North Carolina votes for marriage ammendment.

[gregintenn]

Put simply, because it is wrong.

Once again, Daniel, I would submit that it is in poor taste, poor judgement, and just in bad form for a moderator to engage in a theological argument. I've seen you do this several times. You'll antagonize until you can flaunt your authority. We all have opinions, and I'm as interested in yours as much as anyone else's. The difference comes when you can ban someone who becomes snotty, while you are able to do so without recourse.

[gregintenn]

i think you just outted me

Me too!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Ironically, I'm left-handed. I know about that one. I must have been outted, too.

It seems government sets the rules for marriage. None of us can do it without their blessing and paying their tax to do so. Some don't have the option at all.

Things considered sacred... at one time being left handed was considered very bad, every bit as bad as being gay maybe. Left handed people are not quite as shunned anymore. Civilization did not fall.

As for you thinking I disrespect other's beliefs, I am not sure where you get that from. I don't disrespect anyone elses beliefs anymore than they do mine. You are free to believe as you wish, it is no skin off of my nose. Maybe I am missing your point.

Are you not wishing me to bend my belief?

A majority is not always right.

No, I'm not asking anyone to bend their beliefs, but if you wish to argue one way or the other, it would be helpful to do so with

something other than using an argument that "since the government is now in charge of this, why not let the gays get married." That

argument just lends itself to what our problems are with the government already. Power grab. I guess I'm looking for a philosophical

counter to it, since there is no religious one, from which it came. I don't hate gays, but I sure won't pity them, either. The emergence

of this gay marriage issue is nothing more than political pawnery. The gays are being used and it is a distraction, but you guys just

don't want to see that.

[E4 No More]

I think that were most people screw up on this subject is not understanding what a marriage is from the perspective of both sides.

Christianity defines a marriage as a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. That has changed from polygamy in early times, but marriage pre-dates the government's definition and involvement.

The US Government - which includes most states - defines a marriage as a legal contract between two parities, and for the most part became required after the civil war.

The problem is they use the same word. Since the courts like to use legal precedence in these matters then it's the government who's screwed up here by using the word "marriage": therefore, if they want to replace the word "marriage" with "civil unions" then I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with them trying to define a Christian belief.

If homosexuals and atheists want civil unions then more power to them. Just don't demand that we call it a marriage.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Good enough for me.

[mikegideon]

i think you just outted me

... and 6.8 AR. He's having a tougher time with it

[Mike.357]

Ironically, I'm left-handed. I know about that one. I must have been outted, too.

No, I'm not asking anyone to bend their beliefs, but if you wish to argue one way or the other, it would be helpful to do so with

something other than using an argument that "since the government is now in charge of this, why not let the gays get married." That

argument just lends itself to what our problems are with the government already. Power grab. I guess I'm looking for a philosophical

counter to it, since there is no religious one, from which it came. I don't hate gays, but I sure won't pity them, either. The emergence

of this gay marriage issue is nothing more than political pawnery. The gays are being used and it is a distraction, but you guys just

don't want to see that.

I just see it as gay people wanting to be legally allowed to do what everyone else seems to be able to legally do.

Why not just let gays get maried whether or not the government has anything to do with it or not. Just seems fair to me. Why get hung up on a word?

Edited May 14, 2012 by Mike.357

[gregintenn]

I think that were most people screw up on this subject is not understanding what a marriage is from the perspective of both sides.

Christianity defines a marriage as a covenant between a man, a woman, and God. That has changed from polygamy in early times, but marriage pre-dates the government's definition and involvement.

The US Government - which includes most states - defines a marriage as a legal contract between two parities, and for the most part became required after the civil war.

The problem is they use the same word. Since the courts like to use legal precedence in these matters then it's the government who's screwed up here by using the word "marriage": therefore, if they want to replace the word "marriage" with "civil unions" then I have no problem with it. I do have a problem with them trying to define a Christian belief.

If homosexuals and atheists want civil unions then more power to them. Just don't demand that we call it a marriage.

I agree.

[R_Bert]

Straights are not allowed to marry same sex either. If one wanted to disregard benefits of sex, then it would be a lot cheaper to shack up and marry a straight hunting buddy & share expenses, tax burden and health costs. (No problems with change of life either)

So, civil rights wise, it seems we *do* have equal rights. On both sides of the issue, we can marry anybody we want, just not the same sex.

Edited May 14, 2012 by R_Bert

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Gays are going to do what they want to, anyway. Why spoil their fun?

Like I said earlier, I don't think the institution should be relinquished just because someone else wants it. That's a poor reason.

You're treating this as if somehow it should be a "right" for all. Nothing at all fair about just taking.

