ROFLMAO!!! :D

For those who want to set limits on who can or cannot get married. I thought this needed to be repeated. ;)

Why don't we have courtship minimums, if we're going to go around and say that someone's marriage will be devalued? Is my relationship weakened by someone having a Vegas marriage after knowing the person for a day or less? Uh, no.

Basically, believe what you want, but the world is changing faster than you can imagine. Some sort of gay civil union will be the law of the land in most states by the end of our lifetimes--whether you like it or not. :)

Who says that he "accepted" the fact? Is it hard to concieve in your head that maybe because of your mothers death your dad went off the deep end, or it maybe seems that way to many?

Usually when someone looses a mate it's traumatic, more so if you're still young. Maybe your dad felt that he could never replace your mother with another woman and therefore decided to go for men. Nobody accepts the fact that they're gay. There are Carnal cravings within the human mind, feeding those cravings alone can turn someone gay. I don't find it hard to believe that your moms death caused your dad to try being gay. I didnt say I have a problem with people being gay in general, I just don't think gay couples should adopt kids.

Your situation is different from that of which I am describing. You weren't raised from birth by gay parents. That said, you can't say you'd feel the same exact way if you had gay parents from the begining and knew you were adopted. Why? because you weren't in that situation.

I still don't know who Jordan Knight is, someone going to answer?

Should I try a google search?

You're probably right. It just makes me wonder though what's next? Will the next GC debate be about "Brother/Sister marriages legalized" or "Age of consent laws repealed"? Because reason everyone (both for and against) have presented can be applied to this as well.

(Disclaimer - Not saying that gay marriages will be the downfall of our society, because goodness knows it was headed down that path WAAAYYYYY before this was even an issue).

Isn't he the guy from NKOTB that went solo? :confused:
Oh well.............:p

no opinion, just thoughts
 

Is there any way that someone can leave everything to their partner in their will without their parents or family taking part of it? Since sometimes, the family doesn't approve of the relationship.

and, I agree with whoever said "partner" sounds a little too clinical. The best term I've heard so far has been "lifemate."

Right! Notice I did not advocate one side or the other. I just think that everyone should step back and try to look from the other side's perspective.

Cloud9, LOL.

honeychile, we have had the discussion about the dictionary as a tool of definition on here before. I don't know about you, but I have personally never met Mirriam or Webster so I wouldn't dare let them define any words that only serve to classify or otherwise limit me in any way. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying the dictionary is obsolete by any means. What I am saying is that no book or document will tell me who I can fall in love with or what we can do to make that love "official" so to speak.

My point is, marraige is only what YOU make it...be it in a courthouse ceremony, fly-by-night wedding in Vegas, or extravagant, lavish event. If it is not YOU who is getting married, then why care?

To the people that believe that it somehow lessens the value of sanctity of marraige, can you please elaborate somehow? I just am unable to grasp the concept of letting someone or something else dictate to YOU the value of your vows.

Well said Librasoul.


I am not religious (I don't believe in organized religion...but that's another thread for another time), but I'm all for the church, or mosque, or synagogue, or temple, etc, etc for choosing who they will or will not marry. As a private institution that is their right. The Catholic church won't marry someone who has been divorced (unless of course they have changed this, then correct me if I am wrong), and that is their right, based on their specific beliefs. But before you can be marry in one this institutions you have to get a marriage license from the government. What right do they have to deny someone a license barring something illegal like one person is still married or they are brother and sister. As far as I know homosexuality is not illegal (well i guess it is in some places still, but for the sake or the argument lets say it's not). What right does the government have to deny a loving couple the right to solidify their relationship if they so choose?

As for the brother and sister thing, well in all honesty I could care less if brother and sister or first cousins want to get married. They might have some funny looking children, but they aren't hurting me, so I don't care who marries who. The only time I would question are speak up about someone's choice of mate is if one of them were physically or emotionally abusive.

i don't know how weird ppl will think this post is with my bush lovin, baptist upbringing, right-wing, conservative butt, but oh well. ;)

