Churches aren't the only entities that perform marriages, the state you get your marriage license in doesn't need anyone to be married by a church to recognize a union. All you need is a justice of the peace or any other state recogized person to perform the marriage. Hasn't anyone here heard of common law marriage or civil unions. These have nothing to do with a church and are legally recognized in most if not all states. The church can always refuse to marry anyone because of the church's religious beliefs and teachings. This has nothing to do with the state. I bet those states that have legal gay marriage had not had a catholic church perform the marriages nor can they be forced to do so. What is so wrong with gay people having the same protection and rights that straight couples do under state law? This also has nothing to do with marrying inanimate objects or animals, as they can't consent like another human being can, so don't make ridiculous comments like that. Although in some countries this is legal. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html Letting gays live their lives as equals is no skin off my back, as I am comfortable in my heterosexuality and religious beliefs(there are some a beg to differ with the church with). I also believe in equal rights and protection under the law, that is all they are asking for. They are not asking for approval of their lifestyle, just the right to be able to take care of their loved ones, like we can, and any other legal repercutions that come along with that union. The church may not approve of the gay lifestyle, but they should not be able to influence it or regulate it to their own views. They don't even ban gays from attentding church services, this is why I see the church as being two faced. They should either forgive and accept or impose a total ban if it is against their teachings. God left us the ability to "sin" or not. He is the ultimate judge of our actions. Jesus told us to love our neighbors, that includes gay people. Who are we to judge, lest we be judged ourselves? What they do behind close doors is nobody's business but their own and I don't want to know about it. I also don't want to know what my straight neighbors do behind closed doors either, as it is nobody's business again. This is a case where the church does need to be separate from the state. What is the harm of gays getting married? The world will not come to an end. Why should they be punished for who they are? A true Christian should not be a hypocrite like the church can be. God gaves us brains and logic to figure these things out. Remember when the church burnt people at the stake for saying that the World was round, this was against their teachings that it was flat? Eventually they chaged their opinion about that too. Talk about people being shepple, sheesh!
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-07-2008).]
IP: Logged
03:31 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25242 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
^ yup. but, government IS involved with marriages. marriage license. divorce. alimony.
and, why cant I marry my Fiero? my dog?
because it is silly, and being outragous for the sake of outragousness.
after all - what is the actual objective? maybe someone can clear that up? tax reasons? insurance? joint bank account?
and - what is the actual objection? punish them for being gay?
It's varying degrees from either side.
From the side of the Catholic or Christian, it's:
A - Not wanting them to use the religious term "Marriage", and change it's meaning. B - They believe gay sex is a sin and means you're going to hell as WELL as the point made in A.
From the side of the homosexual couple, it's also varying: A - To have their relationship recognized, and to receive the same benefits as married hetero couples have. B - To change the meaning of marriage to accept same sex couples.
Personally, I believe in "A" from the Catholic standpoint. I am Catholic, and from a religious standpoint, I don't want to see the term Marriage being changed since in my religion (and other religions) it's always meant a man and a woman. However I have absolutely NO PROBLEM whatsoever if they want to call eachother a "Civil Union", "Life Partners", etc... and I absolutely do not have a problem with them receiving the full benefits that married couples do. That said, I want it to come with the same caveates. They can't have their cake and eat it too... if they want to enter into a civil union, then they have to sign a contract similar to a marriage contract. So... when one decides they want to split, he / she has to consider what they would lose financially (having everything split down the middle, etc).
That's what I believe.
On the other hand, there are some gay couples that really don't want anymore more than to have their relationship recognized as a solid "marriage-like" relationship. And many of these people are totally OK with a "civil union", or something like that.
There are those who on the other hand who forcibly want to go right to the top and change the entire institution and terminology of marriage. Granted, not all homosexuals are like that... but the simple fact is that we wouldn't have having this argument if there wasn't a large percentage that did...
If I was gay, and I wanted to fight for my rights, I would be focusing on a civil union law which would grant me same-rights as a married couple. The problem is... they don't want to settle, they go for the full montey. We, as Americans, have been raised to believe that a lasting, long-term relationship is only real if it's marriage. I personally tend to believe this. Clearly, most homosexual couples ALSO feel this way which is why they want to change the terminology of "marriage".
BUT... in every religion that refers to "God", be it Christianity, Jeudaism, and Muslim, they all feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. Technically, "God" is the same person in all three of those monotheistic religions, but each of them takes it one step further. Well, the Jews don't really... but Christians, we believe in the holy Trinity, and Muslims... they believe in the prophet Mohammed (and now, Barack Obama... hahah...)
Im really surprised by that vote. Honestly I believe homosexuality is wrong...but I also believe it's none of my damn business if two people want to get married and be together. It's up to god to decide if they did something wrong in this life..not mine. Just because I think it's wrong doesn't mean he does.
