phew, no ammendment to ban gay marriage :D

[ribbon]

Senate scuttles gay marriage ban
Associated Press

The Senate dealt an election-year defeat Wednesday to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, rejecting pleas from President Bush and fellow conservatives that the measure was needed to safeguard an institution that has flourished for thousands of years.

The vote was forty-eight to fifty, twelve short of the sixty needed to keep the measure alive. Six Republicans joined dozens of Democrats in sealing the amendment's fate.

``I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance,'' said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. ``Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?''

But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said there was no ``urgent need'' to amend the Constitution. ``Marriage is a sacred union between men and women. That is what the vast majority of Americans believe. It's what virtually all South Dakotans believe. It's what I believe.''

``In South Dakota, we've never had a single same sex marriage and we won't have any,'' he said. ``It's prohibited by South Dakota law as it is now in thirty-eight other states. There is no confusion. There is no ambiguity.''

Supporters conceded in advance they would fail to win the support needed to advance the measure, and vowed to renew their efforts.

``I don't think it's going away after this vote,'' Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said Tuesday on the eve of the test vote. ``I think the issue will remain alive,'' he added.

Whatever its future in Congress, there also were signs that supporters of the amendment intended to use it in the campaign already unfolding.

``The institution of marriage is under fire from extremist groups in Washington, politicians, even judges who have made it clear that they are willing to run over any state law defining marriage,'' Republican senatorial candidate John Thune says in a radio commercial airing in South Dakota. ``They have done it in Massachusetts and they can do it here,'' adds Thune, who is challenging Daschle for his seat.

``Thune's ad suggests that some are using this amendment more to protect the Republican majority than to protect marriage,'' said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Daschle's campaign.

At issue was an amendment providing that marriage within the United States ``shall consist only of a man and a woman.''

A second sentence said that neither the federal nor any state constitution ``shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'' Some critics argue that the effect of that provision would be to ban civil unions, and its inclusion in the amendment complicated efforts by GOP leaders to gain support from wavering Republicans.

Bush urged the Republican-controlled Congress last February to approve a constitutional amendment, saying it was needed to stop judges from changing the definition of the ``most enduring human institution.''

Bush's fall rival, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, opposes the amendment, as does his vice presidential running mate, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina. Both men skipped the vote.

In all, forty-five Republicans and three Democrats voted to keep the measure alive. Six Republicans joined forty-three Democrats and one independent in opposition.

The odds have never favored passage in the current Congress, in part because many Democrats oppose it, but also because numerous conservatives are hesitant to overrule state prerogatives on the issue.

At the same time, Republican strategists contend the issue could present a difficult political choice to Democrats, who could be pulled in one direction by polls showing that a majority of voters oppose gay marriage, and pulled in the other by homosexual voters and social liberals who support it. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll taken in March showed about four in ten support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, and half oppose it.

Democrats said that Bush and Republicans were using the issue to distract attention from the war in Iraq and the economy.

``The issue is not ripe. It is not needed. It's a waste of our time. We should be dealing with other issues,'' said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee said a decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Court had thrust the matter upon the Senate. The ruling opened the way for same sex marriages in the state, and Frist predicted the impact would eventually be far broader.

``Same-sex marriage will be exported to all fifty states. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be amended. The only question is who will amend it and how will it be amended,'' he added.

He said the choice was ``activist judges'' on the one hand and lawmakers on the other.



Phew! I realize that opponents of this ammendment are for gay marriage, but at this point it's a step in the right direction.
Honestly, I can get my head around the thought that people have an issue with two consenting adults getting married :ohboy when the divorce rate of heterosexuals is over fifty percent. I bet after gays have fought so long to be considered equal the divorce rate would be lower than that.
Now the senate can go back to doing the work of the country like saving social security and medicare, resigning the welfare to work bill and other things that will actually effect people rather than take away rights.

[jelliebean]

``Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?''


wtf? that's the most rediculous thing i have ever heard of. first of all marriage has nothing to do with homeland security... stopping homosexual marriage or lowering divorce rates aren't gonna make us safe from terrorists and/or threats of war..
and secondly i never knew marriage needed defended, i havent seen anyone attacking it, except for maybe the supporters of the ban who are working to prohibit more people from getting married. i mean its not like as a heterosexual i'm gonna not get married because lesbians or gays can marry, so therefore banning gay marriage hurts the instituion of marriage, not defends it...
oh well i could go on forever about this issue...
i'm jsut glad the ban wasn't passed

[IthinkIcan]

I feel that those who voted in opposition to the amendment shirked their responsibility as leaders of our country. The landmark decision/case in Massachusetts demands a decision as it does have far-reaching effects. They are not unaware that other states will have to honor (the decision Massachusetts made).

This is a democracy, and I feel the people have a right to have a say; and these politicians are our mouthpiece(s).

It's obvious that since this is such a hot button topic, particularly among the Democrats (to take a stand one way or another could cost them an election), that they wanted to avoid a vote during an election year. As this article alluded, even they are aware that this vote far from resolves this issue and hardly guarantees that they will not be the ones deciding on it in the future. It's them or the judges. :ugh :mad This was a matter of cloture, not closure.

Regardless of what the results would have been, I would have liked to seen some integrity from the politicians. Vote for what "they" believe. Is it too much to hope for to desire politicians who are willing to take a stand to run our country?

[ribbon]

:hugonjellibean:hugoff WTF is right. What do these people think is going to happen if gay marriages are recognized? Apparently the fall of civilization as we know it :ohboy.
Holland and Canada have legalized gay marriages. Last I heard not much has changed in those civilizations except some people who were discriminated against are now legally allowed to marry and have the same rights as heterosexuals in terms of insurance, end of life decisions, adoption, etc. etc. etc.
It wasn't long ago in our country that it was legal to own black slaves. Major change in ideology takes time and I guess for some people that's going to take longer than others.

[gone]

IThink: I just wanted to offer you a respectful challenge. You say that politicians should be our mouthpieces. It's an idea I hear a lot. Yet, sometimes I believe differently. I think that sometimes I vote for elected officials because I trust them as decision makers, to make the best decisions that they see fit- which aren't always the "popular choice" decisions. You talk about wanting politicians to make a stand, but should that stand always be what the majority of people want?

In regards to gay marriage, I'm mixed. Not for biblical reasons- it's OK in regards to the verses- but because it seems like such a small issue, in regards to the other large issues out there. Gay marriage comes up occasionally, usually around election year. I wish that the federal government didn't get involved, and made it a state's rights issue, and let each state decide as they see fit. There's issues that I'm a lot more concerned about, such as social security, that I feel should be getting more dialogue.

Just my two :fishy cents...

[ribbon]

greenangel said: - it's OK in regards to the verses-

:hugongreen:angel:hugoff I didn't realize that the bible said it was ok. Glad to hear that :supergrin.

[gone]

*chuckle*

sorry that I jumped to conclusions there. I guess what I should have said are that the verses are open to multiple interpretations, and I think that it's valid to say that the verses do not condemn homosexuality. We talked about it a fair amount in a bible study group I was in the past year. I understand how people can say "the bible says it's wrong" but I believe that it's important to look at the culture of the time as well.

[Catherose]

Homelsnd security? :reallymad That makes me so furious. It's like all they have to do is scare people into believing that homosexual marriage has ANYTHINg whatsoever to do with terrorism. I'm so frustrated by this... by how stupid Rick Santorum apparently thinks we are.

Why do people get so upset about this? If you're so opposed to gay marriage, the issue clearly doesn't effect you either way. I don't know why how anyone can convince theiself that it somehow threatens the "enduring institution" of heterosexual marriage. The only way it could be a threat is if gays and lesbians are currently marrying the opposite gender, and gay marriages will give them another option. Otherwise, I really don't see what one has to do with another. What they're really trying to do is kepp homosexuals marginalized, and I can't figure out why.

[ribbon]

:hugonCR:hugoff Glad to see you back and posting :supergrin.

[IthinkIcan]

You talk about wanting politicians to make a stand, but should that stand always be what the majority of people want?

I think they need to take a stand that they find conscionable. They need to be able to wake up and face themselves in the mirror each day and sleep soundly each night, whatever that decision might mean. So, would (edit for misspelling of would) that decision always be what the majority of people want? No. But, they should always be willing to have the integrity to vote, not withholding because it is an election year, particularly BECAUSE many people view politicians as a mouthpiece and vote people into office to tackle such hot topics. If I were a Democrat, I would want to know how my rep would truly vote when push came to shove.

I don't think it should come as a surprise that these hot button topics come up during election years. If anything we oughtn't see them as a diversion, but as an opportunity to truly see where our politicians stand on these issues that are obviously quite important to us (take a look at the other posts as of late).

Certainly the other issues are important, vitally, but there was no need to shelf this one. They need to deal with things as they come up, and the Massachusetts ruling definitely brought it up and brought it up in such a way that it now has ramifications throughout the country, not just in that state.

So, whether or not the issue is gay marriage or xyzpdq, I want politicians who are a) willing to deal with issues as they come up, b) willing to take a stand by, c) voting and putting their name behind that vote d) EVEN IN AN ELECTION YEAR

:train

[gone]

that was a really awesome, well thought out answer.

i too agree that politicians should at least vote! especially during an election year :winky

[Marigold]

Here's why I do not oppose gay marriage:

-I'm a romantic by nature:love
-I believe some people are meant to love the opp. sex and some are meant to love the same sex
-I believe in marriage
-I believe that to withold marriage from people who desire to marry just because they are gay is a). not fair, b). cruel, c). pointless
-I fail to see how, in any way, I personally would be hurt by gays marrying (unless a bunch of them start inviting me to their weddings and I have to buy alot of wedding gifts - then my bank-account would hurt!:muhaha
-I see alot of misery in the so-called traditional marriages around me
-They call it wedded bliss but we all know it can often not be that way - so gays should have just as much right and the chance to suffer too:muhaha (this is the non-romantic, cynical part of me speaking now)
-I'm not religious so I don't feel I need to believe what various religions have against marriage
-Lots of other people are not religious either - so I don't even see why religion enters into it at all.
-It would be good for the children of gay parents to have married parents if that is what they want, as a family
-Straight people have bungled marriage for a long time - maybe gay people could teach us something new in terms of being successfully married
-Well, why not anyway? Gay people are here to stay, so to speak. They are moving out to the suburbs and raising families. For conservatives: you may find yourself living next to a gay couple w/children - wouldn't you at least want them married?
-Straight people do not "own" marriage

There.
Someday it's going to be happening all over the country and people will not even bat an eyelash over it anymore - we will look back and be amazed it was such a big deal -and took so long to happen - gay marriage.
Mark my words!:cheesy
-Marigold:sun
-

[shortstop]

Marigold,
You're right....what is that two in a row now? :muhaha We will look back on this and wonder why it took so long. (Just as we have done with slavery, etc)
Correct me if I'm wrong :bowl, but our gov't is supposed to be REPRESENTATIVE. The politicians are supposed to vote for what the majority wants, they're not supposed to be making their own decisions. I know I don't vote for someone who is going to make his own decision without regard to what his county/district/state wants. I want them to vote for what we tell them we want them to vote for. It's not their job to make their own decisions, those decisions are supposed to be based on what the majority wants. If it wasn't it would be a dictatorship, not a democracy.

[Angangel]

I don't want to get off the topic, but I guess what you guys are saying, is that you want someone to stand up for what they believe even when it's not the most popular thing to do. I think that almost everyone who has posted has been for gay marriages. So, with that said, where does it say in the Bible that gay marriages are ok ? I don't believe that it does, God did not create us for same sex marriages. It doesn't mean that they are any less of a person. God still loves them, just not there life style. Anyway, that my opinion. Thanks for listening.

Angie

"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."--James Dean

[IthinkIcan]

I found it interesting that people got touchy when I mentioned the responsibility of our politicians to vote even on the difficult issues. :ummm :challenge What don't you like about that? The idea of the entire "representative(s)" voting (on our behalf) is what a democracy is about. That is why I am disturbed that the process was disrupted. That they, frankly, pussied out. Why? Because it is an election year, and they are politicians, and there are some who are on the line who if they voted according to conscience would lose their seat. That is why I brought up the matter of the "man" in the mirror and sleeping at night, regardless of what side one stands on. As has been mentioned here, perhaps, someone is quite liberal on many or most things but conservative on one or two; if this is the one thing, this could cost them their political career. Maybe they are struggling with their decision. I don't feel they ought be given 'til AFTER the election to decide, since making such important decisions is an integral part of their position. It, again, is a matter of integrity; they need to take a stand. They can either a) know how their constituents feel and vote that way regardless of personal feelings, b) know how their constituents feel and vote based on personal feelings/morals because, ultimately, they have to live with themselves, c) know how their constituents feel and have a system of beliefs that line up with them and vote based on these and all is well.

Right now, with the gay marriage issue, it is about sixty-forty, even closer. So, it is obviously a very divisive AND important issue. Time to take a stand. If they can't stand on this, how can I expect them to take a stand on important international issues, including Iraq, which is a real hot button. We need people with, heh, fortitude (almost said balls :muhaha ).

[IthinkIcan]

:hugon Angie :hugoff

I don't approve of homosexual marriage, because I believe the Bible to be the Word of God (and I believe He doesn't approve of homosexuality or homosexual marriage--**** Corinthians ****:****
Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality . . . ). Inspired of God. Inerrant. Infallible. So, you are not alone. *gentle smile* This immediately gets complicated here because many in the :bowl don't believe in God or the Bible. Or, they believe different things about God and the Bible than what is literally written, reading certain areas as symbolic rather than literal.

A couple of other passages you read, perhaps?

Romans ****:********
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. ********In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
********Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. ********They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, ********slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; ********they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

But, if I'm/we are to quote/do a Bible insert into the replies, I would go on to say as you did that, of course, as Romans ****:******** says, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Gee, ALL. Romans ****:**** "There is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Yet, yes, in gets into the matter that one should not sin that grace may abound and that once one is aware of a sin problem they need to be working on "repenting" or resolving it. One line of thought for those felt to be "born that way," is abstinence. (Just imparting my itty bit of knowledge. This, of course, varies widely by denominations and some have even apparently decided to, uh, throw out these verses *shock* :surprised ) The thing one will hear often in loving churches is God may hate the sin, but he loves the sinner, or some variation thereof. Thus, He may not like what they are doing, but He loves them. It's like the loving parent. No matter what my daughter does, I will ALWAYS love her, period.

So, after that serious digression, I'll say a couple more things, but since the Bible thing was brought up, I figured it will be mentioned in reply.

Marigold, well, this didn't really start out about yay or nay or why one would be pro or con, but after a couple of the replies I swung in the direction :winky I'm up for it. I was focused more on the wussy, pussy footing of our legislators, refusing to make a decision . . . and for all the reasons I previously listed.

For now, I must :sleepy

Haven't slept in two days and nights.

