AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Yeah and I was just reading an article on NARTH (I think that's the initials)...
I don't see how that endangers my marriage no more than people who drink or people who engage in premartial sex or people who aren't Chrstians to begin with. We aren't making premarital sex illegal. We aren't allowing other religions or saying one can't be an atheist. However, a constitutional ammendment does make gay marriage illegal.ocoseat wrote: Because it's sending the wrong message to children, homosexuality is not normal, marriage has always been between 2 of the opposite sex, countries with people shacking up or legalized gay marriage are suffering the breakup of traditional functional families...that should be enough to explain why most people are offended by gay marriage.
It depends on how you Constitute Marriage. Is it a Binding document given by the Government or is it a GOD given right?arretium wrote:I don't see how that endangers my marriage no more than people who drink or people who engage in premartial sex or people who aren't Chrstians to begin with. We aren't making premarital sex illegal. We aren't allowing other religions or saying one can't be an atheist. However, a constitutional ammendment does make gay marriage illegal.ocoseat wrote: Because it's sending the wrong message to children, homosexuality is not normal, marriage has always been between 2 of the opposite sex, countries with people shacking up or legalized gay marriage are suffering the breakup of traditional functional families...that should be enough to explain why most people are offended by gay marriage.
We might have to agree to disagree. No amount of gay marriage is going to change my marriage with my wife. I see a complete disconnect between the point of allowing gay marriage and how it affects my own. Rather, the links provided show an opposition based on the "slippery slope" argument, the worst logical argument to use when advocating a position.
I think the stronger argument is to advocate it's against the Bible, thus members of the church don't have to recognize it. That's a good argument. However, trying to extend it to the political state because of one's religious beliefs gets back to conflicts in Amendment #1. Even if the state did allow gay marriage, the church doesn't have to recongnize it. The church doesn't have to employ people who do. Federal law states that churches are not required to recongnize believes that are abhorent to its foundation, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000). In fact, federal constitutional precdent is fairly clear on this issue. Id. I'd say given Supreme Court precedent, this is a non-issue because Christians don't have to recognize gay marriage.
That's just it Bizzit, it's both. It's used by both government and religion. Generally, religion recognizes it one way, and government another. But not even all religions refuse to recognize gay marriage. There are some subsets of Judiasm and yes, even some Christian churches, that recognize gay marriage. You or I may not agree with them, but who are we to dictate their beliefs? We can tell them what we think, but should we be able to decide to impose the mainstream Christian religious standard of marriage on a political/governmental level? On a religious level, absolutely. Those denominations that do recognize gay marriage are being shunned. But, again, I just don't think that a person's gay marriage affects my own, so I shouldn't be able to force my beliefs on them when they aren't forcing their beliefs on me, nor could they. That's why I wrote that this is really a non issue. We don't need to have our cake and eat it too. I think Biblically it shows that gay marriage isn't okay (some disagree), but that just doesn't mean I should be able to dictate what others believe, especially those that do not even agree with Christian beliefs in the first place.bizzit wrote:It depends on how you Constitute Marriage. Is it a Binding document given by the Government or is it a GOD given right?
I don't even see how it is possible for a gay couple to be married with all "marriage" means. It will always only be a psuedo-marriage if allowed. If a gay couple wants to get "married" by whatever a society deems is marraige, then there are many places they can do so. Yet, if they are commited to each other, and marraige is only about commitment, then why do they want a marriage certificate? Could the reason be because they want to be approved by society. That they want to force their values, that homosexuality is alright, upon those who disagree?arretium wrote:I don't see how that endangers my marriage no more than people who drink or people who engage in premartial sex or people who aren't Chrstians to begin with. We aren't making premarital sex illegal. We aren't allowing other religions or saying one can't be an atheist. However, a constitutional ammendment does make gay marriage illegal.
It is in some towns.We aren't making premarital sex illegal.
And?However, a constitutional ammendment does make gay marriage illegal.
Go ahead. You're in the minority.We might have to agree to disagree.
I just explained to you how gay marriage will devastate society, or did you miss it?No amount of gay marriage is going to change my marriage with my wife.
They don't like hearing the truth...I don't even see how it is possible for a gay couple to be married with all "marriage" means. It will always only be a psuedo-marriage if allowed. If a gay couple wants to get "married" by whatever a society deems is marraige, then there are many places they can do so. Yet, if they are commited to each other, and marraige is only about commitment, then why do they want a marriage certificate? Could the reason be because they want to be approved by society. That they want to force their values, that homosexuality is alright, upon those who disagree?
Not in the U.S., see Lawrence v. Texas (2003).ochotseat wrote:It is in some towns.We aren't making premarital sex illegal.
I find your reasoning unpersuasive.I just explained to you how gay marriage will devastate society, or did you miss it?No amount of gay marriage is going to change my marriage with my wife.
