Date: 3/2/2004 8:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 22275
i completley get what your saying i have many gay friends i feel they have just as much right to be joined in marriage as i do... I feel that marriage is a joint commitment between 2 people... whether that be a man and a woman a man and a man or a woman and a woman anyone in love should be able to get married.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 9:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 22370
Thank you! About time someone pointed this out!  |
Date: 3/2/2004 9:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 62456
couldnt have said it better...IsisKat  |
Date: 3/2/2004 9:49:00 AM
From Authorid: 10344
"To me saying I don't have anything against the gays but they shouldn't be allowed to marry is like saying I am not a racist but black people should have there own water fountains and bathrooms. I have black friends but they need to give up there seat if I want to set down on the bus." I don't agree with these analogies. Why do people that don't believe in homosexuality have to agree with gay marrige? I have friends who go out to clubs and drink and get drunk. I don't drink and think it's harmful and stupid. What does this make me? A racist? Prejudice? I think not. I think you've taken these comparisons and used them completely out of context. Well i guess i shouldn't befriend any gay pepole because i don't belive in gay marrige. Saying you're prejudice because you don't agree with your friends lifestyle is ludicrous.
 |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 10:07:00 AM ( Admin )
Training, definition and religion has brought many people to an understanding. For many people the idea of "Homosexualness" is unnatural or (Not the way nature intended). Even though I cannot understand homosexuality, I do know that my ingnorance should not hider me from believing you have rights. There are many reasons to feel strongly about not calling it a marrage a large one is that it defies the training. I am sure that retraining everyone to think differently is a large challange that would be very difficult to do in any short period of time. Why not change the legal definition of civil union to mean equal to marrage under the law. Check the same boxes, file the same forms but call it civil union. I think that all people should be able to take advantage of the benefits that married people have without being married. Tax relief, legal representation, etc. If people wish to live together and help each other by being just friends or loving more like family should benefit. It shouldn't be about sexual prefrence but more about love, commitment but most of all union. Fight the rights fight not the definition of marrage. |
Date: 3/2/2004 10:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 27583
to go through life treading on others lives and dreams must be an awful way to have to exist. there has always been only one race in this life that being the human race and all should have the same equal rights , to try to live someones elses life for them you must first walk through life in there shoes. just giving your best smile and knowing that others are smileing in there life would allow all to live there lives to the fullest and not just exist. wooden nickel  |
Date: 3/2/2004 10:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 51070
Good post! Very, very good post! And I totally agree with you. If you have gay friends, then why CAN'T they be happy? What makes them lesser human beings? I'm not gay, but I know some really good people who are. People need to learn to mind their own business and let everyone live their lives however they want, even if it means marrying someone who is the same gender as you.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 10:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 37449
I have a friend like this.. ill explain. I have a really close friend of mine, Jacob, who is gay. And this involves anthoer frend Carrie who is straight. Anyway we love Jacob (Jake) to death he like like our best freind you know. And all I want for hm is too be happy, wheter that be gay marriage or not. But Carrie doesnt accept the gay nature, not that she is prejiduce against them or anything, she keeps queit about is, she wouldnt make fun of them, she just doesn't accept that lifestyle as she does about the sraight lifestyle. But she still wants Jake to be happy , to her, it doesnt matter who he marries as long as he is happy. I couldnt care less.. Whatever makes him happy, I agree with Meow Mix, marriage is a commietment between two people, no matter what the sex.I have nothing agaisnt them and accept them equally.. I have had a cousin who came out of the closet after being narried for 5 years (to a woman) and having a daughter.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 12:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 18527
I know someone who is in love with their first cousin... I love both of them. Does that mean we should let them get married? I mean in other countries it is fine and all.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 12:30:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 25438
Thanks for all your comments. Admin I do understand what you are saying and I appreciate your feedback on this subject. I agree with you to a certain degree. I guess what gets me is back to a previous post of mine....it cannot be called marriage in some peoples eyes due to religious reasons. If this were in-fact one nation under a christian god I would not even attempt to bring this up but its not. I guess it just bothers me that our president is such a hypocrite in that perspective.  |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 12:31:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 25438
