How about America and Gay marriage?

[jptiger 481]

Divorce is morally wrong.

I'm standing up for the fact that I think divorce is wrong and it should be banned.  The Christian Church dictates in your vows before God and your family that you stay married "until death do you part."  Therefore, I am a proud supporter of a Constitutional Ammendment banning divorce.

In addition, I feel that the high level of divorce rate in the United States cheapens my own marriage - so it further stengthens my point.

117997[/snapback]

God validated your marriage. Therefore, for the government to validate it makes sense. God will never recognize any homosexual realationship as anything other than sin. Google the " Mayflower Compact" and read it sometime. The pilgrims were Christians who feared God. Our laws are based on Christian principles.

[chuck 0]

the Sacrament of Marriage (well for you Catholics) is clearly a religious ceremony and therefore is obviously endorsed by the church. I certainly don't expect (nor want) to see Gay Marriages endorsed by the Christian Church anytime soon. Just as there are other laws of the U.S. that I don't necessary expect churches to embrace.

However, the legal contract of marriage that is provided by you state is not a religous ceremony and therefore has nothing to do with God. Non-Christians get married, Jews get married, Muslims get married, tribe members in the middle of Africa get married - none of them are members of a Christian Church.

Aetheists and Agnostics get married all of the time - I'm certain they don't see marriage as a religious thing either. Therefore, should Aetheists and AGnosttics not be allowed to be married?

As a direct decendant of someone on the Mayflower (Stephen and Osianis Hopkins) I am aware of why they came to America. Don't forget, they also left for religous freedom. So now we want to force our religous beliefs on others????

[tombigbeetiger 223]

if you chose to ignore stuff like homosexuality and abortion, then you are allowing it to flourish....you might as well support it because by not taking a stand against it,you are inadvertently condoning it.....i think you can look at pauls writings concerning the last days (without looking it up,1st or 2nd corinthians) where he is speaking of all the wickedness of an ungodly world, he talks of men lusting after one another.....pretty plain to me....its even plain enough for a blinded liberal to understand

[CCTAU 3,350]

So now we want to force our religous beliefs on others????

118029[/snapback]

Nope. We just don't want to legitimaize abomination. We all know its wrong, why give it legitimacy?

[jaydubb121 22]

Why can't these things be just personal beliefs? Why does the political process have to legitimize or illegitimize homosexuality at all?

Homosexuality predates the Bible by thousands, if not millions of years.

Let's say that nowdays homosexuality was required behavior. Would you participate or break the law. That's how stupid it is to be worried about this issue.

[CCTAU 3,350]

Why can't these things be just personal beliefs? Why does the political process have to legitimize or illegitimize homosexuality at all?

Homosexuality predates the Bible by thousands, if not millions of years.

Let's say that nowdays homosexuality was required behavior. Would you participate or break the law. That's how stupid it is to be worried about this issue.

118036[/snapback]

I feel its up to the society in which we live in to decide if they want to legitimize it or not. In Georgia, the people chose NOT.

[jptiger 481]

I dare say Mr and Mrs Hopkins would firmly disagree with your stance. I wish they were here so they could define what separation of church and state was intended to do and what it meant to them.

[chuck 0]

1st of all - I have never, ever, even come close to saying we should legalize abortion. I am not even sure why you brought this up in this converstaion as gay marriage has nothing to do with the death of human.

2nd of all - we legitimize an abonimation because the U.S was built on freedoms, one of which was religous. You can not allow religous beliefs (no matter how correct they are) to limit freedoms. Again, I'm not saying that Gays should be allowed to marry in churches - simply that they should be able to legally be married.

As I said before, there is more to marriage then what is viewed by the Christian Church - if not, Jews, Muslims, Aethesists, and Agnostics wouldn't be getting married.

[chuck 0]

JT - on a historical note (no way I would expect anyone to know this - just thought it was interesting).

Osianis Hopkins was not a woman, actually it was a boy born on the Mayflower - the only child born during the voyage.

[texaubie 0]

Out of curiousity, what is the difference between a "legal union" and a "marriage"? Is it the difference between a legal agreement in the eyes of the government (legal union) or a spiritual agreement between the couple and God (marriage)? If so, why isn't it just left up to each Church or Faith to decide what is right or wrong?

