My religion works for me!

[Mr.Badham]

Your religion works for you.

Who do you think "you" are?

Can you even describe/define your religion?

What do you mean "Works"?

If it's yours, keep it to yourself until you have some evidence that you are correct.

I don't mind that you have your own religion. I really don't. What I do mind is how you use your religion as an excuse to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

If you understand the idea that your religion, which is both subjective and a choice, works for you, the individual, then surely it isn't that difficult to understand how something like sexuality, which is, according to religious people, both subjective and a choice, works for every other individual.

Question for debate;
If you can choose your religion, and get married accordingly, why can't you choose your sexuality, and get married accordingly?

[McCulloch]

If you choose a religion, you choose to follow a religion. If your religion states one shall not lay with another man, like he would with a woman, then you should not do it, since you chose a religion that states it is a sin. That being said, your sexuality was already chosen when you chose your religion.

And if your religion states that you should not get a tattoo or eat shellfish, then you should not do those things. If your religion states that as a woman you should have long hair and as a man you should have short (I Cor 11), then you should apply that principle. However, you should not inflict your religious prohibitions onto those who do not share your religion.

It's plain and simple: you cannot get married in holy matrimony if you are gay, because being gay is a sin which makes the marriage unholy.

According to your religion. But according to the religion of others, it is OK. By the way, marriage is not exclusively a religious event. Those of us without religion do get married. Really.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and it is not my place to care or judge anyone who is struggling with homosexuality (and I do say struggling because in my opinion, it is a sin and something one should struggle with because it is not the way God intended you to be. That is a whole other topic.)

It is my belief that those who are homosexual should not be made to feel that they should have to struggle with it. If you are gay or if you are left-handed then accept it and get on with your life.

I do not know where he or she is in his/her life to feel compelled to be gay, nor do I really care. As long as you are not waving your homosexuality in my face like it's the latest fad, your sexuality or your beliefs do not affect my life whatsoever.

I do not know where you are in your life to feel compelled to be Christian, nor do I really care. As long as you are not waving your Christianity in my face like it's the latest fad, your religion or your beliefs do not affect my life whatsoever.

I can even understand civil union. If you do not worship my God that says it is a sin to be gay, fine. That is your decision and with that, yes, as a person you should be able to be joined in civil union for tax purposes, etc. legally you are joined. Why should it matter if you do not believe if you are a union, or married?

But if you are gay, you have to drink from a different fountain, one without the label "Married". You have to sit at the back of the bus, you cannot watch the movie except from the balcony. Why should this word, with or without religious implications be legally withheld from gays? If there are religions and churches willing to celebrate gay marriage, should they not have the same freedom that you have to prohibit them? You believe that gay marriage is a sin, so be it. Members of your faith group don't have to marry someone of their own sex. You, however, have no right to impose your religious prohibition on the rest of us. We can get tattoos, wear our hair in ungodly ways, work on Saturday and Sunday, eat shellfish, worship idols, blaspheme and have same sex relationships (even marriage).

But if you are a Christian, and gay, and wish to be married to the same sex, from one Christian to another, I will say, you are contradicting yourself, and your beliefs.

Is this because it is prohibited in the Bible? Be careful, how you answer.

If you are a follower of God, then you know it is a sin, you know marriage is to be between a man and a woman. How can you feel okay with not only accepting Jesus Christ, but yet not even trying to make yourself better for him and continue to go against him and desire gay marriage?

If you are a follower of God, then you also know that it is a sin, for example, to divorce and remarry. How can you feel okay with not only accepting Jesus Christ, but yet not even trying to make yourself better for him and continue to go against him and desire remarriage?

If you do not have religious values and wish to be married to the same sex, why?

Would you deny marriage to those without religion? Why the qualifier in your question? Why not ask, "If you do not have religious values and wish to be married, why?" The answer will be the same for those who are gay as for those who are straight.

First of all, why would you want to be married before a God you do not believe in? Why do you care to be married in holy matrimony if you do not even accept the idea of holy?

Here is a hint: there are some who do believe in a God who accepts gays and believes that they can be holy and gay.

It all comes down to, marriage has always been traditionally through religion

This is historically inaccurate. In pre-Christian Europe, people got married without the benefit of the Christian ceremony. Once Christianized, marriages continued to be formed and celebrated without the benefit of a Christian priest, even into the Middle Ages.