You are intentionally misconstruing my position. If you had carefully evaluated my words, you'd had noticed I never said I personally supported gay marriage.I wonder why you're so defensive about the gays and lesbians...
If you want it legal, you can move to the Netherlands.
I think that was about queer sodomy. Don't worry, because it will be overturned in time.Not in the U.S., see Lawrence v. Texas (2003).
That's your problem. Most Americans oppose homosexual marriage. These homosexual activists want more authority with time, and it's sickening.I find your reasoning unpersuasive.
You are being passive about something that your fellow citizens staunchly detest and don't want imposed upon them.You are intentionally misconstruing my position. If you had carefully evaluated my words, you'd had noticed I never said I personally supported gay marriage.
Struck a nerve? I was just curious as to why you're so supportive of the gays and lesbians? Homosexual marriage will never happen in this country, at least in the near future, so supporters should consider moving to an "out-of-control leftist cesspool" like the Netherlands.In fact, your response here is just uncalled for. Usuing inuendo to raise an implicit statement that I want to be in a gay marriage or am gay is flat out insulting. I don't know how people behave in your church or what your church considers civil, but you crossed a line. You've lost a ton of credibility with me. You went from someone who's words I weighed with consideration to now one who's words I weigh no better than that mockery of a church at landoverbaptist.org.
Well, while it's a complete waste of time arguing with someone who long abdicated logical reasoning in exchange for dogma, there are some folks reading this topic that might have chosen to continue to use their heads, and I won't let a typical "Pat Robertson and the Assassination Club" fabrication go unchallenged.
Actually, there is significant evidence that homo/heterosexuality is related to genetics. I could go on for pages, but instead, I'll choose the following facts that are the strongest cases for this:
1. Homosexuality is found in virtually every advanced species in the animal kingdom. So, do we have sinful animals ready to burn in hell?
2. There is clear hereditary evidence that sexuality is passed down, and that this trait is passed through the mother. The rate of homosexuality is 27% higher in men than in women (i.e., there are 27% more gay men than women, with about 5% of the total population gay). Know what else follows the same trend? Handedness. There are 27% more left-handed men than women; a trait which is known to be spread through the mother. So... is this some amazing coincidence, or is left-handedness a moral abomination? (Don't laugh, folks... until the 1950's, the idea of left-handedness being immoral was a commonly-held belief amongst many fundamentalists!)
3. In adoption studies, the rate of homosexuality is the same... EVEN IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE GAY COUPLES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO ADOPT CHILDREN. That's right, folks. In an environment where homosexuality would be completely accepted and perhaps even "encouraged", the overwhelming majority of the adopted kids of gay couples end up straight. Still think you choose this behavior?
4. Didn't you grow up? I mean, I know it's anectodal, but did anyone TEACH you to find certain people attractive? I know I didn't; just sometime in my junior high years, *bam*... and some of the girls in my class got awfully appealing to me when they were just "yucky girls" not that much earlier. No one told me to be this way. It just "is". I'm as open-minded and progressive a guy as you'll find, but there's no amount of money you could pay me to "turn" gay. My brain doesn't work that way. Difference is, I'm not so narrow-minded that I want to discriminate against those who are different than I.
Sorry to disagree with you but there has been no evidence that sexuality is a chosen behavior. Don't believe everything Jerry Falwell or Fox News feeds you. Isolated incidents of people being intimidated by peer pressure or religious groups into "changing" their behavior are not evidence. People come up with all sorts of justifications for their bigotry. Whatever bigotries they may be. They defend their specific, rigid interpretations of Scripture and ignore the impact of their thoughts.
Marriage may be a sacrament in the eyes of Christians, and that's fine. But what we're talking about here is civil marriage as sanctioned by the State of Texas--period. That's what the state sanctions and what Prop. 2 refers to. No church will ever be required to perform or sanction any marriage that it does not approve of--nor should they be, as this is a perfect example of why we have a separation of church and state. At the same time, certain churches objecting to certain types of marriages is not a valid reason for setting the standards according to their doctrine.
Reason almost never trumps emotion, and in this case, there is a lot of emotion on both sides. In cases such as these, state your case and let the audience make up their own minds, you won't convince the other person he is wrong.Fisherman wrote:Yes, and I dissagree with all of it but find it hard to talk with these types. They just don't listen.
I thought about that. It's hard to leave it alone though. I feel for them as I feel for anyone who rejects God. Like someone who justifies any sin and won't listen to reason. I began learning many years ago to dust my feet off and pray for them but I'm a slow learner I guess. I still sometimes just keep on flapping my gums sounding like a fanatic. It's just frustrating when you know the truth.August wrote:Reason almost never trumps emotion, and in this case, there is a lot of emotion on both sides. In cases such as these, state your case and let the audience make up their own minds, you won't convince the other person he is wrong.Fisherman wrote:Yes, and I dissagree with all of it but find it hard to talk with these types. They just don't listen.