Well aren't Christians who engage in premarital sex doing basically the same thing? LOL Isn't it all a sin or does the part time Christian rule only apply when someone agrees with homosexuality? Although I do agree with a few of the points made by you and Lovespell6, I don't agree with questioning someone else's Christianity.

Your point is valid...sex b/f marriage is a no-no in the bible and I will never try to defend it if someone was to tell me it was wrong.I don't try to make wrong into right for myself nor anyone else. This is what I mean ....in no way I'm I passing judgment on anyone just stating my point, I didn't question aggies faith just pointed out an inconsistency.

Well I suspect there are inconsistencies in every "Christian's" life because NONE of us are perfect.


Just like who on here really has the authority to say whose side is right and whose isn't. They are just that--sides/opinions. Yours is right for what you believe, mine is right for what I believe.

Yes, there are many religions which welcome gay members and sanctify gay unions. Reform Judaism (my religion) is one of many, such as Unitarianism, other branches of Judaism, and a number of mainstream Protestant churches such as Episcopalianism. Countless non-monotheistic religions such as many Native American religions also approve. These religions count millions of devout Americans among their followers. But unions blessed in these churches/synagogues cannot be recognized by the government.

If your church says it's wrong, that's fine -- the First Amendment guarantees that your right to hold that religious belief can never be challenged. But I wonder why it should be that the government recognizes YOUR marriage ceremonies, and not mine?

It breaks my heart to read someone comparing a gay couple who want to marry to a man and a dog. Do you think that gay people don't experience the same range of human emotion that straight people do? Do you think they don't experience the same need for love, support, and trust; the same basic human desire to form a family they can count on; the same fear of growing old alone? More importantly, if you DO know that gay people experience these feelings, how could you ever compare their need to form permanent bonds with one another to the bond between a man and a dog?

Good post IvySpice
 

I, too found the comparison to bestiality astounding. So if we are going to talk about loop holes in laws then the easy way to prevent that is to simply state that a marriage is only legal between two consenting human beings.

Gay marriages
 

Ivyspice

Your examples are too vague give specific examples...some text written word...something.


Ladygreek


I find comparing gays to blacks astounding as well as appalling and yes there are people out there who can and do bond w/ their pets to the point of taking the dog/cat/whatever to a (5) star restaurant........ and I'm sure if the opportunity presented itself they would want to marry their pet....sad but true.


Marriages should be stated to read between two consenting human beings what if ones 43 and the other 12, like Lovespell6 said this would open the flood gates to all and any kind of foolishness.

well, isn't that funny I thought you were questioning my faith. I believe God wants happiness for people and if that includes marrying someone that is same sex then so be it. I hope for your sake that when are judged God doesn't judge you for your closed mindedness. Maybe you should think about that.

An to compare a man and a dog to same sex marriages also disturbs me. I work with animals (I am a vet.) and I have never seen someone want to marry their pet-where do you come up with this stuff AXE? You can't have a 2 sided conversation with a dog. A dog can't raise children with you. They can't work or share the housegold duties. All of this is part of a marriage and believe it or not homosexuals can do the same things straight people can do.
Isn't this like saying you are a christian yet you sound like the devil-with all of your judgements? LOL

Gay marriages
 

.........speaking of being closed mined.......the word judgment continues to come up no matter how many times it's stated that nobody's judging you. Is that like a defense mechcanism some people use to help justify their behavior, about people bonded w / their pets and taking them to restaurants and spa's I couldn't come up w / that if I wanted to just read the paper......like I said it's sad but true.

Following "rules" or guidelines set forth by a person's faith does not equal closedmindedness.

AggieAXO, would you be considered "closeminded" because you chose to follow the rules/guidelines of AXO? Of course not. AXo is something you believe in and hold close to your heart.

If I say "stealing is wrong" or "adultery is wrong" would that be consider "judging" or being closeminded? If could simply be a matter of the words being thrown around incorrectly, but I am sensing that it depends on WHO the words are coming from that determines whether or not it is.

You believe that God wants everybody to be happy doing what makes us happy. By the same token, there are those of us on here that believe that as well, EXCEPT we realize that there are a few rules to live by that were set forth by God. And because we believe in those rules, we are somehow closeminded or are judging others? :confused: Interesting......

Re: Gay marriages
 

So your saying that b/c I take my dog to the park for the day, I want to marry him. I curretbly have a kitten that i take everywhere with me -does that mean you think I want to be able to marry it? I am very bonded with my pets as are all of the people I work with but that doesn't mean we want to marry them. I think you read way too much into those articles. Please post these articles about people wanting to marry their pets-I am intrigued.

I do believe in AXO but if someone wants to join another organization that better fits them then so be it-does that mean I think they are sinning-no. Stealing and adultry hurts other people, marrying 2 people that love each other does not hurt either one of these people. Your comparisons don't make sense.

aggie AXO

When these people get married eventually their going to want kids which biologically they can't have that's when someone gets hurt that child growing up in that crazed situation. I being a counselor have seen this first hand two women coming to parents day@ school telling everyone "I'm his mother and she is his other mother" while the kid has a look upon his face like could someone just kill me now please.What really disturbed me is that niether woman seem to care about the child 's feeling in that situation.This brings me to another point are gays willing to get married and not have kids b/c since the laws of nature doesn't allow same-sex people to reproduce,are they willing to accept that or are they going to drag others(chidren) into their lifestyle.