:train

[the_dragonfly]

First of all, I must apologise, but who on earth has the RIGHT to say who can marry and who can not, based on THEIR OWN beliefs?
My belief is that two consenting adults can marry who they like, so why is my belief any less right than our current laws, which are based on a religion, which is NOT MY RELIGION.

So... hetrosexuals can marry. Gay people cannot. Because the bible tells me so. A book which I don't hold much stock in, to be honest (gee, could you tell?)

Well, let's take a look at the statistics in my own little world.
Hetrosexual mother. First marriage ended after ten years.
Hetrosexual father, first two or three marriages failed. Aunt. Divorced. At least half of the thirteen brothers and sisters on my fathers side are divorced.
AT LEAST half of the friends I have have parents who are divorced - at least once.
Hands up those up there who know a divorced straight couple?
And a seperated gay couple?
Thats right, we all know both, either way, we fall in love, we marry, we seperate.

So yeah, keeping marriage only open to hetrosexuals makes a REAAALLLLLLL lot of sense, because the bible tells me so.

No one (and let me repeat this) NO ONE should have the right to say whether or not two consenting adults can marry.

Being gay, or straight, or curvy or flat has no damn impact on how a marriage will or will not work - doesn't our soaring divorce rates PROVE THIS?

How about we say: Two obese people cannot marry, because, based on scientific rates at the moment, their children are more than likely to get fat too, and we don't want that.

So.... the bible says its wrong? The bible says LOTS of things which people (who are so-called bound by their religions in their beliefs) pay NO attention to.

Let me bring your attention to the following: (cut and pasted from a website, can be found on many.
This comes from:
http://www.yasminboland.com/bible.htm
(and this took a whole lotta time to copy/paste and edit coz there are too many damn numbers!!!!!!!


Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus<eighteen:twenty two> clearly states it to be an abomination. ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them.

One: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.<one:nine> The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

Two: I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus <twentyone:seven> In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Three. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.(fifteen)<nineteen-twentyfour)
The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Four. Lev. <twentyfive:forthyfour> states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

Five. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus <thirtyfive:two>clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Six. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. <eleven:ten>, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Seven. Lev. <twentyone:twenty> states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be twenty/twenty, or is there some wiggle room here?

Eight Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. <nineteen:twentyseven>. How should they die?

Nine. I know from Lev. <eleven:six-eight> that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

Ten: My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. <nineteen:nineteen> by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.<twentyfour:ten-sixteen>. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. <twenty:fourteen>)


I ask again, what right does anyone have to tell me who I can, and can NOT marry?

[Catherose]

I just typed out the LONGEST thing ever and then erased it.:mad I'll be back.

[IthinkIcan]

Again, to me this goes back to a matter of opinion, which is why we have this wonderful thing called democracy. You vote your way; I vote mine, regardless of the reason behind it. The same holds true for those in political office. Yet again, my problem is that the people we have entrusted to represent us have voted on cloture, which is not closure. Really this is just a matter of delaying the inevitable, and the only other option is to throw the responsibility they shirked into the hands of the judges. I want our legislative ruling body to make decisions, not to RUN FROM THEM, period. If that means they vote in something I disagree with, well :ugh but at least that would be the democratic process. This, in essence, just shut down a voting process in a large part because there are politicians who are on the fence that don't want to put their name to a yay or nay. This wasn't a matter of a filibuster, so this was a bit unusual and merely prevented this hot button topic from being voted on in an election year.

As for the biblical "arguments" you presented :wacky if you really want me to address them, I can, but I don't really feel it would make a difference in how you feel on the gay marriage matter. And, although we feel differently about this matter, I'm incensed about their indecisiveness and lack of willingness to take a stand. Separate issues really.

[IthinkIcan]

To answer your questions, briefly and simply:

First of all, I got quite a laugh out of this. I would have been interested in the presentation. There is obviously humor intermingled with the knowledge and a great deal of sarcasm, which may be masked bitterness.

It will help most of all to note that I did NOT mention the verse in Leviticus for just this point :winky Although none of the Word will "pass away," not a "jot or tiddle," you are referring to the Old Testament, which is the old covenant. This covenant was a salvation based on following hundreds of laws and rituals, sacrifice, works, holiness, and purity. This is a very simplistic overview, but it will help explain some of the responses. We are now under a new covenant, which is based on the ultimate sacrifice, Jesus Christ, His salvation and grace (and accepting one's sinful nature, asking for forgiveness, asking the gift of forgiveness, and trying to move beyond known sins--repentance). He didn't come to abolish the law but to FULFILL the law because we couldn't--a pretty good clue there.

One: When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.<one:nine> The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? :muhaha No. One does not smite a neighbor. You treat them as you want to be treated yourself. Now, by OT standards, if YOUR eye or hand offends or does not please you and causes you to sin, you are told you are better to gouge it out or cut it off than the alternative. Thankfully, under the new covenant there is a provision for grace because JC fulfilled the old covenant since we couldn't. Sacrifices ended with Him. He was the ultimate sacrifice. Pure. Blameless. Holy. Without defect. So, all that said, you need not sacrifice OR smite.

Two: I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus <twentyone:seven> In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Where did you get the fair market price for that time period? There is not specification of such in the verse or chapter (or even the Pentateuch I believe) that references this specifically. It is abhorrent, but it was not the Bible that enslaved these women. One must look at the time period within its context. If anything the Bible provided standards for treatment that were above and beyond what was common in that era. (To blame the Bible for slavery is to distort history.) Referring to the verses just beyond what you quoted (regarding treatment):
**** "If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. **** If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [****] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. **** If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. ******** If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.


Three. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual cleanliness - Lev.(fifteen)<nineteen-twentyfour)
The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Luke ****:********-******** ******** And a woman having an issue of blood twelve years, which had spent all her living upon physicians, neither could be healed of any,
******** Came behind him, and touched the border of his garment: and immediately her issue of blood stanched.
******** And Jesus said, Who touched me? When all denied, Peter and they that were with him said, Master, the multitude throng thee and press thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?
******** And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that strength is gone out of me.
******** And when the woman saw that she was not hid, she came trembling, and falling down before him, she declared unto him before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was healed immediately.
******** And he said unto her, Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace. The background on this is this woman had some form of what we would now call "dysfunctional uterine bleeding." Jesus didn't judge her. He called her out. She had been healed. Jesus went about His way. He didn't go purify or go through any ritual. He wasn't made "dirty" or "unclean" by being touched by her when she had her issue of blood. (I'm falling asleep here. I'm so sorry. I'll try. Haven't slept in nearly three days. Gosh I need sleep.) He CHOSE to heal her. Hardly sounds like he was banishing her. Oh, but I suppose if you want to keep up with this ritual, though it's OT :winky you'll need to set up a menstrual hut and . . .

Four. Lev. <twentyfive:forthyfour> states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? Well, first off all, the Bible says we are to obey the laws of the land, which is to say slavery is ILLEGAL. As your friend stated, ******** " 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. ******** You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. ******** You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
******** " 'If an alien or a temporary resident among you becomes rich and one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself to the alien living among you or to a member of the alien's clan, ******** he retains the right of redemption after he has sold himself. One of his relatives may redeem him: ******** An uncle or a cousin or any blood relative in his clan may redeem him. Or if he prospers, he may redeem himself. '" I may be too tired to be catching why this wouldn't include Canadians, regardless it wouldn't matter, since you have to follow the laws of the land AND you would be trying to following the laws of the old testament/covenant

Five. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus <thirtyfive:two>clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? There you are again, back in the OT. If you do that, then you would violate, by following your own OT ways, the commandment, "thou shall not kill." Yes, I know more background on this, but I sooooooo have to get to bed. Anyhow, suffice it so that the NT says "forsake not the assembling of others" and "where any two or more are gathered in my name I am there in there midst. Furthermore, killing will get you a bad rap. It's against the laws of the land, which does violate the new AND old covenant.

Six. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. <eleven:ten>, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Romans ********:******** As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[****] is unclean in itself. There are several NT verses about salvation, purity, etc. not being a matter of food and drink. Thus, being that this would be a NON-issue, it would certainly seem that homosexuality is larger abomination than any food item (provided someone isn't Jewish, etc., then it is wise not to place a stumbling block in their path and to respect their belief)

Seven. Lev. <twentyone:twenty> states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be twenty/twenty, or is there some wiggle room here? :muhaha I so wish I knew if you were serious. Sorry for the laughter if you are serious. Obviously I am trying to be. I've given up an hour-and-a-half plus (already) of desperately needed sleep to try to give out as well-thought of a response to these questions as I could in such a :sleepy sleep-deprived state. Anyhow, how often do you approach the altar of God? These, as I believe, were rules for the priests of the time, and they were entrusted with frightening tasks such as entering into the Holy of Holies, etc. They couldn't shave their heads or shave off the edges of their beards, cut their bodies, or go into the presence of the dead, even if it was family. No man who was blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; ******** no man with a crippled foot or hand, ******** or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who had any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. It was thought if they got too near the curtain or the altar they would desecrate the sanctuary. This was part of the sadness of the old covenant. Perfection was tantamount. By Jesus's fulfilling the laws and being the ultimate sacrifice, the high priest, entering the Holy of Holies, on and on He set mankind free, if they choose to accept the gift and follow Him.

Eight Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. <nineteen:twentyseven>. How should they die? I don't recall mention of death, but it's been a while; and my quick check didn't provide that information within the context. Was it historical context? Either way, again, this was a matter of OT legalism, which we were set free from. Notice a theme. :yay grace, love :love freedom, forgiveness, acceptance--if someone wants to segue right into the homosexuality thing, was dealt with much more harshly in OT times--think of S&G (and no, it had nothing to do with "hospitality," OY) the love is unconditional, but He can't love the sin

Nine. I know from Lev. <eleven:six-eight> that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? Sure, WTheck. :winky Okay, can you tell I realllllllly want to go to bed. I need to get up in two hours. Two hours sleep in three days (just don't think about it), and all to think this will likely be poorly received :ugh Just get a cheapy that isn't made with real :piggy Rest easy. Nah, again, this goes back to the whole NT versus OT thing. You can even eat pork and steak and, okay, I don't feel good. Moving along.

[IthinkIcan]

Ten: My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. <nineteen:nineteen> by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). Don't believe this offense required stoning. Again, though, this is a matter of legalism and the freedom we got from entering into the NT. It is why God provided Jesus. Because He learned as early on as Adam and Eve that we would never be able to live up to the necessary expectations to be with Him, which His holiness demands. The OT sacrifices provided atonement for that as did many of these rituals and legalistic to-do's. With the sacrifice of Jesus, though, called the ultimate sacrifice since he fulfilled the laws while living a sinless life, thus requiring no further sacrifices, we entered a new covenant of grace and RELATIONSHIP.

He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.<twentyfour:ten-sixteen>. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. <twenty:fourteen> ) OH NO! If you want to follow legalistic, Levitican law, then you MUST follow it to the letter, or who knows what will happen! :zoinks In all seriousness though. Cursing is one thing. Cursing as in taking the Lord's name in vain is another and treading uncomfortable ground for me to comment on. Blasphemy? Do you actually know what that is? As a Christian that is something that is still taken quite seriously even in the NT. In fact, "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is considered the only unforgivable sin. I have been assured, however, that it is very difficult to do. Very very very VERY difficult to do.

Wow, two-and-a-half hours! Or more. :zoinks And I bet it won't make a bit of difference to anyone, period. I know it most assuredly won't sway anyone's opinion on the original post, er, right, uh, yeh, what was that :winky

:sleepy NIGHT NIGHT.

[the_dragonfly]

ITIC, well done on replying to the quoted part there - as I said, it's not my writing, I'm never that witty, I get bored half way through (short attention span, my mother says that if she were a different kind of monther I'd be on ADD/ADHD drugs!!).

You're right in relation to changing my mind, I doubt anything could ever tell me it was wrong to deny two consenting adults the right to marriage.
I posted that website, because it makes me laugh every time I read it, and it shows the different ways in which people can interpret the same writing.

As you mentioned, what I posted was OT, not NT, but I do know some people who still prefer to read the OT.

(believe it or not, I have several copies of both around my house, one given to me upon my graduation from the girls brigade (ummm.. religious typed brownie kinda thing) and one is an old family bible that needs to be rebound. Ways a tonne. Anyway!)

NOW back to the orginal post. I do not believe it is up to the Politicians to make these decisions, I don't think it's fair, or right that they believe its up to them to choose what is right or wrong regarding marriage.
Who's right IS this? It's the right of the consenting adults involved.

What would come by making it legal for gays to marry? What would it change in this world, fishies, and would it be for worse, or for the better.
WHY, apart from the religious reasons given, would it be wrong?
I really would like answers to these questions, despite my.... anger about certain things, I do like to hear, and attempt, to understand others views (I promise!)

ITIC, I hope you can come bac k and answer these questions, I do find your responses interesting, and thought provoking (as with other fishies too). And I hope you got some sleep at last (three days, are you okay?)

[lexie]

Interesting arguments about the Bible verses..it raises some good points...but shouldn't anything in the Bible be irrelevant when it comes to policy? whatever happened to separation of church and state? :ohboy well, I guess Bush happened :sarcasm

[ribbon]

A friend who I respect and think is great sent this to me :muhaha

Twelve Reasons Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legal


:ohboy Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.
:ohboy Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can’t legally get married because the
world needs more children.
:ohboy Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
:ohboy Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears’
fifty-five-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.
:ohboy Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed
at all; women are property, blacks can’t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.
:ohboy Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.
:ohboy Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours,
the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
:ohboy Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
:ohboy Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy
behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal
standing and can sign a marriage contract.
:ohboy Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.
:ohboy Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual
marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new
social norms because we haven’t adapted to cars or longer lifespans.
:ohboy Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a
different name are better, because a “separate but equal” institution is
always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just
as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

[Marigold]

Shortstop said:
"Marigold,
You're right....what is that two in a row now?":muhaha

Dear, dear shortstop - are you *Sure* you are counting correctly???:muhaha:muhaha:muhaha:sarcasm
Anyway, I guess it's not really about being "right" (although, yes, I do think I am - as does Every Single :fishy posting on the current events forum:cheesy).

Borderline - I LOOOVE that letter to Dr. Laura.

