A Serious WAY Off Topic Question

I have a proposal. I can't take full credit for it. But I go a bit beyond what I have heard proposed.

First, get ALL Federal State and Local Government bodies out of the Marriage business.

Yes, their are legal and societal issues with the union of 2 people. Let's change the role of the state to the basic legal contract between the individuals.
The state would treat all unions between 2 people as what is presently referred to as a "civil union". Whether by a judge or a ships captain, the ceremony that joins 2 people would be a civil and legal union, NOT a marriage.

A marriage and all the religious significance that surrounds it would be solely the territory of churches.

Ordained ministers would still be empowered to perform the legalities of the civil union, along with any additional requirements of the faith.

The churches and ministers would be allowed to set whatever rules for marriage that they desire. No one would be allowed to force a church or minister to marry any pair against their will.

Now, I personally think that the gay lifestyle is morally wrong and goes against all that is natural.
But, the bible does state "judge not lest ye be judged". So, who am I to say that the state should not monitor and regulate the unions of gay couples as it does those of heterosexual couples.

Chas

I am a straight, married woman who lived in San Francisco for 8 years back in the 1970-80s. During that time I had many gay acquaintences and friends, some of whom were in serious, long term relationships. I always considered this to be perfectly normal, and the fact that couples like these now want to legitimize their relationships makes perfectly good sense to me.

Why should we recognize such legal entities as common law marriages and palimony lawsuits for "traditional couples" but not grant similar legal rights and protection to "non-traditional" couples just because they are of the same gender?

Regardless of whether someone believes that homosexuality is moral or immoral, issues of morality should not be the basis for legal discrimination, including the rights to fair treatment in all secular areas such as employment and spousal rights. Even if a person considers someone else's action "sinful" based on their personal religious beliefs, this is not a valid basis for denying anyone their rights under secular law.

We do not have a state religion - we have a secular government. It was designed that way by the founding fathers because religious persecution was one of the reasons many people came here in the first place. I believe it is wrong to use religious beliefs as a basis to make and enforce secular laws, and I think the example of the ultra-conservative Islamic based governments are a good example of the results of this type of thinking.

I vote for establishing a legal union for gay couples (call it whatever you will) that grants the same rights under the law to gay spouses as it grants to spouses in a traditional marriage. If a given church or duly appointed official in a church does not wish to perform a religious ceremony for a gay couple, then that is the right of that church or official, but what any church or religious organization does or does not condone should not affect the secular rights of individuals in this great country. We are all free to practice our faiths as we choose.

Having lived in Vancouver for some time, I was 'deseneitized' (for lack of a better word) to the gay community. I lived in apartment where my neighbours were married in a gay church and had a coworker who also was a priest in a gay church who himself was married to another coworker.

They were fantastic friends and I've always had friends/addosciates who were gay, straight, married, single, black, white etc. Having lived in such a diverse cultural society I accepted gay marriage without realizing it, it just was. I've been married, you're married, they were married, I didn't see a difference.

I think it may be more of an economical issue, which is what I think the main issue here is. Gay people couldn't care less if they are accepted by people as married, it is receving the same government benefits that everyone else does. The government would be dealing with more tax breaks and I wouldn't be surprised if the system was abused, perhaps another reason for such an evasive approach with no clear objections.
A couple or roomies geting drink and wondering how they can pay the bills may get married for a year just to get the breaks?! Who knows.?

But you're right, it is just like everything else we've overcome as we evolve as a civilization and we should just wake up and get with the program. We realy do have other more imperative issues to resolve before worrying about two people deciding to share thier lives together. What's so wrong with love and sharing that we need to repress it?

I have spoken with many gay men and a few gay women. They all insist that they were born with this predilection and it is not about sex, but an emotional thing. These people (some of whom are included in my circle of close friends) say that they are emotionally attracted to people of the same gender, and can only fall in love with people of the same gender as themselves.

