Likewise, there’s lots in the Bible that you would never consider acting out today.

So, please, stop with the Biblical excuses, and explain why you can’t just be honest about your prejudice. The hypocrisy is so thick it’s disgusting. It’s also doing a real dis-service to all the Christians that are more attuned to Christ’s actual message.

What if a church wants to marry a same-gender couple? The state won’t issue a same-gender marriage license. Why would the state favor one religion’s practices over another?

Also, I’ve heard some Cons say allowing gay marriage will devestate the birth rate in this country. What, like you are going to FORCE gay folks to be hetero, FORCE them to marry the opposite sex and then FORCE them to have kids?

I’m all for gay marriage in this country, but I am trying to at least make sense of the arguments against it…and I see no logic in even ONE of them.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061103/ap_on_re_us/haggard_sex_allegations

OK, so is it cool for two dudes who are married to bone? Because no where in the Bible, or any damn where else does it say that a man has to marry a woman.

Uh-Oh, a glitch in the Bible? Unheard of!!

BTW, while we’re on the subject, don’t you guys believe that the bible is infallible, and that if any imperfections were to be found in The Word, it is to be, so to speak, null and void?

Does that mean I have just destroyed God? Does that make me God?

Wow, the contradictions keep piling up, huh?

thanks

Is it really about God and abominations, or is it about homophobia?

If you say Aisha was a victim, is it not hypocrisy to not also say that Mary was a victim?

(Btw as a muslim I believe neither were, they were both righteous women)
The Prophet Muhammad had enemies that wanted to kill him and discredit him in any way, why did not one of them mention his marriage?

This begs the question — does this mean that Marriage as a religious ceremony is distinct from Marriage as a legal proceeding?

If marriage is religious, and some religions DO define marriage in such a way amenable to gay marriage (I myself have attended multiple handfastings for two gay men), then in a land where freedom of religion is held as sacrosanct by the First Amendment, should we not consider forbidding gay marriage as a violation of the First Amendment?

Or do we need to separate the religious aspect entirely from the religious aspect, say by having the Law *ONLY* handle Civil Union, and the Religion *ONLY* handle the Marriage?

This is how it is handled in the UK — the ceremony in the Registar’s office is forbidden from having religious overtones.

What are your views on making this distinction between the religious and legalistic aspects of it?
Hey rachel. Long time no see. I’m kinda with you on that, but I’m really just trying to get at exactly what people think of as the nature of marriage by bringing up a definition that many people object to. I frankly think way too much is made over the word, and not nearly enough about the legal rights.
Scott B: Over 40 states now have amendments to their constitutions that not only define Marriage as a man and a woman, but also specifically forbid any legal recognition of homosexual pairings by any name.

The Federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1997 (I THINK 97… not sure) defined marriage as Man and Woman, and specifically forbids the federal government from extending the priviledges and considerations of marriage to any legal union of two men or women (ie: I could not marry my homosexual foreign lover and then claim him as my spouse for immigration purposes).

The USA still has a long way to go even in just the ‘civil union’ idea.
gorgeous, I would never hate you, but I do disagree … one can be anti-abortion/anti-choice for logical reasons and not religious ones — I’m proof of it.
TTC: I understand your concern — I was Christian once myself. But by defining marriage exclusively by the Christian defintion, we are interfering with other religions who define it differently. A hindu friend once told me that certain hindu sects consider humanity to have THREE genders — Males, Females, and males who play the female role, and that under this system, a male who marries a male who plays the other role… is not even considered homosexual, and that the marriage is valid.

The proposed split, I think, would allow all religions to define marriage how they see fit, instead of having the government define it.

Me & my lover wish to get married — we go to a Baptist minister. He laughs in our face, as is his religious right. We go to a pagan minister friend, who is elated and honored. So we go to the county clerk and ask for a marriage license – and are told "we process civil unions here, marriage is a religious matter."