Sorry if I am ignorant on this subject.

[jptiger 481]

Why can't these things be just personal beliefs? Why does the political process have to legitimize or illegitimize homosexuality at all?

Homosexuality predates the Bible by thousands, if not millions of years.

Let's say that nowdays homosexuality was required behavior. Would you participate or break the law. That's how stupid it is to be worried about this issue.

118036[/snapback]

Jdubb, to legitimize gay marriage in anyway is honoring the beliefs of the homosexuals and those that support them. In turn, it asks Christians to take there beliefs to the back of the bus. Everything, everything but Christ and his cross sits up front. Sad, but true.

[chuck 0]

So why do we let agnostics get married - and jewish people? They clearly aren't getting married in Chrisitan churches.

Why is it legal for someone to get married by a JOP vs. a Priest or pastor or reverend.

heck - why do states allow jewish holidays?

[chuck 0]

texaubie - I'm not sure about the whole legal union vs. marriage. I though marriage was a legal union . .

However, as a Conservative Christian who feels gay marriage should be legal - here is the difference in my eyes. I am aware that the Bible states that homosexuality is morally wrong. I am not gay. My expectations are that my children are not gay. I do not want Gays married in my church - because it would go against the beliefs of my church.

However, there are plenty of things that go on in society that go against the beliefs of my church. Divorce being one of them. Allowing gays to be married by a state (not a church) would give them various benefits that they are currently denied. Things like specific spousal benefits (which many companies already provide) and more legal justification to their wills. I do not think its fair to deny Gays these rights.

[jptiger 481]

texaubie - I'm not sure about the whole legal union vs. marriage.  I though marriage was a legal union . .

However, as a Conservative Christian who feels gay marriage should be legal - here is the difference in my eyes.  I am aware that the Bible states that homosexuality is morally wrong.  I am not gay.  My expectations are that my children are not gay.  I do not want Gays married in my church - because it would go against the beliefs of my church.

However, there are plenty of things that go on in society that go against the beliefs of my church.  Divorce being one of them.  Allowing gays to be married by a state (not a church) would give them various benefits that they are currently denied.  Things like specific spousal benefits (which many companies already provide) and more legal justification to their wills.  I do not think its fair to deny Gays these rights.

118056[/snapback]

Being a Christian I do not want my tax dollars benefitting any homosexual agenda. God's Word tells me where I should stand concerning gay marriage.

[chuck 0]

I'm confused how your tax dollars have anything to do with this?

[jptiger 481]

I'm confused how your tax dollars have anything to do with this?

118061[/snapback]

Where do your dollars come from?

[CarolinaTiger 0]

seems like tigeral and i had a long thread awhile back on this...and against my better judgment, i'll share my thoughts. some of my thoughts are just my beliefs/speculation...others are facts (i think )

here is my thinking on the subject, most of which has been expressed by one or another already on this thread:

1: by definition, 'marriage' involves a man & a woman...not two people of the same sex. i think that's a fact, both by the dictionaries, and by hundreds of years of tradition. therefore, the very idea of a 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron. 'traditions and definitions can change', you say...and you're right. this is the very crux of what we're discussing, IMO.

2: there are 'state' sanctioned marriages as well as 'church' sanctioned marriages. not all 'state' sanctioned marriages are recognized by the church, but by & large, all 'church' marriages are recognized by the state. that's why atheists & agnostics, etc., can be 'married'. the church doesn't solely own the practice. to some people, it's very important to have a "church" wedding... to others, it doesn't mean a hill of beans.

