Gay marriage (1 Viewer)

[Men-in-Cleats]

Has there been any intense studies regarding the environment homosexuals were brought up in?

Has there been any intense studies regarding the environment homosexuals were brought up in?

I really don't think environment plays that big of a role. At least not amonst my friends and I.Of my group of friends and I, we are all upper-middle class. Most of our parents are still together. We never had anything traumatic like rape or molestation during our childhood.So I doubt that living in one of the best neighborhoods in Dallas, going to the top schools in Dallas has any bearing on my being gay. Nor was being raised in a Babtist church.

...BUT DALLAS FOR SOME REASON DOES HAVE A RELATIVELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF HOMOSEXUALS...sorry caps lock was stuck...which surprised me in that it is close to the Bible Belt.When we played baseball against SMU, their field was in an area of town next to a place called Q#### Hill (not my name for it) which was a social hangout for many in the Dallas gay community (or so we were told). It was funny, though, because their were these guys whistling at us as we were warming up down in the outfield. They were probably joking, but as an 18 year old I was freaked out by it...and this was before I "got religion".

For you to use this as an argument for environmental impact on sexual preference you'd have to demonstrate that a higher percentage of people who grow up in Dallas are gay as opposed to gays from other parts of the state/country moving to Dallas because of the gay community there. Sort of a chicken or the egg argument. The same could be said about San Francisco? Was it always an area with a strong gay community or did it start out small and grow in population as word spread of the benefits of living there for the gay man or lesbian?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.

There could be a whole thread in itself about how much bull#### this statement is. To say that is to try to put icing on what is still a bigoted and hateful position.

I'm surprised you would say that. You're usually on the forefront of acknowledging that complex issues are complex, and criticising those who oversimplify issues. Then again, by oversimplifying this one, it gives you chance to blast those with religious convictions, so I really shouldn't be surprised at all.Anyway, the distinction I'm making here is important because it makes the question of whether homosexuals are born that way or not is irrelevant to whether homosexual sex is a sin or not.

Bottom line: the position of opposing gay marriage is COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE except behind the curtain of RELIGION,

No matter how many words you type in ALL CAPS, that statement is not true. Your precious Maurile posted a perfectly logical explanation for homophobia that was independent of religious conviction. You didn't object to that post when it first appeared. Why is it invalid now? Because it's easier to criticize Christians that way? If you're going to accuse others of being hypocrites, wouldn't it be a good strategy to avoid hypocrisy yourself when doing so?(NOTE: Maurile did not endorse homophobia or oppose gay marriage in any way when he made that post. That's pretty obvious to anyone who reads his posts here, but I'm about to bury Jericho deep inside the earth for falsely projecting beliefs upon me, and I want to let Maurile know I not attempting to do the same to him here.)

and since that's all you've got then it has NO BUSINESS being in a discussion about LAW AND GOVERNMENT, unless you are willing to THROW AWAY a free and representative society in favour of an autocratic theocracy.  Full stop.  Game over.  Every thing else is just smoke and mirrors and I have no time for it.

Opposing gay marriage is opposing free society.  HYPOCRITES.

I support gay marriage being legal. I've opposed the proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage from the get-go. I support calling gay marriage "marriage" to close any possible legislative loopholes to block homosexuals from work benefits, estate concerns, etc., through weaselly wording (laws written to cover marriages but not civil unions would be a possibility if we called them different things). It's possible to believe that an action is sinful yet still should be legal, and remain on solid ethical ground when doing so. (More on that later.)Jericho, you've read my posts in the myriad of threads on homosexuality and gay marriage. You already knew where I stood on the issue of gay marriage. Yet you still falsely projected bigotry upon me.

I'm no stranger to receiving false projections on this board w/r/t my Christian faith. My parents aren't Christians, but that doesn't stop some atheists on this board from falsely claiming that I'm only a Christian because my parents shoved their religious convictions down my throat when I was a kid. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and won't in 2004, but that doesn't stop some liberals on this boards from falsely assuming I'm a Republican simply because I'm a Christian. (Imagine their surprise/skepticism when they hear how fervently I supported Paul Wellstone, or when I start explaining a Biblical-based argument for voting for Kerry.)

In most of those cases, I can excuse them out of ignorance. I'm no stranger to incorrectly stereotyping people myself, so I understand how those mistakes are made. But you knew where I stood, and posted that hate anyway. That's a awful thing to do. If you're just going to say whatever you want about others no matter what they actually post, why should we engage you in debate? The sport of catching you the next time you make stuff up out of thin air?

As I said before, you're usually really good about picking up complexities when others rely on oversimplification to advocate their position. The complexity here that you missed is that what is right or wrong isn't the same test as what is sinful (or not sinful), and certainly not the same test as what should be legal or illegal. It's possible to say an action is wrong and/or sinful, but still should be legal, and remain on ethical ground. Recreational drug use is one issue that comes to mind here. Is it unethical to say "I believe recreational drug use is the wrong way to live your life. But I also believe our government's laws and policy toward drug use are inefficient and misguided, and we should give decriminalization of recreational drug use a shot?" I submit that "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible in this case. Or wearing Zubaz in public. "If bad taste were a crime, wearing those pants would get the chair, but bad taste in clothing shouldn't be a crime." Again, "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible.