Katheria.....what are you talking about? Your comment did not pertain to this post? |
Date: 3/2/2004 12:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 62060
I completely agree with you. I'm just waiting for the onslaught of negative replies... *winces*  |
Date: 3/2/2004 12:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 31255
I don't see what the big deal is. Who is to say what God would want here. I mean come on, in the end gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone. If people would live their lives and stop butting their heads into how others choose to live their lives, I bet this world would be a bit more happier.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 1:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
I have Gay Friends, and a Gay uncle, and I do not hate them. However, I do hate their actions. I will not support gay marriages, but that does not mean I am agianst gay marriages. Alot of people, not just gays, for some reason cannot or will not try to understand that there is a huge difference between hating Homosexuals and hating Homosexuality. A huge difference between the two. It is possible to love homosexuals and hate homosexuality at the sametime. I am not playing both sides. To compare the Gay rights in the 21st century with the Civil Rights of Blacks in the 60's is ludicrous. Martin Luther King Jr, did not say "I have a dream where couples be judge on the love toward one another and not by the makeup of their Genders." I don't remember King Jr, saying anything of the sort, and he did not have homosexuals in mind when it came to civil rights. The color of your skin is totally different from who and what you do in the bedroom. There is a difference. Like I said I do not hate Homosexuals. This really has nothing agianst homosexuals.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 2:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
You know prejudice is a very old past time. And so are the things that we are prejudice about. Even in Christianity incest is almost as old as the world, remembering that Cain and abel had to have whoopee with Eve their mother to make more kids. People have been persecuting against those who were different ever since God gave everyone different languages as punishment for trying to reach heaven another way than through him. Religions all claim to be the only religion and so their is prejudice their. Homosexuality has taken different forms and has been accepted then damned then accepted again. We as a race will never change.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 2:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 6867
I don't agree with homosexuality. BUT the only reason I say let them get married is because i don't want my rights being messed with, see what I mean? I don't know if you saw the post where gay marriage was being compared to interracial marriage(only to make a point)...I guess that is where my comment comes from. I want them treated equally because I always want to be treated equally. But I don't know if that is considered playing both sides of the fence. Probably not. Just being realistic about it, is all. Love Yourself,  |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 3:14:00 PM ( Admin )
People get married and change their sex. That doesn't mean they are diviorced. |
Date: 3/2/2004 3:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 62367
You can have friends of many types but not approve of everything they do. When we start getting into morality based on religious belief this becomes even more complicated. Probably this is best summed up as St Thomas Aquinas's "hate the sin but love the sinner". What can viewed as a natural variation in nature becomes sin to someone else. I am a practicing Christian that believes that the gay community should be allowed the full legal benefits of a heterosexual marriage but under a different name: civil union. I know of the challenges based on the separate of equal arguement. The fact is "marriage" in this context if too loaded a word.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 3:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
I think what the real issue is is that people don't want to be FORCED to accept a view that differs from their own. Especially when it is a view that they believe is morally wrong. Proponents of "Gay Marriage" say that they are simply looking for EQUAL LEGAL RIGHTS. But when people propose ideas and laws that would provide EQUAL LEGAL RIGHTS to homosexuals and everyone else, proponents of "Gay Marriage" reject it. So one can only infer then that it's not really about making sure that everyone has EQUAL LEGAL RIGHTS. It's about trying to FORCE society to accept the homosexual view of marriage. The gay community wants to compel the entire population to embrace, accept, support and recognize their view of what marriage is. That is threatening to people. Not because people really care if two homosexuals stand in front of a group of their friends and profess their love for each other and make a verbal commitment to each other, and then move in together and build a life together. Because they CAN do that. Right now, today, homosexuals CAN do that. What is threatening is that if