Same-Sex Marriages

ModestlyHotGirl · **Posted:** Tue May 16, 2006 3:07 pm

Well, I wasn't speaking only to you, Didymus, but I do see where you're coming from. I suppose I could've posted that message in any of a number of threads in this forum, but here's where I happened to be when the thought struck me.

Warlordofhomsaria_v2 · **Posted:** Thu May 18, 2006 3:19 am

IMO, i think that same sex marriages should be allowed. i dont know hwo to explain my full thoughts, so i jut put down my opinion

just a username · **Posted:** Thu May 18, 2006 1:00 pm

They love each other and to me that is all that matters.

Warlordofhomsaria_v2 · **Posted:** Thu May 18, 2006 7:12 pm

yeah. Like.... people seem t be under a delusin that people wake up one day and decide that they're gay or bi or lesbian, and that people can control it. Thats not the case. it doesnt make sense to exclude people from something as wonderous as marriage. if they love each other, they love each other.

Edit:

Quote:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Together with the Free Exercise Clause, ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what is commonly known as the religion clauses.

This has been interpreted as the prohibition of 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress and 2) the preference of one religion over another or of religion over non-religious philosophies in general. The first approach is called the "separationist" or "no aid" interpretation. In separationist interpretation, the clause, as historically understood, prohibits Congress from aiding religion in any way even if such aid is made without regard to denomination. The second approach is called the "non-preferentialist" or "accommodationist" interpretation. The accommodationist interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause. The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

ok... so random quote fro mthe wiipedia (<3) article about hte establishemnt clause

oh, and heres a link to help this debate a little

Homosexuality and Bisexuality at Religious Tolerance

According to almost all human sexuality researchers, mental health therapists, medical practitioners, religious liberals, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc., homosexuality is one of three sexual orientations. "Homosexual is what one is."

BradyBunch · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:34 am

I'm a christian and i don't mind gay marriages. Dosen't effect me if they get married. They love each other and thats what i think matters.

Tintin · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 11:42 am

Very Christian of you.

Gay marriages I don't agree with because God made men and women for each other that's why he gave them opposite 'parts'. Men and men don't have this and there is no such thing as the gay gene. It's a load of bull.

Occasional JD · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:16 pm

Tintin wrote:

Very Christian of you.

Gay marriages I don't agree with because God made men and women for each other that's why he gave them opposite 'parts'. Men and men don't have this and there is no such thing as the gay gene. It's a load of bull.

Well, no.

If a god does exist, he created the sexual organs so that the human race could reproduce and live on. Men and women are only phisically different so we can reproduce. And some people go through their lives without reproducing anyway...

Schmelen · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:17 pm

Tintin wrote:

Gay marriages I don't agree with because God made men and women for each other that's why he gave them opposite 'parts'. Men and men don't have this and there is no such thing as the gay gene. It's a load of bull.

I wish you turned out to be gay....

Sorry, not trying to be nasty, I don't mean gay is bad, I mean I wish you knew what it was like to be in the situation.
Maybe you would change your mind. Don't be prejudiced.

Tintin · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 2:10 pm

I'm not being prejudiced. I wish to follow God's law, not society's.
As for you saying you wish I was gay and then trying to cover your backside, you aren't the least bit sorry, otherwise why would you say it. A better way (and less offensive way) of putting it would have been, "It would be ironic if you turned out to be gay."

I believe gays are human and should be treated as such -with respect. But Homosexuality is one of the many sins we humans can embroil ourselves in and I don't accept the behaviour, just as I don't accept premarital sex.

If I turned out to be gay (which I'm not) life would be very hard (although society would accept me because being gay is going against the Christian beliefs and society wants nothing to do with that). If I was gay and a Christian I would get help from counsellors and good friends and ask God to help me combat the temptations that arose. Just like any other sin it can be thwarted, but it isn't easy and without God is impossible.
But through God all things are possible.

