I had no idea (caution gay thread)

[Mike.357]

~10% of the population is left-handed - who would have thought that was a genetic disorder?

and at least we lefties are in our right mind.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Mike.357

[Mike.357]

OK, so you guys ARE in favor of the federal government recognizing the civil union, granting the same rights and benefits as a traditional marriage?

That's what I get out of this discussion. The fighting is about whether or no you can call it "marriage".

Surely if civil unions are recognized for all, and church weddings count just like always, there certainly will be churches who would allow gays to marry.

It is about calling it getting married.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Mike.357

[56FordGuy]

...there certainly will be churches who would allow gays to marry.

There already are. In most states those services don't carry any legal weight, but there actually is a slowly growing group within Christianity that is openly accepting of gay folks.

Edited September 5, 2012 by 56FordGuy

[TMF]

.

It is about calling it getting married.

Which is funny when you consider there are atheists and folks who worship the devil and idolize peacocks who call their unions with their spouses "marriage" and no one seems to care or call for legislation against it. Where is all the outrage there? There are non-semetic religions all over the world (and in our country) that call their relationships marriage and there isn't any outrage. Why is there suddenly outrage over two gays calling it "marriage"?

I'm not some rabid supporter of gay marriage, I just don't have any logical reason to oppose it. I don't see any logical reason (legally, not religiously) why anyone else would either.

[Erik88]

I'm not some rabid supporter of gay marriage, I just don't have any logical reason to oppose it. I don't see any logical reason (legally, not religiously) why anyone else would either.

This pretty much sums up how I feel.

Like Mike says, "everyone deserves to be miserable"....

[daddyo]

Which is funny when you consider there are atheists and folks who worship the devil and idolize peacocks who call their unions with their spouses "marriage" and no one seems to care or call for legislation against it. Where is all the outrage there? There are non-semetic religions all over the world (and in our country) that call their relationships marriage and there isn't any outrage. Why is there suddenly outrage over two gays calling it "marriage"?

I'm not some rabid supporter of gay marriage, I just don't have any logical reason to oppose it. I don't see any logical reason (legally, not religiously) why anyone else would either.

Are those gay marriages or are they marriages between a man and a woman? Besides, who's calling for legislation against gay marriage? From what I've seen, most of the attempts at legislation FOR gay marriage have failed. The voters don't want it legalized or it would have already happened.

The onus is on the gay community to show how SSM will benefit society, which they have failed to do. Instead, they have tried to shirk that responsibility by trying to demonize anyone who questions their lifestyle. Looks like they need to work on their PR instead of calling names.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

OK, so you guys ARE in favor of the federal government recognizing the civil union, granting the same rights and benefits as a traditional marriage?

I don't care what two gays do, as long as it doesn't involve me or any religious tradition. The gays want "marriage" which involves a religious component. If there are Christian religious organizations that want to allow that, there is a problem with that within the Christian groups and that needs to be separate from any government actions. Maybe there are, but I know the vast majority of Christians don't condone "marriage" in a church for gays.

if I recall, you are a Catholic. What are your church's views on the subject? What are your's?

These kinds of discussions always end up being about gay marriage. This one was started without it, but it did imply government actions concerning gays. The question I still have is: What "rights" do gays not have, already? The question is what a "right" is. Rights are not everything, and they supercede the Constitution. The Constitution only acknowledges them. I don't know anywhere that defines a marriage as a "right", except maybe in the eyes of God. If you call anything a "right" where will this end?

Government has no business in this and it is another way to further divide this country. If the American people wish to grant a privilege of a civil union between two gays, it will get voted up or down. So far it has been voted down in the realm of the word "marriage", to the point of a vast majority, roughly 2/3rds of the country, that is.

Evidently there are a lot of people who actually do take this kind of thing seriously.

Edited September 5, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Are those gay marriages or are they marriages between a man and a woman? Besides, who's calling for legislation against gay marriage? From what I've seen, most of the attempts at legislation FOR gay marriage have failed. The voters don't want it legalized or it would have already happened.

The onus is on the gay community to show how SSM will benefit society, which they have failed to do. Instead, they have tried to shirk that responsibility by trying to demonize anyone who questions their lifestyle. Looks like they need to work on their PR instead of calling names.

