http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/06/30/spain.gay.vote.ap/index.html

It's nice to see that at least some countries are pulling their heads out of their asses, I certainly didn't expect spain to be one of the first countries to do it though.

so what do you mean spain goes to hell? You against it?

so what do you mean spain goes to hell? You against it?
This is just a thought. But perhaps his title is sarcastic!

This is stupid.

Civil Unions.... Yes
Gay Marriage... No

Marriage is what it is. You cant call a chicken a dog because it suits your purposes. Im not saying it is unnatural for 2 people who love each to be with each other, but I am saying that it is an unnatural usage of the institution and tradition.

Marriage has a lot of symbolic meaning in it. It is the joining of 2 halves to make a whole in a spiritual sense. It is amazingly short sighted and arrogant of people to toss out the evolution of 10,000 years of tradition, philosophy and belief because some people want to gain public acceptance by the hijacking of societal norms

Where does it stop though? People say "Why punish people for loving each other." However what happens when bigamists and polygamists start making the same arguments?

Where does it stop though? People say "Why punish people for loving each other." However what happens when bigamists and polygamists start making the same arguments?
SLIPPERY SLOPE SLIPPER SLOPE ERGO QUIDPROQUO shutup

Canada will have this approved shortly as well.

I find it amazingly short-sighted and arrogant to deny individuals -- who through biological or developmental reasons do not share the majority's interest in the opposite sex -- the opportunity to share in the same institutions the rest of us enjoy. I'm not swayed by talk of history in this regard. The traditions of marriage vary from time to time and culture to culture. It wasn't that long ago that Western countries arranged marriages for their children. Is it also arrogant and short-sighted to let young people make decisions rather than their older and wiser elders?

I don't have a stake in this so would be satisfied by civil unions if the gay community was hip to it. Marriage may be a cultural institution, but it's a joy held by the participants. Other peoples' marriages have no impact on my life; wish 'em the best. Hell, maybe our divorce rate would drop.

This is stupid.

Civil Unions.... Yes
Gay Marriage... No

Marriage is what it is. You cant call a chicken a dog because it suits your purposes. Im not saying it is unnatural for 2 people who love each to be with each other, but I am saying that it is an unnatural usage of the institution and tradition.

Marriage has a lot of symbolic meaning in it. It is the joining of 2 halves to make a whole in a spiritual sense. It is amazingly short sighted and arrogant of people to toss out the evolution of 10,000 years of tradition, philosophy and belief because some people want to gain public acceptance by the hijacking of societal norms

Can't agree with you more.

I have to agree with Thormir on this one.

Lleauric's "10,000 years of tradition, philosophy and belief" argument reminds me too much of religious fanatics' arguments and that's a bad omen because I despise most forms of religion and dogma.

But again, since I'm not gay and I will be probably happy to live out my life without the barbaric act of putting a symbolic leash on my future bride's finger, I don't care at all what the hell happens on this subject.

*Canada will have this approved shortly as well.*

It was approved in here this week as well.

And i don't have anything against gay weddings, for all i care they can do anything they want with their lives and has the right to live happily like anyone else. But where i got a problem, it's with gay couples who adopt children. Until the homosexual concept is widely accepted by everyone, those children will always live in shame of having 2 mothers/fathers, and they might get some influence from their parents about their sexual orientation too...

LL statement is pretty typical of US sentiment on that issue. Civil Unions will not find a happy home in the majority of the United States of America. Period. It not an issue of it being some denial of the basic underpinnings of the basic freedoms the US charishes. It an issue of the majority of US citizens not wanting it and using their votes as such, so its not an issue to have blame placed at the feet of the US government. Americans will continue their happy relationship with Church and God while the rest of the world may actually get to claim a more advanced society in terms of fostering equality and open mindedness. Religion creates a healthy flock of sheep, and sheep doesn't lead.

Personally, I really don't care. Its not a facet of the religious based society that is the US that effects me. I am more concerned about how religion is entangled so much with politics my country that it impeads benificial sciences and squelches advancements that may yield life saving solutions in the US as well as the world. Also, these pieces of legislation other nations are passing are NOT looking at marriage from the point of view of the cerimonial, religious and traditional institution that is marriage. They are looking at it from the terms of joint ownership, legality and finiance. You married folks should know that, including you, Ll. The cerimonial union is with the priest, but the REAL marriage occurs at the lawyer's office.

Well, from the historic viewpoint, it wasn't that long ago that we overturned the cultural taboo of allowing a black person and white person to wed. So I cannot put a lot of weight in that argument; times change, people outgrow previously held ideas, and they move on. It is how societies evolve, and sometimes how they begin their descent into ruin.

From the religious standpoint, it flies in the face of most organized religious teachings and is sure to create many conflicts down the road. This is why civil unions would have been the more appropriate route to take, IMO.

/shrug

I am not going to lose sleep over it one way or the other.

Well, if you look at the religous aspect of it, you have to remember, those "rules" were made many, MANY years ago.

If you look at the fundamentals of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc. Certain rules strike us as odd now, but wayyyyyy back then were a matter of survival, not just for the individual, but for the entire human race.

Marriage between a man and a woman produces children. Children are needed to keep the human race going. Anything that stood in the face of that was made to be evil. This is also why a lot of people are saying yes to civil unions, but no to the term marriage. The act of marriage isn't just the joining of two people (in some religons, playing devils advocate here), but the joining of those two people to produce offspring, ultimately why any living creature exists when you boil it down to brass tacks.

All you have to do is look at the other things religon makes us do:

Don't eat pork? Pork goes bad in the heat.
Circumcision? You DO NOT want sand in there....
Don't eat shellfish? See the first one.
And the list goes on and on and on.....

Wayyyy back then, these rules were made by men (some claiming direct intervention from God, some pretty much saying I'm holier than thou, therefore I make the rules) to keep the people in line and get them to do what needed doing. What better way to lead "sheep' than to put these rules into religon.

All you have to do is look at the other things religon makes us do:

Don't eat pork? Pork goes bad in the heat.
Circumcision? You DO NOT want sand in there....
Don't eat shellfish? See the first one.
And the list goes on and on and on.....

Wayyyy back then, these rules were made by men (some claiming direct intervention from God, some pretty much saying I'm holier than thou, therefore I make the rules) to keep the people in line and get them to do what needed doing. What better way to lead "sheep' than to put these rules into religon.

You are right however rules and laws are there to serve a purpose and NOT to become the purpose itself....right?

Homosexuality is disgusting and detestable. I'm tired of homosexuals shoving their crap in my face. I could care less if homosexuals live together in civil unions. Just keep their shit out of my face, I don't want to see another gay talking about how wonderful sticking their dick in a hairy mans ass is. Why should the institution of marriage be ruined simply for some gays? Next homosexuals will want to adopt, and polygamists will demand their right to marry multiple wives. Don’t forget bestiality, people should be able to marry animals; it’s unfair that they restrict marriage to only humans!

Don't eat pork? Pork goes bad in the heat. Get a freezer and put the pork in it.
Circumcision? You DO NOT want sand in there.... More a traditional choice. Otherwise keep it clean. Most asian and african cultures don't circumcise and there are alot more asians and africans than those typically associated with religions that practice circumcision. Its amazing how people forget about China and Japan and what they as cultures were up to when Jesus walked the earth. In the US, circumcision was more about masturbation fears in the 19th century and tradition than any actual health care related reason.
Don't eat shellfish? See the first one. Man had fire back then too and alot less polution. Shellfish probably WAS a good idea to eat 10,000 years ago.
And the list goes on and on and on..... No one is going to deny that alot of the fundementals of religion are common sense.

Religion as a whole is good as long as its used as a tool and not the actual construct. (as Sam was implying) Preservation iof the species is always a benifit yielded by religion as long as you are refering to members of the species that pratices that religion. Yet, in a world that some argue is bordering on its theoretical population limit, the act of marriage represented as being a fundemental rite of reproduction seems almost moot and removes the concept of love and sharing between two individuals. Now should it be made legal for gays? /shrug. As I said, marriage has two parts. From the legal and financial standpoint: sure, why the fuck not. They work and contribute to society and if they adopt kids they might be better than some traditional families that beat their kids and so forth. Otherwise what homos do in private is not anyones business but their own. As for the tradition and cerimonial part....heh. Best leave that to the philosophers, theologians and sociologists to spend the next 1000 years toiling over.

Well, from the historic viewpoint, it wasn't that long ago that we overturned the cultural taboo of allowing a black person and white person to wed. So I cannot put a lot of weight in that argument; times change, people outgrow previously held ideas, and they move on. It is how societies evolve, and sometimes how they begin their descent into ruin.

We have a winner.

Eventally we'll be looking back at the people who say gays should never marry in the same way that we think of those that thought women shouldn't vote, or that blacks and whites shouldn't get married. Most intelligent people will figure it out. The rest will will be free to bitch about it.

I always get a kick out of people trying to characterize homosexuality as a recent "deviation", while pointing to the current farce that is marriage as a grand, long-standing tradition. An objective look at history really would do you some good.

Have we not learned yet that policies of discrimination are never a good thing?

Did you Google that Sanchek or just pull it out of your ass? Homosexuality has existed for a long time, but does that give them the right to demand that we change the institution of marriage specifically for them? For fuck sake, maybe we should tear down religious buildings and put gay bars. Fuck all religion, fuck anyone who believes anything. Let’s not preserve what people believe so we can make way for the homosexuals. Ass fuckings for all, whether you want it or not. Let’s not make a new ceremony specifically for gays, let’s take the institution of marriage and make it an abomination.

Sanchek, people are better persuaded to a cause by emotion, not logic. Blyst's naive statement is perfect case in point here.

You can throw all the science and history you want at something, and it still won't get the results at the polls like stirring up an emotional hornets nest. The less people know, the more apt they are to be persuaded. Policies of discrimination do just that by preying on people's fears and misunderstandings and then providing a means to channel them towards your cause (and all the other indirect causes that you have in store as part of an agenda once you have the people's attention and votes). Bait and switch at its finest, perhaps.

Blyst, no one is saying anything about tearing down all the churches and throwing religion to the wind. Spain is mostly acknowledging: Yah, there are gay people and as much as we don't want to they would like to have access to some of the legal, tax and financial advantages that that particular aspect of "marriage" offers since they do pay taxes and pull their wieght. America is also trying to acknowledge that there are others in the country besides bald white guys with black suits and red power ties that might have something to contribute and want the basic rights that those contributions should allow. Also, you might be shocked to discover that people can be married by a Justice of the Peace, and that there is no set rules for marriage saying it has to occur in a church in front of a priest with hundreds of guests.

Yeah, I know Lum. It's still funny though, to see people rabidly argue such indefensible stances, like puppets for their party line, without even seeing how manipulated they are.

Did you Google that Sanchek or just pull it out of your ass? Homosexuality has existed for a long time, but does that give them the right to demand that we change the institution of marriage specifically for them? For fuck sake, maybe we should tear down religious buildings and put gay bars. Fuck all religion, fuck anyone who believes anything. Let’s not preserve what people believe so we can make way for the homosexuals. Ass fuckings for all, whether you want it or not. Let’s not make a new ceremony specifically for gays, let’s take the institution of marriage and make it an abomination.
Since you're so interested in preserving the pristine integrity of marriage, maybe you should push for separate ceremonies for couples getting married out of wedlock. How about legislating different vows for women that just marry men for their money? Maybe require stores to sell a different colored dress for the couples that get together because their parents pushed them into it against their will. Clearly, no woman should be allowed to marry if her chastity belt doesn't stay locked until the wedding day. Definitely, black men shouldn't be allowed to marry white women in a church since they don't look like Adam and Eve did in the Sunday School books.

The institution of marriage is a joke at this point. It's success or failure is based on what the two people make out of it, not what rules a state follows when issuing a marriage certificate. Claiming that a gay couple shouldn't be allowed to marry, while Bubba in the trailer park beats the crap out of his wife and kids, is shockingly myopic.

