What is Moral/Values

[CrimsonWeltall]

the same reason we don't let brothers and sisters or mother's and sons get married?

 

We don't let brothers and sisters or mothers and sons marry because that's incest, which is illegal. Homosexuality is not illegal.

 

the fact that it's a religious ceremony and most legitimate Christian institutions have read the bible and figured out that homosexuality is a sin.

 

Marriage is a legal status. The religious parts are just a bonus for people who care about that kind of stuff.

 

have at the civil unions, cheat.

 

It's the same f***ing thing.

[Wong & Owens]

I think a lot of the arguments on this topic are due to certain terms not meaning the same things to all people.

 

I don't know if any religion can claim ownership of the word marriage-- does the word itself have any religious connotations I'm not aware of?

 

If not, than Crimson's right--it's the same thing. But, if the term does have some religious meaning to it, then no, it's not the same thing. However, being able to say you are "married" has nothing to do with why gays want to be married anyways--they correctly only demand the same rights and protections that CIVIL laws grant to straight people. Winodj can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure he doesn't give two s***s about whether it's called marriage, civil union, dynamic duoship, or butt-pirates squared-- he just wants to not have to pay double health insurance premiums due to the fact that he and his partner's relationship isn't deemed legally binding.

[Rex Kickass]

Actually, I'd love being in a governmentally designated situation referred to as butt pirates squared.

[sox4lifeinPA]

We don't let brothers and sisters or mothers and sons marry because that's incest, which is illegal. Homosexuality is not illegal.

 

hang on a sec. If sex isn't about procreation and procreation isn't the only reason for marriage, then why can't brothers and sisters marry? Incest is illegal because of bigots like yourself. That's the same logic, but your leftists agenda won't admit that.

 

Marriage is a legal status. The religious parts are just a bonus for people who care about that kind of stuff.

 

marriage is a legal status between a man and a woman, yes we agree. In general, the ceremonies are performed where? in front of whom? again, we agree.

 

It's the same f***ing thing.

 

no, because I seperate the religion from the state, although duely noted that term is not from the constitution. From the Church standpoint there's no way in Christianity that two men or two women can be recognized before God as one. It's by definition as sin. Therefore, a brother or sister cannot be married, not a father and daughter, etc. I'm not saying a homosexual cannot find salvation, but I am saying gay marriage has NO biblical standing.

 

From a secular stand point, I believe that homosexuality is no different than brothers and sisters who desire to be married. If love is the ever-trumping card, than there's no room for arguement. How is it any more fair that a man and woman can be married and receive health benefits if we then allow men and men or women and women to receive the same thing? It would be of equal legal benefit if I didn't have health insurance and my brother did, and we got a civil union. That's the flaw in your arguement. Anyone should be allowed to have a civil union via your logic.

 

Sadly, you'll never see it that way. Your leftist agenda of "I think this way, so everyone else must think this way" is pathetic. who's the bigot? I'm ok with you doing whatever you want, but realize your cries for legal protection cannot and will not happen.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

hang on a sec. If sex isn't about procreation and procreation isn't the only reason for marriage, then why can't brothers and sisters marry? Incest is illegal because of bigots like yourself. That's the same logic, but your leftists agenda won't admit that.

 

 

 

marriage is a legal status between a man and a woman, yes we agree. In general, the ceremonies are performed where? in front of whom? again, we agree.

 

 

 

no, because I seperate the religion from the state, although duely noted that term is not from the constitution. From the Church standpoint there's no way in Christianity that two men or two women can be recognized before God as one. It's by definition as sin. Therefore, a brother or sister cannot be married, not a father and daughter, etc. I'm not saying a homosexual cannot find salvation, but I am saying gay marriage has NO biblical standing.

 

From a secular stand point, I believe that homosexuality is no different than brothers and sisters who desire to be married. If love is the ever-trumping card, than there's no room for arguement.  How is it any more fair that a man and woman can be married and receive health benefits if we then allow men and men or women and women to receive the same thing?  It would be of equal legal benefit if I didn't have health insurance and my brother did, and we got a civil union. That's the flaw in your arguement. Anyone should be allowed to have a civil union via your logic.

 

Sadly, you'll never see it that way. Your leftist agenda of "I think this way, so everyone else must think this way" is pathetic. who's the bigot? I'm ok with you doing whatever you want, but realize your cries for legal protection cannot and will not happen.

