Gay Marriage?

[beowulf 1]

I have had to do lots of things that I don't really want to do to make various people happy. What I don't have to do is vote for or support something that I don't agree with just to make a minority happy. I tolerate gays just fine. We have one gay at work that I know of and I have to deal with him on occaison. I don't have any problem with him at all. But I still don't have to agree with his lifestyle, just like I don't have to agree with the lifestyle of some one who smokes pot all of the time. I wouldn't vote to legalize pot.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Then why do you talk about the US in Iraq?

My opinion on Iraq is quite complicated and far from being capable of characterization as "something I don't like". Nor am I "standing up against it" in general terms.

[jumpergirl 0]

Quote

I have had to do lots of things that I don't really want to do to make various people happy. What I don't have to do is vote for or support something that I don't agree with just to make a minority happy. I tolerate gays just fine. We have one gay at work that I know of and I have to deal with him on occaison. I don't have any problem with him at all. But I still don't have to agree with his lifestyle, just like I don't have to agree with the lifestyle of some one who smokes pot all of the time. I wouldn't vote to legalize pot.

Good. I'm glad we seem to understand each other, mostly.

No, you don't have to vote for or support something you don't agree with. Again, THAT'S YOUR RIGHT. So, if it ever comes up in a vote, you'll vote "no." That's fine. I'll vote "yes" and we'll cancel each other out.

[beowulf 1]

ha ha that is pretty funny

no sorry I don't see it that way.

by the Gov. allowing gay marriages it is saying that the majority of the people in the US support and think that it is ok for two men or women to marry each other. I think that is just plain wrong. So I will not vote for it.

[Steel 0]

Quote

Quote

Its asking me to support something that I don't agree with. I consider that an imposition. so I will not vote for or support it.

I don't agree with Christianity. Personally I believe it's one of the world's greatest untrue brain-washing schemes ever created to control the masses and I certainly don't like it when this religion is imposed on me as it is often done in today's society. Am I wrong for judging Christians then? Hell ya I'm wrong!!! So I try (I'm not always successful) to let Christians do their thing just as long as they don't impose their ways on me (as they are often trying to do).

Do you see the similarities here? If homosexuality was being imposed on people, then that would be wrong. But's homesexuality is NOT being imposed on you. All these laws are doing is allowing two individuals to be together and to have the same legal rights to healthcare decisions and insurance as any other couples would have.

Try not to judge people who are different than yourself and I will try to not judge religious people as well. I'm out of here folks. I promised to help someone move today. But I'll check back later.

I think of you as a liberal because all the people who talk about politics the way you do, nowadays, are referred to as liberals. That being said, its difficult for me to understand how liberals can take all of their common sense and throw it in the garbage by making statements like the one you have just made about Christianity here. I mean obviously what you have done here is take an accurate description for Islam and simply replaced it with Christianity, making a totally bogus statement. Somehow liberals have come to believe that making bogus statements as such makes them intellectuals. Go figure.

If I could make a wish, I think I'd pass.
Can't think of anything I need
No cigarettes, no sleep, no light, no sound.
Nothing to eat, no books to read.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Of course you are - but he said he didn't care. As you post above if you don't care then don't vote. Voting against would be standing in the way of something.

I think several people are like me...they don't care and don't want to be bothered with it. However, when forced to make a choice, we will make one that is in line with our feelings.

So up until I am asked to vote, I could not give a crap....But when asked to make a choice, we make one.

Some might vote for, others might vote against, some will choose not to pick a side and will not vote.

Most don't care, and will not bother to picket, petition, demonstraight for OR against homosexuals. But many when given a Yes/No vote on them will check a box.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[narcimund 0]

Quote

I never thought about it like that. That's a good point.

I suspect most people are simply incapable of thinking even slightly abstractly and a vote on gay marriage is just a teeny bit abstract.

Gay marriage has nothing whatsoever to do with them and they can't think about things that are so far removed. So they imagine it's something that DOES have to do with them (like "Are you personally gay?") and since the answer to THAT question is "no", they vote "no" and can't understand why that's wrong.

This is why you'll see people say, "I don't have any problem with gay people. Gay people are fine. I know some and they don't bother me at all." But then they'll still vote against gay marriage.

They're simply answering the wrong question.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Ron 10]

Quote

My opinion on Iraq is quite complicated and far from being capable of characterization as "something I don't like". Nor am I "standing up against it" in general terms.

What, and a persons stance on gay marriage can't be the same way?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rehmwa 2]

The government should be completely out of marriage. Its practical support of heterosexual marriage is based on a bunch of assumptions that can be encouraged directly rather than by inference related to some subjective set of rituals.

Example: If the government wants to encourage heteosexual couples having and raising children, then let's specifically have tax breaks for heteosexual couples that actually have children (this is one example only, so let's not get the panties in a wad people). Instead, we give specific benefits to ALL married couples under the inference that it will help with repopulation indirectly. Why should childless couples get breaks intended for breeders?

There's many more. For this example, I don't see how we treat any people differently from a tax position.