-Marigold:sun

[Marigold]

Ribbon,

Wow.
That Does sum it up really well for me, your list.
I think about social change:
People resist and resist and resist - and then a thing comes to pass after much struggle - many people get angry - and then the time comes when no one really thinks about it all that much even if they still don't like it.
It becomes a part of the fabric of our society - like interracial marriage and yes, women being able to vote! In America this came to pass in nineteen twenty, I believe - really not that long ago.
And I'm sure Plenty of biblical injunctions were used at the time to keep women from sullying the sanctity of...the right to vote.
-Marigold:sun

[the_dragonfly]

Marigold, some how I knew you would! :winky

[the_dragonfly]

sorry Ribbon, I did not see your post there - I liked those, I;'m gonna copy/paste them to a friend of mine, he'll hate it
heheh

[peachgoddess]

:hugon ithinkican :hugoff
you mentioned that you avoided quoting leviticus because of what it says there. if you believe that the bible should be interpreted literally, then don't you need to really stick to that? i mean, you said that one reading the bible needs to take into account the times. well, who's to say that the time we're in now wouldn't allow gay marriage? the time we're in now doesn't allow slavery, but slavery is common fair in the bible. why does time change one element and not another? as some other :hugon:fishys:hugoff have pointed out, there have been a LOT of changes in society and the belief systems under which we operate (including religious beliefs). why should gay marriage be excluded from those changes? i honestly think this has less to do with religion than it does with personal fears and discomforts.

also, i've known some gay people who were brought up in very religious homes. i'm thinking of one person in particular--he had had the catholic belief system so ingrained in his head, that he couldn't be proud of who he was. he felt ashamed of himself. i would bet anything that he would have been 'straight' if he could have. instead he hid, he avoided relationships, he couldn't be honest with his family because of their beliefs . . . he really felt that he was a shameful, sinful being.

why should this even be an issue? religion is something that people have used over time to comfort themselves. nobody really knows what happens when you die--because they don't come back--but it's comforting to think that there's a heaven and someone to watch over you and help you through the difficult times in life. i'm agnostic, but i do sometimes feel very drawn to religion (although not christian beliefs). but it's things like this--making people ashamed of themselves, telling people that they're 'flawed' when they're not hurting anybody, trying to eliminate love--that make me vehemently opposed to organized religion.

we live in a world full of hatred, wars, killings, terrorist attacks, self-destruction and suicide . . . why should love be scorned? why should any feelings of warmth towards, and (when mutual) passion for, another human being be 'bad' or not supported? we need all the love we can find in the world today. if two people want to make a commitment to one another, to stand by each other, to love each other . . . i'm going to support that in every way i can.

:love
:beefishy peachgoddess :beefishy

[ribbon]

peachgoddess said: also, i've known some gay people who were brought up in very religious homes. i'm thinking of one person in particular--he had had the catholic belief system so ingrained in his head, that he couldn't be proud of who he was. he felt ashamed of himself. i would bet anything that he would have been 'straight' if he could have. instead he hid, he avoided relationships, he couldn't be honest with his family because of their beliefs . . . he really felt that he was a shameful, sinful being.

The incidence of suicide among gay and lesbian teens is much higher than that of teens as a whole, in part because they fear unacceptance from their families and church . This is among many, many articles and studies about this real problem http://www.virtualcity.com/youthsuicide/ . I just can't believe, if there is a god and if the bible has any historical accuracy, that is the intention of a loving god. The politically correct version might be hate the sin, not the sinner, but to an insecure teenager who is different than the majority, and to many, many others, in practice there is not a lot of difference.

[SFishy]

An interesting link for all to read...

ReligiousTolerance.org: SAME-SEX MARRIAGES (SSM), CIVIL UNIONS & DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS

There's a lot there to read, and they try to cover both "sides" of the argument.

Enjoy...

Take care of YOU

[ribbon]

Amy, awesome website and analysis. You always have the best resources. Thank you.

[IthinkIcan]

Wow, that seemed a bit insulting peachgoddess. Perhaps I misunderstood, though? One of us may be misapprehending the other. Since it is a sensitive topic, I will attempt to carefully clarify, yet it may very well be that the topic and my pov is the problem.

you mentioned that you avoided quoting leviticus because of what it says there.

I believe if you :digdeep into what I wrote again you will see that the matter was more that we are under a new covenant, which, frankly, is the first thing many people bring up if one quotes the OT. Thus, I avoided it, and attempted to explain.

if you believe that the bible should be interpreted literally, then don't you need to really stick to that? :ummm Where did you read this? I still haven't slept. I mean, I know I'm tired, but the ENTIRE Bible is not to be interpreted literally. I hope you don't think I said that. The laws, however, are literal and there are hundreds of them. Thankfully we are freed from the letter of the law to follow the spirit of the law, to live in grace.

i mean, you said that one reading the bible needs to take into account the times. this is only prudent when reading an historical document :ohboy to consider the historical context; I first referred to an attempt at money comparison, which couldn't be done, since there was not a historical reference. In this case, to respond to your next question . . .

well, who's to say that the time we're in now wouldn't allow gay marriage?

It is to "know" God, to know His character, to have relationship with Him. He deplores sexual immorality. First Corinthians Six:Nine-Ten Nine Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders Ten nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
First Corinthians Six:Eighteen-Twenty EighteenFlee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. Nineteen Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; Twenty you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

This is not Old Testament. This is New Testament/new covenant; it is a description of how God feels about sexual immorality and homosexuality now. Seeing as that is so, I don't see as how one could rationalize that the "time" we're in would now allow for gay marriage. Certainly a lot has changed, but some things haven't changed at all. Again, this is where the idea that JC lived a perfect life, including following every ritual, law, jot, and tiddle. He did what no one else could do. Now, out of choice, we continue to obey the spirit of the law, which I can explain further if you don't understand. Some things were detailed clearly in Scripture--freed from the food rituals. Nothing that goes in or out of us makes us dirty, except perhaps our words, so watch our tongues (James). I could really :confuse you probably, and that's not my goal, so suffice it to say. Out of the many many many laws regarding sexuality (including menstruation and seed spilling), there are those few that are now in the NT. They, of course, focus on immorality, and homosexuality was considered important enough to, well, mention.
the time we're in now doesn't allow slavery, but slavery is common fair in the bible. why does time change one element and not another? Because, it would seem, that many have viewed the two as quite different situations. I'll continue below. as some others have pointed out, there have been a LOT of changes in society and the belief systems under which we operate (including religious beliefs). why should gay marriage be excluded from those changes? Again, I believe the issues were quite different and that is why one received attention much sooner. I would hope everyone here would prioritize ending slavery over the fight for gay marriage. I believe that to be so :touched Of course, now that, that is ("mostly") done, many want to be on about the business of securing the rights for gays to marry.

I do concur that there have been a lot of changes in our society's belief system(s), including religious. As a whole our nation has become much more liberal. I was writing another reply that started off by explaining how I perceived this evolution. I don't doubt, however, that it has been apparent to most here (or, hey, at least one or two of you :sarcasm ). Even using the gay marriage issue as an example.

I'm thirty y/o. When I was in junior high and high school, the "idea" of lesbianism/homosexuality was just starting to "float" around, so to speak. It was a rather big to do that in our "A" crowd there was some experimentation or outright bisexuality or lesbianism, although they waited 'til a grad party to announce it and then make out like crazy. But, it split their group before then, long before . . . about the time two of the girls started doing reports about the subject. One girl who broke away from the group took me into her confidence. It was all so sad and crazy. Rumors abounded, but most thought it was probably for show. My first stage kiss, though, and a total hottie, they thought he was gay; he is and "married." All this stuff was our town's introduction on a larger scale to homosexuality/lesbianism. It definitely got everyone talking, tsking, tittering. It could have been one of those teen movies. Our B group became the A group even overtaking most of homecoming and other royalties. I was BeeeA group. As a part of this prized group, held up for my "morals" (and other things--the Bs had their niche to begin with :winky ) I got an earful of JUST how the community felt about these girls, THAT "boy," if you can call him that (you better get tested for AIDS, you poor dear) and the hysteria. Which gave way to an uncomfortable PC. Then, PC. Which became natural. Then EXPECTED. Since this had been the A group there were a number of influential parents. For a long while I assumed that was just my community. Then, just this board. Even just the periodicals I was reading (Jane, Cosmo, Glamour). Then I went mainstream, and I opened my eyes to the truth--our nation is changing and becoming much more liberal. And, I'd dare say it is inevitable that we will have gay marriage. And I'm sure you are right that it will become "normal"-seeming. Afterall, what you live is what you know, and even if you live in the Land of Oz you can think it's normal until you experience something else.

i honestly think this has less to do with religion than it does with personal fears and discomforts. for me I know how I believe has nothing to do with fear or discomfort. I'd be more comfortable going with the status quo. I could just as easily "debate" the other side, but to do so would be to deny "my" God; and I've already done that before and still struggle with a guilt that's difficult to describe :cry

also, i've known some gay people who were brought up in very religious homes. i'm thinking of one person in particular--he had had the catholic belief system so ingrained in his head, that he couldn't be proud of who he was. he felt ashamed of himself. i would bet anything that he would have been 'straight' if he could have. instead he hid, he avoided relationships, he couldn't be honest with his family because of their beliefs . . . he really felt that he was a shameful, sinful being. hm, pretty much what I just described, but, for once, in less words

It's cases such as his that compound my guilt. I do believe, and even know, that there are people who choose lesbianism/homosexuality/bisexuality. But, I highly suspect that there are those who can't choose too. And those people tug at my heart and wrap me in guilt. My conflict runs deep, although I would share love and grace. I live so torn up, so often.

why should this even be an issue? religion is something that people have used over time to comfort themselves. nobody really knows what happens when you die--because they don't come back--but it's comforting to think that there's a heaven and someone to watch over you and help you through the difficult times in life. i'm agnostic, but i do sometimes feel very drawn to religion (although not christian beliefs). but it's things like this--making people ashamed of themselves, telling people that they're 'flawed' when they're not hurting anybody, trying to eliminate love--that make me vehemently opposed to organized religion. Why? Won't entertain that question. As for comforting myself :sad :ugh :wacky :confused :ummm have you noticed in this post something resembling comfort? I desire for it to be relationship and comfort, but a lot of the time I just feel wrong, guilty, :ugh :bult and I worry that this is like pulling a Peter too (please no).

we live in a world full of hatred, wars, killings, terrorist attacks, self-destruction and suicide . . . why should love be scorned? why should any feelings of warmth towards, and (when mutual) passion for, another human being be 'bad' or not supported? we need all the love we can find in the world today. if two people want to make a commitment to one another, to stand by each other, to love each other . . . i'm going to support that in every way i can.
This has been a very difficult decision for me, but I want to follow the path I've chosen. To do this I cannot support gay marriage.

[peachgoddess]

:hugon ithinkican :hugoff,
my reply was not intended to be insulting. rather, it was intended to challenge the ideas that you've presented. i do often get very 'intense' when debating topics i feel strongly about, so if that poured over into this post, i apologize for that.

i also would challenge some of what you said in this post, but i think it would be moving more in the direction of religious beliefs and away from the primary topic at hand here. so i'm going to accept the fact that we have very different beliefs--and that we could probably continue for days (or pages?) going back and forth in the debate.

i still support gay marriage. i still find it appalling that religion is used to discriminate against people. and on and on.

and i'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you probably still hold your views :cheesy.

we can disagree. that's often the way things go . . .

:bug peachgoddess :bug

[ribbon]

I have a very hard time with anyone using the bible as an excuse to discriminate.

[the_dragonfly]

ITIC, if I may quote:
it is a description of how God feels about sexual immorality and homosexuality now.
How do you know this? When was the NT written? How do you know there shouldn't be a newer testament?
I would like, if you could, for you to take religion away from the issue, just for a moment.
Can you give me, outside of the reason "becuase the bible tells me so", why it is wrong for two, consenting adults to marry? What do you think could happen? The sky won't fall in chicken little, I promise you this!

but the ENTIRE Bible is not to be interpreted literally
So who chooses what should be interpreted literally, and what should not? Who's right is this?
Who decided that slavery is not okay, but biogtry and discrimination is?

Forgive me for having to quote you all the time, but I fear many others have not replied.

I applaud the other fishies here who have continued to contribute, even though it has moved away from the original post (but then, I'm betting ribbon knew this would happen, yeah?)

I grew up (and still am!) with a very religious grandfather. Not to give too much away about my family, but our religion is... more relaxed than others, we do a great deal of charity work, and I've always been taught just to accept things as they are. Now, growing up there was a lady as the church, who, funny enough has the same name as my mother. Lets call her... Jane Smith. Yes, that will do. Anyway, Jane Smith is constantly referred to as "Jane-Smith-The-Lesbian" in my family, simply to differenciate between my mother (Jane-smith-the-straight-woman :winky )
Anyway, JaneSmithTheLesbian went to see my aunt in hospital the other day. I asked my aunt, who is also quite relgious, if JaneSmithTheLesbian was going to hell? Because, you know, she's gay. "Of course not". Apparently, despite JaneSmithTheLesbians choice to be a lesbian, she'll be allowed into heaven, because she is still a good Christian.
I'm not quite sure what differenciates janesmiththelesbian from other gay people, but there you have it.
In my family's mind, and others of the church, janesmiththelesbian will still get her promised berth in heaven!

Now, my mother, janesmiththestraightwoman, also believes in God, and is a little bemused that I don't, but has, on more than one occaision, suggested I be a surrogate mother for my friends, a lovely gay couple (lets forget I'm too... vain re. the ed to get pregnant for myself, let alone self less enough to get pregnant for someone else!) , because, despite the fact that he's gay, my best friend is the best person in the world. He deserves to be allowed to get married, and adopt, and do whatever the hell he wants.
He has done NOTHING, NOTHING to deserve to be discrimiated against.

Excuse my long winded reply, I'm trying to be as diplomatic as possible, and I tend to drone when this is the case (I tend to fly off the handle and apologise later, out of respect of the bowl, I'm trying not to).

So. I'll re-ask my earlier questions:
outside of the bible, what could possible be a good enough reason to dis-allow these people to marry - in this, I would like a response that does not mention religion, the bible, if at all possible, and, if not, well, I guess that shows something too.


What would come by making it legal for gays to marry? What would it change in this world, fishies, and would it be for worse, or for the better.

[angelcake]

Just adding my views here,

I completely agree with Borderline and Peachgoddess here. Using the Bible to justify discrimination is unacceptable and wrong in my opinion. It was written many years ago and intepreted over and over again in accordance with the social values of the time.

I think really everyone needs to remember that not everybody believes in the bible. Why should the laws be dictated by a book, whose prophecies not everyone believes in. It is not a code for moral behaviour. Surely the laws need to be more religion netural than that. That is why there is the separation of church and state!

I am sorry, but I get very :mad when it comes to issues like this.

Everyone should have a free choice about who they wish to spend their lives with. If you believe that homosexuality is wrong, that is your choice. Don't engage in homosexuality then. But why should what someone else decides to do, who someone else chooses to love, affect you. I just don't understand? Why must other people's religious beliefs be imposed on others? I don't impose mine on anyone else. I let people believe what they want to believe.

I don't mean to offend anyone here, but this topic just gets me really fired up. I hate bigotry and discrimination! :mad

Emma

[battgyrll]

:hugon ITIC :hugoff

First of all...please get some sleep. This can't be healthy. I'm not trying to lecture, I'm just concerned.

Secondly, I don't mean to attack you, but I'm kind of with some of the other :fishy in regrads to using the bible to justify the argument. What about people who are of a religion that does not use the bible for the basis? Taoism, Muslims, Hinduism...how do you justify telling them that since your holy book says it isn't right, than it isn't? I also challenge you to, just for a moment, leave religion out of it and argue for why homosexuality is wrong.

