Is MARRIAGE a "Right?"

[Pale Rider]

I believe it isn't, for very simple reasons. First of all, it's not in the constitution. Second, marriage is legally recognised, but sanctioned by the church, and you have to remember that old separation of church of state.

Therefore, I am against legal marriage of homosexuals. I really couldn't care less if they form civil unions, but marriage, being a holy union in the eyes of God between a man and woman, is not proper in a homosexual context.

[semi liberal girl]

I believe it isn't, for very simple reasons. First of all, it's not in the constitution. Second, marriage is legally recognised, but sanctioned by the church, and you have to remember that old separation of church of state.

Therefore, I am against legal marriage of homosexuals. I really couldn't care less if they form civil unions, but marriage, being a holy union in the eyes of God between a man and woman, is not proper in a homosexual context.

The same argument. First there isn't anything in the consitution about marriage. So lets leave that argument behind. Aslo if we want to look at holy union. St. Paul says we should not be yoked with non believers, or celebrate with believers of another faith. If we look at the marriage in the sactiety of
God. We should have laws aginst this as well.
Not to long ago one of our local churches refused to marry a mixed couple because the word says that to unlike animals should not be yoked together
( l loose quote, I don't have a bible next to me) It was quite a controversay.
The same arguments were used here.
Marriage is a personal union. When united in a church it is a holy union.
When married in a park with flowers in our hair by a licensed individual it is a marriage period.
We don't seem to mind if an 18 year old marries an ax murder. We reconize this as a marrige in a church or out. As long as it is male and female we say it is a holy union. It doesn't make sense guys.

[Dilloduck]

The same argument. First there isn't anything in the consitution about marriage. So lets leave that argument behind. Aslo if we want to look at holy union. St. Paul says we should not be yoked with non believers, or celebrate with believers of another faith. If we look at the marriage in the sactiety of
God. We should have laws aginst this as well.
Not to long ago one of our local churches refused to marry a mixed couple because the word says that to unlike animals should not be yoked together
( l loose quote, I don't have a bible next to me) It was quite a controversay.
The same arguments were used here.
Marriage is a personal union. When united in a church it is a holy union.
When married in a park with flowers in our hair by a licensed individual it is a marriage period.
We don't seem to mind if an 18 year old marries an ax murder. We reconize this as a marrige in a church or out. As long as it is male and female we say it is a holy union. It doesn't make sense guys.



yes--there are two regulatory agencies involved what we commonly call marriage and I think most of the argument here is simply semantics. The govt can recognize a civil union and there isn't much protest but when when the push comes to sanctify a homosexual marriage as holy, it is church doctrine that is being challenged.

[Missileman]

Are there really people out there who think legalizing same-sex marriage is going to compel churches to perform the ceremonies?

[bullypulpit]

I believe it isn't, for very simple reasons. First of all, it's not in the constitution. Second, marriage is legally recognised, but sanctioned by the church, and you have to remember that old separation of church of state.

Therefore, I am against legal marriage of homosexuals. I really couldn't care less if they form civil unions, but marriage, being a holy union in the eyes of God between a man and woman, is not proper in a homosexual context.

Your own argument contradicts itself. The convention of marriage may have its roots in religion, but the states interest lies with the contractual relationship it establishes between the individuals, hence the need for a marriage license. Civil ceremonies between a man and a woman establish a marriage absent ANY church involvement. If the objections to same-gender unions lies solely in religious doctrine, and I have yet to find one that doesn't, then the state is free to perform civil ceremonies between same-gender couples just as it does for traditional couples, remembering "...that old separation of church of state...".

My wife and I had such a civil ceremony...Does that mean we are any less married? No. There is no rational basis for denying same gender couples the same rights, privileges and responsibilities my wife and I enjoy as a couple married under the law...not the church.

[avatar4321]

Are there really people out there who think legalizing same-sex marriage is going to compel churches to perform the ceremonies?

it wont be the first time people have used marriage laws to persecute other faiths.

[Missileman]

it wont be the first time people have used marriage laws to persecute other faiths.

Care to explain that answer? It doesn't appear to have anything to do with my question.

[avatar4321]

Is marriage a right? if you ask the Supreme Court, yes it is. But then some have interpreted this as traditional marriage is a right. there are still disputes.

Personally, I dont think marriage is a right. It's not something anyone is entitled to. Its a privilege and a responsibility. Throughout most of history marriage has always been restricted to certain people. For example, cousins and siblings generally cannot marry. those of the same gender have never been able to marry (unless you count the current usurping of Mass. Law by the courts). Those who are married usually do not have the right to marry someone else. And a more modern action, marriage of minors has been forbidden.

Never in history has marriage been permitted without some restrictions. I find it hard to maintain that marriage is a universal right. Likewise some have argued that sex is a right. I don't believe sex is a right either. If it is than millions of women are denying men their constitutional rights every night.

However, this game of semantics is incredibly moot. Everyone who has made it to the age of majority can become married unless there are some mental issues where they cant consent. Any man can marry any woman (and vice versa) assuming they can consent, are above the age of majority, and neither party is married or related to the other closely. No one who fits those qualifcations is denied marriage. Because people choose to create other social arrangements and not exercise their ability to marriage, does not mean they do not have it. Every single person is on equal footing.

And there are good reasons for this situation. The rights that are involved in marriage are the childrens. Every child has the right to being born and raised by a mother and father bound together in the bonds of matrimony. They have a right to their parents providing them the best circumstances in which they can be raised. The only reason government is at all involved in marriage at all is because of the public policy benefit that raising children in the best environment provides. We can see how the breakdown of the family has hurt society through criminal, educational, and financial security.

Contrary to what some short sighted people seem to think, no man is an island. We can't pretend as though no one else is affected by our actions, public or private. Especially when those actions involved the creation and nuturing of other human beings. Because every single person affects the world around them. And especially sexual actions affect generations of mankind.

You can argue till your face is blue, but these are facts. This is truth. You can ignore it, rail against it, and act as though its not true. but thats the beauty of truth, its going to remain the same no matter what anyone thinks, says, or does.

[avatar4321]

Care to explain that answer? It doesn't appear to have anything to do with my question.

How does it not have anything to do with your question? You asked whether people believe that anyone is going to force Churches to preform same sex marriage. I simply pointed out that in fact marriage laws have been used to persecute religions in the past. There seems to be no indication that things would be different in the future.

If you need an example, look at the polygamist sect in the news right now. There seems to be little doubt that the state has overreached in their actions toward them. And what has been the justification? laws on marriage. In fact, i posted a thread where one of the Texas law makers spefically told the media that they changed the law specifically to target them. (granted if they had done it for any other reason it probably would have been a pretty good law).

