Bush Urges Congress to Pass Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage

[Flip McWho]

In other words, gay marriage will be exactly like straight marriage -- a complex, diverse institution

Aye, all we need is the Christians to give up their hold on the word marriage. It's just a freakin word.

Marraige should reflect what its truly about, love between two people not a religiously driven political agenda.

Marraige [should] = the official recognition of a deep bond of love that exists between two people granting certain rights/responsibilities.
Not the religious recognition of a deep bond of love between a man and a woman granting certain rights/responsiblities.

The Church no longer needs to keep a register of who's married or not, the state does. Therefore they don't own a monopoly on the word marraige.

[alva]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So then the question is the ability to claim the other for benefits. I agree it should be perfectly fine. I'm for Gay rights in that regard.

As far as religion, I take the stance that God doesn't make mistakes. There is a reason and a plan for all things. Therefore, it should go without saying that no one is turned away.

I having problems figuring out if this post is meant to be ironic or sarcastic.

See, because if god doesn't make mistakes...

[MrFun]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
:shakeshead:

what a waste of time and money.

Tell me, why does the US need to regulate marriage between 2 consenting adults?

sigh.

TO PROTECT FAMILY VALUES!!!!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by alva

See, because if god doesn't make mistakes...

... then where do gays come from? Either god doesn't make mistakes and he intended there to be gays (in which cause the fundies are wrong to claim gays are an abomination and a threat to god's will) or god made a mistake and gays are the result. Oppsies.

Either way you have to look at gays and the idea of god differently.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Oerdin


... then where do gays come from? Either god doesn't make mistakes and he intended there to be gays (in which cause the fundies are wrong to claim gays are an abomination and a threat to god's will) or god made a mistake and gays are the result. Oppsies.

Either way you have to look at gays and the idea of god differently.

What if god intended there to be gays so that they could be punished as examples for the rest of us?

[Q Classic]

Then how is he just and loving to all his children?

Or did he disown the gays?

Where then is the love, understanding, and forgiveness, if he made them sin and then disown them?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Oerdin
... then where do gays come from? Either god doesn't make mistakes and he intended there to be gays (in which cause the fundies are wrong to claim gays are an abomination and a threat to god's will) or god made a mistake and gays are the result. Oppsies.

There are fundamentalists who believe that there are people who are going to hell because they never had an opportunity to accept Jesus (e.g., pre-Columbian Americans, who couldn't possibly have accepted Jesus owing to the fact that they'd never even heard of him). They justify this belief by claiming that in any possible world these people would have gone to hell, so it isn't relevant that the reason they didn't accept Jesus is that they'd never even heard of him -- even if they had heard of Jesus, they still wouldn't have accepted him.

Given that belief, it isn't particularly incredible that God would make people gay if they were destined to go to hell anyway.

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Then how is he just and loving to all his children?

Not all fundies worship a "just and loving" God.

[Q Classic]

Loin, Phelps is about as Christian as the Reverend Moon.

As in, they are, but only in the same way the lost 13th tribe of Israel are the Japanese.

[Zkribbler]

quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
One thing is now known. Gay tendencies are genetic.
Since I acknowledge that, then I must also acknowledge love that can exist between 2 Gays.
If I acknowledge that, then I feel it only logical to recognize a legal union.

Having acknowledged these things, I'll ask Gays; is it really the religious aspect of marriage that you seek?
Or just a legal union? I mean, either is a fine answer I guess.

I ask because I don't know.

I'd be okay with the marriage/civil-union dicodomy if the dividing line were going to be: If you get married in a church, temple, synagog, mosque, etc., it's called a marriage, but if the govenment marries you -- whether you're gay or straight -- it's a civil union. That'd be okay with me.

But what I object to is calling some ceremonies performed by the govenment "marriages" and others "civil unions." Our goverment (unlike religions) is limited by the Equal Protection Clause. We are entitled to equal access to government programs and benefits unless there is a valid counterveiling reason.

I can think of no valid govenmental concern that requires the govenment to engage in anti-gay discrimination.

(BTW: Read my new sig. vvvvvvvvv )

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Oerdin
... then where do gays come from? Either god doesn't make mistakes and he intended there to be gays (in which cause the fundies are wrong to claim gays are an abomination and a threat to god's will) or god made a mistake and gays are the result. Oppsies.

Either way you have to look at gays and the idea of god differently.

The response I've heard is that God did create some people with predilections for homosexual behavior just as he created some people with predispositions for alcoholism, greed, violence, heterosexual lust, etc., but they can still get into heaven if their behavior is in keeping with God's word. Just as a naturally lustful guy shouldn't cheat on his wife because God says it's wrong, Homer Sechel should refrain from buttsex because God says it's wrong.

(I don't believe this personally of course but it does address the dilemma.)

[BlackCat]

Not much fun about that theory - I prefer my own - it's an evil plan made by gay aliens flying around in ufo's and switching godfearing newborn babies with their own breed. Their goal is of course conquest of the earth.

That at least make some sense.

[DanS]

Tell me, why does the US need to regulate marriage between 2 consenting adults?

That's what marriage is. A legal recognition and regulation of a relationship between two people. A large part of local government is devoted to regulating the relationship.

[Whaleboy]

BK: That which is popular =| that which is right... you above all people should know that fallacy.

That becomes especially important in a country where fundie Christians are so powerful, where some studies show atheists and homosexuals to be mistrusted minorities. If the rights of these people are to be protected, then mob rule must be curtailed. That is why checks and balances exist in all long-lived democracies, such as the US and UK.... to do what is right, not necessarily what is politically tenable.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
One thing is now known. Gay tendencies are genetic.
Since I acknowledge that, then I must also acknowledge love that can exist between 2 Gays.
If I acknowledge that, then I feel it only logical to recognize a legal union.

Having acknowledged these things, I'll ask Gays; is it really the religious aspect of marriage that you seek?
Or just a legal union? I mean, either is a fine answer I guess.

I ask because I don't know.

For myself, I desire the same legal protection and all the benefits with my life-long relationship as married heterosexual couples enjoy if I choose to marry a man that I love.

But I won't settle for a "separate but equal" bull**** by designating civil unions for gay couples and refusing to fully legalize them as marriage in the same light for heterosexual couples.

We tried the "separate but equal" thingy before with racial segregation before the Supreme Court finally realized that it was nothing but bull****.

[SlowwHand]

Wanted to know from someone with a personal aspect.
Thanks.