[Laura70]

But if the legal definition of MARRIAGE is changed, then so does every aspect of it. Legally. According to the government...including those aspects of it that the government has NO RIGHT to mess with; that is, religious opinion about what marriage is according to their own beliefs.

You can change the legal definition of marriage without having any impact on religious beliefs. We did it in Canada almost ten years ago. It was easy, and no religions have been forced to change their doctrines.

Somewhat ironic that Americans emphasize freedom but it's Canada that allows gay marriages. I don't think religion should hold down gay marriages because the U.S. is a secular nation; therefore not base it on "Well, the majority are Christian, so we're going by their rules."

[dianaiad]

It all comes down to, marriage has always been traditionally through religion

This is historically inaccurate. In pre-Christian Europe, people got married without the benefit of the Christian ceremony. Once Christianized, marriages continued to be formed and celebrated without the benefit of a Christian priest, even into the Middle Ages.

McCulloch, Alexis wrote 'religion,' not 'Christianity,' and is correct. Except for the very high ranking property owners, marriage was ALL religion. Only those with property to protect went ALSO to the law for contracts to protect it.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

But if the legal definition of MARRIAGE is changed, then so does every aspect of it. Legally. According to the government...including those aspects of it that the government has NO RIGHT to mess with; that is, religious opinion about what marriage is according to their own beliefs.

You can change the legal definition of marriage without having any impact on religious beliefs. We did it in Canada almost ten years ago. It was easy, and no religions have been forced to change their doctrines.

That's nice.

Doesn't seem to be working as politely in the southern half of North America.

Explain to me why changing the legal definition of marriage in the USA requires forcing religious people to change their beliefs while in other countries it doesn't. What is so different about American laws? Which laws would force religious people to change their beliefs?

[Alexis223C]

If you choose a religion, you choose to follow a religion. If your religion states one shall not lay with another man, like he would with a woman, then you should not do it, since you chose a religion that states it is a sin. That being said, your sexuality was already chosen when you chose your religion.

And if your religion states that you should not get a tattoo or eat shellfish, then you should not do those things. If your religion states that as a woman you should have long hair and as a man you should have short (I Cor 11), then you should apply that principle. However, you should not inflict your religious prohibitions onto those who do not share your religion.

It's plain and simple: you cannot get married in holy matrimony if you are gay, because being gay is a sin which makes the marriage unholy.

According to your religion. But according to the religion of others, it is OK. By the way, marriage is not exclusively a religious event. Those of us without religion do get married. Really.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and it is not my place to care or judge anyone who is struggling with homosexuality (and I do say struggling because in my opinion, it is a sin and something one should struggle with because it is not the way God intended you to be. That is a whole other topic.)

It is my belief that those who are homosexual should not be made to feel that they should have to struggle with it. If you are gay or if you are left-handed then accept it and get on with your life.

I do not know where he or she is in his/her life to feel compelled to be gay, nor do I really care. As long as you are not waving your homosexuality in my face like it's the latest fad, your sexuality or your beliefs do not affect my life whatsoever.

I do not know where you are in your life to feel compelled to be Christian, nor do I really care. As long as you are not waving your Christianity in my face like it's the latest fad, your religion or your beliefs do not affect my life whatsoever.

I can even understand civil union. If you do not worship my God that says it is a sin to be gay, fine. That is your decision and with that, yes, as a person you should be able to be joined in civil union for tax purposes, etc. legally you are joined. Why should it matter if you do not believe if you are a union, or married?

But if you are gay, you have to drink from a different fountain, one without the label "Married". You have to sit at the back of the bus, you cannot watch the movie except from the balcony. Why should this word, with or without religious implications be legally withheld from gays? If there are religions and churches willing to celebrate gay marriage, should they not have the same freedom that you have to prohibit them? You believe that gay marriage is a sin, so be it. Members of your faith group don't have to marry someone of their own sex. You, however, have no right to impose your religious prohibition on the rest of us. We can get tattoos, wear our hair in ungodly ways, work on Saturday and Sunday, eat shellfish, worship idols, blaspheme and have same sex relationships (even marriage).

But if you are a Christian, and gay, and wish to be married to the same sex, from one Christian to another, I will say, you are contradicting yourself, and your beliefs.

Is this because it is prohibited in the Bible? Be careful, how you answer.

