Why are gay people a Christian target?

[Colorado127]

I am perplexed by fundamentalist christians that are always targeting gay people. They want to pass all sorts of laws restricting rights and privileges that everyone else has. What frustrates me the most is that they seem to be tunnel-visioned on gays. There are many things in the christian bible that they could talk about. I bet you there are more adulterers in the US than gay people and adultery is a ten commandments topic. What about honoring your parents? Can we focus on that for a while? This gay marriage thing being a religious idea only? I know of several religions that encourage gay people to find partners to marry including Unity, Unitarian Universalists and the Quakers.

I believe that gay people are the target because the christian religion, or its higher ups, have nothing else to target? They have lost the battle with alcohol and porn, they used to say black people couldn't marry white people but can't do that anymore. They try to stop drugs but you can't pass any more laws about that. Ok I'm being a bit out there, but really, Christianity has been losing its control over its flock for decades, if not centuries. Every sociologist and psychology person can easily see that when someone or some group sees its former control waning they will do anything to regain it. It's a desparate act. These fundamentalist christians have to find something to rally the troops.....wha-laa!.....gay people. A marginalized group in our over masculinized, sports culture that many people feel uncomfortable with. From history, the Nazi's for example, we know that hate is an excellent way to mobilize a group.

Isn't it blatantly unconstitutional to forbid the marriage of two people? In Virginia they want to outlaw any 'marraige like' contracts between two people of the same sex, doesn't that seem unconstitutional? The sodomy laws that Chief Justice Souter condemned was obviously directed at gay men. The 14th amendments says no state shall pass a law abridging the rights of its citizens. The only people saying I cannot marry another guy is christians? Right there we have a church-state conflict.

Ok, let me have it!

[faith]

I think your a softy at heart Mack,

McCulloch"]

Marriage can only be between a man and woman so civil partnerships are not marriage but a status similar for those not of the usual genders.

Or between a man and a girl, or between a man and a few women, or between two men or two women, all depending on what jurisdiction you live in.

But the marriage is still male and female. You would need to start a new thread if you want to question the rights and wrongs of men marrying young girls or marrying more than one woman.

So any couple in the UK can have a civil partnership where they are legally bound to each other and have all the rights of a married couple.

So why not just be honest and call it marriage?

Because as you defined also in reply above, it is for male and female not two of the same sex. This clearly defines marriage as being for male and female.
I believe that a civil partnership is better because it allows the people involved to dictate their own choice and understanding of what they believe their partnership to be.

I believe not all gay men practice sodomy.

And this is relevant because ...

Because someone, maybe you, mentions it in their post. I will check when I have finished this.

You cannot treat people badly or outcasts because of their sexual preferences.

But you can deny them the legal recognition of their sexual relationships because of it. How is that different?

I do not think this is quite true. If a frog lives in a pond and is green or brownish in colour and hops. Would a giraffe match the description and be able to known as a frog? Marriage has been determined as joining male and female. How, when it is was given for man and woman, can we change the reason it was implemented and for who. What I would say is this. The relationships between male and female are different in their workings,than those between two men and two women. Civil partnerships give them the same status as marriage. So what is it about marriage that they wish to be called married rather than civil partners?
It is the thought that they are some how different to the normal married couples, ie men and women? But the truth is, they are different and if they want that difference to be recognisible. Then surely they would want to be recognised independantly in their own rights and ways, by a special partnership and independant way of recognition for themselves and their relationships?

Love Faithxx

[Goat]

I think your a softy at heart Mack,

McCulloch"]

Marriage can only be between a man and woman so civil partnerships are not marriage but a status similar for those not of the usual genders.

Or between a man and a girl, or between a man and a few women, or between two men or two women, all depending on what jurisdiction you live in.

But the marriage is still male and female. You would need to start a new thread if you want to question the rights and wrongs of men marrying young girls or marrying more than one woman.

Is it? From a legal standpont, there are several places where people of the same gender can marry. As for marriage in front of God, isn't that between the happy couple and God?

[faith]

I think your a softy at heart Mack,

McCulloch"]

Marriage can only be between a man and woman so civil partnerships are not marriage but a status similar for those not of the usual genders.

Or between a man and a girl, or between a man and a few women, or between two men or two women, all depending on what jurisdiction you live in.

But the marriage is still male and female. You would need to start a new thread if you want to question the rights and wrongs of men marrying young girls or marrying more than one woman.

Is it? From a legal standpont, there are several places where people of the same gender can marry. As for marriage in front of God, isn't that between the happy couple and God?

