# new thread on gay marriage - ?



## art4babies

PLEASE SPEAK AS TO WHY YOU ARE FOR/AGAINST.


----------



## LavenderMae

I am 100% FOR it. I can not understand why people assume they have the right to shove their "morals" down other's throats! It is pure discrimination that gay marriage is not legal, and a damn shame our country hasn't learned anything about discrimination yet.


----------



## art4babies

Well, I believe many think that others are trying to shove gay marriage down their throats, if I am to understand correctly.


----------



## LavenderMae

Well I guess to them I say "tough shit". Gay people exist in this country and as US citizens they should have the same rights everyone else has. How can people think it okay to pick and choose who gets constitutional rights in this country.
I find a lot of what other people do to be offensive (to me personally) and in my face but I know I don't have the right to make them less than a citizen and strip them of their rights.


----------



## MamaFern

love is love is love! why does it matter what gender your lover is?or color or religion or age for that matter. i believe that we fall in love with people for a reason. whether it is something that we need to learn from them, or because we need to fill up that space in ourselves.. love is a reflection of ourselves, love has no gender.
im all for gay marriage..though personally i dont believe in marriage, i think that if two people want to marry, all the best to them.

fern


----------



## art4babies

well, I thnk part of the problem may be that there is hate directed from both ends - part of the reason it is so hard to get a legitimate discussion on this and many other emotionally charged debates. I didn't want to scare people off by telling them "tough shit" or anything like that. I think that, if they have a legitimate reasoning behind banning gay marriage, it should be heard. Just as I would want someone to listen to me.


----------



## Shonahsmom

I guess there is really no argument anyone could give me about how gay marriages somehow negatively effect "the sanctity" of hetero-marriages that seems even remotely valid.

And I think people need to consider the dangerousness of a president changing the constitution to refelct his own personal beliefs... that is a dangerous, dangerous precedent to set.

This is a great quote from Thomas Jefferson that I think eloquates my thoughts beautifully:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes
in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had
better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate
ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their
ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must
go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that
becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are
made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with
the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and
keep pace with the times." --1816.


----------



## LavenderMae

Quote:

_Originally posted by Amy Slepski_
*I think that, if they have a legitimate reasoning behind banning gay marriage, it should be heard. Just as I would want someone to listen to me.







*
What *true* legitimate reasons are there for taking homosexual's rights away, that don't involve personal feelings or religion? I'm sorry but religious, or personal reasons are not good enough. We have religious and personal freedoms in this country for a reason.
I've pretty much heard all the anti-gay marriage arguments and sorry they aren't good enough reasons to make a group of Americans less than real citizens.


----------



## art4babies

I am sure that they feel their reasoning is legitimate. That is all I meant. I think if we all gave each other the benefit of the doubt then we could all have an open forum for discussion.


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## Super Pickle

Well, *marriage* is something that has been around for a really long time, much longer than our country. And it _has_ been redefined over the years. Wives are no longer property. Men can no longer take multiple wives. Marriage is easy to get out of.

However, a same-sex coupling has never been included in the definition of marriage.

So, the question is, do we want to redefine it again?

Does the State really have any right other than to simply decide whether or not to reward adherence to *marriage* as it is defined by society?

I personally don't want it redefined and certainly don't want it redefined against the will of the people by activist judges. If the People want to recognize same-sex partnerships as marriage , then the People can act like responsible citizens and go through the legislative process to get it.

Last point: current marriage laws DO NOT discriminate against gays! No one asked me if I was gay when I went to apply for my marriage license. I had a male professor who was gay and legally married (to a woman). Gay people can enter into marriage as it is currently defined (one man-one woman).


----------



## Arduinna

first off I'm curious why this thread was started in FYT? Because this thread and poll doesn't seem to be for any tribe at all? Seems more appropriate for activism.

Quote:

I just don't understand why gay people would even WANT to call it a marriage. It seems to mock a holy sacrament.
First off no religion has a monopoly on the word marriage. People are married every day and apply for marriage liscenses where religion isn't even an issue. So the holy sacrament argument doesn't work for non religious marriages like mine that were not officiated by a religous representative or endorsed by any religion. I still had to get a marriage liscense for it to be legal though. So obviously the word marriage has and is being used in a non religious way by government.

As far why would we want to call it marriage. To me the more appropriate question is why would have a need to call it anything else when the word is already being used in a non religious way?


----------



## Wildcrafter

If people want to have a meaningful long term relationship, who am I to tell them who to have it with? The sex lives of other people are none of my damn business.

re: quote:
"God has made it abundantly clear how he feels about homosexuality."

Exactly how do we know that god is a he? And please, let's not blame our own fear and bigotry on god, whether it's your version of god, or someone elses.

I guess the civility ends here!


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## TreeLove




----------



## Arduinna

Good for you that you believe in the bible, but not all of us are Christian. If your religion decides that it doesn't want to perform same sex marriages by all means that is their choice. But, that doesn't give you the right to decide for everyone.


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## JessicaS

I am moving this to activism as it in inappropiate for FYT. FYT is a "no debate" board and discussions of this nature should not be posted there.

Should this thread get out of hand, it will be removed completely.


----------



## Hera

We supposedly have separation of church and state in this country. If the word "marriage" is owned exclusively by one religion or set of religions, than it should not be used by the government at all. Either all government sanctioned partnerships should be called "civil unions" and only those also recognized by certain religions called "marriages," or the word "marriage" should be considered a word that anyone can use to describe a committed loving relationship. Personally, I find it offensive that this issue is argued from a religious standpoint. I am a woman "married" to a man, I consider my domestic partnership to be a marriage. However, we did not have a wedding in front of a religious figure or even any witnesses at all. Our license reads "witnessed by the parties to the marriage" because we signed it ourselves, in private. Are we not married? Does religion have anything to do with this? Should religion have anything to do with a government decision? I don't think so. If your religion does not recognize marriage between people with the same sorts of gonads, so be it. Don't recognize them. But don't forget that the government does not have to abide by your religion, and neither do I.

And yes, other "religions" have been perfectly OK with same-sex marriage long before Christianity. There is an older thread hanging around, something about why someone is proud to be an anthropologist. It has a link you might want to check out. But you know what? It really doesn't matter, because we are talking about a government decision here, not a matter of church policy. Separation of church and state, it's that simple.

Edited to add link: http://www.aaanet.org/press/ma_stmt_marriage.htm

Edited again to add: I'm sorry if this came off as cranky. I don't feel like I am attacking anyone with what I have said. I certainly don't think that others should change their beliefs to suit me. What people believe is their own business. However, the law should be above such things. It is only fair.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

Let me reiterate what abimommy said...if this thread cannot be conducted with respect to all who post here and who are members at MDC, it will be removed. Please remember that when posting. I know it is a volatile topic, but it is one that touches the lives of many here.

Thank you


----------



## Irishmommy

Of course gays should be allowed to marry. It's ludicrous that they can't.

As for God and religion, hasn't it been proven that gays are born, not made, therefore it is God who decided they should be gay, and God doesn't make mistakes. Therefore, religions should not be anti-gay in any way. (I'm talking Christian God here).

I wish I could get it through to my dh. His comeback is that then anyone who wants to should be able to marry, like brothers and sisters.







: I love him, but he's an idiot sometimes.

And I believe that first cousins are allowed marry pretty much everywhere.


----------



## isleta




----------



## LavenderMae

It doesn't matter what someone's god has made clear. I for one don't believe in that god and do NOT think laws should be based on what ones god says. In this country laws are not supposed to be based on religion. That is a GOOd thing..
In this country (thank goodness) you are not allowed legally to descriminate against anyone because of their religious beliefs or the lack there of.
I do think it is very very wrong to want to make laws against others because their lifestyle doesn't fit your religion.
Saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry is admitting you do not think they are equals and deserve the same constitutional rights as non gays.
Why should we get to vote on who we let be *real* citizens or not. Gays should have equal rights no matter what any one religion thinks about homosexuality.