one group can compel the whole population to accept and recognize a belief and practice that many oppose, and that, for MOST people has RELIGIOUS ramifications, then what other beliefs, practices and/or ideas are going to be forced on the population? It's a scary thought. So, I don't hate gay people. I wish them all the happiness they deserve. But I DON'T agree with gay marriage. Well, really, I don't agree with passing ANY laws with regards to the definition of Marriage. Because I'm afraid that whatever the LEGAL definition is might be in opposition to what I morally and religiously believe to be correct. (Beliefs which are protected by the constitution, by the way) And I don't want to be forced to accept a practice that I don't believe to be correct. I'd rather have NO legal definition, so I can decide for myself, then risk having a legal definition I disagree with. Make sense?  |
Date: 3/2/2004 3:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 53155
i dont see why its such a big deal, if you love someone and they make you happy be happy and dont care what anyone says.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 5:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I think the problem lies with people having double standards and using religious beliefs to deny other people rights. As i have said on numerous posts, if people of other faiths can get "married" what right has a christian to tell two consenting adults any different? Either refuse to reject all non-christian marriages or stop interfering with other people's lives.  |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 5:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
Dark Phoenix - why do you need MY permission to get married? Why is it that you can't feel good about your union to your loved one until I call it a "marriage"? Because that's basically what you are saying. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 5:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
And Dark Pheonix, how do you know I DON'T reject ALL non-Christian marriages? Maybe I only recognize marriages that a performed by MY religion. Just because the U.S. government calls it a marriage doesn't mean I have to. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 5:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
And Dark Phoenix, I have explained this to you so many times. I'm not proposing we deny ANYONE rights. I'm proposing we give EVERYONE rights. Married, not married, heterosexual, not heterosexual, monogomous, not monogamous (sp?). I'm proposing that we NOT take away anyone's right to define marriage as they choose. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 5:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
And Dark Phoenix, it appears that you think the solution should be to FORCE people to change their religious views so that homosexuals can feel good about thier unions. How is that fair? |
Date: 3/2/2004 5:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 60792
I don't have any problem with it...its their life you know. What gets me is that these gay men and women are so up and about God but being gay is a sin itself that sends you to hell is it not?  |
Date: 3/2/2004 6:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 48812
no offense, but Melodious, you REALLY don't like Dark Phoenix, do you? I mean, hey, you're entitled to your opinion. But anyway, about this post, i think that if a union makes the main two people involved happy, then it's all good....and let the other people who protest it stew in their own juices. But i see all these replies saying stuff about christians not recognizing all sorts of marriages and stuff like that, but....what if a christian married a Wiccan, say, or maybe an atheist or Buddhist? Or maybe a Muslim marrying a Jewish person? What then?  |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 6:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
It does seem like that, huh? Really, I have no problem with Dark Pheonix. I respect him as a human being and an individual with the right to his own thoughts and opinions. I have been a little frustrated because he has followed me from post to post and has made comments about what I've written that don't make sense or that make it appear that he's not really reading what I say, he just doesn't like me or my opinions or something and so he just has to say something negative. That's all. I'm just trying to be really fair to EVERYONE and he insists that I am biggoted and predjudiced and placing my religious beliefs above homosexual's belief. When in reality I've actually said VERY LITTLE about what my personal beliefs are. Anyway. I'll try to be nicer. I apologize. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 6:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
Oops. I spelled Phoenix wrong. Sorry! |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 6:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
Oh, I spelled A LOT of things wrong. Yikes! |
Date: 3/2/2004 7:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
I think that there are people who truly do not think of themselves as prejudiced, and so they claim not to be, yet they are. Your statements in your post say it all..if you are not prjudiced, then why...... That's why I say, that many people don't want to believe that they are..but they are.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 7:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 20575