With such perfect examples of people using marriage laws to persecute religions which are unpopular, you really want to give a minority of people power to persecute religions that are popular?

[hjmick]

Are there really people out there who think legalizing same-sex marriage is going to compel churches to perform the ceremonies?

Why not? A professional photographer in New Mexico refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs and found herself before a "Human Rights Panel." The panel ruled that the photographer violated the state Human Rights Act by discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation and ordered the photographer to pay $6,637 in attorney's fees and costs. Your religion or your livelihood...the choice is yours.

Now, I don't agree with the decidion of the photographer not to take the job, but nor do I agree with the state that she should be forced to do the work.

[Missileman]

Why not? A professional photographer in New Mexico refused to take pictures of a gay couple's commitment ceremony because of her religious beliefs and found herself before a "Human Rights Panel." The panel ruled that the photographer violated the state Human Rights Act by discriminating against the couple on the basis of sexual orientation and ordered the photographer to pay $6,637 in attorney's fees and costs. Your religion or your livelihood...the choice is yours.

Now, I don't agree with the decidion of the photographer not to take the job, but nor do I agree with the state that she should be forced to do the work.

Apples and bowling balls...

[Missileman]

How does it not have anything to do with your question? You asked whether people believe that anyone is going to force Churches to preform same sex marriage. I simply pointed out that in fact marriage laws have been used to persecute religions in the past. There seems to be no indication that things would be different in the future.

If you need an example, look at the polygamist sect in the news right now. There seems to be little doubt that the state has overreached in their actions toward them. And what has been the justification? laws on marriage. In fact, i posted a thread where one of the Texas law makers spefically told the media that they changed the law specifically to target them. (granted if they had done it for any other reason it probably would have been a pretty good law).

With such perfect examples of people using marriage laws to persecute religions which are unpopular, you really want to give a minority of people power to persecute religions that are popular?

Next you'll be asking us to believe the government is going to edit the bible and start regulating sermon content. As for the legislation being passed against polygamy, look to your own house. It's not atheists, Bhuddists, or Hindis that are responsible for it.

[manu1959]

Next you'll be asking us to believe the government is going to edit the bible and start regulating sermon content. As for the legislation being passed against polygamy, look to your own house. It's not atheists, Bhuddists, or Hindis that are responsible for it.

really....which church passed a us law outlawing polygamy......also i don't recall bishops raiding the compond.....the secularlist us govt did that....

[Dilloduck]

A religious or civil marriage condones sex. It's America's way of telling people who is having legal sex and who is having acceptable sex. Gays want Americas' blessing for having homosexual sex via legalizing homosexual marriage. I think some homosexuals are wising up and realizing that they can live without society's blessings and stopped whining about it. More minority groups need to follow their example. (imho, naturally)

[Missileman]

really....which church passed a us law outlawing polygamy......also i don't recall bishops raiding the compond.....the secularlist us govt did that....

Those laws were passed by good ol' Christian legislators with a religious agenda.

[Dilloduck]

Those laws were passed by good ol' Christian legislators with a religious agenda.

agreed--like the laws against rape, sexual slavery and sex with children. Do you have a problem with them too ?

[theHawk]

I believe it isn't, for very simple reasons. First of all, it's not in the constitution. Second, marriage is legally recognised, but sanctioned by the church, and you have to remember that old separation of church of state.

Therefore, I am against legal marriage of homosexuals. I really couldn't care less if they form civil unions, but marriage, being a holy union in the eyes of God between a man and woman, is not proper in a homosexual context.

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and thus the government cannot do anything to prohibit it.

The "gay marriage" issue has nothing to do with religious ceremonies between gays. Its all about getting the government to recognize and sanction their marriage, opening the door for gays to adopt children, openly join the military, and of course to allow the teaching of children that gay marriage is completely normal.

[manu1959]

Marriage is a religious ceremony, and thus the government cannot do anything to prohibit it.

The "gay marriage" issue has nothing to do with religious ceremonies between gays. Its all about getting the government to recognize and sanction their marriage, opening the door for gays to adopt children, openly join the military, and of course to allow the teaching of children that gay marriage is completely normal.

except the state issues a marriage license.....and by the way all that already happens in california......funny the citizens of california voted against gay marriage though....

[semi liberal girl]

[QUOTE=bullypulpit;236986]Your own argument contradicts itself. The convention of marriage may have its roots in religion, but the states interest lies with the contractual relationship it establishes between the individuals, hence the need for a marriage license. Civil ceremonies between a man and a woman establish a marriage absent ANY church involvement. If the objections to same-gender unions lies solely in religious doctrine, and I have yet to find one that doesn't, then the state is free to perform civil ceremonies between same-gender couples just as it does for traditional couples, remembering "...that old separation of church of state...".

My wife and I had such a civil ceremony...Does that mean we are any less married? No. There is no rational basis for denying same gender couples the same rights, privileges and responsibilities my wife and I enjoy as a couple married under the law...not the church.[/QUOT

My answer was based on the statment that gay marriage is aginst Gods law and is not a holy union. ( that statment is not seperation of church and state)
A civil ceremony with a marriage license is a marriage no matter how you cut it. The licenseing of a minister is no different then a marriage license for anyone else. And weather all want to agree or not GOD WAS THERE!

So for all intense and purposes we agree on the same thing.
We are only fooling ourselves if we think Marriage vows are different because they happen in a church.

By the way seems like a can of worms is open. I didn't have time to read all the replys, but what does polygmay have to do with any of this. Not that I can see why any man or woman would want anymore then one spouse to contend with at a time.

[Missileman]

agreed--like the laws against rape, sexual slavery and sex with children. Do you have a problem with them too ?

I didn't say I had a problem with the laws against polygamy, I was pointing out that the claim that the laws were secularly motivated was in error. Which religious agenda was behind the laws you listed?

[Dilloduck]

I didn't say I had a problem with the laws against polygamy, I was pointing out that the claim that the laws were secularly motivated was in error. Which religious agenda was behind the laws you listed?

Protecting people from sexual predators.

[manu1959]

Those laws were passed by good ol' Christian legislators with a religious agenda.


those laws were passed by congress not the church....congress is a secular body.....

[Missileman]

Protecting people from sexual predators.

That is not a religious agenda.

[manu1959]

That is not a religious agenda.

it is for muslims and polygamists.....under age marriage is sop.....

[Missileman]

those laws were passed by congress not the church....congress is a secular body.....

With the religious motives of the members of the body, in the same manner as all the blue laws.

[hjmick]

Apples and bowling balls...

How do you figure?

You asked:


Are there really people out there who think legalizing same-sex marriage is going to compel churches to perform the ceremonies?