*edited to make it nicer*


----------



## EFmom

I am for it. It is simply a matter of civil rights. Marriage is a lot of things, but it is primarily a civil contract which may or may not have religious overtones. If it were all about religion, why would the state have any say in the marriages of atheists, for example? I don't think churches should be forced to marry people they don't want to, so if your church doesn't want to marry gay people fine, just as catholic priests don't have to marry divorced people.

While TreeLove may claim to be a Christian, so do I. There are many Christian denominations that do not think that God is opposed to homosexuality at all. You can mock "love, love, love" all you want but I seem to recall something Christ said about their being no greater commandment than loving your neighbor as yourself. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Snowy Owl

I voted 'Don't care'
because I have no feelings of wanting anyone to get married or not.
Who cares? I know some gay people, but none who want to get married. So why would I feel one way or another about what complete strangers decide to do?


----------



## JessicaS

I am a Christian but I am perfectly fine with gay couples marrying. I voted "For"

It won't hurt me, or infringe on my rights so why should it bother me?

What my neighbor does has no affect on my beliefs or spirituality and as many others stated to base laws on it because of religion violates the constitution.

I think it is just fine and doesn't bother me in the slightest. I think they should all be Civil unions anyways and leave "marriage" up to religious establishments, course some of those would "marry" gay couples as well as hetero couples but it doesn't affect me in a negative manner so why should I worry about it?

I found many of the photos of the couples marrying in S.F. to be very moving and beautiful, it makes me sad to think people find their affection and love for each other offensive.

My area may be voting on this issue in November and I intend to vote for gay marriage.

Heck even if I was anti-gay marriage I would vote for it just to annoy Fred Phelps. In fact I think that should be part of the platform. "Wanna really hack off Fred Phelps? Vote for Gay marriage in his home state







"


----------



## kama'aina mama

For.

It's an issue of equality. The only arguements against tend to be based on religion. Well, this isn't a theocracy.

Besides... annoys Phelps.


----------



## sleeping queen

Treelove, I agree with your posts. They were very thoughtful. I think people who support same-sex marriage should quit using seperation of church and state as the basis for their arguement. Religion aside there is also social consquences that should be discussed. Here is a very thought provoking article. Social consquences. We need to consider society as a whole when making these decisions.


----------



## Snowy Owl

I actually read the whole thing!

Quote:

The "social condition of the people" among those who practice sodomy includes a shortened life-span, increased incidences of violent death and suicides and an increased rejection of normal heterosexual marriage, according to statistics gathers in countries approving of same-sex marriage. The median age at death of homosexuals who die of AIDS is 39. The median age at death of homosexual men who die of causes other than AIDS is 42.

Frankly, it puzzles me that liberals believe the social consequences of smoking, which shortens a person's life by about 8 years is reason enough to enact laws and levy taxes to discourage it, yet APPROVE of same-sex "marriages" or "unions", which shorten a person's life span by over 20 to 40 years.
That's the only mention of consequences I could find....apart from the unexplained correlation between increased terrorism and the deterioration of society due to gay marriage.


----------



## kama'aina mama

Great link SQ.

I love how she gets right into it with the big weapon in legal circles: the dictionary. Ha! She also wastes no time getting into ad hominem attacks on "*********" and the craziest slippery slope arguement ever, i.e. "Dude, can I marry my dog?" From there she kind of careens off into left field, dedicating half the article to the history of outlawing polygamy after which she doesn't even attempt to draw a decent parallel between polygamy and queer marriage. Puzzling at best.







Then she quotes some alleged study about queers dying young as though that were a reason not to permit them to marry... and since she doesn't see fit to site any sources I am once again left







: bewildered by the question of what point she is trying to make and why I should believe her since she can't support it at all.

All in all I truly classic sleeping queen link. I thank you for bringing it to my attention. Do you think you could find some more good ones by middle schoolers? I love those too!


----------



## LavenderMae

Oh wow, I don't even know what to say about that article. It just proved to me one more time that homophobia is the REAL issue here.
I personally want to live in a society that treats all its members as equals with equal rights. I think the social consequences for denying a whole group of people in our society rights is counterproductive for the growth of this country.
I don't think death rates should have anything to do with who we allow to marry, how absurd.


----------



## melaniewb

Definitely for it. Same sex couples deserve the same rights as opposite sex couples.


----------



## JessicaS

Quote:

Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
Why do they always have to bring up sodomy?? if you use both definations who DOESN'T do that??

Now wondering iof my own post is too dirty and whether or not I should edit.


----------



## Snowy Owl

That's funny.. I always thought it meant only anal copulation.
What about the whole biblical thing? Lighting bolts shooting down from the heavens, smiting all the hedonists....


----------



## Arduinna

Ha, like gay males are the only ones that have anal sex LOLOLOL
whatever







: (apparently your not aware that anal sex isn't practiced by ALL gay men)

sorry but your never going to convince me that people are against gay sex because they want gays to live longer.

Quote:

Frankly, it puzzles me that liberals believe the social consequences of smoking, which shortens a person's life by about 8 years is reason enough to enact laws and levy taxes to discourage it,
well this liberal doesn't support "sin tax" laws.


----------



## candiland

I am for it.

For the record, I am what I consider a TRUE believer in God. I grew up in an atheist family and spoke with God all of the time. Those messages were not hampered by some person interpreting a book to tell people what God wants them to believe. I "speak" to God all of the time, and he is NOTHING like the God sleeping queen and tree love is referring to







:

As far as what is "good" being "evil".... yes, your bible does say that. I think you are totally misconstruing that message. Truly non-judgmental people would not pass laws - aka JUDGMENTS - on their fellow man. That's what most of our laws are. Personal judgments carried through by courts and cops.








:

As a true Christian - and Pagan







- I can honestly say I'm baffled by the "I'm-not-judging-but-I-want-our-laws-to-judge" attitude.


----------



## sadie_sabot

I'm not a big fan of marriage but it's ridiculous and discriminatory to deny it to gay folks. As long as straight people can do it, gay people should be able to, too. anything else is just legislative bigotry.


----------



## aussiemum

well, that was an ........um..... interesting link, sq.







:

Just thought I'd point out that most of the references to past interpretations of marriage start somewhere in the middle of the Victorian era. For example:
(from conservativetruth.org)
"Every dictionary and encyclopedia in my library, and there are a number of them published from 1848 to the present, defines marriage as "the act of legally uniting a man and woman in wedlock.""
and:
"In 1878 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, ....."
and:
"Since 1879 it has been a federal crime for any person to have more than one spouse at a time. "
and:
"According to the 1879 Supreme Court ...."

The Victorians may have contributed many things to our present society, (including some very lovely furniture







) but I think it's fairly well-established that their moral interpretations have screwed a lot of people up mentally over the years (IMO) & I have no intention of basing my modern life on Victorian principles. Go back even further in history & you'll find some very bawdy things indeed (can you buh-lieve the necklines on those 18th century dresses! I'm sure you can see nipples hanging out of some of them!







ag )

As far as I'm concerned, if gay folks want to give the institution of marriage a go, more power to them! (and have kids, & adopt, & so on.....)

For me, it's not a matter of giving homosexuals special human rights, it's a matter of giving them EQUAL human rights. Establishing the right to a civil union is just a start.

(and, jeesh, I hate sin taxes!)


----------



## spatulagirl

I voted for.

On another board I belong to we were talking about this very same issue. Most people had a problem with it because of the whole religion-marriage factor. Some even went so far to say my marriage didn't matter because God has nothing to do with it!