How about sex issues? Well, let's examine adultery first. The Bible is consistent that adultery is a sin. Adultery among consenting adults is grounds for divorce, but not a crime in our legal system - if you cheat, your soon-to-be-ex-spouse can bury you at divorce court for it (though not obligated to), but the state won't send you to the slammer for adultery alone. Fornication among consenting adults is indisputably a sin in the Bible. Humans differ on where fornication is right or wrong. Fornication in and of itself is legal, and doesn't become a crime unless one party didn't consent, or if both parties decided to have their party in an inappropriate place like the middle of a street or a public park. So if adultery and fornication are legal when done under unobtrusive circumstances, it doesn't make sense to me for homosexual sex to be illegal. And if we extrapolate a bit, we've found another argument for the legality of gay marriage. We should have a system in place where two homosexuals committed to one another can acquire the same legal status as two heterosexuals committed to one another. It's silly and irresponsible for the USA to not have that system in place already.

Anyway... I entered this thread because it's all too common to see folks get the theology of the issue wrong. And I understand how it would be confusing. The statement, "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is indeed an accurate statement. But it's not a precise one. In this election season, anyone following the campaign, the debates between the candidates, and/or the "debates" among the political junkies on this board are all too familiar with accurate statements that lack precision.

So if "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is an accurate statement, how do we make it precise? I think the biggest barrier we have is understanding that homosexual sex is not in some special class of sin - it's just like any other. Any sin is a sin that will send you to Hell. Homosexual sex is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. Any sin is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. An atheist looking to discredit Christianity, or a homophobe hiding behind Christianity to poorly rationalize their fear and hate, will stop short of the context to give homosexual sex and sin its proper context.

As I've said many times on this board - all sins are big enough to require God's Forgiveness, but all sins are small enough to receive God's Forgiveness. So no sinner, no matter what the quality or quantity of sin, is doomed to Hell - we've all got a shot at Redemption.

I suppose folks could argue about whether homosexual sex should be a sin or not, but in the long run of Heaven and Hell, I think that's a moot argument. We're all going to sin and fall short of the glory of God. I know I do daily, no matter how hard I try. If it's not the sins of commission (the stuff I do that I shouldn't), it's the sins of omission (the stuff I should do that I don't). I'm just thankful God isn't keeping score that way.

Why is their not an ammendment to criminalize adultery. To stop adulterers from getting tax breaks. How about coveters? Quit using religon to justifry intolerance and predjudice. In your cjhurch, do what the #### you want, but get you ### #### theocratic bull#### out of my governemnt, it doesn't belong there.Not this is nolt directed at ferris but all who use this weak and tired argument.

Why do you get to choose what is bigotry? Perhaps you need to ensure polygamy or bestiality are also cleared because it is intolerant not to accept these forms of love. Okay, the bestiuality doesn't involve mutual consent (or does it, how are you so sure a dog isn't consenting?).Baiting done.

Now for a serious question -

What rights do homosexuals get by being allowed to marry?

Perhaps if you list them out I will not be as threatened, being as all I can base my decision on currently is my moral code. Oddly, I would bet that my moral code is not dissimialar from the majority of those living in the US regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Has there been any intense studies regarding the environment homosexuals were brought up in?

Has there been any intense studies regarding the environment homosexuals were brought up in?

I really don't think environment plays that big of a role. At least not amonst my friends and I.Of my group of friends and I, we are all upper-middle class. Most of our parents are still together. We never had anything traumatic like rape or molestation during our childhood.So I doubt that living in one of the best neighborhoods in Dallas, going to the top schools in Dallas has any bearing on my being gay. Nor was being raised in a Babtist church.

...BUT DALLAS FOR SOME REASON DOES HAVE A RELATIVELY HIGH PERCENTAGE OF HOMOSEXUALS...sorry caps lock was stuck...which surprised me in that it is close to the Bible Belt.When we played baseball against SMU, their field was in an area of town next to a place called Q#### Hill (not my name for it) which was a social hangout for many in the Dallas gay community (or so we were told). It was funny, though, because their were these guys whistling at us as we were warming up down in the outfield. They were probably joking, but as an 18 year old I was freaked out by it...and this was before I "got religion".

For you to use this as an argument for environmental impact on sexual preference you'd have to demonstrate that a higher percentage of people who grow up in Dallas are gay as opposed to gays from other parts of the state/country moving to Dallas because of the gay community there. Sort of a chicken or the egg argument. The same could be said about San Francisco? Was it always an area with a strong gay community or did it start out small and grow in population as word spread of the benefits of living there for the gay man or lesbian?

I was not trying to make a case for environmental impact, I was just pointing out an observation I made when I played baseball there in 1987. It may be different now. It just surprised me because I had always seen Dallas as this pristine, southern, howdy ya'll type of town.

 

[Jericho]

For you to use this as an argument for environmental impact on sexual preference you'd have to demonstrate that a higher percentage of people who grow up in Dallas are gay as opposed to gays from other parts of the state/country moving to Dallas because of the gay community there. Sort of a chicken or the egg argument. The same could be said about San Francisco? Was it always an area with a strong gay community or did it start out small and grow in population as word spread of the benefits of living there for the gay man or lesbian?

Just because a community has a higher percentage of visible homosexuals doesn't mean they have a higher percentage of homosexuals (although it may be slightly higher due to migrations by homosexuals who want to avoid local persecution). It's common knowledge that many homosexuals suppress their nature in order to not be ostracized so you cannot judge actual homosexual populations by simply counting the number of guys wearing mesh tank tops.

 

[Hipple Long Ware & Peete]

Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.

There could be a whole thread in itself about how much bull#### this statement is. To say that is to try to put icing on what is still a bigoted and hateful position.