IP: Logged
03:39 PM
Jaygee79 Member
Posts: 4259 From: Dartmouth, MA Registered: Mar 2000
Churches aren't the only entities that perform marriages, the state you get your marriage license in doesn't need anyone to be married by a church to recognize a union. All you need is a justice of the peace or any other state recogized person to perform the marriage. Hasn't anyone here heard of common law marriage or civil unions. These have nothing to do with a church and are legally recognized in most if not all states. The church can always refuse to marry anyone because of the church's religious beliefs and teachings. This has nothing to do with the state. I bet those states that have legal gay marriage had not had a catholic church perform the marriages nor can they be forced to do so. What is so wrong with gay people having the same protection and rights that straight couples do under state law? This also has nothing to do with marrying inanimate objects or animals, as they can't consent like another human being can, so don't make ridiculous comments like that. Although in some countries this is legal. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html Letting gays live their lives as equals is no skin off my back, as I am comfortable in my heterosexuality and religious beliefs(there are some a beg to differ with the church with). I also believe in equal rights and protection under the law, that is all they are asking for. They are not asking for approval of their lifestyle, just the right to be able to take care of their loved ones, like we can, and any other legal repercutions that come along with that union. The church may not approve of the gay lifestyle, but they should not be able to influence it or regulate it to their own views. They don't even ban gays from attentding church services, this is why I see the church as being two faced. They should either forgive and accept or impose a total ban if it is against their teachings. God left us the ability to "sin" or not. He is the ultimate judge of our actions. Jesus told us to love our neighbors, that includes gay people. Who are we to judge, lest we be judged ourselves? What they do behind close doors is nobody's business but their own and I don't want to know about it. I also don't want to know what my straight neighbors do behind closed doors either, as it is nobody's business again. This is a case where the church does need to be separate from the state. What is the harm of gays getting married? The world will not come to an end. Why should they be punished for who they are? A true Christian should not be a hypocrite like the church can be. God gaves us brains and logic to figure these things out. Remember when the church burnt people at the stake for saying that the World was round, this was against their teachings that it was flat? Eventually they chaged their opinion about that too. Talk about people being shepple, sheesh!
FINALLY, some logic!
I knew I liked you for a reason
IP: Logged
03:42 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25242 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Churches aren't the only entities that perform marriages, the state you get your marriage license in doesn't need anyone to be married by a church to recognize a union. All you need is a justice of the peace or any other state recogized person to perform the marriage. Hasn't anyone here heard of common law marriage or civil unions. These have nothing to do with a church and are legally recognized in most if not all states. The church can always refuse to marry anyone because of the church's religious beliefs and teachings. This has nothing to do with the state. I bet those states that have legal gay marriage had not had a catholic church perform the marriages nor can they be forced to do so. What is so wrong with gay people having the same protection and rights that straight couples do under state law? This also has nothing to do with marrying inanimate objects or animals, as they can't consent like another human being can, so don't make ridiculous comments like that. Although in some countries this is legal. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html Letting gays live their lives as equals is no skin off my back, as I am comfortable in my heterosexuality and religious beliefs(there are some a beg to differ with the church with). I also believe in equal rights and protection under the law, that is all they are asking for. They are not asking for approval of their lifestyle, just the right to be able to take care of their loved ones, like we can, and any other legal repercutions that come along with that union. The church may not approve of the gay lifestyle, but they should not be able to influence it or regulate it to their own views. They don't even ban gays from attentding church services, this is why I see the church as being two faced. They should either forgive and accept or impose a total ban if it is against their teachings. God left us the ability to "sin" or not. He is the ultimate judge of our actions. Jesus told us to love our neighbors, that includes gay people. Who are we to judge, lest we be judged ourselves? What they do behind close doors is nobody's business but their own and I don't want to know about it. I also don't want to know what my straight neighbors do behind closed doors either, as it is nobody's business again. This is a case where the church does need to be separate from the state. What is the harm of gays getting married? The world will not come to an end. Why should they be punished for who they are? A true Christian should not be a hypocrite like the church can be. God gaves us brains and logic to figure these things out. Remember when the church burnt people at the stake for saying that the World was round, this was against their teachings that it was flat? Eventually they chaged their opinion about that too. Talk about people being shepple, sheesh!
You're confused. The vast majority of these anti-gay marriage ban laws do not specify anything as it relates to "rights", the ONLY thing it's stating is that the TERM "Marriage" only exists between a man and a woman. It's symmantics that are being argued. Most states DO offer rights and provisions for common law, and civil unions.
However, to most homosexuals, that's not good enough. They want to be "Married" since honestly, common belief in the US doesn't really lend creedence to any long-term relationship unless it's considered "Marriage". That's why they want the ability to define their relationship as a "Marriage". They still get their rights (regardless), in most states.
If you really want to get technical about it, some states give "More rights" than a non-married hetero couple gets. Two homosexuals could basically live together for more than a year, and get full benefits... (Car insurance, etc...). Simply by stating that they are gay. A Hetero couple cannot do this (unless they lie). Church's allow gays to worship because while homosexuality is considered sin, they are hoping that they will "change their ways" and repent.
Church doors are ALWAYS open. It's not hipocritical in the eyes of the church. They don't want people to be gay, they don't want them to have homosexual lifestyles, and happy to have them worship (with open arms) in hopes that they can change them.
I'm not gay, so I don't really have any views on that other than the term Marriage. I have had a couple gay friends throughout the years as well as gay co-workers, so I feel that I am empethetic and sympathetic to their cause. However, I don't like the term "Marriage" being used... I am totally cool with everything else. If they're willing to accept "Civil Union" and all the rights of a hetero married couple... then I don't think anyone but Pat Robertson would have a problem.
However, as it is very obvious... that is not what gays want. They want acceptance... and to them, that means the rest of the US accepts their union as "Marriage".
Like I said, I can sympethize, but I don't agree...