So then I guess we do need to redefine the word marriage. For those of us who didn't get married in front of God shouldn't be calling our unions marriage, right? So we do away with the word marriage, rewrite all the definitions of it for only religious people (and does that mean only Christians? Can Muslims be married or Jews?) and the rest of us, gay couples included, can be "civilly unionized". Doesn't sound as romantic but hey! If it means gays can marry (oops) be civilly unionized then I am all for it!


----------



## polly

For...i am gay, i have a partner who is American and we have 2 children. Fortunately here (in New Zealand)...we have just passed the homosexual law which allows marriage and all the benefits attached..it makes no difference to us..New Zealand has also recognised the committment and partnership two people can have even if they are not ,arried and after two years together..(any sex)..you are entitled to matrimonal law bills...i can name my partner as next-of-kin and she has legal rights to the children..we don't see the need for marriage as to us..(this is just our personal view)..it is a hetrosexual ceremony...we have had our own personal committment ceremony as have a lot of our friends...we get on with our life and our friends get on with theirs..to love deeply is to feel the grace of 'god'...namaste


----------



## dado

Quote:

_Originally posted by TreeLove_
*God has made it abundantly clear how he feels about homosexuality.*
please feel free to show how. and you'd better bring the heavy artillery, because there are a lot of people on these boards who read in the original languages.


----------



## dado

Quote:

_Originally posted by aussiemum_
*wmost of the references to past interpretations of marriage start somewhere in the middle of the Victorian era.*
which ties in with my personal theory, based on anecdotal evidence and personal observation, that there is a correlation between never having had really great sex and opposition to gay rights.


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## dado

Quote:

_Originally posted by TreeLove_
*Personally-I don't think it's POSSIBLE to consider yourself a Christian and not ABIDE by God's written word.*
chapter and verse, please. a quote from Jesus or a passage from Torah will do.


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## TreeLove




----------



## TreeLove




----------



## PurpleBasil

I've followed this thread faithfully and got to say, darn it!

Because these things always end up the same way. Upon request for (sacred) literary support for the anti-gay stance, the previously loquacious arguer drops the ball.

And I thought it'd be different this time.

Maybe the next go around, eh?

Edited to ask: TreeLove, why should it take 'all day' to look up Scripture to support an anti-gay stance or the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' attitude?

This is such a critical, pivotal issue for the Christian tradition. It would seem that one would have these verses either memorized or very easily accessible. Especially if one is arguing _from those verses_ .


----------



## sleeping queen

Here is a passage for you treelove 1 john 2 :3-6; 1 John 5:2-3


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## TreeLove




----------



## TreeLove




----------



## TreeLove




----------



## Piglet68

Quote:

_Originally posted by TreeLove_
*God has made it abundantly clear how he feels about homosexuality.*
How wonderful for you to know the mind of God so well. What, did he have you over for tea to tell you this?







:

Can't you accept that YOUR interpretation of the Bible is not a monopoly on the truth, but just YOUR way of looking at it? Why should YOUR interpretation be entrenched in the law? Do you not understand or respect the fact that MANY people in this country do not follow nor believe in the Bible. Why should they be subjected to your religious beliefs? Do you understand that Freedom of Religion means that you no more have to follow Jewish Kosher laws than I have to follow your Bible?

Quote:

*Just like some people think it is morally wrong to eat animals, or test on animals, etc... I think it's morally wrong.*

Fine. But why make it a law? How would you feel if vegetarians around the world lobbied to make meat-eating a crime?

And if you are so convinced that "morality" should be legalized, why aren't you lobbying your government to ban common-law relationships (living in sin) and make fornication a crime? Why aren't you out there trying to arrest all those sinners who are having sex outside of marriage.

And what about divorce? How is that not "damaging" to heterosexual marriage? Are you going to lobby that divorce be made illegal too?

Don't you find it strange that Christians everywhere are adamantly against gay marriage, but nowhere are they lobbying to make ANY OTHER SIN into a crime...?

Quote:

*I think the governament needs to regulate "certain" "moral"issues to make sure that people don't get too far off track.*

I'm quite certain your tone would change in a heartbeat if the government decided to make it illegal to do something that YOU felt you had a right to.

I honestly believe you mean it when you say you speak in "love", but religious beliefs have no place in the law of this country. Why can't you just be happy with your own Church forbidding gay marriage and let the non-christians of the world live their lives the way they see fit?


----------



## Piglet68

Quote:

The "social condition of the people" among those who practice sodomy includes a shortened life-span, increased incidences of violent death and suicides and an increased rejection of normal heterosexual marriage, according to statistics gathers in countries approving of same-sex marriage. The median age at death of homosexuals who die of AIDS is 39. The median age at death of homosexual men who die of causes other than AIDS is 42.

Assuming you actually believe these "statistics" (which, of course, I don't) how on EARTH does legalizing marriage have ANY AFFECT WHATSOEVER on the incidence of "sodomy"?

Fact is, people have sex outside of marriage all the time. Gay couples who are getting married have already been living together in long-term relationships. What, you think they're celibate? :LOL

Btw, the violent deaths and suicides are due to hate-mongering gay bashers, not the fact that they are gay. And I have to just lmao at the suggestion that practising gay sex somehow "increases rejection of hetero marriage". So...are you saying that the more you have hetero sex with your DH, the less likely you are to want to be in a gay marriage?







:

thanks for a good chuckle, SQ!


----------



## TreeLove

.


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## Piglet68

Quote:

_Originally posted by TreeLove_
*Personally-I don't think it's POSSIBLE to consider yourself a Christian and not ABIDE by God's written word. ....You are supposed to love your neighbor, but you are also to hate the SIN, NOT the sinner. ....*

I totally respect this. I do. It's your faith and you are entitled to follow it as you see fit. What I don't understand is why you expect _everybody else_ to be subject to the laws of your religion?

Quote:

*
Here's what I've been thinking lately-to have an opinion is not judging, to me. **Condemning **people based on my opinion is what I think judging is. I'm not condemning ANYONE. Only God knows the hearts.*

Exactly. So let people get married if they want to and let God be the judge of them. Why is it your business whether they get married or not if you TRULY believe that it's up to God.

Otherwise, I don't know why you aren't out there actively lobbying for laws against fornicators getting married - aren't they entering into a sacrement in a state of sin? What about people who marry outside the Church, why don't you hold them accountable for their sins (fornication). Perhaps you should take each couple aside and decide for yourself whether or not they are "sin-less" enough to get married. If you aren't prepared to do that, I see no reason why you feel that gay couples should not You say that you are praying for them...great! Why not let gay couples get married, and you can pray for them, too!









You said "You don't have to follow My bible"....so how can you then argue against gay marriage? If somebody doesnt' follow your bible and wants to get married to someone of the same sex, why shouldnt they be allowed to? it won't change your right to consider it a sin...?

By the way, you said that you were simply offering your opinion as to why some people feel this way. You have answered why YOU think gay marriage is wrong. You have answered quite convincingly that you, personally, consider it a sin. What you have NOT answered yet is why your conviction should be made into a law when it is ADMITTEDLY based on your religious beliefs, beliefs that are not shared by everybody in this country. THAT was the question.


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## Piglet68

Quote:

_Originally posted by TreeLove_
*again, they can do whatever they want. I'M not judging-like I said before-only GOD knows the hearts of every person. What are you against, from a moral perspective? Corporal punishment? Formula Feeders? Nuclear Weapons? Disposable Diapers? Vaccinations? Ezzo?

Do you PASS JUDGEMENT on those who are FOR those things? Hmmmm....
:LOL*
Some of them I do. Some of them I don't.

The difference is, I'm not trying to make my personal viewpoints into a LAW that means everybody has to agree with my personal POV.

