You are a Racist, a Bigot and a Sexist.

[Fifty2One]

That is why I feel that governments should just remove all of the financial and legal advantages and privileges afforded to every one who is currently recognized as married. Then there would be no 'advantage' for hetrosexuals and it would save a bundle in public money.

Sometimes I don't know where I am with you Guys. I do feel as though it is a case of Dammed if I do or Dammed if I don't.

I do not like special consideration been given to a minority just because it is fashionable or that group screams louder than the others.

I particularly disagree with spending millions upon millions of Dollars, so that one small group can feel all warm and fuzzy about getting married.

If a Law was passed to allow a man to marry another man it would be different to the current legislation sanctifying heterosexual unions. It would require acceptance of the general population. I doubt if enough politicians would be prepared to take the risk of loosing votes.

Gay marriage would not be recognised in most other countries. Countries that are strong Catholics would not recognise them. Neither would the Middle Eastern Countries. In Iran you would simply be executed on the spot.

I am having problems thinking of a country that would accept these people let alone acknowledge their marriage.

Some Countries may say you are welcome etc, but when it comes down to the Law of the land it is the local law that will prevail.

The Homosexual and Lesbian community are kidding themselves if they think they can have any real gain that a civil union would not provide.

If you have sympathy for these people then fine. But please acknowledge the fact that this law is for the benefit of a few. It is costly and does nothing for the benefit of the community as a whole. This will only create another division within your country.

 

[RainLover]

I think I've covered that it's not a special law they want, but a stupid law revoked.

Did I hear things correctly that Washington passed a law yesterday allowing same sex marriage.

Does your parliament meet over Easter.

We have the Friday through to and including the next Monday as a Religious holiday. Easter.

The non Christian groups put their hands up for the time off naturally.

 

[Vassago]

Did I hear things correctly that Washington passed a law yesterday allowing same sex marriage.

Does your parliament meet over Easter.

We have the Friday through to and including the next Monday as a Religious holiday. Easter.

The non Christian groups put their hands up for the time off naturally.

They did. So have many other states. A few also have civil unions granting the same STATE rights as married couples, which is awesome! The problem is the federal government refuses to recognize these unions so federal rights are not granted to these couples. I find it disgusting that we will allow a gay man to fight and die for my country, but will not grant his spouse the same rights because it's a man.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Vassago's
I think that you might want to reword your last sentence as it reads as tho a gay mans spouse cannot fight and die for your country because he is a man.

By the way I am glad that you find that it is awesome that some states allow civil unions giving the same legal rights as marriage, I was condemned earlier in the thread for saying that was ok and homosexuals therefore did not need to press for marriage, or summat to that effect.

Brian

 

[Vassago]

If they are given the same rights, then it's nothing but semantics at that point. It's only a problem today because the federal government doesn't recognize these unions or gay marriages in states where it is legal. This gives businesses, such as insurance companies, the right to refuse it as well. It's quite sick.

You're right. I could have used better grammar. As Col says, English is my second language, so please have patience with me. I think my intention was still easily interpreted.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Oh I understood ok, but there has been so much nit picking on this thread I wanted you to be able to avoid it, no not really , just joshing.

Brian

 

[Fifty2One]

Dont know how there is a religious element to the debate: marriage is a legal status, a wedding is a religious ceremony.

 

[RainLover]

Dont know how there is a religious element to the debate: marriage is a legal status, a wedding is a religious ceremony.

It is only Religious because some want it that way. Some choose to make their wedding religious while others don't.

So what is gained by your statement.

 

[FoundOil]

Ignorance.

And don't give me any of this "Defense of marriage" or "sanctity of marriage" BS. The moment it provides you certain government benefits, they deserve the same rights. Besides, divorce rates are at an all time high.

I'm taking Jon's advice and I'm jumping into the ring with post #2. Don't be too hasty in condemning the traditional view of marriage and its sanctity. First of all, man and government didn't sanctify marriage, God did. I know not everyone believes in God, but for those who do, especially Christians who believe and trust the Bible, marriage is between a man and a woman and is encouraged by God (Genesis 1 & 2). Sexual partnerships between man and man or woman and woman are condemned by God (Romans 1). But, to your point, divorce is also condemned (Matthew 5) as well as infidelity between marriage partners (Exodus 20).

So, is a nation racist or bigoted for encouraging a union that is sanctioned by the Lord? No. It is obedient and will be blessed for it.

 

[Galaxiom]

First of all, man and government didn't sanctify marriage, God did. I know not everyone believes in God, but for those who do, especially Christians who believe and trust the Bible, marriage is between a man and a woman and is encouraged by God (Genesis 1 & 2). Sexual partnerships between man and man or woman and woman are condemned by God (Romans 1).

Marriage long predates the Bible and the Christian religion. Sex without marriage goes back even further as do same sex partnerships.

While I don't have a problem with churches refusing to marry same sex couples there is absolutely no reason why they should expect their prejudices to dictate public policy.

 

[Vassago]

Marriage long predates the Bible and the Christian religion. Sex without marriage goes back even further as do same sex partnerships.

While I don't have a problem with churches refusing to marry same sex couples there is absolutely no reason why they should expect their prejudices to dictate public policy.

Exactly! Marriage has ALWAYS been about legality. Every major culture in the world has always had some form of legal marriage that may or may not have had to do with religion. I'm so tired of the religious argument. Separation of church and state exists for a reason. That reason is to keep your religion out of legal matters that may restrict government issues, such as marriage. Your argument is and always will be invalid if all you're going to do is quote religious text that has been manipulated over the centuries.