"They" aren't pushing to change your religion, ban your morals, or even involve you in what "they" do. You're the one trying to stick your nose in things that have no reason to involve you at all.

Im sorry, but I wont call something what it isnt just to make people feel good.

If we create a new kind of legal contract that gives gay people the same benefits as married couples, then Im all for it. But it is NOT marriage, and it will never be. I agree that two people in a commited relationship should have certain rights and be able to form a partnership, but there are certain things in life that are set in stone... this is one of them.

Listen: Live your life, be with who you want to be, and do what you want to do, but do not try to reshape societal norms so a small segment of the population can feel good about themselves. Civil Unions can accomplish the same thing as the granting of marriage to same sex couples, but that isnt what they really want.

Sorry:
Jews cant celebrate Christmas
White people cant dance
Black people get ashy
Asians have small penii
Straight Men cant dress or decorate
Straight Women cant play softball or golf
and Gays cant get married.
http://www.vision.net.au/%7Ejennings/albatross/sunalb.jpg
edit: thats an Albatross... if you dont know what it means, read a fucking book.

With all of this outrage at allowing gays to get Married, but it's alright for them to have Civil Unions, why not just get rid of Marriages completely as far as the goverments are concerned.

Just make everything a Civil Union. No more Marriage Licenses, and you can have whatever religious ceremony you want. Of course all of the Bible Thumping jackasses who came to my door telling me to vote against the proposition that will "allow gays to redifine what Marriage means" will explode in some tirade on how the goverment is destroying our morales by not associating their ceremonies as law.

I suppose overall it's nice that Gays are the last bastion of open bigotry and denial of rights, since they can easily remain anonymous unlike their former targets (Blacks, Asians, Women, Jews, etc...).

Stating gays should not be allowed to marry in the marriage institution is not the same as saying a black man should not be allowed to marry a white woman. Our society’s institution of marriage is from religious roots, to say that the religion doesn’t matter any more is just despicable. It’s no longer a man and woman being united before God, now its two men or two women marrying. It’s a mockery against the very God who the ceremony was created by. If the ceremony was created for one man, and one woman to come together as one, why should gays have right to that? The whole ceremony is based on a religion that states homosexuality is forbidden. Why would gays even want to be married in such a ceremony that is very much against them? Yes, many people have abused the marriage system such as some of Sanchek's example, and it’s disgusting as well.

You, Blyst, shut up

Dont you have to discover the wheel or run from fire or something.

It's perfectly fine for Religions to deny gays the ceremony of marriage. What isn't right is for Goverments to not grant one group the same rights as the other. There's all sorts of different religions out there that have some sort of commitment ceremony. All of them are allowed to get Marriage Licenses as long as it's a man and woman, eventhough their ceremony isn't Christian. Should we deny them the right to obtain the license simply because their religion is different?

Good one Lleauric. Shouldn't you be off pissing someone else off by now?

I suppose overall it's nice that Gays are the last bastion of open bigotry and denial of rights, since they can easily remain anonymous unlike their former targets (Blacks, Asians, Women, Jews, etc...).

I love this line. I really do. But before I explain why let me pick something out of context:


I'm tired of homosexuals shoving their crap in my face. I could care less if homosexuals live together in civil unions. Just keep their shit out of my face, I don't want to see another gay talking about how wonderful sticking their dick in a hairy mans ass is.


So the problem isn't that they are doing it but that they are doing it publicly right? Right in your face.

Now, let me go back to the original quote. Anyone ever wondered why European Jews right before WWII didn't cut down their beards and dressed like everyone else? Why did they chose to stand out like living targets instead of taking their religion and worship into dark corners of their homes where it didn't bother the aryan nations?

Pride?

Pride?

Culture.

Now, let me go back to the original quote. Anyone ever wondered why European Jews right before WWII didn't cut down their beards and dressed like everyone else? Why did they chose to stand out like living targets instead of taking their religion and worship into dark corners of their homes where it didn't bother the aryan nations?

Jews were identified by the star of david they were forced to wear. Many Jews did dress like normal and didn't have a beard at all.

Marriage has a lot of symbolic meaning in it. It is the joining of 2 halves to make a whole in a spiritual sense.



I think there is nothing truer to describe a marriage then this. This goes for any union: man and woman, woman and woman, man and man. I got married in a legal ceremony in a court house, but you better believe that my union held a very deep and personal spirtual meaning to my husband and me. I would never deny anyone the right to experience what I have, even if I disagree with their lifestyle.

I think it's self disgust that causes people to lash out at others of difference. Kudos to Spain and Canada for finally seeing that there needs to be equality on this issue.

Sumameal, Bad Analogy

Do you actually think the Nazis only killed the jews with full hasidic clothing?
After hitler took power do think Jews lept into the streets shouting "HUZZAH IM A HEEEEBREW!"
Jews were identified in 3 ways
1. Town Records.
2. Neighbors (the most effective and popular method of identification)
3. Racial "science" that had Germans on the lookout for people with racial characteristics. i.e. Nose and Head shape, Eye color.. ect.

I would just like to make one thing clear; I do not hate homosexuals. Although I detest what they do, I would never discriminate against them, unless it comes to religious institutions such as marriage. Simply because someone is gay does not make them any less of a person, they are equal to anyone else. I am not against gays living together in a civil union, I believe what they do is disgusting and wrong, but it is their choice. I do not want to see gay pride parades, but I would not want to see a straight pride parades either. I don’t want to hear gays talk about homosexuality, nor do I want to hear a straight guy talk about the chick he boned last night.

I simply want marriage to remain what it has been since the founding of Canada. One man and one woman coming together and becoming one.

I do not hate homosexuals. Although I detest what they do

Does this make sense to anyone else?
"I dont hate Black People, I just detest what they do"

Sumameal, Bad Analogy

Do you actually think the Nazis only killed the jews with full hasidic clothing?
After hitler took power do think Jews lept into the streets shouting "HUZZAH IM A HEEEEBREW!"
Jews were identified in 3 ways
1. Town Records.
2. Neighbors (the most effective and popular method of identification)
3. Racial "science" that had Germans on the lookout for people with racial characteristics. i.e. Nose and Head shape, Eye color.. ect.

You are right of course, however Nazis weren't the first to target Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_the_Jews).
You would think that after centuries of persecution they would have taken more precautions.

Growing up in a communist country and seeing jews hide their religion behind closed doors, take local surnames instead of Weiss Cohen etc, celebrating xmass just to convince their neighbours and being members of the communist party from alibi....I guess that experience conditioned me to think that it is the best way.

No wonder that I tend to make a parallel between a gay pride parade and jews in full hasidic clothing....even if that probably makes my old rabbi roll in his grave (and assure me a good measure of stoning in Jerusalem if I ever said it out laud....damn intolerant people).

There's a difference between hating someone, and hating what they do. There are many good things about people who are gay, just because they do one thing I find disgusting and wrong, does that mean I should hate them? Turning my comment into racism is low Lleauric, even for you. A black person cannot control the color of their skin, whereas a homosexual doesn't have to go sleep with the same sex.

Does this make sense to anyone else?
"I dont hate Black People, I just detest what they do"

Although I am loathe to admit it, I do understand what Blyst is saying, and it is very different indeed than the example you compared it to Ll.

You are trivializing his detest for behavior by attempting to compare it to race. While it may have been stated in a more eloquent manner to suit you, or others, it is actually one of the more common statements I hear in the daily rounds about town. Folks can actually be good friends with "gay" members of the area, but detest the behavior (sexual) that they engage in while in the privacy of their home.

Except that blyst is simply spewing the ignorance that gay people just decide one day that they like people of the same gender.

Marriage used to be only religious, yes. But sorry, it isn't anymore. Just because it is to you, doesn't mean it is to everyone else. I'm sorry that it is so difficult for people to accept that.

If you're going to look at it technically, in the US marriage is simply a contract between two people, with various stipulations and whatnot. Everything else is ceremony that varies from person to person.

I'm yet to hear one good reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Religious reasons shouldn't be involved obviously. The 'breeding' thing doesn't hold any ground since infertile people can marry, as can couples that don't plan on having kids.

Oh, and while I'm here...

Why should the institution of marriage be ruined simply for some gays?

I'd say that you straight christians already do a good job of pissing all over the 'institution of marriage' all by yourselves every day. There is nothing to protect.

Except that blyst is simply spewing the ignorance that gay people just decide one day that they like people of the same gender.

Homosexuality is chosen, and countless ex-gays I know say the same thing. You don't have to be gay.

Nicely done on the comment about "straight christians already do a good job of pissing all over the 'institution of marriage' all by yourselves every day." Although you don't even provide any examples as to what you mean.

I really dont think it is possible to say that. Writing it on a message board is one thing, but visualize trying to actually live or communicate this.

"Hi, I dont hate you, but I hate who you are. You know that relationship with the person most special and dear to you? Ya, that absolutly disgusts me, but I like you."

The only "choice" for a homosexual besides being who they are is basically celebacy and solitude or deceit and living a lie. A person doesnt "choose" to be gay, they are or they arent. It is that simple. I dont know why people are gay. Quite possibly it is a variation of brain mechanics. But it is not a choice.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Happiness, each person must be free to create happiness for themselves as long as it doesnt infringe on anothers rights or create a situation harmful to society.
Allowing people to be with the person they love crosses into that unalienable rights category.
However, in my opinion the Government does NOT have the right to force us to modify cultural spirtual norms to accomodate this desire of expanding Marriage. Marriage is the one place where Government and Religion co-exist in tranquility. The Government cannot redefine what marriage is, just as a religion cannot legally redefine the equality of the partnership of marriage.
Happiness can be pursued and achieved without the title of marriage.

countless ex-gays I know

Where the fuck do you hang out? Ex-Gay bars?

Seriously, my BULLSHIT meter just broked.

Where do you hang out? Ex-Gay bars?

Yea! Ex-Gay bars! There's this really cool one that I always go to, and its full of people who were gay but now they aren't so they're not allowed in gay bars anymore. Where the fuck do you think? Same places you meet anybody, incase you didn't know gays and ex-gays don't hide from public, they're people all around you. Just because they don't say "Hey i'm gay!" when they meet you doesn't mean they aren't gay. Many people hide that they are gay or were gay earlier in life.

Dear Blyst:

I'm sorry, but you're full of crap. And it's not just me that thinks so, because I'm a liberal pinko, but the American Medical and American Psychological Associations that say so, among other legitimate groups that study this sort of thing, and they've been advising the public in this regard for over 30 years now. There are now literally *piles* of scientifically arrived at, peer-reviewed, studies that indicate that homosexuality is *not* a choice, but biologically hard-wired genetically/prenatally. I hate to tell this, especially if you happen to be grappling with the issue of your own sexual orientation, but the preponderance of the evidence now strongly suggests that if you're post ~13 weeks of embryological development, and don't like your sexual or gender orientation, you're pretty much screwed.

Your parents might pack you off to, or you might decide in a fit of self-loathing to check yourself into, one of those camps that claim to be able to 'cure' folks of homosexuality, but don't you find it the least bit suspicious that none of those camps are run, you know, in medical settings? Or that they all seem to be affiliated with fringe hardline fundamentalist Christian groups, and run by folks who say inspiring things like: "It would be better, if someone is unable or unwilling to cure themselves of being homosexual, that they kill themselves than continue to practice their immoral lifestyle. At least then there is a chance of eternal salvation, whereas otherwise they risk their immortal soul." (I'm not making that up by the way, and will dig up the actual quote, those remarks were made by the leader of Exodus House, one of the more famous of these, erm, therapeutic camps). Yes, folks go to those camps, and yes, they may fool themselves, after much peer pressure and guilt and self-loathing 'confessional' sessions, liberally dosed with prayer, into thinking they are 'cured', but the reality just doesn't jibe with the glowing reports you hear coming from their PR engine. What typically happens is that these individuals will 'crash out' some time later as gay (often via commiseration/hookup with another person they met at 'camp'), finally enter legitimate therapy and come to terms with their orientation, or they will live a life filled with more or less conscious denial, and frequently no small amount of suffering and self hate.