You can be against gay marriage, but believe that the LAW has no right to prevent it.

[treelove, are we speed typing or what?







]


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## Plady

hm. I am 100% for gay marriages to be legal. It just doesn't seem like the government's business to make decisions about who should and shouldn't be allowed to marry. I think all the people who find it offensive on religious grounds should take it up with their churches and lobby there to ban it. A civil marriage between a gay or lesbian couple doesn't change my marriage to dh. (Of course, I wouldn't care if they were married in my very own church either). Anyway, I'm sorry that this has become such a heated topic but I hope it doesn't go away until every citizen has equal rights to marry the love of their lives.


----------



## Fianna

Well, count me in the minority of conservative Christians who voted "for". Those who post with me on the conservative and Christian tribes threads already know my stance and most vehemently disagree with me. However, I can't be against gay marriage. I am against promiscuity, gay or hetero, and believe promiscuity is very damaging to a society, so it would be hypocritical for me to be against an institution that encourages monogamy. I do believe that homosexuality, at least in the majority of cases, has physiological causes. Who the heck would choose to be homosexual with all of the condemnation and homophobia they have to face? I have no right to tell someone they can't marry because they were born a homosexual. Again, long term, committed, monogamous relationships are a good thing, imo.

Anyone who has had homosexual friends in committed relationships as I have can see some of the practical issues that this brings up as well. Issues of hospital visitation, estate issues, insurance and tax issues&#8230;Yes, there are legal ways to finagle most of this issues but why should homosexual couples have to jump through those extra hoops?

Now, as a Christian I do have an issue with a practicing homosexual also being a practicing pastor, but that involves my religion, something we aren't debating here as it is a separate issue, imo.

And I have a huge problem with Bush trying to alter our Constitution over this.

...and now we return to our regularly scheduled Treelove and Piglet discussion hour...


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## Fianna

Quote:

_Originally posted by TreeLove_
*am I coming off as heated? 'cause I'm not at all. That's the prob with message boards-it's hard to get the TONE of it all, KWIM?








*
No, I don't think you are anyway. And I'm impressed that you've stuck with this thread. It's easy to give up and bail out of these activism threads when you have the minority opinion. BTDT!









I do think that most realize that you are responding to the question, that you aren't out writing legislation based on your beliefs, but with the passion of some of these folks, they just have to keep trying to show you why you should change your opinion. I do the exact same thing with my dad and the spanking issue. As many times as we've gone around and around and I've ended with, "Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree" I always end up trying just one more time because he's just WRONG! :LOL


----------



## Snowy Owl

Treelove, haven't you heard what is being asked? One simple thing....it's gone past what the reasoning for opposing gay marriage is, it has come down to why you think it should be illegal and the constitution altered to insure it is unlawful. Thaty's all. Are you saying you don't actually think it should be illegal? You keep saying you pray for them....so isn't that enough?
Your examples of the morality of vaccinating, crying it out and all that are completely flawed because these things are not only legal but very common and encouraged. No one says, make it illegal, they only say, question it. The only thing that involves the law is spanking...which in Canada, was recently upheld as legal when it does not cross the line to abuse. And although I am anti-spanking, I have to say I agree with the ruling because some still believe it is an effective discipline technique, and such belief is often based in religion and the bible.
So that is their choice, not mine. Even though I think it is wrong.


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## Piglet68

I have to agree with Fianna. I don't think you are being heated. I think you are handling yourself very well, especially dealing with me, an overly-verbose post-a-holic who is desperately lacking sleep and trying to avoid work at the same time!









Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, too. The OP did ask why one would personally be against gay marriage, and you did answer that. Perhaps you personally are willing to let the Law do what it decides and whether or not gays are allowed to marry isn't going to bother you. Perhaps your opinion is that a law for gay marriage shouldn't necessarily be prevented, but that you personally are against it. If that is the case, then I apologize for confusing the issues.

I guess the reason I'm picking on you so much is 1) you are the only one representing your side (other than SQ who really isn't helping your cause, IMHO, lol) and 2) I just so *desperately* want somebody to prove to me that this isn't about hate and bigotry and/or religion.









I mean, I can totally see and respect the arguments against abortion, even though I'm pro-choice. But I simply cannot wrap my mind around why somebody has a problem with what other people do when they aren't hurting anybody. All I see is a bunch of religious conservatives trying to entrench their doctrine into Law. And that is just not right. I don't believe in your religion, I don't follow the bible as some sort of Truth Tome, and I really get upset when people bring religion into lawmaking. There is supposed to be a separation between church and state, and yet not a single person has ever argued against gay marriage without bringing religion into it. So how can you (general "you" here) agree to a law forbidding something that is merely a sin b/c of your personal religion?

Anyways, I promise I'll shut up now and let others get a word in. In fact, I think I'm going to go home and take a much-needed nap. Peace, Treelove!


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## DaryLLL

Coming in late. I am surprised this discussion is allowed on mdc as there was debate about the sensitivity of the topic in light of protecting the feelings of queer/bi/transgendered moms and dads (and future ones) in our community.

I am for gay marriage. I have a bisexual dd. If she was to end up in a commited relationship with a woman and needed to be next-of-kin in a medical situation, or wanted to protect the rights of their children, should they have any, either biological or adopted, I darn well support her rights in that! Who, in love, could oppose it?

As far as judgement goes, I think it is judgemental to oppose the legalizing of gay marriange.

As far as what "the Bible says," most of the quotes TL provided had nothing to do with homosexual relationships.









There are many ways to interpret the bible. Jews know that their rabbis, in a tradition going back 3000 yrs or more, do not all agree on how to interpret Torah.

Today, as far as Xtians go, we have liberal Xtians, and fundamentalist or literalist Xtians (last count, 4000 sects in all). They see the Bible's teachings quite differently. Our country can not just go with the most conservative Xtian way of interpreting its book of rules, and force the majority of US citizens, whether liberal Xtian, atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, trad NA, pagan, Jewish, etc, to live by this narrow mindset. No matter how happy TreeLove is in her current choice, as a "recovering bisexual," if I may call it that, she should open her heart to those for whom homosexuality is still their reality, the only one they have. But she won't.

Most of you are too young to remember when black people were fighting for the most basic of rights back in the late 50's-late 60's. To be able to sit in the front of the bus. To be able to use the same drinking fountain and public restroom for goddess' sake! It sounds ridiculous now, doesn't it? Do we have to go through all this again?

Helpful website:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## brandywine

I've stated this opinion elsewhere, but since this seems to be the official place, here it goes. I'm for gay marriage because:

1. It is a civil right. We have separation of church and state, so whether or not it's "wrong" to one group or another doesn't matter at all.

2. It's none of your business. If a couple of gay guys get married, it doesn't affect my marriage at all. It changes nothing for me.