If the government can compel someone to go against their religious beliefs and force them to photograph a same sex commitment ceremony under threat of financial penalty, what's to stop them from compelling churches to perform the ceremonies in their houses of worship?

[manu1959]

With the religious motives of the members of the body, in the same manner as all the blue laws.

you do know you changed the point of your argument form your first claim to this one when you added the word "motive".....

personally i belive a bunch of white men decided one wife was more than enough and religion had nothing to do with it.....further polygamists marry their brides younger than 18......

[Missileman]

you do know you changed the point of your argument form your first claim to this one when you added the word "motive".....

personally i belive a bunch of white men decided one wife was more than enough and religion had nothing to do with it.....further polygamists marry their brides younger than 18......

Motive and agenda go hand in hand.

[Missileman]

How do you figure?

You asked:



If the government can compel someone to go against their religious beliefs and force them to photograph a same sex commitment ceremony under threat of financial penalty, what's to stop them from compelling churches to perform the ceremonies in their houses of worship?

The First Amendment.

[manu1959]

Motive and agenda go hand in hand.

yes of course they do in your world......

[manu1959]

The First Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

congress should pass a law sanctioning polygamy....

[Missileman]

yes of course they do in your world......

And they don't in yours? Perhaps you can demonstrate how they aren't practically synonomous on your planet.

[Missileman]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

congress should pass a law sanctioning polygamy....

Does the Bible actually direct men to take more than one wife? Does the prohibition of polygamy prevent someone from undertaking imaginary conversations with their deity or attending mass imaginary conversations in their church?

[hjmick]

The First Amendment.

And how does the state of New Mexico get around the First Amendment in it's case against the photographer? Not only is there the religious argument, but there is a free speech component as it applies to the art of photography.

Just so we're clear, I don't give two rips about same sex marriage, nor do I have a dog in the religious camp. My point is, if the government can compel someone to go against their religious beliefs in their private life, there is a slippery slope (oh how I loathe that phrase) just beneath that decision that could lead to government interference in the Lord's House. A church refuse to perform a same sex marriage ceremony? Why, that's discrimination and a violation of the Human Rights Commission...We'll fix that...

[manu1959]

And they don't in yours? Perhaps you can demonstrate how they aren't practically synonomous on your planet.

"practically synonymous" ......nice ..... got plenty of room to bail out there .....

agenda is a list of things to be presented or discussed ....

motive is something that causes a person to act ....

seems that your motive is to have me consider your agenda item that these two words are practically synonymous......even though you could not act on one without the other......

in any event to blame a church for the actions of a government trying to protect child brides seems disingenuous.....

that said if it takes the wisdom of church doctrine to protect the public then the government could look to worse places.....

[manu1959]

Does the Bible actually direct men to take more than one wife? Does the prohibition of polygamy prevent someone from undertaking imaginary conversations with their deity or attending mass imaginary conversations in their church?

any particular reason you can't stay on topic......if a religion believes in polygamy which this sect of the moron church does.....how does the us govt get away with passing a law preventing free expression of religion.....rastas and weed is another example.....

[retiredman]

churches of any and every faith should be able to join people in whatever form of matrimony their faith allows....but that ceremony should not have force of law. States should allow people to contract with one another to pool their assets and their futures, and that civil union contract should not have any religious or even moral context. Simply put: churches should stay out of the civil union business and government should stay out of the marriage business.

[Missileman]

"practically synonymous" ......nice ..... got plenty of room to bail out there .....

agenda is a list of things to be presented or discussed ....

motive is something that causes a person to act ....

seems that your motive is to have me consider your agenda item that these two words are practically synonymous......even though you could not act on one without the other......

in any event to blame a church for the actions of a government trying to protect child brides seems disingenuous.....

that said if it takes the wisdom of church doctrine to protect the public then the government could look to worse places.....

No bail out at all.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hidden%20agenda

hidden agenda
–noun an often duplicitously undisclosed plan or motive.

I didn't include the word hidden, but it is often used without it as I did. English lesson concluded!

The protection of underage girls wasn't the original intent of laws against polygamy. I have no problem with legislation to protect children.

I'm not blaming a church for blue laws or laws against polygamy. I am blaming certain religious people who got them passed for their own relgious reasons.

[Missileman]

any particular reason you can't stay on topic......if a religion believes in polygamy which this sect of the moron church does.....how does the us govt get away with passing a law preventing free expression of religion.....rastas and weed is another example.....

The polygamy isn't required to exercise their religion. If it were, it would be directed in the Bible.

[manu1959]

The polygamy isn't required to exercise their religion. If it were, it would be directed in the Bible.

it is in their view....why does the bible get to decide the rules of all religions....

[Yurt]

The polygamy isn't required to exercise their religion. If it were, it would be directed in the Bible.

so the bible commands us to only marry one person? there are no examples of men being married to more than one woman in the bible?

[manu1959]

so the bible commands us to only marry one person? there are no examples of men being married to more than one woman in the bible?

ahhhhhhh man.....he was almost all the way into the briar patch.....:laugh2:

[Missileman]

so the bible commands us to only marry one person? there are no examples of men being married to more than one woman in the bible?

There's an example of a man killing his brother in the Bible...are you saying that's a command for all Christians to do the same?

[Yurt]

There's an example of a man killing his brother in the Bible...are you saying that's a command for all Christians to do the same?

you do realize that there is actually a commandment that forbids murder...so, where in the bible does it command us to marry only one person?

[manu1959]

There's an example of a man killing his brother in the Bible...are you saying that's a command for all Christians to do the same?

only if they don't like them.......but your diversion argument would seem to imply that there is polygamy in the bible.....you said there wasn't....

[Missileman]

only if they don't like them.......but your diversion argument would seem to imply that there is polygamy in the bible.....you said there wasn't....

You are mistaken. I never said there was no polygamy in the Bible. I said that the Bible doesn't direct men to take more than one wife.

[Missileman]

you do realize that there is actually a commandment that forbids murder...so, where in the bible does it command us to marry only one person?

Where's the commandment to marry more than one?

[Pale Rider]

So how about if someone wants to marry their dog, or their daughter, or their car? If marriage is to be redefined, why stop at just homosexuals?

[manu1959]

You are mistaken. I never said there was no polygamy in the Bible. I said that the Bible doesn't direct men to take more than one wife.

ahhhhhhhh....nuance.....how nice for you....well if there is polygamy in the bible and nothing to condmen it then it is reasonable for a religious sect to teach polygamy in which case the us govt is in violation of the first amendment preventing it.....

[manu1959]

So how about if someone wants to marry their dog, or their daughter, or their car? If marriage is to be redefined, why stop at just homosexuals?

it isn't in the bible.....