If you are a follower of God, then you know it is a sin, you know marriage is to be between a man and a woman. How can you feel okay with not only accepting Jesus Christ, but yet not even trying to make yourself better for him and continue to go against him and desire gay marriage?

If you are a follower of God, then you also know that it is a sin, for example, to divorce and remarry. How can you feel okay with not only accepting Jesus Christ, but yet not even trying to make yourself better for him and continue to go against him and desire remarriage?

If you do not have religious values and wish to be married to the same sex, why?

Would you deny marriage to those without religion? Why the qualifier in your question? Why not ask, "If you do not have religious values and wish to be married, why?" The answer will be the same for those who are gay as for those who are straight.

First of all, why would you want to be married before a God you do not believe in? Why do you care to be married in holy matrimony if you do not even accept the idea of holy?

Here is a hint: there are some who do believe in a God who accepts gays and believes that they can be holy and gay.

It all comes down to, marriage has always been traditionally through religion

This is historically inaccurate. In pre-Christian Europe, people got married without the benefit of the Christian ceremony. Once Christianized, marriages continued to be formed and celebrated without the benefit of a Christian priest, even into the Middle Ages.

Perhaps I look at it the opposite: maybe homosexuals shouldn't push their sexuality against marriage prohibitions. Civil union gives the exact benefits and civil rights as marriage, to my understanding the on;y difference is the fact that it is called union, not marriage. I believe homosexuals should be happy, or at least content, that the government and society has come this far in allowing civil union in a country and world that has been against homosexuality. If the only difference is the name, then to me, it sounds a bit pouty and like unappreciative behavior. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are two different sets of couples, man+woman=marriage, female+female=civil union. While there are countries such as Russia creating anti-gay promotions and outlawing homosexuals, as Americans, can we not be satisfied that gays and lesbians can still be unified in the eyes of the laws and values as ever other "married" couple. I believe people would still consider a lesbian couple, or a gay couple as married, if they had a civil union. What else would we say, "my neighbors are unified?" On paper, it would say "civil union." If one can argue with that, the argument is based on someone worrying too much on a specific word, rather than happy he/she is now legally with his/her partner.









Reference please.



Not to mention, just because one thinks he is gay, does not mean God loves him any less, nor does it mean he will not be saved. Once you have accepted Jesus Christ into your life as your Lord and Savior, you have eternal life, forever, like a document. Once you have been saved, you are always saved. You cannot void the contract. The Lord knows you are going to sin, and that is why Jesus Christ died to cleanse us of those sins, past, present and future. All he asks is you try not to, and call to Him to help you not sin.



And why do they get married? If they are NOT religious, they are getting married for civil rights and benefits, (not to get married and become one in the eyes of the Lord, or which ever lord they worship.) They are getting married for the same reason same sex couples are getting married, then a rose can smell just as sweet called by whatever name, right?



If they do not think they are struggling with their sexuality, then why would my opinion affect them in anyway? Yea, it's kind of hurtful, like 0.02 out of a 100 but that is just as bad as someone saying your outfit is ugly. Did I ever mention I would treat them poorly, or treat them any different than a straight person? No. I have accepted that people have their own choice, and if that is how they think are meant to be, why would I waste my breath trying to tell them different? Be gay all day long, but my perspective on it is my perspective, and you cannot get mad or hurt or upset that I feel that way. That is the great thing about America, I have the freedom to feel and say what I want, and you or who ever else is offended by my "struggling" opinion has the freedom to walk away. It's my opinion, all well, the end.




Deal. If you can get over tampering with an already good thing. Civil union is equal to marriage. Marriage is already locked in society's mind to be between a man and woman. Civil union has potential.



The fact of the matter is that you cannot call it marriage because it is not the same as marriage. Two men getting married is not the same as a man and a woman getting married. It is the truth, they cannot get married, and bare children, but they can have a civil union and adopt children, isn't the moral here that we are equal, no matter how? No you may not be able to marry, but you can still be considered "married," in the sense of equal civil rights, just joined by a civil union. You physically may not be able to have children, but you and your partner may still adopt; the bottom line is, you still get to have legal rights and you still can raise a family. You may not get the "marry" word in documentation, but you get something else as equally good. Isn't it just great a woman and a woman can say they love each other and be together and be joined in a civil union, compared to back then, and how it is currently in other countries?Can none of the homosexuals be appreciative that they are granted something just as good when before everyone looked down on them and others are being taken to jail else where now days? I thought the important thing was being together, and loving someone, the person of your choice, male or female. If you do not accept Christianity, and any other religion, okay. But Christianity and religion set aside, society, the government, and media even have come a very long way and gotten quite cozy with homosexuals in consideration to previous years. The honest truth is, they didn't have to allow the gays to have anything. Now they have given them their own joining, why is that not enough?