3: getting married is not a "right". no one is guaranteed "marriage" by the constitution or any other decree, to my knowledge. yet, virtually any one is allowed to be married. therefore, if a gay person wants to get married, s/he certainly can...the gov't isn't stopping them... yet, refering to point 1, to get married, they'd have to find a person of the opposite sex. so, in the strictest sense, no one's 'rights' are being violated w/ these bans. [this is not meant to be a circuitous statement]

4: as far as "rights" go, the government isn't outlawing homosexuality, to my knowledge...

i think those 4 things are more or less things we can agree on as being 'facts', even if you don't agree w/ the stances they currently end up causing in society.

now:

before answering the "why not allow gay marriages...who/what does it hurt" question, let's first ask the opposite question:

why do gay people want to be married? (here we go into my supposition instead of 'facts')

the most common reason i hear is because gay people 'want all the benefits' afforded married couples... benefits may not be the exact right word there, but hopefully you know what im' talking about.

if this is the case, then i really see no reason for a 'marriage', since most (if not all) of these kinds of benefits can be taken care of through legal means. wills, POAs, etc., can be handled that way. health benefits from one's employer may not be available to a homosexual mate, but i don't think that's a government issue is it? that's something the company decides ... unless we're talking about forcing companies to offer health care benefits (and other benefits) to gay mates. is this the crux of the reason for gay marriages?

i don't think so.

consider this: what's stopping gay couples from having a "marriage" ceremony...many do! no one can stop someone from renting a hall and holding a ceremony... espousing their love for their mate in front of all their friends/families. isn't that what we do at weddings? can't gays do that?

the rub comes, with gay couples (IMO), is that their ceremony isn't recognized by either the state or the church, and that is what i think gays want ...recognition/validation/legitimization...and i think they want it desperately.

from the state? they'd take that. why, i have no idea...except in an effort to legitimize their lifestyle ... legitimize it to/for whom, though? themselves? their family? their friends? i don't know. if the state-sanctioned privileges of marriage can be gained through other means, why seek a state sanctioned marriage?

what about legitimization from the church? i think this is ultimately the goal... gays desperately want their lifestyles sanctioned by the church. why else would they care? yet, this issue isn't a matter for the government to decide...and most churches are not going to sanction homosexual marriages, so their only redress is through state-sanctioned marriages.

i think gays feel that if the gov't recognized their unions, then society would (slowly) accept their lifestyle as normal. yet, i think we've all come to learn that legislating morals is a tricky venture.

well, i must go. i'll answer the "what's wrong w/ letting gays marry?" question later. i'm sure you all will be anxiously awaiting that!

[CarolinaTiger 0]

let me also add real quick: i don't think anybody should be illegally discriminated against in any way at all...

[AURaptor 1,128]

Georgia left no doubt on how it feels about the Gay Marriage issue.

Sodomy, however, is quite legal. So, we got that going for us, which is nice.

[chuck 0]

Carolina Tiger - very well written - and I can't dispute the facts of your post.

My wife and I are pretty good friends with two Gay Men who are partners (both voted a straight republican ticket by the way) who have been together for 10+ years.

For the most part - they don't really care TOO much about Gay Marriage. They realize that it won't be sanctioned by the church, and they are smart enough to protect themselves legally in every way (one of there families is VERY against it and has pretty much broken off all communication). They think it is stupid for Gay couples to have their own ceremony because to them it is like proving a point to each other - something they don't feel like they have to do. HOWEVER, there are certain tax benefits and other things about being married which they are not privilaged to - which I feel is wrong.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

HOWEVER, there are certain tax benefits and other things about being married which they are not privilaged to - which I feel is wrong.

118072[/snapback]

i wondered if there was a significant difference from a tax standpoint. you always hear about the marriage tax penalty and the fact that being married causes the couple to pay more taxes in certain circumstances....

i've thought a lot about this issue...why they want to be married and i wonder if my thinking is close. your following statement, however,

They think it is stupid for Gay couples to have their own ceremony because to them it is like proving a point to each other -

confuses me. couldn't that statement apply to hetero couples as well? why fuss w/ the 'ceremony' part of marriage... it's just proving something we both already know.

i think the 'ceremony' part is as much for others as it is for the participants... same things w/ graduation ceremonies. i'll always have students tell me they plan to skip graduation ceremony...they don't care. i quickly tell them that it's not about them...it's about their families that want the opportunity to celebrate !

i have a gay cousin...i think i'll run it by him next time we're around each other.

