Gay Marriage (touchy subject, keep it nice)

Quite true, and theologically irrefutable.

I ask again, what of the position that homosexual love is not a sin? This is certainly the position taken by many (I would think most if not all, but I'll hedge my bets) homosexual couples. The Episcopaleans seem to have found a theological common ground for the concept.

At that point, where is the objection?

 

Do you really think someone chooses to be gay and "sin the lord"?
Its not a choice- I have a lot of friends who are gay.
Of course you can love Jesus and be gay- who says you can't?
Because of a state of mind you were born with makes you "bad" in the eyes of Jesus doesn't mean you can't worship him.

 

It would be a fallacy. Call it a marriage all you want but that, it shall never be.
Go a head, do it. Let God sort it out.

On the other hand, I cannot, in good conscious, see something that I feel is sin being tolerated. I can respect those involved and hopefully, I can love them as commanded. Respect what they do? Never.

Tarnished, all people who love Christ are broken in their sin. It's what you do next. Can you really still be in such a sin and still be the "new creation" described in the new testament? No-when you decided to stay in sin, you can never get closer to God. So why even bother being a Christian at that point?

 

Said Pastor should try reading the Bible. It's in there several times and almost universally explicitly stated as being a sin, wrong, or an abomination.

Still irrelevant. The church has no say in state matters. I agree with the concept of removing marriage from the state and all people do is register as a "Union" with the government and that'll be as far as government involvement goes. The file should only say "Joe + Jenny = Union" or "Joey Bob + Bobby Joe = Union." I see no need for further intervention beyond simple record keeping.

In lieu of that, the Federal government really has no control over it as it's a state matter, and same-sex couples are winning on that front so why are they complaining? Give it another decade and nearly every state will probably recognize same-sex marriage.

 

Im going to head out of this one- if anyone wants to debate further they can PM me.

 

So's eating oysters. Same chapter of the same book, actually. Ditto the bit where wearing clothing of mixed fibers (40% cotton, anyone?) gets you stoned to death and the stockpile of information on how to sell your daughter into slavery properly.

Jesus himself never mentioned the issue.

Quote one part of the Old Testament, quote it all. I hope you've never slept in the same bed as a woman who is menstruating; that's an abomination, too.

 

I'm from California too.
Not a subject I'm too comfortable with as people get too touchy (as we can already see here).

What I'm curious about is, what's the real difference between "civil union" and "marriage"?

It's not "slept in the same bed" with, but "sleeping with", as in "having intercourse with", dear.

 

There is none, other than the name. Though many people seem to view them differently because the word marriage is linked to the religion.

 

Government versus church, basically. The former conveys the tax benefits, the latter just means the priest of your choice said God was cool with it. (<- light tone for humor purposes only! Not belittling your chosen form of worship.)

 

Just as a note: I'm watching this. Very carefully. If it gets too heated, I will close it.

 

Well, let's look at it from a geopolitical standpoint. Many western nations have continued to make strides in repealing and removing antiquated laws against gays and lesbians.

The world already sees the US (I’m noticing that most of those against are chiming in from the USA) as a dinosaur. How much further behind the times are we going to fall? Are we going to hold on to our post WWII standing and rest on those laurels as the rest of the world moves forward politically, economically, and socially? Really?

 

I guess a good question for folks out there would be:

What, if any, limits should there be placed on what would define a marriage?

Those, who strongly support gay marriage, for example...What limits should there be, and why? And if none, then why not...and what would the implications of that be?

Terry

 

Just because the rest of the world says it's OK doesn't mean it is.

Back in the thirties nearly all of europe was geopolitically anti-Semetic, but that doesn't mean it's cool for us to be mean to Jews too. Some could call it taking a step back in morality (not exactly my view point but all things are relative in the human perspective and someone somewhere probably thinks that). Progress is relative. What you say is a step forward one can say is a step back. I call legal abortion a step back in human morality and a new step forward in human stupidity but there are others with perfectly logical opinions that are the exact opposite (Abortion is another thing I don't think the government needs to legislate).

The only question I really care for is whether or not the government should be involved in it at all and I fail to see why bedroom choices and activities need to be legislated. It doesn't seem like what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

Especially given their penchant for large, powdered, frou frou wigs!

