Opinions on Gay Marriage

[MeDeFe]

I do not believe in marriage being done by someone other than a religous minister.

What you believe has no bearing on reality.

What will they do if the Justice does not beleive in Gay Marriage.

I don't know about "they", but I'd probably call him a bigot. Ignorant, at the very least.

You can't make the Justice go against his beliefs ethier.

I think you can because the justice is providing a public service, it's like a busdriver having to take passengers of a faith different than his own even if that would go against his religion (for example if there's some rule that you may not "serve an unbeliever" or something).

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, if the justice of the peace is a state or federal employee, he or she has to accept all comers. Sorry Jim.

[PLAYER57832]

I do not believe in marriage being done by someone other than a religous minister.

Marriages may be legally performed by Justice of the Peace. Marriages may also be performed by "clergy" from any number of churches that may not have any real existance outside of one person who wants to perform marriage ceremonies. States vary on who can be a clergy, but generally the rules are extremely lax. Even if the state does restrict who can be called "clergy", it has more to do with tax status than ability to perform ceremonies like marriages.

[got tonkaed]

Boy this poll rallied hard in a hurry...where is this army of non posting anti-gay marriage voters? How do they know to show up when this polls emerge and then disappear. Is there a bat signal or something?

[Neoteny]

Ninja are anti-gay marriage?

[JJM]

I still can not understand how a christian can not call it moraly wrong when it is forbiden by the Bible.

[DarthBlood]

first off, you should probably learn how to spell morally correctly...

second off, you don't have a "don't care as long as they don't show their affection in public" choice. cuz i would pick that.

[JJM]

first off, you should probably learn how to spell morally correctly...

second off, you don't have a "don't care as long as they don't show their affection in public" choice. cuz i would pick that.

Then You would go with no problem with it.

[PLAYER57832]

I still can not understand how a christian can not call it moraly wrong when it is forbiden by the Bible.

The arguments are that it is not actually forbidden or that it was, but like many things Jesus brought new rules. I am not saying I agree, but those are the arguments.

My question is what personal belief has to do with telling others how to live their lives. It is morally wrong (per the Bible) to worthip Vishna, etc. Yet, in today's world, most of us have no problem living next to a Hindu or Buddhist or anyone else. Why does it matter so much if two people of the same sex happen to want to live together. What makes that particular action so much more reprehensible than anything else that they and they alone cannot marry the person they love?

[DarthBlood]

i also noticed how there isn't a "not wrong morally and should not be outlawed" choice. are you trying to say something? lol.

[JJM]

Wow it didn't take me half as long as I thought it would. Ok here it is Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a women. It is a detestable sin." Can't argue with that.

Theres my proof.

[PLAYER57832]

Wow it didn't take me half as long as I thought it would. Ok here it is Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a women. It is a detestable sin." Can't argue with that.

Theres my proof.

Here's another one: Leviticus 19:27 "Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard"

[Frigidus]

Wow it didn't take me half as long as I thought it would. Ok here it is Leviticus chapter 18 verse 22 "Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a women. It is a detestable sin." Can't argue with that.

Theres my proof.

Well, fair enough. I actually had a rebuttal waiting for you.

This is just quoting what I said earlier, but it fits.

The Bible quote most commonly whipped out on this subject is Leviticus 18:22, which says

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

The rest of Leviticus 18 mentions a lot of things forbidden dealing with incest and bestiality, but it also includes the below passage.

Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

Is, then, having sex with someone while on her period just as bad as homosexuality? That's just an example from one chapter of Leviticus. What about the following from throughout the entire book?

Of all the creatures living in the water of the seas and the streams, you may eat any that have fins and scales. But all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales—whether among all the swarming things or among all the other living creatures in the water—you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat and you must detest their carcasses. Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

Note that the word "detestable" is used to describe both shellfish and gay sex. Are these about on par, then?

The LORD said to Moses: "Give Aaron and his sons this command: 'These are the regulations for the burnt offering: The burnt offering is to remain on the altar hearth throughout the night, till morning, and the fire must be kept burning on the altar. The priest shall then put on his linen clothes, with linen undergarments next to his body, and shall remove the ashes of the burnt offering that the fire has consumed on the altar and place them beside the altar. Then he is to take off these clothes and put on others, and carry the ashes outside the camp to a place that is ceremonially clean. The fire on the altar must be kept burning; it must not go out. Every morning the priest is to add firewood and arrange the burnt offering on the fire and burn the fat of the fellowship offerings on it. The fire must be kept burning on the altar continuously; it must not go out.

