I had to get back in on this thread
 

You and I have discussed our differing opinions many times during the beginning of this thread. And, we had basically agreed to disagree. I had given my point of view, so I stepped away from this discussion because I did not feel that there was anything new left to say. The conversation began to discuss the same points over again. But, PJ did bring up a new point and I have to agree with Sistermadly, because I have yet to read a definitive answer from you on it.

You said that marriage was a institution of God and those that do not respect it as such should not be allowed to partake in it (correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to put words in your mouth). If that is the case, then should non-Christians be excluded from being "married" as well?

I find it funny that much of your European nations are so gun- ho
about all this gay marriage & gay rights crap, it makes me think about the book The Isis papers by Dr.Frances Cress Welsing and some of the theories she raised about (WGS). Her theory helps explain why these European nations would be strong advocates of the gay lifestyle especially helping to spread that lifestyle to non European nations. Just this week the U.N tried to push observing gay parthers down the throat of it's delegates, which many of the non European nations quickly objected to...as they should have.

Re: I had to get back in on this thread
 

Well I'm glad that you just had to step back into this thread...but before you try to quote me..please quote me correctly....I'm not sure of what you're getting at or even what the relevance is....but maybe you can find a specific quote from me and then pose the question...

To attempt to try to answer you...Non Christians can do whatever they want...so can homosexuals....like I have said about fifty hundred times...God is our judge...not me... It sounds like you all think you're making a good point or as if you have found something to "stump" me or something...but I just don't see that....we're talking about legalizing an alternative lifestyle....legalizing the right for people to marry based on who they are sleeping with..where does being saved or unsaved fit into the legalization argument? If a Non-Christian wants to take vows before God thats up to them...but it doesn't mean anything to him if you're not his child..The question really should be why would unsaved individuals want to enter into an institution ordained by God. Getting married aint gonna get you into heaven

Gay marriage legal in Mass.
 

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. - Gay couples began exchanging marriage vows here Monday, marking the first time a state has granted gays and lesbians the right to marry and making the United States one of four countries where homosexuals can legally wed.
Tanya McCloskey, 52, and Marcia Kadish, 56, of Malden went at a breakneck pace to fill out paperwork, get a waiver from the three-day waiting period, then return to city hall — where they got their marriage license and exchanged vows.

Read the rest here:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s/gay_marriage

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:D :D :D

I really don't see what the big deal is, it's just a piece of paper. How I feel about it is they are living like they are married right now and all the need is the paper so why not give it to them. It is not going to effect anyone but them and who is to say that it is not right. Love is love and if they love eackother and that is what they what to do, let them.

Real Reasons
 

May be it is me, but I believe the homosexuals are fighting the wrong people. So what if US Supreme Court accepts gay marriages, that does not mean that the insurance companies, mortgage companies, and other companies will accept them.
All insurance company needs to do is add the words opposite sex to their policy. Or may be they would just increase it for married male homosexual, since they are at a greater risk for AIDS. Or maybe they would increase it for married female homosexuals, since they are more likely to get artifical inseminating. Getting pregnant scientifically, cost a whole lot more than getting pregnant the old fashion way.

Just the way I see things.

Don't shoot me. I have a question. How does one determine how your last name will read?

Examples:
Jane Deaux and Sally Walker are married.
Will their last name read Deaux-Walker or Walker-Deaux?

Jim Doe and John Foe are married.
How will their last name read? Doe-Foe or Foe-Doe?

How is that determined? :confused:

I'm serious! I am really curious. I'm not being funny. :D

AKA2D..I was wondering the same thing LOL

As for my thoughts..it just amazes me how people who call themselves believers can support something in exact contradiction to what God ordained the family to be...but these days...standing up for what God says is radical...so I guess I am a radical. I think this society will get exactly what it deserves for legalizing homosexual marriage...and everything that will come later..i.e. polygamy and marrying anything with a heartbeat. America is at the point that it will accept anything even if it means compromising their beliefs and standards... I dont think most people see the demoralizing effects that this will have on American society in the next generations (because they haven't looked at the research that shows what the legalization of homosexual couples have done to other societies) .. but oh well...

allsmiles22 called me "holier than thou" in another thread..and I suspect this what many of you think of me... and thats fine by me..cause as long as I'm going against the grain (in society) I know I'm on the right track...u can call me... homophobic, a holy rolller, or whatever else..but one thing no one can say that I compromise my beliefs just because "everybody else" decides to go with the flow. Its not about politics, Its not about the homos just want love, ... and its truly sad that people don't see the ramifications of this...

