Levi's sports white knots in support of gay marriage Bruce Watson May 27th 2009
Now that Memorial day has passed, Levi's has begun outfitting its mannequins in white. This year, however, the bright color doesn't just represent the beginning of the summer or a nice accent for denim. Rather, the jean giant has also begun using white to demonstrate its support for gay marriage.
The White Knot program encourages people to demonstrate their solidarity with marriage equality by wearing a small piece of knotted white ribbon. A subtle symbol, white knots have appeared on the clothing of celebrities ranging from New York's Mayor Michael Bloomberg to comedienne Kathy Griffin. And now, of course, they are appearing on hundreds of Levi's mannequins.
This is an interesting move for the company. While Levi's once represented the pinnacle of jean fashion, it has long since been replaced by an endless procession of other brands.
Current favorites, including Rock & Republic, Diesel, 7 For All Mankind, and True Religion are priced far out of the range of most Levi's. Moreover, the company's decision to launch its "Signature" line, which is primarily marketed through Wal-Mart and other discount retailers, could be regarded as an admission that the company is permanently positioning itself as a mass-market brand.
Although the more cynical among us might argue that Levi Strauss' move to support gay marriage is part of a plot to gain more gay customers, this seems reductive. After all, in recent years, the company has aggressively moved to gain a significant portion of the gay market.
On television, they have released ads directly targeted at gay consumers and sponsored programs on Logo. More substantively, it was the first Fortune 500 company to offer health benefits to "domestic partners of unmarried employees." Late last year, Levi's gave $25,000 to the coalition leading the fight against California' Prop 8, and its chairman emeritus gave $100,000.
Earlier this month, as part of the company's "501 Day," Levi Strauss let employees take off the day from work to volunteer with nonprofit organizations in their communities. Levi's then gave cash grants to the organizations that their employees endorsed.
Levi's has begun outfitting its mannequins in white to demonstrate its support for gay marriage. The White Knot program encourages people to demonstrate their solidarity with marriage equality by wearing a small piece of knotted white ribbon. For a look at shopping scenes, from around the world, in the recession, click through our gallery.(Note: Please disable your pop-up blocker)
In San Francisco, where the company is headquartered, these organizations included the San Francisco LGBT Center, Out of the Closet, and the AIDS Memorial Grove. Later in May, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) honored Levi Strauss for its inclusion of gays in advertising and its attempts to foster LGBT-friendly workplaces.
Part of the reason that Levi Strauss is able to make this commitment to supporting LGBT rights is because it is still family-owned. However, in a broader context, the company's moves demonstrate that LGBT rights might not be quite as controversial as the past eight years may have suggested.
After all, while one might expect gay marriage to gain traction in Massachusetts and California, Iowa's decision to make it legal demonstrates that inclusive policies are not the sole purview of coastal America.
In fact, given the passage of Proposition 8 in California and New York's slowness in pushing for marriage equality, it seems that America's most avowedly liberal states may have much to learn about inclusion!
While it seems likely that Levi's might lose a little bit of market share in some of the country's more conservative areas, its move to embrace gay rights suggests that this issue has become more about civil rights than about religion. In this context, it seems like the move for universal marriage rights may have turned a corner. ***************** Anyone happen to catch the Country Music Entertainer of the Decade show last night, Jamie Fox was pretty good.
Ron
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 05-28-2009).]
Who my neighbor sleeps with, or makes a commitment to, is none of my business. Or yours. This is supposed to be a FREE country. So why are we trying to make it free for only some people? Gay people should have the same right to make lawyers rich as anybody else. http://same-sex-gay-marriag..._white_knot_campaign From the US Constitution:
quote
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
... More substantively, it was the first Fortune 500 company to offer health benefits to "domestic partners of unmarried employees." Late last year, Levi's gave $25,000 to the coalition leading the fight against California' Prop 8, and its chairman emeritus gave $100,000....
Exactly when I stopped buying Levis.