 

That's the problem then. It's not their prerogative to command who can or cannot be legally bind themselves in the eyes of the state. In the eyes of God is their problem, not the Government's.

 

Just because you are religious doesn't automatically mean you have a problem with same-sex marriage, though. I am a religious person, but I think same-sex marriage should be allowed. I don't know why it was made illegal in the first place.

 

I think frou frou wigs are sinful. We should propose legislation to ban them just because I hate them and I can convince a bunch of silly teenagers that they're wrong! /end sarcasm

 

One day we're gonna yelled at for always bringing the levity into the heated arguments. You and I need to corroborate on a comedy piece to post here on the site.


Anywho....

The fundamental issue with this particular topic (and of so many other topics) is that it is being looked at from disparate epistomologies, hence there will never be an accord because neither side is asking the same kinds of questions or looking for the same kinds of answers.

Anyway, that’s how I see it.

 

I have to agree with Wrey. The different sides of this might as well be speaking different languages to each other while debating this. To the people of opposite sides, the words marriage and civil union/domestic partnership have entirely different values.

 

On the contrary, it's that levity which keeps these arguments from being closed sooner

 

What's religion got to do with it? We live in secular societies for a reason: so that morality can evolve and not be tied to a moral yardstick that eventually sees it become a barbaric anachronism, as we see in many nations around the world were religion dominates morality. Would anybody still fancy living under medieval or victorian morality? That's what happens when you don't allow morality to evolve but tie it to strictures. Secualr societies should keep religion out of it unless they want to live in the moral past

 

Exactly. That is precisely why government should not be involved in determining who can, or can not, be "married". The term marriage was coined by and an integral part of long established religions. The government has a vested interest in regulating civil unions that convey special privileges to the participants. (Tax benefits, medical rights, inheritance heirarchy for those who die intestate, parental rights, pension survivor benefits, etc.) Such registration is not "marriage"; it is simply a civil union and should not be denied to anyone. By the same token, "marriage" is a religious concept rooted deep in history and should be left to each religion to regulate it any way they see fit. And, if anyone does not like how their church handles the matter, find another church! GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF RELIGION! (and vice versa)

BTW - in California, all applicants for a "marriage license" must take and pass a blood test for contagious diseases. I wonder if they will allow people with AIDS to get a "marriage license". Food for thought - are you sure you want government to control these unions? Consider the possibility of abuse BY government.

 

The contagious disease issue seems like a wholly separate one; that's getting into public health rather than individual moral choices. I'm hardly a fanboy for big government, but I can see an argument much more clearly when health and safety is involved rather than when its about who's sticking what where behind closed doors.

 

There is nothing that concerns me less than what two adults (or 3 or 4) want to do in the privacy of their bedroom. As for government recognized marriage? I think government should be out of the marriage game altogether. I don't think married couples should receive any special consideration or tax breaks from the government. And this is coming from someone who is getting married in about 6 weeks. If government left marriage alone than this whole thing would be a moot point anyway.

And I do believe most, not all, resistance to gay marriage stems from religion induced bigotry.

 

Believe it or not, in theory, marriage is good for the economy (in theory mind you). When two person's combine financial assets they create an entity as I like to call it that is more capable of purchasing goods. Separately, a man and women will spend more on utilities, but when they join, though the utility bill increases, because they've combined assets and supposedly are living together they pay less between the two of them. This leaves more left over cash flow to be spent on commercial goods. Even if one spouse doesn't work, the average utility pay is lower than if they were two separate people, and even so, these days families with two working spouses are going up.

Originally, the institution of marriage tax cuts was intended to encourage this behavior economically with the idea that the overall economy would benefit from more marriages and more couples combining their assets. It's all theory of course and one could say it's not much of a difference (i would see the logic in it making a tiny bit of difference but I fail to see how it makes one that matters in an economic sense).

Honestly the government does need to somehow regulate this behavior. Do you want to see eight year olds married to forty-year-olds? I don't care if they "love" one another there is something wrong with that picture in almost every sense. The problem I have is over regulation which is what we have now.

Even i'll agree with that one. I never see anyone trying to come up with something other than God says not too.