Homosexual love

[Montrovant]

MountainMan, I assume the state is involved because of the legal ramifications of marriage (taxes, decision-making in medical situations, etc). Well, that's the reason that matters in this thread

 

[Gunny]

Christians, why seek to outlaw this?

YouTube - Sweet Chinese Gay Couple(王å*è½©&刘奇)

Discuss...

Non-Christian, why be so ghey? You want to bitch about trying to outlaw homosexuality and mislabel homophobes as "christians", so I have to ask: You a pole smoker? If you ain't, it's no more YOUR f-ing business than anyone else's.

 

[California Girl]

The original idea of marriage was a religious one, not a state sanctioned one. If his religion doesn't want to sanction a marriage, that is up to his religion, not the state.

Which is what I am saying - a contractual legal marriage, fine. Regilious ceremony? Only at the discretion of the faith concerned..... Although, unlike some on here who seek to protect only their own faith, I seek to protect all faiths.

Actually, I don't think you do want to protect all faiths. From your post, to me, it sounded more like you want to force your standards on their faith, and you want the government to help you do that. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
My point is that the state has no right to be involved.

Then I suggest that you read what I wrote. I am fine with a contractual, legal marriage. I am not fine for any faith to be forced to accept the marrying of same sex couples if they choose not to. I ask nothing from the state other than to recognize that the state does not have the right to force chruches to marry same sex couples if it against the principles of that church. I said nothing about government help - just that they stay the hell out of it.

 

[alan1]

MountainMan, I assume the state is involved because of the legal ramifications of marriage (taxes, decision-making in medical situations, etc). Well, that's the reason that matters in this thread

And aren't those constructs of the government?
Tell me, why should the tax structure have anything to do with marriage?
As for medical decisions, I can legally write a document that gives those types of decisions to anybody I choose.

 

[CurveLight]

Christians, why seek to outlaw this?


Discuss...

Not all Christians are bigots and Christianity is not the only religion with members who oppose equal rights.

 

[eagleseven]

Christians, why seek to outlaw this?

YouTube - Sweet Chinese Gay Couple(王å*è½©&刘å¥&#8225

Discuss...

Non-Christian, why be so ghey? You want to bitch about trying to outlaw homosexuality and mislabel homophobes as "christians", so I have to ask: You a pole smoker? If you ain't, it's no more YOUR f-ing business than anyone else's.

Like I said before, I'd like for my gay relatives to get married (they want to), but that is proving problematic. It would seem that mainstream Christianity is the primary impediment to this happening.

So yeah, it affects me.

 

[Immanuel]

A generation or two from now, people will look back and wonder why we denied the civil rights of homosexuals just like we look back 40 years ago and wonder why we denied the civil rights of blacks. Today will be looked at as a prejudiced time in the future because people are fighting against gay rights.

True, but in a generation or two from now, they will be discriminating against someone else. It is human nature and that is not going to change.

The only people that care what gays get up to are closet homos, that's it, that's all.

I have to ask, if your statement means that since I am pro-life, does that mean that I secretly want to have an abortion?

I can't answer why other people have such a phobia against gay marriage. I can say that as a Christian, I think that marriage should remain a rite of the church and that the state should regulate "civil unions" and leave marriage to the church.

I don't care and don't want to know what a homosexual couple does in its bedroom. I do not believe that our government should penalize couples whether they are gay or straight, "Married" or not. In my humble opinion, the state's role in this should be nothing more that sanctioning a contractual relationship between two people. They don't need to call it marriage to do that.

In the same light, if a church decides that the souls of the homosexual are more important than forbidding gay marriage and the church feels that such marriage is acceptable, let that church grant its rites to a homosexual couple. I do not need to be a member of that church if I don't like their decision. There are plenty to go around. I do not believe that the sin of homosexuality is compatible with Christianity, but then neither is the sin of adultery and I know of many pastors who have succumbed to that sin. No sin, is compatible with Christianity. Thankfully, we have a God that has provided a way around sin.

Immie

 

[CurveLight]

protecting traditional marriage, doesnt invade others lives.

but nice try

There is no such institution as "Traditional Marriage." That term was engendered by bigots who failed to realize their position has no merit.

 

[alan1]

Which is what I am saying - a contractual legal marriage, fine. Regilious ceremony? Only at the discretion of the faith concerned..... Although, unlike some on here who seek to protect only their own faith, I seek to protect all faiths.