Neptune, the Government didn't create Marriage. Therefore, as privileges are concerned, Government has no real jurisdiction over Marriage. For decades, married individuals paid a penalty in taxes. Where was your voice in quelling this injustice?
Who my neighbor sleeps with, or makes a commitment to, is none of my business. Or yours. This is supposed to be a FREE country. So why are we trying to make it free for only some people? Gay people should have the same right to make lawyers rich as anybody else. http://same-sex-gay-marriag..._white_knot_campaign From the US Constitution: [QUOTE]
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It depends on whether you view MARRIAGE as a RELIGIOUS UNION or a CIVIL UNION. This is the distinction many people don't make. Marriage is a religious concept co-opted by the state for legal reasons. States can offer "civil unions" with the same rights as "marriage" and it is equal without offending millions of people who view marriage as sacred. But that's not how it works for the minority groups in this country anymore it seems. The majority must give in to the minority instead. UNLESS the "majority" turns out to be in agreement with them, THEN the majority can do whatever they want.
I personally do not much care either way regarding gay marriage, etc. I think people should be able to live as they please if it's not hurting me. But to say that the majority should bend to the desires of the minority? This I disagree with. Any other time, these same people will tout "this is a democracy." But if they don't get what they want because they are the minority, they want to change the rules. I don't support that part.
[This message has been edited by FieroFanatic13 (edited 05-28-2009).]
Besides the Church (and that one too is doubtful), who gets hurt by Gay marriage?
It is an intentional attempt to blur the lines and definitions and equate two homosexuals living together with a marriage of a man and a woman. They are not equal. They are not equivalent. They are different.
Two unmarried heterosexuals living together does not equate to a marriage, either.
From a legal standpoint, I don't care what society votes to do.
From a societal standpoint, definitions are important.
The DEFINITION of the word marriage is a man and a woman who have made the commitment to each other of a life-long, exclusive union. (doesn't change the definition because more then half the people that enter it don't stick to the commitment).
2 heterosexuals living together doesn't rise to that definition.
2 people of the same sex PHYSICALLY CAN'T rise to that definition.
And lest anyone get ticked at me, nobody asked me what the definition of marriage is. It existed for THOUSANDS of years before I came on the scene.
But just because 2 homosexuals want to live together and maybe they make a life long commitment, they don't get to toss out THOUSANDS OF YEARS of a definition to fit what they are doing.
My suggestion to homosexuals--get your OWN word for what you are doing.
But that isn't anti-homosexual. That is for ANYone who wants to try to change the definition of ANY historically long held word.
Like Bill Clinton, for example. Depends on what the definition of "is" is. Well, it is the same definition it has been for THOUSANDS of years, Bill.
Words have ESTABLISHED meanings. You don't get to change the word and its definition, no matter how many white knots you put on a pair of blue jeans. Sorry.
Besides the Church (and that one too is doubtful), who gets hurt by Gay marriage?
By redefining what marriage means, marriage can mean anything to a legislator's or jurist's whim. Why not bigamy? Why not polygamy? Why not marry a child? An animal?
Eventually, marriage, created to be the core of the family, means nothing. Of course, if marriage means nothing, then family means nothing. Without the family support system, there is a vacuum ready for anyone (including government) to step in - just what we all need.
If Church and State are supposed to be separate, then the Feds and the States shouldn't be defining or redefining it. It occurs to me that, if you don't want to be part of the Church (or Synagogue) then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. Seriously, who would that hurt?
By redefining what marriage means, marriage can mean anything to a legislator's or jurist's whim. Why not bigamy? Why not polygamy? Why not marry a child? An animal?
Eventually, marriage, created to be the core of the family, means nothing. Of course, if marriage means nothing, then family means nothing. Without the family support system, there is a vacuum ready for anyone (including government) to step in - just what we all need.