[Yurt]

Where's the commandment to marry more than one?

so you agree the bible does not forbid polygamy....

[manu1959]

so you agree the bible does not forbid polygamy....

i love google....http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm

[Pale Rider]

it isn't in the bible.....

Neither is men marrying men, or women marrying women... but that hasn't stopped the efforts of the homo agenda crowd...

[Missileman]

ahhhhhhhh....nuance.....how nice for you....well if there is polygamy in the bible and nothing to condmen it then it is reasonable for a religious sect to teach polygamy in which case the us govt is in violation of the first amendment preventing it.....

If only you could provide the divine direction to have more than one wife you'd have a point...your stretch for implied direction is unreasonable.

[manu1959]

If only you could provide the divine direction to have more than one wife you'd have a point...your stretch for implied direction is unreasonable.

no more than your claim that there is divine direction preventing it.....

in any event... is that your contention... that without divine direction one can not have marry more than one wife...

[Missileman]

so you agree the bible does not forbid polygamy....

I've never claimed that it does...however, it does not direct it either.

[Missileman]

no more than your claim that there is divine direction preventing it.....

You are mistaken again...I've made no such claim.


in any event... is that your contention... that without divine direction one can not have marry more than one wife...

No, my contention is that for someone to claim infringement of religious freedom, it needs to be something actually required of their religion.

[Yurt]

I've never claimed that it does...however, it does not direct it either.

what is the religious agenda then?

[manu1959]

You are mistaken again...I've made no such claim.
No, my contention is that for someone to claim infringement of religious freedom, it needs to be something actually required of their religion.

who other than them gets to decided what is required of their religion....surely not you....

[Pale Rider]

what is the religious agenda then?

And what does it have to do with homosexual marriage... you know... what the thread is about?

I think what the flavor has been so far in this debate is, if the Bible doesn't direct it, it shouldn't be allowed? Since marriage is a holy union...

[manu1959]

And what does it have to do with homosexual marriage... you know... what the thread is about?

I think what the flavor has been so far in this debate is, if the Bible doesn't direct it, it shouldn't be allowed? Since marriage is a holy union...

patience weedhopper.......marriage is governed by the church and the state as both have defintitions and rules and laws......

[Missileman]

what is the religious agenda then?

The elimination of competition. Wouldn't want people taking their offerings to greener pastures.

[manu1959]

The elimination of competition. Wouldn't want people taking their offerings to greener pastures.

that is a motive......not an agenda....

[Missileman]

who other than them gets to decided what is required of their religion....surely not you....

Their deity of course...whose divine instructions, in this case, were captured in a text called the Bible which contains no requirement to have more than one wife.

[Pale Rider]

patience weedhopper.......marriage is governed by the church and the state as both have defintitions and rules and laws......

And the Bible governs the church.

Thing is most people see homosexual marriage as just as sick as homosexuality itself. They see it as a desecration of marriage.

[Missileman]

that is a motive......not an agenda....

I guess it's true...you can't teach an old dog...English! :laugh2:

[manu1959]

Their deity of course...whose divine instructions, in this case, were captured in a text called the Bible which contains no requirement to have more than one wife.

or none to have only one......it would seem since the bible is silent other than to mention followers that had more than one wife with no repercutions.....it is reasonable that a group of followers would set thier rules accordingly.....

so why don't the secularlists that embrace the first amendment defend these poor people......

[Missileman]

or none to have only one......it would seem since the bible is silent other than to mention followers that had more than one wife with no repercutions.....it is reasonable that a group of followers would set thier rules accordingly.....

so why don't the secularlists that embrace the first amendment defend these poor people......

Leave the underage girls out of the picture and I could give a shit if some guy wants to put up with 7 or 8 women...it's his headache, not mine.

[manu1959]

Leave the underage girls out of the picture and I could give a shit if some guy wants to put up with 7 or 8 women...it's his headache, not mine.

how about if a woman wants to marry 7 or 8 dudes.....

[Missileman]

how about if a woman wants to marry 7 or 8 dudes.....

All adults...who cares?

[manu1959]

All adults...who cares?

so you don't really care who does what to whom as long as they are all adults.....

but there are laws that say you can't do as you want.....

[actsnoblemartin]

First of all if gay marriage was legal no church synagogue mosque or other religious institution should have to recognize it.

We still do have freedom of religion and seperation of church and state.

[actsnoblemartin]

Poligamy, as long as the one man marrying seven women, or heck 1 woman marrying 7 men, you never know lol

and they arent beating, raping, or abusing each other a.k.a breaking the law.

I dont see why they cant get married.

Not my cup of tea, but im all about letting people make their own choices, whether i agree or not

[Pale Rider]

All adults...who cares?

There's a good example of the difference between an atheists view point, and one of a Christian... I care.

[Pale Rider]

Not my cup of tea, but im all about letting people make their own choices, whether i agree or not

Even if it's immoral?

[manu1959]

And the Bible governs the church.

Thing is most people see homosexual marriage as just as sick as homosexuality itself. They see it as a desecration of marriage.

you will like this....

http://www.eadshome.com/polygamy.htm

Polygamy
What the Bible says
"The conscience of the people demands that ...polygamy in the Territories, destructive of the family relation and offensive to the moral sense of the civilized world, shall be repressed."
Grover Cleveland
First Inaugural Address; March 4, 1885



A trend toward greater acceptance of sin:
As time progresses, American culture becomes acceptant of behaviors that our forefathers would have renounced adamantly.

Some of the first behaviors to be accepted culturally were adultery [sex outside the bonds of matrimony], cohabitation [an unwed couple living together], and pornography. Originally considered both shameful and illegal, adultery and cohabitation are now widely practiced and accepted both legally and culturally. Pornography is not only legal, but widely popular in every sector of our society.

Abortion has become widely accepted both culturally and legally. Prior to 1973, many people did not even know what abortion was. Even after its legalization, most condemned it personally, but often felt it should still be a private decision. Now this atrocity to our unborn is widely accepted and practiced all across America.

Prostitution has become viewed less shamefully than it had in the past. One county in our nation has legalized prostitution.

Homosexuality is now accepted as a normal form of sexuality. First the American Psychiatric Association declared it was no longer a disease. Then the public began to accept it as "normal". And in 2004, the courts said that homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another.

The Bible tells us that those who fail to glorify God will accept and practice increasing sin:
"Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."
[Romans 1:32]

Polygamy: the next sin to be accepted?
Is polygamy next? After that, what will be the next sins that our society will accept? Shall we also accept group marriages, and pedophilia? Where does it end

[actsnoblemartin]

its a really tough call.

the simplest idea would probably be civil unions.