can't say one way or the other if this should be legalized.....for the most part, i guess i think it should b/c honestly.....who is it hurting? church ppl will say that it hurts the morality of marriage, the family, the country, the world......but whoa. ppl have the right to make choices...this country is supposedly all about freedoms, and if ya wanna talk about God.....God is the supreme giver of choices. hello? gave adam the whole apple choice......he didn't go with it, and WATCH OUT.....man survived and thrived and here we all are a billion.2 years later. it wasn't the original plan, but man-kind lived through it. the only thing that did go as planned in that situation was that God was the only other one around to judge them for what they did. that is how it is supposed to be. no one has the right to judge someone else for what they do.....i don't know how many times i have said this, but judge not lest ye be judged. and if someone wants to make a lifelong committment to someone, why should they be stopped? murderers and thieves are stopped b/c it's the combination of morally wrong AND detrimental to others. whether one just thinks someone/some act is morally wrong or not doesn't hold a whole lot of weight if it's not harming others in some way. b/c, yeah....lying is also morally wrong.....but should i be thrown in jail for telling a white lie to my mother about being in the shower when she called when i was actually just staring at my caller ID b/c i didn't feel like talking to her (yeah, feeling guilty..... -sigh- ;) ) i'm not hurting anyone, just merely sparing her feelings and controlling my own time. :p
plus, it all comes back to how i would like to be treated. b/c i am a white heterosexual female, i don't have to worry a whole, whole lot about being shat upon. however, if i was a white lesbian (or any color...jussayin).....another issue. b/c of my sexual preference it's decided for me that i can have legal rights with my spouse, but yikes, if i was a lesbian i wouldn't? somehow that doesn't seem fair.

yes, i believe that marriage was intended for a man and a woman, and i personally don't think that God has a friendly eye for the act of homosexuality........but at the same time, back in the day it may not have been quite as big of a LEGAL RIGHTS issue (as far as hospital visits, child custody, etc), and i also think that God is a loving God.....love the person, hate the sin. even if you don't agree with homosexuality, why should they be denied the basic human right to be married?

and goodness i have rambled and my brain is fried......somethings may look/sound weird, so i may have to go back and edit/reply to flames......fair warning. :)

lifesaver....nicely said. and WHOA, cloud9....i actually agree with your original post. ;) and libra, girl, aren't you proud? :D

AlphaGamDiva, thank you for your post. And I for one love your Bush-lovin', baptist-upbringing, right wing conservative butt.

Well, not your butt per se, but you know what I'm saying. ;)

Well said, honeychile.

::: putting on scholar's cap:::

It is a *lot* more complicated than this.

The issue is not about civil divorce but whether the sacrament actually took place. Catholics believe that marriage is not merely a civil contract, although there are civil aspects to it, but a literal sacramental bonding of souls that is a living representation of the intended bond between God and humanity. Hence why divorce and marriage issues are such a huge deal--a *lot* of theology behind it. A civil divorce does not break the sacramental bonding.
The only way someone can divorce and remarry legitimately in the church is to examine the marriage to determine whether or not this bonding took place. There are circumstances where it can be declared that it didn't (this is called an annulment). Examples of situations that would lead to annulment would include mental illness, agreeing to marry under duress, etc.

If anyone wants to hear more feel free to PM or email. I intended to read this only so as to learn and understand more from my GC buddies. Didn't mean to hijak. :) But since the issue was touched upon, I thought I'd add the 2 cents.

Adrienne
:D
(edited 'cause a smiley inserted itself in the message in the wrong place and looked really dumb)

Thankyou adduncan.

Obviously I'm not Catholic so I'm clear on the inner workings of the Catholic church and their beliefs towards marriage.

As a private institution they have every right to worship/govern etc, they way they choose, and I respect that.

They do not have the right to tell me how to live my life...they have every right not to agree with the way I live my life or my beliefs, but that's okay. (And this is not just the Church... if I was a memeber of the church or any organization for that matter I would follow their teachings, belief structure, rules, etc.)

We're all human so shouldn't we should have the same rights and be subject to the same responsibilities?

see, i would, IF my dad hadn't told me himself that no one would ever chose to be homosexual and that he believes that it is just a genetic trait some people happen to be born with. looking back at my childhood i think that it really explains my family's dynamics. Plus, the first person he dated after my mother died he apprently dated while in college. As well, i do have a sister who was concieved by invitro fertilization since her mothers are lesbians. she has never been subjected to the taunts that you assume go along with being raised in that type of enviroment as well. I believe that it doens't matter whether a parent is gay straight or Bi, as long as the children are in a nurturing and loving enviroment.

Yeah - that'll help prevent the spread of AIDS, right? :rolleyes:



This thread is pretty nuts - I'd just like to point out that the words "In God We Trust" on money do NOT mean, according to the letter of the law, that religion should carry any weight in the lawmaking process.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Why is anyone opposed to this I mean how is it going to affect you. Gay people are going to be gay no matter how many people complain about it. Those of you whom are more conservative should be happy that homosexual couples are actually wanting to be monogamous. The bottom line is if two persons love each other and want to dedicate themselves to each other through marriage it is not our place to tell them no.