 

[FoundOil]

Marriage long predates the Bible and the Christian religion. Sex without marriage goes back even further as do same sex partnerships.

Ok, so I know we are coming at this from two different perspectives. Mine is that Adam was the first man and Eve was his wife. The writer of Genesis uses the term "wife" or "wives" quite regularly. And marriage is also discussed and acknowledged in the New Testament. Your perspective, I suppose, is that man first appeared around 200,000 years ago. So, where (what books or archaeological findings) is marriage first documented or proven to exist from your perspective? And what was it defined to be?

Matt

 

[FoundOil]

I'm so tired of the religious argument. Separation of church and state exists for a reason. That reason is to keep your religion out of legal matters that may restrict government issues, such as marriage.

And I'm tired of the religious argument being diminished and slighted as being archaic or irrelevant. Separation of Church and State, or the First Amendment, was established to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. The US was founded by religious men and if you discount that, then you can never understand the constitution in the context that it was written, whatever your religious orientation is.

As a side note, I hope I can be expressive in this part of the forum and still count on your help with Access because, at some point, I will need it. Those of you on this thread have thousands of posts and I'm sure that most of them are Access related.

 

[Vassago]

And I'm tired of the religious argument being diminished and slighted as being archaic or irrelevant. Separation of Church and State, or the First Amendment, was established to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. The US was founded by religious men and if you discount that, then you can never understand the constitution in the context that it was written, whatever your religious orientation is.

As a side note, I hope I can be expressive in this part of the forum and still count on your help with Access because, at some point, I will need it. Those of you on this thread have thousands of posts and I'm sure that most of them are Access related.

For EVERY bit of "proof" that the founding fathers were Christian, I can prove the opposite, so if you discount that, then YOU can never understand any other interpretations of the Constitution. It doesn't say anything about keeping the government out of religion only and not the other way around, it says separation of church and state. How can that be interpreted ANY other way? Separation is separation, not just in one direction.

Besides, definitions change. I think we've proven that. The Constitution has been altered and amended plenty. In modern society, it really is ARCHAIC to enforce laws based on religion and not based on equality. There are too many religions and non-religions in our country to do it any other way. Have an open mind and stop acting like others being allowed to marry has ANY effect on you or your marriage. If you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married. Simple?

 

[Fifty2One]

I was refering to religion as an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and moral values.

I was mentioning the difference between marriage and wedding because one related to a person's beliefs and the other is a legal status. People tend to be confused between married in the eyes of God and married in the opinions of the courts.

It is only Religious because some want it that way. Some choose to make their wedding religious while others don't.

So what is gained by your statement.

 

[Galaxiom]

The US was founded by religious men and if you discount that, then you can never understand the constitution in the context that it was written, whatever your religious orientation is.

The religious see everything in a religious context, ignoring the facts if they don't fit their prejudice.

As a side note, I hope I can be expressive in this part of the forum and still count on your help with Access because, at some point, I will need it.

Nothing to worry about there. We have had some very expressive interactions in the water cooler. I remember the Are you an Atheist thread.

Despite our very different perspectives on religion we still jump in to help Aziz Rasul out with Access issues. Moreover, several of us backed his right to express his views in the thread when it was suggested that he went too far in one post and was under threat of being banned.

Funnily enough, that thread wandered into a discussion about homosexuality too.

 

[RainLover]

Why do we give Religion so much credence.

Christianity and Islam are the dominating religions of the world at the moment.

Both feel that it is OK to kill each other and they do.

Wars have been going on for centuries. Both types of religion have a written sacred law. You can read them for the good that they contain of for a reason to war.

When I look at the Churches around me I see money. One even has an ATM so that you can leave the service to go out and get some more money to put in the plate. There are a couple of buildings not far from here that must be worth a small fortune.

We started by discussing the need for same sex couples to marry. They should be asking themselves if they really want to be part of all this.

What a wonderful world.

 

[Vassago]

We already established that getting married from a legal standpoint for the same sex couples has nothing to do with religious beliefs. They can still choose to not be religious after being married or continue being religious if they already were.

Churches building multi-million dollar beasts off of tax-free money donated by members while homeless people beg outside for a bite to eat is a whole different issue I feel very strongly about. We have a church in Orlando that boasts a half-million dollar 200 ft cross with massive spotlights lighting it. Regardless of the construction costs, I wonder how much it's costing in energy to keep the eyesore lit.

 

[Galaxiom]

We have a church in Orlando that boasts a half-million dollar 200 ft cross with massive spotlights lighting it. Regardless of the construction costs, I wonder how much it's costing in energy to keep the eyesore lit.

Jesus would not be impressed by the overt symbol.

"And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you." ( Matthew 6:5-6)

 

[FoundOil]

It doesn't say anything about keeping the government out of religion only and not the other way around, it says separation of church and state.

Actually, the First Amendment doesn't even use the words "separation of church and state." This is all it says concerning religion:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The original intent of that statement was to allow the founders to practice their religion without GOVERNMENT interference, which is what they were experiencing in their mother countries. It is significant that that statement is the FIRST statement of the FIRST Amendment. Why? Because it was foremost on their minds and more than any other right, they wanted freedom to practice their religion, any religion. It is clear that they were NOT trying to keep God out of government. They opened their legislative sessions with prayer; they used phrases like these in the Declaration of Independence:
"the Laws of Nature and of Nature's GOD"
or…
“We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT (i.e. it is so obvious that it doesn’t even need to be discussed),... that they are endowed by their CREATOR…”

It is only recently that this idea has morphed into trying to eliminate any reference or discussion of religion from public discourse.