Gay marriage

[inviere1644]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

[Vanguard]

Now, all of this social engineering has left the definition of marrage in it's wake, changing it from a personal religious matter back into a matter subject to definition by the state. This has left some asking, what happened to what used to be a matter of religious freedom? Therefore, I asked the basic questions that would have meant something and could have been answered rather clearly at the time the constitution was ratified. What is the definition of marrage and what is the compelling state purpose in regulating it? Without clear answers to these questions, one can not rightly decide whether the state should recognize marrage at all, let alone recognize a particular kind of marrage.

I had a bit of a difficult time following the longer narrative before this quote but it seems this one paragraph does get closer to the core of what I am questioning. Is it your position that the state should have never entered into the fray regards to legally codifying the institution of marriage and that it should have remained within the confines of the church alone?

[bluethread]

Now, all of this social engineering has left the definition of marrage in it's wake, changing it from a personal religious matter back into a matter subject to definition by the state. This has left some asking, what happened to what used to be a matter of religious freedom? Therefore, I asked the basic questions that would have meant something and could have been answered rather clearly at the time the constitution was ratified. What is the definition of marrage and what is the compelling state purpose in regulating it? Without clear answers to these questions, one can not rightly decide whether the state should recognize marrage at all, let alone recognize a particular kind of marrage.

I had a bit of a difficult time following the longer narrative before this quote but it seems this one paragraph does get closer to the core of what I am questioning. Is it your position that the state should have never entered into the fray regards to legally codifying the institution of marriage and that it should have remained within the confines of the church alone?

That depends on how one defines "church". If one thinks of it as an authoritarian structure as in the RCC or Anglican denominations, I see little difference. That is because I believe that the further one gets from the local community(church), the less effective legislation becomes. It appears to me that the attempts by the federal government to promote social equality have at best merely shifted the inequality from one favored constituency to another. Therefore, I think that if it is determined that the federal government should recognize homosexual unions as marrage, many in the homosexual "community" will be less than satisfied with the results. I say this not because I fear the homosexual "community", but the federal government. It is my experience that the healthiest relationships are those that treat the government with the greatest indifference. The more dependant a relationship is on it's own resources the better.

I am sorry to say at this point that I will need to curtail my posting. I am now gainfully employed for nearly 80 hrs. a week and need the rest of my time to follow my own advice and attend to my family. I might peek in from time to time, but I can no longer allow myself to get involved in discussions that require drawn out examination or questions of personal integrity. Not that you have asked these things from me, but that appears to be the trend to this point on this thread. I hope I have been of help to you.

[bluethread]

The laws associated with marrage and the application of those laws have created confusion with regard to what differentiates it from simple partnership.

No, they haven't. The law is quite clear about this distinction.

Therefore, it is difficult to determine if a simple partnership agreement, which can be applied to any two adults, is sufficient or if it is necessary to expand the definition of marrage.

No, it's easy to determine. It can't, because being married is a status recognized by the government.

If it is not sufficient, one would need to know how the two are different and whether those differences are sufficient to expand the definition of marrage in the case of homosexual relationships.

No one is trying to expand the definition of marriage.

Are you trying to ask whether purely private documents, such as powers of attorney, can create the legal equivalent of marriage? No, they cannot. Do you see why, or do you need me to explain it?

I am sorry to say at this point that I will need to curtail my posting. I am now gainfully employed for nearly 80 hrs. a week and need the rest of my time to attend to my family. I might peek in from time to time, but I can no longer allow myself to get involved in discussions that require drawn out examination or questions of personal integrity. Thank you for responding to my statements and not persuming evil intent.

Give my regards to angel. I would make a direct post, but I am sure that my reasons for leaving this discussion will be seen as somehow deceptive, even if I were to attach PDF's of my pay stubs.

[bluethread]

quoted rather than editing. sorry.

[Angel]

So you believe that same-sex behavior is immoral not just for yourself but also when others engage in it. And it was this bit of info. that I could not even get out of you before for whatever reasons you chose to hide or disguise it.

Within my gates, yes. Sorry I did not disclose all of the factors of my belief system. However, when I offered to discuss this with you declined, twice. In the interests of full disclosure I am also circumcised. Is it necessary for me to show you so you will knw I am not lying about this?

If by within your gates you also mean within your beliefs that ALL (including those not of your belief-system) who engage in gay sex and marriage, then okay, I see your point.

No, by within my gates, I mean within my literal gates. That is on my property.

You believe in the Bible and its God. So in your belief-system, murder is wrong. So are you saying if I murder someone OUTSIDE of your gates it would not be considered immoral for me eventhough your God and Bible calls it wrong? Doesn't seem consistent with your Bible so for now I can only say your view seems a bit inconsistent.