In a country that supposedly believes in Seperation of Church and state, why the hell shouldn't Homosexuals get married? Maybe it has to do with the Bush administrations, and conservatives in General, but the rights of PEOPLE should come before any RELIGION. It seems as if it's the religion fanatics that oppose Gay Marriage, and they have no place in government, in my opinion. It's not fair. Don't we have inalienable rights? Guess not. Oh, and that's not to say how much of a hipocracy we live in... No longer a Democracy! Did you hear --- The Gov't wants to prevent parochial schools (or any schools for that matter) to give students money to further study religion to become a member of the clergy, b/c of separation of Church & State. How is that any different? I think Bush is taking his OWN beliefs WAY TOO FAR. That's just me, of course. This is going to be a huge debate. Kudos to the mayor of New Paltz who married Gay Couples.  |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 8:00:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Well put Starfox..Kudos to you for saying so well what many of us are thinking!! |
Date: 3/2/2004 8:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Ah I see you saw my comment. LOL, gee do I feel special. YES I think that any person that has gay friends, or knows gay people, wouldnt be a friend to them if they voted for gay marriage. Certainly I would want them to be happy. I want all people to be happy, but MOSTLY I want for them to be happy in the afterlife, and therefore by good conscience before my Lord Jesus, why would I vote for something that 1. I dont believe in, and two would keep them from a spiritual rest or happiness. You all see things in the natural, for the moment of time on this earth, I'm looking at things that will be eternal. If that bothers some people, I just dont know what to tell you other then my conscience is clear before my Father in Heaven. I could ask the same question to people here. People that murder, lots of them enjoy what they do, dont you want them to be happy? Why not vote in a law that they can murder as long as it makes them happy. OR priest like little boys, dont we want them happy? 'Why not pass a bill so that they wont be condemend for liking little boys? OR some people dont think its fair to file taxes, so lets pass a law to make them happy and all those that think its not fair to file taxes shouldnt have to. Oh and yes we cant forget the children can we. KIDS dont like to go to school, dont you want to see them happy? Are you any kind of a parent if your kid isnt happy? Must not be, you all havent voted for a law that says they dont have to go to school. Being happy, or what we think would make us happy, isn't always best for the person, or the population. Think about it.  |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 8:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
RADMAN SAID, '''Check the same boxes, file the same forms but call it civil union. I think that all people should be able to take advantage of the benefits that married people have without being married. Tax relief, legal representation, etc. If people wish to live together and help each other by being just friends or loving more like family should benefit. It shouldn't be about sexual prefrence but more about love, commitment but most of all union. Fight the rights fight not the definition of marrage."" A BIG AMEN TO YOU RADMAN. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 8:24:00 PM ( Admin )
I seriously hope nobody is following another around just to harass them, good way to loose an account and anger has no place here on USM. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 8:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
STARfox, that is just it, your under the assumption that everyone believes in your defination of seperation of church and state, look it up, it does not mean that state should be seperate from chruch, it ONLY means that the state can not FORCE you to believe in one religion and one only. That we have religouse freedom. Geeze I wish people would get it right. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 8:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
FB..with all due respect, those examples that you mentioned are completely out in left field in comparison with gay marriage..in those examples that you stated..people are hurting one another physically, and in as far as children not having to go to school or not file taxes..I could agree with those, but that's another topic. A homosexual marriage does NOT hurt anyone...my gosh.. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 8:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
X, that is just it, I never said it would HURT anyone, but apparently people on this site do not listen. Those of us that are christian and believe as we do, it would spiritually hurt US to vote that way. So do we give in, and vote yes for this, when in fact it would hurt us to do so? Spiritually? I dont think so. There are lots of people in this united states, if they wish to vote for this issue, if they wish to approve of this issue, good and fine, but just like any other issue, its not only my God given right, but my rights by law to be able to choose to vote for or unhold or have an opinion on any matter. Now, personally I think it would be ok to make pot legal, but LOTS are against that, do I go around and tell them how many people they are hurting by not allowing this law to pass? No, I dont. I'm giving my opinin on these boards just like anyone else. I've never been one to give in to peer pressure. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 9:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