Seriously, do you *really* think that people would *choose* to be gay, given the amount of discrimination that still exists in the world today, and the great deal more that may be heaped on you depending on how strongly the strictures are against it in your particular culture/religous group? Believe me, it's not for the fabulous clothes and parties that cause people to form a primary attraction to the same sex, and down where I live, folks are still beaten up and even occasionally killed simply because of whom they love, particularly if they walk the gender line a little too closely. Thankfully, Western society is finally coming to terms with what the scientific community has known for a long time, namely that homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual orientation in humans (not to mention other mammals and birds), and consequently the laws regarding homosexuals and their relationships are evolving to reflect this.

Regarding the issue of legal marriage for same sex couples and objections on the basis that 'marriage' is a religious term: While it seems silly to me, I agree with Garl that perhaps an appropriate compromise for baby-stepping America, since the term marriage indicates, to some, a religious contract, would be to have the state cease recognizing religious marriage as a legal contract at all, and rename all state-recognized legally binding 'marriage' contracts as civil unions. Is this not why one gets a marriage license, anyway? The two are already recognized as separate things, so why not make the distinction clear? If the more religious-minded then want a marriage in their faith beyond that contract, then they can pursue such within the confines of their own faith, and place whatever restrictions on it as to who is deemed worthy of such a marriage, as they choose. This would have the benefit of removing the thorny church/state issue from areas that have little relation to religious issues, such as eligibility for insurance, designation in wills, custody of children, etc. But I'm quite glad to see other countries taking the lead and legalizing same-sex marriages in a straighforward fashion; heck, even Bolivia's Parliament passed a resolution last year legalizing gay marriage (which their President refused to sign, so it sits in limbo at the current time), which shows you just how far folks have come, especially in light of what is going on in the US, where we have a President so fearful that he feels the need to wield the Constitution against homosexuals by proposing an Amendment to it barring same-sex marriage...

Regards,
Nydia

Dear Binny:

Playing devil's advocate here myself ;), but I couldn't resist:

The act of marriage isn't just the joining of two people (in some religons, playing devils advocate here), but the joining of those two people to produce offspring, ultimately why any living creature exists when you boil it down to brass tacks.

So, does this mean that male-female couples who can't, or choose not to, produce offspring, should be denied the right to marry (or have theirs annulled if they fail to 'put out'), or that same sex couples should not be allowed to have any children? What about those same sex couples who *do* have offspring (from a previous opposite-sex relationship, or via donor)? If the goal of marriage is to produce children (and provide them with a stable environment via state-sanctioned tax breaks ;) ), then shouldn't we hook these folks up? :)

Regards,
Nydia

The problem is that "Marriage" means a lot more than "The church decided we can live together forever." It's how taxes get filed, qualifications for mortgages get determined, how people qualify for health benefits...in short, the *religious* act of marriage is an integral part of our state legal system.

All of L2's arguments seem to stem from the fact he doesn't want *his* definition of marriage marred by people marrying their gay partner. He wants a new definition, for only-married-for-tax-purposes; but, frankly, as an ordained minister (http://www.ulc.org/) myself, I promise to marry anyone that my state lets me. It's sure not going to chepen MY marriage (or my divorces!). [Ok, I'm only actually divorced once, but, it's twice for all practical purposes...]

Unfortunately, as long as my company gives health benefits to "married" people, because...well, for no good reason, realy...they're discriminating against gays. There's a shift, in the corporate world, to start allowing "domestic partners" to have health (and other) benefits. My company is a conservative one (from a political standpoint), so we'll be late into this area, but we'll get there eventually.

I mean, seriously, What. The. Fuck. does anyone here care if Dick and Tom get married. They can call it a marriage, and it won't bother me. Hell, they can call it a 1957 Ford Fairlane and it won't bother me.

So, lets get along with removing EVERY reference to marriage in our legal system, shall we? Or, we could just stop being such pricks about who's allowed to have a RELIGIOUS contract, right? Just becuase OUR religion doesn't agree with it.

Believe me, it's not for the fabulous clothes and parties that cause people to form a primary attraction to the same sex...The Onion to the rescue!

"The gay lifestyle is for me," said James Miller, an Oklahoma City father of four who recently moved to Provincetown, MA, to pursue a career in bath-house management. "When I was a family man, I constantly had to worry about things like taking the kids to Little League practice, paying for their braces, and remembering my wife's birthday. But now that I'm gay, I'm finally free to focus all my energy on having non-stop, mind-blowing anal sex."

Rofl! I'd forgotten all about that article. Oh god, it hurts...

/finishes choking and wipes tears from under glasses)

It was hard to find the article. The Onion archives only go back 3-4 issues if you're not a paying member now, and it wasn't one I have in print (and I don't have my print copies with me here on vacation). So, I had to try to remember the text, and...well, as always, Google to the rescue.

Nydia, where do you get the fact that it is hard-wired biological to be homosexual? The APA claims that you can not choose your sexuality, but the cause of sexual orientation is unknown and simply theoretical field. Where you get 30+ years from, I am assuming the 30 years they claimed homosexuality is no longer a mental illness. While I agree, you can't go to a camp to change your sexual orientation; I have known many people who have chosen to no longer be homosexual. To say sexual orientation is simply biological and not a choice, I ask you this. What about pedophiles? According to your theory, they simply are born that way, why are their rights being neglected? Why are pedophiles being persecuted and put in jail for something that’s simply unchangeable? Bestiality is another case, why should those who simply have a “hard-wired” attraction to animals have no rights. Should not the law of marriages be changed for those to? We are discriminating against them. If you say pedophilia or bestiality is wrong, you are a bigot. If there is no choice in sexuality, how is the attraction to little children or animals wrong?

“Not to mention other mammals and birds”. Oh, so are we comparing ourselves to the animal kingdom now? Shall I be savage and cruel against fellow humans, perhaps eating them alive? Perhaps I should steal your children and eat them, or even eat my own children. Why can you pick and choose animal aspects in regards to it being ok for humans?

The whole point of marriage is the incompleteness without a woman and man together. Men and women differ in such a way that together they come together to create a complete being in a sense. Two males coming together does not create the complete being in the sense a male and female do. Not to mention the fact that biologically two males or two females being attracted to each other causes the species to cease to exist.

Another problem I find with the whole homosexual rights is that they are becoming extreme and violating the rights of others. In Canada for example, many words have become hate crimes. A few Canadians have been in trouble with the law simply for reading the Bible on the radio.

I have known many people who have chosen to no longer be homosexual.We're down to "many."

Just for my edification, can you quantify "many" for us?

I don't think you can quantify "many" just as you can't quantify "countless."

So, basicly, your claim that you've known "many" people is a giant steaming pile of bullshit too, right?

Alright Palimax, I admit, I exadurated on the word "many." Unless 5 counts as many.

Blyst, unless you're, say, the minister at a southen baptist church, I don't buy it. I "know" hundreds of people; but my actual sphere of people that I'm truly acquainted with - those people that could call on the phone or borrow a cup of sugar from - is much too small to contain the number of people to even get the necessary "confused" gays to get five converts.

Of course, this is ye ole intraweb, so I'll be taking your word for it.

Marriage is about making families Amazingly enough, my daughter was born without the benefit of marriage. I know, impossible. Call the Weekly World News, but it happened.

Amazingly enough, my daughter was born without the benefit of marriage. I know, impossible. Call the Weekly World News, but it happened.

I think (s)he was refering to the mechanics of sex and how homosexuals cannot reproduce, whereas heterosexuals can. Not children being conceived out of wedlock.

Lizardarius, whoever you are, if you think suggesting harm to my daughter is amusing, you've got another think coming. Ye 'ole intraweb or not, I take my daughter seriously; and love more than anything in this world.

Also, for the record (a) I lost over 70# since the picture you seemed to happy to post. I'm not ashamed of who I am. I own base-nine.org, so I could remove the old photo whenever I want. I got as high as the 290's before getting myself back into the 220's -- a weight I'm comfortable with. (b) I'm straight. And (c) the woman whom I fathered my child with, as well as the woman I'm "dating" now both prefer me hirsute. In the words of of Sean Connery as James Bond pretending to quote Confucius, "Bird not make nest in empty tree."

The pictures of me in my M.A.M.E thread are representative of what I look like today, give or take.
http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=354

So, you're about 0 for everything. Keep up the spectacular work. You're well on the way to replacing Shep and Dante. Go Go You!

I think (s)he was refering to the mechanics of sex and how homosexuals cannot reproduce, whereas heterosexuals can. Not children being conceived out of wedlock.And my point is that getting married and producing offspring have nothing to do with each other, realy. You're completely capible of getting married and not having kids; and you're just as able to have kids without being married.

To pretend that marriage exists to have children, and thus, it isn't apporpriate for homosexuals (and presumably, the imoptent, post-menopausal, and disabled) is silly.

[Also, for the record, during my actual marriage - years ago - we failed to produce a child, which is OBVIOUSLY why we're no longer married...]

Don't get me wrong. I don't much care about anything enough to go hold up picket signs, but should the vote ever end up on my desk, I'll be voting, "No, I don't give a crap who gets married to who."

Palimax: My objection, I believe also has basis in the First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is it a backway around into it? Yea, kinda, but I think it still applies. The Government can define the social contract as it desires, the government however has no authority to infringe on peoples religion by the forceable redefinition of the institution of Marriage, which is a spirtual one.
Make no mistake, if the Government passed this, what do you think would happen to the first church that refused to marry 2 gay people because they were gay?
BAM: Civil Rights Lawsuit, which the Church would lose, because the Government has already valdiated the action through legislation.
This = Bad

I bet Lizardius doesnt get to 25 posts before bannation.

Get yer trolling in while you can, asshat

Quote:
I do not hate homosexuals. Although I detest what they do


Does this make sense to anyone else?
"I dont hate Black People, I just detest what they do"

I have friends that do some very hard drugs. I detest what they do to themselves but I do not detest the person. I can't stand to see them do something unhealthy like that to themselves, and yes male on male anal sex isn't healthy for the taker (taking diseases out of the equation because straight people get STDs too). Anal sex man on man or man on woman is destructive to the reciever, and can lead to permanant damage. The human body didn't evolve into making anal sex a healthy alternative to traditional sex. As far as the "I don't hate black people, I just detest what they do." There is a segment of the black population that practices segregation, hate towards whites, enacts much violence and destruction against their own kind. I hate that this happens, it doesn't mean I hate black people as a whole, but I do detest that they do this. Just like I detest that there are some whites that are racist and destructive. I also can't stand the self destruction of the average white trash person, but that doesn't mean I hate whites.

It's entirely possible to dispise the act of a person and still not dispise the person. I have family members that do some abhorable things, but I still love them.

Dont be ridiculous. It isnt Anal Sex that he has a problem with..
Im sure he feels the same way about 2 men passionatly kissing. Additionally he didnt say "I Just hate what Gay men do" What about lesbians? They arent Gay now?

His problem is with any same sex display of affection. Its the idea, not the mechanics.

to be truthful, i don't want to see men or women kissing infront of me in public, to me it's just disgusting(though I don't care for PDA in any form). I'm not a Christain, so this ideal doesn't come from bible thumping. Its just not "normal." I don't want my child exposed to it on TV or in the classroom. That's not to say if my child is gay when she's older that I'll love her any less, but it also doesn't mean I have to approve of it either.

What I said about the physiological damage in my first post was just part of how I feel about it. And yeah I'm hypocritcal about what I said too as I've had anal sex with my wife, just not all that often.

Though I am in complete agreeance with you in allowing Civil Unions for gay couples. Marriage DOES WHETHER PEOPLE WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT carry a connontation of a man and a woman. It does have it's roots in religious ceremony so why would a gay person want to go through a "marriage" when obviously their life choice is one punishable by death according to god. Of course then we can argue religious dogma all day. I've never understood how a woman can be religious either when the bible states that women are only here to serve men.