I dont know

im basically gay-neutral at the moment.


Even if it's immoral?

[Missileman]

There's a good example of the difference between an atheists view point, and one of a Christian... I care.

Care about what exactly? And, upon what is your concern based?

[Missileman]

Polygamy: the next sin to be accepted?
Is polygamy next? After that, what will be the next sins that our society will accept? Shall we also accept group marriages, and pedophilia? Where does it end

And this whole time you've been arguing that the Bible gives implied consent...is it really a sin?

[actsnoblemartin]

you see thats the problem.... morality is somewhat subjective.

Ill give you three examples


Gay Marriage

Abortion

Death Penalty

I cant honestly say, that someone on either side of any of these issues is evil, or a bad person. You could make cases for both positions.

Its not like were talking about rapists and child molestors.

I simply try to respect everyone's opinion


Even if it's immoral?

[Pale Rider]

Care about what exactly? And, upon what is your concern based?

I care about the effort of atheists and liberals to destroy everything religous and moral.

[manu1959]

And this whole time you've been arguing that the Bible gives implied consent...is it really a sin?

depends how you read the bible.....tis the beauty of the book......use it to lead the best life you can......don't use it and lead the best life you can.....die....and find out how good you did.....my sig line says it best......

[actsnoblemartin]

The problem is....

How are gays supposed to control what they are attracted too?

its ok for men to be attracted to women, but not women to be attracted to women. I dont honestly believe you can control what your attracted too.

Also, does one have to believe everything god says... I mean if i disagree with god on any issue, or any part of scripture... im not a real jew/christian/muslim.

I think its unfair to say too gays, you have to suffer.

Basically, I wish the militant gays and mean-spirited people toward homosexuals would both shut up cause neither one does good.

one doesnt have to be an ass lol, to be for or against anything

[actsnoblemartin]

I think their has been a genuine disrespect by liberalism of christians. NOT muslims or jews, but a campaign to silence, condemn, intimidate and force christianity and christians out of the public square and that is wrong


I care about the effort of atheists and liberals to destroy everything religous and moral.

[manu1959]

The problem is....

How are gays supposed to control what they are attracted too?



i could make that argument for people that like to do little kids......a lack of self control is not justification to do as one pleases......

[Missileman]

depends how you read the bible.....tis the beauty of the book......use it to lead the best life you can......don't use it and lead the best life you can.....die....and find out how good you did.....my sig line says it best......

Something as theoretically important as what constitutes a sin is open to interpretation? I wouldn't call that beauty, I'd call it flaw.

[manu1959]

Something as theoretically important as what constitutes a sin is open to interpretation? I wouldn't call that beauty, I'd call it flaw.

the ten comandments are pretty clear.....

flawed huh.....you mean like the constitution which isn't really claer on anything either.....flawed like that.....

[actsnoblemartin]

thats ridiculous.

Can you control that youre attracted to women?

Im not talking about whether it is sin or not.

You cant really debate that because for you it might be sin, for another it may not be.

What i am debating is, gay people should control what they are attracted too?

How is that possible?


i could make that argument for people that like to do little kids......a lack of self control is not justification to do as one pleases......

[manu1959]

thats ridiculous.

Can you control that youre attracted to women?

Im not talking about whether it is sin or not.

You cant really debate that because for you it might be sin, for another it may not be.

What i am debating is, gay people should control what they are attracted too?

How is that possible?

don't belive in sin.......what i said was .....

a lack of self control is not justification to do as one pleases......

[Missileman]

the ten comandments are pretty clear.....

So anything not covered by the 10 commandments isn't a sin?

[manu1959]

So anything not covered by the 10 commandments isn't a sin?

up to the sinner......tell me what is clear about the constitution and what it guarantees.....

seems neither would allow gay marriage or polygamy......

[Missileman]

up to the sinner......tell me what is clear about the constitution and what it guarantees.....

seems neither would allow gay marriage or polygamy......

There aren't any provisions in the constitution for straight marriage either...guess we have to dissolve them all.

[manu1959]

There aren't any provisions in the constitution for straight marriage either...guess we have to dissolve them all.

fine with me......

[Pale Rider]

There aren't any provisions in the constitution for straight marriage either...guess we have to dissolve them all.

Thing is though, marriage between a man and woman has been around since recorded history. Marriage between homos hasn't. Why do we need to change that now?

[actsnoblemartin]

Im not fully convinced that gays want marriage, my understanding is they want the benefits.

Im not sure changing the definition of marriage is a good idea because the question is, should the government really condone or support gay marriage?

Now, whether they should support traditional marriage is a seperate question

I have not made up my mind on these issues..

Im gay-neutral


Thing is though, marriage between a man and woman has been around since recorded history. Marriage between homos hasn't. Why do we need to change that now?

[Missileman]

Thing is though, marriage between a man and woman has been around since recorded history. Marriage between homos hasn't. Why do we need to change that now?

Homosexuals have been around just as long, and until they can figure out what causes homosexuality and possibly end it, will surely continue to exist. If two of them want to legalize their relationship I don't see the big issue. BTW, tradition is one of the weaker justifications to maintain a status quo. There was a time when the status quo included slavery, exploitation of child labor, inequality for women, etc.

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree that it could be used to justify status quo but really gay marriage was a right? like being free from bondage? or not being taken advantage of in the work place, or the inalienable rights of women.

Im not buying the connection.

God granted all of us equality, whether man was dumb enough to realize it or not.

But, he didnt say that meant giving gays marriage or the benefits there-in

Again, we can talk about abolishing traditional marriage too


Homosexuals have been around just as long, and until they can figure out what causes homosexuality and possibly end it, will surely continue to exist. If two of them want to legalize their relationship I don't see the big issue. BTW, tradition is one of the weaker justifications to maintain a status quo. There was a time when the status quo included slavery, exploitation of child labor, inequality for women, etc.

[actsnoblemartin]

could you imagine the first homosexual, that would been sad and funny.

gay person: Hi, im frank and im fabulous

average person in 1825: get thee away from me

im sorry i couldnt resist

gays, i wonder when the actual first gay was around


Homosexuals have been around just as long, and until they can figure out what causes homosexuality and possibly end it, will surely continue to exist. If two of them want to legalize their relationship I don't see the big issue. BTW, tradition is one of the weaker justifications to maintain a status quo. There was a time when the status quo included slavery, exploitation of child labor, inequality for women, etc.

[avatar4321]

The polygamy isn't required to exercise their religion. If it were, it would be directed in the Bible.

not all religions follow the bible alone.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont believe marriage is a right, I think its a privalege that only very mature, emotionally stable men and women should enter into to.