3. It brings gays into the fold of society instead of perpetuating our current caste system.

A few things for Christians to consider-homosexuality is given little attention in the NT, whereas divorce is discussed at length by Christ. Where are all the protesters trying to take away people's right to divorce? We Christians have the same divorce rate as everybody else. It's so easy to be down on homosexuality as a sin because if you're straight, you'll never be tempted. In areas where racism is a big problem, it's most often the poorest whites who persecute blacks the most. Why? Because by degrading blacks, they make sure they don't get bumped down to the bottom of the social scale-yes I'm poor but at least I'm not black. A Christian could use the same reasoning-yes I'm a sinner but at least I'm not gay. It feels so good to be more righteous than someone else. Also, we don't obey very much of the 'old law,' of Leviticus etc. We tend to obey the parts that fit nicely into the lifestyle we already live. Yes, God says homosexuality is deplorable (only for men, it seems) but he also says you need to wring off the head of a dove when you sin. Oh, but we have to draw the line somewhere, right? Why draw it there, though? Why draw it right at the point where you get to persecute someone else for a 'sin' you'll never be tempted with? All people live a lifestyle of sin. I've heard the argument that gays choose sin as a lifestyle, which is to say that your lifestyle of perpetual sin (or mine) is accidental? You might claim that God made marriage for one man and one woman, and that anything else is contrary to God's plan. What about marriages between unbelievers, or Hindus, or any non-Christian. Is their marriage God's plan? Aren't they, by not recieving Christ as their lord and savior, choosing to live in sin? What about Paul's remark that ALL things are legal, but some are not helpful? Are you calling Paul a liar? Is this one thing still illegal? What is more unhelpful, two people who love eachother joining together in marriage, or a group of Christians persecuting a faction of society and driving them away from the church? Didn't Jesus tell the Pharisees to stop self-righteaously attacking people with 'the law' and look inside their hearts? Where are the campaingns to make covetousness illegal? Where are the Christians speaking out against those who do not honor their mothers and fathers? Where are the Christians speaking out against 'broided' hair? C'mon guys, are you really endangered by whether or not two gays can get a piece of paper from the state, or are you endangered by the spirit of judgement in your own heart?


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## TreeLove




----------



## DaryLLL

Quote:

_Originally posted by TreeLove_
*I knew that would eventually be thrown in here. Too bad you had to stoop there.







*
Are you addressing me TL? I made several points. To which one are you referring as "stooping?"


----------



## DaryLLL

"I'm a sinner but at least I'm not gay."








:







:







:

Best bumper sticker idea ever!


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## DaryLLL

Gays are "fighting" (non-violently) for the right to visit their ill and/or dying partners in the hospital. For the right to inherit co-owned belongings from said partner. For equal protection for their children under the law in case of dissolution of the relationship or death of a partner.

For the right not to be regularly beaten up, raped or even killed b/c of their gender identity. Seen the movie Boys Don't Cry, based on a true story? For the right not to be pushed over the brink of suicide because of constant harrassment and abuse from bigoted straights.

For the right not to be seen in the same light as pederasts, and treated as such.

For the right not to be called perverts.

Blacks were once seen as non-human. Even into the 20th century. Gays are seen as perverts.

Different specific rights, same fight. Women were the next ones to stand up. Gays next. We are not living in a theocracy. We live in a country based on equality for all. It is as simple as that. Morally, the majority (or most powerful, ie: Xtian white men and their spouses) may not vote for lesser rights for those in a different social group.

BTW, nowhere in the Bible is it written, hate the sin, love the sinner. Rather, "take the beam out of your own eye, before you can remove the mote from your neighbor's."

Oh well...


----------



## brandywine

Yep, you can get divorced for marital ufaithfullness. A far reach from mere 'irreconcilable diffrences. " Where's the outcry?

Here's the scripture you requested, tree, and by the way, my last post was worded way to strongly. Sometimes it's difficult to remember that posting actually speaks to a person, and is not just a way for me to vent. Sorry









1Corinthians 10:23
"Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible but not everthing is constructive."

This is an NIV translation. My pastor said the Greek word translated here as 'beneficial' is from the root for the word 'synergistic.'

Will you site the scripture about lesbians? Can't find it


----------



## Plady

When I mentioned that this thread had gotten "heated" I was thinking about how Piglet and TL were practically posting simultaneouly, not that everyone here was losing their cool. KWIM?


----------



## TreeLove




----------



## TreeLove




----------



## brandywine

Thanks, and goodbye. I hope I didn't chase you away. You're well spoken and very brave to hang in as long as you against so much disagreement. Kudos


----------



## TreeLove

thank you. now I need a nap LOL!:LOL


----------



## StarMama

I'm by no means an expert on biblical things... but from some reading I did a LONG time ago on homosexuality and the bible, aren't all of the citings in the bible that basically are interpreted as "don't have gay sex" from the same sections of the bible as the other laws Christians don't follow anymore (like no eatting pork, ect). The Leviticus old laws as brandywine says? When Jesus came didn't he dismiss the old laws (like I said I'm really rusty here... I haven't studied the bible in many years due to issues in my church when I was a teen)? And again, I'm really rusty on this, wasn't at one point marriage strictly done by the state, and wasn't considered a religious issue at all? I'm sorry, I just remember reading that somewhere, and can't remember more about it... I hope these things I'm saying will click with someone who knows what I'm talking about and has the facts!









And as far as the morality issues, Treelove, I don't really see the parallel between gay marriage and say grafitti. If you are not part of a religion that sees gay marriage as immoral (or you don't interprete the bible in that manner) you wouldn't see gay marriage as immoral. Grafitti, on the other hand, would be obviously immoral and socially wrong, regardless of religion. You say where do we draw the line at moral issues if we legalize gay marriage, but it also goes the other way. Where do we draw the line at making laws that are based upon Christianity? I'm sure it wouldn't bother you if all laws were based upon your specific Christian beliefs, but it goes both ways...


----------



## DaryLLL

Starmama, if you check my link from religioustolerance.org, you will see quotes from Hebrew and Xtian Scripture. Near the bottom of the pg.

Here it is again:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm


----------



## dado

Quote:

_Originally posted by StarMama_
*Iaren't all of the citings in the bible that basically are interpreted as "don't have gay sex" from the same sections of the bible as the other laws Christians don't follow anymore (like no eatting pork, ect).*
imo you are neatly illustrating the canonical example of how our choice of scripture is more dependant on our beliefs than our beliefs are dependant on scripture. you are correct, pork, shellfish, mixing linen and wool, etc, are also to'ebah, there is no rational basis to waive some restrictions and not others.

quite apart from that, the levitical constraint on anal intercourse is a _qualified_ statement. what the qualification is, we no longer know for sure, so from that perspective we are all free to decided for ourselves. but deciding for ourselves is a very very long way from "G-d said so".

an example of an unqualified restriction would be the instruction regarding sex with animals, a little further down the same chapter, where it simply says (basically) "don't have sex with animals, that's really bad".

and all this doesn't even get into the mosaic ideas of "ritual impurity"....


----------



## StarMama

Thank you DaryLLL I have it open, just waiting for my brain to function a little better before I really go reading it :LOL


----------



## motherof2

you know It's a darn shame the way people judge others. You can not help who you fall in love with whether it be someone of the same sex,a person of a different race, or religion. You will have people who don't agree and can tell you a thousand reasons why it may be wrong. You can look at them and look at the person there in a relationship with and I bet you can find something wrong with there relationship, but because they love that person they see nothing wrong I feel a marriage is something beautiful a way to show your spouse that they are truely your one and only forever and someone you want to share every part of the rest of your life with. So I say right on to gay marriages. If we said no to a marrisge because the people are different then think honestly would any of us be married??? As long as your happy with the situation your in then I say good for you. As for everyone else............. they can accept it or move on.


----------



## motherof2

You know one last thing I do consider myself to be a christian. I just feel so strong about love I wouldn't know what to do if I couldn't love and share my life with who I wanted. That's terrible. I guess part of my feelings come from the fact that 2 people I know are of course a gay couple and they are so beautiful, so happy together and so in love. I do understand where alot of you are coming from.


----------



## Piglet68

brandywine: your post was wonderful. I wish there were more Christians like you.

I've often thought that if people who call themselves CHRISTians would just focus on Christ's message of love and forget about who's sinning and who isn't, the world would be a much nicer place. Love thy Neighbour, but stop telling him how to live his life!!


----------



## kama'aina mama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Piglet68_
*brandywine: your post was wonderful. I wish there were more Christians like you.
*
There are.