[Autodidact]

That depends on how one defines "church". If one thinks of it as an authoritarian structure as in the RCC or Anglican denominations, I see little difference. That is because I believe that the further one gets from the local community(church), the less effective legislation becomes. It appears to me that the attempts by the federal government to promote social equality have at best merely shifted the inequality from one favored constituency to another. Therefore, I think that if it is determined that the federal government should recognize homosexual unions as marrage, many in the homosexual "community" will be less than satisfied with the results. I say this not because I fear the homosexual "community", but the federal government. It is my experience that the healthiest relationships are those that treat the government with the greatest indifference. The more dependant a relationship is on it's own resources the better.

So again, I assume that you're not married? Because you wouldn't want to make your relationship dependent on governmental resources, right? Or is it only when other people want to avail themselves of the right to do so that you have a problem.

I think the "homosexual community," aka gay people, can decide for themselves what we think is in our interest, without help from you.

I am sorry to say at this point that I will need to curtail my posting. I am now gainfully employed for nearly 80 hrs. a week and need the rest of my time to follow my own advice and attend to my family. I might peek in from time to time, but I can no longer allow myself to get involved in discussions that require drawn out examination or questions of personal integrity. Not that you have asked these things from me, but that appears to be the trend to this point on this thread. I hope I have been of help to you.

Wait, you have a family? You're married? You don't know what marriage is, and you think it's a bad idea, but you're married? While I, who does know what it is and think it's a good idea, cannot?

Somehow I'm not surprised.

[99percentatheism]

“Haven’t you read,� he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.�

- Jesus called Christ

Same gender couplings, whether sexual or in some kind of redefined "marriage" arrangement, has nothing at all to do with Christian reality and Christian truth

Christians should have always held to this position and never gotten involved in the wierdness of this issue.

To paraphrase: Let the dead marry the dead.

You don't see Christians opposing voddo practioners getting married.

[connermt]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

I'm for the legalizing of gay marriage. So long as it doesn't any more negatively impact any straight person/couple (I haven't seen any states/countries crumble simply because gay people are getting married, has anyone else?) than a straight marriage, why would anyone care?
Likely because they don't like gay people (ew...gay people!) and/or they're struggling with their own sexuality and/or they have weak faith in their own beliefs and want to force their belief on others.
Or they're just jerks with no life that need to control others.

[Cewakiyelo]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

As a moderate straight man, I'm in support of gay marriage. I believe strongly that being gay is not a choice, and that asking gay people to suppress sexual urges completely for their whole life is just ridiculous. They should have the same option to enter into a loving and committed relationship as heterosexuals.

Do you think being a pedophile is a choice? I would bet it is pretty natural for them too. It is just how they are hard wired. If this is the case would you feel it ridiculous for them to suppress their sexual urges their whole life too? I bet not.

Matthew 19:4-6 (Jesus speaking on marriage)
4 And He answered and said unto them, “Have ye not read, that He that made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 and said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh’?
6 Therefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.�

Can a man and a man or a woman and a woman come together as one flesh? NO they can not. The only way the Flesh of Two can become One is through the birth of a child. The Flesh of man the sperm and the flesh of woman the egg join to create one flesh, the child. This is what marriage is. This is its purpose. Marriage is the act of shouldering the responsibilities of raising a family. Helpmates doing what they must so that their offspring might survive not only life but also prepare them to know God that they might also survive death.

Sex for sex sake is nothing more than tending to ones desires. Allowing desire to be unchecked is what destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot's wife turned to a pillar of salt because she couldn't control her desire to take one more look. The cities were destroyed because they had become corrupt and accepting that all they did as good as it pleased their desirous nature. Plenty of desire in the world. All of it natural. We are hateful, murderous, adulterous, thieving, lecherous, lustful ... people. We desire our wealth, our sexual gratification, our revenge. And when we allow our desires to come before our commitments and responsibilities to God, we are allowing those desires to carry us away from God. Pedophile, crack addict, porn addict, gay, hater, thief, alcoholic, etc.. it matters not, the brand. If we do things that would not be pleasing to God than we are walking in the wrong direction. And if we support others in their walk in the wrong direction and help them on their path. We too are probably moving in the wrong direction.

Being gay may not be a choice but acting upon their desires certainly is.

[Goat]

Ok, as a moderate gay man I'm always interested to see what people on the liberal and conservative spectrums have to say about this issue. So, is it right or wrong? why or why not?

As a moderate straight man, I'm in support of gay marriage. I believe strongly that being gay is not a choice, and that asking gay people to suppress sexual urges completely for their whole life is just ridiculous. They should have the same option to enter into a loving and committed relationship as heterosexuals.

Do you think being a pedophile is a choice? I would bet it is pretty natural for them too. It is just how they are hard wired. If this is the case would you feel it ridiculous for them to suppress their sexual urges their whole life too? I bet not.

Well.. there is a big difference, and that is 'Consenting adult'. A child, or even a young teen does not have mental facilities to make a proper choice in the matter.