Im really surprised by that vote. Honestly I believe homosexuality is wrong...but I also believe it's none of my damn business if two people want to get married and be together. It's up to god to decide if they did something wrong in this life..not mine. Just because I think it's wrong doesn't mean he does.
Don't worry. He doesn't believe it's wrong just because you, I or anyone else does. He says it's wrong because he believes it is.
How much precedence will this vote/ammendment hold for other states to follow?
IP: Logged
03:44 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Equality or not equal... You say NOT equal therefor you will be lying if you say this country has equal rights
Also it would mean that the words "all men are created equal" is a lie as well.
Bill, just because all men are created equal does not mean they ALL get to do what ever they want to do. I might want to play slappity slap with your head but that doesn't mean I can.
IP: Logged
03:44 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
Im really surprised by that vote. Honestly I believe homosexuality is wrong...but I also believe it's none of my damn business if two people want to get married and be together. It's up to god to decide if they did something wrong in this life..not mine. Just because I think it's wrong doesn't mean he does.
I guess I am just the opposite. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with homosexuality but marriage is all about a man and a woman and procreation.
IP: Logged
03:46 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It's varying degrees from either side.
From the side of the Catholic or Christian, it's:
A - Not wanting them to use the religious term "Marriage", and change it's meaning. B - They believe gay sex is a sin and means you're going to hell as WELL as the point made in A.
From the side of the homosexual couple, it's also varying: A - To have their relationship recognized, and to receive the same benefits as married hetero couples have. B - To change the meaning of marriage to accept same sex couples.
Personally, I believe in "A" from the Catholic standpoint. I am Catholic, and from a religious standpoint, I don't want to see the term Marriage being changed since in my religion (and other religions) it's always meant a man and a woman. However I have absolutely NO PROBLEM whatsoever if they want to call eachother a "Civil Union", "Life Partners", etc... and I absolutely do not have a problem with them receiving the full benefits that married couples do. That said, I want it to come with the same caveates. They can't have their cake and eat it too... if they want to enter into a civil union, then they have to sign a contract similar to a marriage contract. So... when one decides they want to split, he / she has to consider what they would lose financially (having everything split down the middle, etc).
That's what I believe.
On the other hand, there are some gay couples that really don't want anymore more than to have their relationship recognized as a solid "marriage-like" relationship. And many of these people are totally OK with a "civil union", or something like that.
There are those who on the other hand who forcibly want to go right to the top and change the entire institution and terminology of marriage. Granted, not all homosexuals are like that... but the simple fact is that we wouldn't have having this argument if there wasn't a large percentage that did...
If I was gay, and I wanted to fight for my rights, I would be focusing on a civil union law which would grant me same-rights as a married couple. The problem is... they don't want to settle, they go for the full montey. We, as Americans, have been raised to believe that a lasting, long-term relationship is only real if it's marriage. I personally tend to believe this. Clearly, most homosexual couples ALSO feel this way which is why they want to change the terminology of "marriage".
BUT... in every religion that refers to "God", be it Christianity, Jeudaism, and Muslim, they all feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. Technically, "God" is the same person in all three of those monotheistic religions, but each of them takes it one step further. Well, the Jews don't really... but Christians, we believe in the holy Trinity, and Muslims... they believe in the prophet Mohammed (and now, Barack Obama... hahah...)
sorry, I just find it hard to believe that people did not get married prior to the church. Japanese get married, dont they? Chinese? sounds more like the church took the term as their own. thats fine. just want to be clear on the intentions.
IP: Logged
03:46 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by Toddster: I guess I am just the opposite. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with homosexuality but marriage is all about a man and a woman and procreation.
yup - and I will add it is about family. the joining of the 2 families, and the growth of a new one.
IP: Logged
03:48 PM
PFF
System Bot
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Churches aren't the only entities that perform marriages, the state you get your marriage license in doesn't need anyone to be married by a church to recognize a union. All you need is a justice of the peace or any other state recogized person to perform the marriage. Hasn't anyone here heard of common law marriage or civil unions. These have nothing to do with a church and are legally recognized in most if not all states. The church can always refuse to marry anyone because of the church's religious beliefs and teachings. This has nothing to do with the state. I bet those states that have legal gay marriage had not had a catholic church perform the marriages nor can they be forced to do so. What is so wrong with gay people having the same protection and rights that straight couples do under state law? This also has nothing to do with marrying inanimate objects or animals, as they can't consent like another human being can, so don't make ridiculous comments like that. Although in some countries this is legal. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311079,00.html Letting gays live their lives as equals is no skin off my back, as I am comfortable in my heterosexuality and religious beliefs(there are some a beg to differ with the church with). I also believe in equal rights and protection under the law, that is all they are asking for. They are not asking for approval of their lifestyle, just the right to be able to take care of their loved ones, like we can, and any other legal repercutions that come along with that union. The church may not approve of the gay lifestyle, but they should not be able to influence it or regulate it to their own views. They don't even ban gays from attentding church services, this is why I see the church as being two faced. They should either forgive and accept or impose a total ban if it is against their teachings. God left us the ability to "sin" or not. He is the ultimate judge of our actions. Jesus told us to love our neighbors, that includes gay people. Who are we to judge, lest we be judged ourselves? What they do behind close doors is nobody's business but their own and I don't want to know about it. I also don't want to know what my straight neighbors do behind closed doors either, as it is nobody's business again. This is a case where the church does need to be separate from the state. What is the harm of gays getting married? The world will not come to an end. Why should they be punished for who they are? A true Christian should not be a hypocrite like the church can be. God gaves us brains and logic to figure these things out. Remember when the church burnt people at the stake for saying that the World was round, this was against their teachings that it was flat? Eventually they chaged their opinion about that too. Talk about people being shepple, sheesh!