----------



## Wildcrafter

I think becoming a mother really helped define a lot of my views. When I pondered the possibility of a child of mine being gay I thought how awful it would be to grow up in this world and how I would try to always be open and accepting. I would never want my child to feel that the way he was born was wrong.

As a teenager I knew a number of closet gay kids. I remember then being sad at how hard it must be for them living in such an uneducated and homophobic town. The only one I knew who was "out of the closet" was beaten and thrown off a bridge to die in a dirty river by some of my classmates. He was murdered because other kids feared what he was and were taught this fear from their christian parents and community.

It is fear alone that keeps opposition to gay marriage in the forefront. I will never believe otherwise.


----------



## cynthia mosher

Quote:

Coming in late. I am surprised this discussion is allowed on mdc as there was debate about the sensitivity of the topic in light of protecting the feelings of queer/bi/transgendered moms and dads (and future ones) in our community.
Respectful expression of opinion without personally attacking an individual is acceptable here even in discussion of homosexuality. But if a person promotes such as their agenda in posting on this board - repeatedly posting it wherever possible - then of course that will not be welcomed or allowed.


----------



## Arduinna

what is possibly respectful about saying that a specific group of people should not be able to marry (or have kids) because of WHO THEY ARE??


----------



## cynthia mosher

Arduinna - please take this up with me privately. My point is to say that opposing opinions are permitted. Personal words of attack are not.


----------



## Arduinna

just have to add, so you think that there is a respectful way to say that black people shouldn't be able to marry or have kids? because singling out any class of people specifically for a lack of rights in prejudice and I'm shocked that would be allowed here.








:


----------



## RachelGS

Quote:

_Originally posted by Arduinna_
*just have to add, so you think that there is a respectful way to say that black people shouldn't be able to marry or have kids? because singling out any class of people specifically for a lack of rights in prejudice and I'm shocked that would be allowed here.








:*
Me too.


----------



## Arduinna

Quote:

_Originally posted by Cynthia Mosher_
*Arduinna - please take this up with me privately. My point is to say that opposing opinions are permitted. Personal words of attack are not.*
I have taken it up with you privately. I pm'd Heather about this this morning and asked her to forward it to you also. I hope that anyone else here would also contact admin with their opinion about how prejudice is being allowed to be posted now.


----------



## PurpleBasil

I agree with Arduinna.

And I'm posting at the end b/c I want to be part of a thread that will be shut down. I know, silly. But I want to say, 'I was part of that!'


----------



## cynthia mosher

No plan to shut the discussion down playdoh.

There is a respectful way to discuss and disagree on everything.

Now let's get discussion back to the OP topic please.


----------



## shelley4

i am completely in favour of gay marriage.. as long as two people love and respect each other, who cares what gender they are!


----------



## TexasSuz

Thank you for allowing this discussion. I am against gay marriage as are the majority of Americans. Even in California 66% of voters voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

If gay marriage ever becomes legal then they should also make polygamy legal. If same gender couples can marry then why can't a someone marry 3 wives or such. I would like to know how many of you are in favor of legalizing polygamy.

We have already defined marriage in this country as between one man and one woman. Our society is based on that norm. I do think problems will develop in society if we change that norm.

Just my opinion...Thank you for letting me express it here at MDC.


----------



## dado

Quote:

_Originally posted by TexasSuz_
*...they should also make polygamy legal.*
indeed! polygamy is the most traditional and most "biblical" form of marriage, it should be decriminalized immediately. if it was good enough for Abraham, it's darn well good enough for me!


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

I think polygamy should be legal too.

Why not, if someone wants to have two hubbys on different coasts, and it works for them...hell even if they want to be living in the same house...why should I argue.

No reason I can see that you can't define marriage as between two people - period. Then no gender is included and no marriages to trees are allowed. If you can limit marraige to one man one woman you can limit marraige to two humans.


----------



## Arduinna

yep I think polygamy and group marriage should be legal. I think government should stay out of our bedrooms. and I thought less government control of our lives was a conservative ideal??


----------



## Snowy Owl

I don't have any problem morally with polygamy, but I don't really see how it would be practical..in some countries it is built into the social fabric, men have several wives and it works fine for them. But spousal benefits and all the rights of a spouse for ten spouses aren't really built into our social structure. In the case of gay marriage, whether the two are the same gender or not doesn't make a lick of difference this way.
In other words, it's comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## brandywine

Quote:

I thought less government control of our lives was a conservative ideal??
I think the way I understand it, conservatives want the government to control your personal life, but not your money. Liberals want the government to control your money but not your personal life. Libretarians don't want the government to control anything (no abortion laws, no foreign aid) and authoritarians want the government to control everything. Liberal authoritarians are communists and conservative authoritarians are facists. I could be wrong. I'm a liberal. Take my riches and spread them around but then leave me the heck alone!
Here's a nice short quiz about where you fall, it's been around for a while so you've probably already seen it.

http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

There's a better, more detailed one somewhere on the liberal tribe thread.


----------



## kama'aina mama

There is actual sociological research that went into the decision to outlaw polygamy in the US. There is no such research to support the banning of queer marriage. But if you are that interested in having another husband Sue, you could just do it unoficially. Many people do.


----------



## LavenderMae

I also think polygamy should be legal for **consenting adults**. Unfortunately many teenage girls or younger have been forced into polgamy against their will and in some areas it is cultish.


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

Shea - AGREED! The law would have to be for consenting adults.

I think those who are going to break the law - will break it no matter what. I mean there are people practicing polygamy, even though it is illegal.


----------



## RachelGS

Quote:

_Originally posted by TexasSuz_
*I am against gay marriage as are the majority of Americans. Even in California 66% of voters voted to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

*
Well, hell, if we always relied on THAT argument, schools would still be segregated. Sometimes civil rights just have to trump the comfort level of the majority, most of whom stand to lose nothing by denying civil liberties to others. I doubt very much that you'd consent to have your civil rights defined by a group who opposed your existence. You might be glad in that case to have the protection of the constitution, which guarantees equal rights for all-- not just the heterosexual majority. So too with gay couples, who may not exactly want a bunch of homophobes legislating to whom they may commit their lives.

Thirty years from now, having argued against the most elemental civil rights for gay couples is going to rank with Wallace blocking the schoolhouse door: ignorant, cruel, prejudiced, and completely ineffective.


----------



## Arduinna

Excellent post Rachel









seems like the point is that as long as I'm smiling when I say I hate you it's ok.







:


----------



## gardeningmom

There is a big difference between being black and being gay. You are born black and there isn't any absolute proof that a person is born gay. Gay is a life style choice as is adultry, fornication, or being a vegan or carnivore. You cannot put these two in the same class.

It has been pointed out that the majority of people are agianst same sex marriage. I would expect any politician to vote for what the majority of the people want. I check out a politicians stance on many issues before I vote. If the person who I voted for did the opposite of what his original stance was I would feel betrayed as a voter.


----------



## Arduinna

Is being heterosexual a choice? or are you born that way? Did you decide if you were going to be in an opposite sex relationship or a same sex one?

The only people I hear say that being gay is a choice is someone that isn't. And if your not, then how would you know?


----------



## StarMama

Quote:

_Originally posted by TexasSuz_
*If gay marriage ever becomes legal then they should also make polygamy legal. If same gender couples can marry then why can't a someone marry 3 wives or such. I would like to know how many of you are in favor of legalizing polygamy.
*
Yup I think polygamy should be legal.


----------



## LavenderMae

Try telling a gay person who has tried their hardest to be straight, that being gay is a choice. If being gay was a choice I think very few would choose it , seeing how hard it is to be gay.
One of my bestfriends in highschool was a gay guy, eventhough he never had any gay relationships in highschool. He was very much in the closet but I knew he was gay. Even though he fought it for many years, it never went away.
Being gay is not a choice and if people want to hide their homophobia behind the lack of studies to prove it , that is thier choice.