I believe in the bible, I am a not-very-deeply-buit-still-kind-of religious person, but I can't impose my views on anyone else. I think it is perfectly fineif you want to disagree with homosexuality becuase your God says it is wrong. But I just can't see how it is okay to tell other people that they have to follow it too.

I personally support the rights of homosexuals to marry, so I gues that doesn't make me very good at religion. But I will find out what my judgement is later, when I die, not here on earth.

I really don't mean to start a religious argument here and sound like I am preaching or asking to be preached to, and I am going to feel really bad if that is what it turns into.

Once again, :hugon ITIC :hugoff please get some sleep hun.

:bat battgyrll :bat
Sara

[IthinkIcan]

Thanks :hugon Sara :hugoff Want to cry from exhaustion. I was so touched by your concern about my pain-induced insomnia. It will get better, though. At least we know the cause.

how do you justify telling them that since your holy book says it isn't right, than it isn't? I have absolutely no problem doing this because we live in a country that has given me the freedom of speech and opinion. It really isn't a matter of whether I am right or wrong, but that I have a right to my opinion and to have it heard, voiced and responded to. That is what the politicians we put in office are for. The people who are in opposition to my opinion also have a right to their opinion and the right to voice that opinion. Most importantly we are SUPPOSED TO HAVE the right for these issues to be represented in a vote. Go to the polls people! And encourage your representatives to take a stand too.

I also challenge you to, just for a moment, leave religion out of it and argue for why homosexuality is wrong. Hm, I may do this tomorrow after some shut-eye. Desperate. Eyes crossing. Good news though . . . or cat is going to have her first litter of :kitty and we found out early today; later today we learned our appraisal went through and we were approved to buy our own home! (and they are being SO helpful :touched ) Thought I was going to bounce our health club payment--wanted to cancel it. Well, the lady is either on vacation or her honeymoon, so none of them were done. Not only did they cancel the fees, but they told me I could still come if I want to try! :touched and offered my daughter a free camp scholarship :surprised It's a small town, and it had gotten back to them that I'm having major complications. :shy We can't afford camp with the move :touched She just out and offered her a place in any camp, without charge, so I can have time to rest and recuperate and she can have time with kids. *sniff* AND, my sis is having her baby, well, IN TWELVE HOURS!!!! Too much on my sleep-deprived mind to do serious thought :sleepy

[IthinkIcan]

Using words such as bigotry and discriminating when describing another :fishy who has carefully shared their opinion/belief system, which comes from a written "guide" doesn't seem fitting with the purpose of the boards. Furthermore, to insult their religion and . . .

This would not be allowed, and has not been allowed, when it has been religions outside of Christianity. I just don't know. There really DOES seem to be an intolerance toward things conservative . . . in particular if they dare to "impose" it on others, which by voting people seem to think is the same. ?!?! Or am I now realllllllly too tired. Hey, I feel asleep at the puter. TIME FOR BED. YAHOO!

[sunshynehip]

I just have something short to add from a very simple standpoint - without getting deep into the discussion..

I am a "Christian". I stronly believe in gay marriage. If two people love each other and are happy, all the power to them..

and you know what? No matter if its right or wrong from a religious stand point..

the bottom line is God loves everyone.. No matter their sexual preference.. he loves them unconditionaly. Period. Thats it.. Thats all.

[the_dragonfly]

Whilst I thank you for sharing your views, I Think I Can, it is discrimination. There is no other word for it. It is discrimination, and, making your stand point from a religious one does not change that fact.

To insult your religion is not my intention. Challenging some of the beliefs held within is.
I do not believe it is insulting to challenge, I believe it is insulting to not challenge something.

I will challenge anyones belief system when it imposes on my freedom, and telling me who I can and cannot marry is doing just that.

It is not up to the politicians, the priests, the judges, the people to decide who I can marry. It's none of their damn business.
It's up to me, and the person whom I choose to love.

If, just if, gay people were allowed to marry, whats the worst that could happen? Honestly.

Any takers fishies? If the politicians made it legal to get married, to adopt, whatever, what's the worse that could happen?

[sunshynehip]

I agree with borderline..

If you don't like it..don't do it..


SO many people are depressed, suffer from ED's, many many other issues..and all struggle to find happiness... If someone finds love, and happiness with a person of their own gender, who are we to make them feel bad about it, or that its wrong?

Is Love wrong?? Is it bad? No.

[angelcake]

Borderline,

I think IthinkIcan's comments were aimed at my post, but I also was not saying she was bigoted or anything like that. My argument was simply as you have said, it should be no one else's right to tell anyone else who they should or should not marry. Just because they use THEIR religious beliefs to support their stand, does not make it correct. I don't share those beliefs, therefore why should I be bound by those beliefs.

I am not saying you cannot have your opinion, IthinkIcan, I am simply saying, I disagree with it. I am really quite content for people to follow their own belief systems. Each to their own. Everyone obviously has the right to their own beliefs and opinion - of course. But should one particular set of beliefs be the basis for legislation which discriminates against a certain group in society. No, I don't believe so.

And to answer Borderline's post, absolutely nothing would happen if homosexuals were to marry. Hopefully, there would simply be more couples who love each other who have made a commitment to each other. Same thing as if same sex couples are allowed to have children. All that is going to happen is hopefully there will be more children being raised by loving parents.

As I said before, I am just stating my opinion and I am more than happy for others to maintain their religious beliefs. That's why there is a freedom of religion in a democratic society.

[IthinkIcan]

:sad :sleepy :ugh Not sleeping well. Still going back to bed. Will tackle this tomorrow. I already have most of the response in MS Word. I have to decide whether or not I will leave it so "scientific." I spent several hours yesterday/"today" doing research with a good knowledge base from previous research.

Anyhow, if I decide to play "childish," it won't be fun. To not concede that calling hurtful, derogatory terms because you disagree with my opinion(s). I may/may not. If I do it will be but briefly for literary effect. One example, gosh it would be horrible :wacky would be (see, I WOULDN'T go around doing this except for an example) to . . . whoa, I can't. Even when I tried to psych myself up for it. I have more respect for lesbians/homosexuals/bi's/PEOPLE . . . the human condition than you may think. I really do care, and it hurts me when people misapprehend me, misunderstanding . . . so much.

[peachgoddess]

:hugon ithinkican :hugoff

first of all, i want to remind you that when we're critical of the things you've typed, we're contesting the ideas, not whether you're a good person or anything like that. and i think it's essential to challenge the ideas of others and of ourselves.

that said, prohibiting gay marriage is a form of discrimination. there's not really any way around that. telling any two people who are old enough and consentually interested in marrying that they can't, is discriminating. the same as telling somebody that they can't go to a certain school because of their sexual orientation or racial background. i honestly don't see any way to wiggle out of calling it discrimination. it's not an attack on you--it's an attack on a specific stance in the issue of debate here.

i hope you're able to get some sleep.
:love
:bug peachgoddess :bug

[ribbon]

I really appreciate the thoughts and challenges written in this post. It has opened my eyes to realizing that people can be religious and/or christian and still be open minded and nondiscriminatory. I was wrong in assuming that the majority of people of these beliefs used the bible to justify discrimination. Thank you :hugonpeach:hugoff, :hugon:bat:hugoff, :hugonborderline:hugoff,:hugonsunshy:hugoff for this.
I also definitely agree that if someone is against gay marriage, they should not enter into one :winky.
With all of the war, strife and hatred in the world, love and marriage should be celebrated, not judged and discriminated against.

[the_dragonfly]

I think I can, no one is attacking you, simply a belief structure, which you chose to post here.
As peach said, no one doubts that you, as a person, are a good one.

You said in your post you would have to psych yourself up to be "childish". I'm not sure why a response based on research or science would be childish.
To not concede that calling hurtful, derogatory terms because you disagree with my opinion(s).
I'm sorry that you feel this way, I think we have all said many times we're not attacking you. But, what would you call it, I think I can? Substitute gay for white, black, asian. Should we deny interracial couples from marrying? No, because it would be wrong, unfair, unkind and discriminatory.
Should we substitute for religion? Should we deny couples of different religions to marry? Hell no (thought ot may prevent a few choice arguments, which may help lower the divorce rate :winky ).

I have tried to state my views as honestly, as openly as possibly, and I thought I had done a good job, ad I believe the other fishies have done too.

Angelcake, I appreciate you answering my question, I did ask them in all seriousness, and so far, none of my friends against marriage for gays can give me a straight answer (ohhh, pardon the pun :winky )

Peach, thank you for putting what I mean in a far mre eloquent manner, I'm afraid it's been some time since I've used my brain, I'm afraid I'm dumber for the job I perform, certainly my literary skills are lesser!

Ribbon, I appreciate your honesty, it takes a lot to admit when you feel you've been wrong - I too admire the fishies who can come and say they're for the idea of gay marriage, and they're religious too.

[Marigold]

Let's see this from another perspective:

ITIC - you feel this way about God and gay marriage, if I read your posts correctly,:
"He deplores sexual immorality."

You feel that God deplores sexual immorality, based on your biblical readings - and therefore would deplore gay marriage - because, as you see it (and others who hold similar beliefs) being gay is immoral to God.

Okay. This is your right, to believe this way. It is offensive to many to hear such a view - but you have every right to believe this. I also think you have made your beliefs very clear on this thread.

On the other hand, Borderline, and other :fishy's (including myself) feel that such views are *discriminatory*.

Okay. That is our right too. We have every right to feel this way. You can say it's *insulting* - yet keep in mind that the views you hold that God considers homosexuality "immoral" is very insulting for many as well.

The form of God I believe in would never consider being gay "immoral". Therefore, the arguments you put forth in regards to this do not hold any weight with me in the sense of changing my mind. I simply cannot think as you do about this issue.

So it's a draw, really.

You have your beliefs and the right to hold them -

As do people w/opposing viewpoints to yours.

I feel troubled that you feel you are insulted by :fishy's who say your beliefs are "discriminatory" - because, what else can they really say about them? To them, such beliefs are discriminatory.
It wasn't so long ago, after all, that people also used the bible to "prove" that blacks and other races are inferior to whites. I'm not at All saying You think this in Any way, ITIC - just saying that the bible can and has and is still used to defend discriminatory and prejudiced beliefs.

This is why I think religious debates can go nowhere in terms of the issues, whatever they be.

I'm glad that ITIC has brought forth her views - but yes, to me, they discriminate if she feels being gay is "immoral".

I can't help how I think about these issues any more than ITIC and other :fishy's who agree w/her way of seeing things can help it.

-Marigold:sun

[ribbon]

Marigold, perhaps this is a case of me thinks thou lady doth protest too much . Hopefully when the dust settles people may realize that using the bible to justify discrimination may not coincide with the very teachings of the bible and religion.
In order to change a view or be open to being less judgmental and discriminating, they usually need to feel safe in doing so. Maybe it's better to just agree to disagree sometimes. I think that some statements can be so outrageous they don't deserve the attention of a response.

[IthinkIcan]

The word "discriminating" bothered me, but I understood its origin (follow). It was someone's use of the word (after a little sleep, and it is still hard to say as this is an extremely insulting and volatile world, particularly in the area I grew up): "bigot."

To call me, in the same sentence, discriminatory (discriminating and/or forms of) and bigoted (forms of), someone clearly knew they were making a differentiation. *hurt* *anger*

The socially acceptable definition of a bigot is a prejudiced person who is "intolerant of any opinions differing from his own." This, of course, would have been something we could have been left hurling at each other. Words held under the embrella are as follows:

chauvinist - a person with a prejudiced belief in the superiority of his or her own kind--I am not a chauvinist, which is closely linked to the next one.

antifeminist - someone who does not believe in the social or economic or political equality of men and women--I believe mean and women should be socially and politically equal.

homophobe - a person who hates or fears homosexual people--neither do I hate or fear homosexual people! I have one long-standing homosexual frienship (thirteen years)

drumbeater, partisan, zealot - a fervent and even militant proponent of something--I've never been militant about anything. I may have shaken things up a little bit here, but I'm not comfortable with it. It is, perhaps, here, though, that some may errantly place my beliefs, not truly knowing me. All y'all have is what I have espoused here and in a debate type pattern. It's the whole "sticking to it" thing :winky

racialist, racist - a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others--absolutely not

sectarian, sectarist, sectary - a member of a sect; "most sectarians are intolerant of the views of any other sect"-- hunh

segregationist, segregator - someone who believes the races should be kept apart--red, and yellow, black, and white . . . :winky nope

I resent the implication that I am any or many of these things, that I am a "bigot."

As for my beliefs being "discriminating" because they do not treat everyone the same WHERE IT COMES TO THE ISSUE OF MARRIAGE, or some such thing, I have heard it admitted before. It's just that, for now, I want the politicians to vote. Aw, shoot, door, daughter's rehearsal, new dog showing up to take care of.

I enjoy the sharing of ideas and opinions. Interestingly, however, the intolerance I'm accused of is evident in so many here. So, there is a super hypocrisy in my being labeled a (can barely say the word as it caused . . . ) bigot. I don't think any of us here encompass that full-on hatefulness. Gotta go.

[leana]

The bible is not meant to be used in a discriminitory way. And those who use it for that purpose, I am willing to bet, have not read one bit of the new testament, nor do they fully comprehend what Gods purpose was by sending Jesus.
We as Christians are to follow his example, as the bible has recorded while his time here on earth. Tolerance, love, grace, forgiveness, and many other examples like wise were given and shown threw his life. He even protested when the pharoses who had already judged sinners, and their punishment was about to unfold, by being stoned to death, yet Jesus stood in the way of this happening, and brought grace and forgiveness to the situation.
With a true understanding of having faith, a Christian (a belief that God does exist and Christ was his son who died to save us) faith, and a personal relationship with God, one would know that using the bible to be discriminative would be hypocrisy. Those who do use the bible in such a way, have the blood of the unsaved sinners they have deceived, on their hands. (for we do not, and have not been given the right to judge).
On the other hand, those who feel that ALL Christians use the bible to discriminate, are not they, who think that, discriminating themselves against Christians.. ?? Where does tolerance begin??



ITIC ; I admire you faith and your knowledge of the bible. It is nice to see some one taking a stand on what it is they believe in, and have the knowledge to back them in such a debate.
I understand how you feel when the word ‘’discriminative’’ is thrown at you (as seeing, I do have similar beliefs).
But, I do have a few questions, if the old testament is an old covenant (in many ways, it is.. not only the food changes, but also, old covenants of laws, and even that of God’s willingness to show himself, or speak directly to any living human form..ie.. God went in to hiding in the new testament ~ so to speak.. ).. and if the new testament is the new covantent, and Jesus our example, where (if it does~and if not why) dose it not state anything about same sex relationships and the ‘morality’ of them…? Jesus never once approached the idea, nor did he ever discuss any thing near this for of relationship. And if the old is out and the new in.. who is to decide what from the 'old' we still believe holds vital for todays times..?

