NYTimes: "Strong Support Found for Ban on Gay Marriage"

[Ned]

orange, and if you have followed my posts here, I think a direct approach to the Vatican, for example, would result in rethinking dogma. Most Christians base their beliefs on the Bible which says that homosexual practices are sinful. This implies that homosexuals are like everyone else and their sexualty is voluntary - involving CHOICE. But the counter to this that God created homosexuals who have NO CHOICE. He could not have intended such beings never to have sex except with a woman who was his wife.

This is the kind of debate that would respect the religious beliefs of Christians.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by paiktis22
that would save alot of problems

For many of my friends, 5 years would be too long.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

How do you think Christians are going to react to that?

How do they think gays will react to christians forcing them apart and keeping them from living a happy life. Why does it work only one way? Is it not polarizing to say that being gay is 'wrong' or 'not natural.' How would you like to be called not natural.

Most Christians base their beliefs on the Bible which says that homosexual practices are sinful.

Good for them. If I ever owned a bookstore, I'd put that piece of literature in the fiction section. If they want to live by it, no problem. BUT EXPLAIN TO ME WHY THEY GOTTA STICK THEIR NOSES IN OTHER PEOPLES BUSINESS AND PREVENT THEM FROM LIVING THEIR LIFE?

Thats just wrong and cannot be defended in any way.

[Starchild]

Originally posted by Ned
orange, and if you have followed my posts here, I think a direct approach to the Vatican, for example, would result in rethinking dogma. Most Christians base their beliefs on the Bible which says that homosexual practices are sinful.

So's eating lobster or wearing polyester/cotton blends (which are sinful but for entirely non-religious reasons)

This implies that homosexuals are like everyone else and their sexualty is voluntary - involving CHOICE.

Wow! You guys choose to be sexually attracted to women? So you can like choose not to be as well? So this whole heterosexual thang is just basically a tickbox on the questionairre of life? Odd cause no matter how hard I try, I just can't seem to uncheck the box labled "Homo".

But the counter to this that God created homosexuals who have NO CHOICE. He could not have intended such beings never to have sex except with a woman who was his wife.

This is the kind of debate that would respect the religious beliefs of Christians.

How about we have a little dose of humility and for once truly admit that we don't know what an all powerful, all knowing divine Being has planned for we small apes. Maybe God loves gay people. Maybe He's a bit miffed that the message has gotten a bit distorted since the original Ten Commandments (try as I might, can't recall a single thing one prohibiting gay marriage). Maybe, even, these judicial rulings and legislation in other parts of the world are His way of making men equal without having to resort to a huge burning bush.

Now I like Christians. I truly do. Muslims, Jews, and all other believers as well. I'm an atheist but it even gets me miffed to see people proclaim, on the one hand, the unknowable awesomeness divinity of God and on the other hand, claim to know His most personal thoughts on who I can or cannot marry. Especially when they base their reasoning on a much translated, often edited book written 2000 years ago by desert nomads. I'm sure God can keep up with the times so why can't they?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Odd cause no matter how hard I try, I just can't seem to uncheck the box labled "Homo".

Thats because its written in pen, and there's no whiteout.

[Asher]

What we need is somebody to come forward with a bill recognizing marriage as a union between two non-Christians.

[Tripledoc]

This issue will win Bush the Presidency. Nice.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

What we need is to recognize that a marriage is a contract between individuals and in fact has nothing to do with religion.

[Mazarin]

Originally posted by Ned
Most Christians base their beliefs on the Bible which says that homosexual practices are sinful. This implies that homosexuals are like everyone else and their sexualty is voluntary - involving CHOICE. But the counter to this that God created homosexuals who have NO CHOICE. He could not have intended such beings never to have sex except with a woman who was his wife.
This is the kind of debate that would respect the religious beliefs of Christians.

maybe the US could need some more French-inspired laws...you know: religious beliefs influencing constitution and stuff
Why it is necessary to convince Christians that the Bible might be wrong? They should maybe prove the Bible is right.

[Sava]

Orange, calling religious types ignorant, bigoted and generally laughing at them is hardly conducive to rational debate because it exhibits, IMHO, hatred that only polarizes the debate and generates hatred in return.

No, people on the right try and make it Democrats vs religion... but it's not. It's lunatic, ignorant, bigoted Christians versus everyone else. These people hate freedom and they are so afraid that their dopey brand of religion is losing followers that they want to turn this country into a Christian nation.

[Dauphin]

1) If marriage is a religious issue, then surely it is of no concern of the constitution to be making judgement on what constitutes a religously acceptable marriage. Its simply up to the beliefs of the two participants and the celebrants. Is the US technically not meant to be a secular state (church and state seperation and all).

2) If it is purely a legal issue, then the concern should be over the rights and privileges that married people receive that gay people are denied having. In a legal sense I see no reason why you should not be allowed to name any person as your spouse in terms of all legal entitlements associated with such a position. Hell, as a legally single person I am denied the chance to use the rights and privileges associated with marriage. That agrieves me.


The simplest solution I see to this is for gay people to have purely ceremonial weddings, and then be given de facto rights.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sprayber
I don't like the idea of gay marriages, but this should be kept out of the constitution.

Then again, perhaps all marriages should be dumped in favor of 5 year marriage leases. You know, you have to get it renewed every 5 years or you can opt out.

Have you read Memory of Earth?

[Pekka]

No no wait.. is homosexuality illegal in the US???

[RGBVideo]

"I want my children to grow up and be normal people like me and my father and my grandfather was"

Every time I see people saying that being not "normal" is a bad thing, I feel a sudden urge of executing them. "Normal", WTF is that supposed to mean?

EDIT: Arrrh. VJ's Very Obscure Chain of Logic (tm) -- > Everything what the 'not normal' group is wanting to do is actually 'normal', therefore, they are 'normal', but since group of 'normals' doesn't do it 'normally', they don't think it's 'normal': If so, does 'normal' mean everything the 'normal' people do, and nothing else? If not so, then WTF is that supposed to mean?

[Drake Tungsten]

"Normal", WTF is that supposed to mean?

1. Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one's normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.

2. Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.

http://www.dictionary.com