The act of marriage isn't just the joining of two people (in some religons, playing devils advocate here), but the joining of those two people to produce offspring, ultimately why any living creature exists when you boil it down to brass tacks.
Creatures exist to exist, and for the most part have drives installed that lead to reproduction and the passing on of genes. Marriage is a formalization of the process that -- in the way back far long ago -- secured inheritance, established familial alliances, and produced dynasties. To ensure the "blessings of the gods," leaders sought out priests to bless their unions (a 24/7 job in the case of kings like Solomon), and so marriage intertwined with religion and governmental bureaucracy. Here we are today.
Palimax: My objection, I believe also has basis in the First Amendment
I'll see your First Amendment, and raise you 8 more:
Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Though I am in complete agreeance with you in allowing Civil Unions for gay couples. Marriage DOES WHETHER PEOPLE WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT carry a connontation of a man and a woman.
How about this: Marriage DOES WHETHER PEOPLE WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT carry a connontation of a man as the breadwinner and the woman staying home to cook, clean, and pump out babies. Just ask Phyllis Schlafly!

Institutions change, be it women's roles in society, slavery across the globe, or homosexual relations between mentor and mentee in ancient Greece. Statements such as those above have no more force than your queasiness at same-sex-smooching. Sound and fury, signifying nothing, and on its way out. For a few years it was "weird" for blacks to be using the same bathrooms as whites. For a few years it'll be "weird" for gays to be showing up in newspaper wedding sections or *gasp* appearing openly in public. After that, the only people who give a rat's ass are the hardcore fundamentalists (just as there are some who give a rat's ass about blacks sharing water fountains).
I've never understood how a woman can be religious either when the bible states that women are only here to serve men.
It's a topic for another thread, but people choose religion for many kinds of reasons, and interpret their religions in different ways (some of which accept women as true equals and gays as non-abominations). As for the hardliners who enjoy their subjugation...well, ya got me there.

The Government can define the social contract as it desires, the government however has no authority to infringe on peoples religion by the The government doesn't have to redefine anything. Plenty of churches have had non-standard definitions of marriage for a long time. Polygamy, for example, predates the US government. And, remember, my "church" (I'm a minister - ha!) doesn't need a redefinition either. :)

If there is no choice in sexuality, how is the attraction to little children or animals wrong?

Because bestiality and pedophila aren't between two consenting adults. Next cliched and ignorant anti-gay argument please?

Why should I believe that marriage can only be religious when people get married everyday without any religion being involved. You people aren't making any sense. That's like saying baseball is only played in america.

My point is if sexual orientation is a "hard-wired" biological instinct, why are pedophiles and people who are attracted to animals considered disgusting and disturbed. They can't help who they are. They were born that way, hard-wired biologically. So, if I accept that gays are ok simply because they were that way biologically, you must also accept pedophiles and people with attraction to animals as ok. If it is morally ok for two men to have sex, why is it immoral for someone to sleep with an animal? Animals do get confused and initiate sex with a human, so don't give me that crap about consent.

"You people", nice assumption. The people getting married have taken the institution of marriage and use it as it is. One male, one female, simply because they reject religion taking part in it does not mean they are changing marriage and destroying it for religious people. Homosexuals becoming married causes the ceremony no longer be bonding between a male and female. Marriage in Canada has been one man and one woman, once homosexuals are allowed to be married, the definition of marriage changes.

My point is if sexual orientation is a "hard-wired" biological instinct, why are pedophiles and people who are attracted to animals considered disgusting and disturbed. They can't help who they are. They were born that way, hard-wired biologically.
For starters, there is no evidence (at least, that I'm aware of) that pedophilia and beastiality are hardwired. There is a great deal of correlation between pedophiles who were, themselves, sexually abused as children. Beastiality seems more an act of sexual desperation or showmanship than anything else. And again, the legality of it all is tied to consent; since gay marriage is a legal issue more than anything else (the morality of it being entirely subjective),that's an important consideration.
"You people", nice assumption.
He didn't have to assume anything. Adduce a threadbare, time worn argument, and you get lumped in with those who adduce the same threadbare, time worn argument.
Homosexuals becoming married causes the ceremony no longer be bonding between a male and female.
Really? So Tom and Dave getting married means George and Laura, for example, are no longer married? No longer male and female? No longer really married? Breaking news! Baseball is still baseball, long after Jackie Robinson. If you are so insecure in your idea of marriage that the happiness and prosperity of others trying to realize the same type of relationship denigrates your own relationship, that's a problem with you, not with them.

For starters, there is no evidence (at least, that I'm aware of) that pedophilia and beastiality are hardwired.
Same thing goes for homosexuality; everything is simply speculation and theory. If you assume sexual orientation is hard-wired, then attraction to animals or children must also be assumed to be hard-wired.

Really? So Tom and Dave getting married means George and Laura, for example, are no longer married? No longer male and female? No longer really married?
Not at all, what I am stating is, marriage being one man and one woman, now becomes one person and one person. The definition changes, it is no longer what it use to be. Sure, there might be remnants of the previous institution of marriage, but the definition of marriage is no longer the same. What was once one thing, now becomes another. It is not to say the marriage of one man and one woman becomes invalid, but rather marriage is something else, destroying of the former.

But here is my question, why do we continue on in this subject, when it is clear that no one will change their opinion?

But here is my question, why do we continue on in this subject, when it is clear that no one will change their opinion?

Which is exactly why every piece of paper the government has should have the word Marriage removed and Civil Union put in it's place. No fundamentalist or anti-gay will ever agree to let homosexuals have an official piece of paper that has Marriage printed on it. Let's balance everything out and just call everything related to two people getting hitched "Civil Unions". If you feel you aren't married, even after your ceremony in church, because the government doesn't have a slip of paper with Your Name/ Your Spouses Name/ and Marriage written on it, then it just proves that the government doesn't have true separation of Church and State.

Garl is close.

Yes, get rid of "Marriage" on government documents and replace it with a term like "Civil Union."

However, while YOUR church is free to only give marriages to man-woman couples, MY church will feel free to give them to same-sex couples, and OUR government should sanciton them all as "Civil Unions."

My point is if sexual orientation is a "hard-wired" biological instinct, why are pedophiles and people who are attracted to animals considered disgusting and disturbed.

I already answered that, learn to read.

Animals do get confused and initiate sex with a human, so don't give me that crap about consent.

So you're saying humans and animals have equal mental capacty to give legal consent eh? Did you forget your entire "Oh, so are we comparing ourselves to the animal kingdom now?" spiel you went on a couple pages ago?

If you can't tell the difference between 2 people having consentual sex and fucking a two year old, then you're just stupid beyond any possible help. Not a surprise.

"You people", nice assumption.

What the hell are you talking about? I was refering to the people that keep insisting that marriage is religious to everyone because it is to them. Like you. There was no assumption, unless you've been faking the whole religious sheep act.

The rest of your paragraph made no sense there. You said people changing marriage in one way was ok, but not in another way... ok. But I'll just repost what max said, since he pretty much summed it up quite well, and you might have missed it.

The government doesn't have to redefine anything. Plenty of churches have had non-standard definitions of marriage for a long time. Polygamy, for example, predates the US government. And, remember, my "church" (I'm a minister - ha!) doesn't need a redefinition either. :)

Oh, and for the record, as long as we're free to carve animals into shanks and tenderloins, I'm not sure why sodomizing them is out of the question :)

*ducks and runs for cover*


"Look, I've been around, I've licked my share of peanut butter."

Canada will have this approved shortly as well.

I find it amazingly short-sighted and arrogant to deny individuals -- who through biological or developmental reasons do not share the majority's interest in the opposite sex -- the opportunity to share in the same institutions the rest of us enjoy. I'm not swayed by talk of history in this regard. The traditions of marriage vary from time to time and culture to culture. It wasn't that long ago that Western countries arranged marriages for their children. Is it also arrogant and short-sighted to let young people make decisions rather than their older and wiser elders?

I don't have a stake in this so would be satisfied by civil unions if the gay community was hip to it. Marriage may be a cultural institution, but it's a joy held by the participants. Other peoples' marriages have no impact on my life; wish 'em the best. Hell, maybe our divorce rate would drop.

8 pages of essentially the same argument over and over and this is still the best post of the thread. Well said Thor and I agree with you 100%, epsecially this statement Other peoples' marriages have no impact on my life; wish 'em the best. We'd be allot better off if we didn't have every Tom, Dick, and Harry telling everyone how they should live their life. It's going to happen, Gay Rights is the new Civil Rights of the 00s. I say more power to them.

Maybe you all are homosexuals!

If you can't tell two penises don't fit together, "then you're just stupid beyond any possible help. Not a surprise."

I see why you're angry Discw, I oppose you and your homosexual partner from getting married. OH well, what a shame. Make more assumptions about me being religious, they crack me up. Simply because I use religious roots as an argument doesn't make me religious. First you assume I’m a “straight Christian”, then you say “you people.” oh and lets not forget “religious sheep.” You want to assume I’m religious? I’ll assume you’re a homosexual. Which brings up another point, religious bashing is ok on these forums, yet saying you disagree with same-sex marriage and everyone goes crazy. Neat!

Hold on, I'm confused again. What does the whole penis-penis penis-vagina vagina-vagina thing have to do with how I file my taxes and get my health insurance again?

Oh, and for the record, as long as we're free to carve animals into shanks and tenderloins, I'm not sure why sodomizing them is out of the question

Nuttin beats mutton....

Good lord blyst!!!, you make my late night drunken rambling's look like the work of Einstien.

Oh dear god no, Blyst has destroyed me with his far Superior intellect. He called me a fag.

Next time, just post this picture. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v331/sspillow/letterman.jpg) It says the exact same thing you did, in a lot less time.

Oh, and technically, I have seen two of those fit together. The image is yet to leave my mind.

Oh, and technically, I have seen two of those fit together. The image is yet to leave my mind.
I don't even want to think about that.

How about this, if 10 people post that they don't want me to ever post here again, i'll gladly change my password to random letters and disappear. Make everyone happy, I have no problem pissing off if i'm not wanted.

Homosexuals;

Can they not fall in love too?

Or is that taboo?





I must admit that the idea that emotional attachment and commitment to another human being can be legislated by folks because they have a closer relationship to God is quite befuddling. I always thought the precepts of Christianity were opposed to such attitudes.....:rolleyes:

On topic though, i think Garl and Palimax have hit it right on the head. Seperation of Church and State is an extremely important facet to any democracy. The fact that couples who have partaken in a largely religious ceremony are the only beneficiaries of serious financial and social benefits is for sure unconstitutional, and needs to be removed from american law.

Good call DiscW )

Now could you split all of my now irrelevant posts to the sandbox puhleeze? :)

Whoops... was doing it as ya posted that I guess. I only deleted the stuff that really needed to be, kept the rest over in the sandbox for those that want to read it for entertainment value. Carry on.

Though I am in complete agreeance with you in allowing Civil Unions for gay couples. Marriage DOES WHETHER PEOPLE WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT carry a connontation of a man and a woman.
Don't know who posted that (picked it from Thormir quoting), but I'd really like to know where this connotation comes from.

From the 30'ish marriages I've been to, the only connotation I got of what a marriage was, was all about love. 2 adults loving each other, enough to want to show it to the rest of their communauty/friends/family, and enough to ask God Himself to strengthen and recognize this love, and ask Him to bind it until death, and beyond.

Religious unions have, for me, more to do with spirituality than "survival of mankind", I'm pretty sure we humans know how to procreate without religion helping.

I do not hate homosexuals. Although I detest what they doIf you don't hate what they are, but what they do, why are you opposed to gay marriage? "Because it doesn't fit"? Sterile persons don't "fit", menopaused women don't "fit", genetically ill people don't "fit", are those all forbidden from marriage?
If the argument is "God said it will be a man and a woman", I'd really want to know more about it.

