There is no rational reason to stop same sex marriage

[Evales]

It's hard for me to view homosexuality as that bad of a thing if someone is born to be that way. I could not judge them against it if they were born that way.

Ok, but what if it turns out to be entirely a matter of choice? Would you judge them against it then? If so, what harm, to others or themselves, would you invoke?

Homosexuality

Point 1) If biological it is something that God created and thus we should not be punished for it since it is natural.

Point 2) That being even if it is still a sin (or not biological) the people who commit acts of homosexuality are fully allowed (by God) to commit as many sins as they like. God gave us the freedom of choice to commit sins or to chose to follow him how we like.

Point 3) Also since not everyone believes there is an afterlife we have no reason to stop them from committing these "sins" if they do not hurt anyone. The only person they hurt is themselves (according to theists) because they will then go to Hell, a place that they do not even believe exists.


There is no rational reason for us to stop same sex marriage.
Throughout history ignorant and oppressive people have stopped certain minorities from gaining certain rights but we see a trend that these minorities are gradually allowed these rights.

To be honest I'm surprised we still oppress homosexuals and bisexuals. How archaic.

[Sjoerd]

I have a great suggestion. Here is a word which can be used to describe the status of those couples who are of the same sex who have the exactly the same civil status as marriage, with all of the rights, duties and portability, marriage.

This does bring up something of an important point. I've long since considered marriage to have many facets (any married person would agree, I'd think). My wife and I had both a civil and a religious service. This was for practical reasons, but I liked the distinction. For me, there is both a civil and a religious side (as well as a couple of others), I don't see, therefore, that offering civil rights should have any religious implication. Frankly, it allready doesn't in this culture.
A pretty wordy way to agree with you, I know, but I couldn't resist throwing my own spin on this one.

We're in complete agreement. Each religion is free to marry or not marry any couple as they see fit. When a same sex couple finds a religious group willing to perform their nuptials, then they also will have the religious side. You or others may not recognize the legitimacy of the religious group willing to do that, but that really does not matter.

I can only agree with this for countries such as my own, where few people have a trouble with gay marriage. For nearly every other country, the situation is very different. A large fraction of the people feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of their religious beliefs. Look at Eastern Europe, where few people are religious yet homophobia is very widespread.
Top priority must be to make sure that this sentiment doesn't get into the way of granting legal rights to gays: concerning household status, inheritance, child adoption, portability and so on. If a semantic concession can win over people to support these rights for gays, then it must be made.
A gay parent losing her pension or his parentship over his adopted child when his/her partner dies is a tragedy. Compared to that, the inconvenience of a gay couple whose full-right marriage is called differently in public is nothing. As Miticala's example illustrates, in most places it is already difficult to get gays granted any rights at all. Let's end the blatant injustices first, and argue about semantic inconveniences later. Anything that promotes gay rights by creating consensus and avoiding hurt feelings should be supported.

[Lionspoint]

This poll result is getting out of touch with reality. Even in the Netherlands, gay marriage wouldn't be supported by 93 % of the population. Most of the people here are from the US, and I can hardly believe that this is a representative result for the average population there. [flame] Cmon guys and girls, show that you are no sissies! You are Americans! Homophobes! Rednecks! Conservatives! Just look at the Borat movie, you are trying to get gay people executed by cowboy execution squad!
[/flame]
Okay, don't take the last part too seriously, but you know what I mean. Even if everyone here is a liberal, someone should take the role of devil's advocate and try to argue for the other side.

(And for the record, I am supporting gay marriage)

Well, this disparity may mean that the average person posting on this website is unusually intelligent and insightful (pat on the back for all of us). In the US it has historically been the idea that we are Americans first and then whatever else second, third and so on.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. ~ Now who could have said that?

[TMMaria]

I can only agree with this for countries such as my own, where few people have a trouble with gay marriage. For nearly every other country, the situation is very different. A large fraction of the people feel that marriage is between a man and a woman, regardless of their religious beliefs. Look at Eastern Europe, where few people are religious yet homophobia is very widespread.
Top priority must be to make sure that this sentiment doesn't get into the way of granting legal rights to gays: concerning household status, inheritance, child adoption, portability and so on. If a semantic concession can win over people to support these rights for gays, then it must be made.
A gay parent losing her pension or his parentship over his adopted child when his/her partner dies is a tragedy. Compared to that, the inconvenience of a gay couple whose full-right marriage is called differently in public is nothing. As Miticala's example illustrates, in most places it is already difficult to get gays granted any rights at all. Let's end the blatant injustices first, and argue about semantic inconveniences later. Anything that promotes gay rights by creating consensus and avoiding hurt feelings should be supported.