Aldi_Cardgage · **Posted:** Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:59 pm

I think that there are some things in the Bible that might not come from God. You know, most of the stories in there were passed down by mouth for centuries before they were ever written down. Some things might just have been people's opinions that they put into the Bible with God's name on it. I really do not think that being gay is a choice and if people are born that way, then I really do not think that God would forsake them from birth. That is not the type of God I know.

Occasional JD · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:15 am

Tintin wrote:

I believe gays are human and should be treated as such -with respect. But Homosexuality is one of the many sins we humans can embroil ourselves in.

That god guy wrote:

No one is without sin. 'cept me, loser!

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 8:38 am

Aldi wrote:

I think that there are some things in the Bible that might not come from God. You know, most of the stories in there were passed down by mouth for centuries before they were ever written down.

Not true. The strongest evidence suggests that the Scriptures were written most likely during the times suggested by the narratives. For example, most people believe that John wrote his Gospel in the late 1st Century, and we have papyri of his Gospel dated to the early 2nd. Furthermore, proliferation of the documents further supports early dates for most of the Scripture writings.

Quote:

Some things might just have been people's opinions that they put into the Bible with God's name on it.

I'm not convinced that is a valid statement. Can you point to something that clearly is only human opinion and support this claim?

Quote:

I really do not think that being gay is a choice and if people are born that way, then I really do not think that God would forsake them from birth.

You may have a valid point, for a couple of reasons. The Scriptures state that all men are BORN in sin (Psalm 51, Romans 3:23). And as is the case with many other types of sinful behavior (addictions being the one that comes to my mind, since I worked with addicts while a chaplain at the VA), there is a certain sense of compulsion, of helplessness. One is because one has no choice.

Nevertheless, God calls us to follow him, and to not do so puts one in danger. Even if I believe that I have no choice, I must still trust that God knows better than I do what is good for me. God did not create us to be born in sin. But we are. And there is only one way to escape, and that is through the love of Jesus Christ.

Nevertheless, God's Word still declares homosexuality to be sin. God's Word also declares that true marriage is when "a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is why I cannot support homosexual marriage, because even if the legal definition is changed, it still is not in any true sense a marriage. At least not by God's definition, and ultimately, his is the one that matters most.

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 2:28 pm

Didymus wrote:

Nevertheless, God's Word still declares homosexuality to be sin. God's Word also declares that true marriage is when "a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is why I cannot support homosexual marriage, because even if the legal definition is changed, it still is not in any true sense a marriage. At least not by God's definition, and ultimately, his is the one that matters most.

But because of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, you can't use your religious beliefs as grounds to write a law. There'd be too much conflict...such as the fact that the God I believe in has no problem whatsoever with homosexuality or two adults of the same sex earnestly being in love with one another.

There still needs to be a strong secular argument as to why gay marriage should be banned, and I have yet to ever see any such argument.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:35 pm

PianoManGidley wrote:

Didymus wrote:

Nevertheless, God's Word still declares homosexuality to be sin. God's Word also declares that true marriage is when "a man shall leave his mother and father and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." This is why I cannot support homosexual marriage, because even if the legal definition is changed, it still is not in any true sense a marriage. At least not by God's definition, and ultimately, his is the one that matters most.

But because of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution, you can't use your religious beliefs as grounds to write a law. There'd be too much conflict...such as the fact that the God I believe in has no problem whatsoever with homosexuality or two adults of the same sex earnestly being in love with one another.

There still needs to be a strong secular argument as to why gay marriage should be banned, and I have yet to ever see any such argument.

Actually, if you take it literally, the first amendment says NOTHING about not being able to write religiously based laws. It says the government cannot control the church. It doesn't say anything about the church controlling the government (although I still think the seperation people read into it is probably a benefit to the church).
With that said, I don't know about banning gay marriage, just because I really think there are better amendments to make, and worrying about two people who love each other is kind of a waste of time.