[CarolinaTiger 0]

i asked a preacher buddy of mine what his take was on 'gay marriages'. now, know that i go to a rather conservative denomination...yet he is probably on the liberal side of our denomination...

here's his take. he raises some points i hadn't considered re/ APA

A couple of notes:

--Many churches (Church of Christ, Episcopal, Methodist, etc) sanction

marriages.

--To me the core isn`t the church question, it`s the legitimization

question. Homosexuality was only recently taken off the American Pyschiatric

Association (or whatever) list of "psychological disorders." So the need to

have their orientation and lifestyles validated is pretty high on their

hierarchy of needs--self actualization. The only remaining barrier to that

is marriage. (Sodomy laws have fallen, psychiatrist no longer "treat"

homosexuality, cultural mores have fallen, etc.)

So we make a last stand.

This is why I have no problems with "civil unions" since it is a new

category, it can be defined however we want to do it. I think they should be

drawn up ONLY to answer questions of parental rights, inheritance issues,

and tax codes. As long as it doesn't get called marriage. *sigh*

[channonc 466]

Carolina Tiger - very well written - and I can't dispute the facts of your post.

My wife and I are pretty good friends with two Gay Men who are partners (both voted a straight republican ticket by the way) who have been together for 10+ years.

For the most part - they don't really care TOO much about Gay Marriage.  They realize that it won't be sanctioned by the church, and they are smart enough to protect themselves legally in every way (one of there families is VERY against it and has pretty much broken off all communication).  They think it is stupid for Gay couples to have their own ceremony because to them it is like proving a point to each other - something they don't feel like they have to do.  HOWEVER, there are certain tax benefits and other things about being married which they are not privilaged to - which I feel is wrong.

118072[/snapback]

Like CT, I am going against my better judgement and respond.

Chuck, I have agreed with everything you said. Here is what I would add with respect to the divorce/gay marriage issue that you brought up:

Recently (about a month or so ago) I was watching the local news, and they had an interesting story. There was a woman in VA who was fighting for custody of her biological child. No big deal b/c this sort of thing happens all the time, only this case had quite a spin on it. This child she had by a sperm donor for her and her female partner. Apparently, they had gotten a civil union in Vermont where they lived for several years together. They had a child together. And now the biological mother of the child has decided that she is actually bisexual and would now like to get married to this guy in VA. So she moves with the child to VA. When her partner filed a custody suit against her in the state of Vermont she countersuied in VA. She claims that since VA doesn't recognize their union she gets complete control over the custody of their child. Now there will be 2 seperate states using different legal criteria to determine the outcome of the same case.

Now, keeping the issue of whether or not they should have had children out of it... I think that they should have had to file for divorce, just like other married couples, and have to go through the same process the rest of us do if we decide to end our marriages.

I agree with Chuck that I have no problems with churches, synagoges, etc. not legitimizing or recognizing gay marriages. I just don't think its the states job to dictate public policy based on a religion. That's my 2 cents.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

118072[/snapback]

Now, keeping the issue of whether or not they should have had children out of it... I think that they should have had to file for divorce, just like other married couples, and have to go through the same process the rest of us do if we decide to end our marriages.

118244[/snapback]

I generally agree with you but still ask why does the gay union have to be called "marriage?" I think that is a key hangup with lots of us. You can make a legal civil union to solve the gay partner solution and an anullment process for such a union similar to a divorce. just don't call the gay union a mariage.

[channonc 466]

118072[/snapback]

Now, keeping the issue of whether or not they should have had children out of it... I think that they should have had to file for divorce, just like other married couples, and have to go through the same process the rest of us do if we decide to end our marriages.

118244[/snapback]

I generally agree with you but still ask why does the gay union have to be called "marriage?" I think that is a key hangup with lots of us. You can make a legal civil union to solve the gay partner solution and an anullment process for such a union similar to a divorce. just don't call the gay union a mariage.

118264[/snapback]

My thoughts on that is the license you receive from the court house should not be a "marriage license." It should be a license to a civil union. I think the word "marriage" should not be a legal term used by the state, but only a religious term. In my mind, people who were "married" by the JOP or a Judge don't have a "marriage" but rather have a legal civil union. Regardless of whether the couple is gay or straight.