I'm surprised you would say that. You're usually on the forefront of acknowledging that complex issues are complex, and criticising those who oversimplify issues. Then again, by oversimplifying this one, it gives you chance to blast those with religious convictions, so I really shouldn't be surprised at all.Anyway, the distinction I'm making here is important because it makes the question of whether homosexuals are born that way or not is irrelevant to whether homosexual sex is a sin or not.

Bottom line: the position of opposing gay marriage is COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE except behind the curtain of RELIGION,

No matter how many words you type in ALL CAPS, that statement is not true. Your precious Maurile posted a perfectly logical explanation for homophobia that was independent of religious conviction. You didn't object to that post when it first appeared. Why is it invalid now? Because it's easier to criticize Christians that way? If you're going to accuse others of being hypocrites, wouldn't it be a good strategy to avoid hypocrisy yourself when doing so?(NOTE: Maurile did not endorse homophobia or oppose gay marriage in any way when he made that post. That's pretty obvious to anyone who reads his posts here, but I'm about to bury Jericho deep inside the earth for falsely projecting beliefs upon me, and I want to let Maurile know I not attempting to do the same to him here.)

and since that's all you've got then it has NO BUSINESS being in a discussion about LAW AND GOVERNMENT, unless you are willing to THROW AWAY a free and representative society in favour of an autocratic theocracy.  Full stop.  Game over.  Every thing else is just smoke and mirrors and I have no time for it.

Opposing gay marriage is opposing free society.  HYPOCRITES.

I support gay marriage being legal. I've opposed the proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage from the get-go. I support calling gay marriage "marriage" to close any possible legislative loopholes to block homosexuals from work benefits, estate concerns, etc., through weaselly wording (laws written to cover marriages but not civil unions would be a possibility if we called them different things). It's possible to believe that an action is sinful yet still should be legal, and remain on solid ethical ground when doing so. (More on that later.)Jericho, you've read my posts in the myriad of threads on homosexuality and gay marriage. You already knew where I stood on the issue of gay marriage. Yet you still falsely projected bigotry upon me.

I'm no stranger to receiving false projections on this board w/r/t my Christian faith. My parents aren't Christians, but that doesn't stop some atheists on this board from falsely claiming that I'm only a Christian because my parents shoved their religious convictions down my throat when I was a kid. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and won't in 2004, but that doesn't stop some liberals on this boards from falsely assuming I'm a Republican simply because I'm a Christian. (Imagine their surprise/skepticism when they hear how fervently I supported Paul Wellstone, or when I start explaining a Biblical-based argument for voting for Kerry.)

In most of those cases, I can excuse them out of ignorance. I'm no stranger to incorrectly stereotyping people myself, so I understand how those mistakes are made. But you knew where I stood, and posted that hate anyway. That's a awful thing to do. If you're just going to say whatever you want about others no matter what they actually post, why should we engage you in debate? The sport of catching you the next time you make stuff up out of thin air?

As I said before, you're usually really good about picking up complexities when others rely on oversimplification to advocate their position. The complexity here that you missed is that what is right or wrong isn't the same test as what is sinful (or not sinful), and certainly not the same test as what should be legal or illegal. It's possible to say an action is wrong and/or sinful, but still should be legal, and remain on ethical ground. Recreational drug use is one issue that comes to mind here. Is it unethical to say "I believe recreational drug use is the wrong way to live your life. But I also believe our government's laws and policy toward drug use are inefficient and misguided, and we should give decriminalization of recreational drug use a shot?" I submit that "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible in this case. Or wearing Zubaz in public. "If bad taste were a crime, wearing those pants would get the chair, but bad taste in clothing shouldn't be a crime." Again, "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible.

How about sex issues? Well, let's examine adultery first. The Bible is consistent that adultery is a sin. Adultery among consenting adults is grounds for divorce, but not a crime in our legal system - if you cheat, your soon-to-be-ex-spouse can bury you at divorce court for it (though not obligated to), but the state won't send you to the slammer for adultery alone. Fornication among consenting adults is indisputably a sin in the Bible. Humans differ on where fornication is right or wrong. Fornication in and of itself is legal, and doesn't become a crime unless one party didn't consent, or if both parties decided to have their party in an inappropriate place like the middle of a street or a public park. So if adultery and fornication are legal when done under unobtrusive circumstances, it doesn't make sense to me for homosexual sex to be illegal. And if we extrapolate a bit, we've found another argument for the legality of gay marriage. We should have a system in place where two homosexuals committed to one another can acquire the same legal status as two heterosexuals committed to one another. It's silly and irresponsible for the USA to not have that system in place already.

Anyway... I entered this thread because it's all too common to see folks get the theology of the issue wrong. And I understand how it would be confusing. The statement, "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is indeed an accurate statement. But it's not a precise one. In this election season, anyone following the campaign, the debates between the candidates, and/or the "debates" among the political junkies on this board are all too familiar with accurate statements that lack precision.

So if "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is an accurate statement, how do we make it precise? I think the biggest barrier we have is understanding that homosexual sex is not in some special class of sin - it's just like any other. Any sin is a sin that will send you to Hell. Homosexual sex is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. Any sin is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. An atheist looking to discredit Christianity, or a homophobe hiding behind Christianity to poorly rationalize their fear and hate, will stop short of the context to give homosexual sex and sin its proper context.

As I've said many times on this board - all sins are big enough to require God's Forgiveness, but all sins are small enough to receive God's Forgiveness. So no sinner, no matter what the quality or quantity of sin, is doomed to Hell - we've all got a shot at Redemption.