Actually, I don't think you do want to protect all faiths. From your post, to me, it sounded more like you want to force your standards on their faith, and you want the government to help you do that. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
My point is that the state has no right to be involved.

Then I suggest that you read what I wrote. I am fine with a contractual, legal marriage. I am not fine for any faith to be forced to accept the marrying of same sex couples if they choose not to. I ask nothing from the state other than to recognize that the state does not have the right to force chruches to marry same sex couples if it against the principles of that church. I said nothing about government help - just that they stay the hell out of it.

If you want the government to stay the hell out of it, then let the government stay the hell out of marriage period.
No need to pass laws allowing gay marriage if the government isn't involved at all, is there?

 

[eagleseven]

If you want the government to stay the hell out of it, then let the government stay the hell out of marriage period.

No need to pass laws allowing gay marriage if the government isn't involved at all, is there?

Indeed.

 

[alan1]

Christians, why seek to outlaw this?

YouTube - Sweet Chinese Gay Couple(王å*è½©&刘奇)

Discuss...

Non-Christian, why be so ghey? You want to bitch about trying to outlaw homosexuality and mislabel homophobes as "christians", so I have to ask: You a pole smoker? If you ain't, it's no more YOUR f-ing business than anyone else's.

He didn't just "mislabel homophobes as Christians", he tried to insinuate that anybody against gay marriage is a homophobe.

 

[Gunny]

MountainMan, I assume the state is involved because of the legal ramifications of marriage (taxes, decision-making in medical situations, etc). Well, that's the reason that matters in this thread

And aren't those constructs of the government?
Tell me, why should the tax structure have anything to do with marriage?
As for medical decisions, I can legally write a document that gives those types of decisions to anybody I choose.

No, you cannot. Corporate America chooses who you may or may not allow to decide. But that's not discrimination against just gays. It's discrimination against anyone who doesn't want to go the "next of kin" route.

Changing those laws would be too simple though, and does not allow gays to focus the attention on their aberrant sexual behavior and demand it be labeled "normal".

 

[eagleseven]

He didn't just "mislabel homophobes as Christians", he tried to insinuate that anybody against gay marriage is a homophobe.

I did this without even mentioning gay marriage or homophobia anywhere in the OP, while drunk!

You know, sometimes I amaze even myself...

 

[CurveLight]

It's a legal matter, ergo government is involved.

It's only a legal matter because the government told you it was.
The state has no business sanctioning marriage, period.

The problem is that the state holds the reins. Legislators are in a position of power even in a liberal democracy. I don't mean the individuals occupying the roles on a temporary basis, I mean the offices themselves. You might think that the state has no business in sanctioning marriage but the fact is that it feels it does. That idea goes back to ancient Rome and no doubt before the Roman Republic. Essentially marriage is the official recognition of a relationship and an awarding of status to the issue of that relationship. Short of pure anarchism that's not going to change any time soon.

The concept of marriage pre-dates ancient Rome by quite a few tick tocks. The meaning and purpose have historically been about retaining ownership of property and had nothing to do with recognizing any relationship by virtue of a consenting agreement. Some Christians will cite Sod + Gom as evidence God denounces homosexuality but they have not done any homework so they totally miss the irony their frame of reference viewed virgin womyn not as people but only property. In their haste to justify their bigotry against gays they accidentally reference institutionalized rape to defend their views.

 

[alan1]

MountainMan, I assume the state is involved because of the legal ramifications of marriage (taxes, decision-making in medical situations, etc). Well, that's the reason that matters in this thread

And aren't those constructs of the government?
Tell me, why should the tax structure have anything to do with marriage?
As for medical decisions, I can legally write a document that gives those types of decisions to anybody I choose.

No, you cannot. Corporate America chooses who you may or may not allow to decide. But that's not discrimination against just gays. It's discrimination against anyone who doesn't want to go the "next of kin" route.

Changing those laws would be too simple though, and does not allow gays to focus the attention on their aberrant sexual behavior and demand it be labeled "normal".

You are incorrect. I can legally specify power of attorney over my medical decisions, and I have. As an unmarried man with adult children, legally my children are next of kin with rights to decide medical issues if I am incapable of doing so myself. I have legal documents that give that authority to my sister. My parents, my children, my siblings and my attorney all have copies of the document.
Gay people can write similar legal documents. If the documents are not challenged at their inception, it's kind of hard to challenge them later.