FB...but are we actually going to get a say in this matter?? I was under the impression that the government was making the decision... |
Date: 3/2/2004 9:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
This is a good post, Blue Knight. I have gay friends and yet oppose gay marriage. Of course, I want them to be happy, but happiness is not the product of marriage; happiness is present in the individuals before the ceremony. If two individuals are not happy before they get married, a ceremony and a piece of paper will not help. Happiness is a quality of self. Furthermore, I don't view marriage as a right. IMO, it is a privilege that is granted when certain factors are satisfied. Your analogy equating discrimination against blacks with discrimination against gays is not scientifically valid: blacks were [and are] discriminated against because of skin pigmentation--a genetic issue. Gays are discriminated against because of behavior. [Should the elusive "gay gene" ever be found and scientifically validated, your analogy would be correct.]  |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 9:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Just because the gay gene has not YET been discovered, does not mean that it does not exist..also, the "behavior" that you are talking about with homosexuals has nothing to do with whether or not they should marry, the marriage issue has to do with wanting to spend their lives together..and it is NOT a valid reason to discriminate against anyone, I know alot of heterosexuals engage in the same type of bedroom activity with their female partners..they just don't admit it. Does that make them unworthy of marriage or worthy of discrimination? |
Date: 3/2/2004 9:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 50434
Okay of course this is a BIG topic lately. First of all GOD comes into play. "GOD" may be agiants gay marriage, but he forgives all for there sins. I have gays firends but somewhere I do not agree with what they do. WHO are we to say who people can LOVE. Love is unconditional from anyone to anything. LIVE AND LET LIVE. I think if we go and say gays cannot get married then we go back years to the era of the black situations. Everyone has freedom to do as they please. I think we should let everyone marry as they wish < and since in the end "GOD" will be the judge> let GOD alone make the final decision on the issue.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 9:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 5252
exactly!! I have a friend, i love her to death, she is such an amazing person yes, but she is one of the people who tries to play both sides of the fence. she says she wants to have gay friends, but then she is so against gay marriages, i just dont understand that. that is like saying i want to have a boyfriend i just dont want to be committed to him...you know? my best friend is gay, and i would love for him to find his soulmate and be happy for the rest of his life, he deserves that, he deserves so much more than that....  |
Date: 3/2/2004 9:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 51635
Yes this issue has been everywhere everyone turns these days, but I think thats because it's an election year and "W" has made it his personal goal to try and shove gays back in to the closet and some gay people (a few famous ones) are pushing the issue because they are tired of being treated like second class citizens...its all about perspective... just before women got the right to vote, that issue was in all the papers...before schools were integrated, that issue was in the news... it has to come to a head and I think that it'll burst any time now... someone with the power to do so will have to make a decission soon...what that decission will be, I don't know, but I do hope that freedom will prevail...freedom of religion, freedom of choice, the freedoms that allow two consenting adults to do what they please behind closed doors (well in some states anyway)... and it's not just marraige, gays want not to be discriminated against when it comes to employment and housing as well... I live in a state where I could leagally be fired or be evicted because of my sexual orientation...if it were because of my race or religion there would be outrage, but since it's only because I'm gay, well then I must be wrong...  |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 9:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
Ya never know with the government whom has and say and when. LOL |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 10:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Thank you Starbright..well said!! |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 10:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Thanks for your response, Xylanthia. You are correct: the gay gene may yet be discovered. Until it is, why shouldn't homosexuality be regarded as a behavioral choice instead of as a genetic pre-disposition? If the behavior should not affect whether they marry, why shouldn't a man be allowed to marry his brother if they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together? Finally, I respectfully disagree with your final statement. If heterosexual couples never admit to the same type of bedroom behavior, how do you "know" a lot of them engage in it? |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 10:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Because some DO admit to it, and I have been privy to certain types of video material in which heterosexuals have engaged in such behavior. I admit that I am no saint and have watched such viewing material..but being over the age of 18 I am free to do so..I personally wouldn't object to a man marrying his brother should he want to, I may not understand it..but I have no right to say whether he can or can not. |