And I thought you knew something about the Bible. Behind closed doors? Does it look like this is? Lowering the religion to a level you wish, thats whayt this is. Take the meaning away thats fine what was it there for anyway. We will just play dress up and go to a "church".
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-07-2008).]
IP: Logged
03:54 PM
aconesa Member
Posts: 374 From: Trenton, New Jersey, USA Registered: Jun 2005
I feel that I should put in my two cents into this thread.
Speaking from the other side of this issue, I can confirm that it comes down to the rights granted by the local, state, and federal government which is why citizens like myself are fighting for full marriage eguality. Curreny the state of New Jersey is granting Civil Unions to same sex partners. Let me make it clear, it does not offer the same protection under the law even though is was intended to be the same. There have been issues regarding hospital visitations, insurance coverage and other legal issues.
If it was up to me, I would not care at all what the heck it was called, just give me the same rights to protection my partner of over 6 years and myself the same way my neighbors who are a married hetro couple.
IP: Logged
03:55 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Church doors are ALWAYS open. It's not hipocritical in the eyes of the church. They don't want people to be gay, they don't want them to have homosexual lifestyles, and happy to have them worship (with open arms) in hopes that they can change them.
Is this why we have so many child molesting and closet gay priests that get moved from parish to parish by the church? Are they hoping they can change them by keeping them in contact with more potential victims. I guess this means they aren't hypocrites. The church is run by flesh and blood men, not God. They gives us their interpretation of his word and can twist it to suit their own agenda. God gave us brains and logic to see through this. How can we trust those who can't follow his or their own rules? Remember what was done in God's name during the Inquisition? The church hasn't progressed that far with the times, but at least we don't stone people to death like other religious countries do. Should we revert back to that? We could then claim that we have no more gays and it would be true. They would either stay in the closet forever or would be eliminated. We all know the saying and it is true "you can't have your cake and eat it", this is what the church wants when it comes to gays.
Edit to add: Don't believe everything you read in the bible, some of the stories are fables and you need to know how to tell the difference between them and a true story. For instance, I don't believe the World is only a few thousand years old, that would mean that man could have lived among the dinosaurs.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 11-07-2008).]
Im really surprised by that vote. Honestly I believe homosexuality is wrong...but I also believe it's none of my damn business if two people want to get married and be together. It's up to god to decide if they did something wrong in this life..not mine. Just because I think it's wrong doesn't mean he does.
You see it's like this, as MANY people have said many times before, it affects things. It ruins the meaning of marriage, screws up kids if they decide to adopt or artificially inseminate or any other thing. Ruins the morals and meanings of churches, as this would have. Things we do affect other things. If it is wrong it is wrong, you vote yes to something you think is wrong? This veiw is strange to me. If tis all just a free for all why not just throw out all civil things.
IP: Logged
04:01 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
You're confused. The vast majority of these anti-gay marriage ban laws do not specify anything as it relates to "rights", the ONLY thing it's stating is that the TERM "Marriage" only exists between a man and a woman. It's symmantics that are being argued. Most states DO offer rights and provisions for common law, and civil unions.
However, to most homosexuals, that's not good enough. They want to be "Married" since honestly, common belief in the US doesn't really lend creedence to any long-term relationship unless it's considered "Marriage". That's why they want the ability to define their relationship as a "Marriage". They still get their rights (regardless), in most states.
If you really want to get technical about it, some states give "More rights" than a non-married hetero couple gets. Two homosexuals could basically live together for more than a year, and get full benefits... (Car insurance, etc...). Simply by stating that they are gay. A Hetero couple cannot do this (unless they lie). Church's allow gays to worship because while homosexuality is considered sin, they are hoping that they will "change their ways" and repent.
Church doors are ALWAYS open. It's not hipocritical in the eyes of the church. They don't want people to be gay, they don't want them to have homosexual lifestyles, and happy to have them worship (with open arms) in hopes that they can change them.
However, as it is very obvious... that is not what gays want. They want acceptance... and to them, that means the rest of the US accepts their union as "Marriage".
Like I said, I can sympethize, but I don't agree...
Though you do not mention right or wrong,excellent reply, I was too flustered.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-07-2008).]
So, it's really all about money? And coveting? Lots of that going on in this country nowadays.......
It is not about the money at all. It is also not about the religious point of it either. I do not have any intentions of having a religious ceremony performed. Remember it is not the church that is going to grant me the rights.
And regarding "And coveting?" I feel that I am entitled to marry the person that I so deeply love and want to take care of. The issue is making it legal.
IP: Logged
04:11 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Is this why we have so many child molesting and closet gay priests that get moved from parish to parish by the church? Are they hoping they can change them by keeping them in contact with more potential victims. I guess this means they aren't hypocrites. The church is run by flesh and blood men, not God. They gives us their interpretation of his word and can twist it to suit their own agenda. God gave us brains and logic to see through this. How can we trust those who can't follow his or their own rules? Remember what was done in God's name during the Inquisition? The church hasn't progressed that far with the times, but at least we don't stone people to death like other religious countries do. Should we revert back to that? We could then claim that we have no more gays and it would be true. They would either stay in the closet forever or would be eliminated. We all know the saying and it is true "you can't have your cake and eat it", this is what the church wants when it comes to gays.
