Same Sex Marriage - For or Against it?

[Slyhunter]

No it isn't, God's word never said it was a sin. That is poor interpretation, or noneon your part.

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Since marriage is between man and woman any sex at all with anyone other than their accepted spouse is sin. And a spouse can only be someone of the opposite sex.

Oh Lord every anti Ssm arguer's bastion of false hope. Crudely interpret the bible for me and expect that be the final word. Tsk tsk tsk.

Marriage can be between two men or two women. Sorry it wouldn't be adultery if they were married, but even if they weren't, Jesus promisedhe would forgive those sins in Mark.

Question: "What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?"

Answer: While the Bible does address homosexuality, it does not explicitly mention gay marriage/same-sex marriage. It is clear, however, that the Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals “marrying” is not God’s will, and would be, in fact, sinful.

Whenever the Bible mentions marriage, it is between a male and a female.

Read more: What does the Bible say about gay marriage / same sex marriage?

All you got to do is read.
Playing lawyer and nitpicking the rules doesn't work in "God's world".

So the bible never forbids marriage of two people ofthe same sex, I already knew that.

I can interpret the bible any way I wish, God's world isn't this world. If I was wrong, youwill never know.

But I don't need a charlatan that knows nothing of God's world yelling me is make believe rulesfor his interpretation of God's world. That crap only works for you. If you know you are right and I am wrong, you won't convince me, I don't go by word of mouth.

You need to stop moving the goal posts.
Either you recognize and accept God's rule and thus arguments Christians use from the bible as applicable or you don't. Don't ask for one and then say well I don't believe in God. If you don't believe then stop asking for the damn religious arguments because they don't matter to one who doesn't believe.

 

[LockeJaw]

Just a correction, the bible was originally written in Hebrew & Greek, OT in Hebrew, NT in Greek & Hebrew.

You're confusing "marriage" with "civil unions". Go ahead and have same sex civil unions, just don't classify it as marriage.

Because if it's a marriage in everything but the word, that changes things...How exactly? Bible doesn't use the word 'marriage' so why the big fuss? Bible isn't written in English you realize?

I think you mis-spoke, I have read 5 versions of the Bible, from King James to New International, and they have all been written in English. I am working on a Hebrew version of the Old Testament, and a Latin version of the New Testament, but wow, it's slow going, having to look up so many words. Anyway, I think what you meant to say was it was originally written in Hebrew and Latin.

There are many words that don't translate well, or at all from different languages, Matrimonium is the Latin word for marriage, and when translated marriage is all over the Bible. All the way from Genesis onward.

I was married in a church, if I had been born in a different country and had the same religious values, I would have tried to have been married in a church. Even if that was illegal in that country. Here's my point. Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman witnessed by God. In this country we have to get a marriage licence. If I lived in another country I might have to be married in secret in order to be married in the church or recognized by my faith. A marriage licence in this country equates to another way to tax people, and to keep up with them, that's about it.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes and no.
This process is compelling a distinction to be made between
false conditions in religions, and what is the true meaning and faith.
We don't agree yet, but these questions are coming up to be addressed.

It is not to undermine the true faith, which is unchangeable.
The only thing that can be brought DOWN are false conditions.
And what will be brought FORTH is universal truth, that by
definition all people will find consistent.

It is like what God has deemed, no man can put asunder.

So whatever you believe that is unconditionally true, that will be established
and all will agree. The unconditional truth and love will be brought out for all to
receive, so this process serves God's highest purposes.

Fear not, but let Perfect Love surpass and cast out all Fear.

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

Hi [MENTION=41356]S.J.[/MENTION]
When a lesbian Christian theology graduate student
spoke at a Rice University forum, that brought together the Christian groups and Gay/Lesbian students on campus,
she explained that she DID seek the same committed marriage and all the other responsibilities in life as a Christian following Jesus, God and the Bible,
but accepted the fact that the partner she was yoked with would be a woman.

She had prayed with her whole congregation,
and asked God's help to change, but the answer she got was that it was not meant to be that way, she was meant to be as she was and have relations with one committed partner, but for her this would not be a man.

So if you look up Matthew 19:12
some of those born to relate to each other in same-sex partnerships
are spiritually so as part of God's purpose in life.

If nothing else, maybe it is meant to humble us, realize how we cannot know or judge the reasons behind why all things happen, and forgive and let God's will work itself through.