If you call for a movement to give people who have decided that for the rest of their life they would build a family only with members of the same-sex...rights and benefits...certainly it appeals better to everyone's conscience.

But to call it marriage and destroy a sacred institution written since not only the bronze age but the beginning of creation...that marriage is a union between man and woman, and only men and women can produce children ( not XX and not YY), the problems is you are telling people to turn away from what their Creator has divinely establish. For those who don't know our Creator, I see why you don't care less. You do not answer to Him. But we do. It lacks tremendous sympathy to not understand a believer live their moral life answering to their Creator.

Even though it breaks my heart, that same-sex couple feel hurt when they see their unions are not divinely accepted as marriage...and it breaks my heart they know only of this temporal life and no further. But what is engraved as truth is engraved as truth in one's heart. We can blindfold our eyes but we cannot blindfold our hearts. We cannot turn from our Creator and calls what isn't marriage...a marriage.

Give same-sex legal rights, economic benefits, and citizenship benefits...but marriage remains a union between man and woman.

[Goat]

If you call for a movement to give people who have decided that for the rest of their life they would build a family only with members of the same-sex...rights and benefits...certainly it appeals better to everyone's conscience.

But to call it marriage and destroy a sacred institution written since not only the bronze age but the beginning of creation...that marriage is a union between man and woman, and only men and women can produce children ( not XX and not YY), the problems is you are telling people to turn away from what their Creator has divinely establish. For those who don't know our Creator, I see why you don't care less. You do not answer to Him. But we do. It lacks tremendous sympathy to not understand a believer live their moral life answering to their Creator.

.

Yes, gay's getting married breaks the sanctity of some conservatives marriages.. it breaks the sanctity of their second marriage and it breaks the sanctity of their third marriage. It destroys their moral fiber, unlike Brittany Spears 55 hour marriage to someone of the opposite sex. Just like two senior citizens getting married destroys the sanctity of marriage, since they can't have children... and barren people too!

[JoeyKnothead]

But to call it marriage and destroy a sacred institution written since not only the bronze age but the beginning of creation...that marriage is a union between man and woman, and only men and women can produce children ( not XX and not YY), the problems is you are telling people to turn away from what their Creator has divinely establish. For those who don't know our Creator, I see why you don't care less. You do not answer to Him. But we do. It lacks tremendous sympathy to not understand a believer live their moral life answering to their Creator.

What at least I am saying is that when for religious belief you don't accept gay people getting married, that is your right, and I would stand in front of you to defend your right to believe as you wish. The problem comes when the State issues a 'marriage' license, it would only be right to allow gay folks the same benefits that license allows. When you try to rephrase it, you create a whole new class of people who are 'married', but not really, wink wink. To allow all the benefits of marriage, is to also allow the marriage to be called a marriage. I ain't down with two men getting married, but it is their right, not mine, to decide how they wish to live. The State should not be bound by the religious dictates of anyone.

Even though it breaks my heart, that same-sex couple feel hurt when they see their unions are not divinely accepted as marriage...and it breaks my heart they know only of this temporal life and no further. But what is engraved as truth is engraved as truth in one's heart. We can blindfold our eyes but we cannot blindfold our hearts. We cannot turn from our Creator and calls what isn't marriage...a marriage.

How many times does your Bible, and your preacher, declare God's word the truth, while providing absolutely no proof for the claim? You don't get off so easy saying it breaks your heart to know gays are in the position they are in, all the while saying they should not be allowed the freedoms you enjoy. You speak very fondly of your belief, but you seem willing to deny others their belief. You are wanting to impose your sense of morality, or religious indoctrination, on an entire class of human beings. People who otherwise are exactly the same as you and me. People who's only goal in life is to have the State sanction of marriage to ensure their rights. Yet you are trying to argue against this because a book tells you its wrong. A book? I know it's an important book, but is it so important you would wish to condemn an entire block of humanity?

Give same-sex legal rights, economic benefits, and citizenship benefits...but marriage remains a union between man and woman.

I encourage you to look into the Equal Rights Amendment. Do you know there are states who still have not ratified your equal rights as a citizen?