The Catholic church is run by money and has loooong been corrupted. THis is why soo many Bible believing branches broke from it. The Crusades were not about religion they were about power hungry politicians using the name of god in vain. There, thats that.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 11-07-2008).]
IP: Logged
04:13 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by aconesa: I feel that I should put in my two cents into this thread.
Speaking from the other side of this issue, I can confirm that it comes down to the rights granted by the local, state, and federal government which is why citizens like myself are fighting for full marriage eguality. Curreny the state of New Jersey is granting Civil Unions to same sex partners. Let me make it clear, it does not offer the same protection under the law even though is was intended to be the same. There have been issues regarding hospital visitations, insurance coverage and other legal issues.
If it was up to me, I would not care at all what the heck it was called, just give me the same rights to protection my partner of over 6 years and myself the same way my neighbors who are a married hetro couple.
thanks for jumping in. hospital visitation is a VERY good point. not something most of us would think of.
IP: Logged
04:23 PM
PFF
System Bot
2.5 Member
Posts: 43235 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Don't worry. He doesn't believe it's wrong just because you, I or anyone else does. He says it's wrong because he believes it is.
How much precedence will this vote/ammendment hold for other states to follow?
My opinion has no bearing on anything, I'm simply stating the views as I know both sides to believe them.
As it stands, there are now 30 states that have a ban on gay marriages.
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian: Sorry, I just find it hard to believe that people did not get married prior to the church. Japanese get married, dont they? Chinese? sounds more like the church took the term as their own. thats fine. just want to be clear on the intentions.
Japanese, Chinese, it's all a different language. For as long as the english language has existed since Christians from Turkey, Jerusalem, etc... started speaking the English language, "Marriage" to the church has always meant between a man and a woman. The English culture is that of a Christian one, and... despite what you may believe now, or what many Democrat critics say, our country WAS founded on Christian beliefs. It is for that reason why views like these hold strength in this country. In a way, you can relate it to Christmas. Originally, it was strictly a religious term, and represented a Christian holiday. For most of us, it still is. But lots of Jews celebrate Christmas in so much as the gift giving and the iconic Christmas tree. Over time, many people have tried to change the term and shift the holiday to a less religious significance (IE: California passing a law to change the name of the christmass tree to a "holiday tree").
I'm not stating my views here, I'm simply stating things that are basically factual as we know them to be. For the sake of the argument, my beliefs shouldn't and don't matter.
quote
Originally posted by avengador1:
Is this why we have so many child molesting and closet gay priests that get moved from parish to parish by the church? Are they hoping they can change them by keeping them in contact with more potential victims. I guess this means they aren't hypocrites. The church is run by flesh and blood men, not God. They gives us their interpretation of his word and can twist it to suit their own agenda. God gave us brains and logic to see through this. How can we trust those who can't follow his or their own rules? Remember what was done in God's name during the Inquisition? The church hasn't progressed that far with the times, but at least we don't stone people to death like other religious countries do. Should we revert back to that? We could then claim that we have no more gays and it would be true. They would either stay in the closet forever or would be eliminated. We all know the saying and it is true "you can't have your cake and eat it", this is what the church wants when it comes to gays.
Edit to add: Don't believe everything you read in the bible, some of the stories are fables and you need to know how to tell the difference between them and a true story. For instance, I don't believe the World is only a few thousand years old, that would mean that man could have lived among the dinosaurs.
Like I said, I'm simply stating the view-points from both sides of the argument. My personal beliefs should not really have any bearing on this. As for the molestation of children, it is pretty bad. The Christian religion, as it stands, believes homosexuals are sinners, but on the flip side, accepts everyone despite their sins.
As far as the bible goes. Who's to say that you're views on the bible are the ones that I, and everyone else should follow. What representations of the bible you believe are not necessarily the correct ones. As it stands, there are several things in the bible that I've picked and chosen... for one, I don't believe in creationism... I believe Evolution is the science behind God's work. However... like I said, my views really have no point in this argument since my goal was to answer the original question in a non-biased way.
In terms of the Church (we're assuming the Catholic church), it's up to them on how they perceive the bible. For most of them, it's word for word I would suppose. Different denominations have slightly different views. And non-denominational / evangelical have entirely different views, although they all typically believe in the trinity (that which makes us Christian). Then of course you have Jews for Jesus, the Menninites, the Quakers, the Advent Angelicals, Jehova's Witnesses, etc...
As I've mentioned before though... the agendas of the gay community are mixed. Not all gays just want equal rights, some want recognition. I honestly believe the majority of America does not have a problem with homosexuals having equal rights. If I were in the gay community, I think I would focus exclusively on getting "civil union" laws passed, guaranteeing equal rights from all standpoints (power of attorney, tax breaks, visitation rights, etc...).
If they then want to fight for the recognition of the term "Marriage" they should go for that next. But trying to get everything all at once... it's just not going to happen.
One thing I do get a real kick out of...
Blacks voting against other's civil rights... hahah... who'da thunk?