We can only love and do our best to work with what we are given in life.
If there is something wrong, let's fix it one-on-one as brothers and sisters in Christ,
and let God show us what we can change and correct, and what is or is not meant to be.

God will help us fix all things, but first we must agree to put it in God's hands
and not try to prejudge these things ourselves. There is way too much going on
to try to outguess God's work, we take care of what we can, and the rest will follow.

Take care S.J. and I hope you can see the positive side of this process
of talking out all these issues, and coming to a real understanding between people.
Thank you!

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes and no, [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
I believe being sensitive to other people
goes both ways. What's wrong with communities agreeing what is and what is not comfortable for people in that neighborhood, or in those businesses?

Why can't we be just honest and human and talk about what we want and don't want,
and listen and work with each other. Can't we be civilized and not judge people for having this preference or that hangup. So what, why not work with everyone and just deal with it.

Hopefully this is just a phase of heightened awareness we are going through as a society.
Like when the Brady Bunch kids first find out they are going to have to live with each other under the same roof, and the first reaction is no way, this cannot be happening, I am not either going to put up with that person.

We are going to learn it's a give and take.

For everything we can't understand why is someone else making such a big deal,
we may find there are areas where we make a big deal where someone else has no clue.

I can't wait for the kids to grow up and quit whining about the other people sharing the house, running to mommy and daddy, trying to team up and get someone in trouble instead of learning to work things out and cut out all the drama.

Why?

It's disgusting.
It shouldn't be in public view where Children might see.

Your sensitivities are not in the public's interest. If you find it disgusting, you are welcome to not be in public. Children seeing people kiss or what not isn't that big of a deal. They live in the world where homosexuals exist and two women holding hands isn't exactly pornography. What are you worried about children seeing? People in bathing suits? People kissing? What would happen to the children? Would a boy seeing two men kiss become gay? So are you telling me the only reason you aren't gay it's because you didn't see two men kiss or walk around in bathing suits?

If find it disgusting, funny participate. If people showing mild amounts of affection in public bothers you, stay out of public. The world doesn't stop over somebody with a peanut allergy, so it shouldn't stop over your insecurities.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why?

It's disgusting.
It shouldn't be in public view where Children might see.

And this is an example of the ignorance, hate, and stupidity from which the Constitution and its case law protects our civil liberties, including the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

[MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]

The problem we're facing is applying the law consistently
when there are religiously held beliefs at stake on both sides of the conflict.

So to be Constitutionally fair and equally inclusive of protection/representation,
a consensus on laws may be required to ensure NEITHER sets of beliefs are infringed upon.

Wouldn't you agree that people on both sides feel their equal freedom and beliefs
are getting infringed upon by the people who believe otherwise,
so that both sides are equally arguing for their Constitutional protections?

Isn't that obvious by now, both sides feel threatened by
imposition by the other beliefs? When people on BOTH sides argue
"but my belief isn't infringing on yours:
yours isn't affected and you can do X Y Z without infringing on mine;
YOUR beliefs are the ones infringing on mine because A B C"

Don't you find it equally disturbing how people on both sides feel discriminated against?

 

[elektra]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

Yes, you should have the right to take my tax money so that government can rule and regulate your sexuality. Governments should also redefine words even if the meaning of the word was established by every society in history. So yes the government should redefine society to accommodate the whims of the few in this period of history

 

[S.J.]

Yes and no.
This process is compelling a distinction to be made between
false conditions in religions, and what is the true meaning and faith.
We don't agree yet, but these questions are coming up to be addressed.

It is not to undermine the true faith, which is unchangeable.
The only thing that can be brought DOWN are false conditions.
And what will be brought FORTH is universal truth, that by
definition all people will find consistent.

It is like what God has deemed, no man can put asunder.

So whatever you believe that is unconditionally true, that will be established
and all will agree. The unconditional truth and love will be brought out for all to
receive, so this process serves God's highest purposes.

Fear not, but let Perfect Love surpass and cast out all Fear.

Most gay people are liberals, and most liberals disregard the Bible or are flat out atheists. Also, most gay people reject the Bible because it forbids homosexuality. Therefore, I don't understand why gays and liberals would want to participate in marriage at all, unless the real objective is to undermine religion.