Compared to the Christian right's "I believe in the Bible therefore everybody must deal with the tribal BS that is employed in a book that the US is not even found on" theology.

 

Incest is illegal because it is family members having sex. You are creating a straw man argument to justify a bigoted agenda. Gay marriage is not two family members marrying. Lest we forget homosexual sex is legalized so gay marriage is not about sex -- but nice try at misdirecting the debate.

 

If Americans wish to protect the sanctity of marriage, they could very well start by denying marriage licenses to certain prominent Republicans. Dubya's own brother, Neil, recently completed a messy divorce from his wife, Sharon. Adultery played a factor. Then there are Republican icons Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, with one and two marriages ended via affairs, respectively. In short, until the pro-marriage folks do something about their own, who have been wiping their backsides with their marriage vows, they have absolutely no business talking about anybody else's marriage threatening whatever sanctity that the institution of marriage may still possess. Straight or gay couples can make and honor marriage vows is upholding the sanctity of marriage. Period.

 

And let's go Biblical if you'd like: If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3). But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit. We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law. Christians reserve the right to pick an choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that.

[CrimsonWeltall]

hang on a sec. If sex isn't about procreation and procreation isn't the only reason for marriage, then why can't brothers and sisters marry? Incest is illegal because of bigots like yourself. That's the same logic, but your leftists agenda won't admit that.

 

Incest is illegal because it is nearly always forced/abusive and there are genetic problems associated with it. Again, NOT comparable to homosexuality.

 

Please explain why you think they are equal.

 

marriage is a legal status between a man and a woman, yes we agree. In general, the ceremonies are performed where? in front of whom? again, we agree.

 

The legal parts are performed in a courthouse or a city hall in front of a government official.

 

From the Church standpoint there's no way in Christianity that two men or two women can be recognized before God as one. It's by definition as sin.

 

FINE. Then Churches don't have to apply the Christian definition of marriage to a gay couple's union.

 

How is it any more fair that a man and woman can be married and receive health benefits if we then allow men and men or women and women to receive the same thing? It would be of equal legal benefit if I didn't have health insurance and my brother did, and we got a civil union.

 

It's rather obvious than anyone could do such a thing NOW. Any pair of friends with one male and one female could get married and share benefits. Then if either one wanted another marriage, they could just get divorced.

 

 

no, because I seperate the religion from the state, although duely noted that term is not from the constitution.

 

No, you do the opposite. You want the state to use only your religion's definition of marriage.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Compared to the Christian right's "I believe in the Bible therefore everybody must deal with the tribal BS that is employed in a book that the US is not even found on" theology.

 

Incest is illegal because it is family members having sex.  You are creating a straw man argument to justify a bigoted agenda.  Gay marriage is not two family members marrying.  Lest we forget homosexual sex is legalized so gay marriage is not about sex -- but nice try at misdirecting the debate.

 

If Americans wish to protect the sanctity of marriage, they could very well start by denying marriage licenses to certain prominent Republicans. Dubya's own brother, Neil, recently completed a messy divorce from his wife, Sharon. Adultery played a factor. Then there are Republican icons Rudy Giuliani and Newt Gingrich, with one and two marriages ended via affairs, respectively. In short, until the pro-marriage folks do something about their own, who have been wiping their backsides with their marriage vows, they have absolutely no business talking about anybody else's marriage threatening whatever sanctity that the institution of marriage may still possess. Straight or gay couples can make and honor marriage vows is upholding the sanctity of marriage. Period.

 

And let's go Biblical if you'd like: If we insist on placing ourselves under the old law, as Paul reminds us, we are obligated to keep every commandment of the law (Gal. 5:3).  But if Christ is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), if we have been discharged from the law to serve, not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit (Rom. 7:6), then all of these biblical sexual mores come under the authority of the Spirit.  We cannot then take even what Paul himself says as a new Law.  Christians reserve the right to pick an choose which sexual mores they will observe, though they seldom admit to doing just that.

first of all guy, don't try to unpack scripture to me...

 

 

secondly, you didn't address the fact that under unrestricted gay marriage, two unrelated men who don't have sexual relations could get married and observe all the legal rights of that marriage, but I couldn't marry my brother to receive the same rights.