If Church and State are supposed to be separate, then the Feds and the States shouldn't be defining or redefining it. It occurs to me that, if you don't want to be part of the Church (or Synagogue) then you shouldn't be allowed to get married. Seriously, who would that hurt?
why does the church get to own marriage? why do fairy tale believers get to set rules for others there were marriages long before there were churches every culture has some concept of marriage few were christian
BTW I was married 35 years ago by a cute blond notery public in a very civil wedding no god or fairy tales were allowed or needed we just followed the state rules and used their forms
religion has no say in what nonchurch members do for the suckers in their cult they can and do set the rules and no one has wanted to force churches to marry gays but church sure wants to impose it's will on those outside the cult I think that shows the danger of cults far more then anything else
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
My suggestion to homosexuals--get your OWN word for what you are doing.
Okay
Keep the word marriage. A civil union/partnership with legal rights the same as marriage would be fine. Keep the religious/sacred overtones to hetero couples, that's fine. Problem is most civil unions are not equal in rights of survivorship, personal/real property ownership and many other protections offered by "marriage."
I'll call the new unions, oh say.....................................martage. Maybe, ummmm.............................mortage. Oh, too close to mortgage.
ray, you were married in a time of normalcy. We didn't have arguments about what a marriage is, what it's supposed to be or why it exists. The government wasn't attacking the concept and trying to redefine it.
Yes, marriage predated Christianity; Judaism practiced it for a few thousand years before. The point is, Marriage predates the United States of America, and it has been the mandate of the Church/Synagogue to preside over it (Islam - or at least the Koran - allows for polygamy, I believe, and Mohamed married his cousin, who would be considered severely underage in our society).
And, if you want to look at it through a different world view, then humankind has had millions of years to come up with something better than one man and one woman to raise a family and be the foundation of a society. In more recent past, Greece and Rome have already traveled down the path that we are going. Look where they are.
Again, I propose that we return Marriage to where American society (until this generation) found it - in the church - and anyone else joined in a civil ceremony can be called something else. Like Civilly Joined. Or Partnered. Or Civil Unioned. Whatever.
Marriage means different things in different religions. But of course only the mainstream christian religions definition is being pushed. And not all christian churches see marriage as one man and one woman. If a church is willing to marry them then the state should afford them every right they would any other couple married by any other church. But this argument isn't about fairness or equality for most gay marriage opponents. Its all about making sure their christian dogmas are what everyone else is held to. Typical christian power play for more dictation over government.
Keep the word marriage. A civil union/partnership with legal rights the same as marriage would be fine. Keep the religious/sacred overtones to hetero couples, that's fine. Problem is most civil unions are not equal in rights of survivorship, personal/real property ownership and many other protections offered by "marriage."
I'll call the new unions, oh say.....................................martage. Maybe, ummmm.............................mortage. Oh, too close to mortgage.
Now that is quite reasonable.
It needs to be put to and through the legislators and made law. I bet it would fly through with little opposition if done the way you suggest.
Which "legal right" are they denied at this time, that they can't get, that is afforded to opposite sex married couples?
John Stricker
PS: READ CAREFULLY! I said legal RIGHT.
quote
Originally posted by tutnkmn:
Okay
Keep the word marriage. A civil union/partnership with legal rights the same as marriage would be fine. Keep the religious/sacred overtones to hetero couples, that's fine. Problem is most civil unions are not equal in rights of survivorship, personal/real property ownership and many other protections offered by "marriage."
I'll call the new unions, oh say.....................................martage. Maybe, ummmm.............................mortage. Oh, too close to mortgage.
there were marriages long before there were churches and no one has wanted to force churches to marry gays but church sure wants to impose it's will on those outside the cult I think that shows the danger of cults far more then anything else
Using your concepts and principles:
there were homosexual couples long before there were churches, too. But they didn't try to get the culture to call them married.
You aren't interested in church related activities, so you may be unaware that there HAVE been people trying to get churches to "marry" homosexuals.
If all homosexuals wanted were what tutnkmn wanted, this could be resolved quickly. It is constitutional for a homosexual couple to have rights equal to married couples.