I will have no problem giving my account for my life, my actions, and my beliefs...can you say the same about yours?

We as believers need to keep on our elected officials about this. Goodnesss knows mine know my opinion. :)

Don't get discouraged. We all know who triumphs in the end. :)

Very true indeed HK74;)

If this is deemed legal by the courts, then companies could not discriminate against gay marriages if they cover other opposite sex marriages. This does effect us all, whether you believe morally or spiritually that it is wrong. Health care costs are already sky high and insurance companies will be forced to decided whether to cover all definitions of marriage or no definition of marriage. Either way, we either deal with higher health care costs or reduced benefits.

In addition, this opens the door, in my opinion, to other broader definitions of marriage. Polygamy, incesteous relationships, those between adults and children could all be come legal. I see it as a slippery slope and we have become so desensitized by it all.




Even with opposite sex marriages it is up to the couple to decide how their name reads. You can even combine the names if you want. For instance, my last name is hypenated and my husband's last name is first and my maiden name is last. Most folks do it the opposite way, but I like the way it sounds that way. The lady at the marriage licence place said that they didn't care WHAT we called ourselves (he could have changed his name too) we just needed to put it on the licence! We could have even combined our last names if we wanted to!

Don't flame me for being crude but I think the Catcher takes the name of the pitcher so to speak . . ;)

And in female pairing the submissive takes on the name of the Butch one . . . But who knows?

Re: Real Reasons
 

I just wanted to say that this comment is definetly not true..nowadays everyone is at a greater risk..in fact I think the studies say that homosexuals are more educated on the disease and therefore take more precautions when having sex. The new face of HIV/AIDS is an African-American woman living in the urban/suburban areas..think about it with all the Down Low brothas and females who think they are the only one they make bad decisions and put themselves at risk..but that is another thread I just wanted to share that knowledge..

Also wanted to comment to Love_spell...

When u said Think about all the folks that were killed by the flood..wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction..Matt. 7:13
Not everyone followed Jesus...(just affirms that along as ur way is His way then its the RIGHT way)

The same sex couples I know who've gotten married in the bay area have just each kept their own names. However, that's probably b/c they're all established in their careers. I think it's similar to the way that know married heterosexual women can decide if they would like to change their name to their husbands, or keep their own name.

Re: Re: Real Reasons
 

In terms of greater risk for AIDS/HIV, you are way off. A married couple is less likely to contract STD's, if they're abiding by their vows.

@ Rho...

I can't begin to number the talk shows where mates confess or get caught cheating..those two little letters "if" have to be the key word in the sentence and STDs had to come from some where (which is kind of interesting..like where did the first one come from..bacterial infections..so probably from built up bacteria..or something to that nature) what I'm getting at is yes homosexual married faithful couples would be at less of a risk (but that applies to heterosexual couples too) but it really all depends on their faithfulness.....

-Dick Chenney Oct 5, 2000 Vice Presidential Debate on CNN.

i don't agree with same-sex marriages and i doubt i ever will; but, that's between them and whatever spiritual being they believe in.

Me, Personally....
 

Don't agree with it, but at the same time if its what makes you happy, then go for it. Who am I to judge what someone else does? Let them be accountable for their own lives. If my sister, friend, cousin, aunt, or whatever wanted to marry another woman, then so be it.

I have a sister, 18, who goes both ways and has a 2 yrs old son. I always tell her to be SAFE and have fun! I love her all the same and that won't change. If she were to get married to another woman, I would support her decision and be of help in any way.

I just think that its a phase, but if not, oh well.

Q

It seems that a common school of thought is that what goes on between people in the privacy of their own home..is their business...So..if people are

getting high on coke, crack, X
having sex with corpses or animals
having sex with family members

....In the privacy of their own homes...why should we care what they do? Do you all also believe these laws are intrusive because it happens in the privacy of one's home?

I morally see each of these as wrong, but I wouldn't stop people from doing them, except for bestiality, because that hurts the unconsenting animal. But, if people want to be incestuous, so be it. I'm not responsible for their spirits. If they asked me, I'd tell them the truth.

What America Thinks of Gay Marriage
 

FYI ;)

Eleven States Ban Gay Marriage

Wednesday, November 03, 2004



In a resounding, coast-to-coast rejection of gay marriage, voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas (search), Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon — the one state where gay-rights activists hoped to prevail. The bans won by a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky, Georgia and Arkansas, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi.

"This issue does not deeply divide America," said conservative activist Gary Bauer (search). "The country overwhelmingly rejects same-sex marriage, and our hope is that both politicians and activist judges will read these results and take them to heart."