I believe it isn't, for very simple reasons. First of all, it's not in the constitution. Second, marriage is legally recognised, but sanctioned by the church, and you have to remember that old separation of church of state.

Therefore, I am against legal marriage of homosexuals. I really couldn't care less if they form civil unions, but marriage, being a holy union in the eyes of God between a man and woman, is not proper in a homosexual context.

[avatar4321]

The problem is....

How are gays supposed to control what they are attracted too?

its ok for men to be attracted to women, but not women to be attracted to women. I dont honestly believe you can control what your attracted too.

Also, does one have to believe everything god says... I mean if i disagree with god on any issue, or any part of scripture... im not a real jew/christian/muslim.

I think its unfair to say too gays, you have to suffer.

Basically, I wish the militant gays and mean-spirited people toward homosexuals would both shut up cause neither one does good.

one doesnt have to be an ass lol, to be for or against anything

You act as though homosexuals aren't under the same commandment that heterosexuals are. The beauty of God's commandments is that they give the same standard for all His children. We are all commanded to bridal our passions and lusts and wait until we are married. It's not as though God says to one people "You can't have sex until married" and to another people that its alright. its the same rule to all.

[avatar4321]

Something as theoretically important as what constitutes a sin is open to interpretation? I wouldn't call that beauty, I'd call it flaw.

The beauty of it is that we can all go to the same source to get wisdom and understanding: God.

[actsnoblemartin]

I feel sorry for gay people, I truly do. Because they do have it harder then straight people.

However, I understand why god is against homosexuality and I agree with him.

Doesnt mean, i wont have empathy for gays, but I believe hashem (jewish name for god) was wiser then any of us could ever be, and I believe he loves us gay or straight, but that he didnt intend homosexuality and didnt want people judging homosexuals


The beauty of it is that we can all go to the same source to get wisdom and understanding: God.

[avatar4321]

I feel sorry for gay people, I truly do. Because they do have it harder then straight people.

However, I understand why god is against homosexuality and I agree with him.

Doesnt mean, i wont have empathy for gays, but I believe hashem (jewish name for god) was wiser then any of us could ever be, and I believe he loves us gay or straight, but that he didnt intend homosexuality and didnt want people judging homosexuals

I don't think God is against those who consider themselves homosexual at all. I think God simply understands the end from the beginning and knows what will bring us joy and happiness in this life and the life to come. And much of the joy that comes in life is through the family. So He provides commandments to His children to learn what will bring us this happiness in our lives and become more like Him.

God is for all of us. It's just difficult for some people to realize that God has a higher purpose for teaching us.

[actsnoblemartin]

oh, i wasnt talking about god, but some people who are mean to gays.

God is merciful and loving.


I don't think God is against those who consider themselves homosexual at all. I think God simply understands the end from the beginning and knows what will bring us joy and happiness in this life and the life to come. And much of the joy that comes in life is through the family. So He provides commandments to His children to learn what will bring us this happiness in our lives and become more like Him.

God is for all of us. It's just difficult for some people to realize that God has a higher purpose for teaching us.

[Missileman]

The beauty of it is that we can all go to the same source to get wisdom and understanding: God.

For the sake of argument, let's say that homosexuals have consulted God and he said it's okay...that the person who jotted down the OT got it wrong...live your life and be happy. Any reason to believe your consultations with God are any more accurate than theirs?

[avatar4321]

For the sake of argument, let's say that homosexuals have consulted God and he said it's okay...that the person who jotted down the OT got it wrong...live your life and be happy. Any reason to believe your consultations with God are any more accurate than theirs?

i know what God says to me. I can't be sure about what they claim.

[Dilloduck]

Something as theoretically important as what constitutes a sin is open to interpretation? I wouldn't call that beauty, I'd call it flaw.

Which is why there is this thing called forgiveness.

[actsnoblemartin]

you see this is the reason i say that morality is subjective.

A gay person or supporter of gays can say being gay is fine and god got it wrong.

Honestly, the best comprimise is probably civil unions


For the sake of argument, let's say that homosexuals have consulted God and he said it's okay...that the person who jotted down the OT got it wrong...live your life and be happy. Any reason to believe your consultations with God are any more accurate than theirs?

[Pale Rider]

Homosexuals have been around just as long, and until they can figure out what causes homosexuality and possibly end it, will surely continue to exist. If two of them want to legalize their relationship I don't see the big issue. BTW, tradition is one of the weaker justifications to maintain a status quo. There was a time when the status quo included slavery, exploitation of child labor, inequality for women, etc.

I've never been against a civil union. But to desecrate the holy institution of marriage with the perversion of homosexuality is not needed. As has been stated earlier, the REAL reason they want to invade marriage is in an attempt to further their agenda in the direction of legitimization. Well it's a well known fact that the vast majority of people on earth are disgusted by homosexuality, so trying to drag the holy institution of marriage into the sick, perverse world only for reasons of their own agenda, is going to be met with almost universal opposition, as it is, and as always be.

[Missileman]

I've never been against a civil union. But to desecrate the holy institution of marriage with the perversion of homosexuality is not needed. As has been stated earlier, the REAL reason they want to invade marriage is in an attempt to further their agenda in the direction of legitimization. Well it's a well known fact that the vast majority of people on earth are disgusted by homosexuality, so trying to drag the holy institution of marriage into the sick, perverse world only for reasons of their own agenda, is going to be met with almost universal opposition, as it is, and as always be.

If they are offered civil unions and decline because they want it called a marriage, I'll be on your side of the argument.

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with pale here whole-heatedly. The agenda of the militant gay associations is to force people to accept homosexuality and silence those with opposition towards it, which is facist.

A civil union, accomplishes everything marriage does, except silence critics.

But free speech will not be silenced because some gays cant handle criticism or disagreement.



I've never been against a civil union. But to desecrate the holy institution of marriage with the perversion of homosexuality is not needed. As has been stated earlier, the REAL reason they want to invade marriage is in an attempt to further their agenda in the direction of legitimization. Well it's a well known fact that the vast majority of people on earth are disgusted by homosexuality, so trying to drag the holy institution of marriage into the sick, perverse world only for reasons of their own agenda, is going to be met with almost universal opposition, as it is, and as always be.

[Dilloduck]

The problem is....

How are gays supposed to control what they are attracted too?



How is someone supposed to control what they are repulsed by ?

[actsnoblemartin]

Im just youre rational about it, I think comprimise is the best way to solve problems.


If they are offered civil unions and decline because they want it called a marriage, I'll be on your side of the argument.

[actsnoblemartin]

I dont think they should have to, im repulsed by even the mention or idea of homosexual sex. I dont think their is anything wrong with that.

Now going around saying hey faggot, or fudgepacker is a bit different.