And don't leave Blyst, like Zhen would say (and if he reads this thread, I'm pretty sure he's smiling like a devil ;)), if we wouldn't have different opinions, this thread would be dead since long, and be a really boring one. For your entertainment, you can read this long ass thread (http://forums.ayonae.ro/showthread.php?t=1123), where this dead horse still had a bit of life in his left eye (or maybe was it just the neon reflet? I forgot...).

from the oxford dictionary:

http://www.askoxford.com/images/phase_2/spc.gif

(http://www.askoxford.com/shoponline/dicts/)


marriage



• noun 1 the formal union of a man and a woman, by which they become husband and wife. 2 a combination of two or more elements.



the cambridge dictionary:

marriage [Show phonetics] (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?dict=CALD&key=100628&ph=on)
noun [C or U]
a legally accepted relationship between a woman and a man in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this:

from the american heritage dictionary:

SYLLABICATION:mar·riage PRONUNCIATION (http://www.bartleby.com/61/12.html): http://www.bartleby.com/images/pron.jpg (http://www.bartleby.com/61/wavs/2/M0120200.wav) mhttp://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/abreve.gifrhttp://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/prime.gifhttp://www.bartleby.com/images/pronunciation/ibreve.gifj NOUN:1a. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife. b. The state of being married; wedlock. c. A common-law marriage. d. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage. 2. A wedding. 3. A close union: “the most successful marriage of beauty and blood in mainstream comics” (Lloyd Rose). 4. Games The combination of the king and queen of the same suit, as in pinochle.

from merriam-webster

Main Entry: mar·riage http://www.m-w.com/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?marria01.wav=marriage'))
Pronunciation: 'mer-ij, 'ma-rij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=married) persons : WEDLOCK (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=wedlock) c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

from meriam websters

Marriage (Page: 897 (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.page.sh?page=897)) Mar"riage (?), n. [OE. mariage, F. mariage. See Marry (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?word=Marry), v. t.]

1. The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union of a man and a woman for life, as husband and wife; wedlock; matrimony.

Marriage is honorable in all. Heb. xiii. 4. 2. The marriage vow or contract. [Obs.] Chaucer.

3. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king which made a marriage for his son. Matt. xxii. 2. 4. Any intimate or close union. Marriage brokage. (a) The business of bringing about marriages. (b) The payment made or demanded for the procurement of a marriage. -- Marriage favors, knots of white ribbons, or bunches of white flowers, worn at weddings. -- Marriage settlement (Law), a settlement of property in view, and in consideration, of marriage. Syn. -- Matrimony; wedlock; wedding; nuptials. -- Marriage (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?word=Marriage), Matrimony (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?word=Matrimony), Wedlock (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?word=Wedlock). Marriage is properly the act which unites the two parties, and matrimony the state into which they enter. Marriage is, however, often used for the state as well as the act. Wedlock is the old Anglo-Saxon term for matrimony.








Notice every single one of these states that it's the act of a man and a woman being joined. Very few include same sex marriage in their definitions and they are not included in the same definition as a man and a woman in the ones that do include it as a definition.

Gay marriage is actually a plot hatched by these publishers in order to have an excuse to sell a new edition dictionary. Either that or they will release a "straight" and "homo" editions with definitions representative of their preferences. Can you hear the cash registers ringing?

This topic really is at a dead end if all it boils down to is semantics as it would seem as if the governments in question are avoiding use of the word "marriage" while perhaps the press is more liberal with the term. Whatever. Spain is thousands of miles away, and even if Spain was right down the street, does it really matter? Its their business. If you want to pray for Spain, go right ahead. Spain is pretty confidient with its relationship with God. They had the Inquisition there!

Same thing goes for homosexuality; everything is simply speculation and theory. If you assume sexual orientation is hard-wired, then attraction to animals or children must also be assumed to be hard-wired.

No, Blyst, several studies have demonstrated that homosexuality is determined either by genetics or early development. Were I at work, I'd point out a study that I can only summarize, one conducted in Italy that showed that certain families -- particulary those with many children (IIRC) -- demonstrated an increased number of homosexual members than one would expect. The suggested reasoning is that larger families require larger numbers of caregivers, and non-breeding individuals fit the role well. They do not produce children on their own, but can fill in for an overworked mother or one that perished in childbirth (a common fate, up until recently).

Not much research has been done in this area, but all of it that I am familiar with points to biological origins. I suspect the same for asexuality, which fits in the above proposed scenario as well. No research into pedophilia I am aware of indicates a biological predisposition toward such behavior. The pool of bestiality...practitioners is very small, but perhaps they hang out with your many ex-gay friends. Ask them about it.

The point being, there's no real speculation involved here. You're simply wrong.
It is not to say the marriage of one man and one woman becomes invalid, but rather marriage is something else, destroying of the former.
Pure silliness. Not even a lifetime ago, people felt the same way about blacks and whites marrying. People cried about it then (or just lynched the couple), but people still got married, and their marriages meant no less to them than for the interracial couple. Gay marriages have been conducted in the US in the past year, and heterosexuals still get married, thinking no less of their relationship for it. Marriage won't change, much less be destroyed. Taleran may just have to buy a new dictionary (which, btw, contains many words that have changed meanings over the centuries).

Deal with your own life, instead of crushing the happiness of others.

If you don't hate what they are, but what they do, why are you opposed to gay marriage?

I don't want my children to think homosexuality is something natural. What they do is simply wrong. I don’t want them to be married as it promotes homosexuality further; it also changes the institute of marriage. It is just the beginning of the changes; soon polygamists will want their rights met also. Giving a marriage license to them is like saying, “I accept homosexuality as ok.” I do not approve of homosexuality, so anything that is for it, I’m against it. Do not think I’m only against homosexuality; I am also against polygamy, and any other sexual practice that wishes to change marriage.

Call me a Bible thumper, but God has stated a man and woman leave their parents and are joined to become one. Not two women and one man, not man and man, not man and woman, but one man and one woman. Marriage has been founded on these principals and I disagree with homosexuals, polygamists, or anyone else who tries to change it.

That is why I am opposed to gay marriage.

The point being, there's no real speculation involved here. You're simply wrong.
The origins of sexual orientation are theory, there is no scientific evidence, some scientists suggest it is environment when young, others suggest it is biological, but there is no solid evidence. Homosexuality being biological opposes biology itself. There is absolutely no reason for homosexuality to be a gene, homosexuals cannot reproduce, so why would the gene for homosexuality exist? I’m sorry, but love doesn’t count as it is not something biological, it is a learned behavior. The APA suggests that sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.

Not even a lifetime ago, people felt the same way about blacks and whites marrying
That is simply racism, people fearing the white population would cease to exist, being taken over by black skin color. It is no different than the Nazi nationalism. It has nothing to do with preserving marriage.

Call me a Bible thumper, but God has stated a man and woman leave their parents and are joined to become one. Not two women and one man, not man and man, not man and woman, but one man and one woman. Marriage has been founded on these principals and I disagree with homosexuals, polygamists, or anyone else who tries to change it.


The Bible was written by men.
The Koran was written by men.
The Torah was written by men.

Please, where have you seen evidence that God has stated anything?
This is the scary part of the argument, when folks start saying what God has stated, because to the best of my knowledge there IS NO evidence of God having said anything, other than what men have said they have heard him say.

This is a legal issue, not a religious one. Allowing a civil union to be recognized will allow all of the legal benefits of marriage, which is what started the argument to begin with; having one person in a relationship unable to visit in a hospital because they are not "family", or losing property upon the death of the other person in the relationship, or being unable to procure medical coverage because they are not "family" or "married", these are some of the reasons behind legalizing these unions. They involve the law, which is determined by government, whether local, state or federal.

The first amendment stipulates the separation of church and state, and therefore the government cannot make a law that impedes the practice of religion as it pertains to marriage, which is a holy sacrament of the church.
They can legislate a civil union, but they are forbidden by the 1st Amendment from forcing any religious body to perform said unions and the related ceremonies.

This is not a civil rights issue, it is a moral issue. Since there is no solid evidence of homosexuality being genetic or biological it cannot be classified as a civil issue. Until there is solid proof that homosexuality is inborn and unchangeable it cannot be classified as a civil rights issue. Genetics and religious beliefs are what discrimination laws are based on. Since there is no solid evidence of homosexuality being genetic and homosexuality is not a religious belief, there is no reason to change marriage laws. Until the whole debate over the homosexual gene is over and one side has been proven correct, there is no reason to change marriage laws. Empirically prove homosexuality is genetic like a sex or race, and then the marriage laws could be considered being changed.

Homosexuals are not any more discriminated against then anyone who is unmarried. Not to mention, if homosexuals just want to be happy, then why do they need a piece of paper to tell them that? If on the other hand, they want the same benefits as married people, marry the opposite sex, without empirical proof of the homosexual gene there is no discrimination.

The Bible was written by men.
The Koran was written by men.
The Torah was written by men.

I assume you mean the Tanach, the Torah is only the first 5 books of the Tanach.

Homosexuals are not any more discriminated against then anyone who is unmarried.

.....hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Yeah, you're right. People get killed cause they're unmarried all the time.

You've lost all sense of reality now.

Yeah, you're right. People get killed cause they're unmarried all the time.
I am not referring to people’s hatred for those who are homosexuals. I was referring to the benefits of those being married compared to those who are unmarried.

From my posts people obviously feel that I have issue with gay's living together in a loving relationship, I don't feel that at all. If that's what they want to do, more power to them, it's not my place to say one way or another. The only thing I have a problem with is with calling anything they have marriage. A civil union giving them all the rights of heterosexual married couples, I take no issue with. Jobs ensuring them with the same familial rights afforded to married couples should be granted. I simply take issues in what they have being called marriage. I have problems with most movie stars having things called marriage too. I have problems with divorce except in the most grievous of cases. The sanctity in marriage now has almost fallen completely off the table and that bothers me. My marriage to my wife means the world to me and the fact that people have made a laughingstock of marriage pisses me off. mind you both my wife and my parents are both still married. All our grandparents are still married or were when they died.

I guess I'll rephrase the question I asked earlier then. Why should marriage still be restricted to a man and a women? The same two reasons just seem to be repeated.

1. "Because my god says so." Which means jack and shit to anyone who doesn't believe in your particular god.

2. "Because it has always been that way." I thought that we, as a society, had moved beyond that kind of stupidity?

[quote]Since there is no solid evidence of homosexuality being genetic or biological it cannot be classified as a civil issue.[/quote}

Dear Blyst:

I apologize for not replying to you or this thread sooner; it's been a very busy weekend, and I've not had much time to stop by here and wade through the piles of crap that have sprung up in this thread in search of the relevant commentary. Since you insist on repeating the fallacy that homosexuality is not a biological phenomenon, I have taken the liberty of digging up and linking a few scientific papers for you:

A study, fourteen years old now, from the Journal Science, showing that the hypothalamus in homosexual men is anatomically different than that of heterosexual men:

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b1790e39a659b68b7d f27f57cb8acbd728565e168956da7550121e854c401e3b1816 ea&fmt=C

LeVay, S. A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science v. 253 (August 30 1991) p. 1034-7

A much more recent finding, published in the journal Endocrinology, confirming this hypothesis experimentally in sheep:

http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/145/2/478

A decent review, also from the Journal Endocrinology, which contains a summary of important studies on aromatase, the preoptic area of the hypothalamus, eyeblink response, and fingerlength ratios, prenatal androgen exposure, and sexual orientation in women:

http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/145/2/475#R9

A recent study, from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, showing that homosexual men respond with sexual arousal to the hormone testosterone, not estrogen, despite being completely unaware of the purpose of the experiment or what they are being exposed to (the opposite of heterosexual men, who respond to estrogen), and that there are accompanying changes in response in the brain:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/20/7356

An article from Proceedings in Biological Science (2004) publishing the results of a large study showing a link between homosexuality in men and an increased rate of fecundity (fertility) among the mothers and maternal (but *not* paternal) aunts of gay men, relative to the general population, suggesting classical sex-linked (X chromosome) inheritance, along with a hypothesis for the selective 'value' of genetic homosexuality:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15539346&dopt=Abstract

I could provide some more, and more varied, links given a bit more time and access to my computer at school, where I have access to our journal subscriptions, but hopefully this will do for now. Please feel free to go on about how two penises don't 'fit together', or how you think that homosexuality is either morally repugnant or just plain 'icky'.