Hi Goat,

Marriage was not originally a legal matter. It was a religious matter and came from religious beliefs. The law made it a legal matter to ensure peoples rights.
So from an unlegal standpoint, the definition of marriage even when law first made it a legal matter was only ever about the joining of a man and woman.

Man has brought his own statutes in and they too have value but not in the true and original definition. I think we need to establish the truth and that as long as they have civil partnerships and marriage, the needs of all are met. Including those who want to live over the brush/broom or vacume cleaner.

Love Faithxx

[Fallibleone]

Does this mean that you would not consider a homosexual couple who married in, say, Canada to be married even though they are? (And what about me? I was married in a register office which prohibited any kind of religious references. Am I married according to you?)

[faith]

Does this mean that you would not consider a homosexual couple who married in, say, Canada to be married even though they are? (And what about me? I was married in a register office which prohibited any kind of religious references. Am I married according to you?)

Hi FO,

Marriage between a man and woman anywhere in the world is marriage in the original sense of the word. The Register office is included.
I am saying if marriage was defined in law for all same sex couples, then a civil partnership would not be in place. All would be married the same way. But how would you say, Do you take this woman or this man in the legally binding vows which make up the wedding service?

I believe the marriage and civil partnership provides for everyones needs.
I think this is what is important that they feel recognised and their relationship is official.

Why marry at all or have a civil partnership if it is technically only a legal document of peice of paper? Love must come into the equasion, surely.


Love Faith.xx

[Goat]

I think your a softy at heart Mack,

McCulloch"]

Marriage can only be between a man and woman so civil partnerships are not marriage but a status similar for those not of the usual genders.

Or between a man and a girl, or between a man and a few women, or between two men or two women, all depending on what jurisdiction you live in.

But the marriage is still male and female. You would need to start a new thread if you want to question the rights and wrongs of men marrying young girls or marrying more than one woman.

Is it? From a legal standpont, there are several places where people of the same gender can marry. As for marriage in front of God, isn't that between the happy couple and God?

Hi Goat,

Marriage was not originally a legal matter. It was a religious matter and came from religious beliefs. The law made it a legal matter to ensure peoples rights.
So from an unlegal standpoint, the definition of marriage even when law first made it a legal matter was only ever about the joining of a man and woman.

Man has brought his own statutes in and they too have value but not in the true and original definition. I think we need to establish the truth and that as long as they have civil partnerships and marriage, the needs of all are met. Including those who want to live over the brush/broom or vacume cleaner.

Love Faithxx

I am afraid you do not know the history of marriage very well. Originally, marriage was not religious at all, but it was rather a contract between two families. It wasn't until later that the Church was involved. When it comes to Christianity , the churches were not involved in marriages until the 9th century. Before that, it was an economic institution.

[faith]

I think your a softy at heart Mack,

McCulloch"]

Marriage can only be between a man and woman so civil partnerships are not marriage but a status similar for those not of the usual genders.

Or between a man and a girl, or between a man and a few women, or between two men or two women, all depending on what jurisdiction you live in.

But the marriage is still male and female. You would need to start a new thread if you want to question the rights and wrongs of men marrying young girls or marrying more than one woman.

Is it? From a legal standpont, there are several places where people of the same gender can marry. As for marriage in front of God, isn't that between the happy couple and God?

Hi Goat,

Marriage was not originally a legal matter. It was a religious matter and came from religious beliefs. The law made it a legal matter to ensure peoples rights.
So from an unlegal standpoint, the definition of marriage even when law first made it a legal matter was only ever about the joining of a man and woman.

Man has brought his own statutes in and they too have value but not in the true and original definition. I think we need to establish the truth and that as long as they have civil partnerships and marriage, the needs of all are met. Including those who want to live over the brush/broom or vacume cleaner.

Love Faithxx

Hi Goat,

I am afraid you do not know the history of marriage very well. Originally, marriage was not religious at all, but it was rather a contract between two families. It wasn't until later that the Church was involved. When it comes to Christianity , the churches were not involved in marriages until the 9th century. Before that, it was an economic institution.

Marriage came from before there was any laws and agreements. Go back and check your history. Before the Law marriage was ordained by God, a man leaving his Father and Mother and becoming united to his wife. Where did marriage come from to be able to arrange a contract? Look at the teachings of Moses.
You believe your own scriptures, don't you?