I say this because if you believe in the Lord, then you know all things through him are possible. That being said, if you consider yourself a true follow of Jesus Christ you will recognize your attractions to the same sex are "impure" in the God's eyes, and ask him to lead yourself away from temptation. Jesus never said you get into heaven by your deeds, nor do you go to hell for your sins. Of course God knows you are not perfect. He knows you are going to sin, and have desire to sin. That is why Jesus Christ died. If someone is a Christian, and thinks he may be gay, then he should ask the Lord to guide him, because yes, it is prohibited in the bible, and if you are a true Christian you read the bible and follow it. If you are going to talk the talk, why would you not walk the walk? If you are going to accept Jesus Christ, why would you not ask him to help you better yourself, for Him?



I agree with you on that. I feel the same way. The only way a married couple can divorce and be "okay" so to speak in the eyes of God, is if the man commits adultery. In those cases, it is okay. But there is a lot more details than that. My point is, if a marriage is struggling, than the Lord can help. If the couple cannot resolve their issues still, and get divorced, than I also believe they should be content with the Lord as their guide to be without another marriage.


My point again: why argue to be married, if you can have civil union, that provides equally? If you are joining for legal documentation and every other reason that non-religious straight couples are joining for, why does it matter if you are married or have a civil union?



And that is just fine for them, and they may have the greatest ceremony in the eyes of their God that accepts the gay holy marriage, but legally, they will be considered married with a civil union.


I think Dianaiad answered the question wonderfully. In the begining of "wedding history," they are all based off their religions, not exactly Christianty.

[Clownboat]

Dianaiad, your opinion does trump ours. Don't you see? If no one's opinion trumped another's, gay people would be allowed to get married.

For Gay people to get married no one's opinion needs to change. Not even yours. Just the legal definition of "Married".

Mr. Badham, remember me?

I'm the one who wants to see gays have the right to marry exactly the same way that 'straight' couples can. Precisely the same way. With all the same rights.

But if the legal definition of MARRIAGE is changed, then so does every aspect of it. Legally. According to the government...including those aspects of it that the government has NO RIGHT to mess with; that is, religious opinion about what marriage is according to their own beliefs.

Gays know this; that's why they aren't happy with civil unions which (as in California) have ALL the rights that the government grants to married couples. They know that 'marriage' encompasses more...and that more is none of the government's business.

.....................but by MAKING it the government's business, they are forcing their idea of it onto the religions and belief systems that they don't agree with, and don't like. They are forcing their opinion to trump everybody else's.

I'm trying to propose a way that solves the problem for everybody; so that religions can deal with that aspect of marriage, for their own people, in their own way, gay or straight. Everybody gets civil unions, which comprise all the rights that the government can assign and codify. Then everybody goes and gets married in whatever belief system they want.

But you can't see that, can you? You, and those who are all for gay marriage come hell or high water as mandated by the government, WANT all those religions to be forced to change their doctrine, their belief systems--and you want it done by force, because y'all think that because you are 'right,' or 'correct,' or 'more moral' or 'more compassionate' or 'less bigoted..' or whatever virtuous label you want to glue to yourselves, that this gives you the right to trample on the beliefs of those you think are lesser, either morally, ethically or in any other way. "Might (as represented by the government) makes right."

You need to be careful, though. The problem with that approach is that you will then be left with no defense if a majority decides to go after you. You would THINK that, as often as this has actually happened, that y'all would have caught the lesson--but nope.

It's not 'justice,' y'all want. It's not 'equality.' What y'all want is just...your turn to be unjust--your turn to call the shots and be the dictator of all that is moral.

............................and that is not the way to do this.

From a couple posts up:

Some religions are fine with homosexual marriage, some aren't. Allow them to continue to practice what they feel is right!!

What is your response to the religions that are ok with same sex marriage? Should they not be allowed to "marry" same sex couples because it goes against your religion? I don't think that argument can be made for obvious reasons.

Argument "A": Don't use the word "marriage" because it goes against my religions beliefs.
Argument "B": My religion is ok with same sex marriages. You are discriminating against my religious beliefs by not allowing same sex marriages that my religion is clearly ok with.