Hi [MENTION=41356]S.J.[/MENTION]
When a lesbian Christian theology graduate student
spoke at a Rice University forum, that brought together the Christian groups and Gay/Lesbian students on campus,
she explained that she DID seek the same committed marriage and all the other responsibilities in life as a Christian following Jesus, God and the Bible,
but accepted the fact that the partner she was yoked with would be a woman.

She had prayed with her whole congregation,
and asked God's help to change, but the answer she got was that it was not meant to be that way, she was meant to be as she was and have relations with one committed partner, but for her this would not be a man.

So if you look up Matthew 19:12
some of those born to relate to each other in same-sex partnerships
are spiritually so as part of God's purpose in life.

If nothing else, maybe it is meant to humble us, realize how we cannot know or judge the reasons behind why all things happen, and forgive and let God's will work itself through.

We can only love and do our best to work with what we are given in life.
If there is something wrong, let's fix it one-on-one as brothers and sisters in Christ,
and let God show us what we can change and correct, and what is or is not meant to be.

God will help us fix all things, but first we must agree to put it in God's hands
and not try to prejudge these things ourselves. There is way too much going on
to try to outguess God's work, we take care of what we can, and the rest will follow.

Take care S.J. and I hope you can see the positive side of this process
of talking out all these issues, and coming to a real understanding between people.
Thank you!

I don't think you understand me. I'm not saying gay people are automatically going to hell, or that they have a choice in who they're attracted to. I'm just saying they should acknowledge their sin and ask for forgiveness instead of trying to convince everyone it's not a sin.
We ALL sin, it's our nature, and homosexuality is just one of many. What he wants from us is to acknowledge that we do. The wages of sin is death, but acknowledging the sin(s) and asking for forgiveness will save us. Refusing to acknowledge it is rejecting God's word. He won't take kindly to that.
That's how I interpret things. You may see it differently. I'm not saying homosexuals can change, I'm just saying they should admit to their sin.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's disgusting.
It shouldn't be in public view where Children might see.

And this is an example of the ignorance, hate, and stupidity from which the Constitution and its case law protects our civil liberties, including the right of same-sex couples to access marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

[MENTION=29614]C_Clayton_Jones[/MENTION]

The problem we're facing is applying the law consistently
when there are religiously held beliefs at stake on both sides of the conflict.

So to be Constitutionally fair and equally inclusive of protection/representation,
a consensus on laws may be required to ensure NEITHER sets of beliefs are infringed upon.

Wouldn't you agree that people on both sides feel their equal freedom and beliefs
are getting infringed upon by the people who believe otherwise,
so that both sides are equally arguing for their Constitutional protections?

Isn't that obvious by now, both sides feel threatened by
imposition by the other beliefs? When people on BOTH sides argue
"but my belief isn't infringing on yours:
yours isn't affected and you can do X Y Z without infringing on mine;
YOUR beliefs are the ones infringing on mine because A B C"

Don't you find it equally disturbing how people on both sides feel discriminated against?

No.

One doesn't not have the 'right' to attempt to codify his ignorance, hate, and fear into secular law all must obey in violation of the Constitution.

That the Constitution requires the states to allow same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in, in no way 'infringes' on the rights of others, nothing is being 'forced' on others, nor are others' beliefs or opinions being 'disregarded.'

Indeed, for the states to seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights not only infringes on those rights, but obliterates them altogether, forcing the unwarranted and subjective fear and hate of those hostile to gay Americans onto the gay community as a whole, motivated “not to further a proper legislative end but to make [gay Americans] unequal to everyone else. This [the states] cannot do. A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws...[in violation of] the Equal Protection Clause[.]” Romer v. Evans (1996).

The Anglo-American judicial tradition is both ancient and wise, its success is predicated on an adversarial process that brings final resolution to the conflicts and controversies of the day, ultimately allowing justice and freedom to prevail.

In 1954 when the Supreme Court invalidated laws based on segregation, there were those who perceived the ruling as 'forcing' white Americans to accept black Americans against the formers' will, where the belief on the part of some that black Americans should be kept separate but equal was being 'violated' by the Supreme Court, as now in more enlightened times we know in fact that to not be the case.