It is now an established reality that a great many people are gay and this won't change. It is irrelevant to say it is "immoral" because this will not change the reality.

As I'm sure you all know, it is inevitable that this issue will create a schism in the Anglican (Episcopalian) church.

The largest Anglican community is in Kenya. Here are portions of an item from "East African Standard Online Edition - Headline News."

"The move by the Anglican Church of Kenya (ACK) to block the ordination of one of their own by a bishop from the pro-homosexual church in the US has again brought to the fore the sharp split in the church. The Kenyan deacon was stopped from graduating to priesthood, simply because the ceremony was to be presided over by a bishop from the United States pro-gay Episcopal Church. The church is well known for backing gay bishops like Gene Robinson.
When Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi discovered that a bishop from this church was to ordain the Kenyan, it took him a minute to cancel the ceremony at the 11th hour."

The schism in the church has already started to become a reality. The very fundamentalist Archbiship of Sydney, Peter Jensen, has announced that he will not support a gay church, and hopes that the many parishes in his diocese will follow him.

So now, every sane, opened-minded person I know agrees with my statement that the Anglican Church will be split into two groups: the anti-gay group, and the pro-love group.

Gays exist in large numbers throughout the world. This is a reality, and I believe that they should share equal rights in formal partnerships as do heterosexual people.

The problem is that too many people choose to let ONLY their religious beliefs guide their decisions.

We now have school boards that are pushing to have creationism and "intelligent design" be taught in science class in place of evolution.

Chas

THAT would suck. It's too expesnive here as it is, if I had to save (what is it now two moths?) wages for a beer, I'd be lookin at crack with a whole new perspective.

Well maye not THAT far but you know what I mean.

Beer would be forever. Nobody would get drunk because they'd spend an hour on each $2000.00 pint. Actually that might be a good thing for drivers, ooops rambling again sorry.

As it is only giving people some "Legal" protection in the case of their partner dying or something similar happening. Currently these people are at the mercy of relatives who are not at all understanding and think that they are the reason why their beloved relation is the way he/she is. So when something goes wrong they take every advantage to punish the other person.

Now to really start something what I do find interesting with supposedly Christian people is the fact that they do not under stand the homosexual actions between males are forbidden in the "Bible" but the same doesn't apply to females. I realize that there are many "New Publications" of the Bible where this is altered but from the original text that is the position.

It appears to me that the only reason for this is procreation and nothing else.

Col

.
For the record, I never said I didn't want to get involved in non-technical threads. I did say, however, that I was getting tired of the flaming, criticizing, bashing, name-calling, offending, insulting, etc. If we want to flame and name-call, let's do it in private emails. (What an idea!)

Your question: What is the problem with gays getting rights for marriage?

I'd like to think that all of my opinions are based on a core set of values and principles. I don't look at an issue, decide which way I want to go (or which way is popular), and then work backwards to find the justification. But rather I try base everything on the foundation of those core values and principles. In addition, as many people know, I'm a stickler for logic and accuracy, so here is my logical answer based on my core set of principles.

A person might say that the government shouldn't define what a marriage is, that morality issues are private, not government, matters. Therefore, taken to its logical conclusion (in this case), that same person would condone the practice of bigamy, polygamy, or any other "gamy" you can think of. Heck, why shouldn't a man have a dozen wives, or a woman a dozen husbands? Why not a man have two, three or more other men as legal spouses? What about a marriage between two or more "blood-related" people? What about a marriage between an adult and a child? Okay, so maybe the government does have the right to legislate the definition of a marriage. Therefore, again taken to its logical conclusion, we do have the right to establish some societal norms, including defining a marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

I remember back in the 60s and 70s when gay rights was just coming into the public eye. The battle cry was to keep the government out of one's bedroom. Actually, I agreed 100 percent, and I still do. But now, when people want to bring their bedrooms out into the public, we now have people who are forcing their values onto others. The gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual "community", as it is now often referred, is forcing their values onto the rest of America, and most of America doesn't like it. By definition, the people in these groups advertise their sexual preferences and practices. People can do whatever they want, and I couldn't care any less. But hey, I still say, keep it in the bedroom.