Good thing the word "marriage" does not belong to religion is all I can say.

[Clownboat]

If you choose a religion, you choose to follow a religion. If your religion states one shall not lay with another man, like he would with a woman, then you should not do it, since you chose a religion that states it is a sin. That being said, your sexuality was already chosen when you chose your religion.

And if your religion states that you should not get a tattoo or eat shellfish, then you should not do those things. If your religion states that as a woman you should have long hair and as a man you should have short (I Cor 11), then you should apply that principle. However, you should not inflict your religious prohibitions onto those who do not share your religion.

It's plain and simple: you cannot get married in holy matrimony if you are gay, because being gay is a sin which makes the marriage unholy.

According to your religion. But according to the religion of others, it is OK. By the way, marriage is not exclusively a religious event. Those of us without religion do get married. Really.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, and it is not my place to care or judge anyone who is struggling with homosexuality (and I do say struggling because in my opinion, it is a sin and something one should struggle with because it is not the way God intended you to be. That is a whole other topic.)

It is my belief that those who are homosexual should not be made to feel that they should have to struggle with it. If you are gay or if you are left-handed then accept it and get on with your life.

I do not know where he or she is in his/her life to feel compelled to be gay, nor do I really care. As long as you are not waving your homosexuality in my face like it's the latest fad, your sexuality or your beliefs do not affect my life whatsoever.

I do not know where you are in your life to feel compelled to be Christian, nor do I really care. As long as you are not waving your Christianity in my face like it's the latest fad, your religion or your beliefs do not affect my life whatsoever.

I can even understand civil union. If you do not worship my God that says it is a sin to be gay, fine. That is your decision and with that, yes, as a person you should be able to be joined in civil union for tax purposes, etc. legally you are joined. Why should it matter if you do not believe if you are a union, or married?

But if you are gay, you have to drink from a different fountain, one without the label "Married". You have to sit at the back of the bus, you cannot watch the movie except from the balcony. Why should this word, with or without religious implications be legally withheld from gays? If there are religions and churches willing to celebrate gay marriage, should they not have the same freedom that you have to prohibit them? You believe that gay marriage is a sin, so be it. Members of your faith group don't have to marry someone of their own sex. You, however, have no right to impose your religious prohibition on the rest of us. We can get tattoos, wear our hair in ungodly ways, work on Saturday and Sunday, eat shellfish, worship idols, blaspheme and have same sex relationships (even marriage).

But if you are a Christian, and gay, and wish to be married to the same sex, from one Christian to another, I will say, you are contradicting yourself, and your beliefs.

Is this because it is prohibited in the Bible? Be careful, how you answer.

If you are a follower of God, then you know it is a sin, you know marriage is to be between a man and a woman. How can you feel okay with not only accepting Jesus Christ, but yet not even trying to make yourself better for him and continue to go against him and desire gay marriage?

If you are a follower of God, then you also know that it is a sin, for example, to divorce and remarry. How can you feel okay with not only accepting Jesus Christ, but yet not even trying to make yourself better for him and continue to go against him and desire remarriage?

If you do not have religious values and wish to be married to the same sex, why?

Would you deny marriage to those without religion? Why the qualifier in your question? Why not ask, "If you do not have religious values and wish to be married, why?" The answer will be the same for those who are gay as for those who are straight.

First of all, why would you want to be married before a God you do not believe in? Why do you care to be married in holy matrimony if you do not even accept the idea of holy?

Here is a hint: there are some who do believe in a God who accepts gays and believes that they can be holy and gay.

It all comes down to, marriage has always been traditionally through religion

This is historically inaccurate. In pre-Christian Europe, people got married without the benefit of the Christian ceremony. Once Christianized, marriages continued to be formed and celebrated without the benefit of a Christian priest, even into the Middle Ages.

Perhaps I look at it the opposite: maybe homosexuals shouldn't push their sexuality against marriage prohibitions. Civil union gives the exact benefits and civil rights as marriage, to my understanding the on;y difference is the fact that it is called union, not marriage. I believe homosexuals should be happy, or at least content, that the government and society has come this far in allowing civil union in a country and world that has been against homosexuality. If the only difference is the name, then to me, it sounds a bit pouty and like unappreciative behavior. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are two different sets of couples, man+woman=marriage, female+female=civil union. While there are countries such as Russia creating anti-gay promotions and outlawing homosexuals, as Americans, can we not be satisfied that gays and lesbians can still be unified in the eyes of the laws and values as ever other "married" couple. I believe people would still consider a lesbian couple, or a gay couple as married, if they had a civil union. What else would we say, "my neighbors are unified?" On paper, it would say "civil union." If one can argue with that, the argument is based on someone worrying too much on a specific word, rather than happy he/she is now legally with his/her partner.