|
Date: 3/2/2004 10:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 62100
Also, why term homosexuality as a behavioral choice OVER a genetic disposition?? After all, it has been documented for decades that homosexuals feel an attraction to the opposite sex and such at a very young age..I doubt that at the age of 5 a child "decides" that he/she wants to be homosexual. I believe that it will be discovered that homosexuality is as predetermined genetically as one's hair color or eye color... |
Date: 3/2/2004 10:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 45684
Blue Knight..I am SOOOO glad that someone had the guts to bring this up. What I am seeing is hypocrisy at its best (or worst). You are right..YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.  |
Date: 3/2/2004 11:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 28363
Do you love your neighbor and your enemies with the same unconditional love that you have for your family, children or spouse? Are you judging others? Do you use USM as one-sided vehicle to espound your own beliefs? Are you the prejudiced one? I have a gut instinct on the matter, and that has always been the same- that a G-rated web-site should not be used and abused to promote sexually orientated agendas of any type. Peace be with you all.  |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 7:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 31673
Starfox, you said "It seems as if it's the religion fanatics that oppose Gay Marriage, and they have no place in government, in my opinion." Why should "religious fanatics" NOT have their voices heard too? Why should they be considered sub-human with no rights? Just because YOU disagree with them? Can you not see the flaw in that thinking? "Religious Fanatics" are humans too. They are U.S. Citizens too. They pay taxes too. They have a vested interest in the governance of this land too. How can you say that homosexuals should be treated equally and NOT "religious fanatics." Isn't that hypocritical? BOTH groups need to have their rights represented. BOTH groups deserve equal treatment. The most FAIR way to deal with the "Gay Marriage" issue is to simply not make ANY law defining marriage. Then each person and/or couple can determine that for themselves. |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 9:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Lol! Melodious, no offence, but you seem to have an inflated sense of imprtance here. i "follow" you from post to post? A someone who has posted a debate on gay marriage myself, i am obviously interested enough in the issue to comment on the many other posts that have sprung up. simply because you have done the same, does not mean i am somehow following you, or singling out your comments. My comments on most of these posts are rarely if ever directed at one person, and are a response to what i see a large number of people saying. I don't believe i have ever called you bigoted or prejudice, and i have only ever argued that people's beliefs should not be forced on another. This means not forcing someone to accept gay marriage, just as it means allowing gay people to become married in the eyes of a government which is not a theocracy. To answer your comments; "why do you need MY permission to get married? Why is it that you can't feel good about your union to your loved one until I call it a "marriage"? Because that's basically what you are saying" What i AM basically saying is that in the eyes of the government, gay people deserve to have the exact same opportunities as straight people, not in the eyes of God. Nobody is asking YOU to accept gay marriage, just the government. number 2; "And Dark Pheonix, how do you know I DON'T reject ALL non-Christian marriages? Maybe I only recognize marriages that a performed by MY religion. Just because the U.S. government calls it a marriage doesn't mean I have to." this is exactly my point. you don't have to accept these marriage as legitimate, yet your government does, and does it cause you a problem? everything you said could be applied just as easily in the situation of same sex marrriages. Aa far as forcing people to change their beliefs, as i said, i see an error in logic when a person opposes gay marriage because their religion says it is wrong, and yet accepts marriage between people of different religions. Howver, The bottom line, as you pointed out yourself, is that no matter who you choose to accept as married, the government can call them married and it does not affect you. The answer is not to refuse to define marriage, but to define it in such a way, that gives people of all faiths equal opportunities. Marriage will always exist on spiritual and temporal levels and there is no reason why both can't co-exist. |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 9:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 31673