Gay rights leaders were dismayed by the results but declared that their struggle for marriage equality would continue unabated.

"Fundamental human rights should never be put up for a popular vote," said Matt Foreman (search) of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. "We'll win some states and we'll lose some states, but eventually the Supreme Court is going to look at the Bill of Rights and isn't going to give a damn what's in any of these state constitutions."



In five of the states, legislators placed the proposed amendments on the ballots, while in the six others — Arkansas, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio and Oregon — the measures were advanced by conservative, church-backed citizens groups that collected signatures on petitions.

Already this year, voters in Missouri and Louisiana have weighed in on the issue, with gay-marriage-ban amendments winning more than 70 percent of the vote in both states.

Louisiana's amendment was later struck down in state court on the grounds that it improperly dealt with more than one subject by banning not only same-sex marriage but also any legal recognition of common-law relationships, domestic partnerships and civil unions. The court challenge in Georgia involves a similar argument.

Conservatives say they will continue to press for a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, on the premise that even toughly worded bans in state constitutions could be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gay-rights activists, meanwhile, will continue pressing marriage-rights lawsuits in states such as Oregon, California and New Jersey, where they believe the high courts might eventually rule in their favor.

Rest Here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137424,00.html

wasn't there a time when marriage was between a WHITE man and a WHITE woman?

What's the arguments?

For the kids?
Gay couples who who adopt kids probably do it because they ACTUALLY WANT children, unlike the absurd amount of proper families out there, my friends included, who are unhappy little families because of an untimely accident. At least these couples weigh the concerns, the expenses, the consequences, etc...and chose to accept a child...I don't see an argument for the kids.

For traditional religious purposes?
Let the churches forbid it, that's fine. I try to be very open-minded about it all, but I'll be the first to admit when I see gay PDA it freaks me out a little bit. So what...I'll get over it. The church can ban it, but what right does our gov't (mine being one of the 11) to deny these people? They don't even get a claim of separate but equal here where civil unions are now banned.

Are we trying to force people into lives of heterosexuality? Is it a choice......I can't say, but I can say it's absurd to deny anyone the right at the governmental level to be married...churches can ban it all they want...and if it has the same effect, I don't care...its just not a governmental role...we live in such a conservative land right now...at a time when I genuinely thought that we were as a people becoming somewhat more liberal.

I personally think Civil Unions are BS...I think its another separate water fountains/separate but equal diversion from the real problem and that there is but one proper solution.

That's just my thoughts...

...gave proof through the night, that our land was filled with homophobes...

CO-DERN-SIGN!!

Co-friggin'-sign!

You ain't nevah lied!
For the post of the day I give:
http://www.my-smileys.de/smileys2/35_3.gif

Just going to throw this out there...

I'm Jewish. While I realize that I am not of the majority religion in this country, I do not base my moral beliefs on the bible or the church whatsoever.

Let's pretend I was gay and wanted to get married. Do you think I should be denied this human right just because it conflicts with someone else's religious beliefs?

What if Judaism became the majority religion? Would it then be ok for me to impose my beliefs on non-Jews?

Just curious.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By allowing gay marriage you are not really affecting those who are not gay. Straight people will still be able to get married. Virtually 100% of those people who are against gay marriage are not gay. Therefore, they do not have to engage in gay marriage. Banning gay marriage would only limit the rights of others, and would not infringe on the rights of non-gays.

However, not banning gay marriage would only give gay people the same rights everyone else has.


MY SOLUTION:

Politics should steer clear from this issue. States should not ban gay marriage, as we should have a separation of church and state. Then the CHURCHES could decide to ban gay marriages if they so choose, as it is a religious institution. Those who want same sex marriages can either get married in a neutral way, in a temple, or somewhere else. Or, if they can find a church that WILL marry them, they can get married there.

I just think the government has no place in this issue.

Question: If gay marriage was "legal" but churches, insurance companies, etc. refused to recognize the union or give them the same benefits...wouldn't they be able to be sued? Wouldn't this affect Straight people? This couldn't happen in a vacuum. This will affect other people because they will have to do everything from performing the ceremonies to changing policies etc. You may have some ministers being sued because of this. This is ONE way gay marriage affects those who are non-gay.

No, churches would not. The First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and freedom of association are very close to absolute. The Supreme Court permitted the Boy Scouts of America to exclude gay members even though it is not a religious organization, and even greater privileges are given to churches. It also ruled that a church may discriminate in hiring even when it is acting as an employer rather than a church (for example, it may choose to hire only Mormon janitors if it chooses, even though it would be illegal for an ordinary employer to do that).