Reference please.



Not to mention, just because one thinks he is gay, does not mean God loves him any less, nor does it mean he will not be saved. Once you have accepted Jesus Christ into your life as your Lord and Savior, you have eternal life, forever, like a document. Once you have been saved, you are always saved. You cannot void the contract. The Lord knows you are going to sin, and that is why Jesus Christ died to cleanse us of those sins, past, present and future. All he asks is you try not to, and call to Him to help you not sin.



And why do they get married? If they are NOT religious, they are getting married for civil rights and benefits, (not to get married and become one in the eyes of the Lord, or which ever lord they worship.) They are getting married for the same reason same sex couples are getting married, then a rose can smell just as sweet called by whatever name, right?



If they do not think they are struggling with their sexuality, then why would my opinion affect them in anyway? Yea, it's kind of hurtful, like 0.02 out of a 100 but that is just as bad as someone saying your outfit is ugly. Did I ever mention I would treat them poorly, or treat them any different than a straight person? No. I have accepted that people have their own choice, and if that is how they think are meant to be, why would I waste my breath trying to tell them different? Be gay all day long, but my perspective on it is my perspective, and you cannot get mad or hurt or upset that I feel that way. That is the great thing about America, I have the freedom to feel and say what I want, and you or who ever else is offended by my "struggling" opinion has the freedom to walk away. It's my opinion, all well, the end.




Deal. If you can get over tampering with an already good thing. Civil union is equal to marriage. Marriage is already locked in society's mind to be between a man and woman. Civil union has potential.



The fact of the matter is that you cannot call it marriage because it is not the same as marriage. Two men getting married is not the same as a man and a woman getting married. It is the truth, they cannot get married, and bare children, but they can have a civil union and adopt children, isn't the moral here that we are equal, no matter how? No you may not be able to marry, but you can still be considered "married," in the sense of equal civil rights, just joined by a civil union. You physically may not be able to have children, but you and your partner may still adopt; the bottom line is, you still get to have legal rights and you still can raise a family. You may not get the "marry" word in documentation, but you get something else as equally good. Isn't it just great a woman and a woman can say they love each other and be together and be joined in a civil union, compared to back then, and how it is currently in other countries?Can none of the homosexuals be appreciative that they are granted something just as good when before everyone looked down on them and others are being taken to jail else where now days? I thought the important thing was being together, and loving someone, the person of your choice, male or female. If you do not accept Christianity, and any other religion, okay. But Christianity and religion set aside, society, the government, and media even have come a very long way and gotten quite cozy with homosexuals in consideration to previous years. The honest truth is, they didn't have to allow the gays to have anything. Now they have given them their own joining, why is that not enough?


I say this because if you believe in the Lord, then you know all things through him are possible. That being said, if you consider yourself a true follow of Jesus Christ you will recognize your attractions to the same sex are "impure" in the God's eyes, and ask him to lead yourself away from temptation. Jesus never said you get into heaven by your deeds, nor do you go to hell for your sins. Of course God knows you are not perfect. He knows you are going to sin, and have desire to sin. That is why Jesus Christ died. If someone is a Christian, and thinks he may be gay, then he should ask the Lord to guide him, because yes, it is prohibited in the bible, and if you are a true Christian you read the bible and follow it. If you are going to talk the talk, why would you not walk the walk? If you are going to accept Jesus Christ, why would you not ask him to help you better yourself, for Him?



I agree with you on that. I feel the same way. The only way a married couple can divorce and be "okay" so to speak in the eyes of God, is if the man commits adultery. In those cases, it is okay. But there is a lot more details than that. My point is, if a marriage is struggling, than the Lord can help. If the couple cannot resolve their issues still, and get divorced, than I also believe they should be content with the Lord as their guide to be without another marriage.


My point again: why argue to be married, if you can have civil union, that provides equally? If you are joining for legal documentation and every other reason that non-religious straight couples are joining for, why does it matter if you are married or have a civil union?