I know you are FAR FROM A BIGOT, and you HAVE proven that in this conversation, you have taken this on explaining your faith in the best form. You have all rights to your opinions, and should be able to express what you feel is ‘right’ according to your religion, which you have done with a respectable amount of knowledge ( The thing I hate the worst is some one ignorantly arguing what is moral and immoral, yet can’t find any concrete evidence of how, or why they think such things ) and, I said concrete evidence, cause yes, some do not believe in the bible, yet you do, and that is where you’re concrete evidence should derive from.

So, thank you for adding knowledge (for me) while I read threw what you wrote.

:love

[sarcazmo]

Gay rights is this generation's equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement. I'm tired of hearing the Bible being used as a reason for keeping gay and lesbian couples from getting married. I'm tired of people calling it an abomination or saying that it corrupts the sanctity of marriage.

It's ignorant, it's pathetic, and people need to open their eyes and see that the separation of church and state is a joke in this country. It's violated all the time. A senator cannot vote against a bill because his religion opposes it. A senator cannot vote against a bill because the people oppose it BECAUSE of their religious beliefs.

It doesn't matter what we, as citizens, believe spiritually or religiously. When it comes to government, WE have our own responsibility to make our political arguments and decisions WITHOUT our faith determining what is and isn't right.

Arguments that stand solely on the bible have absolutely NO place in the decision of gay marriage. And for the record, I don't think that this issue has come up only for the upcoming election. This is not going to go away until gays and lesbians are allowed the same civil liberties as any heteroxual citizen would be granted in this country.

People of other races eventually stood up and proclaimed their support for the Civil Rights Movement. It is about time that heterosexual people who support the rights of gays and lesbians come out of THEIR closets and join the fight.

Yeah, I'm a liberal. But I'm a person too. Just like human beings of all races, religions, and sexuality. Most people are quick to say that they are for "equal rights" for all. So I don't understand how many of those very people can say they believe in equal rights when they want to ban gays and lesbians of a basic civil liberty. It's crap.

I'm not trying to offend anyone, by the way. I just feel very strongly about this.

Sam

[leana]

I am for gay marriages. I do believe that religion, since separated from state, should play no role in the way one should vote. Nor should it make any difference in the way the government passes this bill.

With that said, if it were a perfect world, every voter would separate their faith from political issues, and vote accordingly to the way they feel in a political sense. In political sense, is it right for two grown adults, who’ve both agreed, allowed to be married.. ?? Yes. It should be their given right, as an American to benefit from the freedom given at birth, no matter the age, sex, sexual preference, or color.

Yet, it is not a perfect world, and there are different beliefs, that not only intrude on other peoples rights, but also intrude on what others may believe themselves.
A belief is deeply ingrained, maybe growing up with such an influence, or a defined experience as an adult, which heightens their willingness to explore what they had just experience. Of course there are other examples as to how people obtain their faith.
Those whom study what they believe in and have the knowledge to back up their arguments, with proof from an existing source, from which their faith comes, I a plod them. Not only for standing up for what they believe in, yet, also for not adding ignorance or shame to an already sensitive subject. Hence, adding knowledge they have learned from their religion (no matter how I feel about their knowledge).
Yes, I may not believe in what ITIC say’s, or how God would feel about such matters. But, I do respect her opinion, if she (or any other Christian that feels the same) would respect mine.
And for that matter, if any other person, from another religion would join in on such a conversation, I would encourage them to do so. As long as there is an understanding, in the end, the only solution may be to agree to disagree.


Yet, we could sit here all day, debating on this subject, and when it comes down to it… it doesn’t matter what your religious back ground is, nor what faith you hold currently. But whether you feel it is your right to keep a basic American right away from those who are only searching to be treated equally.

ITIC; I questioned you earlier, because you seem to have the knowledge of the bible that I admire (and would love to have for myself, yet lack the patience at this time). I am still curious as to what you think, and to see if there is a gap in my knowledge (which, there are quite a few, yet I am willing to learn..).
Also, in the bible, it states to abide by the laws of the land.. America has already seperated the church and state; then is voting based on religious beliefs sinning, for not abiding by this law.. ?

(( again, I respect your opinion, and just have questions due to my own ingnorance when it comes to the bible )).

:love

[MegaVictory]

I think gay people should be entitled to civil ceremonies, so they can legally get the benefits that heterosexuals get from marriage, but I don't think they should be blessed by God. Before it got all misintrepeted, marriage was a sacrament,between a man and a woman, for the propogation of the race. Now, life is free sex, free everything. Do it if it feels good. Don't believe in anything. Maybe legally, but not morally. Church and state should be separate. "Give to God what is God's, and give to Ceasar what is Ceasars."

[ribbon]

I think if marriage is a legal right for heterosexuals, it should be for homosexuals. If a priest or minister or rabbi doesn't want to perform the marriage ceremony because s/he does not believe in that, I don't have a problem with that. If someone in society doesn't think it's a valid marriage, that's their own issue. I have a problem with institutional discrimination in laws, government and businesses because... well, it's unconstitutional (thank goodness).

Gay rights is this generation's equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement.

I agree and I think in twenty years or fifty years people will look back, the way they do now, and realize that it was ridiculous to have a law to prevent that. I don't think there are many people today who think it was wrong to begin to allow interracial couples to marry, though at the time they may have thought so.

[the_dragonfly]

Other fishies raised some great points, which I want to get to in a moment... I think I can, it was me, I believe, who used the word bigotted. If you read my post, it was not directed at you, as I have tried to generalise any "names" I've me mentioned through out here.
I believe that a good deal of discrimination comes from bigotry, it's something I have seen first hand.
In my job, in my personal life I have.. countless friendships with gay people, and to me, I cannot understand how, knowing them, anyone would think it was okay to discriminate against them. You yourself say you have "one long standing homosexual friendship". How can you deny the right that you have, to marry whom they choose?

Now, to be honest, I find this argument ironic - I personally don't particularly believe in marriage, I cannot see myself taking such a step, yet I feel it's important to defend it, for my friends, for other like them, who wish to do as they choose. I feel it is their right.

I think I can, I have asked several times for a response on what would happen if gay people got married, and I've not heard a response. I would like to see your opinion on this, once removed from the religious aspect, if you can.

Leana, I understand your point about people being tolerant of all, including Christians - as I've pointed out in previous posts, I am fully aware, and try, as much as possible, to be tolerant and respectful of other peoples beliefs, and I'm proud to see, so have the other fishies here.
Have you read "A Patch of Blue"? It has some interesting concepts in it, based on tolerance, I will post more about that in another post, or perhaps email them to you, if you're interested.

MegaVictory, I found your post interesting.
A year or so ago, I went to the most beautiful, most moving wedding (now, keep in mind, my current stance on weddings and marriage makes me pretty immovable). The couple getting married, friends of mine for years, professed their love, their knowledge of each other, the fact they'd been friends, lovers, and each others strength for many years. I damn near cried, it was so touching. They are very much married, in every legal sense of the word in Australia, yet neither theman, nor the wife, believed in a god, and, as such, it was excluded from the ceremony. I take this to mean that God has not yet blessed the union, but they are no less married (and, I must add here, if anyone could change my opinion of marriage, it is these two people, anyway, before i get soppy, let me progress!


Gay rights is this generation's equivalent to the Civil Rights Movement

I agree too. In Australia we've been trying so hard, but we do have a pretty appalling human rights policy (whether we admit it or not!), and I look forward to us being able to lead the way in at least one area.
In a country that used to disallow the marriage between aboriginal and white (see http://www.abc.net.au/federation/fedstory/ep****/ep****_institutions.htm the numbers after ep are both four), I wish we'd moved on in this area a lot faster than we have.
But we have not, and we can only continue to push forward in this area.

I have found an interesting link, only a small page, fishies,
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar****.htm
The number is three.
It has some interesting info re. marriages of old.

All said and done, Fishies, I applaud the way we've been able to keep this going, without it disintergrating into our own little ball of hell and being closed. I have no doubt that neither sides of the issue will change their mind, but we'll certainly do our best!

[IthinkIcan]

Hey, borderline, the question has been issued, my response put to "paper" (handy dandy MS Word). Now I am about the task of determining if I want to open my heart to this. I know I've been largely standing alone on this issue, and it's already been pretty hot and lonely in the pot. Nothing I have said has changed how anyone feels and will not. I don't dream to consider myself that powerful. Neither will anyone change how I feel either. Either you a) don't think I can answer this (doubtful) or b) know that the answers will provide material you are looking for. Standard, stereotypical material, so to speak. To a certain extent you would not be disappointed.

Leana, I would love to answer your questions, period--in part because I wonder at a true desire to see the responses. Could be wrong. Seems like a different heart. Both may be seeking to trounce me in the end, which is getting old :sarcasm but one seems much more worth my emotional effort.

So, I'm still deciding whether or not to continue on this post. It's been a hella busy just over twenty-four hours. Official word came down that we received financing on "our" house and we will be moving by the first of August :surprised This was after having this dream crushed but being told we would have to find SOMEPLACE to live. We were initially told it was a done deal only to have everything fall apart the day before closing. It was craziness. We were told this "never" happens. Then we applied at another lender. We were given assurances, but nothing like before. It hadn't gone to the underwriter. No closing date. He was shocked to learn we had been turned down, for a strange reason. Soooooo, he, quite bothered by the situation, did some thinking and asked us to take another chance. Hell, why not. It happened, contigent on an appraisal increase of twenty five hundred. She approved two grand. Fractionally the miss was unbelievable. In the past twenty four hours! (when we had been told it would take a week) he got someone in there, the appraisal went through, a new contract was written on the home by us and a whole bunch of neat things happened with this situation. Yesterday we determined that our cat is expecting. Then, hubby came home this morning to ask me to take in a dog of a client of his. I won't go into all the dets, but she even lied about the size of the dog she was so desperate :sad it has been mistreated :sad If you even put your hand up, just in the course of normal stuff, he starts yipping and crying. Oh, obviously we took him in. My daughter has had two dance rehearsals, her fitting, and B had his. And, my sister had her baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, I'm turning in momentarily. Tomorrow I will get up, shower, take my daughter to dance rehearsal (the pageant is Thursday to Saturday), go see my sis and baby nephew (oy, and this is with my torn up belly--had an appointment for that Thursday), and then our family will be about the task of packing. While I try to "behave," like the doctor told me to. For in the last twenty-four hours I was also diagnosed/confirmed with wound dehiscence.

Yeh, so don't be surprised if I fade away for the weekend. Then it's crunch time for the pageant. Her dance is incredible. Don't know how she does it :yay

[shortstop]

The thing with religions now is that it's a pick and choose business. A little of this, a little of that.
Heterosexual marriages are blessed by God but really and TRULY most of them should NOT be.
Why????
Premarital sex. Birth Control. Marriages that participated in these "things" are not valid under God. If we'er going to be literal here, let's be literal with everything.
So why are these marriages okay? Because they're familiar and comfortable. If religion moves out of a comfort zone, it will often open peoples' eyes and let them explore past what the religion has taught. (Which, suffice it to say is NOT good for the business of religion.)
I don't really hang my hat on anything that the Bible says. It has some cool stories though. I'm more a believer of...
be a good person
do good deeds
be thoughtful....etc. Human basics. That's it.
The Bible was written by many different men during many different time periods. Who are we to believe?

Okay, now really.....the bible shouldn't have one little tiny thing to do with the decision of the politicians. This political decision (all decisions)should be made wihtout the input of someone's religious beliefs. They are NOT a factor. I do not vote for a christian, taoist, buddist, etc. I vote for someone who has the same political alignments as I do; not if they go to church once a week or keep shabbat.

I extend the same :challenge another :fishy did...explore this political decision without the Bible as backup.

So I guess the question is. What is wrong with two human beings who have love and affection for eachother to declare that love in front of a God they believe in with the backing of the gov't they are a part of?????
Simply stated...Nothing.

(The church won't support a marriage beteween two consenting happy adults but they will protect a child molesting priest???? Whatever. Just one more reason I have for not using religion as my backing for anything.)

[the_dragonfly]

I think I can, I don't wish to turn into a... well.. whinger, but to be honest, I'm slightly baffled and confused as to why you believe I asked these questions to simply "trounce"you. If you do not wish to answer, simply state that, but do not accuse me of not taking a genuine interest in your answers. I too have invested quite some time in this post, and I would not do this if I were not interested. If I wantede to insult, to trounce someone elses beliefs, responses, I'd do it where I could get immediate gratification. I have a short attention span.

I believe I have asked, and responsed to these posts honestly, and I'm quite.... bemused as to why you think I have not. Offended some what. I do not write this to seek an apology, If I have hurt you, then I do not deserve one, plain and simple, and if I have hurt you, I do apologise, but it was not intentional.


I don't really hang my hat on anything that the Bible says. It has some cool stories though. I'm more a believer of...
be a good person
do good deeds
be thoughtful....etc. Human basics. That's it.

I hear ya short stop, I hear ya!

[Marigold]

With all the various *Types* of religion - some are more strict, some are less so, some interpret the bible very literally, some see the bible as more allegorical...

Who knows What to believe???

What religion is Supposed to be the one true *Right* religion????:ohboy

Each believer thinks she or he is the one who is *right*. To rely on one type of religion to determine if gays can marry is antiquated. In the world we live in today - religion is separate from state because not all people believe in the same way.

ITIC - I wasn't calling You a bigot. You have misrepresented my words.

I was saying, given what I believe about gays and marriage - I have no choice but to see your *Views* on gay marriage as discriminatory.

That's a far cry from calling You a bigot.
I don't know you.
We might agree on much - or little.
I did Not call You a bigot.

But I do believe you hold discriminatory (and, if you insist - bigoted) views on gays being married.

To get caught up in trying to deny the blessings and legality of two people in love who want to marry - because they are of the same sex - is very petty - to my way of thinking.

Love in the world. Too much can never be a bad thing.
We already have plenty of hatred.

A marriage is a blessing - either between two men, two women, or a man or a woman - because each starts out wanting to grow in each other's love.

I do not believe this could ever be wrong.

Also - it's not as if married people are being so careful w/their sacred vows. We all know that many of them cheat on each other. I don't judge - this is a *fact*. Many do not, but many do.
Then there is the high divorce rate.
Then there are all the very bad marriages out there (my parents had a long, monagamos and *very bad* marriage of constand, destructive fighting).

All this makes one think: let gay people marry. Let them participate in this state. Maybe they will teach us how to do it better - being and staying married. Maybe they will make the same mistakes.
After all...
they are just human - like all the rest of us - w/the same desires that many of us share - to find a soul-mate and marry for life.

I have a real hard time believing that God could have a problem w/that.
It's people who have problems w/gay marriage.
-Marigold:sun

[the_dragonfly]

I have a real hard time believing that God could have a problem w/that.
It's people who have problems w/gay marriage.

Marigold, I think you hit the nail on the head here.

How could anyone, living or dead, spirtual or otherwise, want to decline people the right to marry the one they love?
I don't believe this is what anyone intends, not even god or the translators of the bible.

[ribbon]

One of the things I'm picked up from this thread is that many people view god as a loving, caring entity and that some view her/him as a harsh or judgmental presence. Some interpret the bible as a way to spread love and beauty, while others spread negativity. I just think it's intereesting.