I'm 100% in support of legalizing gay marriage. And that's all I'm going to say about that :)

Thats also what I dont understand. So many people on the extreme far right consider homosexuals unnaturally promiscuous, yet also dont want them to be in committed relationships and to seal that committment with a bond like marrage. I dont get it.

I totally hear you! While I personally feel that people don't take marriage vows seriously enough anymore, that is a PERSONAL DECISION. The government should never, ever, ever, ever play any role in this. We as individuals have the right to behave in any way that we wish. While I personally may not choose to behave in that way, others will, and that is their choice!!
i also really feel that it is not the business of the government who marries who, who sleeps with who, because this is none of their business. I personally don't care who marries who. Another person may. But why is that other person have the power to override a gay person's choice to marry another homosexual person by making a law against it. In my mind, that is totally wrong.
I think half the laws on the books are ridiculous and intrusive on people's private lifes. This is only one of many!

Are you kidding?

I was playing off a classic narrow-minded religious invocation to mock the consistent use of "them" to refer to the homosexual population, as it came off a bit odd to me. Comments like "At least they will be in a committed relationship!" sound to me an awful lot like "Gays are promiscuous by nature, and this will combat this", just euphemized.

I thought the ":rolleyes:" would emphasize that sarcasm, but apparently not

I'd never heard a good argument against gay marriage before I read this thread

I still haven't heard one.

There's a reason that most of people that are against gay marriage haven't said much in this thread. It's because they can't back up their opinion with a single logical supported statement.

As long as we're ignoring the idea of separation of church and state...

Consider the work of God: Who can make straight what he has made crooked?

-Eccl. 7:13

My take:

If two people, of any sex, color or religion decide that they want to bind themselves to be faithful and love each other for the rest of their lives...

Let them get married. It's not hurting you. It's not hurting me.


Murder is illegal because it takes away a person's right to live.

Gay marriage being illegal takes away a person's right to love.

For the record, I do not in any way, shape, or form believe in any Christian (or any organized religion's) doctrine.

After I sign off, I'm going to go pick a random book off the shelf and use it as my guidebook and moral code. That should be fun.

Chances are 50/50 that it would be more consistent. Even if it was Green Eggs and Ham. I can see the revised commandments now...

"Thou shalt not eat it with a fox.....
Thou shalt not eat it in a box......"

Sorry but I went to Catholic School for too many years to take organized religion seriously.

To all those who would argue that America was based on some sort of moral standard, I think you would be hard pressed to prove that people in the past were any better at adhering to said morals than in the modern day and age where we choose to follow ethics instead. Morals didn't stop slavery (money did, regardless of what our history books tell us). Morals didn't prevent Jim Crow. Morals didn't keep the US from putting Japanese-Americans in what amounted to concentration camps. All "morals" do is provide fodder for hypocrites.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I personally try not to get *too* opinionated or mouthy on these boards with my letters attached to what I say. I'm all for a debate, but too often, people attach what you say with your GLO and form opinions. I'm not saying any of y'all would, but it happens. So, that's why I choose not to delve too deeply into why I feel the way I do.
As for people basing their feelings on religion, they have the right to do that. People are entitled to feel the way they do even if their reasoning doesn't hold up in other people's eyes. Just because another person thinks their reasons are stupid, it's not going to change how they feel.

GREAT POINT.

I mean the question is not "How moral are gay marraiges?" or "Is homosexuality a sin/abomination in the eyes of the Lord?"

It IS: Should we LEGALIZE gay marraiges?

That being said not one person on this thread has come up with a valid reason as to why gay marraiges should not be LEGAL.

btw, WORD to your last post, lovelyivy.

DZH, I don't think the letters thing is a problem unless you start going off the deep end. You have just as much right to express your opinion as anyone else. As long as you do it in a coherent, respectful fashion, the only thing that can be attributed to your letters is someone who feels passionate about what they are debating.

Thanks, LibraSoul, I'm glad someone can see it that way!

DZHBrown, I usually take my letters off my sig when I'm posting something questionable - that way it makes it a little harder to figure out what GLO I'm in. I've also seen some threads, particularily political ones, where my sisters and I have differing opinions (cough GPhiBLtColonel cough) and that's okay with me - I don't want to be in a sorority where everybody thinks alike!

Re: Weigh In: Legalizing Gay Marriage
 

As I recall this was the original question...it does not state what LEGAL reason/logic you can come up with to be for or against it.

So, would be murder is ok as long as the participants are both willing?
- Think of Jack Kevorkian(sp)?


What the Word says is all the reason I need.