Nevertheless (and right or wrong on this specific debate), these benefits cost money and extending the benefits will cost more money, so it's a bit bland to say that extended the benefits to marriage doesn't cost everyone something - or at least those that pay taxes. Those arguments are greatly simplified and totally emotional positions that only hurt production debate.

I only care about the cost and administration of benefits, let the churches deal with the whole social tolerance and 'feelings' aspect of it. That's a bunch of nonsense that the government could stay out of completely.

If we'd stop using the government to try to socially address every single pissy thing in the world, the equations would be greatly simplified.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jumpergirl 0]

I couldn't agree more!! Leave the government out of "personal" issues like marriage of any kind. It would make life much easier I think.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Ron, you come up with some real odd arguments sometimes. I just can't reconcile my rather multifaceted views on the whole Iraq conflict with the rather trifling matter of gay marriage.

If someone feels that put out by someone else’s private life then of course they should try to subjugate them and deny them of the rights they themselves enjoy by exercising their democratic rights to the full and voting against it where possible. If they can’t give a damn one way or the other as beowolf claims not to, then there’s no need to vote for or against anything.

In circumstances like this where more often than not there isn’t actually a referendum on the subject it’s a question of campaigning against if you disagree with it or simply doing nothing. Beowolf bemoaned being asked to support a change to allow gay marriage. I wouldn’t ask his support – I’d only ask that if he doesn’t care one way or another whether or not gays marry he should simply do nothing. He doesn’t have to support it, just don’t stand up and try and stop it. As he doesn’t care, why would he want to?

Anyway, I’m off carting for a laugh.

[Darius11 12]

I have the same opinion I have always had about gay marriage.

I do not care if they have the same rights as heterosexual couples, but I can see why people would not want them to be married in a church, Synagogue, or Masque. In every one of those religions being gay is known as a sin. It would disrespect those religions if it were forced by law for them to get married in for example a church.


I also support the right to vote for or against it. Every one is entitled to their opinion and the way you let people know how you feel about an issue is by voting.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[jumpergirl 0]

Quote

I have the same opinion I have always had about gay marriage.

I do not care if they have the same rights as heterosexual couples, but I can see why people would not want them to be married in a church, Synagogue, or Masque. In every one of those religions being gay is known as a sin. It would disrespect those religions if it were forced by law for them to get married in for example a church.


I also support the right to vote for or against it. Every one is entitled to their opinion and the way you let people know how you feel about an issue is by voting.

I do agree with eveything you said. AND... I know of "gay churches" or "gay friendly" churches. Couldn't a gay couple be married in one of those churches if they choose? I've been divorced, so I can't get married again in most churches. I never was before, so that isn't important to me. But, would it still be ok for the gay couple to be married in a "gay" church?

[Darius11 12]

Quote

Quote

I have the same opinion I have always had about gay marriage.

I do not care if they have the same rights as heterosexual couples, but I can see why people would not want them to be married in a church, Synagogue, or Masque. In every one of those religions being gay is known as a sin. It would disrespect those religions if it were forced by law for them to get married in for example a church.


I also support the right to vote for or against it. Every one is entitled to their opinion and the way you let people know how you feel about an issue is by voting.

I do agree with eveything you said. AND... I know of "gay churches" or "gay friendly" churches. Couldn't a gay couple be married in one of those churches if they choose? I've been divorced, so I can't get married again in most churches. I never was before, so that isn't important to me. But, would it still be ok for the gay couple to be married in a "gay" church?

I think that decision should be left to the practitioners of that church and religion

I don’t see how that could be possible simply because that would mean saying that the book (witch ever book it may be) that they base there beliefs on is wrong.

But we are living in a PC world. and i am just a pc girl oh wait

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Thunderbow 1]

In every one of those religions being gay is known as a sin. It would disrespect those religions if it were forced by law for them to get married in for example a church.

Quote

Well here I go. I know many of you are not into religion and I am not trying to shove anythin down anyone's throat. This is just in the way of explanation. No, most churches, especially the Catholic Church do not think being gay is a sin. The sin part comes in when it is acted out in a sexual way. The same as we believe it is a sin to have premarital sex between a man and a woman. We (Catholics) believe that sex within a marriage is a Holy act intended for procreation. That is the whole thinking behind not allowing artificial birth control. If the possibility of procreation is not there then the sex act is not complete. Also procreation is not possible between two people of the same gender. Thus the stand that we don't agree that marriage between gays is ok. We are called to reach out to gays (not for their throat) just as we are called to reach out to others that have a potential impediment to their salvation.

As for Christians trying to push their beliefs on others, I am afraid there are some that do. But those are the only stories you hear of. Mainly because you are not aware of the many that are all around you that simply have a kind word or a kind act but let that speak for them. A great saint (name escapes me) once said - "Go out and evangelize and sometimes use words."

Just imagine that you deeply believe that we have an eternal aspect to our being and that when we die we will either live in everlasting torment or everlasting bliss. How hard would it be to not impose yourself on your friends or even just aquaintences that behave in a way that makes you wonder if they will have the torment forever? Remember, I am not pushing I am just trying to explain a viewpoint.

Oops I left some extra of the quote in that I was replying to.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Lord, let me be the person my dog thinks I am.