I suppose folks could argue about whether homosexual sex should be a sin or not, but in the long run of Heaven and Hell, I think that's a moot argument. We're all going to sin and fall short of the glory of God. I know I do daily, no matter how hard I try. If it's not the sins of commission (the stuff I do that I shouldn't), it's the sins of omission (the stuff I should do that I don't). I'm just thankful God isn't keeping score that way.

Why is their not an ammendment to criminalize adultery. To stop adulterers from getting tax breaks. How about coveters? Quit using religon to justifry intolerance and predjudice. In your cjhurch, do what the #### you want, but get you ### #### theocratic bull#### out of my governemnt, it doesn't belong there.Not this is nolt directed at ferris but all who use this weak and tired argument.

Why do you get to choose what is bigotry? Perhaps you need to ensure polygamy or bestiality are also cleared because it is intolerant not to accept these forms of love. Okay, the bestiuality doesn't involve mutual consent (or does it, how are you so sure a dog isn't consenting?).Baiting done.

Now for a serious question -

What rights do homosexuals get by being allowed to marry?

Perhaps if you list them out I will not be as threatened, being as all I can base my decision on currently is my moral code. Oddly, I would bet that my moral code is not dissimialar from the majority of those living in the US regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.

once again with teh bestiality slippery slope. Does that even matter? Do you really care if your neighbor ####s his dog at the infinitely regressive point of this argument. I don't decide that teh constitution does. We are supposed to be a society of equals, and two consensual adults should not be descriminated because of who they like to ####. It really is that easy. Tell me why you deserve to get insurance from your wife, but my friend fernando can't because his partner of 10 years happens to be the same sex as him. They can get mortgages together, they can sign contracts, but people see them as more of a threat than a couple of 17 year old kids with a blood test?

 

[Mr. Z]

Why is their not an ammendment to criminalize adultery. To stop adulterers from getting tax breaks. How about coveters? Quit using religon to justifry intolerance and predjudice. In your cjhurch, do what the #### you want, but get you ### #### theocratic bull#### out of my governemnt, it doesn't belong there.Not this is nolt directed at ferris but all who use this weak and tired argument.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see adulterers looking to get the extra tax break with the person they are screwing around with. This isn't even the same argument.I know what point you are trying to make here, but these examples are at best faulty.It all boils down to this: this country was founded on God-fearing principles. Practically all laws are made based on morality. Most of those laws are based on what could be called "biblical morality." To say that religion has no place in our government is a bit narrow-minded. Our government would not be what it is if it weren't for the influences of religion.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Also, being homosexual in and of itself is not a sin - it's the action of homosexual sex that is sinful.

There could be a whole thread in itself about how much bull#### this statement is. To say that is to try to put icing on what is still a bigoted and hateful position.

I'm surprised you would say that. You're usually on the forefront of acknowledging that complex issues are complex, and criticising those who oversimplify issues. Then again, by oversimplifying this one, it gives you chance to blast those with religious convictions, so I really shouldn't be surprised at all.Anyway, the distinction I'm making here is important because it makes the question of whether homosexuals are born that way or not is irrelevant to whether homosexual sex is a sin or not.

Bottom line: the position of opposing gay marriage is COMPLETELY INDEFENSIBLE except behind the curtain of RELIGION,

No matter how many words you type in ALL CAPS, that statement is not true. Your precious Maurile posted a perfectly logical explanation for homophobia that was independent of religious conviction. You didn't object to that post when it first appeared. Why is it invalid now? Because it's easier to criticize Christians that way? If you're going to accuse others of being hypocrites, wouldn't it be a good strategy to avoid hypocrisy yourself when doing so?(NOTE: Maurile did not endorse homophobia or oppose gay marriage in any way when he made that post. That's pretty obvious to anyone who reads his posts here, but I'm about to bury Jericho deep inside the earth for falsely projecting beliefs upon me, and I want to let Maurile know I not attempting to do the same to him here.)

and since that's all you've got then it has NO BUSINESS being in a discussion about LAW AND GOVERNMENT, unless you are willing to THROW AWAY a free and representative society in favour of an autocratic theocracy.  Full stop.  Game over.  Every thing else is just smoke and mirrors and I have no time for it.

Opposing gay marriage is opposing free society.  HYPOCRITES.

I support gay marriage being legal. I've opposed the proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage from the get-go. I support calling gay marriage "marriage" to close any possible legislative loopholes to block homosexuals from work benefits, estate concerns, etc., through weaselly wording (laws written to cover marriages but not civil unions would be a possibility if we called them different things). It's possible to believe that an action is sinful yet still should be legal, and remain on solid ethical ground when doing so. (More on that later.)Jericho, you've read my posts in the myriad of threads on homosexuality and gay marriage. You already knew where I stood on the issue of gay marriage. Yet you still falsely projected bigotry upon me.

I'm no stranger to receiving false projections on this board w/r/t my Christian faith. My parents aren't Christians, but that doesn't stop some atheists on this board from falsely claiming that I'm only a Christian because my parents shoved their religious convictions down my throat when I was a kid. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and won't in 2004, but that doesn't stop some liberals on this boards from falsely assuming I'm a Republican simply because I'm a Christian. (Imagine their surprise/skepticism when they hear how fervently I supported Paul Wellstone, or when I start explaining a Biblical-based argument for voting for Kerry.)

In most of those cases, I can excuse them out of ignorance. I'm no stranger to incorrectly stereotyping people myself, so I understand how those mistakes are made. But you knew where I stood, and posted that hate anyway. That's a awful thing to do. If you're just going to say whatever you want about others no matter what they actually post, why should we engage you in debate? The sport of catching you the next time you make stuff up out of thin air?