Actually, they wouldn't since I am not comparing the "acts" but the basis for what YOU consider to be closemindedness and judgement.

I never said they were interchangeable.

As I said earlier, the only reason why people such as myself are met with hostility and are thought of as closeminded or judgemental is simply due to the fact that we are Christians who follow the laws of the Bible believe in its Word.

I think Doggystyle said it best earlier in the thread - its suddenly "uncool" or closeminded to actually stand for something, especially if it goes against popular culture.

I have also met children that had gay parents and they had no problem with it-they had a very stable and loving home. I had a $hitty father when I was growing up-yes he was straight but a terrible example of a parent-should we then prevent straight people from having kids? I know many children with a mother and a father that had a bad childhood so being straight does not make you a good parent and being gay does not make you a bad parent (if it does then show me some studies-post them please).

Also, there are many straight women that can't reproduce without science involved-should we make this illegal? For some reason "the laws of nature" did not want these women to reproduce.

So much going on in this thread. I am not sure I know where to begin.

I think that as long as marriage remains a legal, civil matter, same sex individuals should be recognized. Part of the freedoms in this country IMO are that just because something is permitted, you do not have to support it or do it. If your religious beliefs or personal morals say that it is wrong, you are free to speak out against it, to not support it, and advise others against it. Your church can choose not to perform these ceremonies. At the same time, others may. This is my opinion on the legality of gay marriage (and a few other controversial topics.) I think we have the right to campaign for our beliefs but not to demand that others live by them.

Overall, I believe that individual liberty is supposed to be the basis of our Constitution. Although this country’s forefathers did not fully grasp what that should have meant, I do think that is what that document (once we stopped being 3/5’s a person) is supposed to say. I know this sounds fairly libertarian but behaviors that are not detrimental to others should not be prohibited by law.

I know another poster argued that children raised by two gay parents are damaged. Another posted an article that purports that gay men abuse children at a higher rate. I found the first contention anecdotal and the second questionable,( but that may be because it is not enough details about the full study, the sample, the controls that the data accounted for, etc.) Generally, I do not see a well demonstrated harm where this matter is concerned.

I do not buy slippery slope arguments for just about anything. (If we do A, B and C are sure to follow.) As a lawyer, I see them made all the time. They divert attention away from the issue at hand by throwing what you hope is more frightening in the way. It is easy to allow only A to happen- limit your remedy to A. By defining marriage as between two consenting adults regardless of gender, you do not open up marriage to children. Why? Children under the law cannot consent. You do not open up marriage to animals. Why? Animals cannot consent. (And I think there is a good argument that sex with an animal would be cruelty to animals as it is a one sided act in which the animal did not consent and already being illegal for other reasons)

Even in very old documents and historical data you find there was always an economic factor to marriage. Marriage being about love is a modern concern. In the past, marriage has been about the accumulation of wealth (and, in many respects, about the control of women). Women were married off to the husband’s family. In the US, our entire society has been built around the economic value of marriage. Personally, I believe that the state of the American family is what it is because the economic incentives to marry have greatly diminished over the last four decades. Even with our modern history of courtship, the social construct was influenced by the economic factors. Fathers have rights to children without marrying the mother now whereas they did not in the past, women are allowed to work and be successful professionals en masse negating the need for a husband to come and “get her” out of her father’s home. It is acceptable for women to live on their own and be financially independent. And the ability to be financially independent does not require she stay in a less than desirable marriage for the financial support. As many of us that believe in marriage in the religious sense, that it is my proclamation to God about my bond to this person and our obligations to each other and God, for many, many people, marriage is functionally the expression of that legal contract and the combination of assets. Now, do not get me wrong, I do believe that women should be free to do whatever they choose (work, not work, marry, not marry) I also believe that our reality and our true social construct of marriage have evolved at very different rates. The fact that we delay marriage until much later ages is as much about professional success and economic self determination as it is longer life span, an ”extended childhood” and “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.”

As far as whether religion should factor into the argument- I do not think you can expect it not to. All of our decisions and opinions are going to be filtered through our own personal and moral beliefs. Still, I think sometimes there is a need to articulate an argument on more than just a religious basis for the sake of being persuasive. If my goal is to get you not to do something, sometimes I need to have more than one reason why you shouldn’t do it. What is the reason I don't do it may not be the reason you don’t. And your audience may not always share your moral beliefs but that does not mean they might not agree with you on that topic given the right reason.

My bottom line, everything I disagree with should not be illegal. Because the law allows it, I do not have to do it.

Now would it make any difference if there was a legally recognized domestic partnership rather than marriage? Basically conveying the ability to assign certain rights but not defined in the framework of marriage? I have seen this proposed to apply to straight and gay couples as a result of the increasing number of people who cohabitate.