't try to push my beliefs on anyone else." The whole reason gay marriage isn't yet nationally accepted, is because of people like you. Another big problem, is people who believe "being gay is a choice", if you're not gay, how the hell would you know! And screw the idea of "allow gay marriage, but call it something else." That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
The problem and the impression I'm getting from most of you, is that you wanna say "I don't believe in gay marriage, but I can tolerate gays." If you are in the way of something I think is my constitutional right, I sure as hell don't want you to tolerate me!

 

[Omen88]

Actually, why do you think gay is immoral? Given that you most probably have gay friends, you must have thought that they are immoral as well. The problem I have understanding your thoughts is that immoral is a strong word, saying an action is immoral but it is ok for others to do, sounds like you are trying to sit on both side of the fence. For example, I would consider killing innocent as immoral and I would certainly not consider another person who did that as my friend.

However, I must say I am not a religious person, my thoughts about right or wrong are based on how it affects other people, myself and the environment.

You could also say that a person cheating on his wife is immoral. But maybe he still will be your friend.

I don't have a problem with this person's view. I consider gay action with me involved to be a rather disturbing experience But what someone else does is fine, although it isn't something I would like. Calling it immoral might be a little too strong, but someone should be able to decide for himself what is and isn't moral.

 

[leekohler]

You know, this is really sad. We (as a people) have come a very long way, and to still see that there are so many people so judgemental, hypocritiocal, and full of opression makes me sick. So many of you are saying "I'm against gay marriage, but I don't try to push my beliefs on anyone else." The whole reason gay marriage isn't yet nationally accepted, is because of people like you. Another big problem, is people who believe "being gay is a choice", if you're not gay, how the hell would you know! And screw the idea of "allow gay marriage, but call it something else." That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
The problem and the impression I'm getting from most of you, is that you wanna say "I don't believe in gay marriage, but I can tolerate gays." If you are in the way of something I think is my constitutional right, I sure as hell don't want you to tolerate me!

Wow! Thanks! Remind me never to get on your bad side. But seriously, you said it.

 

[ldburroughs]

Each to their own. From a legal point of view marriage is a fairly good protector for both people involved should the relationship break down. The Church may have a different view.
Least a Christian Church should be able to forgive them of their 'sins', or did I miss the point of Mr.J.Christs main point?

From a legal point view, marriage is designed to be a protector of the family unit, not necessarily anyone interested in pairing up for life. This, of course, is what is currently under attack. I have no problem with some sort of legal construct of civil unions that protect partners, but not marriage applied under the same light. The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing.

So, you can argue that divorce is prevalent in same sex couple marriages or that there are infertile married couples but that is not an argument for gay marriage. It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right.

You can hate if you must but please keep an open mind. I'm sure that's what you'd like me to do.

 

[Omen88]

From a legal point view, marriage is designed to be a protector of the family unit, not necessarily anyone interested in pairing up for life. This, of course, is what is currently under attack. I have no problem with some sort of legal construct of civil unions that protect partners, but not marriage applied under the same light. The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing.

So, you can argue that divorce is prevalent in same sex couple marriages or that there are infertile married couples but that is not an argument for gay marriage. It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right.

You can hate if you must but please keep an open mind. I'm sure that's what you'd like me to do.

I don't see how the future of the human race can depend on the outcome of gay marriage. They are already gay, being able to marry or not is not going to change that.

I think you are making a too big deal out of this. There are far bigger threats to society than gay marriage. E.g. drugs, extremism, etc...

 

[leekohler]

From a legal point view, marriage is designed to be a protector of the family unit, not necessarily anyone interested in pairing up for life. This, of course, is what is currently under attack. I have no problem with some sort of legal construct of civil unions that protect partners, but not marriage applied under the same light. The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing.

So-are you saying that everyone will turn gay if gay marriage is legal? And then nobody will have kids and the race will die out? Wow- I feel so powerful all of a sudden.

So, you can argue that divorce is prevalent in same sex couple marriages or that there are infertile married couples but that is not an argument for gay marriage. It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right.