Demonizing seems to be very popular when arguments fail, doesn't it? Like someone calling someone else a homophobe

or a racist if they disagree with them.

[Jonnin]

OK, so you guys ARE in favor of the federal government recognizing the civil union, granting the same rights and benefits as a traditional marriage?

I am OK with that. The point is equality under the government, and terminology can be put aside for that. But I do not understand the terminology issue AT ALL. Apparently the people that get butthurt over "marriage is a sacrament" (whatever that means) are OK with atheists and satanists and who knows what else being "married" if they are male/female but you better not be using that married word with homosexuals! Until I can get a LOGICAL argument about THAT, the word married can be used for the homosexuals as well in my book. It is dumb to try to make an issue of the word as if it "belongs" to the christian church when any hetero couple can use the word regardless of faith......

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The problem with the marriage license issued by a government is that it shouldn't be issuing a license to be married. It has no business in marrying anyone. It it wishes to issue licenses about this, they should be civil unions. Your point the satanists and atheists who were married were done so by the license, not the ceremony. They are two separate things that have been merged together and never should have. People have a way of eventually accepting things by use of the government intervention. Traditions have changed in this country and arguments have been used to mainstream some traditions while many people think the government should leave them alone.

In the religious realm, the marriage is between a man and a woman before God. Two gays don't fit that model, but if you wish to water down the religious meaning, I doubt I can change your mind. I don't have a problem with the use of the term "civil union" and, like definitions that have changed throughout time, the word "marriage" has been watered down by the government licensing the act.

I don't have a problem with gays. I'm not a homophobe, either. I do, however have a problem with people trying to change things to meet their needs, just because they want something they don't have and don't meet the definition.

It seems more in society agrees with me than people on this board. But I expect that. That's the internet.

Edited September 5, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[G27]

I don't care what two gays do, as long as it doesn't involve me or any religious tradition. The gays want "marriage" which involves a religious component. If there are Christian religious organizations that want to allow that, there is a problem with that within the Christian groups and that needs to be separate from any government actions. Maybe there are, but I know the vast majority of Christians don't condone "marriage" in a church for gays.

If I go to the courthouse and am 'married', is that a religious ceremony? The state is simply recognizing the union and thus allowing the benefits that go with that union.

Call it whatever you want, but there's no religious component there - and we can argue all day about it but I believe most gay couples would be happy with a government-recognized civil union that allows the same benefits as traditional marriage.

if I recall, you are a Catholic. What are your church's views on the subject? What are your's?

Nope, I'm a protestant Christian. I'm unaware of any particular view in my church, but frankly, I couldn't care less - this isn't a religious debate, imo, but a civil debate.

My view is that while I believe homosexual behavior to be sinful, I'm supposed to love people as a Christian without judging them. That doesn't mean over time I can't speak into aspects of their lives, but that's a relational thing, not a black-and-white judgement call. I also believe that unless we want to go down a theocratic path (which is all well and good while people who believe the same things I do are the majority - not so good otherwise...) we have to remove religious-based arguments from our laws.

These kinds of discussions always end up being about gay marriage. This one was started without it, but it did imply government actions concerning gays. The question I still have is: What "rights" do gays not have, already? The question is what a "right" is. Rights are not everything, and they supercede the Constitution. The Constitution only acknowledges them. I don't know anywhere that defines a marriage as a "right", except maybe in the eyes of God. If you call anything a "right" where will this end?

I'm not calling marriage a 'right' - I'm saying that it's unfair to allow benefits to one segment of society while denying them to another based on religion. Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend. I don't want religion-based laws.

Government has no business in this and it is another way to further divide this country. If the American people wish to grant a privilege of a civil union between two gays, it will get voted up or down. So far it has been voted down in the realm of the word "marriage", to the point of a vast majority, roughly 2/3rds of the country, that is.

I do take it seriously. I firmly believe history will view people who oppose giving the same legal benefits to gay unions as they do to those who opposed the civil rights movement of 50 years ago. Any time someone isn't allowed equal benefit under the law based on 'tradition' or 'religion' it's wrong.