However, as I stated earlier, there is substantial evidence that homosexuality, as well as gender identity, *are* biological phenomena, and highly resistant to change even in early childhood (relatively few controlled, scientifically valid studies exist in this area, for obvious reasons, but the results are quite striking, with suicide being a frequent result), so your argument that homosexual marriage is not a civil rights issue *because it is not biologically based* simply doesn't hold water.

Regards,
Nydia

In other news on this issue, the United Church of Christ (6,000 parishes, 1.3 million members) has, today, become the first mainstream Christian denomination in the US to pass a resolution officially supporting same sex marriages:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/national/04cnd-church.html?hp&ex=1120536000&en=c11eb4df569a28c4&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=login

You need a login and password to access this, but obtaining one is free.

Hopefully my denomination of birth (Episcopal), which I still have a great deal of sentimental attachment to and affection for, will soon follow suit...

To Talaran and the others who suggested that the term 'marriage' should be reserved for male-female couples because of its arguably religious underpinnings, I would ask you the following question: Does being homosexual preclude one from being a devout Christian? The evidence suggests not. Many homosexual men and women are practicing Christians (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists) of various denominations, and if the Metropolitan Community Church is any indication, very enthusiastic practitioners even when exiled from their own denominations because of their sexual orientation. The MCC, which has existed since the early 1970s to serve the needs of gay and gay-friendly Christians who have been made unwelcome in their own churches, has parishes in most major cities in the US, and the Dallas church has *four* packed services each Sunday in their Philip Johnson-designed cathedral to keep up with the demand!

Bylimet makes an excellent point - namely that the Bible was written by human beings - and if religious homosexuals wish to have their marriage performed in the eyes of God, and it is condoned by their denomination (although the MCC, as well as those Episcopal churches who perform the ceremony, call the sacrament a 'Holy Union' currently), then can that justification - that the term 'marriage' should be limited to male-female couples because of its religious underpinnings - truly be used as a valid argument against it? 'Christians' are hardly a monolithic bloc, and to assume that one group has the corner on orthodoxy, especially where issues of secular *legal* status are involved, sounds awfully close to giving preference to a particular religious group. Personally, I don't care what the
legal institution ends up being called, (and make the argument mainly to provoke thought on the matter) as long as *all* couples, gay or straight, who decide to commit to each other legally, lovingly, and for the long term
are able to enjoy the same rights and privledges under the law...

Regards,
Nydia

The Bible was written by men.
The Koran was written by men.
The Torah was written by men.

Prove it? No one has sufficient proof to prove that any of these books were written by man. All these books are miraculous and i respect them. But again, this issue isnt religious as it is a legal issue. Well, usually atheists are always pro-homosexuality and a religious person is always against it because his/her religion prohibits it.

Links on biological proof for homosexuality Those dont prove anything because A) All they prove is that when a person has homosexual sexual intercourse certain things change in his body. This is obvious, everyone knows this. For example, when you expose yourself to the sun, your body trys to defend itself from the UV-Rays by releasing certain skin pigments, which change your skin color. This is the same as the fact that the prostate is larger for a homosexual man than a heterosexual man, this is because he recieves penises in his anus. His body uses certain defence mechanisms and change the size of certain parts in the body. Not to mention that the nervous system also changes. I don't see this as *biological* evidence for the existance of homosexuals. Biological evidence would be a child born homosexual and this child has different body parts and other things than a heterosexual child. And B) Just to give you a heads up, I wouldn't trust what a link says just because it says it, some of the links you provided us are from unverified sources that I never heard of before and sources that I and any other wise person wouldn't trust. I can go get you a research that proves that the earth is flat, would you trust that source?

And creationism should be taught in science class!

Prove it? No one has sufficient proof to prove that any of these books were written by man.

Huh? Who else could have wrote it wrote it? The god it's about? How about you prove that the specific 'god' that it's about exists first, then we'll worry about having to prove that us people wrote it.

They are from unverified sources and sources that I and any other wise person wouldn't trust.

Yes, you're right. If I was looking for information on endocinology for example, the last place I would trust for information on it is The Endocrine Society. :rolleyes:

Prove it? No one has sufficient proof to prove that any of these books were written by man.They exist. It's enough of a proof, why would any God give 3 (at least...) different teachings to humans?
But again, this issue isnt religious as it is a legal issue. Well, usually atheists are always pro-homosexuality and a religious person is always against it because his/her religion prohibits it.People are complaining about the word used, gay-"marriage" (which has a strong religious tie) not about (well not everyone that complains ;)) legal issues, which most approve. And to repeat Nydia's words, being homosexual means being a bad christian/jew/islamist?

I can go get you a research that proves that the earth is flat, would you trust that source?Before you get banned for moronic boardname, please do, I need something to entertain my afternoon! :)

This is the same as the fact that the prostate is larger for a homosexual man than a heterosexual man, this is because he recieves penises in his anus. His body uses certain defence mechanisms and change the size of certain parts in the body. Not to mention that the nervous system also changes.I'm pretty sure the point isn't about sexual practices, but who your feelings are oriented for. Can't you love someone without having sex?

I don't see this as *biological* evidence for the existance of homosexuals. Biological evidence would be a child born homosexual and this child has different body parts and other things than a heterosexual child.Having a different endocrinal gland *sounds* biological to me.

Did I mention having lame anonymous boardname is ridiculous and shows a lack of full grown balls? Ex-gay bars member maybe?

And creationism should be taught in science class!


Huh? Who else could have wrote it wrote it? The god it's about? How about you prove that the specific 'god' that it's about exists first, then we'll worry about having to prove that us people wrote it.


Yes, you're right. If I was looking for information on endocinology for example, the last place I would trust for information on it is The Endocrine Society. :rolleyes:

English should be taught in class (Who else could have wrote it wrote it? < What?). How should creationism be taught in science class since people like you think we just appeared out of no where and other people (the majority of the population) think we are created by God?.

Speaking of science, things do not occur for no reason; there is a reason behind everything occuring in science. Now, you might provide me with something that we can't explain today. This is simple, 1000 years ago we didn't know planets existed. It's just a matter of time for scientists to prove it. Proof that God exists, did we appear out of no where? Did the universe just happen to appear? Ask yourself and you decide. I chose to believe in God because I have a brain and i know that things don't appear out of no where.

If you actually bothered and went to each URL, you would know that when I was speaking of untrustable sources, i was refering to the URLs that talk about homosexual biology and not the URLs that are explaining things in the human/animal body (Endojournals)

Yeah, killhomos. Didn't catch that one immediatly.

I was banned and I still don't know why.

After what? 3rd ban? Maybe get a hint and come to terms with the fact that you aren't welcome here.

Call me a Bible thumper, but God has stated a man and woman leave their parents and are joined to become one. Not two women and one man, not man and man, not man and woman, but one man and one woman.

How many wives did Solomon have? You know, the man wiser than any before or after? David didn't do too badly for himself either, and he was quite the favored fellow by his god (except in that Bathsheba matter, but the god killed the kid, which made it okay).

The origins of sexual orientation are theory, there is no scientific evidence, some scientists suggest it is environment when young, others suggest it is biological, but there is no solid evidence.
Gosh Blyst, looks like there's evidence to me! And more arriving regularly through the scientific method. Of course, for the rabid anti-gay person, no evidence constitutes "solid evidence." But maybe Blyst can provide what his requirements are for "solid evidence" on this issue. Assuming the qualification hasn't already been met, it'd be interesting to see what he comes up with.
There is absolutely no reason for homosexuality to be a gene, homosexuals cannot reproduce, so why would the gene for homosexuality exist?
For reasons I cited earlier. Death in childbirth has always been common. Having non-breeding caretakers able to raise orphaned young or simply assist with the raising of a community's young benefits the population. That doesn't prove homosexuality is genetic, but eventually we'll pin it down.

Thanks for the links, Nydia. I'd completely forgotten about the testosterone/estrogen reaction study.

One more thing...

I submit that:
I was banned and I still don't know why.
directly disproves
...because I have a brain...
As if we needed further evidence.

Carry on!

* I chose to believe in God because I have a brain and i know that things don't appear out of no where.*

You're a moron if you think there's only the god or the big bang possibilities about how the worl was created. The universe may have been created in the infinite of possibilities no one ever tought about yet.

In other news on this issue, the United Church of Christ (6,000 parishes, 1.3 million members) has, today, become the first mainstream Christian denomination in the US to pass a resolution officially supporting same sex marriages:

Does the United Church of Christ profess to follow the Bible? Do they use the Bible in their services?

I am having some difficulty with how it's possible for any denomination to profess that they belive in Christ and can still condone same-sex marriages/unions, whatever you wish to call them. The Bible I grew up reading very unequivocally states that homosexuality is wrong.

Whether you believe in the Bible or not is personal choice, as is your stand on same-sex marriages. I know very little about the United Church of Christ or their beliefs. I have visited their website but it does not give evidence to support how they can claim to follow Bible teachings and still accept same-sex relationships. It seems quite hypocritical to me.

OK this will probably lose me some rep points and definately secure my place on the elevator of damnation but here goes.
If one sits back and takes a subjective Psycological analysis of much of the material in in the Bible. you'd have to come to the realization that the MEN who wrote it where some people with some way deeep issues going on.
first of all that Divinity is soley a "male" and is at any given minute ready to swing his oh so heavenly penis and knock our little world out of existance is a pretty HOMO concept to many.
Then lets look at how the bible takes in women.
Except when giving birth to our next generation. the Bible would have you believe that Females are no less than the slime of the earth! ozzing the very essence's of satan outta thier vagina's and always plotting to bring forth the spawn of Satan to usurp the control of the magnificent, but all Male "God".
Now if you where to take a modern day "gay" teen, with all the well documented evidence of the sheer mental trauma these poor folks go thru in our enlightened times.(after all the high school enviroment is really a micro-cosom of society with a high lvl of hormone's mixed in) and placed this individual, wiped of modern teachings and thought back into say i dunno A.D. 40.
Would this gay man be able to reconcile his "feeling" with the society he now faced?
Blunt answer FUCK NO!
What you'd have is a person who's society is urging him to "marry" and make children for the good of the tribe. but who secretly find's his female companion revulting and un-stimulating. yechh what a messed up man that would be.
anyone whos read L.Ron hubbards Dianeticts(total BS BTW) would see the formation of a life destroying engram there.
Now give this poor gay teen a cult ( and make no mistake thats what christianity was at one point) that glorifies the maleness and supresses the femaleness of society and bingo you've got a preist!
I guess my point is Blyst, that you baseing your opinions on he writing's of pole smokers and cum guzzlers who sadly where never able to have a gay pride parade of thier own. and suffered dearly for it.
blessed be!

First, this is my last post regarding this thread; I will not be reading this thread anymore. If you reply to my thread, don’t expect me to read it or reply to it.

Since you insist on repeating the fallacy that homosexuality is not a biological phenomenon, I have taken the liberty of digging up and linking a few scientific papers for you:
These studies are interesting, although don’t prove the gay-gene. They do not give empirical proof towards any genes being homosexual. Many of them include assumptions and are very suspicious.

The first study you linked is actually not valid as it is comparing homosexual men to unknown sexual orientation, only two of the 16 claimed men to be heterosexual. There is also the problem of how INAH-3 should measured, many claim it should not be measured in volume but rather the number of neurons. This seems awfully close to where they measure the size of a person’s cranium to determine who they are. Also, the differences in INAH (1 and 2) are in much contention. Where Levay found no difference for 1 and 2 between male and female, other scientists have found a varying of size between male and female. What about dynamic ability of the brain to change, it is not impossible for the brain to change due to homosexuality, their thoughts and feelings. I would say this study is not valid towards homosexuality being biological. There have been studies done by neuroanatomists where an even greater amount of brains were analyzed for the INAH-3, but found inconclusive.