How is someone supposed to control what they are repulsed by ?

[Dilloduck]

I dont think they should have to, im repulsed by even the mention or idea of homosexual sex. I dont think their is anything wrong with that.

Now going around saying hey faggot, or fudgepacker is a bit different.

I know---you freak when people have verbal fights. Words are not actions.

[actsnoblemartin]

Youre right


I know---you freak when people have verbal fights. Words are not actions.

[DragonStryk72]

I believe it isn't, for very simple reasons. First of all, it's not in the constitution. Second, marriage is legally recognised, but sanctioned by the church, and you have to remember that old separation of church of state.

Therefore, I am against legal marriage of homosexuals. I really couldn't care less if they form civil unions, but marriage, being a holy union in the eyes of God between a man and woman, is not proper in a homosexual context.

Actually, Marriage is an inherent right, as covered by the 9th amendment, along with the right to own property and such. However, no, the founding fathers probably hadn't thought about gay marriage being an issue.

Honestly, I'm okay with gay marriage, I don't see any real problem with it, but it's a states rights issue, not a federal issue. If Californians want to vote to approve it in their state, that's their right, but if Texans want to ban it, then, again, that is their right. It is also a matter of finding a priest or minister who is willing to perform the ceremony, which is up to the church, and not any level of the government.

[DragonStryk72]

You are mistaken. I never said there was no polygamy in the Bible. I said that the Bible doesn't direct men to take more than one wife.

It also doesn't command one to marry in the first place, or have children, or to eat. Your point?

[DragonStryk72]

You are mistaken. I never said there was no polygamy in the Bible. I said that the Bible doesn't direct men to take more than one wife.

Actually, you may find it in the book of Mormon, you know, the book the mormons use?

[gabosaurus]

Going back to the original post, I want to know what marriage has to do with religion. There is no rule that says a marriage has to be performed by a minister or held in a church.
I was married in a church. My sister had a civil ceremony, performed by a JP. Both of us are legal married.

[actsnoblemartin]

my understanding is, the idea of marriage came from a creator or deity, and the state then took that idea.

so yes, a church or place of worship can do it, or a clerk's office


Going back to the original post, I want to know what marriage has to do with religion. There is no rule that says a marriage has to be performed by a minister or held in a church.
I was married in a church. My sister had a civil ceremony, performed by a JP. Both of us are legal married.

[actsnoblemartin]

I think that would be funny, example

Gay man: god

god: yes my son

Gay Men: can i...

God: not in the ass :laugh2:

im sorry i couldnt resist lol


For the sake of argument, let's say that homosexuals have consulted God and he said it's okay...that the person who jotted down the OT got it wrong...live your life and be happy. Any reason to believe your consultations with God are any more accurate than theirs?

[Dilloduck]

Going back to the original post, I want to know what marriage has to do with religion. There is no rule that says a marriage has to be performed by a minister or held in a church.
I was married in a church. My sister had a civil ceremony, performed by a JP. Both of us are legal married.

You have found God, have a degree and don't know what religion has to do with marriage?

[gabosaurus]

Dillo, I was referring to legalities. There are people who don't believe in religion.

[actsnoblemartin]

did you justice and the law are not the same, i was a bit shocked


Dillo, I was referring to legalities. There are people who don't believe in religion.

[Missileman]

It also doesn't command one to marry in the first place, or have children, or to eat. Your point?

That was a response to an argument that polygamy was a requirement of Mormonism...that laws against polygamy infringed on Mormon's freedom of religion.

[Missileman]

Actually, you may find it in the book of Mormon, you know, the book the mormons use?

The Mormons use the ancient Jewish custom of polygamy chronicled in the OT as their justification.

[Pale Rider]

Actually, Marriage is an inherent right, as covered by the 9th amendment, along with the right to own property and such.

Show me the wording that gives you that impression.

[Pale Rider]

For the sake of argument, let's say that homosexuals have consulted God and he said it's okay...that the person who jotted down the OT got it wrong...live your life and be happy. Any reason to believe your consultations with God are any more accurate than theirs?

Let's not confuse the issue with homo what if's... OK mattskramer?

Gods word is quite clear what he thinks about homos, and it ain't good.

[My Winter Storm]

I believe it isn't, for very simple reasons. First of all, it's not in the constitution. Second, marriage is legally recognised, but sanctioned by the church, and you have to remember that old separation of church of state.

Therefore, I am against legal marriage of homosexuals. I really couldn't care less if they form civil unions, but marriage, being a holy union in the eyes of God between a man and woman, is not proper in a homosexual context.

I'd be in support civil unions if it meant gays got the same rights as straights. I don't care what they have to do to get those rights, civil unions, if tthat will grant them rights, I'm all for them.

I'm more against marriage than anything, simply because people seem to have forgotten what marriage actually means.

[Pale Rider]

I'd be in support civil unions if it meant gays got the same rights as straights. I don't care what they have to do to get those rights, civil unions, if tthat will grant them rights, I'm all for them.

I'm more against marriage than anything, simply because people seem to have forgotten what marriage actually means.

I'd agree homosexuals have for sure.

[bullypulpit]

So how about if someone wants to marry their dog, or their daughter, or their car? If marriage is to be redefined, why stop at just homosexuals?

There are already laws on the books forbidding bestiality, incest, and outraging public decency. Your examples are are all, rather shoddy, straw men. As long as the relationship is between two consenting adults, there is no rational justification for the state to prohibit same gender couples from securing the same rights, privileges and responsibilities enjoy by traditional married couples.

But you really don't want to hear that.

[bullypulpit]

I care about the effort of atheists and liberals to destroy everything religous and moral.

Another straw man on your part. Being an atheist AND a liberal, I could care less about what people of faith do. They may practice their faith to their heart's content so long as they harm no one in the process nor attempt to have legislation passed which gives their doctrine the full force and power of law.

[Pale Rider]

There are already laws on the books forbidding bestiality, incest, and outraging public decency. Your examples are are all, rather shoddy, straw men. As long as the relationship is between two consenting adults, there is no rational justification for the state to prohibit same gender couples from securing the same rights, privileges and responsibilities enjoy by traditional married couples.

But you really don't want to hear that.
Homos already DO have all the same rights and privileges as every other person in America. What they're fighting for is "SPECIAL" rights.

But you really don't want to hear about that.

The sickos won't stop at same sex marriage and you know it. Just ask your NAMBLA buddies.


Another straw man on your part. Being an atheist AND a liberal, I could care less about what people of faith do. They may practice their faith to their heart's content so long as they harm no one in the process nor attempt to have legislation passed which gives their doctrine the full force and power of law.
You are a prime example of everything that is wrong with the thrusting of America down the toilet. You have no morals or give a damn about right or wrong. You fight tooth and nail for everything perverted or vile, and push everything that is good away, and THAT bullpull, is the IRON MAN.