As for secular arguments against gay marriage, do athiest homophobes who are against it because it's "not natural" count? I ask because I work with a dude like that, and it's funny that the "evil christian" is less against people who love each other loving each other than the "open minded athiest".

Didymus · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 5:58 pm

And, Pianoman, I was responding to Aldi's decidedly theological argument in support of gay marriage. If a theological argument is posed, then I feel perfectly within my rights to respond with a theological argument, especially considering I am a theologian, and it's my field of expertise.

If we who are opposed to gay marriage are expected to present only non-theological arguments, then the same should be true for those who support, don't you think?

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:01 pm

Well, the 1st Amendment clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." If Congress cannot make any law respecting an establishment of religion, that sounds to me that it's saying that you can't make a law just because a certain religious belief would endorse it.

Moreover, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment states the following (important part I put in bold):

The US Constitution wrote:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That part in bold says to me that it is against Constitutional law to create any law that would be designed to discriminate against any particular group (in this case, homosexuals) by restricting their equal rights and privaleges.

And as for your Atheist friend saying that it's "not natural," I once more point to the article I've linked to before, particularly this paragraph:

Scott Bidstrup wrote:

The real reasons people oppose gay marriage

...

Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes ("crime against nature"), betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners, even when in heat. The reality is that it is so common that it begs an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it clearly has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.

And Didy: Fair enough--I was just trying to steer the conversation back to a point that could be more applicable to the actual issue of writing the law.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:11 pm

PianoManGidley wrote:

And as for your Atheist friend saying that it's "not natural," I once more point to the article I've linked to before, particularly this paragraph:

Scott Bidstrup wrote:

The real reasons people oppose gay marriage

...

Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes ("crime against nature"), betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners, even when in heat. The reality is that it is so common that it begs an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it clearly has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.

I didn't say he had sound reasoning, truthfully, I kinda question his reasoning about a lot of things... I was just bringing his view to the table as a counterexample to the "only religious people oppose gays" vibe I was getting...
Not accusing you of saying that or anything, it's just that's how I read your post. :-)

DarkSideOfTheSchwartz · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:43 pm

personally I have no problem with gay marridge. Why is it wrong? I see nothing wrong with 2 people of the same gender getting married.

Einoo T. Spork · **Posted:** Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:51 pm

PianoManGidley wrote:

And as for your Atheist friend saying that it's "not natural," I once more point to the article I've linked to before, particularly this paragraph:

Scott Bidstrup wrote:

The real reasons people oppose gay marriage

...
Gay sex is unnatural. This argument, often encoded in the very name of sodomy statutes ("crime against nature"), betrays a considerable ignorance of behavior in the animal kingdom. The fact is that among the approximately 1500 animal species whose behavior has been extensively studied, homosexual behavior in animals has been described in at least 450 of those species. It runs the gamut, too, ranging from occasional displays of affection to life-long pair bonding including sex and even adopting and raising orphans, going so far as the rejection by force of potential heterosexual partners, even when in heat. The reality is that it is so common that it begs an explanation, and sociobiologists have proposed a wide variety of explanations to account for it. The fact that it is so common also means that it clearly has evolutionary significance, which applies as much to humans as it does to other animal species.

I was thinking about this, and I just realized what the evolutionary significance could be! The article mentions adoption. Well, this may give babies who may otherwise not survive to reproduce the shelter and help they may need to do so.

I'M A GENIUS!!!!!!!!

One-Post Toastpaint.

Tintin · **Posted:** Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:17 am

Or maybe there are many gay animals as a result of sin entering world? *Gasp!* Never thought of that one before!

Capt. Ido Nos · **Posted:** Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:23 am

So, if I am understanding this right, a study of 1500 species that yeilds 450 as having instances of unnatural orientation is extrapolated to it being normal for the other millions of species that exist? It seems to me that's what their logic is saying, unless I have that wrong.

Einoo T. Spork · **Posted:** Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:26 am

Capt. Ido Nos wrote:

So, if I am understanding this right, a study of 1500 species that yeilds 450 as having instances of unnatural orientation is extrapolated to it being normal for the other millions of species that exist? It seems to me that's what their logic is saying, unless I have that wrong.