You can hate if you must but please keep an open mind. I'm sure that's what you'd like me to do.

And guess what? In most states with constitutional amendments, you can't draw up any sort of legal contract at all. Sorry my friend, but I fail to see how anyone's getting attacked but us. Gay families are the ones in trouble right now (yeah, some of us do have kids). I also resent your assertion that we are trying to take down society. We're barely 10% of the population! We can't take down anything! What is with all this fear?

 

[jayscheuerle]

The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing... It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right....

By society's survival, do you mean purely from a population increasing standpoint? Most of the gay parents of adopted children that I know of are better parents and provide a better family than the average heterosexual parents I see because they put a whole lot more thought and effort into getting a child.

I'd say that just about 100% of the kids that have done things along the lines of Columbine and other depraved acts of torture and rape have come from heterosexual parents. Nice intact traditional family units. I'd say the little girls dressing like whores and giving blowjobs at 12 years old also come from traditional families. This is what you want people to aim for and protect? Obviously, having a parent of each gender doesn't guarantee some moral utopia. It would be hard for gay parents to do worse. It would seem impossible from this heterosexual father's perspective...

 

[PaRaGoNViCtiM]

From a legal point view, marriage is designed to be a protector of the family unit, not necessarily anyone interested in pairing up for life. This, of course, is what is currently under attack. I have no problem with some sort of legal construct of civil unions that protect partners, but not marriage applied under the same light. The "institution" of marriage is all about family. The future of the human race will depend a large part on the outcome of gay marriage. Society depends on the survival of the traditional family. Without it, there is nothing.

So, you can argue that divorce is prevalent in same sex couple marriages or that there are infertile married couples but that is not an argument for gay marriage. It doesn't make it right. It only adds to the fuel that's responsible for tearing us all apart. Be gay and be proud but don't take down society because you want to get "married". Live together and be happy. Make a will or draft an advanced medical directive. You can accomplish many of the same legal protections marriage already provides. There are too few other benefits to make it a worthwhile argument. I know it's inevitable. It will happen eventually. I just hope we wake up in time to make things right.

You can hate if you must but please keep an open mind. I'm sure that's what you'd like me to do.

YOU KNOW WHAT...I'M NOT GONNA EVEN TOUCH THIS!! Take it Leekohler!!

 

[Yebot]

The recognition of the married couple by government and the added tax benefits that go with it were put in place for this purpose...

...making babies and promoting familes.

I say, if a gay couple wants to make a family (adopt), let 'em! And provide them the added benefits & protection under the law!

Leave religion out of government. No legislating from the bible.

AND keep the liberal agenda out of my dictionary. (Where it says marriage is b/w man and woman.)

 

[Omen88]

By society's survival, do you mean purely from a population increasing standpoint? Most of the gay parents of adopted children that I know of are better parents and provide a better family than the average heterosexual parents I see because they put a whole lot more thought and effort into getting a child.

I'd say that just about 100% of the kids that have done things along the lines of Columbine and other depraved acts of torture and rape have come from heterosexual parents. Nice intact traditional family units. I'd say the little girls dressing like whores and giving blowjobs at 12 years old also come from traditional families. This is what you want people to aim for and protect? Obviously, having a parent of each gender doesn't guarantee some moral utopia. It would be hard for gay parents to do worse. It would seem impossible from this heterosexual father's perspective...

It's hard to compare the children I think, because the number of children raised in gay families is so small compared to the "normal" families.

Which brings up the point that people should get a license to get children. Only questions is which totalitarian entity should grant the licenses

 

[jayscheuerle]

It's hard to compare the children I think, because the number of children raised in gay families is so small compared to the "normal" families.

Which brings up the point that people should get a license to get children. Only questions is which totalitarian entity should grant the licenses

Of course it's statistically difficult, but my point is; can they do worse?

 

[leekohler]

Which brings up the point that people should get a license to get children. Only questions is which totalitarian entity should grant the licenses

Right? You have to get a license to drive a car. But yeah- who would decide? That's the problem.