But that isn't what many homosexuals want. They want what you are against, rayb. They DO want to impose on others. They WANT their relationship called a marriage. And it isn't enough that THEY want to call it that. They want YOU and I to HAVE to call it that, too. It isn't enough to have rights equal to it. They want it CALLED that. Why? Because they want their relationship to have a certain acceptability in society, too.
Well, homosexual couples, I want you to have equal rights to others. And I will treat you as kindly as heterosexuals, married or living together or not. But I don't accept it as right, and as an equally good alternative life style. You can. I don't. The difference is I will still be nice to you regardless, but you won't be nice to me UNLESS I acquiesce to your demands. Including allowing you to change the THOUSANDS of year old definition.
So, very good points, rayb. Only let's be honest here and call it like it really is going on and what it's about.
It is an intentional attempt to blur the lines and definitions and equate two homosexuals living together with a marriage of a man and a woman. They are not equal. They are not equivalent. They are different.
Two unmarried heterosexuals living together does not equate to a marriage, either.
From a legal standpoint, I don't care what society votes to do.
From a societal standpoint, definitions are important.
The DEFINITION of the word marriage is a man and a woman who have made the commitment to each other of a life-long, exclusive union. (doesn't change the definition because more then half the people that enter it don't stick to the commitment).
2 heterosexuals living together doesn't rise to that definition.
2 people of the same sex PHYSICALLY CAN'T rise to that definition.
And lest anyone get ticked at me, nobody asked me what the definition of marriage is. It existed for THOUSANDS of years before I came on the scene.
But just because 2 homosexuals want to live together and maybe they make a life long commitment, they don't get to toss out THOUSANDS OF YEARS of a definition to fit what they are doing.
My suggestion to homosexuals--get your OWN word for what you are doing.
But that isn't anti-homosexual. That is for ANYone who wants to try to change the definition of ANY historically long held word.
Like Bill Clinton, for example. Depends on what the definition of "is" is. Well, it is the same definition it has been for THOUSANDS of years, Bill.
Words have ESTABLISHED meanings. You don't get to change the word and its definition, no matter how many white knots you put on a pair of blue jeans. Sorry.
Keep the word marriage. A civil union/partnership with legal rights the same as marriage would be fine. Keep the religious/sacred overtones to hetero couples, that's fine. Problem is most civil unions are not equal in rights of survivorship, personal/real property ownership and many other protections offered by "marriage."
I'll call the new unions, oh say.....................................martage. Maybe, ummmm.............................mortage. Oh, too close to mortgage.
Wait a moment...you mean if you're married in courthouse, instead of a church or other religious establishment, you don't have the same rights?
Can a Church be compelled to Marry someone if they don't want to? If its against their religion can a Church just ask the couple to find somewhere else to get married? If the answer to those 2 questions doesn't deny those that attend and run the Church their rights to observe their religious beliefs then I could care less.
Marriage means different things in different religions. But of course only the mainstream christian religions definition is being pushed. And not all christian churches see marriage as one man and one woman. If a church is willing to marry them then the state should afford them every right they would any other couple married by any other church. But this argument isn't about fairness or equality for most gay marriage opponents. Its all about making sure their christian dogmas are what everyone else is held to. Typical christian power play for more dictation over government.
Christians at it again eh Phranc? I'm begining to think you might have a complex. But seriously, there are gay people of all creed and color. It is nothing more than a sexual preference. ( It IS a choice ) . You want to change the rules and definitions just because of your sexual preference? I heard someone today on the radio ( talk radio on AM )say the reason for the gay agenda to have same sex marriage more accepted in society was to ease the guilt of being gay. Im not sure if I agree with that or not but it is an interesting point of view.