Animal sacrifices are, shockingly, no longer in practice; this despite chapters 1 through 7 of Leviticus dealing with the particulars of them.

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly

Leviticus used to be quoted by Southerners in support of slavery prior to the Civil War. Now it's quoted by Southerners against gay marriage. Hm.

Why, exactly, is this particular book full of nonsense that even the most extreme of Christians don't buy into cherry picked to declare homosexuality immoral? And since when has all morality sprung from the Bible, anyways?

[PopeBenXVI]

While I would personally prefer it to be banned all together everywhere - If I were a Supreme Court justice I would push for it to be a state decision to not let my own view influence the way the constitution was intended to work and thats how every one in that position should approach it.

It also should have no barring on other states if the people move. If a state says no, it's no and they don't need to make good on another states decision to accept what one state had voted on and rejected. If that means Hawaii passes gay marriage and no one else then I would not like it but that is the way it should work based on the way our country is set up. States were intended to govern themselves with little intrusion from the federal government.

Hey - that would be like taking all the gays and putting them on an island away from everyone else...hahaha! It's also beautiful there so it's a natural gay magnet anyway, they would love it!!!

[AAFitz]

While I would personally prefer it to be banned all together everywhere - If I were a Supreme Court justice I would push for it to be a state decision to not let my own view influence the way the constitution was intended to work and thats how every one in that position should approach it.

It also should have no barring on other states if the people move. If a state says no, it's no and they don't need to make good on another states decision to accept what one state had voted on and rejected. If that means Hawaii passes gay marriage and no one else then I would not like it but that is the way it should work based on the way our country is set up. States were intended to govern themselves with little intrusion from the federal government.

Hey - that would be like taking all the gays and putting them on an island away from everyone else...hahaha! It's also beautiful there so it's a natural gay magnet anyway, they would love it!!!

You realize one of the most popular destinations for heterosexual marriage honeymoons is Hawaii correct? Seems gays and heteros are pretty similar in that respect. Shouldn't we just let them get married then?

[PopeBenXVI]

While I would personally prefer it to be banned all together everywhere - If I were a Supreme Court justice I would push for it to be a state decision to not let my own view influence the way the constitution was intended to work and thats how every one in that position should approach it.

It also should have no barring on other states if the people move. If a state says no, it's no and they don't need to make good on another states decision to accept what one state had voted on and rejected. If that means Hawaii passes gay marriage and no one else then I would not like it but that is the way it should work based on the way our country is set up. States were intended to govern themselves with little intrusion from the federal government.

Hey - that would be like taking all the gays and putting them on an island away from everyone else...hahaha! It's also beautiful there so it's a natural gay magnet anyway, they would love it!!!

You realize one of the most popular destinations for heterosexual marriage honeymoons is Hawaii correct? Seems gays and heteros are pretty similar in that respect. Shouldn't we just let them get married then?

Good point, since you put it that way.......No

Let the states govern themselves and don't make the decision from 1 or a few judges with an agenda either way. The way states have been voting on it is the way these things were intended to be decided from the founding of this country. Not to be legislated from the bench and overturning the will of the people to govern themselves.

Of the People
By the people
For the people

[PLAYER57832]

And since when has all morality sprung from the Bible, anyways?

For a Christian or Jew, its pretty much part of our religion.

[PLAYER57832]

While I would personally prefer it to be banned all together everywhere - If I were a Supreme Court justice I would push for it to be a state decision to not let my own view influence the way the constitution was intended to work and thats how every one in that position should approach it.

Exactly what the state of Mississippi said for many years.

Why does the Christian attitude about homosexuality have anything at all to do with whether it should be legalized? THAT is the real question, not whether it is or is not sinful.

The only thing you can trot out is that some clergy might be forced to marry homosexuals if it were legalized, but priests right now are perfectly within their rights to refuse to marry anyone. I could not get married by our local Roman Catholic priest, for example. He was perfectly within his rights. The pastor of a neighboring Lutheran church has also refused to marry people on various grounds.