 

[Omen88]

Of course it's statistically difficult, but my point is; can they do worse?

No but letting 2 monkeys raise a child, can they do worse? I see your point though, I just like to argue (with both sides)

And please don't flame, I'm not comparing gays with monkeys. I'm comparing the worst parents with monkeys.

 

[Macaddicttt]

Actually, why do you think gay is immoral? Given that you most probably have gay friends, you must have thought that they are immoral as well. The problem I have understanding your thoughts is that immoral is a strong word, saying an action is immoral but it is ok for others to do, sounds like you are trying to sit on both side of the fence. For example, I would consider killing innocent as immoral and I would certainly not consider another person who did that as my friend.

However, I must say I am not a religious person, my thoughts about right or wrong are based on how it affects other people, myself and the environment.

To me, being gay is not immoral. That'd be like saying "You're black, therefore you're immoral. Not because of anything you did, but because you're black." That's stupid. To me, gay sex is immoral. It's on par with extramarital sex. I don't see why people call gay sex more immoral than extramarital sex.

As for murder, that's far worse than gay sex. Of course you might not want to associate with murderers. They made a choice to do one of the worst things possible. Gays, on the other hand, have simply allowed sexual desires to drive their motives. Who hasn't? It's far harder to resist sexual urges than resist making a conscious decision to kill someone. But as a Christian, I would be all for accepting murders along with anyone else. That would be pretty hard for me to do, but it's what I'd strive to do.

I think of gay friends the same way as my friends who have extramaritial sex.

 

[Omen88]

Right? You have to get a license to drive a car. But yeah- who would decide? That's the problem.

Normally nature decides by survival of the fittest. But it's my impression that stupid people tend to have more (stupid) children, and at earlier ages, than the smarter people.

Is nature wrong? Or am I wrong with my judging?

 

[ja0912]

This is a start that can't be finished. All churches will never accept the idea of gay marriage, so all that will happen is a fractured landscape of unions.

The problem is the word "marriage" having 2 meanings. One is a legal definition, upon which rights are conveyed and the other is a religious one, where each religion has its own ideas. Since every religion has their own separate idea of what a marriage means, there can be no definition. With no definition, marriage isn't a usable word in the context of religion without a defining prefix such as Catholic marriage, Jewish Marriage or Muslim marriage.

If States or countries create their own definitions, then once again, the word gets watered down to California marriage, German marriage, or even Camden County marriage! Where does it stop?

For a start, legal recognition needs to be completely separate from religious. A purely religious marriage should convey none of the legal benefits of the legal requirement. Anybody should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the law. Let churches sanctify their own marriages under their own definitions. Until we completely separate the two, where neither recognizes, nor crosses over into the other's territory (practical vs. spiritual), will we be able to settle on a working recognition of any desired union. Unfortunately, gays are pushing to be recognized in a spiritual way while churches are pushing for legal sway. I think there were some pretty good ideas about the separation of church and state around 229 years (and one day) ago.. Shame we've wandered a bit off the path... - j

I haven't read past this post yet, but this is EXACTLY what I think the problem is. Everything is a hell of a lot more difficult due to the fact that Legal Marriage and Religious Marriage are both called "Marriage". What a mess!

If homosexuals want to be married in the eyes of the church, that's totally up to the churches, and I wouldn't blame the the church at all for denying the privilege.

BUT, to be married in the eyes of the government is a COMPLETELY different thing. It shouldn't matter what gender the two people are. You're telling the government that your two lives are now joined, and you should be entitled to certain rights. Above all, a separate but equal label (civil union) is not acceptable either.

I'm straying off point. My point was simply that for homosexuals to be married in the eyes of the government would be tremendously more palatable to most Americans if it didn't imply a connection to religion, and to be fully married in the eyes of the government is all that homosexuals should feel entitled to.

 

[leekohler]

To me, being gay is not immoral. That'd be like saying "You're black, therefore you're immoral. Not because of anything you did, but because you're black." That's stupid. To me, gay sex is immoral. It's on par with extramarital sex. I don't see why people call gay sex more immoral than extramarital sex.