The problem with a legal definition of marriage is that it's applying law to something that is RELIGIOUS for most people. In the United States of America people are guaranteed the right to religious freedom. So, what if the government says the homosexual marriages are legal? It COULD have an affect on me because a homosexual couple could go to my church and want a ceremony. Well, my religion believes homosexuality is wrong and doesn't recognize or perform "gay marriages." But if the GOVERNMENT says that gay marriages are legal, then how can my church have the freedom to say no? Will they be sued on the basis of discrimination laws? Will the next move in the "gay marriage" movement be to now force all churches to recognize their unions? That violates church and state laws. So, by not having any legal definition of marriage, that protects my FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Then my religion as a whole can not be sued and/or forced to perform, recognize and embrace marriages that contradict our doctrine. |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 9:54:00 AM
From Authorid: 31673
Also, why should the government be allowed to recognize ONLY sexual relationships? Why shouldn't any two people who want to merge thier lives and live together be allowed to do so? If we simply change the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, it STILL discriminates against part of the population. Changing the definition of marriage is NOT going to make all things fair and equal. We need to change the LAWS to do that. |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 9:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 31673
I think that NOT legally defining marriage is the only way you will be able to universally represent all views and beliefs about marriage. |
Date: 3/3/2004 10:26:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Blue Knight, we can, and have, explained until the cows come home. (See Melodious's comments, in which she has been so patient in replying to most, if not all of these posts.) If you are not understanding the argument, then perhaps you need to become more educated on what it is the governmental designation of "married" does for a couple. Do you honestly think that by being able to check a box that says "Married" (or is it "Gay Married", as that is what you keep describing it as) will make you happy? Especially if you would only acknowledge that by allowing homosexual couples the right to do that further expands DISCRIMINATION against couples who share a household but have no sexual relationship? Take a good look at your REASONS (intent, purpose) for advocating gay marriage. Be honest with yourself and with us. And understand that PREJUDICE is defined as "an opinion formed without adequate reasons." Mine and others' comments on this site have given our opinions BASED on very sound, LEGAL reasons, i.e., not to expand the discrimination that that governmental designation affords people; to make any legal designation FAIR to EVERYONE. Read that again: FAIR to EVERYONE. Isn't that what you would consider EQUAL RIGHTS? God Bless.  |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 10:30:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, Dark Phoenix, if you checked your post on the subject you would see that your last comment was "that sounds fair to me" in answer to my comments there proposing the SAME THING Melodious has continued to put forth in the rest of these posts. Did you change your mind? God Bless. |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 11:30:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 25438
Wow...i wish I could read all the comments here but I don't have time right now. I do see a lot of grasping at straws which makes me feel a little better. Comparing marriage to a person you love to making your kid get an education. lol Hillarious! |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 11:35:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 25438
Deb...first I have researched this issue for the past 6 months. Don't tell me I need to be more educated. As far as your comments...I really don't understand what you are trying to say. It just seems like rambeling to me. Not trying to be rude but its not an answer. I don't know how letting two men or women marry each other would hurt the legal system. Maybe change..but not hurt. And please don't use EQUAL rights for EVERYONE when you are posting comments against that exact thing. Again...we aren't putting up any fight other than we want to be treated equal and have the same benefits. We want to be recognized legally and socially as married couples. The government has started throwing things like "lets call it something different" "we can't do that its against christianity" I can win votes so lets take a stance on this" and we have had to put up arguments to those but all we asked for was EQUAL RIGHTS....to be treated like any other couple in this country. |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 11:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 16671
o, I put my reply in accordance to your post, and you asked ""Don't you want your friends to be happy? "" Just as it was pointed out to me from many people on this site, when I've complained about prayer in school, or religiouse clubs in school, it was pointed out to me that prayer has no place in school and that it should not be a factor in anyones level of happiness if they are secure in their prayer life , thier God and thier religion. So if the united states decided to make it where not only the gays, but as radman said, "I think that all people should be able to take advantage of the benefits that married people have without being married. Tax relief, legal representation, etc." If they approve these things, then gay people should understand that if they are secure in their relationships, that this thing should not have any effect on their happiness. What they cant be happy if given all the benifits, except perhaps that piece of paper that says their married? Happiness is a personal thing and should not depend on what government does or doesnt do. |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 1:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 31673