Love Faith.xx

[Fallibleone]

Does this mean that you would not consider a homosexual couple who married in, say, Canada to be married even though they are? (And what about me? I was married in a register office which prohibited any kind of religious references. Am I married according to you?)

Hi FO,

Marriage between a man and woman anywhere in the world is marriage in the original sense of the word. The Register office is included.

So I am married because I am in a heterosexual relationship, whereas a MARRIED homosexual couple (not a homosexual couple in a civil partnership) is somehow not married, simply because they are of the same sex, and even though they are in fact married.

I am saying if marriage was defined in law for all same sex couples, then a civil partnership would not be in place. All would be married the same way.

In some countries civil partnerships are not in place. Homosexual marriage is. That's the point. Homosexual couples can get married. My question to you was would you not consider a homosexual married couple married?

But how would you say, Do you take this woman or this man in the legally binding vows which make up the wedding service?

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

I believe the marriage and civil partnership provides for everyones needs.
I think this is what is important that they feel recognised and their relationship is official.

Clearly other countries do not see civil partnerships as being sufficient to provide for homosexual couples' needs. Personally I think homosexual couples are the best people to decide what is sufficient.

Why marry at all or have a civil partnership if it is technically only a legal document of peice of paper?

I've no idea. I would suspect that most people in the West, homosexual or heterosexual, marry out of love.

Love must come into the equasion, surely.

Yes - you sound as though someone suggested it doesn't. Why?

[Goat]

I think your a softy at heart Mack,

McCulloch"]

Marriage can only be between a man and woman so civil partnerships are not marriage but a status similar for those not of the usual genders.

Or between a man and a girl, or between a man and a few women, or between two men or two women, all depending on what jurisdiction you live in.

But the marriage is still male and female. You would need to start a new thread if you want to question the rights and wrongs of men marrying young girls or marrying more than one woman.

Is it? From a legal standpont, there are several places where people of the same gender can marry. As for marriage in front of God, isn't that between the happy couple and God?

Hi Goat,

Marriage was not originally a legal matter. It was a religious matter and came from religious beliefs. The law made it a legal matter to ensure peoples rights.
So from an unlegal standpoint, the definition of marriage even when law first made it a legal matter was only ever about the joining of a man and woman.

Man has brought his own statutes in and they too have value but not in the true and original definition. I think we need to establish the truth and that as long as they have civil partnerships and marriage, the needs of all are met. Including those who want to live over the brush/broom or vacume cleaner.

Love Faithxx

Hi Goat,

I am afraid you do not know the history of marriage very well. Originally, marriage was not religious at all, but it was rather a contract between two families. It wasn't until later that the Church was involved. When it comes to Christianity , the churches were not involved in marriages until the 9th century. Before that, it was an economic institution.

Marriage came from before there was any laws and agreements. Go back and check your history. Before the Law marriage was ordained by God, a man leaving his Father and Mother and becoming united to his wife. Where did marriage come from to be able to arrange a contract? Look at the teachings of Moses.
You believe your own scriptures, don't you?

Love Faith.xx

I am sorry, but the Christian church, nor the romans follow the teachings of moses. As a matter of fact, the tradition of the Jewish marriage is based on the
ancient 'property transfer', and was an economic institution... very much so.

[McCulloch]

I think your a softy at heart Mack,

That should be you're.

But the marriage is still male and female.

Marriage is a human institution like incorporation or priesthood. It is defined to mean whatever our society deems it to mean.

You cannot treat people badly or outcasts because of their sexual preferences.

But you can deny them the legal recognition of their sexual relationships because of it. How is that different?

I do not think this is quite true. If a frog lives in a pond and is green or brownish in colour and hops. Would a giraffe match the description and be able to known as a frog? Marriage has been determined as joining male and female. How, when it is was given for man and woman, can we change the reason it was implemented and for who. What I would say is this. The relationships between male and female are different in their workings,than those between two men and two women. Civil partnerships give them the same status as marriage. So what is it about marriage that they wish to be called married rather than civil partners?

A rose by any other name. Humans who are sexually attracted to those of the same sex are not a different species. They should be granted the same rights as the rest of us. The only reason why those of faith wish to deny the term marriage to them is because they believe that their religion prohibits it. Religious prohibitions should not have the force of law in a secular society.

It is the thought that they are some how different to the normal married couples, ie men and women? But the truth is, they are different and if they want that difference to be recognisible. Then surely they would want to be recognised independantly in their own rights and ways, by a special partnership and independant way of recognition for themselves and their relationships?

Marriages between two nineteen year olds is some how different to marriages between those in their seventies.