[shortstop]

:ribpink...You're right. What I'm about to say is only from my own experience, and from experiences of friends regarding religion. We were taught in school/church that God is loving but also a judging harsh being. God would judge us and punish us for what we did wrong. He was constantly testing us. The feeling of unconditional love was not given in school and church. It gives the feeling that God is all-powerful but not all-loving. That was one of my main problems with religion. I didn't want to worship a God that didn't love me. To me, it seems that the church does this as a control issue. It is a way to control behaviors. Again, this is just from my own experiences and from conversations I've had with other friends, etc. I'm not saying that this is universal or anything. It's just my take.

[ribbon]

SS:baseball I've done some research over the past few years trying to find a religion that I'm comfortable with. The more fundamental, fire and brimstone sects are much less appealing to me than others which come from a basis of love and acceptance. In my search talked to some ministers and asked the church's views on some of the things important to me (pro-choice, gay marriage, birth control/aids prevention). I got some very comical answers :muhaha, although I don't think they were intended to be that way :ohboy.

[MegaVictory]

Hi fishies, personally I am not clear on this subject we are discussing, so I don't know if I can write a clear post. Bear with me. Now that I have given my very strong opinion, I don't feel comfortable with it, because it goes against my philosophy of "live and let live," "live and love," and "beliefs separate people." This is not a black and white issue, it is gray. My views on this aren't "etched in stone." I'm divided on this, and I think it has to do with my generation (and of course how I was brought up, but I am a free thinker, so it must be more generational). I haven't anything against gay people. A lot of them are my friends. But I don't think they should flaunt their sexuality. I don't go around advertising that I am hererosexual, and I don't feel they should wear a sign saying they are homosexual. It is here on this earth, not of the norm, to be worked out, like other "problems." (I even hesitate to use the word problem because that implies negativity, and I am not one to judge it as negative or positive.) I look at it like, they--gays--should not be forced to change. I don't think they can change. Something is different between them and "normal" people, in their genes, chromosomes. So, let them be. They deserve legal rights just like the rest of us, their significant others deserve health benefits, insurances, etc., but they don't belong where they are going with it--mixing it with religion. (And the politicians should do what they have to do to get these people legal rights, and get off of the subject, because like a lot of the fishies have said, we have a war we are in with terrorist threats, and that is where the focus should be.) The Catholic Church, says, a person can be gay, but not engage in sex. Can't see that, because I feel that is against THEIR nature, to obstain from sex, when they are in love. So, homosexuals need to make peace with God, but don't expect organized religion to break their rules and welcome them with open arms. (And, some will, so go there!) They want approval, and they are just not going to get it. If you want to be moral, religious, then follow the rules. And lastly, something like pre-marital sex, I am not saying it is right or wrong, if you love someone. But, if/when you are engaging in it, to go to church and practice the sacraments, go against their rules, is blasphamous, and lacks integrity.

[shortstop]

MegaVictory said: If you want to be moral, religious, then follow the rules.
Are you impling that being homosexual is immoral??? First you said that I look at it like, they--gays--should not be forced to change. I don't think they can change.
But then you said "follow the rules". That is rather contradictory. They shouldn't be forced to change, but they should folow the rules??? (Which would require them to change.) :confused
Please correct me if I reading your post wrong.

[MegaVictory]

Follow the rules of organized religion.

[ribbon]

MegaVictory said: Follow the rules of organized religion.

I think I agree with the point you're making, if I'm interpretting it right. If you're going to participate in a specific organized religion and follow their beliefs and prejudices (in some cases), go for it, but don't be a hypocrite and judge others while not judging yourself. Is that right?

[MegaVictory]

Yes, sort of. Just, don't be a hypocrite, go there, and pretend to be a part of them, (their prejudices and good) but not follow their rules. You are only hurting yourself and your intregity. Say you are a casual drinker, and you go to a church that totally prohibits drinking (say, some very conservative, fundamentalist Christian church). Don't try to change them to your way of thinking, and don't go and pretend you don't drink when you do, but find a church where drinking is allowed. Also, there are moral, spiritual, ethical, religious, people, etc. and each means something different.

[MegaVictory]

Or, literal intrepretation of the bible, vs. symbolic intrepretation. "My Father's house has many mansions." Literal = heaven is like a big house with many different rooms, extensions. Symbolic = heaven is like a place which has many faiths, all different but right in their own way.

[MegaVictory]

"Separation of church and state." Politicians give gay people their legal rights to marry in civil ceremonies.

[the_dragonfly]

goodness, I'm gonna be late for work heh

Re. "not flaunting your sexuality" Mega Victory, I have to disagree there. I'm friends with people from the "ultra-stereotypical" camp gay man to the men I didn't even know were gay, until I met their partners.
I have no problems with anyone flaunting their sexuality, straight or otherwise - if I go out, get drunk and kiss a guy, it's no different to my friend next to me doing so.
I guess that statement would also depend on you having an issue if straight people "flaunted their sexuality" and also what you call "flaunting" it, doesn't it, and that's a personal opinion too, because I think that depends on what you're used to.

Actually, I say I have no issue, yet when I was in a club the other night two young people (I don't think they we're even LEGAL or maybe I'm just OLD!!!) we're damn near having sex on the dance floor, it wasn't all that appealing (primarily maybe, because thrusting and grunting is standard of an eighteen year old sex session, but still, it wasb't attractive). So I guess I too draw a line with some aspects of flaunting.

There ya go, I learnt something else from this post!

[ribbon]

MegaVictory said: Yes, sort of. Just, don't be a hypocrite, go there, and pretend to be a part of them, (their prejudices and good) but not follow their rules.

I am with you on this all the way :yay.

[MegaVictory]

Yes, it could be a personal opinion, and maybe cultural. I see you are from Australia. Maybe you guys have freer views than Americans. I know Europeans are more liberal than Americans. Boy, this post is sure branching out, what do you think? All over an amendment to be, or not to be.

[MegaVictory]

Thanks, ribbon. I am very open-minded, and can't stand when I am misinterpreted because I am not expressing clearly. Love and forgiveness, that is the main theme of my life, universe.

[the_dragonfly]

In general, Australias views tend to align themselves pretty closely with the US's, primarily I would say, because of the mass American saturation of our markets - TV, magazines, movies, books etc.

I think it depends on individuals here, as much as anywhere. I have people I work with who are incredibly... homophobic, and refuse to come out with us when we go to the gay club (A good percentage of the people I work with are gay).

I guess it also depends on where in Oz you're from - country towns etc tend to be more conservative than say... Sydney (where our Mardi Gras are held each year!!)

[leana]

ITIC, if you feel my questions were that of sarcasm, or in some form ment to stump you.. that was not my intent. Of course, with the nature of a few other questions you were asked, I can see you're point of not wanting to get involved, nor put effort towards an answer that may or may not make one bit of difference.
I can't honestly tell you, any thing you may say will change my mind, but I can tell you that I will not badger you with more questions, acting as if your answers are non-sufficiant.
I was raised in a Christian home, in a Christian school, and studied the bible most my teen life. (my adult life, on the other hand.. need's to grow up and get back to searching..)
My parents are very vocal as to what they believe, and in perticular, my father, whom is a bigot ( in the worst meaning of the word ). He throws the bible around to justify his actions, and hate-filled manners.
I have yet to have a civil conversation with him on this matter, and if it is brought up, I am quieted, and forced to listen to his rants. When I bring up questions, he ver's off corse (as if I never asked..).

well, don't mean to tell you my entire history.. but there you go. I have yet to have a 'civil' or even respectful conversation about this subject, where I can honestly ask my own questions, and questions that I have that pertain to what the bible state..

Borderline; I have not read that book, who is the author?
Yes, you are correct, that the fishies here have seemed to do an excellent job of being tollerant (with a few small hazards, but nothing compared to what it may look like..) And it's quite nice to read a thread like this, and see other's view points. Also, to see how religion has an affect on this subject.

Shannon; hhmm.. hun, I love ya.. but;

but they will protect a child molesting priest????

oucchhh..((( every church, or denomination should not have to bare the cross of what happened to a 'specific' denomination.. if you want to tag that kind of label on something, tag it on the specific origin of this tragic event )))


MegaVictory; I'm in agreeance with you on following the rules of the orginized religion, if you chose so to believe in one. That giving and taking what one feels like, from a religion, is hypocritical.
But, there are rooms for interpritation in sertain areas (as for this subject, which is a great example).
I admire those who stand firm, and know what they are talking about when it comes to what they believe, but in the same respect, I admire those who also still ask questions. The bible is so complex (and so is God ) that if a person sways a bit, on what they think is 'truley' right, and is willing to study, ask, and learn.. then I believe that is not hypocricy.
But, as you said, when there is no grey, if a person choses a sertain for of religion, they should follow it... walk the walk talk the talk..
As for 'flaunting sexuality'.. ... lol!!! I just had a conversation about this over the weekend, with a lesbian couple (whom I've known for yearssss..) One said that she disagreed with flaunting her sexuality, or that of the fact she was 'overly proud to be gay' (as she put it..). She couldn't see the point in it all, and mentioned that they were fighting for equal rights as humans, not the fact she wanted to joint a circus. She even mentioned, she had picked up some bumper stickers that said ; ' Straight Pride'. (( I had a good laugh at that, you'd have to know the way she is.. quite humorus..))

:love

[bellydancer]

I'm jumping in a little late on this, but I wanted to reply to what MegaVictory said in her post.
I don't think that gay activists want organized religions where they are currently unwelcome to jump up and accept them. I think they want legal marriages like everyone else and if a private church does not accept them, then that's their own business. I don't think anyone in the gay community expects to have a gay wedding in a church where they are not welcome and considered unacceptable.

[Marigold]

I agree w/Bellydancer.

As for flouting sexuality - I agree w/Borderline - it's rather subjective (excepting those grunting eighteen year olds:winky).

Religion is not set in stone either. Churches change how they view things like any other institutions. And if all the people who did not follow their churches strictures completely were barred from the churches - those would be some empty churches!
Obviously, a practicing Christian or whatever should try to do their best.

But being gay is not about trying or not trying: you just are - and if so, you can still be a good Christian - or whatever - if you want to be.

Look around, :fishy's - I bet many of those churchgoing family members and neighbors of yours are gay - they may be in the closet - but they are gay.

And what is "normal" exactly? Whatever it is, I don't want to be it. Well, guess I'm not!:confused

And that's fine w/me. I'm not gay - and I'm also not "normal" if normal means:
conservative and so forth.

As for homosexuality not being "normal" - well, all I can say is that animals practice it.

So are they abnormal, immoral or just confused????:confused:parrot:dog:kitty:monkey:bat: peep
Just wondering....:sarcasm

Marriage is going to happen for gay people - actually, it's already happened so what I mean to say is:

One day (maybe soon) it will be common, non-controversial and wide-spread.

I, for one, will not be losing any sleep over that.
-Marigold:sun

[shortstop]

Leana, Sorry...sometimes I forget. I usually hear the catholic church referred to as "The church" so when I said that I only meant the Catholic church, not any other Christian sects.

As for the rest of the :bowl...I find it so interesting to see where every :fishy is coming from on this idea. I love how long this thread has gone on.

[IthinkIcan]

Haven't much time now, but I will have a bit of time before I leave for the pageant.

A couple of things.

:hugon Borderline :hugoff Although you weren't seeking an apology, I apologize, as I did not seek to hurt you in any way and feel badly that I did so. Having not reread through everything you read I don't know whether the feelings that generated what I wrote, which sparked your reply, came from things you specifically you wrote or from the replies in the post as a whole. To be fair, it would have been difficult to completely emotionally disengage myself from reply to reply, and I hope you can understand that. I most assuredly felt "on the defensive."

:hugon Leana :hugoff To have grown up in a home such as the one you did :sad I grew up in a home without religion, period. Sometimes I feel gypped not to have been brought up with something, for the combination of values and traditions, to be accepted or disregarded later, but as a foundation nonetheless. Then I hear of situations such as yours where you were beaten down with religion, and my home was not a good one. It may very well have been a very bad thing. I would be happy to answer your questions.

I will even answer the challenges, if I feel that the writing comes out in edit "without religion." For this particular topic I found it exceedingly challenging. As liberal as my parents were (very!!!!!!!!!!), my dad was homophobic. So, just know that words such as "wrong" and seemingly "religious" words are not always. People who are not at all religious have a sense of "right" and "wrong" and have opinions about things. My sis hangs with a liberal bunch, but a good half of them (none of her gang is religious!!) are against gay marriage. They would be quite interesting to put forth words.

So, I'll be back. For now, my husband and kiddo are back, and it's bedtime.

:sleepy

:train

[the_dragonfly]

leana - straight pride, I soooo want one of those stickers!
The author is Elizabeth Kata, I think I'll start a new post with the details, and the quotes if I can find it, so as to not veer completely off topic again.
I will not badger you with more questions, acting as if your answers are non-sufficiant.
I do not believe that asking someone for more info a topic they are knowledgable is "badgering" or infering that their answers are non-sufficient - I believe people can only answer so much in a question, before they feel the listener is being bombarded (take me on ED's, someone will ask me a simple q about a/b and I veer off course into the entire histore of every ED term ever coined!). I think asking questions is a good thing, Leana, and, if your confused about something, or want more info, I urge you to keep asking.


Marigold:
Look around, 's - I bet many of those churchgoing family members and neighbors of yours are gay - they may be in the closet - but they are gay.
Theres a show on TV here now, an American show, where the two dad's are gay? In it, the man, upon being questioned re. his religion said "thats right. We're gay and we pray!!!" It cracked me up. I have... nummeerrrouusss amounts of gay friends, in my job, it's a given, and I've no doubt at least a few are also religious.


I think I can - I applaud you for continuing to come back to the post, if you feel you're being attacked, it cannot be easy.
So, just know that words such as "wrong" and seemingly "religious" words are not always
Of course this is the case, I also know many non-religious people who have the most black hearts around. The.. fear, the dislike of gays does not only come from people who are religious, the only difference I guess, is those who are not religious, in arguments re. gayness (is that a word???) cannot even back it up by "the bible tells me so". They have no excuse other than "it's not right".

[Tashawashere]

Unitarian Church supports gay marriage. So clearly "God" does sanction some gay marriage.

In fairness though, obviously I don't believe a religion has to embrace gay marriage if it goes against their precepts such as with the Catholic church.

But Church and State ARE separate and while the Churches should never have to alter their beliefs for the benefit of the State or anyone, they DON'T have the right to inflict their religious views on society as a whole either.

It does no harm if two people of same gender wish to get married, unless you are against it for religious purposes and in that case... don't do it, and it doesn't have to happen in your church. But it's not fair to make EVERYONE adhere to the beliefs of SOME religions.

[Marigold]

Borderline quoted this from a tv show:

""thats right. We're gay and we pray!!!"