Gays wanting to get married has nothing to do with religion or it's rules, it all about equal rights under the law. Again I ask, who gets hurt if they are married? The states that allow this have not suffered because of it, as a matter of fact they have profited from it. When I was united with my spouse, in the Church, it was called Holy Matrimony, not holy marriage. If people are going to get hung up over the use of the word marriage, they are hypocrites. Marriage is not only the union of a male and female whatever, it is the union of two things to create one thing out of those two. ie Hydrogen and Oxygen to make water, and that one is a threesome.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-28-2009).]
Who gets hurt if I marry my dog? Who gets hurt if I marry my sister? Who gets hurt if I marry six women? Who gets hurt if I marry 2 men and 4 women? Who gets hurt if I marry a lizard?
I hope when they make a gay marriage law they can make one for everyone with other unnatural fetishes as well.
[This message has been edited by CoryFiero (edited 05-28-2009).]
Actually, depending on which country you live in, all of the above are possible, except for marrying the lizard.
haha, there is a lizard on my window. My point basically was it is unnatural. It doesn't really matter if it doesn't hurt anyone. None of those other things would hurt anyone either. (Unless it was a big lizard of course)
EDIT: But what they all do is destroy the word "marriage".
[This message has been edited by CoryFiero (edited 05-28-2009).]
Originally posted by avengador1: ...Marriage is not only the union of a male and female whatever, it is the union of two things to create one thing out of those two. ie Hydrogen and Oxygen to make water, and that one is a threesome.
I've never heard of a molecule spoken of as a "marriage."
Are Peanut Butter and Marshmallow (A Fluffernutter) a "marriage?" Perhaps, but that's only because the use of the word "marriage" evokes a certain compatibility, a unique whole as the product of the parts.
In proper context, a marriage of a man and a woman produce a unit that is unique in the creation and nurture of life. Even more than a Fluffernutter.
Originally posted by Slayre: But seriously, there are gay people of all creed and color. It is nothing more than a sexual preference. ( It IS a choice ) . You want to change the rules and definitions just because of your sexual preference? I heard someone today on the radio ( talk radio on AM )say the reason for the gay agenda to have same sex marriage more accepted in society was to ease the guilt of being gay. Im not sure if I agree with that or not but it is an interesting point of view.
so when did you chose to be straight any why would any one chose to be gay now bi maybe but many gays think they bi's are just confused
I donot think gay is something any one would chose to be sorry christians you book is just wrong
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
Originally posted by ray b: so when did you chose to be straight any why would any one chose to be gay now bi maybe but many gays think they bi's are just confused
I donot think gay is something any one would chose to be sorry christians you book is just wrong
Your born straight. You choose to be gay.Check any poll conducted by gay people. Almost 90% of all homosexuals have had intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, but CHOSE to have relations with same sex. So to me it is a CHOICE. My Book ? I guess your refering to the Bible? Typical answer for someone who doesnt believe or want to practice Christianity. But its ok, It's your CHOICE.
[This message has been edited by Slayre (edited 05-29-2009).]
Your born straight. You choose to be gay.Check any poll conducted by gay people. Almost 90% of all homosexuals have had intercourse with someone of the opposite sex, but CHOSE to have relations with same sex. So to me it is a CHOICE. My Book ? I guess your refering to the Bible? Typical answer for someone who doesnt believe or want to practice Christianity. But its ok, It's your CHOICE.
Wow. Just wow, I can't believe you sooo don't get it. Live and let live, I always say.
It is an intentional attempt to blur the lines and definitions and equate two homosexuals living together with a marriage of a man and a woman. They are not equal. They are not equivalent. They are different.
Two unmarried heterosexuals living together does not equate to a marriage, either.
From a legal standpoint, I don't care what society votes to do.
From a societal standpoint, definitions are important.
The DEFINITION of the word marriage is a man and a woman who have made the commitment to each other of a life-long, exclusive union. (doesn't change the definition because more then half the people that enter it don't stick to the commitment).
2 heterosexuals living together doesn't rise to that definition.
2 people of the same sex PHYSICALLY CAN'T rise to that definition.
And lest anyone get ticked at me, nobody asked me what the definition of marriage is. It existed for THOUSANDS of years before I came on the scene.