Originally posted by 2.5: It was actually mentioned as being part of civil unions. Maybe that person was wrong I do not know.
yup.
and - again - I find it hard to beleive that people did NOT get married prior to the church. and what about the many asian nations which dont have the "big three" (jew/chirst/muslim)? are they not allowed to marry either? I do beleive the church is the one trying steal & redefine marriage to their liking.
IP: Logged
04:28 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
You're confused. The vast majority of these anti-gay marriage ban laws do not specify anything as it relates to "rights", the ONLY thing it's stating is that the TERM "Marriage" only exists between a man and a woman. It's symmantics that are being argued. Most states DO offer rights and provisions for common law, and civil unions.
Laws define your rights. Why should there be unequal laws that deny others the same rights? Marriage is a word used to descrive a union. People who have a civil union by a justice of the peace are considered married by the state. I can't see why people are getting so hung up over a word. Are people going to be upset because gays invite people to their wedding and not alow them to use that word either? Are people also upset for using marriage to descrive the union of two or more parts. It's just a word people. Get over it. The correct Christian word is matrimony, as in holy matrimony (not holy marriage) if people really want to get technical and if people remember their matrimonial ceremony. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/matrimony I don't care if they use matrimony either.
Here is the ceremony for those that don't know it or haven't seen one.
quote
For christians, wedding is a worship event. The Christian wedding ceremony is full of charming customs . Christians believe that marriage is a permanent irrevocable contract between man and woman to live together on terms of the deepest human friendship and found a family. This bond of union is further strengthened by the fact that the same contract becomes a sacrament by a ceremony. Christian marriage preparation can be described as a journey of faith which does not end with the celebration of marriage but continues throughout family life.
Preparation :
The marriage is conducted in the church according to the vows mentioned in 'Bible', the holy guide of christians. The friends and relatives of the bride and groom are present in the church to attend the wedding. The christian marriage ceremony is simple and involves the exchange of wedding bands and marriage vows by the bridal couple.The priest then commences the procession of reading psalms from the Holy Bible.
The christian bride traditionally wears a white gown and the groom wears a black suit. The proceedings of the marriage ceremony is accompanied by a group of choir singers. The couple stands in front of the priest. The priest then welcomes the guests and announces :
We are gathered here today in the sight of God and angels, and the presence of friends and loved ones, to celebrate one of life's greatest moments, to give recognition to the worth and beauty of love, and to add our best wishes and blessings to the words which shall unite _____________and________________ in holy matrimony.
The priest then commences the procession of reading psalms from the Holy Bible. He then renders a sermon called Homily, which dwells on the sacredness of the wedlock. This is followed by Blessing and the exchange of the wedding rings. Then in the name of God the couple holding each other's right hand and take the oath of life-long loyalty to each other. One can write the wedding vows himself. A sample of wedding vow can be : Male
I _____, take you ______, to be my wedded wife. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health, to love and to cherish 'till death do us part. And hereto I pledge you my faithfulness.
Female I, _____, take you ______, to be my wedded husband. To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, 'till death do us part. And hereto I pledge you my faithfulness.
OR Male
I, ______, take you _____ to be my wife, before God who brought us together; to love and cherish you even as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for it, to lead you and share all of life's experiences with you by following God through them. That through His grace, ____, we might grow together into the likeness of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord.
Female
And with this ring, I, ____, take you, _____. to be my husband, before God who brought us together, to love you, cherish you, to submit myself unto you in all things, and to follow you through all of life's experiences as you follow God. That through His grace we might grow together into the likeness of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Lord. Then the priest declares them "Husband and Wife" after they exchange wedding rings. The priest prays for the couple and the couple renders a thanksgiving prayer to the Almighty. The priest concludes the ceremony with a lecture on marriage and the union of the bride and groom. At the end of the ceremony the relatives and guests congratulates the newly wed and wishes them all the very best for thier future.
Depending upon the religion and culture, there are many wedding traditions.The Jewish wedding ceremony is far more than a mere "celebration in which two Jewish people declare their love for one another. It is Judaism in miniature -- a cavalcade of Jewish meanings, images, theological notions, and historical memories. In Jewish wedding also the bride and the groom exchange wedding bands. The wedding band is usually a simple band with no stone work or design. The bride and the groom signs a marriage contract which is known as Ketuba. This document is placed at the couples home after marriage. The document serves as a legal proof for the marriage.
IP: Logged
04:29 PM
aconesa Member
Posts: 374 From: Trenton, New Jersey, USA Registered: Jun 2005
It was actually mentioned as being part of civil unions. Maybe that person was wrong I do not know.
There have been cases in the state of NJ that hospitals have denied visitation at first. Whether this was an error on part of the hospital staff or a simple misunderstanding on the staff's part, it has happen. The feeling is that if full marriage equality was granted, there would not have been that issue.
[This message has been edited by aconesa (edited 11-07-2008).]
IP: Logged
04:30 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9891 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
This issue goes deeper than just symantics. The schools were going to teach gay marriage in schools without parental consent or notification. If you tried to pull your kid out of school when it was taught, then you would be in violation of the law and could be prosecuted. Gay-rights trumps parental rights.
The gay-rights movement would force their values on everyone else in many other ways too. Catholic Charities in Mass. had to close its doors after 100 years and countless children adopted because they would be forced to place children with gay couples. That is against their religious beliefs but apparently gay-rights trumps religious freedom and freedom of associate.
Then there is the threat of hate-speech legislation. Teaching any scriptures that is against homosexuality could be considered hate speech. Gay-rights trumps freedom of speech too.
