Texas Voters approve gay marriage "ban"

[moe.ron]

Originally posted by a.e.B.O.T.
its not about protecting marriage, its just an advertising term so that one side can make the other feel guilty... just like prochoice and prolife. What it really means is, protecting marriage in church.

What I think alot of people want is, they dont want to limit homosexuals, they just do not want them to be married in their church, because its against the bible yadda yadda yadda, but see, lol, you dont have to get married in a church, all that gay couples want is a certificate from a judge. I do not think that is going to hurt marriage that much

That brings a new scenario. What if a denomination or another religion wishes to marry a gay couple through religious ceremony. Will the government be able to say that the religion institution cannot conduct it's religious duty?

[Phasad1913]

Originally posted by sigmadiva

That is why I specifically said we are a country based on Biblical (Christian) ideals.

Indirectly, perhaps, through the common religious ideology of the men who came together and signed
the Declaration of Independence in terms of what they believed and how they were raised, but NOT officially. Official correlation between Christianity and the affairs of the governance of the citizenry is precisely what they emancipated themselves from the British for.

That is why I said I think it is more of a moral issue. Should the government legislate a moral issue, probably not. [/QUOTE]

Exactly, and from a legal perspective this is what the law says in general: that insofar as there lacks some important governmental interest justifying State legislation that deminish the rights of others, goverment cannot interfere with the individual, private right to personal autonomy within which government should not invade. This attitude of the law makes a lot of sense. It actually works the the benefit of both sides. Let's take my earlier example of interracial marriage again. What this legal principle means is that two individuals have the right to marry whomever thet wish, that there exists a certain amount of autonomy that they each enjoy beyond which the government cannot invade, so long as there is not important governmental objective warranting the invasion of those rights. In that instance, there is not important GOVERNMENTAL objective, such as health concerns, economic conerns, etc. Moral implications of the activity are too remote and subjective for the government to use the weight of its entity to imfringe on those unions. The same idea rests with the gay marriage issue. The only area that is questionable in my opinion may be health concerns due to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS withink nthe gay community. But I think promoting or allowing civil relationships to flourish through recognition of marriage among individuals who wish to do so would possibly have a positive effect on the prevalence of HIV/AIDS. We'd have to see.

But, 'we the people' elect government (congressmen, city and state representatives) based on some principle that is in alignment with our own and we the people expect our elected officials to carry out their campaign promises. If one just so happen to be a law banning gay marriages and that is what the people want, then it becomes law. This is why voting is sooooo important. [/QUOTE]


You brought up a relationship between the oppression of blacks to the need for government to get involved in your earlier post. Unfortunatley, I think that this statement illustrates that should we follow this line of thinking without limits, those horrible acts by people that were allowed BY THE GOVERNMENT to do, i might add, may not have been stopped. That represents a compelling governmental interest that justified the government involving itself and infrigning on the rights of the oppressors. This infringement, though, is itself not without limits. As I said before, it works for the nebefit of both sides. The government will only go so far in infringing on the rights of people, even with important governmental objectives. This is why, even though much of the way we live in America is very segregated and we all know that a lot of that has to do with continuing and persistent prejudice and racism, the government is not going to go into the homes, schools, churches, etc. of every person and force them to integrate their lives with someone of a different color. Those individuals who wish to isolate themselves in a way that they interact with people of their own "kind" have the private right of autonomy to do so, withoutht he threat of the government coming in, even though the government has made it clear the objectives it has and thinks the nation should have in ridding the society of that kind of seperatism. It can't force people to give in to so-called "moral " standards. All it can do, and all its supposed to do is refrain from imposing oppressive actions itself, which is what it should have done in this case.


I just think at some point you (the general you) have to take a stand. The issue is not as simple and easy as it seems. Sure, I may have one or two neighbors who may engage in some activity I don't agree with, and I can kinda ignore it. It is not hurting me directly in any way. [/QUOTE]

Which is why peole should not want the strong arm of the government to take these sorts of actions. If it doesn't bother you in any real way, then what is the point in making the lives of so many people miserable when what they want to do wouldn't harm anyone else?

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally posted by moe.ron
That brings a new scenario. What if a denomination or another religion wishes to marry a gay couple through religious ceremony. Will the government be able to say that the religion institution cannot conduct it's religious duty?

Well, its all about legal marriages... the whole issue is banning people from being legally married, not religiously married with a priest and bird seed. Clearly, the government can not tell a church that they can not do a ceremony that does not hurt anyone (but the way right will argue it hurts all of us, lol)...

What this is doing, it saying that two people who love each other can not get benifits like any other two people who love each other.

[AchtungBaby80]

Originally posted by a.e.B.O.T.
What this is doing, it saying that two people who love each other can not get benifits like any other two people who love each.