And that is just fine for them, and they may have the greatest ceremony in the eyes of their God that accepts the gay holy marriage, but legally, they will be considered married with a civil union.


I think Dianaiad answered the question wonderfully. In the begining of "wedding history," they are all based off their religions, not exactly Christianty.

What if my religion was not ok with interracial marriages? I want my religious beliefs protected and I want interracial couples to use a different word as to not upset my religious beliefs.

I assume you are ok with this in order to be consistent. Right?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 115:

Perhaps I look at it the opposite: maybe homosexuals shouldn't push their sexuality against marriage prohibitions. Civil union gives the exact benefits and civil rights as marriage, to my understanding the on;y difference is the fact that it is called union, not marriage. I believe homosexuals should be happy, or at least content, that the government and society has come this far in allowing civil union in a country and world that has been against homosexuality. If the only difference is the name, then to me, it sounds a bit pouty and like unappreciative behavior. Heterosexuality and homosexuality are two different sets of couples, man+woman=marriage, female+female=civil union. While there are countries such as Russia creating anti-gay promotions and outlawing homosexuals, as Americans, can we not be satisfied that gays and lesbians can still be unified in the eyes of the laws and values as ever other "married" couple. I believe people would still consider a lesbian couple, or a gay couple as married, if they had a civil union. What else would we say, "my neighbors are unified?" On paper, it would say "civil union." If one can argue with that, the argument is based on someone worrying too much on a specific word, rather than happy he/she is now legally with his/her partner.

That's rich, that whole "pouty about a word", or "worrying too much on a specific word" deal, given you seem to promote its use as the exclusive property of heterosexuals.

Not to mention, just because one thinks he is gay, does not mean God loves him any less, nor does it mean he will not be saved.

Until one can show they know the wants and wishes of a god, I contend it's folly to try to assert one does have such knowledge.

Once you have accepted Jesus Christ into your life as your Lord and Savior, you have eternal life, forever, like a document. Once you have been saved, you are always saved. You cannot void the contract. The Lord knows you are going to sin, and that is why Jesus Christ died to cleanse us of those sins, past, present and future. All he asks is you try not to, and call to Him to help you not sin.

Self-important hubris. I challenge you to show you speak truth in this regard.

And why do they get married? If they are NOT religious, they are getting married for civil rights and benefits, (not to get married and become one in the eyes of the Lord, or which ever lord they worship.) They are getting married for the same reason same sex couples are getting married, then a rose can smell just as sweet called by whatever name, right?

"Because I, alone among members of this entire species, know the wants and wishes of a couple I've never met!"

If they do not think they are struggling with their sexuality, then why would my opinion affect them in anyway? Yea, it's kind of hurtful, like 0.02 out of a 100 but that is just as bad as someone saying your outfit is ugly. Did I ever mention I would treat them poorly, or treat them any different than a straight person? No. I have accepted that people have their own choice, and if that is how they think are meant to be, why would I waste my breath trying to tell them different? Be gay all day long, but my perspective on it is my perspective, and you cannot get mad or hurt or upset that I feel that way. That is the great thing about America, I have the freedom to feel and say what I want, and you or who ever else is offended by my "struggling" opinion has the freedom to walk away. It's my opinion, all well, the end.

I contend we treat folks poorly when we reserve for ourselves what we reject them having.

Deal. If you can get over tampering with an already good thing. Civil union is equal to marriage. Marriage is already locked in society's mind to be between a man and woman. Civil union has potential.

M-a-r-r-i-a-g-e.

C-i-v-i-l u-n-i-o-n.

Yep, exactly the same!

The fact of the matter is that you cannot call it marriage because it is not the same as marriage.

The fact that you can't bother to utter the word when you see two men or two women who are married does nothing to negate how such folks may feel about their marriages.

I'll leave the rest of your weak, pleading and plodding dismissal of homosexuals' rights to stand on their own.

(speling edit)

[dianaiad]

What is your response to the religions that are ok with same sex marriage?

If they are OK with it, then they are OK with it, and if couples get married in those faiths, then they are married according to those faiths. None of my business.

Should they not be allowed to "marry" same sex couples because it goes against your religion? I don't think that argument can be made for obvious reasons.

Good thing I wasn't making that argument, then, isn't it? What part of 'everybody goes and gets married according to their own belief systems" went WHOOOSH???