Then there is the basic principle that the people voted and passed a law, then the courts overruled what the people voted on. Every time the voters vote on something that the left do not like, they challenge it in court and get many laws overturned. Notice that the marriage protection side did not go to court to push their views, we went to the people. A vote for Prop 8 was also a vote against judicial activism.
IP: Logged
04:33 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25242 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
The Catholic church is run by money and has loooong been corrupted. THis is why soo many Bible believing branches broke from it. The Crusades were not about religion they were about power hungry politicians using the name of god in vain. There, thats that.
Not initially... initially, Christianity (everyone was Catholic originally) was a sect of Jeudaism. The majority of the world believed in the Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, and Muslim religion. Islam is based in large part on Jeudaism and in many respects Christianity (they recognize the existance of Jesus, but not as the messiah).
Originally, the "church" (that is Christianity / Cahtolisism) and the Crusades were more of a cultural war / power struggle between the muslims in the south (Hungary) and the Christians in the North (Turkey). Romania (had a different name, wassalia or some crap) was right in the middle of it and changed hands many times.
It was always "religious" in nature. Several Christian leaders (Kings) went off to fight in the name of God. More or less like what the Muslims are doing now... although, it's the year 2008, so the muslims really have no damn excuse for doing it. In any case, there were several Kings, many of which whom truly believed they were spoken to by God (they actually believed this, not made up as a front for their actions), or they saw something and justified it as a sign from God to fight for the Crusades.
The church as an entity didn't really become corrupt until after the middle ages. (like 1300 AD). It had, really, the same power as the Kings in greater Europe.
I don't believe for a minute that the church is corrupt... but one thing that people often forget... Priests, Pastors, etc... they are all human beings... and as they say.... "Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely".
and - again - I find it hard to beleive that people did NOT get married prior to the church. and what about the many asian nations which dont have the "big three" (jew/chirst/muslim)? are they not allowed to marry either? I do beleive the church is the one trying steal & redefine marriage to their liking.
Just for the sake of argument... the word "Marriage" is an english / christian word. Other cultures may have similar words, but not every word from every language has an equal.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: This issue goes deeper than just symantics. The schools were going to teach gay marriage in schools without parental consent or notification. If you tried to pull your kid out of school when it was taught, then you would be in violation of the law and could be prosecuted. Gay-rights trumps parental rights.
The gay-rights movement would force their values on everyone else in many other ways too. Catholic Charities in Mass. had to close its doors after 100 years and countless children adopted because they would be forced to place children with gay couples. That is against their religious beliefs but apparently gay-rights trumps religious freedom and freedom of associate.
Then there is the threat of hate-speech legislation. Teaching any scriptures that is against homosexuality could be considered hate speech. Gay-rights trumps freedom of speech too.
Then there is the basic principle that the people voted and passed a law, then the courts overruled what the people voted on. Every time the voters vote on something that the left do not like, they challenge it in court and get many laws overturned. Notice that the marriage protection side did not go to court to push their views, we went to the people. A vote for Prop 8 was also a vote against judicial activism.
there is no such thing as "gay rights" it is Human Rights.
IP: Logged
04:39 PM
PFF
System Bot
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Just for the sake of argument... the word "Marriage" is an english / christian word. Other cultures may have similar words, but not every word from every language has an equal.
and - the Bible was not written in english either
IP: Logged
04:41 PM
aconesa Member
Posts: 374 From: Trenton, New Jersey, USA Registered: Jun 2005
Doug85GT, I truly understand your point of view, but I still disagree that discrimination should be written into a constitution, which was created to give rights to the citizens.
We all have the right to our own teachings/beliefs, and that should not be taken away ever. Is that not the reason why there are some many home schooled children now in the country?
IP: Logged
04:43 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9891 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Originally posted by Doug85GT: What do you call the movement that is advocating for gay-marriage and for sexual orientation to be added to discrimination laws?
Your symantic argument is meaningless and silly.
If sexual discrimination is not added, this country will see more murders like Matthew Shepard.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: What do you call the movement that is advocating for gay-marriage and for sexual orientation to be added to discrimination laws?
Your symantic argument is meaningless and silly.
equal rights? like letting negros & women vote. was that black/womens rights or equal human rights?
nothing "extra" is being asked. NOTHING.
IP: Logged
04:48 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 25242 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Of course, but the English as a culture / language was all Christian, and the original terms that exist from the original inception of the development of the language. I'm not arguing whether it's right or wrong, I'm simply stating fact.
Marriage, in terms of the english language has always meant that.
Whether that changes in the future is of no consequence to this specific argument. It's like arguing whether or not humans are meat eaters. We clearly are omnivores, equipped to eat both meat and vegetation, but most vegetarians swear up and down that we are strictly herbivores and what we're doing is wrong.
You can question the morality of the belief of the term "Marriage" in today's society, but it is what it is as it stands today. Whether the courts or "society" decide to change it in the future is to be seen. The argument the opposing side makes is that they say "Marriage" has always meant between two people that love eachother, which is not the case. It's always meant the wedding of a man and a woman.
Like I said, my opinion is of no consequence... I'm just stating fact. Doesn't mean it can't be changed. Our original language has changed many many times since it originally branched out into Germanic, Dutch, Italian, French, etc... from the early languages of Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, etc...