Waaaaaay Cooooool!!!!!!:yay:yay:yay:rainbow

-Marigold:sun

[leana]

Shannon, apology accepted (thanks). I do agree with you, this thread is very interesting, and has been an enjoyment to read.

ITIC; I'm all ears, when ever you're ready. And in regaurds to what you stated about growing up in a religious family.. I can understand why you would have prefered having parents that believed in something. I agree, that religion gives a foundation as well as helping one work threw the difficult times when they've grown up. In a sense, it give them something to pull from, a faith, hope, sense of peace.. ect..
My up-bringing was filled with cobwebs of theology. At points, it was so thick, it became hard to think on your own, or it was not allowed because specific rules to follow. Also, questioning God, or your faith was not something any one talked about. Alot of this thinking was 'clear cut; or black and white'.

Well, I don't mean to ramble on about that... I'll be anticipating you thoughts.

Borderline; Thanks for the author of the book, and if you do start a new threat using quotes from this book, clue me in on where you post it.
Also, I wanted to make sure that ITIC knew I was heart-felt when asking her those questions. It can become (to me at times as well) frusterating when you are asked questions, not out of curiosity, but from pure enjoyment of being ficitious. And at this point in the thread (with so many who believe in the same fundamental result) I can see how it would be intimidating, or questionable as to where the questions truley derived from.



:love

[the_dragonfly]

At points, it was so thick, it became hard to think on your own, or it was not allowed because specific rules to follow.

Leana, this is what I fear about some religious people - sometimes they can follow without thought, without question or query of their beliefs and that's when, I believe, it can become dangerous. I guess most people are like this - always looking for someone, something, to lead them, I think it just becomes more... obvious, or more prevalent in religions - not just Christianity either.

Also, questioning God, or your faith was not something any one talked about. Alot of this thinking was 'clear cut; or black and white'.
I am SO lucky in my upbringing. As I've mentioned, the majority of my family are Christian, but they've never once questioned my belief (or lack there of :winky ) or tried to change my path. As long as I am basically a good person, it's a-okay with them!
I remember when I was.. sixteen or so, my family asking why I didn't have a boyfriend, I turned around and said "jesus, I'm a lesbian okay" (incedently, I'm not, I thought it would shut them up). My granma turned around and said "being gay is not an excuse to be single dear".
Guess there's no arguin with that!

[fimbriae]

i think that marriage should be abolished entirely. it's such an antiquated, patriarchal institution.

makes sense to me, anyway :)

love,
emma

[tryingtobeme]

Tashawashere said: It does no harm if two people of same gender wish to get married, unless you are against it for religious purposes and in that case... don't do it, and it doesn't have to happen in your church. But it's not fair to make EVERYONE adhere to the beliefs of SOME religions.

Well now, here is a perfect example (I think) of how I can have a very strong opinion about something and yet be open-minded.

Based on my religious beliefs, I believe marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman.

However, :hugon Tashawashere :hugoff has given me something to think about. It never occurred to me that some religious denominations DON'T consider marriage to be that way.

I also think it is ridiculous to try to amend the constitution, which has only been amended relatively few times (how many?) to ban this.

:love TTBM

[battgyrll]

:hugon TTBM :hugoff

You said this perfectly!

I also think it is ridiculous to try to amend the constitution, which has only been amended relatively few times (how many?) to ban this.

That is one of the arguments I use with people on this one. In my opinion, if you don't want to agree with gay marriage, that's fine, it is your beliefe, although not the same as mine. BUt to put it in the constitution...are you crazy?:wacky

This country has been around for just over two hundred years.
There are twenty seven amendments to the constitution.
Ten of them were put there right away.
One of them repeals another one.
So in all actuality, there have been, in two hundred+ years a grand total of FIFTEEN amendments, covereing things such as who has the right to vote, how long politicians can hold office, what the regs are for holding each office...none of it being social policy.

Believe what you like, but keep it out of the constitution.

:bat battgyrll :bat
Sara

[MegaVictory]

Well put!

[the_dragonfly]

battgyrll - despute not being American, and having less than no say in your constitution, I agree.
The entire thought of changing the Constitution for something so... well, I know this word upsets people, but it is disciminatory, based on SOME peoples beliefs seems.. rediculous to me.

Imagine if we said... we don't want people of different religions to marry, and put that in the constitution!

[Feak]

I am not a Christian, my religion has no particular intolerance of homosexuality or bisexuality, and in most cases we can be "handfasted" - our own marriage ceremony. It's not legally recognised, but hey. I don't think gay couples should be allowed to wed in a Church, as I'm not sure what the Bible says about it, I know it's controversial and open to interpretation and all that, but I do strongly feel that state weddings should be allowed and legally recognised. Gay couples should be allowed to marry in registery offices, at least.

One thing that came up somewhere that I found hilarious and upsetting at the same time, this is America right? Where you're allowed to marry your car or pet dog, but not a same sex partner :confused

[bellydancer]

Perhaps this is a little off-topic, but at least in the US, handfastings can be legally recognized, as long as the person performing them in an ordained minister. People can be ordained through the Universal Life church over the Internet in five minutes, and yes it's legal.

[MegaVictory]

Feak, I like how you put that. It is very respectful, and I agree.

[ribbon]

bellydancer said: Perhaps this is a little off-topic, but at least in the US, handfastings can be legally recognized, as long as the person performing them in an ordained minister. People can be ordained through the Universal Life church over the Internet in five minutes, and yes it's legal.

Didn't Joey on Friends do that? :muhaha

[Catherose]

I thought you guys might appreciate this email I received from the Christian Family Coalition yesterday:

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the nation?s most radical homosexual group HAS RECEIVED A [one hundred thousand dollar] matching grant to LEGALIZE homosexual "marriage" in America from a "gay family"!

This "gay family" are Tom Bombardier and John Fowler TWO MEN who claim they have been together eight years and have somehow "adopted" two children, ages [twenty-two] and [twenty-four] months!

My friend, it is time to WAKE UP, the SURVIVAL OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE!

WE CAN AND MUST WIN THE BATTLE TO PROTECT MARRIAGE!

IF WE DON?T, AMERICA WILL NOT SURVIVE BECAUSE:
[one]. Homosexual adoption will be instantly legalized and generations of children will be raised in unnatural environments - deprived of a mother and a father.

[two]. Schools will teach your children that two men "marrying" each other is the same as one man and one woman, marrying each other!

[three]. Young boys and girls will be taught how to perform "safe sodomy" on each other in sex education classes.

[four]. YOUR CHURCH will have to abandon Scripture and "marry" homosexuals or lose their tax exempt status or worse yet - BE SHUT DOWN if they refuse to marry two men or two women!

TWO HOMOSEXUAL MEN donated [one hundred thousand dollars] to LEGALIZE HOMOSEXUAL "MARRIAGE"!

We NEED EVERYONE TOGETHER, TO DONATE [one hundred thousand] to SAVE MARRIAGE!

The Christian Family Coalition, has fought and WON against the RADICAL HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA, whether it?s special rights or homosexual indoctrination of kindergarten children!

PLEASE STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING RIGHT NOW,

We ARE challenging YOU and thousands of Christians, just like you, TO MATCH DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, this [one hundred thousand dollars]assault on our families!

If homosexual extremists can DONATE [one hundred thousand dollars]for a LIE!,

Then Christians across AMERICA can also donate [one hundred thousand dollars] for the TRUTH - that MARRIAGE =ONE MAN + ONE WOMAN!

We only NEED ****,************ Christians, JUST LIKE YOU, to donate $******** each, we will reach our [one hundred thousand dollars] GOAL!

WE KNOW THERE ARE AT LEAST ****,************ Christians, JUST LIKE YOU, who can donate at least $********!

Please, dig deep into your pockets, and make your EMERGENCY DONATION right now,

DON?T ALLOW any more time pass, WE MUST PROTECT AND DEFEND MARRIAGE IN AMERICA TODAY, RIGHT NOW!

WE CAN AND WILL WIN THIS BATTLE!

After you make your EMERGENCY DONATION, PLEASE pass on this alert to EVERYONE on YOUR E-MAIL LIST AND ASK THEM TO ALSO MAKE AN EMERGENCY DONATION

We are waiting on your EMERGENCY CONTRIBUTION TODAY!

The very survival of our nation is at stake!


I emailed them asking for more information on the "safe sodomy" classes, but my email was returned. I had no idea that legalizing gay marriage would oblige schools to teach children how to sodomize each other.:ohboy

Anyway, about the church issue... I think churches should have every right not to perform the ceremonies if they don't want to. Separation of church and state menas that neither should be bound by the beliefs of the other. Just as the Bible shouldn't dictate federal law, federal law shouldn't dictate the obligations of a church.

And I don't know how I ended up on the Christian Family Coalition mailing list.

[ribbon]

Catherose said:I emailed them asking for more information on the "safe sodomy" classes, but my email was returned. I had no idea that legalizing gay marriage would oblige schools to teach children how to sodomize each other.:ohboy

:muhaha :muhaha
I think that's right up there with the recruitment videos :winky.

[the_dragonfly]

oh hell!

[one]. Homosexual adoption will be instantly legalized and generations of children will be raised in unnatural environments - deprived of a mother and a father.

ohhhhhhhhh noooooooooooooo. What on earth shall I do? I had no father growing up, he up and ran off with another woman.. This means I grew up in an unnatural environment... HEY maybe thats why I'm screwy and have a few ED's... Wonderful, something else to blame!

[two]. Schools will teach your children that two men "marrying" each other is the same as one man and one woman, marrying each other!
Of course it's not the same, there'll probably be a lot less tacky bridesmaid dresses!

[three]. Young boys and girls will be taught how to perform "safe sodomy" on each other in sex education classes.
Better than teaching them unsafe sodomy classes, In my opinion!

Catherose - I emailed them asking for more information on the "safe sodomy" classes, but my email was returned. I had no idea that legalizing gay marriage would oblige schools to teach children how to sodomize each other. Damn, that was funny, made me almost cry!

[Catherose]

Here's a cool website:

http://www.planetout.com/families/commitment/ido.html

They have advertisements that support same-sex marriage, and you can vote for the ones you like the best. There are some really great (some really sad) commercials there.

[ribbon]

Awesome website :yay. Some of those ads brought tears to my eyes they were so beautiful. It was so hard to choose one to vote for. I went for the last one because it made me laugh :muhaha.

[Mountainbreeze]

I don't approve of homosexual marriage, because I believe the Bible to be the Word of God (and I believe He doesn't approve of homosexuality or homosexual marriage--**** Corinthians ****:****Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God?

With all due respect :winky you've got to be kidding!

Do I beleive the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have share in the kingdom of God? Who is to determine what and who is unrighteous? Jesus stands for non judgement and acceptance of others.

I am fully supportive and can't wait for legislation to be passed that makes gay marriages legal in all states.

You wanna know why?

Because I believe that "Love is Love" and in it's purest form, who should ever consider themselves in a position to judge?

Breeze

[sunshynehip]

I watched those commercials and bawled through all of them.. I am so thankful that I live in a place where gay marriage is legal and accepted - I live in Vancouver, Canada.

I feel the need to write more than just that now, but I am unsure why. I guess - because I am a "Christian" yet I am totally for gay marriage. I believe that god gave us all a choice and no matter what we choose - he will Always be there. Always. He loves the most vicious serial killer as equal as he loves the pope. He loves a gay couple as equally as he loves a brand new baby - Love is love. Simple as that.

There is so much more that I want to write but right now isnt the time -

I just encourage people to open their hearts and their minds. God loves everyone - fare and square. Gay or straight..White or black - Christian or Wiccan - Young or old.

[the_dragonfly]

I have another question - funny, this post has been making me think.
For those Christians who believe it's okay for gay marriages to go ahead, which denomination are you? Obviously there are certain churches out there who are more liberal than others, I wonder which those are?

[Dorian]

:sun

I wasn't going to respond because (as many may remember) I have quite strong feelings on this and when my feelings get strong, I get long-winded...

But, because :stars borderline :stars asked this last question, and because I literally laughed out loud when I read your grandmother's quote, I figured, what the hey, it's time to type.

So, I was raised Catholic, and consider myself to be Catholic. I am very much for gay marriage. If people love each other, let them be together.

In my worldview, which is influenced by my personal experience with the Catholic church, God offers unconditional love and is not judgmental. How can it be a sin to love? Who is being hurt?

And so, I guess I go against what (I believe I understood to be) MegaVictory and Ribbon's thoughts that one should not call oneself a part of one religious group if one doesn't embrace all that they stand for. For me, Catholocism is about universality, bringing people together, and while there are elements that I disagree with (e.g., I am for gay marriage, pro-choice), I don't believe that this negates my identity as a Catholic. - Frankly, because to me, the God that I understand, is all-loving. Perhaps this has to do with my family upbringing more than my experience with the church.

It feels somewhat interesting and ironic that I type this as I watch George Michael on Oprah singing "Father Figure"... :cute

Lots of :love
Kate

(ps - one extra big hug to :hugon borderline and her grandmother :supergrin :hugoff)

[ribbon]

Kate, I was speaking for myself in not being a member of a church where I don't subscribe to some of the major beliefs of the church. I think a lot of people probably don't believe or practice every single thing the church says. I also said (or meant to convey) that I do not respect people who use religion as an excuse to discriminate on one issue while doing something else that is against.
For example, if one has premarital sex against the church teachings and then says gay marriage is wrong because god says so. I then want to say, "But he's ok with you not listening to him about premarital sex?" To me that seems like hypocrisy to pick and choose when to use the god excuse. I guess I think unless you're practicing everything you think god wants you to, you give up the right to use god as an excuse to discriminate.
I think it's VERY COOL that you're catholic and prochoice and gay marriage. I'm really glad you posted.
Thanks.

[MegaVictory]

Hi Dorian, I think I was misunderstood, too. I am Catholic, and I don't agree with everything the Church says, either. I am basically a "take the best, and leave the rest" sort of person, concerning religion. (And I do like that our church is "universal.") I simply meant, if you went to a church, any church, and you were gay and you came out with it, and you wanted to get married in that church, and the priest/minister refuses you, you should just go elsewhere, rather than keep pushing that that particular church (or maybe the word is faith) marry you. The gay people may be able to get legally married, but it may not be so easy to find a church that would accept them and marry them, because most churches except for the very liberal ones, don't feel gay relationships are blessed by God. In fact, the Catholic Church even has support groups, but the Church says a gay person can be gay and is still loved by God, but he/she may not practice sex (which I think would be very hard to do if the gay couple was in love).

[MegaVictory]

Also, I do not necessarily believe pre-marital sex is wrong, but promiscuity is.

[Dorian]

:hugon ribbon :hugoff

Thanks for responding ribbon. I appreciate what you're saying and I'm glad for the clarification. I find I am often (always?) in agreement with your ideas as I read your posts and it is helpful to hear what you were thinking here. I'm pretty much anti-discrimination for any reason (interpretation of the Bible or otherwise) :wink

:love Kate

[ribbon]

I didn't want to imply I was against premarital sex. I think (hope) what anyone who engages is that should do so willingly and when they are emotionally ready. I get hung up on the word promiscuity because I think it's a term used most often to describe women and not men :reallymad. As long as people are using protection and making informed decisions w/o duress I don't judge the quantity of partners, particularly since sometimes people who were abused as children often use sex as a defense mechanism. Of course, if a so called promiscuous person used god as a reason to discriminate against gay marriage, I'd have a big problem :muhaha.