You try to say that because hospitals are required to provide all emergency medical procedures that somehow this means clergy will be forced to perform a purely religious ceremony (that happens to be recognized by the state)? A Justice of the Peace, sure. They could probably be sued... as they could by anyone legally able to marry if he refused to marry them. But a clergy? They ALREADY have very clear exceptions.

Furthermore, as happened in New Hamshire, it is easy enough to even clarify this point legally.

[got tonkaed]

Not allowing the licenses to transfer from one state to the next goes against the typical standards for reciprocity.

A somewhat illuminating article on why despite the reasonable rational ground the above statement stands on, sadly it wont change likely any time soon.

http://www.law.usyd.edu.au/slr/slr30_1/Lindell.pdf

And to your quote, apparently the people do not include anyone who is homosexual. Equal Protection is not a constitutional issue i suppose.

[karelpietertje]

man it must stink to live in the USA as a gay person, considering that 36 of 84 votes here say that gay marriage is morally wrong, and most people voting here are american.
gay people are still human beings, just like jews, christians, gypsies and people of any race.
that's what total idiots like Hitler and a lot of people in your precious US fail to understand.

also, what PLAYER57832 pointed out, taking the quotes from the bible that condemn gayness for real is hypocrit, because if you take such quotes as a standard for the way you have to live your life, you should also let your beard grow, and actually rip out your eyes and cut off your hands when they lead you to a bad path.

until a few years ago, I thought that believing in God was about loving everybody and treating people nicely. I see now that some people who believe in God and the Bible use that as an excuse to treat others wrong.

please america, follow the example of the current states who allow gay marriage (6 if I'm correct) and stop discriminating against gay people, your fellow americans, by taking away their human rights.

[PLAYER57832]

also, what PLAYER57832 pointed out, taking the quotes from the bible that condemn gayness for real is hypocrit, because if you take such quotes as a standard for the way you have to live your life, you should also let your beard grow, and actually rip out your eyes and cut off your hands when they lead you to a bad path.

In fairness, I do have to say that most of those laws were changed under Christ. That is, Christ gave us a new covenant that superceded the old laws. One of Christ's messages was that concentration on the details of so many laws actually lead us astray, caused us to look at the "letter of the law" and not the "intent".. the intent being that we are to love our God and love one another as ourselves. Christ specifically violated several because they actually wound up causing people to do more harm than good, such as not touching lepers and not associating with tax collectors, etc. He admonished us to show all love, not just those who were supposed to be "pure". In fact, he condemned those very people who wanted to hold themselves up as somehow "above" others.

until a few years ago, I thought that believing in God was about loving everybody and treating people nicely. I see now that some people who believe in God and the Bible use that as an excuse to treat others wrong.

That IS what the Bible is about. At least that is what I was taught and what I believe through both reading the Bible and my faith experiences.

However, Christ came to forgive, not make us all perfect. We are as we are, imperfect people fully capable of evil. That includes, sadly, many within the church. In fact, the Bible itself teaches us that when Satan comes, he comes in the guise of light. This is taken many ways, but one critical point is that even though our faith is true and leads people to do good, sometimes it can also be used for the greatest of evils. This is true of ANYTHING to do with humans. It is a failing of human beings, not a church or particular belief.

[nagerous]

I think it is absolutly wrong.

You remind me of a character in American Beauty.

[PopeBenXVI]

While I would personally prefer it to be banned all together everywhere - If I were a Supreme Court justice I would push for it to be a state decision to not let my own view influence the way the constitution was intended to work and thats how every one in that position should approach it.

Exactly what the state of Mississippi said for many years.

Why does the Christian attitude about homosexuality have anything at all to do with whether it should be legalized? THAT is the real question, not whether it is or is not sinful.

The only thing you can trot out is that some clergy might be forced to marry homosexuals if it were legalized, but priests right now are perfectly within their rights to refuse to marry anyone. I could not get married by our local Roman Catholic priest, for example. He was perfectly within his rights. The pastor of a neighboring Lutheran church has also refused to marry people on various grounds.