AMEN Deb! AMEN! Well said! |
|
Date: 3/3/2004 2:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
No deb, i did not change my mind. I believe what you and melodious propose does indeed sound fair. I don't think many people can be as clear minded about the issue as you two, but that is not the point. I simply believe it would be better to elevate same sex marriages to the same levels of heterosexual couples. this should not mean anyone is forced to accept their marriage as having any kind of spiritual sanction, that is something for the two people themselves. In short, i see no flaw in your arguments, i just believe it would be better in the long run to legalise same sex marriages. |
Date: 3/3/2004 2:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 19685
Having your own beliefs is not being prejudice. Believing a lifestyle is wrong yet having close friends that participate in it would seem to be un-prejudiced and considerate, even tolerant to me. Isn't that what people want? For everyone to have their own opinions and not to judge yet embrace people that believe differently? And that DOES go both ways.  |
|
Date: 3/4/2004 6:18:00 AM
From Authorid: 19685
blue knight... actually, to be honest, in my belief to your question to rusure, i would say yes. yes, i'm religious, and part of that believe is that His word goes for anybody. He doesn't say it's a sin to be gay or to feel that you are, but to act on it in such a way. No one can help how they feel, wether it be nature or nurture. It's how you handle the situation. just my opinion |
|
Date: 3/4/2004 8:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
technically rusure, if a homosexual is a person who goes against what you believe god teaches and uses their body in an unnatural way, does this make them very different from a non-christian who masturbates? |
|
Date: 3/4/2004 9:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
As far as discussing sexuality among non-homosexuals go: If I am able to do what I do sexually AND admit to God that what I do is not according to His Design, then I am not saying I didn't sin, people, I am saying that I can understand what a sin is, admit it, and go forward in life instead of sitting around worrying what the rest of society says. This whole post should be deleted for the very reasons I was given as to why my comment was deleted. This site's lack of acknowledging what is THE TRUTH is beginning to look like one big sin to me. Forgive me Father for having gotten so caught up in USM. God Bless. |
Date: 3/4/2004 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Dark Phoenix, You stated, "technically rusure, if a homosexual is a person who goes against what you believe god teaches and uses their body in an unnatural way, does this make them very different from a non-christian who masturbates?"....My comment was deleted, BUT, If you would have notice, I was not coming from a religious point of view in my conclusion regarding homosexuality. I stated that I do not agree with the reports of a few researchers and a few psychologists. There are many researchers who do not agree that homosexuality is an inborn trait and these researchers who disagree are not all religious. One thing would be very interesting. I come from a very large family of 19 siblings with one set of twins..Researchers would have a 'field day' doing studies with my siblings to determine who inherited what and what inborn trait and what gene malfunctioned to produce some of our attitudes, etc..  I believe they would find that we all look a lot alike in our physical features and this is inherited, but when it comes to WHO we are, we learned it from what we were taught and from what we have experienced in life, but mainly that we have been given a choice to become WHO we are in life.  |
Date: 3/4/2004 8:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 13283
I can turn the same question you made , around . Dont MY friends want me to be happy also ? Both sides need to come to some type of common ground . If anybody messes with my gay pals I defend them . We are all human and we all deserve a chance to be happy . Gays are more recognized . We gave them an inch and instead they took a foot ! Razzy aka  |
|
Date: 3/5/2004 12:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Thanks for your response, Xylanthia. I appeal to "choice vs. genetics" because that is the paradigm I'm most familiar with. It seems to me that either someone has control of his sexual orientation, or he doesn't. This seems to be the essence of the gay/lesbian debate. For now, since a genetic basis for homosexuality has not been established, it is, IMO, legitimate to argue that homosexuality is a behavior that can be chosen or refused. As I understand it, to claim a genetic base when one has not been demonstrated is a matter of speculation or faith. |
Date: 3/5/2004 9:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
lol, rusure, now i'll be wondering what that comment was for ages  |