As I said before, you're usually really good about picking up complexities when others rely on oversimplification to advocate their position. The complexity here that you missed is that what is right or wrong isn't the same test as what is sinful (or not sinful), and certainly not the same test as what should be legal or illegal. It's possible to say an action is wrong and/or sinful, but still should be legal, and remain on ethical ground. Recreational drug use is one issue that comes to mind here. Is it unethical to say "I believe recreational drug use is the wrong way to live your life. But I also believe our government's laws and policy toward drug use are inefficient and misguided, and we should give decriminalization of recreational drug use a shot?" I submit that "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible in this case. Or wearing Zubaz in public. "If bad taste were a crime, wearing those pants would get the chair, but bad taste in clothing shouldn't be a crime." Again, "wrong, but legal" is perfectly defensible.

How about sex issues? Well, let's examine adultery first. The Bible is consistent that adultery is a sin. Adultery among consenting adults is grounds for divorce, but not a crime in our legal system - if you cheat, your soon-to-be-ex-spouse can bury you at divorce court for it (though not obligated to), but the state won't send you to the slammer for adultery alone. Fornication among consenting adults is indisputably a sin in the Bible. Humans differ on where fornication is right or wrong. Fornication in and of itself is legal, and doesn't become a crime unless one party didn't consent, or if both parties decided to have their party in an inappropriate place like the middle of a street or a public park. So if adultery and fornication are legal when done under unobtrusive circumstances, it doesn't make sense to me for homosexual sex to be illegal. And if we extrapolate a bit, we've found another argument for the legality of gay marriage. We should have a system in place where two homosexuals committed to one another can acquire the same legal status as two heterosexuals committed to one another. It's silly and irresponsible for the USA to not have that system in place already.

Anyway... I entered this thread because it's all too common to see folks get the theology of the issue wrong. And I understand how it would be confusing. The statement, "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is indeed an accurate statement. But it's not a precise one. In this election season, anyone following the campaign, the debates between the candidates, and/or the "debates" among the political junkies on this board are all too familiar with accurate statements that lack precision.

So if "homosexual sex is a sin that will send you to Hell" is an accurate statement, how do we make it precise? I think the biggest barrier we have is understanding that homosexual sex is not in some special class of sin - it's just like any other. Any sin is a sin that will send you to Hell. Homosexual sex is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. Any sin is a sin that requires God's Forgiveness in order to go to Heaven. An atheist looking to discredit Christianity, or a homophobe hiding behind Christianity to poorly rationalize their fear and hate, will stop short of the context to give homosexual sex and sin its proper context.

As I've said many times on this board - all sins are big enough to require God's Forgiveness, but all sins are small enough to receive God's Forgiveness. So no sinner, no matter what the quality or quantity of sin, is doomed to Hell - we've all got a shot at Redemption.

I suppose folks could argue about whether homosexual sex should be a sin or not, but in the long run of Heaven and Hell, I think that's a moot argument. We're all going to sin and fall short of the glory of God. I know I do daily, no matter how hard I try. If it's not the sins of commission (the stuff I do that I shouldn't), it's the sins of omission (the stuff I should do that I don't). I'm just thankful God isn't keeping score that way.

Why is their not an ammendment to criminalize adultery. To stop adulterers from getting tax breaks. How about coveters? Quit using religon to justifry intolerance and predjudice. In your cjhurch, do what the #### you want, but get you ### #### theocratic bull#### out of my governemnt, it doesn't belong there.Not this is nolt directed at ferris but all who use this weak and tired argument.

Why do you get to choose what is bigotry? Perhaps you need to ensure polygamy or bestiality are also cleared because it is intolerant not to accept these forms of love. Okay, the bestiuality doesn't involve mutual consent (or does it, how are you so sure a dog isn't consenting?).Baiting done.

Now for a serious question -

What rights do homosexuals get by being allowed to marry?

Perhaps if you list them out I will not be as threatened, being as all I can base my decision on currently is my moral code. Oddly, I would bet that my moral code is not dissimialar from the majority of those living in the US regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.

once again with teh bestiality slippery slope. Does that even matter? Do you really care if your neighbor ####s his dog at the infinitely regressive point of this argument. I don't decide that teh constitution does. We are supposed to be a society of equals, and two consensual adults should not be descriminated because of who they like to ####. It really is that easy. Tell me why you deserve to get insurance from your wife, but my friend fernando can't because his partner of 10 years happens to be the same sex as him. They can get mortgages together, they can sign contracts, but people see them as more of a threat than a couple of 17 year old kids with a blood test?

Take a deep breath, and please detail those things that I get as an advantage of being married that a homosexual in a civil union would not get. Is it the marriage penalty you are upset about? Why can't Fernando and his life partner name each other as beneficiaries on their insurance? Maybe I am a bit naieve on this point, but I assumed that through powers of attorney many of the loopholes you are referring to would be closed. Instead you would rather trample on the rights of the many who are opposed to gay marriage by refusing to go the route of civil union. The thing is many if not most peoiple associate marriage with a religious context. Screw them, though, it is not politically correct enough to ever support anything as wacky as that.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Practically all laws are made based on morality. Most of those laws are based on what could be called "biblical morality."

What law is based on "biblical morality" -- i.e., some moral principle whose origins can be traced to the Bible?I'll give you anti-sodomy laws for the sake of argument. What else?

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Practically all laws are made based on morality.  Most of those laws are based on what could be called "biblical morality."

What law is based on "biblical morality" -- i.e., some moral principle whose origins can be traced to the Bible?I'll give you anti-sodomy laws for the sake of argument. What else?