You try to say that because hospitals are required to provide all emergency medical procedures that somehow this means clergy will be forced to perform a purely religious ceremony (that happens to be recognized by the state)? A Justice of the Peace, sure. They could probably be sued... as they could by anyone legally able to marry if he refused to marry them. But a clergy? They ALREADY have very clear exceptions.

Furthermore, as happened in New Hamshire, it is easy enough to even clarify this point legally.

I want to be clear player - my point in mentioning the ideas in the above bolded is to point out that religious liberties are under attack everywhere. I know they have the right to refuse now but what I am saying is the way the homosexual movement is going, it does not appear they will stop until they can sue the church for "discriminating" against them if it's all legal to get married etc. Hate crime legislation is already in place in canada and clergy is in jail for speaking against homosexuality. That is being pushed here as well. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

[PLAYER57832]

I want to be clear player - my point in mentioning the ideas in the above bolded is to point out that religious liberties are under attack everywhere. I know they have the right to refuse now but what I am saying is the way the homosexual movement is going, it does not appear they will stop until they can sue the church for "discriminating" against them if it's all legal to get married etc. Hate crime legislation is already in place in canada and clergy is in jail for speaking against homosexuality. That is being pushed here as well. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

and giving blacks their rights meant they were out to take over white america, rape our women and just generally destroy our way of civilization. Or so has the KKK said for quite some time.

The problem is that you don't refuse people basic humanity because a few others might take advantage and might act like total jerks. If you are afraid that they will turn and sue religious organizations, then the answer is to specifically exclude churches from such lawsuits, not to deny the thousands who want this and would benefit (and I mean most particularly their kids, by-the-way).

You do realize that its not such a long time since Roman Catholics were themselves the subject of discrimination. (and, in some places Protestants in turn). The point is that you have to come up with something better than "its against OUR religion" to refuse someone else something. No one is saying they have to be admitted to your or my church OR that our clergy have to officiate.

In fact, as I already have said, as others have said this PARTICULAR exception is already pretty firm. Relgious institutions CAN discriminate in who they hire, in whom they admit, in whom they offer services to. Unless they take tax payer's dollars, in which case they no longer are operating as a true religious institution, but have crossed into the realm of public service, where, yes they are held to a higher standard.

[PopeBenXVI]

I want to be clear player - my point in mentioning the ideas in the above bolded is to point out that religious liberties are under attack everywhere. I know they have the right to refuse now but what I am saying is the way the homosexual movement is going, it does not appear they will stop until they can sue the church for "discriminating" against them if it's all legal to get married etc. Hate crime legislation is already in place in canada and clergy is in jail for speaking against homosexuality. That is being pushed here as well. Give them an inch and they take a mile.

and giving blacks their rights meant they were out to take over white america, rape our women and just generally destroy our way of civilization. Or so has the KKK said for quite some time.

The problem is that you don't refuse people basic humanity because a few others might take advantage and might act like total jerks. If you are afraid that they will turn and sue religious organizations, then the answer is to specifically exclude churches from such lawsuits, not to deny the thousands who want this and would benefit (and I mean most particularly their kids, by-the-way).

You do realize that its not such a long time since Roman Catholics were themselves the subject of discrimination. (and, in some places Protestants in turn). The point is that you have to come up with something better than "its against OUR religion" to refuse someone else something. No one is saying they have to be admitted to your or my church OR that our clergy have to officiate.

In fact, as I already have said, as others have said this PARTICULAR exception is already pretty firm. Relgious institutions CAN discriminate in who they hire, in whom they admit, in whom they offer services to. Unless they take tax payer's dollars, in which case they no longer are operating as a true religious institution, but have crossed into the realm of public service, where, yes they are held to a higher standard.

So first you blamed God for miscarriages and now you are comparing what I say to the KKK???? Lovely.....

There is more than one reason to fight the Homosexual lifestyle. Our Priests in jail is only 1 of many. The fact that Catholic Priests were hunted down and murdered in England for 200+ years or the way Catholic immigrants were poorly treated for years in this country has no baring on what to do about this topic.

I also disagree that you think children will benefit. It is harmful for children to be in a same sex parental situation. I am also not sure what you mean when you say deny " basic humanity" what is your definition of the term and what is the basis for it?