Originally posted by aconesa: There have been issues regarding hospital visitations, insurance coverage and other legal issues.
quote
Originally posted by maryjane: So, it's really all about money?
quote
Originally posted by aconesa: It is not about the money at all.
Can't say anything about the hospital visitations but, some of it does come down to money, ask your Health Insurance Provider. Let's call it a Liberal Life Style will lead to greater payouts for your health insurance provider. Other legal issues, not sure what they are but there is no doubt in my mind that money is related.
Ron
IP: Logged
04:51 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9891 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
Doug85GT, I truly understand your point of view, but I still disagree that discrimination should be written into a constitution, which was created to give rights to the citizens.
We all have the right to our own teachings/beliefs, and that should not be taken away ever. Is that not the reason why there are some many home schooled children now in the country?
Children are home schooled for a lot of reasons. One reason may be to get away from the values taught in public school. Even so, the teachers union and the liberal state legislature here in CA wants to de facto take that away from parents as well. They want to require all home schooling parents have teaching credentials. But that is a different subject.
Are you saying that if anyone does not agree with gay-marriage being taught in schools that they should home school their children? I don't think that is a very realistic answer considering that most households are two income households.
You say you do not want discrimination written into the Constitution. That is a slogan for the No on 8 campaign. To consider it as discrimination you have to assume that the two sexes are the same. I don't believe that men and women are the same. We discriminate based on sex on a daily basis. I can't just walk in and use the women's room. There are female only gyms. Bars routinely have ladies night where based on my sex, I have to pay to enter but women don't. etc. The definition of marriage is one of those cases where the sexes are different and it is well defined as male/female. I challenge anyone to look in their history books and read about ancient Greece. Homosexuality was practiced openly but marriage was only male/female. There was a reason for that.
[This message has been edited by Doug85GT (edited 11-07-2008).]
IP: Logged
04:59 PM
aconesa Member
Posts: 374 From: Trenton, New Jersey, USA Registered: Jun 2005
Here are some of the reasons why I will always fight for marriage equality, ( now I am off to dinner )
The Practical
Marriage offers 1,138 Federal benefits and responsibilities, not including hundreds more offered by every state.
In times of crisis, spouses have hospital visitation rights and can make medical decisions in event of illness or disability of their spouse.
Employers offer spouses sick leave, bereavement leave, access to health insurance and pension
The law provides certain automatic rights to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists.
Married couples in elderly care facilities are generally not separated unless one spouse's health dictates hospitalization or special care.
The dissolution of a marriage requires a determination of property distribution, award of child custody and support and spousal support. Absent divorce, there is no uniform system for sorting out the ending of a relationship. The Finances
Financial issues are complex and challenging, no matter the couple. And when home ownership, kids and other assets are a part of the equation, planning for the present and especially the future is even more critical for greater security.
Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed.
The law presumes that a married couple with both names on the title to their home owns the property as "tenants by the entirety."
A married couple, by statute, has creditor protection of their marital home.
Many married people are entitled to financial benefits relating to their spouses, such as disability, pension and social security benefits.
With marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit and to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies.
When a spouse dies, there is no need to prove ownership of every item in the household for taxable purposes. Protecting Children
A child who grows up with married parents benefits from the fact that his or her parents' relationship is recognized by law and receives legal protections.
Spouses are generally entitled to joint child custody and visitation upon divorce (and bear an obligation to pay child support).
The mark of a strong family and healthy children is having parents who are nurturing, caring, and loving. Parents should be judged on their ability to parent, not by their age, race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, entitled The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children found that: * Same-gender couples live in 99.3% of all US counties. * Same-gender couples are raising children in at least 96% of all US counties. * Nearly one quarter of all same-gender couples are raising children. * Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children). * Vermont has the largest aggregation of same gender-couples (~1% of all households) followed by California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon. According to a new study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics: Census 2000 and related demographic research make it clear that parenting by same-gender couples is an established and growing part of the diverse structure of families in the United States. Public policies that aim to promote family stability and security typically are established without consideration for same-gender parents and their children, and they place these families at a disadvantage, as they do heterosexual unmarried parents, single parents, and extended-family caregivers. Public policy designed to promote the family as the basic building block of society has at its core the protection of children's health and well-being. Children's well being relies in large part on a complex blend of their own legal rights and the rights derived, under law, from their parents. Children of same-gender parents often experience economic, legal, and familial insecurity as a result of the absence of legal recognition of their bonds to their nonbiological parents. Current public-policy trends, with notable exceptions, favor limiting or prohibiting the availability of civil marriage and limiting rights and protections to same-gender couples. To read more about this study go to: http://pediatrics.aappublic...ntent/full/118/1/349 The Healthy Advantage
Studies show that people who are married tend to live longer and lead healthier lives.
For adults, a stable, happy marriage is the best protector against illness and premature death. Decades of research have clearly established these links. (Burman & Margolin, 1992; Dawson, 1991; Verbrugge, 1979).
Studies on marriages have found that married people live longer, have higher incomes and wealth, engage less in risky behaviors, eat more healthily, and have fewer psychological problems than unmarried people. (Waite, Linda J. "Why Marriage Matters." Strengthening Marriage Roundtable. Washington, DC, June 1997)
Research shows that unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples. (Popenoe, David and Dafoe Whitehead, Barbara, USA Today, July, 2000) A recent study shows that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has a negative impact on their mental health.