A marriage has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman. I don't want the definition of something changed just to suit the agenda of a very small minority of people. I'm not suggesting that same-sex couples shouldn't have the right to form a bond between themselves. And I'm not suggesting that I'm passing moral judgement on anyone because of it. But I am suggesting that society has a right to do the things that will benefit society in general. The traditional marriage is one such benefit to society. To argue that same-sex couples don't get the same benefits of opposite-sex couples is not the issue, and it's contrary to the right of society to establish such practices based on the benefits to society. People don't get married for the benefits derived; and if there are any benefits, they're side-affects. So to argue in favor of same-sex marriages so they can get the same benefits is nonsensical and backwards thinking.

A lot of people get benefits from various sources. Just because some are refused the same benefits doesn't mean we should redefine the meaning of long-established practices. What would you say to the person who argued that soldiers get free meals, free lodging and free medical care, while others don't. That's not fair, so let's change the definition of a soldier to include those who want those same benefits. Yes, that's a silly analogy, but it shows the silliness of applying the same argument to the definition of a marriage.

Yes, society does indeed have the right to establish some societal norms that define who we are and how we live. And if it's such a popular idea to include same-sex couples under the societal definition of a legal "marriage", and if it really is the right thing to do, then the passage of a Constitutional Amendment saying as much shouldn't be a problem. I would vote to put it up to a vote of the people, and I'd agree to live by the results of an agreed upon Constitutional Amendment so we could put an end to the issue once and for all, and so that there's consistency between the states that no judge could possibly overturn. The problem with that, say the same-sex advocates, is that about 70% - 80% of the American population would vote against it, and it would be the law of the land that same-sex marriages are not recognized as legitimate in America.

Now if that ws a keg, I'd put my shoes on.

(Just figureed I'd steroptype myself a little)

I don't see the Gay rights activists making more of an issue of their cause than the blacks made of civil rights in the 60's.

What is different, is that a majority of people who call themselves Christians are morally offended by the thought of accepting any part of a Gay lifestyle.

As an American Christian, I struggle with this and many other issues that have moral overtones.

What I come down to, is if there is no harm done to a third party, there should be very few limits on what 2 consenting individuals can do.

I find that many congregations in this country make political recommendations based on 1 or 2 key issues that blind their moral compasses.

Take the Catholic Church. They are vociferously pro-life. Thus, Republican candidates often have an advantage in getting support. Yet, when you look at the overall social beliefs in the church teachings, they tend to more closely match the Democratic parties platform.

I'll stop here too.

Chas

.
Actually, this isn't an important issue for me. If it came to a vote, however, my one vote would be to define a marriage as a union between one man and one woman for the reasons I stated in previous messages. But if the definition were to be expanded to include same-sex couples, I wouldn't really care.

However, whatever the ultimate "decision" will be, one way or the other, I think it should satisfy two criteria. One, it should be uniform and universal between all the states; and two, it should made law in such a form that no judge in any court anywhere could rule otherwise.

The only way to satisfy those two criteria is with a Constitutional Amendment.

But this is interesting. Why is it that Republicans, in general, are in favor of such an extreme solution, while Democrats, in general, are opposed to it?

I daresay you are all aware that a small proportion of babies are born with both sets of equipment. In most cases the parents choose which gender they prefer for their child, and the operation is done accordingly.

Now if there was ever an oustanding example of breach of individual rights, this would be it. If the baby had the choice, he/she might well not choose the same gender as chosen by the parents.

Which ever way it is done, the child will grow up retaining some characteristics of the deleted gender. This most often leads to trauma and hence in many cases, the operation to render the individual transsexual is requested.

I have known personally a number of former males who have had the "cut and tuck" performed, which has resolved their emotional conflict.