So quite frankly, I don't need to come up with a LEGAL reason as to why I feel the way I feel. (That's like saying unless the laws agree with me, then my opinion is invalid (which is absurd). :rolleyes: )

Sorry folks, but for me my opinion this discussion is DONE! Asking me to go against what God specifically says ain't happening.

Baa.

Baa.

Lovelyivy84, I'm so glad you're on GC. :D

Nobody's saying that people can't feel that gay marriage is against their religion. Nobody's saying that individual churches can't refuse to marry gays and lesbians if they don't want to. What they're saying is that religious justification is not enough reason to keep a law in place in America. Until someone can come up with a legal, nonreligious reason that gay marriages shouldn't take place, it's verging on unconstitutional for them to be illegal. Because there are plenty of people who are not Christians in this country, and to make them live under Christian law was not what this country was founded to do.

But that's where I think a lot of this debate stems from. There are so many Christians that think legalizing gay marriage means that they are somehow putting their stamp of approval on it. Nobody is asking YOU to go against the word of God! They're asking you to allow other people to live their own lives and make their own decisions. Considering that they're not hurting anyone, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Why should we make everyone in this country adhere to Christian rules and regulations when many, many of us are not Christians?

But you are when I am asked to support something that goes totally against what I believe in.

Its no different than someone asking your GLO to support something that totally went against the the goals and purposes of your GLO.

I didn't mean for it to be derogatory. I'm sorry if it came across that way.


As far as the genetic trait goes, if that were true why does it seem that homosexuality tends to be a trend in some areas of the world? Why do some people try being gay but then go back to being heterosexual? Why are some people bi? Is that another trait as well? How do some people, who are heterosexual, give the vibe that they might be gay? Is it because of body language? Is it because of their fashion wear? Or is it because some people believe in abstinence?

There are some kinky people out there. That said, what do you call a man who lets his wife do him with a strap-on but no one else if he only does sick stuff with his wife? Is he gay? Despite him doing things with his wife only and still having intercourse with her, does that make him Bi? Or is he just twisted? By saying there's a genetic reason behind being gay, would it be safe to say that there are people who have genes in them that make them constantly do things out of the norm, or atleast what society deems as the norm?

Out of curiosity, for those of you who are better educated than me (I've never read the Good Book in full), what justification does the Bible give for saying that homosexuality is wrong? Or is it just one of those Because-I'm-God-and-I-said-so kind of things?

I was told that the reason that homosexuality was wrong was the same reason masturbation was wrong -- it was a sin to "spill your seed" in a place where it couldn't result in children. They wanted families to have as many children as possible (ditto why birth control and, to a point, abortion are not okay within certain branches of Christianity) so that there would be as many Christians as possible to go forth and spread the Word. But is there any truth to this or not? Because if so, it seems like homosexuals would be in the same level of hell as guys who masturbate (something like 98 percent of them) and women who refuse to spend their entire childbearing years pregnant with one child or another (also something like 98 percent of them, lol).

what the hell? i'm getting really sick of reading your arguments, mostly because they make no sense to me. maybe i'm just really inexperienced but i have no clue what you are talking about (and really i think i would prefer to be kept in the dark).

yes, i do believe that genetics plays a huge role in a person's behavior. brain chemicals also have a lot to do with behavior as well. i don't have an explanation for everything. i do not know anyone who is bisexual. i have been speaking from my own personal experience, which has shaped how i think about these particular issues. that is all.

Whoa! Calm down girly! I'm not argueing, I'm asking what you believe on certain situations based on a few of your responses. I'm sorry if it's a little deep for you and tend not to make sense, but likewise with me is your argument on homosexuality being a genetic reason for being gay. It's not about being experienced or not. I have no experience, personally, with being gay or bi. I didn't mean to bombard you with questions, but how can you expect someon not to ask for your belief on like situation when you say being gay is a genetic thing?

that is what i was refering to. i have no idea what you were talking about in that particular part of that post, and as i said before i don't really want to know. maybe some of your terminology is weird, and as i said before i am inexperienced (i mean in having sex period...not referring to a type).

I just simply take a person's word when they say they would never have chosen to be homosexually orientated to mean that it was not a concsious choice. likewise, i would never try and tell someone what they could or could not do in their own private bedroom. it's not my business, and who am i to judge. it's just a simple act of fate (if oyu would like that word better than genetics) that made me straight and others gay. that's all there is to it.

I got the sarcasm. I just wasn't sure which side of the argument the sarcasm was placed. There's no need to get your knickers in a twist. I just wanted some clarification.

Sugar and spice -

I think the most cited Biblical passage that supposedly condemns homosexuality is in Romans. Paul is the one who said it.