As for murder, that's far worse than gay sex. Of course you might not want to associate with murderers. They made a choice to do one of the worst things possible. Gays, on the other hand, have simply allowed sexual desires to drive their motives. Who hasn't? It's far harder to resist sexual urges than resist making a conscious decision to kill someone. But as a Christian, I would be all for accepting murders along with anyone else. That would be pretty hard for me to do, but it's what I'd strive to do.

I think of gay friends the same way as my friends who have extramaritial sex.

I seem to remember having this conversation with you before. You think all gay people should be celebate, right? At I think that was you...I don't think that's healthy at all. Repressing who I was put me in a hospital.

 

[mpw]

...Gays, on the other hand, have simply allowed sexual desires to drive their motives. Who hasn't? It's far harder to resist sexual urges than resist making a conscious decision to kill someone. But as a Christian, I would be all for accepting murders along with anyone else...

What if;
A gay man who has resisted the urge to have gay sex with his partner comes home to find his partner in bed having gay sex with another man and kills his partner in a jealous rage?
He's not immoral because he's gay and he's not immoral because he resisted the immoral urge to have gay sex.
His partner however is immoral because he hasn't resisted the gay sex and is also immoral because of the extra-'marital' sex.
The first not immoral gay man killed in a jealous rage so it could be argued that he did not make a conscious choice to murder so I guess he's still not immoral, but wait a minute isn't jealousy a sin too? Oh well they can have as much immoral gay sex as they like together in hell, of course the whole cheating/mrder thing might have soured the relationship by then. The irony is they'd have been happy together having lots of great gay sex if only they were able to follow their hearts on earth rather than worry about Christian morals.

 

[Macaddicttt]

I seem to remember having this conversation with you before. You think all gay people should be celebate, right? At I think that was you...I don't think that's healthy at all. Repressing who I was put me in a hospital.

Yeah, that was me. I stepped in to defend Christianity and got drawn in again...

 

[Omen88]

What if;
A gay man who has resisted the urge to have gay sex with his partner comes home to find his partner in bed having gay sex with another man and kills his partner in a jealous rage?
He's not immoral because he's gay and he's not immoral because he resisted the immoral urge to have gay sex.
His partner however is immoral because he hasn't resisted the gay sex and is also immoral because of the extra-'marital' sex.
The first not immoral gay man killed in a jealous rage so it could be argued that he did not make a conscious choice to murder so I guess he's still not immoral, but wait a minute isn't jealousy a sin too? Oh well they can have as much immoral gay sex as they like together in hell, of course the whole cheating/mrder thing might have soured the relationship by then. The irony is they'd have been happy together having lots of great gay sex if only they were able to follow their hearts on earth rather than worry about Christian morals.

No they shouldn't have married in the first place, because you should not marry someone you don't love.

Gays should be together, but just not have sex.
What a cruel world.

 

[Macaddicttt]

What if;
A gay man who has resisted the urge to have gay sex with his partner comes home to find his partner in bed having gay sex with another man and kills his partner in a jealous rage?
He's not immoral because he's gay and he's not immoral because he resisted the immoral urge to have gay sex.
His partner however is immoral because he hasn't resisted the gay sex and is also immoral because of the extra-'marital' sex.
The first not immoral gay man killed in a jealous rage so it could be argued that he did not make a conscious choice to murder so I guess he's still not immoral, but wait a minute isn't jealousy a sin too? Oh well they can have as much immoral gay sex as they like together in hell, of course the whole cheating/mrder thing might have soured the relationship by then. The irony is they'd have been happy together having lots of great gay sex if only they were able to follow their hearts on earth rather than worry about Christian morals.

Who said it had to be a conscious decision for it to be immoral. Murder is murder. But killing in a jelous rage isn't as bad (see. First, second, and third degree murder). So no, they all are in the wrong.

And why make up such a ridiculous situation? Now you're just getting silly. I'm pretty sure you know what I meant.