[G27]

I am OK with that. The point is equality under the government, and terminology can be put aside for that. But I do not understand the terminology issue AT ALL. Apparently the people that get butthurt over "marriage is a sacrament" (whatever that means) are OK with atheists and satanists and who knows what else being "married" if they are male/female but you better not be using that married word with homosexuals! Until I can get a LOGICAL argument about THAT, the word married can be used for the homosexuals as well in my book. It is dumb to try to make an issue of the word as if it "belongs" to the christian church when any hetero couple can use the word regardless of faith......

Yah, marriage is so sacred that forty percent of marriages in the US end in divorce (as of 2011).

[Jonnin]

I fully agree with you that govt needs to get out of it.

I have no desire to water down the meaning, my point was the same as yours: by common usage (indeed, caused by the govt) the term is already watered down.

Most of the people that are fussing over using the term "married" with homosexuals will accept *any* use of the term with *any sort* of heteros. That is inconsistent and illogical (If the same folks will start up a campaign to ban the term married from any marriage that is not done in their particular brand of church, at least it would be consistent and logical).

Or surrender that the term is forever watered down in the secular world and let the point go. All that matters is what the term means to the particular couple anyway... for some it means a lifelong commitment before the almighty, for others it is a living arrangement for a few years.

[Guest HvyMtl]

HvyMtl - I didn't think it was directed at me. Just answer your question and pointing out the agreement.

Ah, ok. The other questions, I stated in the response to you, were directed to all. Didnt make that clear.

[TripleDigitRide]

Two gays don't fit that model, but if you wish to water down the religious meaning, I doubt I can change your mind.

With the divorce rate of first marriages hovering around 40%-50%, second marriages hovering around 60%, and third marriages hovering around 70%, it appears the straight folks have already done more than their fair share of watering down the religious meaning of marriage.

[Smith]

I'm not some rabid supporter of gay marriage, I just don't have any logical reason to oppose it. I don't see any logical reason (legally, not religiously) why anyone else would either.

Government mandated marriage would mean dictating to the Church mandates that would carry with it penalty of law if not adhered to. That means that Church's that don't adhere to the "law" would be subject to prosecution under the law for religious "intolerance". Before you say that won't happen, many groups like the Southern Poverty league and other government supported groups and offices have already labeled us as "hate groups". Right now there is little legally they can do. This would give them the legal leverage they need. The health care issue is another and is already showing it's tail.

If you are for that then you are for State=Church IMO. Which is ironic because most of the arguments made here for gay marriage is based on "separation of Church and State". I personally have been accused of wanting to dictate my religious beliefs on these poor souls, when in actuality I am advocating that the government stay out of the Church and not subjugate me to the will and beliefs of a very small minority of the population who disagree with me under threat of legal jeopardy.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Smith

[TMF]

Are those gay marriages or are they marriages between a man and a woman? Besides, who's calling for legislation against gay marriage? From what I've seen, most of the attempts at legislation FOR gay marriage have failed. The voters don't want it legalized or it would have already happened.

The onus is on the gay community to show how SSM will benefit society, which they have failed to do. Instead, they have tried to shirk that responsibility by trying to demonize anyone who questions their lifestyle. Looks like they need to work on their PR instead of calling names.

Plenty of states have taken an active role in defining marriage as between a man and a woman to head off future attempts to legally legitimize marriage. I look to that as legislation against it.

The rest are all fair points that illustrate the reason (in my opinion) why we haven't seen widespread acceptance of same sex marriage by state governments. I think the "in your face" campaign along with the demonization of religious folks (CFA fiasco) for having religious beliefs which classify homosexuality as a sin, has really turned voters away from supporting or, at least, not opposing gay marriage. The reason I think society opinion regarding gay marriage is changing is because it is no longer a social requirement for gays to stay in the closet so more folks are being exposed to openly gay folks in everyday life and tend to not really care. That is how my opinion changed on the subject. As is true with most causes, the folks that are the most rabid tend to do more harm for their cause than good.

Oh, and saying queer doesn't make one a bigot in my opinion. Sorry, words are just words. Just because some folks hold a different connotation than yours doesn't make it automatically bigoted. ##### is probably the most demeaning word to black Americans yet it is used as a term of endearment to many. Words are meaningless. Intent is what holds the meaning.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

With the divorce rate of first marriages hovering around 40%-50%, second marriages hovering around 60%, and third marriages hovering around 70%, it appears the straight folks have already done more than their fair share of watering down the religious meaning of marriage.