Edited May 14, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Straights are not allowed to marry same sex either. If one wanted to disregard benefits of sex, then it would be a lot cheaper to shack up and marry a straight hunting buddy & share expenses, tax burden and health costs. (No problems with change of life either)

So, civil rights wise, it seems we *do* have equal rights. On both sides of the issue, we can marry anybody we want, just not the same sex.

You took care of that one in a unique and reasonable way.

[R_Bert]

Straights are not allowed to marry same sex either. If one wanted to disregard benefits of sex, then it would be a lot cheaper to shack up and marry a straight hunting buddy & share expenses, tax burden and health costs. (No problems with change of life either)

So, civil rights wise, it seems we *do* have equal rights. On both sides of the issue, we can marry anybody we want, just not the same sex.

You took care of that one in a unique and reasonable way.

Well, look at the relationship between David and Jonathan in 1st Samuel. It was not sexual, yet they said it was more than brothers, and better than one with women.

Some folks just get along.

[Daniel]

Once again, Daniel, I would submit that it is in poor taste, poor judgement, and just in bad form for a moderator to engage in a theological argument. I've seen you do this several times. You'll antagonize until you can flaunt your authority. We all have opinions, and I'm as interested in yours as much as anyone else's. The difference comes when you can ban someone who becomes snotty, while you are able to do so without recourse.

This site has a history of stating that moderators are not banned from participating in discussions. I do not ban people for disagreeing with me.

[TMF]

The bigger question is why do some insit on recognized same-sex marriage if those factors are not part of the equation? If marriage is legally recognized, Church's would then be subject to legal retaliation for "discrimination". Not only that but one small groups theology gets dictated to me and I have to abide or risk legal ramifications from the Federal government. Then you would have the State dictating the Church on theology and doctrine. If the State is dictating theology and doctrine then the State has become a church in and of itself. That is neither libertarian, constitutional, nor American. That alone is the main argument, but there are plenty of others.

I understand your concern, but that is based on a "maybe". Last I heard the Catholic church doesn't allow gay priests and the libs aren't changing that anytime soon. If they try I'd be the first to cry foul along with millions of voters.

I don't see how the state can change a church's doctrine. Even the ACLU would fight that battle. The only folks that would be forced to do the ceremonies would be JPs.

[TripleDigitRide]

I'm still shocked to learn that it's perfectly legal in many states to marry your first cousin.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

[Guest bkelm18]

How about we just strike the word "marriage" from English-language? If you honestly think that allowing gays to engage in what is called marriage somehow belittles your own marriage, then your marriage must be a pretty poor one to begin with.

[gregintenn]

This site has a history of stating that moderators are not banned from participating in discussions. I do not ban people for disagreeing with me.

No...you don't. What you do is agitate to the point where someone says something they should not have said. It is the equalivent of a police officer at a red light inviting you to race, and then writing you a ticket for speeding.

[mikegideon]

No...you don't. What you do is agitate to the point where someone says something they should not have said. It is the equalivent of a police officer at a red light inviting you to race, and then writing you a ticket for speeding.

Whadday say you guys take this up when Daniel's not in a friggin' war zone???

[Daniel]

Whadday say you guys take this up when Daniel's not in a friggin' war zone???

This isn't a war zone.... It's a vacation.

[gregintenn]

I'll let it go when is is no longer a moderator, or stops acting like a child. Looks to me like he's on the internet. Short of that; I can't tell where he is.

[TripleDigitRide]

So, how 'bout them Cubbies?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

[mikegideon]

I'll let it go when is is no longer a moderator, or stops acting like a child. Looks to me like he's on the internet. Short of that; I can't tell where he is.

It's under "location". Have at it. It was just a suggestion.

[mikegideon]

So, how 'bout them Cubbies?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

They're gay

[Smith]

I understand your concern, but that is based on a "maybe". Last I heard the Catholic church doesn't allow gay priests and the libs aren't changing that anytime soon. If they try I'd be the first to cry foul along with millions of voters.

I don't see how the state can change a church's doctrine. Even the ACLU would fight that battle. The only folks that would be forced to do the ceremonies would be JPs.

It's not a maybe. The homosexuals said they wouldn't push for adoption ... and now? They said it wouldn't push sodomy laws ... and now? They said it wouldn't push bestiality .. talk to Washington. The list goes on. Once you open the door of changing definitions from the established to the interpretive value of the few you will get a mess. Heck, that's how we've gotten to where we have with the constitution and liberalism. It's the so called "libertarians" and conservatives who can't see the connection between absolutes/relativism and the Constitution/law/society and issues such as this that concern me. There are either absolutes or there are not. You can not have some and have others be relative to the individual.

This is not as much a religious issue as some want us to believe. That is too easy to dismiss for many. The deeper issue is what I have stated above.

[Smith]

So, how 'bout them Cubbies?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

Oh, don't bring my Cubs into this! They have enough issues with the curse and all.