I also knew a hermaphrodite who was refused, by a decision made by doctors, permission to have the operation. She had large hands, broad shoulders and generally male features. She also had small breasts. But she KNEW that she should be a woman.

Oh, and incidentally she kissed me on one occasion and in this area she was DEFINITELY a female.

Each day when I set of from home to visit Kings Cross, my mother used to say (tongue in cheek): "Don't get involved with any strange women." Well I figured I was unlikely to meet anyone more strange than the friend mentioned above.

Some years ago a church was set up in Sydney with a fully ordained clergyman who had been born a hermaphrodite. This church, while being open to anyone, catered especially for gays and transexuals.

Many, many years ago my local Anglican clergyman, Rev Ray Weir, while totally straight himself, had the compassion to become involved in the gay issue. I asked him: "Would it not be better for a gay person to be in love with someone of the same sex, rather than not experience genuine love at all?" He wholeheartedly agreed with my comment.

.
If the "union" is legally recognized in one state but not another, there could be problems if the couple moves or has issues with another state. Moreover, in the absence of a federal (or state constitutional) provision, some judges could rule one way, other judges another way, even within the same state, in their interpretation of the law regarding the validity of such a union. And what about the status on federal income tax returns?

My personal opinion, regardless of which way it goes (and I don't really care, but I would prefer male-female only marriages), is that it should be a universal, irrevocable, national law.

Generally speaking, once an area gets a reputation for a particular lifestyle or tolerance thereof, people of like views tend to gravitate there.

One thing that I see in common with both SF and Vancouver is that both are areas with a lot of creative people.
Be it the "stereotype" or just visibility, I notice that there seems to be a greater concentration of homosexuals in creative fields.

Chas

I lived in Nova Scotia for two years at one time, that's Canada's extreme right. The city/town was MUCh smaller but although it was som time ago and the whole movement was still kept rather quiet, I do remember working with a gay man and bi woman and it was accepted. Although it was much quieter and simply accepted, it was a small town of Sydney and had a very small population.

In Toronto, Canada'a other big city, the gay movement is even more widely celebrated than it is here, so it may not be a West/left, East/right issue as much as a North South issue. Even then New York has a large gay population and it is also East coast US. Perhaps it's a matter of population or mixed culture.

[I HAVE SEVERE OSTEOARTHRITIS SO PLEASE EXCUSE THE ALL CAPS TEXT AS I CANNOT PME HAND WELL]
DISCUSSION-WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH GAY MARRIAGE?
THERE ARE 3 CENTRAL PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BECOME ONE ISSUE:
1. MORAL/RELIGIOUS
2. LEGAL/GOV'T
3. MONEY/BENEFITS

1.MORAL/RELIGIOUS
A.THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN
THIS PROBLEM CENTERS ON THE FACT THE THE BIBLE WHICH HAS RECORDED HOMOSEXUALITY FROM THE BEGINNING OF TIME, IS CLEARLY AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.
THERE ARE CHURCHES THAT BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE TRUE UNERRING WORD OF GOD.
THERE ARE CHURCHES THAT INTERPERT THE BIBLE ALONG WITH TRADITION AS THE WAY TO BELIEVE.
THERE ARE CHURCHES THAT INTERPERT THE BIBLE FOR PAST, TODAY, AND FUTURE.
B. OTHER RELIGIONS
THESE FAITHS HAVE THEIR OWN CENTRAL DOCTRINE FOR OR AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY.
C. NON-BELIEVERS/ATHIESTS
THESE PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN MORAL SET OF VALUES WHICH THEY SET UP AND FOLLOW EITHER FOR OR AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY

AS A RESULT OF THE DIFFERENT BELIEFS AND PRACTICES IN THE WORLD, THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT MORAL VALUES THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.
THIS IS A SEPARATE ISSUE IN ITSELF.