So we should further it on down the path because some don't take their marriages seriously? I think that's more of a sign of a decaying civilization that needs to be reversed. Using the divorce rate to water it down further tells me where we are heading as a society and it looks like a lot folks really don't care how it ends. Mores tend to change with time and we pay for it in ways we choose not to understand. I don't like to see divorce rates like they are. It is related as a cause for a lack of morality with our kids growing up in some single parent settings, and crime rates and gang activity. We're human beings. We make choices, sometimes good, sometimes bad. This issue of gay marriage is not as much to me about granting a right,

but accepting another situation as normal to life. Gays as individuals achieve success in the economic sector and that's great, but as a family unit, can they reproduce? That's part of being a family, isn't it? Making a family. Do you really wish to call that the same thing? Making a family and raising one is something that doesn't start with two people who can't make children and help them grow and nurture them into adulthood. I see that as logical. Even Darwin should agree that this particular specie wouldn't survive with this type of behavior. Redefining marriages to include this is giving incentive to call anything a family.

I think we are rationalizing our society into oblivion by accepting things like this. This issue isn't solely up to me, but I stand by my opinions as you yours. So, we live by polls and percentages to decide our society's fate? It may be easy to do, but it is a dangerous thing.

Is it so important just to feel good? I, too, as a Christian, love gays, too, but that doesn't mean I want to include them in a tradition that was never meant to include them.

Edited September 5, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[G27]

So you're against calling it marriage - that's fine, I understand that.

Are you against their having a 'civil union' that offers equal benefits under the law?

[Jonnin]

but accepting another situation as normal to life. Gays as individuals achieve success in the economic sector and that's great, but as a family unit, can they reproduce? That's part of being a family, isn't it? Making a family.

Wow, I guess my marriage is a total failure because I did not whelp.

[daddyo]

Wow, I guess my marriage is a total failure because I did not whelp.

I don't believe that's what he was saying AT ALL. I don't believe you do, either.

[Jonnin]

I am not sure what he was getting at, but as presented, it sounds like because gay marriage cannot produce kids, it is invalid? Which would make mine equally invalid? If reproduction is the purpose of marriage, mine failed. If it is not the purpose, I do not, for real, understand his point with that comment.

[strickj]

I am OK with that. The point is equality under the government, and terminology can be put aside for that. But I do not understand the terminology issue AT ALL. Apparently the people that get butthurt over "marriage is a sacrament" (whatever that means) are OK with atheists and satanists and who knows what else being "married" if they are male/female but you better not be using that married word with homosexuals! Until I can get a LOGICAL argument about THAT, the word married can be used for the homosexuals as well in my book. It is dumb to try to make an issue of the word as if it "belongs" to the christian church when any hetero couple can use the word regardless of faith......

semantics?

Not sure why some believe they own a word. It's fitting though. Ignore the First Admin and lay claim to a word.

sacred?

Yeah, real sacred, eh.

I can get my pets married in a church. I can get married while drunk by a drunk Elvis. I can get married on a party or gambling boat.

I can get married in a drive thru. Where's the blasphemy outrage here?

[mav]

I don't understand why some must push the debate into the religious realm. I can only guess that there is a little bit of anti-religiousity, primarily anti-Christianity present. My defense of the word "marriage" solely comes a traditional aspect; religion has nothing to do with it. I am not a multiculturalist and would like to preserve some of our traditions/culture in this country. Marriage happens to be one of those traditions I believe in preserving. I guess that makes me a bigot.

As I stated earlier, I believe the government should have no role in people's personal relationships. By the way, to hell with the gays. Why should married people receive anymore benefits that us single people (who out number gays) cannot get?

[Guest ThePunisher]

I don't understand why some must push the debate into the religious realm. I can only guess that there is a little bit of anti-religiousity, primarily anti-Christianity present. My defense of the word "marriage" solely comes a traditional aspect; religion has nothing to do with it. I am not a multiculturalist and would like to preserve some of our traditions/culture in this country. Marriage happens to be one of those traditions I believe in preserving. I guess that makes me a bigot.

As I stated earlier, I believe the government should have no role in people's personal relationships. By the way, to hell with the gays. Why should married people receive anymore benefits that us single people (who out number gays) cannot get?

Just like God has been removed from the Democratic platform, there are many American tradions slowly eroding and disappearing in our country.