That's what I think confuses people. When we say "marriage," a lot of people picture the religious aspect, so they seem to think that outlawing gay marriage will keep "them damn queers" from getting married in a church or other place of worship. At least, that's the misconception that seems to be prevalent around where I grew up. The fact that it's really about civil unions is sort of lost on them. Honestly, folks, I really don't see how denying gays the right to inherit each other's property is going to "hurt" the institution of marriage. But then, I'm not a Bible-thumping Christian with good, upstanding "morals," so what do I know?

[Phasad1913]

Originally posted by AchtungBaby80
But then, I'm not a Bible-thumping Christian with good, upstanding "morals," so what do I know?

-and I like to consider myself, while not Bible thumping, a Christian with good, upstanding morals. Because of this, I feel that I have a personal relationship with God and that's how it should be. I shouldn't go out there and condemn people who are homosexual and shun them, if they are sinning, then THEY have to deal with God upon their judgment day, not me. I have my own sins to worry about explaining!!

[PM_Mama00]

I think that people who want to be seen as equals to the country/world should not be hypocritical and want to take away an equality from another type of people.

I could care less if gay people want to be together. It's not very fair that two people who love each other cannot be legally joined. What if the government wanted to make inter-racial marriage illegal? It says nothing in the Bible (that I know of) about that, but I'm sure you (Sigmadiva) would be pretty up in arms if the government tried to take that away.

Homosexuals are human beings too. They deserve the same equality that everyone gets and strives for.

[AGDee]

Originally posted by sigmadiva
For me, yes. A sin is a sin.

Most of us do not see the world as this black and white. In fact, most of the world is a big grey area. Not all sins are illegal. There are legalized forms of gambling, the whole society lies all the time. It's not illegal to eat pork or wear clothes made of different fibers. We are told in the Bible that Jesus was without sin, but he didn't follow all the laws of that time period either.

Sin and law are two different things. One is religious, one is governmental. They have nothing to do with each other.

Dee

[kstar]

Originally posted by sigmadiva
They would clog up the divorce courts more than they are now!!!


But seriously, I think gay marriages put society on a slippery slope. If gay marriages are legalized today, then next it will be polygamy and child brides tomorrow (with the latter two being legal in some countries). If majority of the people agree to run a society under some agreed concepts, then anything outside of that concept should not / may not be tolerated.

But your precious Bible doesn't condemn Polygamy. In fact it was encouraged.

Also, the statistics show that more homosexual couples stay together than heterosexual. Chew on that for a while.

Edited to add. The slippery slope arguement isn't a valid arguement anyways. Ask any logic or debate professor, future actions do not negate the ethics of a current societal problem.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by kstar
But your precious Bible doesn't condemn Polygamy. In fact it was encouraged.

Also, the statistics show that more homosexual couples stay together than heterosexual. Chew on that for a while.

Edited to add. The slippery slope arguement isn't a valid arguement anyways. Ask any logic or debate professor, future actions do not negate the ethics of a current societal problem.

I would like to see those statistics. I like chewing I guess.

-Rudey

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally posted by Rudey
I would like to see those statistics. I like chewing I guess.

-Rudey

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/swayne/swayne7.html

have fun chewing

[a.e.B.O.T.]

so... I was at my church, and there was this very conservative christian magazine. It had an article about gay marriages... and its whole argument was that homosexuallity was a mental disorder, and therefor, should not be able to get married, becuase they are unable to make a concious (sp) decision... i found it both absurd and amusing

[Rudey]

Originally posted by a.e.B.O.T.
http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/swayne/swayne7.html

have fun chewing

Tiny Vermont
Tiny sample size
Short time span (I'm not even sure if there is a weight used here)
No analysis of varying group socioeconomic characteristics

-Rudey
--I had fun.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by a.e.B.O.T.
so... I was at my church, and there was this very conservative christian magazine. It had an article about gay marriages... and its whole argument was that homosexuallity was a mental disorder, and therefor, should not be able to get married, becuase they are unable to make a concious (sp) decision... i found it both absurd and amusing

Right because everything else that the Church or any religion believes is based on logic and proven facts and neither absurd nor amusing.

-Rudey

[enigma_AKA]

Amen to this!!

BTW, alot of this was discussed before in this thread (and I'm sure a million others):

http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...=&pagenumber=1

enigma_AKA

Originally posted by kstar

But your precious Bible doesn't condemn Polygamy. In fact it was encouraged.

Also, the statistics show that more homosexual couples stay together than heterosexual. Chew on that for a while.

Edited to add. The slippery slope arguement isn't a valid arguement anyways. Ask any logic or debate professor, future actions do not negate the ethics of a current societal problem.

Originally posted by AGDee
Sin and law are two different things. One is religious, one is governmental. They have nothing to do with each other.
Dee

Except in the Bible where it says that breaking the law is sin.

And about the polygamy thing, that was totally Old Testament, a completely different story.