Thou shalt not kill."Blue" laws (the concept of no work on Sunday/no alchohol sales, etc.).Property law (from Solomon).

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Thou shalt not kill.

Bzzt. Prohibitions against murder go back (hundreds of) thousands of years before the Bible.

"Blue" laws (the concept of no work on Sunday/no alchohol sales, etc.).

Good one. I accept this answer. (Although the Sabbath is not Sunday, and I'd venture to guess that non-Judeo-Christian cultures probably take a day off each week as well.)

Property law (from Solomon).

Property law is my area. What's an example of a property law that can trace its origins to the Bible?

 

[Local303]

Practically all laws are made based on morality.  Most of those laws are based on what could be called "biblical morality."

What law is based on "biblical morality" -- i.e., some moral principle whose origins can be traced to the Bible?I'll give you anti-sodomy laws for the sake of argument. What else?

Thou shalt not kill."Blue" laws (the concept of no work on Sunday/no alchohol sales, etc.).Property law (from Solomon).

Steal ect..But then again some of our laws fly right in the face of the BIG TEN "C"."Thou shall worship no other god" - "I pledge allegiance to the flag" has always been an argument that this is a form of worshiping.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Now for a serious question -

What rights do homosexuals get by being allowed to marry?

Perhaps if you list them out I will not be as threatened...

the Source for this list-

Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships  pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married heterosexual couples. Among them:

>> Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.

>> Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian partners receive no Social Security survivor benefits —  resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.

>> Immigration. Americans in binational relationships are not permitted to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. As a result, they are often forced to separate or move to another country.

>> Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.

>> Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.

>> Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.

>> Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.

>> Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.

>> Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

>> Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.

Edit to note that emphasis is from me.

 

[17seconds]

How much do married people save on federal taxes if their combined income is say $100K?Or do they pay just as much or more if they were single?I always hear conflicting reports on this.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

Thou shalt not kill.

Bzzt. Prohibitions against murder go back (hundreds of) thousands of years before the Bible.

"Blue" laws (the concept of no work on Sunday/no alchohol sales, etc.).

Good one. I accept this answer. (Although the Sabbath is not Sunday, and I'd venture to guess that non-Judeo-Christian cultures probably take a day off each week as well.)

Property law (from Solomon).

Property law is my area. What's an example of a property law that can trace its origins to the Bible?

Not if you are a literalists (I am not, but you asked for examples).I will have to freshen up on Solomonic law. It just popped in my head.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Why is their not an ammendment to criminalize adultery. To stop adulterers from getting tax breaks. How about coveters? Quit using religon to justifry intolerance and predjudice. In your cjhurch, do what the #### you want, but get you ### #### theocratic bull#### out of my governemnt, it doesn't belong there.Not this is nolt directed at ferris but all who use this weak and tired argument.

wait...who said adultery should be illegal? I said it should be the only grounds for divorce allowed...but illegal? nope...the post you quoted said nothing about law, it talked about sin... aka - LAW TO GOD!!and quite frankly, the law to God has absolutely nothing to do with our government or anyone elses, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what you or I want...No one said that the government should base thier laws on Christianity... Although the laws WERE based on Christian morals (for the most part)...I never said that being gay should be illegal... I said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and is a very sacred thing to most people...and many of those who hold it sacred would feel it was lessened by making it be between two men or two women...and I understand thier point, and I also think that if it was really about tax breaks, pension, etc. they'd accept civil unions and b e ok with it not legally being called marraige (but legally working as marraige)

 

[larry_boy_44]

Now for a serious question -

What rights do homosexuals get by being allowed to marry?

Perhaps if you list them out I will not be as threatened...

the Source for this list-

Currently in the United States, same-sex couples in long-term, committed relationships  pay higher taxes and are denied basic protections and rights granted to married heterosexual couples. Among them:

>> Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.

>> Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian partners receive no Social Security survivor benefits —  resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.

>> Immigration. Americans in binational relationships are not permitted to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate. As a result, they are often forced to separate or move to another country.

>> Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.

>> Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.

>> Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.

>> Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.

>> Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.

>> Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.

>> Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.

Edit to note that emphasis is from me.

and if Civil Unions were made legal and allowed to function the SAME WAY AS A MARRIAGE the problem would be?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

who said adultery should be illegal? I said it should be the only grounds for divorce allowed...

"My wife and I have decided to get a divorce. But under New York law, the only ground for divorce is adultery. It's kind of funny because the Bible says 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' but New York State says I have to. So it's a toss-up between God and Rockefeller." -- Woody Allen

 

[larry_boy_44]

who said adultery should be illegal? I said it should be the only grounds for divorce allowed...

"My wife and I have decided to get a divorce. But under New York law, the only ground for divorce is adultery. It's kind of funny because the Bible says 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,' but New York State says I have to. So it's a toss-up between God and Rockefeller." -- Woody Allen

yes, divorce should be a very hard to get out of legal contract...and the person who is at fault for the divorce should ALWAYS b e the one who committed adultery...

 

[PewterFan]

Ahhh, so the real question becomes: Is marriage a basic human right?

The supreme court said it is...

link?

 

[Winston Smith]

Ahhh, so the real question becomes:    Is marriage a basic human right?

The supreme court said it is...

link?

try Loving v. Virginia. also, Zeblocki.

 

[simey]

I said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and is a very sacred thing to most people...

If marriage is so sacred, why is the divorce rate so high? Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, and the USA has the highest divorce rate in the world. That doesn't sound too sacred. Also, if marriages are so sacred, why isn't anybody calling foul about these marrying shows on television? For example on "Who wants to marry my dad" you have a dad meeting some women, and his daughters are supposed to choose one for him to marry. He doesn't know these women and neither does his daughters. Yet homosexuals who have been lovers for years are told they can't marry. It's very hypocritical.