Churches are permitted to select/reject members on any basis whatsoever, and cannot be coerced by the state to give their blessing to anything whatsoever. This can never change as long as the First Amendment stands.

Secular providers of public accommodations, such as insurance companies, are a different matter, and have to recognize any marriage recognized by the state. This is true just as an insurance company that wanted to stick to America's traditional definition of marriage, which was a white man and a white woman, and refused to cover interracial couples, could indeed be sued. That traditional definition of marriage existed in this country for its first 360 years, from the very first settlement of the Jamestown colony in 1607 until the Loving v. Virginia decision in 1967. Recognition of black/white marriages is a recent and radical innovation and a total departure from American legal tradition.

Ivy, J.D.

so if someone asks a liscensed minister (that is not necessarily a pastor of a church) to marry them..and gay marriage was legal...and the minister refused...are u saying he could not be sued and his license would still be intact??

Well.. the way I think it SHOULD be is that gay marriage is not outlawed, and each church can decide whether they will marry gay couples. The churches should not be forced to marry people, and they should not be able to be sued because once again, I believe in a separation of church and state. If the churches want to discriminate against people they can -- it's their business. However, the government should stay out of it and should remain neutral. The gay couples can then get married in a different church, in a different state, at a temple or at a neutral locale. Their marriage would be recognized by the state.

(Well, that's what I think would have the best chance of working. What I *really* think should happen is that gay couples are given all of the same rights as straight couples and interracial couples. Gays can get married anywhere straight/interracial marriages would be able to, and should be given the same respect as straight/interracial marriages should. Religious beliefs have zero place in government, regardless of whether they are the majority or not. Then again.. that's just my [radical, as of the results of this 2004 election] opinion..... :rolleyes: )

Maybe I mis-read your response..but did you answer the question they way you think things SHOULD be..or the way they WOULD be? My question is could a minister lose their license or get sued if they refuse to marry a gay person....if gay marriage was legal.

This is 100% what I am saying. The right of a religious organization to decide what people and actions it gives its blessing to is absolute -- it's part and parcel of the right to free exercise of religion. So for example, if you want to start up a KKK church and only marry white couples, that's fine and dandy in the eyes of the law, and you will still get your tax exemption and everything. The same is true right now in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal -- the state recognizes gay peoples' right to CIVIL marriage, but there is no right to be married in a particular church. No pastor and no church will be in any danger whatsoever from choosing not to perform them, and it goes without saying that Catholic, Baptist, etc. churches do not. You don't even have to let gay people into your church building if you don't want to, much less marry them.

Ivy, former teaching assistant in Constitutional Law

It sounds as if you're attempting to paint the legality of gay marriage as if it can/will occur in a vacuum. This will affect others that do not want to accept it. Someone will have to perform the ceremonies...whether its in a Justice of the Peace or in VEgas...and if they refuse to do it....best believe the trial lawyers will have a field day. Day care providers may not want to accept children that have 2 daddies etc., neighborhoods will be sued if its even a thought that people were rejected because they're homosexual.. I'm just bringing up examples to show you that legalizing gay marriage will force others to accept it...and if they don't..they'll be penalized...

It only starts with the church..but the implications are there in other arenas as well..

IvySpice,
Can you clarify for me if homosexuals are currently a protected minority? I thought that it was currently illegal to discriminate against a child w/two daddies or against two women who want to move into an apartement together, even if the couples aren't married.
Also, it seems to me that everyone is going to be affected by this issue no matter what. Often law suits are what bring about changes in the laws. Whether or not gay marriage is recognized, gay couples will still file law suits if they feel that they are being treated unfairly. They will continue to file them until they feel that they are being treated justly. And eventually they will start to win. (Edited so that my meaning is clear) - Therefore, denying gay marriage is not going to protect us from having to face the "gay" issue.
And so what if everyone else has to deal with or is affected by this issue. This is no different from the racist white concierge having to check me into his hotel, even though it is killing him that a ni**a is sleeping on his sheets and swimming in his pool. I have never heard that allowing equal rights is optional if it makes others uncomfortable. (Edited so that my meaning is clear) - Equal rights is something that EVERYONE gets by virtue of being a citizen in this country. This includes those who can blend in with the mainstream and those who can't.

Marie

Marie,
That was the point I was making. People keep saying that gay marriage will not affect anyone...and that who they marry is their business...well you just made the point better than I did...EVERYONE Is going to be affected by this..