But just because 2 homosexuals want to live together and maybe they make a life long commitment, they don't get to toss out THOUSANDS OF YEARS of a definition to fit what they are doing.
My suggestion to homosexuals--get your OWN word for what you are doing.
But that isn't anti-homosexual. That is for ANYone who wants to try to change the definition of ANY historically long held word.
Like Bill Clinton, for example. Depends on what the definition of "is" is. Well, it is the same definition it has been for THOUSANDS of years, Bill.
Words have ESTABLISHED meanings. You don't get to change the word and its definition, no matter how many white knots you put on a pair of blue jeans. Sorry.
There are many kinds of love. I love my family, I love my spouse, I love my friends, I love to eat, I love a good BM. What you are suggesting above is that homosexuals or lesbians are incaple of the kind of love that defines a marriage and that this love is unnatural. Homosexuality occurs naturally and there are around 1500 species that practice it. http://www.news-medical.net...006/10/23/20718.aspx Homosexuality has existed even before written history, so it isn't anything new or unnatural in nature. It only is a perversion in man's eye because we want to place ourselves above animals. We may be above animals but not by much. The bottom line is that no one should care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, as long as no one is hurt by this. If homosexuality were so bad it would be outlawed. Some find this behavior disgusting, because it isn't behavior they would engage in. I find smoking disguting, but I don't condemn the smokers, that is their choice of lifestyle. I really find tobacco chewers to be really disgusting, especially when they spit all over the place or carry their spit cans around, but still I don't condemn them for their choice. What I end up doing in these cases is I don't worry about them and go on with my life. I let them enjoy their choices, because that is what they are, their choices, not mine. This isn't a fair comparison for homosexuals and lesbians. Most don't realize that they are born this way and it is not a choice. Here is an article that explains why homosexuality has not been evolved out of nature, even though there can be no reproduction from it. http://www.livescience.com/...516-gay-animals.html The bottom line is that people do not need to be married in a church to be married. The state can marry anyone that fits their legal definition for mariage. Many choose this option over getting married in a church and not because they are homosexual, ever hear of a catholic person marrying a jewish person? Those institutions do not allow this, but yet these people get married by the state all the time. The church does not like this as they can't say who can get "legally" married then. A church marriage is a different type of marriage than a civil one, that is why they will never recognize a same sex marriage. It doesn't fit their beliefs. That is fine and dandy and I can live with that, but for that marriage to be recognized by the state, you need a marriage license. Now you are "legally" married with all rights and priviledges that come with that. The bottom line is I don't see who really gets hurt by homosexuals and lesbians marrying each other. I don't choose that lifestyle but I would be a hypocrite to deny them their choice or equal rights under the law.
There are many kinds of love. I love my family, I love my spouse, I love my friends, I love to eat, I love a good BM. What you are suggesting above is that homosexuals or lesbians are incaple of the kind of love that defines a marriage and that this love is unnatural. Homosexuality occurs naturally and there are around 1500 species that practice it. http://www.news-medical.net...006/10/23/20718.aspx Homosexuality has existed even before written history, so it isn't anything new or unnatural in nature. It only is a perversion in man's eye because we want to place ourselves above animals. We may be above animals but not by much. The bottom line is that no one should care what two consenting adults do behind closed doors, as long as no one is hurt by this. If homosexuality were so bad it would be outlawed. Some find this behavior disgusting, because it isn't behavior they would engage in. I find smoking disguting, but I don't condemn the smokers, that is their choice of lifestyle. I really find tobacco chewers to be really disgusting, especially when they spit all over the place or carry their spit cans around, but still I don't condemn them for their choice. What I end up doing in these cases is I don't worry about them and go on with my life. I let them enjoy their choices, because that is what they are, their choices, not mine. This isn't a fair comparison for homosexuals and lesbians. Most don't realize that they are born this way and it is not a choice. Here is an article that explains why homosexuality has not been evolved out of nature, even though there can be no reproduction from it. http://www.livescience.com/...516-gay-animals.html The bottom line is that people do not need to be married in a church to be married. The state can marry anyone that fits their legal definition for mariage. Many choose this option over getting married in a church and not because they are homosexual, ever hear of a catholic person marrying a jewish person? Those institutions do not allow this, but yet these people get married by the state all the time. The church does not like this as they can't say who can get "legally" married then. A church marriage is a different type of marriage than a civil one, that is why they will never recognize a same sex marriage. It doesn't fit their beliefs. That is fine and dandy and I can live with that, but for that marriage to be recognized by the state, you need a marriage license. Now you are "legally" married with all rights and priviledges that come with that. The bottom line is I don't see who really gets hurt by homosexuals and lesbians marrying each other. I don't choose that lifestyle but I would be a hypocrite to deny them their choice or equal rights under the law.