2.. LEGAL/ GOV'T
AS WAS STATED BY MAXWELL, THERE IS INDEED A SET DEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE" AND MEANS JUST ONE WOMAN TO ONE MAN. THIS DEFINITION SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED TO INCLUDE ALL DIFFERENT KINDS OF UNIONS. (AS HE SAID, BIGAGMY, POLIGAMY, ETC)
A NEW DEFINITION FOR EACH KIND OF UNION WOULD NEED TO BE DEFINED.

THERE ARE ALSO HEALTH REASONS, AS MAXWELL SAID, AND HE IS CORRECT, THAT HAVE TO SET UP A STANDARD WAY TO PREVENT BIRTH DEFECTS, ETC. IF , FOR EXAMPLE, THE AMISH SECT WOULD NOT JUST MARRY AMISH, THERE WOULD BE LESS BIRTH DEFECTS.

SO A HEALTHY SET OF LEGAL STANDARDS IS WHY THE GOV'T NEEDS TO DEFINE AND LEGALIZE "MARRIAGE".

3. MONEY

THIS ISSUE INVOLVES THE GOV'T, AS WELL AS, BUSINESSES, AND ALL INDIVIDUALS OF ALL BELIEFS, LIFE STYLES, POLITICAL PREFERENCES, ETC.

THIS IS THE ISSUE/THREAD THAT RUNS THOUGH THE WHOLE TOPIC AND IN ALL DISCUSSIONS
-IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO "MONEY"..

MONEY IS NEEDED TO PAY THE BENEFITS FOR ALL PEOPLE.

WHERE DOES OUR GOV'T DRAW THE LINE? THE GOV'T HAS TO DEFINE THE WORD,
"MARRIAGE" BASED ON SOMETHING AND SET FORTH LEGAL LIMITS ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION. THIS IS DONE FOR MANY THINGS IN AMERICA.

FOR SOCIAL ORDER, HEALTH, AND WELFARE OF ALL PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY. NO ONE LAW COVERS ALL CASES, PRINCIPLES, BELIEFS, PRACTICES, ETC. THE CLOSEST THERE IS TO A "ONE LAW OR PRINCIPLE" IS THE CONSTITUTION; THEREFORE, TO ESTABLISH CHANGE, AN AMENDMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE RATIFIED.

THIS ISSUE THEN TOUCHES ON ALL OF THE TOPICS AND HAS TO BE SEPARATED, THEN ANALYZED, THEN PUT BACK TOGETHER BY THE GOV'T.

THEN AN AMENDMENT HAS TO BE THE "PUT-BACK-TOGETHER" RESULT.

FOR EXAMPLE, TO USE POLYGAMY, THERE WOULD BE BENEFITS PAID TO MANY MORE PEOPLE. MOST THE WORKING PEOPLE IN AMERICA WOULD NOT WANT BENEFITS PAID TO MORE PEOPLE AND MORE MONEY TAKEN FROM THEIR PAYCHECK.

THEN, FOR EXAMPLE, TO USE THE CURRENT ISSUE ON HOMOSEXUAL ,LEAGAIZED UNIONS,
MOST PEOPLE WOULD NOT WANT TO EXTEND THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE TO COVER ALL KINDS OF SITUATIONS.
AGAIN, WHERE DOES THE GOV'T DRAW THE LINE? IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD COVER 85% OF THE POPULATION (I CHOOSE 85% BASED ON PAST EXPERIENCE IN ANOTHER FIELD OF WORK) , STAND UP IN COURT WITHOUT CONSTANT REINTERPERTATIONS, AND SET AN ACCEPTABLE LIMIT FOR BUDGETING MONEY, ETC.

THERE HAS TO BE A "BASE" TO RETURN TO FOR LEGAL, HEALTH, ETC. DEFINITIONS IN MANY THINGS FOR THESE REASONS.

AND....IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO MONEY...AND THIS AFFECTS ALL OF US HERE IN AMERICA.