The second study is most importantly, not about human beings. Also, there is the assumption on the sexual-orientation of the rams. This is not based on fact; instead it is based on a guess, they can not tell the mind of the ram. So are we saying science is assumption? How do they know for a fact that the rams are homosexual? If we are basing homosexuality on animal studies, perhaps we should look at the study towards rats. Rats have been found to have altered neurons and cell bodies of the nervous system from sexual experiences. If the nervous system changes from sexual experience, then the gay-gene could be nothing more than changes from experiences.

Another thing to think about; The gay-gene supposedly “found”, what about heterosexuals who have the so called gay-gene but have attraction to the opposite sex and not the same sex?

The studies with the pheromones are open to debate as to whether the brain was simply changed by behavior or if it was something born with. Ivanka Savic who did the study with the testosterone and estrogen even said, “I want to be extremely cautious - this study does not tell us anything about whether sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain. It doesn't say anything about that.”

These studies are interesting none the less. Many of them could simply be the body changing to suit the behavior; others are inconclusive. There is much suspicion cast upon these studies when examined. I would disagree that there is solid evidence that homosexuality is hard-wired biologically. There have been studies that are the exact same as previous gay-gene studies, in some cases using the exact same individuals, finding unanimous results. Dr. Dean Hamer for example has come to be accepted by scientists and gay activists as falsifying his gay-gene data. You may feel that homosexuality is biological, although I do not believe that is true. There is a reason such a gene is still in debate by scientists.

I guess I'll rephrase the question I asked earlier then. Why should marriage still be restricted to a man and a women? The same two reasons just seem to be repeated.
Same-sex marriages will violate the rights of others. Firstly, in Canada there already is a discussion of a bill that would ban parts of the Bible, classifying it as hate speech, and organizations that vocally oppose homosexuality would be criminally charged. Religious liberties are already being threatened, and same-sex marriage will threaten it further. How far will homosexuals go to be accepted by society? It seems Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is already in jeopardy of being violated. I have only listed a few examples, there are many other actions being taken that threaten liberty.

It will also open up the doors to other alterations of marriage, such as polygamy. I have no doubt there will be people wishing to marry animals. People might even try to marry inanimate objects.

Some surveys have found same-sex partners have the highest rate of domestic violence. Where heterosexual domestic violence is around 20-25%, while same-sex relationships are from 30%-50%. These are for unmarried individuals; domestic violence in heterosexual marriages is close to 5%.

The redefinition of marriage all together is another reason. Simply because you do not value traditional marriage does not mean others do not. With the already high amount of divorce rate, an addition of same-sex marriages, the number of phony marriages will increase, creating a bigger mockery. Marriage for many is more sacred than anything else, how is it an invalid argument against same-sex marriage if people want to keep it sacred? There have been homosexuals who have stated they wish to change marriage all together so that it is nothing as it was before.

Homosexuals will desire to adopt once they are married. Children in homosexual families are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders, with a much higher chance of being molested. There are even people who feel homosexuals are scarcely monogamous, which can lead to disturbing results for the children.

The main reason, there simply is no need for same-sex marriage. Homosexuals in Canada prior to same-sex marriage already have the same rights as married couples. Do Homosexuals really need a piece of paper that says they’re married to be happy?

How many wives did Solomon have? You know, the man wiser than any before or after? David didn't do too badly for himself either, and he was quite the favored fellow by his god (except in that Bathsheba matter, but the god killed the kid, which made it okay).
God warned Solomon not to take all those wives; Solomon was indeed sinning. God was not pleased with Solomon’s choice. David on the other hand only had sexual relations with one wife, and Bathsheba (which was adultery). David wanted to remain loyal to God and did not accept the other concubines. Stating that the death of David’s son made his adulterous relationship “okay” is false also.

Gosh Blyst, looks like there's evidence to me! And more arriving regularly through the scientific method. Of course, for the rabid anti-gay person, no evidence constitutes "solid evidence." But maybe Blyst can provide what his requirements are for "solid evidence" on this issue. Assuming the qualification hasn't already been met, it'd be interesting to see what he comes up with.
The problem is the “evidence” isn’t evidence at all. None of it solidly proves the gay-gene, but rather it might point towards homosexuality causing changes in the brain to suit the behavior. The gay-gene debate is on-going between scientists; if the evidence was solid there would be no debate.

"Because my god says so." Which means jack and shit to anyone who doesn't believe in your particular god.
I was asked why I was opposed to gay marriage, it had nothing to do with anyone else.

I guess my point is Blyst, that you baseing your opinions on he writing's of pole smokers and cum guzzlers who sadly where never able to have a gay pride parade of thier own. and suffered dearly for it.
blessed be!
Good job on the religion bashing, I’m sure you will be praised for it by many members.


As I have said at the start, I will not be reading this thread anymore. This is the last thing I will post in this thread, if you reply to my thread, don’t expect me to read it or reply to it.

Have fun guys, I’m out.

Derail incoming!

You're a moron if you think there's only the god or the big bang possibilities about how the worl was created. The universe may have been created in the infinite of possibilities no one ever tought about yet.

IMO: I am a christian, but the creation vs evolution thing allways seems to be from folks that are hardcore on 1 side or the other. I tend to believe it was a combo thing. I believe there is a higher power and, that it guided the process. After all, the heavens and earth were created in 7 days, but no one can tell you for sure what length of time was "1 day" in that context.

Back on topic:
The whole sexual orientation thing determined by genetics....Studies be damned, explain to me a bisexual. I was married to a bisexual woman for about 10 years (dont cue the 70s porn music, it really isnt like that - more like having someone tell you "I'm heading out. Call me to pick her up in the morning or drop her off at home when they are done"). Her "urges" developed in her 30s. It's a lot more common that you might think now (you would be surprised).

It's more like a social acceptance than a genetic thing IMO.

If you are going to site studies, lets break out all of em that say something is bad for you, then 5 years later reverse it. Studies are highly overrated.

I bet this took a long time to type, too.

For those that are curious, the new people coming in, posting in this thread, and getting banned, have all been the same person. Thats why.

IP ban?

As for Blyst? Coward. You do not contain an argument in your "last post of the thread". Especially when it's fallacious like yours. However, since you're not going to read this, i'll stop there.

Does the United Church of Christ profess to follow the Bible? Do they use the Bible in their services?

I am having some difficulty with how it's possible for any denomination to profess that they belive in Christ and can still condone same-sex marriages/unions, whatever you wish to call them. The Bible I grew up reading very unequivocally states that homosexuality is wrong.

Whether you believe in the Bible or not is personal choice, as is your stand on same-sex marriages. I know very little about the United Church of Christ or their beliefs. I have visited their website but it does not give evidence to support how they can claim to follow Bible teachings and still accept same-sex relationships. It seems quite hypocritical to me.

Gandaar you surprise me if you are going to use this as an argument. Do you contend that all the bible says should be applied to today? By that I mean are there not other things that the bible state are wrong but they are happening and justified today? If I can catch a breather today from I will provide some examples. Maybe someone will even beat me to it.

fildien are you saying nothing the bible says is valid today? The same thing can be said both ways. I'm not a christain, but I think marriage is sacred. It comes from growing up in a loving family where marriage is sacred. I would venture to say the majority of you here that don't find any sanctity in marriage have parents that are divorced.

I'm not saying that at all, but what I am saying is that there are examples of things the bible says thou shalt not do, but yet we are doing in this day and age and it is widely accepted.....even divorce.

By that I mean are there not other things that the bible state are wrong but they are happening and justified today?

I suppose it's what society's definition of "wrong" is. Example... the Bible says that adultery is wrong. If adultery is accepted in society, does that make it "right"?

The Bible teaches against many things that are "accepted" in society today, but that still does not make them right. The Bible teaches against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lying, cheating, stealing, and a host of other things that are commonplace in society today. This does not make them "right" or necessarily accepted.

The religious foundations based upon the Bible, the Koran, the Tanach, etc... were meant as a guideline or rulebook if you will, to tell people how to live. Even back in the time when many of the New Testament books were written, Romans were engaging in all manner of things the Bible says are wrong, yet they still did them and accepted them in society.

My question was not about what is right or wrong, but more about the appearance of hipocrisy for a Christian organization to endorse something that is directly taught against by the very book upon which their "belief" is based.

Christianity by definition is following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and it would be hipocritical to claim to follow Jesus Christ and still accept homosexuality.

I would still like for one of these "Christian" organizations to explain how they can accept homosexuality (or any of the other things taught against in the Bible) and still claim to follow Jesus Christ, otherwise it is hipocritical.

If anyone has a valid and supportable argument, I would like to see it. Please keep it within the context of the Bible and show me how the Bible supports the acceptance of homosexuality.

Think I'll weigh in, been reading up but keeping silent.

I read a study somewhere, blast me for losing it's link, that the divorce/split up rate for same sex unions was much higher than "straights". If this is the case then I'm all for civil unions, but not for allowing adoptions in said cases. It's already horrible to put a child through a split of his/her parents ( speaking from personal experience here ) let alone add the stigma's in of which daddy has the kid this weekend...

Go ahead, do your thing and by gods make it legal....Just leave the kids out of your choices...

Fandros

I suppose it's what society's definition of "wrong" is. Example... the Bible says that adultery is wrong. If adultery is accepted in society, does that make it "right"?

The Bible teaches against many things that are "accepted" in society today, but that still does not make them right. The Bible teaches against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lying, cheating, stealing, and a host of other things that are commonplace in society today. This does not make them "right" or necessarily accepted.

The religious foundations based upon the Bible, the Koran, the Tanach, etc... were meant as a guideline or rulebook if you will, to tell people how to live. Even back in the time when many of the New Testament books were written, Romans were engaging in all manner of things the Bible says are wrong, yet they still did them and accepted them in society.

My question was not about what is right or wrong, but more about the appearance of hipocrisy for a Christian organization to endorse something that is directly taught against by the very book upon which their "belief" is based.

Christianity by definition is following the teachings of Jesus Christ, and it would be hipocritical to claim to follow Jesus Christ and still accept homosexuality.

I would still like for one of these "Christian" organizations to explain how they can accept homosexuality (or any of the other things taught against in the Bible) and still claim to follow Jesus Christ, otherwise it is hipocritical.

If anyone has a valid and supportable argument, I would like to see it. Please keep it within the context of the Bible and show me how the Bible supports the acceptance of homosexuality.

My example is divorce. Tell me what the Bible says about divorce ;)
Oh and does anyone here speak other languages? When you are translating do you often find a miscommunication? Who is to say that when the Bible was translated from Hebrew meanings and words were not lost or confused? Oh and let's not forget 1611 when King James had another version written. But now I'm rambling and getting off my point....

The point is divorice is wrong, but it still happens and some churches still accept members who have been divorced. How is this any different from your question about churches that allow gays?

I don't think that the bible states that divorce is punishable by death and is an abomination against Christ(I could be wrong here), but it does say that homosexuality is punishable by death in God's eyes and is an abomination against Christ. That may not be what you are looking for, but I would be led to believe that to the Christain Church, homosexuality is one of the most horrible things that man could participate in(I'm not saying this is my position).

Like I said, I'm not against homosexuality if that's what floats a person's boat, I'm simply against anything they have being called a "marriage." Again I'll say, give same sex couples the same rights afforded to married couples as far as taxes, living wills, insurance.

Yes my feeling about marriage being between a man and a woman is based upon tradition and my upbringing in a loving, married, family. Not all traditions are bad. People seem to want to throw away anything that was done by people before them as generally accepted. I guess we should cancel the 4th of July, it's not important to recognize that tradition. How about drinking beer on St. Patricks Day or Cinco De Mayo? Flush those traditions too. How about having the Indy 500 on memorial day weekend, we don't want to burden our children with a set weekend for that race. How about Thanksgiving? I would bet PETA activists would have us get rid of that too.