 

[midcan5]

[MENTION=49820]brandonisi[/MENTION] , Been there done that.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-29.html#post9326144

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...something-simply-inherent-61.html#post9407662

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...arding-islam-and-one-flesh-2.html#post8319649

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-are-being-denied-a-right-9.html#post5253151


Given the examples of heterosexual marriage in our society it would make sense to ban hetero-marriage as it doesn't last, it hurts lots of children, it causes abusive behavior, and all it does is jam up our legal system with divorce, custody battles, and restraining orders. Consider the amount of money saved, judges would then be free to help corporations rip off more Americans than they do now. Wake up people ban heterosexual marriage, it doesn't work most of the time anyway. Makes sense doesn't it.

And another question is was anyone born heterosexual? And if so, what made them heterosexual? If it is learning then we can learn anything. If it is genes then could genes be different in some. So in the end you face a quandary. So do something I suggest often, switch hit, and see how cute his/her butt is and if that holding hands and hugging her/him is your style. Good luck and report back soon.

 

[Inevitable]

Thou shalt not commit adultery

Since marriage is between man and woman any sex at all with anyone other than their accepted spouse is sin. And a spouse can only be someone of the opposite sex.

Oh Lord every anti Ssm arguer's bastion of false hope. Crudely interpret the bible for me and expect that be the final word. Tsk tsk tsk.

Marriage can be between two men or two women. Sorry it wouldn't be adultery if they were married, but even if they weren't, Jesus promisedhe would forgive those sins in Mark.

All you got to do is read.
Playing lawyer and nitpicking the rules doesn't work in "God's world".

So the bible never forbids marriage of two people ofthe same sex, I already knew that.

I can interpret the bible any way I wish, God's world isn't this world. If I was wrong, youwill never know.

But I don't need a charlatan that knows nothing of God's world yelling me is make believe rulesfor his interpretation of God's world. That crap only works for you. If you know you are right and I am wrong, you won't convince me, I don't go by word of mouth.

You need to stop moving the goal posts.
Either you recognize and accept God's rule and thus arguments Christians use from the bible as applicable or you don't.

I didn't move the goal posts, you are using the "no true Scotsman fallacy. I absolutely do not have to accept the arguments of Christians. They aren't the voice of God. Sorry.

Don't ask for one and then say well I don't believe in God. If you don't believe then stop asking for the damn religious arguments because they don't matter to one who doesn't believe.

I never said I don't believe in God, putting words in my mouth is a shitty strategy. I didn't ask for religious opinions. Some people just feel obliged to offer them up. I didn't ask for your nonsensical interpretations of the bible, I don't agree with them. I don't have to. Blathering endlessly about how brainwashedyouare by your cult doesn't interest me.

I worship Christ, I don't need your approval.

 

[Inevitable]

Yes and no, [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
I believe being sensitive to other people
goes both ways. What's wrong with communities agreeing what is and what is not comfortable for people in that neighborhood, or in those businesses?

Why can't we be just honest and human and talk about what we want and don't want,
and listen and work with each other. Can't we be civilized and not judge people for having this preference or that hangup. So what, why not work with everyone and just deal with it.

Hopefully this is just a phase of heightened awareness we are going through as a society.
Like when the Brady Bunch kids first find out they are going to have to live with each other under the same roof, and the first reaction is no way, this cannot be happening, I am not either going to put up with that person.

We are going to learn it's a give and take.

For everything we can't understand why is someone else making such a big deal,
we may find there are areas where we make a big deal where someone else has no clue.

I can't wait for the kids to grow up and quit whining about the other people sharing the house, running to mommy and daddy, trying to team up and get someone in trouble instead of learning to work things out and cut out all the drama.

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I tried, it seems the only people here that argue against equality are temper fit throwing babies. The decorum in this forum is deplorable. And until these people show they deserve respectful discussion, I am going to stomp them into the ground.

It's foolish to treat irrational morons as if theyare intellectual equals.

 

[emilynghiem]

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I tried, it seems the only people here that argue against equality are temper fit throwing babies. The decorum in this forum is deplorable. And until these people show they deserve respectful discussion, I am going to stomp them into the ground.

It's foolish to treat irrational morons as if theyare intellectual equals.

I can't always tell who's for real, and who's for show either, until they show their colors or run away and hide, from the real work it is going to take to address and solve these problems.

No amount of suing, legislating, fighting political through parties, media or election campaigns is going to change people's minds about what they believe, so it just exacerbates the problem of imposing laws one way or another that make the other side scream.