And lastly, if you were gay and checked into that hotel..you could have hid that if you wanted to...when you're black...you can't hide or change your mind about it. (unless you're Michael Jackson of course)

Good point Lovespell!!! We should deny gays rights because they can HIDE IT to avoid offending the poor ignorant people around them. Lucky them!! :rolleyes:

I know I'm going to be attacked for this, but of all people, I think that you as an AFRICAN AMERICAN should understand why gays need rights.

In my opinion, the way the country is treating gays is the same way they treated blacks not too long ago (and sometimes still treat blacks).

Pretending they are less than human, trying to deny them rights that they should be given as a human, and as a citizen in this country.

DO YOU THINK DENYING YOUR BLACKNESS IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO RECEIVING EQUAL RIGHTS AS A BLACK AMERICAN? Well, if we just pretend that you aren't black, then we don't have to give you any rights!

THAT IS EXACTLY THE WAY WE ARE TREATING THE GAY COMMUNITY.

There were plently of people that thought it was "disgusting" for a black person to marry a white person. Do you still think that is wrong?


~~~~~~

second question -- for lovespell:

you never answered my other post. While I am straight and have been in a relationship for over 2 years, pretend I was in a loving SAME SEX relationship instead. Also pretend I'm ready to get married.

Please explain to me (A JEWISH AMERICAN) why I am not allowed to get married, and/or why YOU think I should be denied this right.


P.S. Marie -- cosign ;)

Yes, you are going to be “attacked”. Let me be the first.

I am insulted by your presumption that Black people should understand gay people. The two aren't the same--never have been, never will be. Do you claim that your religious/ethnic designation as a Jew gives you insight into the lives of Black people? While there are a few Black people who can "pass", we generally do not have the "luxury" or ability to change our name and start life without the stigma of our race. It is not up to us to let people know whether we're Black or not--it's known when we walk into the room. However, let's not get it twisted, I LOVE being Black! It is the very permanent nature of Blackness that has forced us to become the diverse, creative, culture that we are.

If we continue to use the illustration started by Lovespell, it sounds like “you people” (how does THAT feel?) are more apt to identify with homosexuals than Black Americans.

Now, let me give you a very succinct reason why the issue of minority civil liberty is different from that of gay marriage: The government recognizes and rewards marriage for one reason only—it is that, for the most part, within the institution of marriage, children are born and cared for. The government WANTS people to have kids to maintain the population. Two black people can lay down (or stand up for that matter) and create a child as can a black person with a white person, Asian person, or Hispanic person. Gay marriages CANNOT add to the population and is therefore not important to the government.

Very good points and I am in total agreement with you.

I'm tired of the argument that the fight for gay rights is like the civil rights movement...it's not. There is no way for me to deny my blackness. However, there are PLENTY of gays who deny it to receive the benefits of inclusion granted to straight people. There is no comparison.

On a federal level, they are NOT a protected class. It is no violation of federal law to discriminate against homosexuals in any way you choose. Some states and cities (like Wisconsin and Denver) have state/local anti-discrimination laws which forbid this kind of discrimination. Right now most states and cities do not have such laws. In Alabama or Kansas, you can throw Dick Cheney's daughter out of your hotel, make her come to the back door of your restaurant, pay her less for the same work, or whatever else you want, and that is 100% legal.

LoveSpell, I thought you asked for a _legal_ opinion, and I gave it. I'll state it again:

Churches and pastors can do absolutely whatever they want, forever. That will never change.

Certain government employees such as judges have sworn to uphold the law, and they could theoretically be required to perform ceremonies in those states that allow gay marriage. They also have to enforce the death penalty even if they think it's murder, etc. If you believe that the law is so evil that you cannot in good conscience enforce it, you have to resign from that kind of job.

Public accommodations such as landlords, insurance companies, etc. are presently governed by state law in this area, and some states have passed anti-discrimination laws. These laws apply only within that state. Under these laws, you can sometimes be sued for refusing to serve gay customers or for firing a gay employee. (Although, I pray to God, you aren't really serious about day care providers discriminating against a three-year-old child because they don't agree with his parents.)

>legalizing gay marriage will force others to accept it

It isn't gay marriage that forbids the kind of discrimination you describe -- it's anti-discrimination laws. As I said above, some states already have these laws. I'm not sure what you mean about neighborhoods rejecting people, but if you're a gated community or a real estate agent in New York and you refuse to sell a house to a gay person, that is already illegal, even though there is no gay marriage there.

IN SUMMARY: you don't have to like, approve, agree, bless, or go to church with anyone you don't want, and you will never have to. However, you may have to serve or hire them in your secular business, or live next door to them, depending on the state. Further, if you work for the government at a job where you have taken an oath to apply the law, then you must apply the law, even if you disagree with it.