 

[gman8343]

Right now we're sitting at 136 for and 84 against, proving the majority of the FBGs know what they're talking about!!!

 

[urbanhack]

I said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and is a very sacred thing to most people...

If marriage is so sacred, why is the divorce rate so high? Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, and the USA has the highest divorce rate in the world. That doesn't sound too sacred. Also, if marriages are so sacred, why isn't anybody calling foul about these marrying shows on television? For example on "Who wants to marry my dad" you have a dad meeting some women, and his daughters are supposed to choose one for him to marry. He doesn't know these women and neither does his daughters. Yet homosexuals who have been lovers for years are told they can't marry. It's very hypocritical.

United "hypocritcal" States of America.It's our middle name.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and is a very sacred thing to most people...

If marriage is so sacred, why is the divorce rate so high? Fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, and the USA has the highest divorce rate in the world. That doesn't sound too sacred. Also, if marriages are so sacred, why isn't anybody calling foul about these marrying shows on television? For example on "Who wants to marry my dad" you have a dad meeting some women, and his daughters are supposed to choose one for him to marry. He doesn't know these women and neither does his daughters. Yet homosexuals who have been lovers for years are told they can't marry. It's very hypocritical.

no, because marriage isn't sacred because of how you meet the person...its sacred because of how you act afterwards...Like I said before its bad enough alreayd that you can get a divorce just 'cuz you feel like it...its like breaking up with your h.s. boy/girlfriend... its pathetic...I think it should be harder to get a divorce... I think marriage should be a very, very, very serious contract that is almost impossible to get out of...I think that most people don't look at marriage as sacred...how many people get divored 3 or 4 or 5 times? How many people get divorced never?Seriously, its probably about even between nevers and 3-5 times...that's part of the reason the divorce rate is so high, simply because there are people who get married so many times...what percentage of people who have beeen or are married have gotten divorced? Woudln't that be a better number to gauge this by? I'd be willing to bet that the number of people who have been divorced is closer to 30%, not 50% due to repeat divorces by tons of people...

 

[simey]

I think that most people don't look at marriage as sacred...

Larry you are contradicting yourself. You just said in your previous post...

I said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and is a very sacred thing to most people...

 

[popeye]

Wasn't there another thread on this topic last night?

 

[ScottNorwood]

You're all gay!

 

[ScottNorwood]

You're all gay!

So is your avatar!

 

[Dickies]

I guess it is agreed by all sides that gay couples should be given the same civil rights as a straight marriage, at least in terms of benefits, but the major issue is with the name "marriage".I think it is silly that there is such a fuss from people over gay marriages inheriting the word.....lol. Honestly, Christianty does not have a patent on the word, and it is used by all sorts of religions and cultures throughout the world. I fail to understand how a Buddhist getting married is any less moral than a gay couple. Therefore, the only reason I see that people are presenting this argument is that they have some sort of discriminatory feelings towards gay people.Again, marriage has nothing to do with a man and a woman, nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with morals. It is simply a union between two loving adults. That IS the definition, and it always HAS BEEN the definition. Larry boy, I fail to see how a gay couple getting married isn't sacred. Maybe to you it isnt because you have some form of inner hatred towards them, but to the couple getting married it is likely to be the most sacred thing in their lives.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it is silly that there is such a fuss from people over gay marriages inheriting the word.....lol.

The word is important because, under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, states have to recognize marriages consummated in other states, but they may not have to recognize "civil unions" from other states.That's my understanding, anyway.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think that most people don't look at marriage as sacred...

Larry you are contradicting yourself. You just said in your previous post...

I said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and is a very sacred thing to most people...

make most in the first thing you quoted "some" lol...there are many people who consider it nothing... many who consider it a major thing...I think more think its something sacred...

 

[popeye]

I think that most people don't look at marriage as sacred...

Larry you are contradicting yourself. You just said in your previous post...

I said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and is a very sacred thing to most people...

make most in the first thing you quoted "some" lol...there are many people who consider it nothing... many who consider it a major thing...I think more think its something sacred...

Sacred is an anagram for scared.

 

[Outside Contain]

I think that most people don't look at marriage as sacred...

Larry you are contradicting yourself. You just said in your previous post...

I said that "marriage" is between a man and a woman and is a very sacred thing to most people...

make most in the first thing you quoted "some" lol...there are many people who consider it nothing... many who consider it a major thing...I think more think its something sacred...

Sacred is an anagram for scared.

...and "Christian Fundamentalism" -> "Hardline fascism in mutant" or "A Religious Fundamentalist" -> "I'm a futile ######: God isn't real"Coincedence? (stolen from anagramgenius.com)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I think it is silly that there is such a fuss from people over gay marriages inheriting the word.....lol.

The word is important because, under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, states have to recognize marriages consummated in other states, but they may not have to recognize "civil unions" from other states.That's my understanding, anyway.

How many laws would need to be rewritten just to replace "marriage" with "civil union"? How many contracts? If even one legal document can specify "marriage" and not be inclusive of all "civil unions", then we are not talking about equality. While I believe those that articulate this position are being geniune when they say they want equal rights for all, the "civil union" position itself is a fraud because the number of changes required for this aren't going to happen. So "civil unions" in practice can only be separate and unequal treatment just like the MA courts ruled.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think it is silly that there is such a fuss from people over gay marriages inheriting the word.....lol.