This allows all religons their definition.
SlyOne — your duty to the laws of the USA is a rendering unto Caesar, and is predicated on the principles upon which this nation (not the colonies) were founded, of which the equality of ALL expressions of faith, or lack thereof, are equal.

Your duty to God’s law is personal, and you are free to express that personal faith however you see fit.

Even Jesus of Nazareth taught the difference.
Classy, no one is saying a Christian minister would have to, by law, officiate such a marriage. I know a Catholic heterosexual couple who’s priest refused to marry them because they refused to do the pre-marriage counseling and courses his church required of him. He didn’t break the law to refuse to marry them. It was a religious concern.

If a minister does not support a marriage, he/she is under no obligation under law to officiate it against his or her will. Not a straight marriage, not a gay marriage.
Classy, you’re still missing the point. You’re trying to assert that gays would demand churches marry them — the churches don’t have to. And if the church won’t, the gay couple can either go for a civil ceremony OR find another minister willing to do it.

This in no way would step on any religion’s faith. If a religion didn’t support gay marriage, fine, those ministers don’t have to do them.

And I know of no gay religions or organizations that feel heterosexuals should not be allowed to get married.

To mutilate an old saying, would a rose by another name have fewer thorns pricking at you? I ask because a lot of you say that the problem you have with gay "marriage" is that it’s an insult to your own "marriage". But if none of you have civil unions, then maybe there’s no objection that that?

This isn’t a baited question, I heard someone say something interesting about how they thought about religion and marriage, I thought I’d ask people about it. And it’s not really directed at Christians, but any religions who decide to choose this path

Thanks! A heterosexual agnostic wants to know.

I believe when the Bible indicates that God spoke an told them not to marry outside of there kind it was talking about interreligious not interracial terms. Correct or Incorrect?

The principal changes to the existing 1969 law would be:

Gender, disability and sexual orientation would become additional protected classifications.

The six federally protected activities would be deleted. A victim would be protected by the law at all times, not just when they were doing specific activities, like being at work, voting, or attending a public school.

Notice AT ALL TIMES, and this is an old one.

What does the bible say about marriage? Must a couple have the parents blessing before they can get married (i know it’s recommended, but is it a sin to get married and not have the parents blessing?) What about living with someone before you get married? Is that a sin too (again, i know sex before marriage is a sin, but what about living together without having sex?) Please provide verses also! Thanks so much for the help!

Does the gvmt trump God?

It’s time to get the gvmt out of our personal lives and let us determine our own marriages.

Denying gays health care. You must be so pround of yourselves.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage.
Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

(Polyamory n. participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships with the full knowledge and consent of everyone involved.)

(Polygamy n. the practice or condition of having more than one spouse, esp. wife, at one time.)
Tracy: I understand that if you interpret the bible in some ways you can get to that conclusion, but, why do christians feel threatened if others practice it, surely how others lead their lives shouldn’t affect yours?

What’s next? A form of Christian Law? Like the Muslims have Sharia Law?

Remember for all of you that say marriage is between a man and a woman because it always has been. People believed the world was flat, but it doesn’t make it right.
Jesus also spoke negatively about killing. So are all the troops serving in Iraq damned as well?

You can’t cherry pick which parts of the bible you are going to support.

I mean Christians are always quick to point out how God’s law trumps man’s law. So then why do you interfere with man’s law at all, when man’s law is made for the rest of us who don’t believe as you do? Why won’t you let God administer His own laws?
Avatars … you are missing (and not addressing) the point. It’s not your business whether Adam and Steve extinct themselves (in fact, I would think it would make you happy if they did).
Never heard of a country withering (!) because it’s citizens minded their own business … methinks you are being melodramatic. Regardless, you still don’t have the right to force your concept of morals down the throats of others, not even because you say so. (Your ilk are constantly inventing rights for themselves based on nothing more than just because they say so.)
This is fairly tangential (Da Mick, you are missing the point too), but why do chimpanzees sodomize each other in the wild on National Geographic (they appear bisexual)? Lifestyle choice?