Well, 450 out of 1500 is equal to about..... *does some math* thirty percent. That may not seem like a lot, but it's actually a lot out of millions.

Simon Zeno · **Posted:** Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:17 am

Here's the thing: it's not the government's, or anyone else's business who someone gets married to. That anyone in a political position is even considering an alternative sickens me to no end.

Code J · **Posted:** Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:29 am

Could someone who is opposed to gay marrige explain how it affects you?
I'm having trouble understanding why it is so hard. Do you really wake up every morning and curse homosexual, married Canadians? Is the fact that they are able to be married affecting you negatively?
Yes, I can understand if you see a married homosexual on the street, it could "gross you out" or somthing to that extent, but aren't you being inconsiderate to their thoughts and feelings?

PianoManGidley · **Posted:** Mon Jun 05, 2006 3:30 am

Santa Zeno wrote:

Here's the thing: it's not the government's, or anyone else's business who someone gets married to. That anyone in a political position is even considering an alternative sickens me to no end.

Thank you so much for saying this. No one has the right nor the ability to dictate to me who I can and cannot love. Yes, I'm in love with someone who happens to have the same genitalia that I do, but why is that physical aspect so much more important than the fact that he and I are truly in love with one another? Why do so many people against homosexuality concentrate only on the physical sex? Can't they see that we gay people feel love just as well as they do? Can't they recognize that I still have the same quality of an emotional bond with another person despite the difference of sexual orientation?

*sighs* I'm about ready to give up because I get so tired of having to explain the same things over and over again to people who just never get it...but I know I can't give up--not while my rights as a citizen of this nation and as a human being are still threatened. And while I will always fight for my rights, I will still say this: No amount of legislation will ever change how I feel and how I am. Just because the government won't recognize my union with another man isn't going to prevent me from calling him my husband.

And if anyone else has such a huge problem with that, then I would suggest that they stick to trying to manage their own life and their own affairs, instead of trying to control somebody else's.

probably_sushi · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2006 4:14 pm

My opinion on this subject,
I think that men & women are made to be together, I just think that it's a natural fact, in our time it's the normal way of living, and I am always against the gay mentality, it's just not my kind of person...but it's not a reason to reject them, they are human beings..

Dapaper · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:16 pm

probably_sushi wrote:

My opinion on this subject,
I think that men & women are made to be together, I just think that it's a natural fact, in our time it's the normal way of living, and I am always against the gay mentality, it's just not my kind of person...but it's not a reason to reject them, they are human beings..

I can't tell if you're for it or against it....

Alexander · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2006 5:23 pm

Dapaper wrote:

probably_sushi wrote:

My opinion on this subject,
I think that men & women are made to be together, I just think that it's a natural fact, in our time it's the normal way of living, and I am always against the gay mentality, it's just not my kind of person...but it's not a reason to reject them, they are human beings..

I can't tell if you're for it or against it....

I think what he's saying is, he is agaisn't same gender marriage, but he also shows tolerance for it.

probably_sushi · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:40 pm

Alexander wrote:

Dapaper wrote:

probably_sushi wrote:

My opinion on this subject,
I think that men & women are made to be together, I just think that it's a natural fact, in our time it's the normal way of living, and I am always against the gay mentality, it's just not my kind of person...but it's not a reason to reject them, they are human beings..

I can't tell if you're for it or against it....

I think what he's saying is, he is agaisn't same gender marriage, but he also shows tolerance for it.

Exact, sorry for not being very precise about my opinion ^^

Alexander · **Posted:** Thu Jun 08, 2006 8:37 pm

It's alright, everyone makes mistakes here. And welcome to the forum probably sushi!

This is where I fit in as well. I'm highly against it on all levels, religion or not. But, there are times when I feel that God is a much better person to be concerned with people who do it.

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

Same-Sex Marriages

Who is online