AS FAR A RELIGIOUS DEFINITIONS, EACH FAITH HAS THE FREEDOM TO DEFINE MARRIAGE; EACH PERSON HAS THE FREEDOM TO BELIEVE WHATEVER MARRIAGE IS DEFINED TO THEM PERSONALLY AND PRIVATELY.

BUT AS FAR AS THE GOV'T IS CONCERNED, THIS HAS TO BE A DEFINITION THAT WILL ENCOMPASS THE AFOREMENTIONED THINGS AND LIMIT/EXTEND MONEY TO THE DEFINED CATEGORY ONLY.
________________________________________________________________________
[MY PERSONAL INFO: WHITE, FEMALE, MARRIED , 2 GROWN CHILDREN, 1 HOMOSEXUAL BROTHER, ONE HETEROSEXUAL BROTHER. I WORSHIP AT A MAINLINE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, AGE 55 . I BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE IS THE TRUE, UNERRING WORD OF GOD; THEREFORE; HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS ARE AGAINST WHAT GOD INTENDED.
MY PERSONAL BELIEF:
I BELIEVE THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOSE THEIR OWN FAITH, MORAL VALUES, AND "PERSUE THEIR RIGHT TO HAPPINESS"; THAT EACH INDIVIDUAL HAS THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE THEIR LIFE STYLE, ETC., AS LONG AS THE FREEDOM DOES NOT IMPINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. I DEFINE THIS IMPINGEMENT TO BE IN THIS ISSUE "NULL" BECAUSE THEIR LIFESTYLE / RELIGIOUS CHOICE DOES NOT IMPINGE ON MY RIGHTS IN THE SAME AREAS. ADDITIONALLY, THIS MEANS THAT NO ONE CAN BE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST FOR THEIR BELIEFS, LIFESTYLE, COLOR, ETC AND THIS IS WERE THE SIMILARITY TO CIVIL RIGHTS, ETC WOMEN'S RIGHTS, ETC IS.

AS FAR AS THE LEGAL DEFINTION FOR BENEFITS-MONEY- TO BE EXTENDED TO HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS, OR ANY OTHER KIND OF UNIONS, WE HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE AT ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT WE PAYOUT OF OUR CHECKS TO SUPPORT THE BENEFITS BOTH FROM THE GOV'T AND FROM THE PLACE OF WORK. THIS NEEDS WORK TO SET A CLEAR DEFINITION, MAKE IT LEGAL, MAKE IT UNIFORM IN EACH STATE. THE CLEAREST WAY TO MAKE IT UNIFORM IS BY AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE US.]

Not long after I cam to SF I fell truly, madly, deeply in love with Julius. So I buggared him. After a while I repented of this sin, and confessed it to Father Louis at SaintBoniface in the Tenederloin. He condemend my unnatural sin; for my penance I must walk barefoot to the Mission.
Later I fell truly, madly, deeply in love with Julia. So I buggared her. When I eventually repented of and confessed this new sin, Father Louis pointed out that I had committed an unnatural sin, although I could have copulated with Julia, merely a natural sin. For my penance I msut walk barefoot to San Gabriel Mission.

IMO it's 100% or no%.

Either we let them do it like we do it or we don't.

As for gay guys getting discriminated against for saying they are gay. Hell yeah they get it like black people used to or sometimes still do.

Maybe even a little worse in our current state as prejudice of skin has lessened. But a lot of straight people are afraid that if they are around gay people, they might become "infected" or something and fear can be a strong emotion.

I can definately say, most of my friends have no problem dropping the "f*g" bomb and they don't care to know someone that is gay just because they are. I wish I could explain why that is, but I don't get it.

I know at a time, I used to be somewhat of a homophobe, but I had a wierd thing happen. I used to watch Real World. Back in season one in the beginning, there was a gay guy named Pedro. He ended up dying of Aids. The neat part was that they showed him as he was. A human being. It showed me that just because your sexual preference may be different than mine, doesn't mean you are different than me. You're still human, and you still have feelings. And that seems to be what society is trying to deny gays off. Their right to their own feelings.