 

[CurveLight]

The State is involved in marriage because it is easily the most destructive force in a liberal democracy and there are remnants of antiquated views of property. (ie. The groom must ask for the father's permission to propose and the father "gives" her away during the ceremony. Ironic. Considering the father historically has been paid.)


However, that doesn't justify the State's involvement and it would be nice if we could remove the State from our personal relationships. Imao, the best progress is not to give same sex marriage the same rights as hetero marriages. The best move forward would be to level the playing by the State removing the Rights given to hetero marriages.

 

[CurveLight]

And aren't those constructs of the government?
Tell me, why should the tax structure have anything to do with marriage?
As for medical decisions, I can legally write a document that gives those types of decisions to anybody I choose.

No, you cannot. Corporate America chooses who you may or may not allow to decide. But that's not discrimination against just gays. It's discrimination against anyone who doesn't want to go the "next of kin" route.

Changing those laws would be too simple though, and does not allow gays to focus the attention on their aberrant sexual behavior and demand it be labeled "normal".

You are incorrect. I can legally specify power of attorney over my medical decisions, and I have. As an unmarried man with adult children, legally my children are next of kin with rights to decide medical issues if I am incapable of doing so myself. I have legal documents that give that authority to my sister. My parents, my children, my siblings and my attorney all have copies of the document.
Gay people can write similar legal documents. If the documents are not challenged at their inception, it's kind of hard to challenge them later.

For clarification, is this claiming gays can have the same Rights as heteros if they just draft the proper legal documents?

 

[mudwhistle]

Which is what I am saying - a contractual legal marriage, fine. Regilious ceremony? Only at the discretion of the faith concerned..... Although, unlike some on here who seek to protect only their own faith, I seek to protect all faiths.

Actually, I don't think you do want to protect all faiths. From your post, to me, it sounded more like you want to force your standards on their faith, and you want the government to help you do that. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant.
My point is that the state has no right to be involved.

Then I suggest that you read what I wrote. I am fine with a contractual, legal marriage. I am not fine for any faith to be forced to accept the marrying of same sex couples if they choose not to. I ask nothing from the state other than to recognize that the state does not have the right to force chruches to marry same sex couples if it against the principles of that church. I said nothing about government help - just that they stay the hell out of it.

I wonder if it's possible for the church to stay out of it.

Maybe go to a justice of the peace.

Better to do that then to infringe on everyone else's rights.

 

[alan1]

No, you cannot. Corporate America chooses who you may or may not allow to decide. But that's not discrimination against just gays. It's discrimination against anyone who doesn't want to go the "next of kin" route.

Changing those laws would be too simple though, and does not allow gays to focus the attention on their aberrant sexual behavior and demand it be labeled "normal".

You are incorrect. I can legally specify power of attorney over my medical decisions, and I have. As an unmarried man with adult children, legally my children are next of kin with rights to decide medical issues if I am incapable of doing so myself. I have legal documents that give that authority to my sister. My parents, my children, my siblings and my attorney all have copies of the document.
Gay people can write similar legal documents. If the documents are not challenged at their inception, it's kind of hard to challenge them later.

For clarification, is this claiming gays can have the same Rights as heteros if they just draft the proper legal documents?

First of all, I'm not clear on what rights you think gays are missing.
Legal power of attorney in health matters (or other matters) can be specified in a written document. Those powers and authorities can be given to anybody by anybody, it has nothing to do with sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, body weight, hair color, or anything else. The only limiting factor is age. Both parties need to be of legal age, which happens to be 18.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think the French have the right model.

Encourage civil unions for relationships that reciprocal perks and obligations under the law. Property, responsibility for children and their support, taxes, probate, etc., would be the emphasis of civil unions. A man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man, a man and two or more women, etc. The emphasis is legal responsibility, not only or necessarily the legitimation of sexuality. Thus, an aunt and a niece, or a grandfather and a grandson, or any of you and me -- could fit the mold.

Leave 'marriage' solely to religion and other belief systems. The advantage is obvious -- the state has no power (or reason) to interfere with Froggy marrying Kermit at all.

A political advantage would be that such a two-tier system of civil union and marriage would force my Republican party to find real issues on which to run.