There is no way out of this except to sort through the people and conflicts and work out approaches we can all live with. There are no shortcuts, and people who think they can just railroad their way through by being brats or bullies about it make it harder for those who are trying to find reasonable solutions that either solve the problems or bypass conflicts.

As for how to respond, I see you are trying to be as reasonable as possible. As long as we realize we are not perfect either, we can be as fair to others who could just as quickly jump on us. I don't think it is fair to fault others for not being perfectly unbiased and then get mad if they react to us for some bias we have, too.

You are more mature than the usual lot who use the boards for venting online as part of their grief process until they are ready to face the reality of resolution.

If we just focus on those who CAN follow and maintain a higher standard of interaction, the others will follow or "get out of the way" -- no need to slam anyone, they will excuse or eliminate themselves when they can't cut it. Just pointing out the flaws in their logic, and offering ways to correct that is all we can do, no flaming or personal remarks needed.

I just don't want you to end up stooping to lower levels instead of staying focused where you'd rather be. There are a lot more people on here than before who are trying to be more mindful of others, trying to understand and explain differences, so don't give up.

More people will eventually come around, it's just a matter of time, and there are plenty of civil thoughtful people on here to start with and stick with a positive constructive direction.
There is no need to waste words trying to insult anyone back personally, just focusing on the points themselves and not the people will help reinforce the right focus.

Even if people miss your point and reject your corrections, it is like planting seeds.
You don't hold out your hand trying to force the seed into the ground, take root, and grow. You try to find the best place to plant a seed, and let it grow on its own. Even if people are stubbornheaded, or not in a place where they are ready to get what you are saying, that seed will still stick where it is offered and planted with love and concern for shared understanding. You may not see the effects yourself, but keep planting positive seeds and they will eventually germinate and bloom.

Just keep doing what you do best, and try to find any good point you can agree with in people, and they will be influenced to do the same for you. They can fight it, but if you are consistent in respecting common truth, that will prevail over any other ill will or intent.

You are very honest and perceptive, and you will eventually win out over anything inconsistent that you weed out in the process. Be encouraged, know there is some redeeming factor in each person even if they never show it here. And just focus where you can find it, and let the rest take care of itself. Keep going on this path and it will become more clear and straightforward where to focus. It will get easier as we go.

Like Churchill once said, if you find yourself going through hell, keep going.
Take care and keep up the excellent efforts to reach out to others and foster greater understanding, no matter where people may be coming or starting from. We need to start somewhere if we are going to get anywhere! Thanks [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]!

 

[Inevitable]

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I tried, it seems the only people here that argue against equality are temper fit throwing babies. The decorum in this forum is deplorable. And until these people show they deserve respectful discussion, I am going to stomp them into the ground.

It's foolish to treat irrational morons as if theyare intellectual equals.

I can't always tell who's for real, and who's for show either, until they show their colors or run away and hide, from the real work it is going to take to address and solve these problems.

No amount of suing, legislating, fighting political through parties, media or election campaigns is going to change people's minds about what they believe, so it just exacerbates the problem of imposing laws one way or another that make the other side scream.

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] laws that promote liberty aren't imposing. Which is why this discussion is foregone.

There is no way out of this except to sort through the people and conflicts and work out approaches we can all live with. There are no shortcuts, and people who think they can just railroad their way through by being brats or bullies about it make it harder for those who are trying to find reasonable solutions that either solve the problems or bypass conflicts.

I disagree. Simply remove section two of doma, problem solved. Nobody loses anything. It's the perfect solution.

As for how to respond, I see you are trying to be as reasonable as possible. As long as we realize we are not perfect either, we can be as fair to others who could just as quickly jump on us. I don't think it is fair to fault others for not being perfectly unbiased and then get mad if they react to us for some bias we have, too.

You are more mature than the usual lot who use the boards for venting online as part of their grief process until they are ready to face the reality of resolution.

If we just focus on those who CAN follow and maintain a higher standard of interaction, the others will follow or "get out of the way" -- no need to slam anyone, they will excuse or eliminate themselves when they can't cut it. Just pointing out the flaws in their logic, and offering ways to correct that is all we can do, no flaming or personal remarks needed.

I just don't want you to end up stooping to lower levels instead of staying focused where you'd rather be. There are a lot more people on here than before who are trying to be more mindful of others, trying to understand and explain differences, so don't give up.