'Course, if you are saying that I don't think that those who disagree with me on gay marriage shouldn't be allowed to legally marry people, (as in...assign them legally binding rights and responsibilities) you'd be right. I don't think the folks who AGREE with me should be allowed to, either. Marriage should have no legal or government standing for anybody. Only civil unions would.

Argument "A": Don't use the word "marriage" because it goes against my religions beliefs.

Wrong. Use it all you want. Consider yourselves married all you want. BE married all you want.

Just don't make me consider you 'married' for the purposes of my religion/faith/belief system if my doctrine doesn't allow for it.

Argument "B": My religion is ok with same sex marriages. You are discriminating against my religious beliefs by not allowing same sex marriages that my religion is clearly ok with.

Good thing the word "marriage" does not belong to religion is all I can say.

The word 'marriage' DOES. it belonged to religions a long time before the governments got into it...and they got into it simply to assign certain rights (mostly property rights) to it. If you look at the histories, "marriage" has always had two components--and the religious one not only came first, but had a wider application. Only those people who had property to protect bothered with the legal stuff.

So...civil unions, civil rights, property rights, inheritance rights,....all that stuff is managed by 'Caesar,' and should remain with "Caesar." The promises that make those contracts MORE than mere contracts; that make them 'marriage," that cannot and is not enforced by law----THAT is what 'marriage' is.

That belongs to religion, to culture outside of the law, and to personal honor. If the government takes 'marriage,' it is taking stuff it cannot enforce or deal with---and leaves nowhere for religions and private belief systems to go. It's not as if RELIGIONS can enforce property rights, after all.

[Clownboat]

What is your response to the religions that are ok with same sex marriage?

If they are OK with it, then they are OK with it, and if couples get married in those faiths, then they are married according to those faiths. None of my business.

I agree that it is none of your business, but can they use the word marriage? Or is that word only applicable to your religion?

Should they not be allowed to "marry" same sex couples because it goes against your religion? I don't think that argument can be made for obvious reasons.

Good thing I wasn't making that argument, then, isn't it? What part of 'everybody goes and gets married according to their own belief systems" went WHOOOSH???

The part where they can't use the word that you get to use to describe the same love that you have.

'Course, if you are saying that I don't think that those who disagree with me on gay marriage shouldn't be allowed to legally marry people, (as in...assign them legally binding rights and responsibilities) you'd be right. I don't think the folks who AGREE with me should be allowed to, either. Marriage should have no legal or government standing for anybody. Only civil unions would.

Why the need to destroy the word "marriage"? I believe the solution is much more simple than redefining who can use a word and who can't. Let's just treat our fellow humans as equals and allow them to use the same word that you and I get to use now (again, no redefining needed).

Argument "A": Don't use the word "marriage" because it goes against my religions beliefs.

Wrong. Use it all you want. Consider yourselves married all you want. BE married all you want.

So gays should be allowed to be married and use the word married? I thought you wanted gays and others to use the word civil union.

Just don't make me consider you 'married' for the purposes of my religion/faith/belief system if my doctrine doesn't allow for it.

You can discriminate all you want for religious reasons. That does not mean the government needs to side with you.

Argument "B": My religion is ok with same sex marriages. You are discriminating against my religious beliefs by not allowing same sex marriages that my religion is clearly ok with.

Good thing the word "marriage" does not belong to religion is all I can say.

The word 'marriage' DOES. it belonged to religions a long time before the governments got into it...and they got into it simply to assign certain rights (mostly property rights) to it. If you look at the histories, "marriage" has always had two components--and the religious one not only came first, but had a wider application. Only those people who had property to protect bothered with the legal stuff.

So...civil unions, civil rights, property rights, inheritance rights,....all that stuff is managed by 'Caesar,' and should remain with "Caesar." The promises that make those contracts MORE than mere contracts; that make them 'marriage," that cannot and is not enforced by law----THAT is what 'marriage' is.

That belongs to religion, to culture outside of the law, and to personal honor. If the government takes 'marriage,' it is taking stuff it cannot enforce or deal with---and leaves nowhere for religions and private belief systems to go. It's not as if RELIGIONS can enforce property rights, after all.

I believe the word marriage has been redefined for far to many years for anyone to claim ownership of that word in this day and age.

Either way, you forgot to answer my "B":
My religion is ok with same sex marriages. You are discriminating against my religious beliefs by not allowing same sex marriages that my religion is clearly ok with.