The word is important because, under the Constitution's "full faith and credit" clause, states have to recognize marriages consummated in other states, but they may not have to recognize "civil unions" from other states.That's my understanding, anyway.

How many laws would need to be rewritten just to replace "marriage" with "civil union"? How many contracts? If even one legal document can specify "marriage" and not be inclusive of all "civil unions", then we are not talking about equality. While I believe those that articulate this position are being geniune when they say they want equal rights for all, the "civil union" position itself is a fraud because the number of changes required for this aren't going to happen. So "civil unions" in practice can only be separate and unequal treatment just like the MA courts ruled.

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"write it in the law about "civil unions" and how they apply just like a marriage would...

 

[Spartans Rule]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

How many does it take?

 

[popeye]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

How many does it take?

6.3

 

[larry_boy_44]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

my point is to make a "civil union" legally the same thing as a "marriage" but under a different name so all states have to accept it and all that stuff...

 

[shuke]

All right I'll play devil's avocat.What if my next door neighbor, lets call him Bubba for all practical purposes. Lets say that he's very much in love with his dog Spike, and Spike loved him. Sure we can't relate to this sorta love, but shouldn't we be happy for them? According to the Liberal Mentality that so many of you have, isn't this equal to two men being recognized as a married couple? Where do you draw the line (do you even draw a line?).Marriage, it's a man/woman thing.

Don't be ridiculous.

 

[Outside Contain]

All right I'll play devil's avocat.What if my next door neighbor, lets call him Bubba for all practical purposes. Lets say that he's very much in love with his dog Spike, and Spike loved him. Sure we can't relate to this sorta love, but shouldn't we be happy for them? According to the Liberal Mentality that so many of you have, isn't this equal to two men being recognized as a married couple? Where do you draw the line (do you even draw a line?).Marriage, it's a man/woman thing.

Don't be ridiculous.

Too late...

 

[ScottNorwood]

All right I'll play devil's avocat.What if my next door neighbor, lets call him Bubba for all practical purposes. Lets say that he's very much in love with his dog Spike, and Spike loved him. Sure we can't relate to this sorta love, but shouldn't we be happy for them? According to the Liberal Mentality that so many of you have, isn't this equal to two men being recognized as a married couple? Where do you draw the line (do you even draw a line?).Marriage, it's a man/woman thing.

How can you marry someone (or something) if they don't know they're getting married. A dog can't comprehend the concept of marriage, you boob.

 

[shuke]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

my point is to make a "civil union" legally the same thing as a "marriage" but under a different name so all states have to accept it and all that stuff...

Why do you care so much about the word? I'm waiting for you to respond to my question about how you feel about two atheists going down to the county courthouse and getting married.

 

[popeye]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

my point is to make a "civil union" legally the same thing as a "marriage" but under a different name so all states have to accept it and all that stuff...

Why do you care so much about the word? I'm waiting for you to respond to my question about how you feel about two atheists going down to the county courthouse and getting married.

Gaytheists?

 

[hobbes4]

My point about the role identities gays adapt to are societal in nature, the man/woman dynamic that maintains a healthy and stable household. No its not foolproof, but I think the failures have more to do with how family has taken a back seat to money/career advancement than it does with the system. I dont understand why, if you feel intense pressure from society in being gay you would adhere to this structure? And its surprising how those who support gay marriage are so quick to denounce anyone's opinion that strays from their own. A debate is for two sides and doesn't always include a winner. Try opening your mind a little to what others have to say and maybe you will receive the same.

 

[larry_boy_44]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

my point is to make a "civil union" legally the same thing as a "marriage" but under a different name so all states have to accept it and all that stuff...

Why do you care so much about the word? I'm waiting for you to respond to my question about how you feel about two atheists going down to the county courthouse and getting married.

I've answered that like 4 times now, go look it up, k?

 

[Outside Contain]

My point about the role identities gays adapt to are societal in nature, the man/woman dynamic that maintains a healthy and stable household. No its not foolproof, but I think the failures have more to do with how family has taken a back seat to money/career advancement than it does with the system. I dont understand why, if you feel intense pressure from society in being gay you would adhere to this structure?

Maybe they would just like to have the possibility like everyone else?

 

[shuke]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

my point is to make a "civil union" legally the same thing as a "marriage" but under a different name so all states have to accept it and all that stuff...

Why do you care so much about the word? I'm waiting for you to respond to my question about how you feel about two atheists going down to the county courthouse and getting married.

I've answered that like 4 times now, go look it up, k?

You said they had to act in accordance to the rules of the church or something, and then I asked you about instances when a church wasn't involved, and you didn't answer.K?

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I'm not really concerned that gay marriage will lead to marriage with animals or children (for the reasons stated in this thread and others that were deleted by humorless mods). But my questions is: what about marriage between multuple people? Or a man having several wives? Couldn't the same arguments of "consenting adults wanting the same legal rights as two people" be used to support that?

 

[larry_boy_44]

just make "civil union" a "marriage between 2 homosexuals"

I thought the whole point of this was that there can't be a "marriage" between two homosexuals.

my point is to make a "civil union" legally the same thing as a "marriage" but under a different name so all states have to accept it and all that stuff...

Why do you care so much about the word? I'm waiting for you to respond to my question about how you feel about two atheists going down to the county courthouse and getting married.

I've answered that like 4 times now, go look it up, k?

You said they had to act in accordance to the rules of the church or something, and then I asked you about instances when a church wasn't involved, and you didn't answer.K?

again, I answered that...I said a marriage between two athiests still follows the laws set up at the beginning of this country which were based onthe Christian values on marriage...*shakes head*for the fifth time...