But WHY?

Mrafrohead

And i'm not talking about Bisexual people here. Or people that decide one day to just be gay because it's trendy. I am talking about real gay people. Born that way.

I feel the same way, and I can't figure out why that is. People in general are just rude and disgusting selfish gluntonous (or however thats spelled).

Yet and individaul can be one of the greatest things...

It's just wierd.

But what would we do with all of that inheritance that didn't go back to the family. I for one and not willing to GIVE my money to the government when they sure as shit didn't earn it.

Mrafrohead

Don't try to dilute the long-standing institution of marriage...

That's part of my point - what if it's flawed. Like we used to think Slavery was the way to go, and to deny a woman an education. We since then found that we were wrong in our thoughts and have since corrected them. What if that is what is happening right this second!

To me, I hope this is what we are going through right now. A little enlightenment.

Mrafrohead

I would like to say thank you to everyone who has as of yet contributed to this thread, and to those that may still contribute.

I truly appreciate your honesty and openness on this matter. I really am grasping to understand this whole thing, and it's nice to see such a diverse set of answers.

In all honesty I almost choked on my water when I checked this morning to see if there were any responses. I really didn't think that I would get this much out of it.

So again, thank you all!!!

Mrafrohead

Each of us is a citizen, or some kind of member, of a state. Each of us is also some kind of member of some church, even if it is only an unincorporated church of self-righteous hedonists. Church and state therefore intersect in each of us. The functions proper to each of the two societies may have much in common (both church and state run supportive housing and shelters for the homeless in SF).
Our religion has something to do with our approaches to both societies. In the U.S. Declaration of Independence we are told that states live to secure God-given rights. Congress has chaplains; Scots Muslims think the Scottish Parliament should have chaplains, presumably Christian, to remind the members that God is watching them. Ideas of right and wrong do not have to be derived from our idea of God (natural law theory does not depend on God, though most of those who consciously consider natural law do in fact believe in God), but even among Hindus and Buddhists such ideas are tied in with religion. I do not want my state to encourage sin, still less commit sin; my Buddhist friend does not want her (I first wrote "his", then it ocurred to me that all my Buddhist friends are women) state to make bad karma.

The main reason that mainstream society is opposed to homosexual marriages, and homosexual relationships in general, is fear.

What if my son gets married to another man?
What if my wife finds another woman and leaves me for her.
What if "they" become accepted and one of them hits on me?
What if I like it?
And so it goes on.

Just remember where a certain governor spent a lot of time building those muscles, and where better to find an inordinately large number of "them"

The Terminator afraid?? It is just possible.

My opinion? If a homosexual couple wishes to make the statement of commitment by getting legally married, I have no problem with that.

Conversely, if someone does have a problem with it, I guess it is their right to feel that way. I will do my best to understand, even though I may disagree. It is part of the Christian ethic of tolerance and understanding, is it not?

I feel that homosexual people, as children of god (pick whichever god you worship at this point) should be allowed all the same rights as every other individual, and should be expected to accept all the reponsibilities of all other individuals.

It is not for me to judge the morality of the situation - judgement is surely god's work, and perhaps we would be a better society if we left god to do it.

How would I feel if one of my my children or grandchildren was a homosexual? I would be dissappointed, sure, but I would hope that their heart was true and that they were being true to themselves. And I would hope that I would be able to accept it like the rational individual I like to think I am.

Perhaps though, I may find myself reacting like the rest of society, with fear and loathing, and thinking that this evil person has corrupted my beloved child. I don't know. We shall have to wait and see on that one.

Alan

I have been married twice. My first marriage was a church marriage. Because I divorced, my second marriage HAD to be a civil ceremony. I could not get re-married in church.

Now, why don't we see the same arguement from divorced people as we do from those of other sexual orientations?