More people will eventually come around, it's just a matter of time, and there are plenty of civil thoughtful people on here to start with and stick with a positive constructive direction.
There is no need to waste words trying to insult anyone back personally, just focusing on the points themselves and not the people will help reinforce the right focus.

Even if people miss your point and reject your corrections, it is like planting seeds.
You don't hold out your hand trying to force the seed into the ground, take root, and grow. You try to find the best place to plant a seed, and let it grow on its own. Even if people are stubbornheaded, or not in a place where they are ready to get what you are saying, that seed will still stick where it is offered and planted with love and concern for shared understanding. You may not see the effects yourself, but keep planting positive seeds and they will eventually germinate and bloom.

Just keep doing what you do best, and try to find any good point you can agree with in people, and they will be influenced to do the same for you. They can fight it, but if you are consistent in respecting common truth, that will prevail over any other ill will or intent.

You are very honest and perceptive, and you will eventually win out over anything inconsistent that you weed out in the process. Be encouraged, know there is some redeeming factor in each person even if they never show it here. And just focus where you can find it, and let the rest take care of itself. Keep going on this path and it will become more clear and straightforward where to focus. It will get easier as we go.

Like Churchill once said, if you find yourself going through hell, keep going.
Take care and keep up the excellent efforts to reach out to others and foster greater understanding, no matter where people may be coming or starting from. We need to start somewhere if we are going to get anywhere! Thanks [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]!

I frankly have grown tired of boorish posters that refuse reason. There is no raging with them.

 

[emilynghiem]

laws that promote liberty aren't imposing. Which is why this discussion is foregone.

OK so isn't the problem that
1. this freedom is not defended equally between parties.
the real upset is that while liberals claim to defend freedom of choice,
look at what happened with the ACA bill and federal mandates. How is that free choice?
Isn't the real problem distrust of people pushing their political agenda?
So to solve the real problem, that is what needs to be addressed FIRST.
And once people are on the same page with respecting freedoms equally,
maybe THEN we can write laws from that spirit of agreement, and not have these messes.

2. until laws are written from mutual agreement,
isn't the problem with the language that is not interpreted or written to be unbiased,
but people on both sides are complaining if the laws are written where they
impose on or exclude their views.

I'm interested in what you see as the solution below.
That is what we need to focus on, what is in the actual laws causing the disruption,
and how can this be written clearly so as not to impose a contested bias either way.

If it is all "emotional projection" then we need to resolve that as part of the
democratic process, since it involves people and perceptions of what laws mean.

Simply remove section two of doma, problem solved. Nobody loses anything. It's the perfect solution.

YES let's focus on actual solutions. The other personal/emotional issues still have to be resolved as part of the process, so it helps to focus on what legislation actually needs to say or not say to either resolve or eliminate conflicts.

The other problems will either resolve themselves, or be kept in private to work out personally and separate from the neutral language in the laws that should not be affected.
Well written laws should equally accommodate both sides' views without either imposing or denying equal inclusion and representation.

Even the Second Amendment as written somehow includes totally different sides who feel that wording represents their interpretation, and they are both looking at the same words!

I frankly have grown tired of boorish posters that refuse reason. There is no raging with them.

Let's bypass what is causing the raging reactions,
focus on what words or laws are causing conflicts or can offer solutions,
and direct the attention there. At least that is rational and constructive. The other mess will have to work itself out, wherever it is being projected from.

Thanks [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
I believe solutions will come from these interactions because of people like you
who care and are persistent in achieving some resolution, not just debating in circles.
This is much needed and long overdue, so anything you can offer in that direction I support.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"Give a man a mask and he'll tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde

How it is online with the insults and general surliness. If we weren't afraid of being punched in the nose in real life, we'd debate each other and argue much as we do online. But here, ya don't worry about being beaten up so you tend to be more honest and true to how you feel about things.

 

[Inevitable]

laws that promote liberty aren't imposing. Which is why this discussion is foregone.

OK so isn't the problem that
1. this freedom is not defended equally between parties.
the real upset is that while liberals claim to defend freedom of choice,
look at what happened with the ACA bill and federal mandates. How is that free choice?
Isn't the real problem distrust of people pushing their political agenda?
So to solve the real problem, that is what needs to be addressed FIRST.
And once people are on the same page with respecting freedoms equally,
maybe THEN we can write laws from that spirit of agreement, and not have these messes.