I really don't know what it would take to make you see that oppressing others in the name of religion is one of the most heinous acts mankind has ever foisted upon another. Religious bigotry is one of the most hateful things I can imagine. Just because someone does not live according to the dictates of one's oppressive ideals does not mean they are not worthy of our love and respect. If your God is such that he would allow you to oppress others in His name, then your God is Satan, and your He has turned your heart to stone.

On behalf of all humanity, I apologize for the evil acts of the oppressors. I'm sorry I alone can not make them see the errors of their ways. For all who live under the yoke of hatred, I say there will come a day when the foot of the oppressors is loosed from your neck. And on that day, when all of humanity is free, we will truly have found what life is all about.

(edited out errant quote tag)

[Evales]

But to call it marriage and destroy a sacred institution written since not only the bronze age but the beginning of creation...that marriage is a union between man and woman, and only men and women can produce children ( not XX and not YY), the problems is you are telling people to turn away from what their Creator has divinely establish.

Marriage is not exactly sacred at the moment. As the people above have mentioned. I see what you are saying but I mean we allow divorce. This does not mean that you want a divorce or that we are telling to to believe that divorce is a good thing but at the same time we give people the right to divorce.

For those who don't know our Creator, I see why you don't care less. You do not answer to Him. But we do. It lacks tremendous sympathy to not understand a believer live their moral life answering to their Creator.

It's not that we don't care. I believe that you have every right to not believe in same sex marriage and I believe that you have the right to teach your children that same sex marriage is bad. The legalisation of same sex marriage does not mean that you should change your views, nor will it enforce your church to change its views, nor will it make your marriage worth any less. In fact if you truly think that same sex marriage is a bad thing your marriage will only become all the more precious to you.

But what is engraved as truth is engraved as truth in one's heart. We can blindfold our eyes but we cannot blindfold our hearts.

Precisely, we cannot blindfold our own hearts. I have a friend who used to tell everyone she was straight she even dated men to prove it too herself. But it ate her up inside. Just now she has started dating a woman she has been meeting for a while now. She's in love, she glows when they are together. She couldn't change who she was. We can't lie to ourselves.

[Cephus]

But to call it marriage and destroy a sacred institution written since not only the bronze age but the beginning of creation...that marriage is a union between man and woman, and only men and women can produce children ( not XX and not YY), the problems is you are telling people to turn away from what their Creator has divinely establish. For those who don't know our Creator, I see why you don't care less. You do not answer to Him. But we do. It lacks tremendous sympathy to not understand a believer live their moral life answering to their Creator.

First off, it's not a sacred institution and hasn't been for a long, long time. Ever since the state started issuing marriage licenses, the church lost any right whatsoever to lay claims to marriage. We live in a secular society, whether you like it or not, where everyone is supposed to have equal rights, whether you like it or not, therefore making silly claims about a creator in regards to a purely secular institution like marriage is ridiculous. No one is asking your church to marry gays if you don't wish to, but to deny them the same secular rights as everyone else enjoys is clearly discriminatory.

Even though it breaks my heart, that same-sex couple feel hurt when they see their unions are not divinely accepted as marriage...and it breaks my heart they know only of this temporal life and no further.

I'm not sure where you come up with the idea that anyone cares about the divine.

Give same-sex legal rights, economic benefits, and citizenship benefits...but marriage remains a union between man and woman.

Once maybe, but that has already changed in some states and is becoming universal. Your archaic beliefs lost, once again.

[McCulloch]

But to call it marriage and destroy a sacred institution written since not only the bronze age but the beginning of creation...that marriage is a union between man and woman, and only men and women can produce children (not XX and not YY), the problems is you are telling people to turn away from what their Creator has divinely establish. For those who don't know our Creator, I see why you don't care less. You do not answer to Him. But we do. It lacks tremendous sympathy to not understand a believer live their moral life answering to their Creator.

This is the kind of rhetoric that I don't understand. Calling a same sex marriage a marriage under the law does not destroy a sacred institution. I doubt, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church will ever allow a same sex couple to participate in the sacrament of marriage any more than they will allow a woman Cardinal. They, like all regions, are allowed their anachronistic little regulations that they attribute to the sky-daddy. But, if your objections to recognizing same sex marriages for what they are are only because of your religion, then your objections have no standing in a society where church and state, religion and politics are separate.

Even though it breaks my heart, that same-sex couple feel hurt when they see their unions are not divinely accepted as marriage...and it breaks my heart they know only of this temporal life and no further. But what is engraved as truth is engraved as truth in one's heart. We can blindfold our eyes but we cannot blindfold our hearts. We cannot turn from our Creator and calls what isn't marriage...a marriage.