Taleren I think you are making broad generalizations...which is ok. But it just so happens that most of the gays I know (2 I work with) were brought up in loving homes and their parents are still together. So I would have to disagree with that comment ;)

On the other hand I would like someone to point to the verses in the Bible which state homosexuality is punishable by death.

Oddly enough however, I recall two accounts of creation in the book of Genesis. One the standard one we are taught and another one that is a religious contradiction. Funny how often it is not even mentioned. The Bible is full of contradictions I'd gander.

The Bible teaches against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lying, cheating, stealing, and a host of other things that are commonplace in society today.
I don't think that the bible states that divorce is punishable by death and is an abomination against Christ(I could be wrong here), but it does say that homosexuality is punishable by death in God's eyes and is an abomination against Christ.
Google for teh win :
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm

Interesting article, probably biased, but worth reading imho.

And to use Fildien's translation argument, one interesting quote from the site :
Take Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, for example. A word-by-word analysis (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm#ngpa) of these two verses by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA), showed that the passages do not prohibit all same-sex behavior; they do not even prohibit all male same-sex activities. They merely control where male-male intercourse is allowed. It cannot be performed in a woman's bed, because that location is sacrosanct. Only the woman, and under certain circumstances a man, may occupy it. Otherwise, a serious defilement would result. 7 The New International Version (NIV)currently translates Leviticus 18:22 as:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."

The New Living Translation (NLT) widens the translation to also include lesbians:

"Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Imagine what would happen if the translators decided to be accurate to the original Hebrew and render this verse as:

"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean.

By reading various translations of the Bible, generations of Christians have been conditioned to expect this verse to condemn all homosexual behavior -- or at least all male same-sex activity. They expect that it will be morally condemned as "an abomination" or at least as a "detestable" act. But this new translation does not prohibit male to male sexual behavior; it only limits where the act can be performed. And it does not say that this conduct, if done on a woman's bed, is to be morally condemned. It only says that it is ritually unclean, like coming near a dead body, or eating shellfish, or getting a tattoo.

In short, it's saying that the "original" version of the Bible doesn't frown upon homosexuality as a consensual relation, but says that it's sinful to commit sexual abuse (be it homo or heterosexual), like rape, prostitution, or pedophilia.

Indeed Google 4 teh win11!!

Although this site isn't specifically about gays and divorce it does help paint the picture of translation being OMG not perfect and shows some interesting contradictions and errors.

And yes...I know the arguments for the Bible being perfect and not in error and that you have to have "faith". I grew up in a very Southern Baptist home, heck I even went to a Southern Baptist College. Now that I'm older and a free thinker I don't buy that anymore.

http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/tenbiblecontradictions.htm


Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.
The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.

Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1

of course a national gay organization is going to attempt to translate that the bible doesn't say what they are doing is wrong, your post proves nothing anterak.

that's like telling a Christain that Jesus wasn't godly and pointing them to a Jewish website which would similarly be biased against a belief system. It would be like saying the war in Iraq is perfectly valid and pointing someone to Fox News, or stating the war isn't valid and pointing them at a French website. Pointing someone to an obviously biased website does NOTHING for your argument, and in fact diminishes any point you would attempt to make.

religioustolerance.com is a "national gay organization". Huh?

They list 2,800 documents available on there. A cursory read of their front page and "1st visit" page makes it look like same-sex marriage is a very minor part of their content.

If you read all pages off the one he linked, it's clear they're presenting both sides of the issue pretty equally. I think you're reaching by calling his point invalid just because the site dares to present Biblical interpretation that doesn't damn gays to fire and brimstone.

A word-by-word analysis (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm#ngpa) of these two verses by the National Gay Pentecostal Alliance (NGPA)

again, i'm not christain, i'm saying by posting from a biased site makes his point invalid, not because of the point he posted, but because of where it was from.

Look at the whole thing though. That's a tiny piece of it, out of context. They give a lot more than just that. The NGPA quote is just one of several interpretations given of just one of the several verses they look at.

the site he linked used the NGPA as a source to back up what they are trying to proove or disproove, using that as a source makes it invalid as they are using biased material to try to prove a point, thusly making the point they are trying to prove inately biased.

what you are trying to argue here is just like trying to argue that fox news is indeed "fair and balanced" of which it is neither. Just like every other news organization now isn't fair or balanced, at least American media outlets.

You clearly didn't read the site he linked, other than the quote he pasted. They aren't trying to prove any point. They just provide viewpoints of everyone from the NGPA to the most conservative Christian interpretations, for each topic.

You're taking a tiny piece of the whole, out of context. That site has a lot of good information. The very plausible interpretations from such a wide range of viewpoints just goes to show how subjective the material is to begin with.

My example is divorce. Tell me what the Bible says about divorce

Isaiah 50:1
Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother's divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.

Jeremiah 3:1
They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man's, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord.

Matthew 5:31
It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Divorce WAS allowed, if a man gave his wife a bill of divorcement... in other words, as long as he did it legally and made provision for her so that her lands/property/chattel was not encumbered.


As far as the homosexuality issue...


Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Deut. 23:17
There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

1 Kings 14:24
And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel.

Jude 1:7
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Romans 1:27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.


My question still stands... how can an organization which claims Christianity and the Bible still condone same-sex relationships? One verse being saying it's wrong could be construed as an interpretation in translation, but this is just a few of many that talk about it.

My viewpoint: If you are gay/lesbian, I wish you happiness, just as I would those who are straight. Each person must work out their own religious beliefs according to whatever book, document, etc they choose. What I find objectionable is someone who claims to follow Biblical teachings but twist around to fit their purpose, or leave parts out altogether. That's hipocrasy.

I used to get all riled up about this, but that was just from this easily excited liberal blood flowing through my veins. Now, I basically don't care. Marriage is pretty superficial regardless of who you prefer to have sex with. Needing a certificate from the state to harbor a long-lasting relationship - or putting any sort of spiritual meaning into that certificate - is just plain silly. You might as well stop washing your jockstrap and start saving shiny pennies. The most sensible solution would be to get rid of government sanctioned marriage and simply allow for all the legal things generally afforded to couples (stuff like property ownership, health care, etc).

Also, as far as the gay union adoption thing goes, it would make little sense to ban it. I hate to say it, but if you could sell healthy american newborns for profit, you'd rake in millions. Couples seeking adoption generally have *no* idea what the fuck they're getting themselves into. The babies aren't exactly "up for grabs" -- it's a very, very competitive process. My parents had to wait eight years to adopt my older sister, which consisted of a lot of applications, checkups, and interviews.

If a gay couple is going to be getting a baby, they're either going to do it without the use of an agency (a la relatives, friends, etc), or they're going to be getting one of the imported varieties. As far as nepotist way of handing out babies goes, it would be difficult to legislate against something like that. As for the latter, if I had to choose between being a diseased, malnutritioned orphan in China or Russia, and couple of gay dudes who may or may not have a horrificly traumatizing divorce/breakup... it's pretty obvious, isn't it?

Oh, and one more thing about all this bible interpretation thing. I dare any fanatic Christian to explain Leviticus 15:19-30. The most generous interpretation I've been able to glean so far dictates that I not be allowed to sit down on the couch and watch monster movies with my girlfriend while she's menstruating. The least generous copart would involve some sort of quarantine for any and all women if they're on their period. Fire and brimstone, indeed.

Gosh Gandaar are you saying that there are not also verses in the Bible which contradict these?

Here we go....

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
Matthew 5:32

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another,
committeth adultery:
and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband
committeth adultery.
Luke 16:18

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators , nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor extortioners,
shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6.9-10

http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html

That is an interesting site, ironic isn't it that something that was God's law was later found to have exceptions at first only for men and then later for women.

All of this just proves that the Bible is full of contradictions and throughout the years various interpretations have come to pass as accepted. In reading some of these verses I'd say most Americans are adulterers.

I forgot an important verse:

Malachi 2:16a: “I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.”

Blyst ended with misunderstanding science & genetics, a paranoid non sequitur, ye olde slippery slope, and what amounted to a plea to tolerate his intolerance. His fleeing the thread line had more substance than the rest of the post, but hey, his choice.

Random selection of quotes and comments incoming:
The Bible teaches against many things that are "accepted" in society today, but that still does not make them right. The Bible teaches against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, lying, cheating, stealing, and a host of other things that are commonplace in society today. This does not make them "right" or necessarily accepted.
It also teaches against eating shellfish and wearing clothing crafted from more than one kind of material. As a related aside, the brouhaha over the 10 commandments postings amuses me no end. After all, there weren't just 10 commandments, there were 613. Not all of them received the stone age plaque treatment, but they were no less important thereby. "Thou shalt not have gay sex" certainly wasn't listed among the 10. [And, as a further aside, what does "Thou shalt not covet" have to do with this most capitalist of societies?]
If anyone has a valid and supportable argument, I would like to see it. Please keep it within the context of the Bible and show me how the Bible supports the acceptance of homosexuality.
Personally, I agree that the bible condemns homosexuality. At the very least, it's disapproved of, at most it's off to Hell with 'em. I think the United Church of Christ take the "Love thy neighbor" commandment to its fullest logical conclusion. In a reversal of the Abbot of Ceteaux, they choose to "Love them all. God knows his own." Sensible. Conducive to increased well-being. I like it!
I read a study somewhere, blast me for losing it's link, that the divorce/split up rate for same sex unions was much higher than "straights". If this is the case then I'm all for civil unions, but not for allowing adoptions in said cases.
Hard to say right now, given the small data set involved. It's good to check your sources on this sort of thing. But the US has, roughly, a 50% divorce rate. Adopted kids have enough troubles with the hetero crowd; it may be better to just find a good couple and hope for the best. Probably better than longer years spent in foster care.
I don't think that the bible states that divorce is punishable by death and is an abomination against Christ(I could be wrong here), but it does say that homosexuality is punishable by death in God's eyes and is an abomination against Christ.
Fildien did me a favor by quoting Matthew and Luke above. Keep them in mind when you look at 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Of course, if you do the repenting and the saviour finding you're out of trouble. Still, you don't hear much of an outcry against divorce/remarrying in this country. Funny that.

Alas, woe is me;

Drunkard that I ever will be;

No Heaven for me.:(

I'm back from my mini-vacation to Vegas, and here's some required reading for you while I write oh-so-witty replies :)

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 1) (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html)

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 2) (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible2.html)

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 3) (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible3.html)

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 4) (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible4.html)

Straight Dope Staff Report: Who wrote the Bible? (Part 5) (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible5.html)

And, since you're at Straight Dope, here's the BEST bible-history lesson EVER.

Straight Dope Staff Report: What exactly was the sin of Onan? (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/monanism.html)

Oh, and since we mentioned the commandments, in passing, at least, I think I'm 10-for-10, if you pick a conservative interpretation.

that's one to be proud of, a murderer and a theif.

It's hardly a boast. I figure most of us are a good 5 or 6 for 10, at least.

Spain now legitimizes the marriage and divorce of any two consenting adults. And so they should. I read and try to apply this information to what will become precidence for future US legislation. And so I should.

I have never placed an interest in supporting any action that constricts the free will of individuals, assuming no action of harm to others. Maybe Spain sat around and watched "The Birdcage" and thought about Armand as he said, "You own half of my life and I own half of your life. There's only one place that I call home and it's because you're there." After a few beers, they decided to let Albert have half of the cabaret, and some dental coverage too.

If it's really important to separate the words 'marriage' and 'union'- whatever. The bigger picture indicates that allowing our laws to expand, and including rights for more of the general population remains valuable to voters. Maybe a few religions will take this opportunity to review the bigger picture (acceptance, living by example, ministering to everyone equally) as well.

"And you who pronounce judgement upon those who do such things although your own conduct is the same as theirs--do you imagine that you yourself will escape unpunished when God judges?" Romans 2:3 WEY

BTW: I am unsure if I have created a graven image, or worshipped one...but otherwise am at a solid 8-9 for breaking the Ten Commandments. I have a pretty low purity test score, too.