----------



## RachelGS

Prove to me that someone chooses to be gay. If you can't do that, show me scientific evidence that proves to me that you were born heterosexual.

Or try this: fall madly in love with someone to whom you want to commit the remainder of your life, then put your ability to get married in the hands of a politician you've never met. Keep in mind that this could be anyone, from someone who thinks you should have that right to someone who hates you for a petty reason not within your control. Would you be okay with that?

When you say, "There is a big difference between being black and being gay," you still echo the worst of the civil rights protesters to me, who denied the right to vote to blacks based not on the color of their skin, but on "their substandard moral and intellectual condition" (according to written law).







They said, "There's a big difference between being black and being white." By that, they meant that skin color was different, but they also assumed that intellectual capacity and moral character were limited or deliberately disgusting for blacks. It sounds crazy now, but that was law in this country, and all kinds of brutality was predicated on that assumption.

You need to understand that when you speak as a heterosexual about what's appropriate for gay people, you're speaking from a position of privilege, and you need to develop at least a little bit of discomfort with that. I'm heterosexual and married. I did not choose the former, and I am lucky and blessed to have been able to choose the latter. I try to keep that in mind when I'm thinking about rights for others. It's easier to deny someone basic rights when you're speaking from a comfortable position in which nobody is going to try to take away yours. But it's still reprehensible.


----------



## RachelGS

Quote:

_Originally posted by gardeningmom_
*I would expect any politician to vote for what the majority of the people want.*
On every issue, regardless of its constitutionality, regardless of how it damaged fellow human beings? Well, then, I refer back to my post about George Wallace. Sad.


----------



## candiland

I want many husbands!

I do! I do!

Where do I sign up?


----------



## sleeping queen

THe constitution addresses same sex marriage







:


----------



## brandywine

Quote:

There is a big difference between being black and being gay. You are born black and there isn't any absolute proof that a person is born gay. Gay is a life style choice as is adultry, fornication, or being a vegan or carnivore. You cannot put these two in the same class.
The thing is, you might be wrong. Let's say it's still up in the air, and it hasn't been proven either way. There's still the chance that you're wrong, and then you are the person denying rights to a group of citizens on account of the way they were born. Wouldn't you rather err on the side of kindness and fairness? Even if being gay WAS a choice, what is it about that choice that you find so threatening that you have to keep those who make the 'choice' from having basic civil rights? The only thing you have to lose is the ability to control the lives of others.


----------



## RachelGS

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*THe constitution addresses same sex marriage







:*
Right. It does. It doesn't have to spell out every single application of equal rights for the basic premise of equal rights to be heeded.


----------



## sleeping queen

If the founders of our country had seen how people were going to twist this equal rights stance they probably would've been more specific. I don't know how much history you've studied , but the majority of these men were very biblicaly based moral men.


----------



## candiland

Quote:

I don't know how much history you've studied , but the majority of these men were very biblicaly based moral men.
Uh. So THAT'S the problem....


----------



## RachelGS

Quote:

_Originally posted by candiland_
*Uh. So THAT'S the problem....*
:LOL

and as for this: "If the founders of our country had seen how people were going to twist this equal rights stance they probably would've been more specific"-- what do you mean by twist? Actually apply them to more than one group?

And you know, there's that whole problem of one religion not being allowed to dominate the legal system in this country.

And I question the morality of anyone who thinks a fellow human being is unworthy of equal rights.


----------



## candiland

ITA. Heck, if a man and a dog enjoy special time together, I really don't give a crap! It's not my life. I could care less who or what people do! I am disturbed that anyone *does* care that much







:


----------



## dado

Quote:

_Originally posted by sleeping queen_
*I don't know how much history you've studied, but the majority of these men were very biblicaly based moral men.*
you mean they were biblically-based polygamists, too?

cool!


----------



## dado

Quote:

_Originally posted by gardeningmom_
*Gay is a life style choice as is adultry, fornication, or being a vegan or carnivore. You cannot put these two in the same class.
*
you are confusing orientation with action. "gay" is the same class as "hetero", it is an orientation and says nothing about how a person actually acts.

being gay is just like being black.

being gay and not celibate is like being black and not celibate.

glad we got that cleared up...


----------



## dado

the founders of this country didn't believe in "one man one vote". they didn't even believe in "one white man, one vote". now how 'bout we stop with the idolatry, accept the good things they accomplished, and move on realizing these were fallible men, much like any others.


----------



## Wildcrafter

dado, I'm starting to fall in love with you.









To those opposing gay marriage:

Would you approve of gay marriage if a gay man was paralyzed and could not have sex?

Do you approve of gay relationships that do not involve sex?


----------



## Wildcrafter

I'm curious to know how many of our founding fathers had slaves.


----------



## StarMama

Quote:

_Originally posted by Wildcrafter_
*I'm curious to know how many of our founding fathers had slaves.*
Yes, and they used biblical scripture to say it was ok too. Some of this scripture can be see here:Old testament New testament
I think that link is on the same site that was posted previously too...


----------



## Dragonfly

...


----------



## Dragonfly

Quote:

_Originally posted by dado_
*the founders of this country didn't believe in "one man one vote". they didn't even believe in "one white man, one vote". now how 'bout we stop with the idolatry, accept the good things they accomplished, and move on realizing these were fallible men, much like any others.*
Excellent idea. And let's also recognize that the main reasons they weren't more specific were a) they couldn't conceive of many of the situations that we have to address today and b) they intended that the Constitution act as a living, breathing document capable of adapting to the times. The greater part of their genius is that they seemed to recognize their limits in constructing the thing.

Since it's impossible to go only by the text of the Constitution - and even exploring original intent doesn't get us very far (unless you listen to Scalia and then, well.... just don't listen to Scalia unless for sheer literary value) - then we all need to just suck it up and realize that the document itself isn't the final word.


----------



## Piglet68

Quote:

_Originally posted by Wildcrafter_
*dado, I'm starting to fall in love with you.







*
I saw him first!!! oh wait...

...we can *share* him!!


----------



## Wildcrafter

I thought dado was a "her"!!!!! Of course, there's nothing wrong with that!


----------



## brandywine

Quote:

Im curious to know how many of our founding fathers had slaves.

Or we could ask how many of these moral, biblical men had sex with their slaves. I bet if we looked hard enough we could find some that had gay sex with their slaves! Whooo hooo-brandywine has a history assignment!

The argument I hear against gay rights the most is that the government should not condone immoral behavior.

I agree, the government does have aresponsibility to protect the population from the immoral acts of others.

Gay sex is not immoral. Niether is gay marriage. You can't equate it with laws against murder or even pedophilia because no one is harmed by the sexual acts of two consenting adults. This is exactly the point that many courts and county governments are coming to across the nation. Conservatives are losing the argument because they can't prove that gay marriage will cause them any harm.


----------



## dado

let's be blunt: at the time the world characterized them as terrorists. they were the Taliban of their time, and immediately on taking power they set out to genocide the millions of people already living on the continent.

these were not nice guys. they won, but as a group they were as nasty as any other group of power-hungry political action figures.

the constitution - and the process surrounding it, allowing it to adapt - does rock, though, that's undeniable.


----------



## kama'aina mama

What I find very interesting about the founders is this: That although religion was very important to many (though not all) of them they were very specific about keeping it out of the laws of the land. They were very specific about it. I think they would be far more shocked by some modern Christians trying to use their (the founders) faith as a reason to morph the US into a theocracy than they would the degree to which rights have been expanded.


----------



## Cranberry

I am most definitely FOR gay marriage.

With all due respect, I believe that those who have chosen the Christian lifestyle are trying to push their Christian agenda on the rest of us.