[bullypulpit]

Homos already DO have all the same rights and privileges as every other person in America. What they're fighting for is "SPECIAL" rights.

A short but comprehensive list of rights denied to same gender couples...

<blockquote>Rights Denied to Gay Americans

Denying lesbians and gay men the right to marry denies them simple, basic dignity and has serious practical costs as well. Among the practical consequences unique to marriage are the rights to:

* visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital;
* inherit from your partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will;
* obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
* enter joint rental agreements;
* make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;
* take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child;
* choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
* obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* get an equitable division of property in a divorce;
* have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;
* determine child custody and support in a divorce;
* have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;
* file joint tax returns;
* obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans;
* apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
and
* obtain domestic violence protective orders. </blockquote>

But you really don't want to hear about that.


The sickos won't stop at same sex marriage and you know it. Just ask your NAMBLA buddies.

What's your fascination with NAMBLA...? You want a membership? Members of NAMBLA aren't homosexuals...They're pedophiles.


You are a prime example of everything that is wrong with the thrusting of America down the toilet. You have no morals or give a damn about right or wrong. You fight tooth and nail for everything perverted or vile, and push everything that is good away, and THAT bullpull, is the IRON MAN.

Your reasoning indicates that you neither know nor care about what is good about this country. It is you and your ilk who are undermining the ideals this nation was founded upon.

[Pale Rider]

A short but comprehensive list of rights denied to same gender couples...

<blockquote>Rights Denied to Gay Americans

Denying lesbians and gay men the right to marry denies them simple, basic dignity and has serious practical costs as well. Among the practical consequences unique to marriage are the rights to:

* visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital;
* inherit from your partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will;
* obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
* enter joint rental agreements;
* make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;
* take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child;
* choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
* obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* get an equitable division of property in a divorce;
* have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;
* determine child custody and support in a divorce;
* have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;
* file joint tax returns;
* obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans;
* apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
and
* obtain domestic violence protective orders. </blockquote>

But you really don't want to hear about that.
Give 'em a civil union, but stay the hell away from marriage. Otherwise they can get some help and get cured from their mental illness and marry like everyone else normal.


What's your fascination with NAMBLA...? You want a membership? Members of NAMBLA aren't homosexuals...They're pedophiles.
Liar. NAMBLA is the sickest of the sick homos, and you being such a vehement homo defender, NAMBLA must also meet with your approval.


Your reasoning indicates that you neither know nor care about what is good about this country. It is you and your ilk who are undermining the ideals this nation was founded upon.
.......... :lol: ............ :laugh: ............ :lmao:............... :clap:

[retiredman]

Give 'em a civil union, but stay the hell away from marriage.


are you suggesting that marriage is a religious ceremony and therefore gays marrying would vilate the tenets of the religion?

[Little-Acorn]

A short but comprehensive list of rights denied to same gender couples...

<blockquote>Rights Denied to Gay Americans

Denying lesbians and gay men the right to marry denies them simple, basic dignity and has serious practical costs as well. Among the practical consequences unique to marriage are the rights to:

* visit a partner or a partner's child in a hospital;
* inherit from your partner if she or he doesn't have a valid will;
* obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies;
* enter joint rental agreements;
* make medical decisions on a partner's behalf in event of illness;
* take bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or a partner's child;
* choose a final resting place for a deceased partner;
* obtain wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* get an equitable division of property in a divorce;
* have joint child custody, visitation, adoption and foster care;
* determine child custody and support in a divorce;
* have a spouse covered under Social Security and Medicare;
* file joint tax returns;
* obtain veterans' discounts on medical care, education and home loans;
* apply for immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
and
* obtain domestic violence protective orders. </blockquote>


Complete nonsense, of course, of the sort we have come to expect from bully and his cohorts. Every one of those "rights" are equally available to gays who marry, as they are to heteros who marry.

Gays have exactly the same rights in marriage as heteros do, unsurprisingly.

Heteros can marry a member of the opposite sex, and so can gays.
Heteros are forbidden to marry members of the same sex, and so are gays.
Heteros cannot "marry anyone they want" (examples: close relatives, underage, multiple spouses etc.), and neither can gays.

There you are: Perfect equality of rights.

But, you say, gays have different desires in marriage from heteros?

What has that got to do with their rights?

Can anyone show me ANY law that says "Heteros can do such-and such but gays are forbidden to do it", or "Gays must do such-and-such but heteros don't have to", or others along that line?

[avatar4321]

Complete nonsense, of course, of the sort we have come to expect from bully and his cohorts. Every one of those "rights" are equally available to gays who marry, as they are to heteros who marry.

Gays have exactly the same rights in marriage as heteros do, unsurprisingly.

Heteros can marry a member of the opposite sex, and so can gays.
Heteros are forbidden to marry members of the same sex, and so are gays.
Heteros cannot "marry anyone they want" (examples: close relatives, underage, multiple spouses etc.), and neither can gays.

There you are: Perfect equality of rights.

But, you say, gays have different desires in marriage from heteros?

What has that got to do with their rights?

Can anyone show me ANY law that says "Heteros can do such-and such but gays are forbidden to do it", or "Gays must do such-and-such but heteros don't have to", or others along that line?

no they cant

[My Winter Storm]

Gays have exactly the same rights in marriage as heteros do, unsurprisingly.

Provided they marry someone of the opposite sex and risk being miserable for the rest of their lives, of course.:lame2:

[hjmick]

Provided they marry someone of the opposite sex and risk being miserable for the rest of their lives, of course.:lame2:

Just like the rest of us. :lmao:

[My Winter Storm]

Just like the rest of us. :lmao:

Damn, that should have offended me but it made me laugh.:finger3:

[hjmick]

Damn, that should have offended me but it made me laugh.:finger3:

:D

[bullypulpit]

Just like the rest of us. :lmao:

Sounds like a personal problem to me. My wife and I have been together for more than 10 years, and we still hold hands in public, laugh at each others jokes and generally have a good time together. Marriage hasn't been misery for us. :coffee:

[hjmick]

Sounds like a personal problem to me. My wife and I have been together for more than 10 years, and we still hold hands in public, laugh at each others jokes and generally have a good time together. Marriage hasn't been misery for us. :coffee:

Hasn't been a problem for me, either. After more than ten years as well, there is no one I would rather spend time with than my wife. I truly married my best friend.

Don't take yourself so seriously. Take the comment with the humor with which it was intended. There was a little laughing guy at the end of the post. Sheesh.