You are certainly free to prohibit all of those who voluntarily belong to your group which recognizes the particular Creator that you have from gay marriages.

Give same-sex legal rights, economic benefits, and citizenship benefits...but marriage remains a union between man and woman.

That's where you are wrong. Marriage is whatever we collectively say that it is. For example, in some countries, if a man marries twice (without benefit of death or divorce of the first spouse), the second marriage is not recognized as a marriage. In other countries it is. In civilized countries, a marriage between a man and a girl is not recognized as a legal marriage. In other countries, it is.

[Heavenlymedia]

According to the Bible, Paul wrote; "all things are permissible not all things are benficial". The question is; beneficial to what? As the Bible is a book of prophecy whose realization is the coming, life and testimony of Jesus of Nazareth who became one with God, beneficial would refer to becoming one with God.

If one is going to depend upon one's own comscience to determine their activities, this is fine. The question is; what will you do after death. Jesus did not come to teach us how to live exclusively but rather to attain eternal life in the protection of God.

The Bible says that homosexuality is an "abomination". This means it is not the natural order of things. To sexualize feelings for a person of your own gender, while satisfying to some, leads one away from the natural order of things and will not be available to them in the world of the spirit.

Homosexuality is not right or wrong, good or bad but rather not beneficial to attaining oneness with God in either this life or the next. The authority of government is God given as He is the source of all authority. With freedom of speech it is permissible to speak about one's desire to behave according to their own desires. Doing this suggests that you know better than God and therefore upon your death you are on your own. If you gain in this life what you want then you have your reward. Though a homosexual is granted the gifts of the spirit if he or she uses the liberty which comes from the spirit for what is called vice or lawlessness, then he or she is accountable for the consequences of their actions, where theoretically the "sinless", blameless or righteous person, who is attached or one with God, is immune to consequences that are not common to man such as existing alone in eternity without the protection of God who says; some will come to me saying they have done miracles in my name and cast out evil spirits and I shall say to them depart from me, I do not know you. Though God knows everyone He only recognizes Himself because in reality, He is all there is and has always been.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Page 14 Post 138

The Bible says that homosexuality is an "abomination". This means it is not the natural order of things. To sexualize feelings for a person of your own gender, while satisfying to some, leads one away from the natural order of things and will not be available to them in the world of the spirit.

Then to Hell with the Bible, and the spirit world. If God or the spirits are bigots, I want nothing to do with either.

The authority of government is God given as He is the source of all authority.

2 Words:
Proof?

Homosexuality is not right or wrong, good or bad but rather not beneficial to attaining oneness with God in either this life or the next.

Quite trying to have it -ahem- both ways. Either God accepts homosexuals or He don't. Since he won't allow them into Heaven, then it is not unreasonable to think God don't like homosexuals.

With freedom of speech it is permissible to speak about one's desire to behave according to their own desires. Doing this suggests that you know better than God and therefore upon your death you are on your own. If you gain in this life what you want then you have your reward.

If God is a bigot, then maybe I actually do know more. If God would leave another 'on their own', then I want nothing to do with God. To that person 'on their own', call out, there are many others 'on their own' who respect you merely for being a human being. We don't care what harmless acts you and other consenting adults do, we just want you to join us, and help us stamp out oppression wherever we find it.

Though a homosexual is granted the gifts of the spirit if he or she uses the liberty which comes from the spirit for what is called vice or lawlessness, then he or she is accountable for the consequences of their actions, where theoretically the "sinless", blameless or righteous person, who is attached or one with God, is immune to consequences that are not common to man such as existing alone in eternity without the protection of God who says; some will come to me saying they have done miracles in my name and cast out evil spirits and I shall say to them depart from me, I do not know you. Though God knows everyone He only recognizes Himself because in reality, He is all there is and has always been.

If God would protect the bigot and condemn the innocent, then I condemn God. I reject your bigoted God, I reject his protection for the oppressor. I reject every bigoted word out of His mouth.

I notice you allow folks "liberty of spirit", but you indicate you would suppress their "liberty in this, the only life they may have". To claim folks have liberty and then say if they act on that liberty in a way someone doesn't like they will be punished, how the heck do they have liberty?

"Homosexuality is not good or bad". But if you do it you're getting a whole heaping bunch of condemnation after you die. (and while still here from some quarters).

Blind faith tends to lead to blind oppression. In the face of this I guess all we are left is a blind rage to eliminate the oppressor.