• Quote

[Ron 10]

Quote

If we'd stop using the government to try to socially address every single pissy thing in the world, the equations would be greatly simplified.

Bingo.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,998]

>I just have to live with the laws that the majority agree to.

Not really. There are plenty of things that have become law not because the majority agree to them, but because they are a right guaranteed by our constitution. Half a century ago the great majority in this country did not want blacks to marry whites because they disagreed with it. But the courts looked at the matter and decided that they _should_ get those rights. I think today most would agree they made the right decision, even if it was not the popular one. In the future, I have little doubt the courts will rule the same way on gay marriage/civil unions or whatever you want to call them.

So we're in transition now. People are just starting to realize that gays exist, and that they have rights, and that they're not evil or bad or out to corrupt the nation's youth. They can love, and be committed to someone else, and become families, and raise children as well as anyone else can. I don't think acceptance of this will happen overnight - such things take time for people to accept. That's fine.

One thing I just don't get, though, is the idea of passing an amendment against such families. It's hard for me to comprehend what kind of hatred someone would have to have against gays to want to rip a loving family apart, just so they could keep gays from having what some straight people have.

[Darius11 12]

I just thought it would be safe to assume that someone who is homosexual will have sex with someone of the same sex, considering the only difference is there sexual preference.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Half a century ago the great majority in this country did not want blacks to marry whites because they disagreed with it.

How do you really know that? Was there a mandatory vote of 100% of the population?

I'm sure a lot of people were really loud about it and that's what's burned in many people's memories, but likely the 'great majority' didn't know one way or another due to ignorance and that it didn't 'seem' to affect them directly.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Ron 10]

Quote

Ron, you come up with some real odd arguments sometimes

Well thanks, I try

Quote

I just can't reconcile my rather multifaceted views on the whole Iraq conflict with the rather trifling matter of gay marriage.

Why is one black and whilte, and the other difficult?

One could argue that the war with Iraq was justified for no reason other than Saddam was an ass that tried to kill Bush1.

As for gay marriage there are SEVERAL shades to it...Some might be:
1. Questioning if Government should recognize ANY marriage.

2. Questions about how 'God' will see your support or lack of action either for equal rights, or against what the Bible says is wrong.

So, Gay rights is not that easy.

To a true religious person they can't support gay rights. I have yet to see a single Bible verse that supports gays. And any church or religion that does support gays is clearly just pandering to the audience.

So while you think that Iraq has many faces and it is not a simple choice, for some its easy...They never complied, Saddam was an ass, he tried to kill a President.

And while you think supporting gay marriage is simple, to others there are many sides to it for some.

Unless you assume that everyone should see things only like you do.

I think most don't really care and unless they are given a choice would rather not pick a side.

As for Canada, Spain, Belguim(?)...ect if they can get a law passed to allow it, great, the majority has spoken.

My whole gripe about what happens here in the States is an activist who has the power makes the call....Then when in a vote they get over turned...Well thats Democracy.

Has ANY vote in the US supported gay marriage?

Quote

I wouldn’t ask his support – I’d only ask that if he doesn’t care one way or another whether or not gays marry he should simply do nothing

Some would see not choosing as supporting. I for one when given the right to vote on a subject pick a side and vote. Its not only my right, but a responsibility to vote and not abstain.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[jumpergirl 0]

Quote

And any church or religion that does support gays is clearly just pandering to the audience.

And why is that wrong?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And any church or religion that does support gays is clearly just pandering to the audience.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And why is that wrong?

If the religion is based on the Bible, then they are not following what the Bible says.

Can anyone show me one verse in the OT or NT that supports homosexuality? If not, then a religion that claims to be based on the Bible that allows homosexuality is not following the Bible.

Its like reform Jews....They are about as far from being Jewish that some call them 'Christians with curly hair'.

If you claim to be Christian and you claim to follow the bible, then you can't have views that are against what the Bible says.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Casurf1978 0]

Quote

How do you really know that? Was there a mandatory vote of 100% of the population?

When has 100% of the population ever voted? Enough people voted to outlaw interracial marriages in many states. Billvon is correct the majority in this country did not want interracial marriages. Just like less than 100 years ago the majority did not want women to vote. The 19th barely passed 2/3rsd by two votes in the Senate.

[billvon 2,998]

>Can anyone show me one verse in the OT or NT that supports homosexuality?

?? There's nothing in there about skydiving, 747's or nuclear fusion either. I don't know of anyone who claims that all those things are therefore evil.


> then you can't have views that are against what the Bible says.

You have said that you don't think gays should be killed. Contradicts Leviticus. Indeed, any church that allows gays to live is contradicting the bible. But most people have figured out that the bible is not to be followed literally, and contains a lot of outdated stuff.

[jumpergirl 0]

I still don't see why it's wrong for gays to gather in their chosen place of worship and have their own church. Actually, I don't see why "they" can't go to "our" churches. However, I do understand wanting to be with a group of like-minded people who share your same beliefs.

As far as I know, no two religions believe the same thing. Why does the "gay" religion have to believe the same as any other? Do the gay people believe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin? Some religions say "No dancing" but others allow it. How is that any different?