----------



## Fianna

Quote:

_Originally posted by Cranberry_
*I am most definitely FOR gay marriage.

With all due respect, I believe that those who have chosen the Christian lifestyle are trying to push their Christian agenda on the rest of us.*
To keep this from turning into even more of a war of generalizations and stereotypes than it already has, please review the previous posts and you will see that a number of us Christians are for gay marriage. I realize this is a real hot button issue but subdividing us even further than we already are is only going to make things worse, imo. And for the record, I know a number of non-christians who are against gay marriage. Yes, please don't say the majority against are Christians, I already assume that. But sometimes it's important to remember that we all can't be pigeonholed. It's just too easy to do that in this type of communication medium.


----------



## brandywine

Fianna is my hero


----------



## Cranberry

I didn't mean to offend. My statement was intended to be rather tongue-in-cheek as this is the reasoning often used by some -- not all -- Christians against "the gay agenda" (just replace _Christian_ with _Gay_ in my previous post).


----------



## Arduinna

Just because some people that are non Christian are prejudiced against gays does not change the fact that the Christian Bible is being used as the foundation source for many Christians bigotry against gays. And the only thing that non Christians against gays proves is that homophobia has the propensity to spread from it's source. Just like a cancer.


----------



## brandywine

The Bible is used, yes, but used erroneously. Just as Islam is not synonymous with terror, Christianity is not synonymous with homophobia.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama

For. I have no understanding of how someone could be against it. It is wrong to be against it.


----------



## Jentle

I'm for it.

.... Of course, it's kind of a selfish urge for me....

http://homepage.mac.com/jentoal/love


----------



## DaryLLL

Jentle,










Thank you for sharing your marriage photo page.

Yes, folks, an actual gay marriage. News flash, there are married lesbians that post on mdc!

It bothers me that we can discuss this here as if they don't exist and aren't reading this.

They're here, they're queer, and they aren't going away.

They are loving moms. Just. Like. You.

Deal.


----------



## brandywine

Jentle, your wedding was beautiful! Thanks so much for sharing your pictures. I'm going to stop posting here now, because I think I'm starting to repeat myself, and no homophobes are posting anyway. I just wanted to add one last thing, which in my mind answers the question perfectly.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Nuff said.


----------



## Taosmama

For!

I apologize for not reading the previous 7 pages! But my feeling is that marriage in our society has become primarily a civil issue, with certain important benefits being available through marriage, such as health insurance, inheritance, custody, etc. So to deny these civil benefits to citizens of our country is unacceptable. If certain Christian sects choose to deny their marriage ceremony to same sex couples, fine, but the civil/legal ceremony should be available to everyone!

However, with more apologies to our lesbian MDC members for whom it is an immediate issue, I also think this whole thing is currently a smoke-screen for not dealing with more critical questions, like, for instance, the debacle that has been our foreign policy in Iraq and the Middle East. I wish we could table it until after the November elections!

OK, off the soap box and back to Diapering!


----------



## LavenderMae

Jentle, thank you so much for sharing your wedding pics with us!! I really enjoyed looking at them. You look so in love and happy (and beautiful too)!! That IS what it is all about!!!!!!!!


----------



## AnnMarie

Go vote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...age-survey.htm


----------



## Dakota's Mom

Gay and Lesbian people are not asking for more civil rights than heteros. They ae asking for equal rights. When I married my husband, I had the right to immediately inherit from him. If he is sick I have the right to make medical decisions for him and he has this right for me. Our children are our children together. I have the right to plan and participate in his funeral. If he dies I will collect social security from him and so will our son. Neither of us had to write a will or draw up a durable power of attorney or anything else to have these rights. And I know there are other things that I'm just not thinking of right now. I know lesbian couple who lived together for 25 yers. They had a commitment ceremony within their church. However, according to the laws of the state, they were not married. When one of them became seriously ill, her partner could not make medical decisions for her. These decisions were made by a sister who had not spoken to the woman in 30 years. The partner could not be with her at the hospital. She could not even call and get informtion because she was not a relative. When the woman died, her family locked the other woman out of the apartment she had lived in for years because the lease was in the name of the one who died. This woman was grieving the loss of her life partner. She was not allowed to attend the funeral. She was not allowed back in to her own home to retrieve her personal belongings. She was not even allowed to get her own mother's picture. She was not allowed to know where her partner of 25 years was buried. She will not inherit anything. She is alone and without anything. While greiving she had to find a new apartment, buy all new clothes, basically start her life over again. Fortunately she had friends to help her. But this should never have happened. If the law can treat this woman this way, it should treat every hetero couple the same way. Make us write wills, have a power of attorney, make sure the lease is in both names, make sure the bank account is set up so neither partner is left without money.

The law should treat everyone as equal, not better than or less than. The law should grant the same right to homosexual couples as it does to heterosexul couples. Yes, the law says that you can't get married until you reach a certain age to protect minors. The law says you can't marry your first cousin to protect any children that would be born of this reltionship from all the birth defects of inbreeding.

The government needs to stay out of situations it does not belong in. If your religion does not allow you to marry a same sex person, than don't. But don't tell someone else what they have to do. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state in this country. But that line is getting foggier all the time.

Kathi


----------



## kama'aina mama

Thank you Dakota's Mom! I agree 1000 times over! Thank you!

I once read that there are over 1000 specific rights that marriage automatically endows a couple with. Yes, some of those can be accomplished by contract and other means but some cannot. Immigration regulations regarding citizens married to foreign nationals and the automatic status if that spouse, among others.


----------



## Jentle

I'm glad you guys like the photos.... It was an amazing day; couldn't have been more perfect.


----------



## Raven

Jentle - I LOVE LOVE LOVE your dress!!!!!

BTW - I consider myself to be Christian and I dont have a problem with gay marriage. I am married to a man but since I can remember I have had feelings for women too. I did have a relationship with a woman - shore but sweet - and my dh knows my sexuality. I have chosen not to persue my bisexuality not because I feel ashamed but b/c I have vowed to be with my partner and I dont personally believe it would be right. Having said that I would do the same if I were in a relationship with a woman.

I dont think its right for ppl to judge (or rather condemn) others for their personal beleifs or lifestyles.


----------



## Rainbow

It is none of my business who anyone marries but myself. This thread leaves me so deeply sad. I know it seems like a hypothetical question to so many here- but take a minute to remember that there are posters here who are in same sex marriages or relationships and ask yourself how this thread must feel to them. It's shitty, and there isn't any other way to paint it. Holding a public debate about someone else and their right to love whom they love is really really hurtful and I feel sad for everyone who has to experience this level of intolerance just to be themselves. Isn't having the state against same sex couples enough? The people who treat them horribly in every day life? Do they really need their AP board against them to? Don't they deserve and AP "haven" like you and I? I know people want ot protect their right to speak- but I'm just talking about voluntary compassion not censorship.


----------



## Meiri

I've never understood how some think that legalizing marriage for same gender couples is forcing this down their throats.

Hetero marriage has been legal all along, and yet there are how many millions of unmarried straight people???

Legal does not mean that anybody is FORCED to partake in the legal activity.

Alcoholic beverages are legal. We barely drink any in this household.
Smoking is legal. If you were to light up in our house, we'd kick your smoking backside out so fast your shoes would have catch up the next day.
Driving is legal, but there are families I know online who don't even own a car.
Reading is legal, but I see no laws requiring us to all carry a book everywhere.
TV is legal, I know of families who don't even own one and others who barely watch any....
Heck, going to church is legal! And there's that First Amendment forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion, go figure.









See the point yet?


----------



## BeeandOwlsMum

For the time being this thread is being closed. I am not sure where this falls under the current moratorium.

Thanks


----------