Boy, lots of principles here. And several presumptions you made about what I said that are not correct.
I never said WHY homosexual couple and heterosexual couples living together wasn't equivalent to a marriage.
Regarding the love part, an essential element of love is commitment. Signing up for the legal obligations that go with marriage is a larger commitment than living together. Having said that, there are couples living together that obviously had stronger commitments than the couple that married and divorced. Granted.
Regarding homosexuals, I never said it wasn't the depth of their love for the other person that made it different. Many of them love each other and are willing to legally obligate themselves. Go for it. But it isn't a marriage. Marriage is a man and a woman. It is a definition. What they are doing may be a close copy. It isn't a marriage.
Regarding is the love unnatural, the God of the Bible says it is. You cite animal world evidence it is natural. Big principle disagreement there. Just because we have some things in common with animals, humans have MAJOR distinctions that make me separate behavior from comparison with animals. Apparently you don't. OK. We disagree on that one.
Regarding humans have done homosexual before written history, and it isn't new. People have been murdering and stealing before written history and isn't new, either. I'm NOT equating homosexuality with those things. Just making the point that, so what? It's mere existence doesn't equal acceptance. The God of the Bible says those things are wrong. He says homosexuality is wrong. Experience in history and nature says these things happen. My answer is, yes...so? You want to go with nature. OK. I'm going to go with what the Bible says. For reasons I won't diverge into here.
Regarding shouldn't matter what people do behind closed doors. Agreed. I don't care. But they (and my wife and I, too) don't just live behind closed doors. We live in a society.
Regarding if it was so bad, it would be outlawed...I don't find that logical based on life experience and other issues.
Regarding finding homosexuality disgusting, I personally would. But I don't find it disgusting that other people don't. Some people find what I eat sometimes to be disgusting. But they aren't necessarily disgusted that I eat it. My being against homosexuals REDEFINING marriage has nothing to do with personal disgust. I have several homosexual friends. They know how I feel. Yet they love me and I love them. We always hug when we see each other. Just like many of my heterosexual friends, male and female, do. I'm not personally repulsed in the least.
Regarding marriage being a church thing, I'm not hung up on that. But regarding whether in a church or a civil ceremony, a marriage is a man and a woman. It is the definition of the word. I have already said, go ahead and have a civil CEREMONY. Pick a word for the definition of a man and a man or a woman and a woman having this civil ceremony. I don't care. I have learned new words in my life. If you want, have a different word for man and man and a different word for woman and woman. I'll learn two new words.
But it is a new, separate thing than a MARRIAGE, which is a man and a woman.
Now if for some unusual reason, a homosexual man decides to marry a homosexual woman, HEY, that's a MARRIAGE! I'm totally for that if they want. But that is the only gay MARRIAGE possible.
So I'm not debating with you. I have no reason. I'm just clarifying.
I'm NOT actively against homosexuals as individuals. On a societal level, I AM against ANY attempts to redefine long standing words with precise definitions. Period. I'm for couples that make a commitment to each other and a legal obligation having the same rights as someone gets when they get married.
Topic Closed