[Dorian]

Hi :hugon MV :hugoff

Thank you too for your clarification - I am glad you posted because this was certainly not what I understood from your previous post.

I respectfully still disagree with you though. Maybe this is my stubbornness (is that even a word?) or the strength of my convictions that people should be accepted regardless of their beliefs and have a right to push to be accepted even when it is unpopular. In your example of the couple being refused a marriage ceremony at the church to which they belong, you suggest they should simply go elsewhere rather than push. Hmmm, I would agree it would be easier to go elsewhere (it's often easier to give in than to fight), and perhaps the couple would prefer to go elsewhere than to (in my own words) "fight" to be married - marriage shouldn't be about fighting (but rather the opposite!). My desire to push (fight) I think, must come from my broader belief that acceptance is what is truly "right" while discrimination (in any form) is absolutely wrong and hurtful. I am fully aware that what I am saying is that what I believe is more "right" than what those who don't think gay marriage is acceptable (or most other beliefs I hold for that matter), but I guess that's me being stubborn again in standing up for what I believe.

It's difficult for me too because I certainly appreciate hearing (or more accurately, reading) the multiple diverse viewpoints put forth on this board and I wish I could also say I was very open to considering alternate viewpoints. On many things I might be, but on human rights (under which I think gay marriage falls), I am closed.

I'll keep reading though and mulling (but will likely stay stuck in a pro-love rut :winky)

Thanks for letting me ramble :sun
:love Kate

[ribbon]

Dorian said: Maybe this is my stubbornness (is that even a word?) or the strength of my convictions that people should be accepted regardless of their beliefs and have a right to push to be accepted even when it is unpopular.

I totally agree with you.

My desire to push (fight) I think, must come from my broader belief that acceptance is what is truly "right" while discrimination (in any form) is absolutely wrong and hurtful. I am fully aware that what I am saying is that what I believe is more "right" than what those who don't think gay marriage is acceptable (or most other beliefs I hold for that matter), but I guess that's me being stubborn again in standing up for what I believe.

I admire that. For me if a place refused to marry me I would be so incensed that I would not want to get married or do anything else in that place. I'd say screw them :muhaha. Your way is much better for instilling institutional change.

[MegaVictory]

I feel there have to be some rules, because, all the free this, and free that; it's no wonder the world is in the shape it is in. Some people ruin it for the "pure at heart." I have heard/read that certain people do not want gay marriage to be even legal because, statistically speaking, there is more promiscuity among gay people, (and of course, Aids, a disease worse than cancer) and thus, they get a bad rap, so that is why the restrictions.

[Daniels_gold_fish]

I personally support gay marriage on hundred percent. I'm straight, but I believe love is a very beautiful thing, and if someone has found someone else, regardless if they're the same sex or not, then more power to them. President Bush and other conservatives have no right to try to ban same sex marriage.

I hate the arguement about how same sex marriage prohibits new life being formed. (not sure how to word that, but prevents kids being born.). There are six billion people on the planet, we are in no desperate need for more people. Also, What about the millions of kids without homes and who are waiting to be adopted? Two men, or two women would riase an adopted kid, the same, if not better than a man and a woman.

So more power to same sex marriage!

[Daniels_gold_fish]

I forgot to say one thing. I was filling out an application for a college scholarship, and I got to the part about any dieseas' you might have. You know, blind, deaf, aids, etc. ANd in this category was "gay/lesbian." I thin threw away the application and deicded I'll find my college money else where. Loving someone of the same sex/being attracted to them is IN NO WAY A DISEASE! . That is so offending.

[the_dragonfly]

Dorian, my granma was the funniest woman I ever knew. She had lot's of opinions on things that people her age considered wrong, or not okay - where a lot of women of her age showed an obvious distaste for immigrants and their children, Granma embraced them, gay and lesbians where never an issue, and, whilst she didn't go to church very often, on Sunday's she'd sit down and watch her prayers on TV - she liked to keep her options open. She'd pinch us when we were babies to wake us up (children are no fun when they're sleeping!!!) and spoilt us rotten forever, no matter what we did.

Dorian, I appreciate you taking a stand, regardless of your religion. Perhaps it's just the few catholics I've met, but many of them are rather rigid in their beliefs - unless it directly involves them. Sex before marriage is apparently okay when they're involved, as is birth control etc.

I would rather someone take bits and pieces of their religion, rather than run the risk of becoming hypocritical.
Perhaps this has to do with my family upbringing more than my experience with the church.
I wonder how many of the fishies beliefs are based on this? Their families interpretation of belief systems, rather than the "by the book" interpretation. I know my mother always says I'd make a good Christian - if only I believed in god!


I feel there have to be some rules, because, all the free this, and free that; it's no wonder the world is in the shape it is in. Some people ruin it for the "pure at heart." I have heard/read that certain people do not want gay marriage to be even legal because, statistically speaking, there is more promiscuity among gay people, (and of course, Aids, a disease worse than cancer) and thus, they get a bad rap, so that is why the restrictions

But who decides the rules, and why should I abide by someone elses beliefs, if my actions are not hurting them?
Why should I be forced to pay heed to someone elses outdated notions of what a marriage should be, when they will not give me the same respect?

As for the gay's being more promiscuous, what a lot of.. hooey! Sure, I know a helluva lot of gay people who sleep around. Sure, I know a helluva a lot of straight people who sleep around. I do not believe it's more prominant within the gay community, and I certainly don't believe it's the cause of the spread of AIDS.
Vicks wrote an interesting post re. AIDS in Africa a while back, whats the current stats? One in Nine? One in Five affected with HIV or AIDS? I don't think the gay community can be blamed for this :(

Daniels Gold Fish made an interesting point:
I hate the arguement about how same sex marriage prohibits new life being formed. (not sure how to word that, but prevents kids being born.). There are **** billion people on the planet, we are in no desperate need for more people. Also, What about the millions of kids without homes and who are waiting to be adopted? Two men, or two women would riase an adopted kid, the same, if not better than a man and a woman..
In Australia we keep getting fed the line that marriage should be between a man and a woman so they can procreate. I'm straight and don't plan on having my own children, can I still get married, if I want to?

Ribbon - It's true what you said about the word "promiscuity". It's similiar to the term slut. Only used in relation to women, it's harsh, and cold, and unfair.

[ribbon]

Daniels_gold_fish said: I forgot to say one thing. I was filling out an application for a college scholarship, and I got to the part about any dieseas' you might have. You know, blind, deaf, aids, etc. ANd in this category was "gay/lesbian." I thin threw away the application and deicded I'll find my college money else where. Loving someone of the same sex/being attracted to them is IN NO WAY A DISEASE! . That is so offending.

That's unfuckingbelievable. Is that even legal???

[the_dragonfly]

and I got to the part about any dieseas' you might have. You know, blind, deaf, aids, etc. ANd in this category was "gay/lesbian." .

My god, thats... beyond offensive.

[Marigold]

I'm glad I don't have to get all caught up in the "rules" of religion in terms of whether or not I *should* be against or for gay marriage.

I have been reading all these posts w/interest - it's clear to me that many religious people are also people of deep compassion - these are the ones who are saying that God's love is All - that's all that matters. Therefore, if two people are in love and want to marry - be they gay or straight - it's fine w/them and it's fine w/God.

I can really appreciate that.

I can also understand that if people were raised in a certain way to be religious and very closely follow the *rules* of their religion - then, most likely, they are the ones that will have a problem w/gay marriage.

I can understand this very well - but I can't agree w/such people. I respect that they have the right to feel as they do and believe as they do - and I also respect that gay people have the right to marry.

It's interesting to me that fundamentalist types of religion often push or try to push people's fear buttons (unnatural families! teaching "safe sodomy" in schools!) - when really, all it truly boils down to is the fact of two people who are gay wanting to marry. To have the same rights of straight people.

Anyway, I am glad I can be free to chose how I, personally, wish to believe and feel about these kinds of subjects.

I am very liberal in my viewpoints - but I was raised in a very conservative household.

I guess you could say I "rebelled" against all the rigid beliefs I encountered (they never made any sense to me once I could think for myself and read about and hear about other, more tolerant viewpoints).

Also - I was never much into a punishing, intolerant and judgemental kind of god.

I never thought that god would stoop to the pettiness and viciousness and outright jealously and meaness that many people display in their thoughts, words and actions.

Somehow I've always seen God as Above all that!

I've also never believed that one form of sexuality (between a man and a woman) was, in any way, innately Better than another kind of sexuality (between two women or two men).

Sex is important - but it is only One part of what makes up a human being - so, to focus so rigidly and so forcefully on gay people's sexuality is to de-personalize them - and I feel many if not most religions do just that.

They state that god is Personally Offended by homosexuality (either by the "sin" of it - or by the "sinner" him or herself whether or not he or she is sexual).

Why would God possibly be offended by something that is in nature? How can anyone deny that homosexuality is part of nature? It's been around for eons. Animals do it. It's not going anywhere.

I guess people could say - well Murder has also been around forever.

True I guess, they could and can say this - but it's so misguided. Murder violates other people's rights to safety and well-being while being gay certainly does Not.

Yet so many religious people Do feel that homosexuality Hurts them.

I can never understand this kind of thinking. I try and I just can't. Because it is too rigid and ridiculous for me, ultimately, to think that God cares whether or not the two people who are being married in his (Her) name are gay or straight.

I have a very conservative brother who feels that being gay is Bad. Yet he has a marriage in which he has emotionally abused his wife in all kinds of ways. For years. He has his own weaknesses - so I'm not saying people must be Perfect (and if they are Perfect and have Perfect marriages they are Allowed to judge gay people. No.).

What I'm saying is that in my brother's confused mind - somehow god is going to be more forgiving to my brother - and more angry w/gay people.:wacky

Whereas I think God is :love (a cliche - yet the truth) and therefore all people can find a home in this :love. And not have to give up a fundamental part of who they are (being gay and expressing their sexuality).

Truly - I am profoundly Glad that I do not let any kind of religious beliefs dictate my views about gay people or gay marriage.

I guess this is because I see alot of mankind's influence (dominance) in terms of religious belief.

I never get confused about what human beings think about gay marriage (or anything else) - and what God (or the ultimate spirit that Is) is coming from on all this.

This is because I am guided by compassion. I don't always practice it (I'm not perfect) - but I deeply believe in it.

Compassion does not want other people to hurt and suffer for want of marriage - just because they are gay.

People here have been quoting alot of scripture.

My beliefs are non-traditional - but I do believe that Jesus said:

"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You" - (or words to that effect). That is the true spirit of His teachings.

This means: if you benefit from and believe in marriage for Yourself (and/or your loved ones) - then do not try to deny marriage for others - including gay people.

End of story. Period.

I don't feel any need to hash it all out beyond this or try to discern god's ultimate word or will about gay marriage - this is sufficient for me.

Compassion and :love could save the world if we allowed this to happen.

But we don't. We find all kinds of ways to keep hatred going - including the continuing discrimination against gay people.
-Marigold:sun

[the_dragonfly]

I think my biggest problem with religion is that some people get so.. caught up in it that they seem to forget to think for themselves.

I think it's buddhism which says (And I'm paraphrasing) that they do not want you to simply believe, they want you to look, to learn, to research, to think and to feel the religion.
I think this is awesome - it takes away one of any religious "excuses" to simply say "but the book says so", and forces you to think of why it's right or wrong, why you agree or disagree.

There is a clear difference between right and wrong, discrimination or not, and I believe that disallowing ones fundamental rights to marry simply because of who they love is discrimination.
(hello, rapists, murders, child molesters can all marry, can all have children, are these people somehow better under the law, somehow better in the eyes of a god?)

For all those who are religious - regardless of the religion - and who have posted here, I thank you for sharing your views, it takes courage to stand by something you believe in.
For those who are religious and are okay with gay marriages, all the better, you show that you can be religious and... flexible at the same time - this I applaud whole heartedly.

[leana]

Borderline; Your grandmother sounds like an amazing woman! I about :muhaha my ass off when I read what she had said to you..
some people get so.. caught up in it that they seem to forget to think for themselves.
Very true, and they seem to form a red-neck-head-up-their-ass kind of thinking. Adopting what others say as fact, and not researching for themselves, is down right lazy.
I also believe tho', if a person is to disagree with me on a religious basis and they have proof from what they believe to be true, and it's apparent that they are thinking for themselves, then I respect their opinion.. and I agree to just disagree on the subject.
Also, I'm sorry I didn't jump in sooner..
Obviously there are certain churches out there who are more liberal than others, I wonder which those are?
I belong to a non-denominational church... base of religion; the bible, and believing that Christ died for our sins (and that we can hold a personal relationship with him). That's it.
I do hardly find the time to go.. but when I do I attend the same church.
And as for adoption.. maybe.. just maybe, when they do ligalize gay marriages, and it is ok for them to adopt.. that opens up a hole nother door for the adoption agencies. And maybe.. just maybe, with more families avalible, it will allow room for agencies to better qualify families for adoptions. (I believe that screening families for adoption, due to the amount of kids, whether it be foster homes, or permanite.. the screening is not at the quality it should be.)

MegaVictory;
I have heard/read that certain people do not want gay marriage to be even legal because, statistically speaking, there is more promiscuity among gay people, (and of course, Aids, a disease worse than cancer) and thus, they get a bad rap, so that is why the restrictions.
Coming from an 'old' church when I was younger, I met a load of people who believed God would strike people with a disease for a reason.
With that in mind.. who am I to say that God would judge a gay couple who contracted the aids virus...? Is it my place to point out Gods judgement... no. It's not. Only God knows why people contract aids. Whether they're gay, or straight and slut around. Whether they've only had sex one time.. it doesn't matter, the aids virus I do not believe is punishment, it's part of living in an unperfect world, and we do have consequinces in evey thing we do. (whether good or bad consequinces, there is always a 'cause' and 'affect'..)
Now, I know that you read this (and it may not be even something that you believe to be true..) but that's just my two cents on that thought.

But, in the same, I am a littl' 'old school' when it comes to having sex before marriage. I believe that whether gay or stray, sex is a gift given to us, and is a gift we should share for our life time partner.
And, I do preach what I practice (twenty three year old virgin speaking here..). My fiancee.. thirty year old virgin.. ya.. wow..
It doesn't matter whether your gay or straight, if you sleep around, there will be consequinces. Whether it be aids, or a lesser s.t.d. I am not saying this is any form of judgment from God (as I said above, that is not my right to point out what his plans are). But, I feel if more people taged a higher value on sex, and how many partners they had, s.t.d's would not be such an epidemic.

Marigold; God is love. (and I agree with what you've said).



:love