 

that's the flaw. If you want to eliminate sex, that's fine, but your arguement is still undefendable.

 

And why is it ok for you to define incest between to consenting adults as illegal, but fight for two unrelated men or two unrelated women's "right" to marriage?

 

and lastly, it's not about republican or democrat, so please mr political ambiguity, cut that crap.

[sox4lifeinPA]

It's rather obvious than anyone could do such a thing NOW. Any pair of friends with one male and one female could get married and share benefits. Then if either one wanted another marriage, they could just get divorced.

 

once again, two unrelated individuals can do it, but You and the bigoted left hate relationships of brothers and sisters, etc.

 

Incest is illegal because it is nearly always forced/abusive and there are genetic problems associated with it. Again, NOT comparable to homosexuality.

 

Please explain why you think they are equal.

 

like I said, if it's not about sex, then why do we discriminate against the marriage of related individuals?

 

It's equal because at one point in time neither were acceptable, and neither are acceptable under most religious doctrine. Unfortunately, our culture has been hijacked and lied to as if it's ok to be homosexual but ignore the other social mores that aren't as easy to argue. I don't think there's a slippery slope to beastiality, I just think that the arguement for equal rights for homosexuals leads to equal rights for anything else. as I've been saying, under civil unions or gay marriage its ok for two unrelated homosexuals to receive government benefits yet two related people cannot because our society accepts one over the other. it's the same arguement, but no one wants to accept that because it sounds stupid. Well it is. It all is.

 

I'm in favor of protection of job for homosexuals and even some limited legal rights, but not unlike this election, there's a minority of people that think everyone believes how they believe and anyone who doesn't must be a redneck hick and biggoted.

 

you're all hypocrites.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

once again, two unrelated individuals can do it, but You and the bigoted left hate relationships of brothers and sisters, etc.

 

 

 

like I said, if it's not about sex, then why do we discriminate against the marriage of related individuals?

 

It's equal because at one point in time neither were acceptable, and neither are acceptable under most religious doctrine. Unfortunately, our culture has been hijacked and lied to as if it's ok to be homosexual but ignore the other social mores that aren't as easy to argue. I don't think there's a slippery slope to beastiality, I just think that the arguement for equal rights for homosexuals leads to equal rights for anything else. as I've been saying, under civil unions or gay marriage its ok for two unrelated homosexuals to receive government benefits yet two related people cannot because our society accepts one over the other. it's the same arguement, but no one wants to accept that because it sounds stupid. Well it is. It all is.

 

I'm in favor of protection of job for homosexuals and even some limited legal rights, but not unlike this election, there's a minority of people that think everyone believes how they believe and anyone who doesn't must be a redneck hick and biggoted.

 

you're all hypocrites.

So using the logic of the "They'll get equal rights and that will be a slippery slope for other things" then we shouldn't have given blacks the civil rights movement and we shouldn't have given women the right to vote etc.

 

I'm just taking this logic to it's full extension.

[sox4lifeinPA]

So using the logic of the "They'll get equal rights and that will be a slippery slope for other things" then we shouldn't have given blacks the civil rights movement and we shouldn't have given women the right to vote etc.

 

I'm just taking this logic to it's full extension.

a woman is born a woman; a black is born a black.

 

There's nothing that genetically alters a white child to come out a latino kid. Don't even begin to say that homosexuality is akin to race or gender. Please show me somewhere that states homosexuality is a naturally occuring genetic trait, and not a hiccup like ADD, obesity, etc.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

a woman is born a woman; a black is born a black.

 

There's nothing that genetically alters a white child to come out a latino kid. Don't even begin to say that homosexuality is akin to race or gender. Please show me somewhere that states homosexuality is a naturally occuring genetic trait, and not a hiccup like ADD, obesity, etc.

There is growing data in the scientific community showing that homosexuality is genetic. Take for instance the difference in certain brain structures -- parts of the brain related to the promotion of testosterone are smaller in homosexual men compared to that of heterosexual men. Scientists at UCLA have discovered 54 genes in mice which suggest that homosexuality may not be a choice as sexual identity is hard-wired into the brain before birth. There is growing evidence that proves this claim.

 

So it is very possible that it is hardwired like a woman will be born a woman.

[sox4lifeinPA]

please, show me the money.

 

by the way, as stated before, I don't think it's a choice.