[MENTION=22295]emilynghiem[/MENTION] I am not really interested in tribalism. I don't really see a value in addressing it. If the only reason somebody is against freedoms ifs because the party that supports it also did something in a completely unrelated field, they are effectively throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

2. until laws are written from mutual agreement,
isn't the problem with the language that is not interpreted or written to be unbiased,
but people on both sides are complaining if the laws are written where they
impose on or exclude their views.

If yourviewis that certain people shouldn't have liberty because they don't fit your criteria of people who deserve it, your opinion isn't valuable. Your views are damaging to liberty.

I'm interested in what you see as the solution below.
That is what we need to focus on, what is in the actual laws causing the disruption,
and how can this be written clearly so as not to impose a contested bias either way.

If it is all "emotional projection" then we need to resolve that as part of the
democratic process, since it involves people and perceptions of what laws mean.

There is only emotional projection coming from one side. The other side simply wants liberty guaranteed to them in the constitution.

YES let's focus on actual solutions. The other personal/emotional issues still have to be resolved as part of the process, so it helps to focus on what legislation actually needs to say or not say to either resolve or eliminate conflicts.

Personal issues are the individual's to deal with.

The other problems will either resolve themselves, or be kept in private to work out personally and separate from the neutral language in the laws that should not be affected.
Well written laws should equally accommodate both sides' views without either imposing or denying equal inclusion and representation.

Only if both sides are equal. Inthis case they aren't. One side wants to deny liberty. They must lose everything.

Even the Second Amendment as written somehow includes totally different sides who feel that wording represents their interpretation, and they are both looking at the same words!

No it doesn't. "...the right of the people to keepand bear arms must not be infringed. there is absolutely no ambiguity there

I frankly have grown tired of boorish posters that refuse reason. There is no raging with them.

Let's bypass what is causing the raging reactions,
focus on what words or laws are causing conflicts or can offer solutions,
and direct the attention there. At least that is rational and constructive. The other mess will have to work itself out, wherever it is being projected from.

Thanks [MENTION=49586]Inevitable[/MENTION]
I believe solutions will come from these interactions because of people like you
who care and are persistent in achieving some resolution, not just debating in circles.
This is much needed and long overdue, so anything you can offer in that direction I support.

What it's causing conflict is that homosexuals exist and wish to have equal rights.

 

[Peach]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

Welcome aboard.

I'm for it. If simply because marriage insofar as the government is concerned is a legal contract, and any two legal aged adults who could enter into other legal contracts with one another should also be able to enter into a marital one. Plus, as a religious rite, the government can't impose one religion's for/against onto the rite since not all religions agree about whether it'd be okay or not.

Same here, no other individual's liberties will be infringed.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

"Give a man a mask and he'll tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde

How it is online with the insults and general surliness. If we weren't afraid of being punched in the nose in real life, we'd debate each other and argue much as we do online. But here, ya don't worry about being beaten up so you tend to be more honest and true to how you feel about things.

Delta, me and you don't agree on much, but this post is spot on.

I like to call folks 'CB supermen' I picked it up while driving a truck, anyone can be a superman on the CB, or the internet, I am much more impressed by someone who can keep their calm while others make fun of, and ridicule them, call them names, and just make total azzes of themselves.

I've never had a problem speaking in public, because a person's voice can convey the emotions and intent, that you can't get with typed text.

 

[Esmeralda]

I'm sorry if this is an issue that has been beaten to death here, but I've only been a member for about a week and haven't really seen it discussed in detail.

So...are you for or against same sex couples entering into a civil marriage in the United States? Why or why not?

I happen to be in favor of it. I'm a gay man in Texas who is waiting for the law to change so I can marry the man I've spent the last nine years with.

Stated simply, consenting adults should have the right to civil marriage regardless of sexual orientation. In no way should any church or religious organization be required to marry gay couples if that is against their doctrine.

I agree. This idea that a union between a man and woman is somehow holier than between same sex has proven itself to be a myth. With a 50% divorce rate and heterosexuals treating marriage as if it is some kind of game, we really can't put this holy glow over the idea of marriage: it is simply a contract between two people. People break the contract all the time. I have known gay couples who have been together longer than most hetero couples. The proof of marriage is in the people: whether two genders or same sex, it depends on the people involved and whether they have respect for marriage.

 

[Noomi]

I am yet to hear a decent, logical reason as to why SSM shouldn't be allowed.