Marriage is not, and never has been a 'civil' institution. It is a religeous institution. It is the joining of a man and a woman in a holy union in the eyes of God (whatever your 'name' for God) for one purpose and one purpose ONLY. To breed the next generation of the human race.

To call 'same sex' unions 'marriages' is an oxymoron. Where there can be no children, you cannot have a marriage. Yes, there can be a legally recognised 'civil' or 'legal' union. I don't have a problem with that, but calling it 'marriage' contradicts the definition of the word.

But to add to this, the Gay Rights movement are campaining for EQUAL rights to heterosexuals. I can understand the fight for the same legal rights (rights of inheritance, tax concessions, etc.) as heterosexual partnerships, but the issue of marriage simply CANNOT apply to two men (or two women) who cannot biologically have children. Of course, many gay couples may choose to adopt children (and some jurisdictions sadly allow this to happen) and there are lesbian women who use artificial insemination or will sleep with a man simply to get pregnant. Whatever...

Human nature is what it is and there will always be a small minority who go 'against the grain'. It is not un-natural...it goes back millennia, it is nothing new. Same sex couples simply cannot (themselves) have children. So why does marriage NEED to apply to them?

Many heterosexual couples can happily have families WITHOUT getting married. In fact, with one in three marriages globally and three out of five in 'so called' civilised countries like the UK or USA ending in divorce or family splits, why do gays feel they NEED marriage?

The church (small c) will never universally adopt marriage between same sex couples. Islam and most Estern religeons do not permit it. Christianity certainly does not permit it. Yes, there are factions of Christian denominations who are pro same sex marriage, but then they are also pro many other things that aren't in the Bible.

If gays want to be treated equally, they should remember that many, many heterosexuals with previous marriages can only have a 'civil' union. Why should homosexuals or lesbians be treated any diferently??

I get your points but the only nagging question is how does it diminish the meaning of your marriage? Your marriage's definition and sanctity are borne from your love, commitment, honesty, etc.. only lying, infidelity, crazy weddings such as underwater/sky diving(not really but it is embarrassing pointing out what a flamboyant gay wedding might look like!!) or abuse invalidate it. Furthermore divorces dont effect your marriage and lets face it they are way out of control because people get married for all the wrong reasons vs. the right ones. In my own opinion people that are against it are against it due to not wanting to see that different behavior or not wanting to have to explain it to their kids.

I was on the other side of the fence origionally opposed to the marrying, but after someone pointed out these points I saw the wisdom and separated fact from fiction that this is about discrimination. It kills me that this is the biggest subject for the elections vs. removal of child predators that need law ratification, Enron execs getting their just desserts vs. slap on the wrists, better education, increased space program, frivolous law ratification, better economy, and most importantly a better healthcare system that helps all not just who has the best insurance to ease suffering!!!

Love the Sinner, hate the Sin.

We all have sinners in us, thief, liar, adulterer, muderer... as long as we do not act on the desire we are not sinning. If someone is gay but does not act on their impulses they would not be in sin. Conversly having sex outside of marriage is a sin.

Actually they do have a gay pride parade during pride week each summer.

It is one of the most entertaining and enjoyable parades of the year.
http://tinyurl.com/yvwq2

The whole flamboyant gay thing is also taken out of proportion. SOME gay men are quite flamboyant and happy to be gay. Others you wouldn't know it if you worked with them for 10 years. I am sure you have had many coworkers or business associates and friends that were gay and you nor anyone else knew it. Unless of course you ask preference questions when you meet someone. In fact, I found many gey men are actually the ones who spend most of thier time acting like womanizing pimps. They will point out the cute girls, make up daily exploits that belittle Penthouse forum etc. If they don't want you to know, chances are you don't.

The flamboyance of gay men is stereotypical, yet SOME are rather flamboyant, especially during the pride parade. Very entertaining, you should go to your local oride parade this year, I guarantee you'll think it's a lot of fun.

Well Guru, it must be a misunderstanding, if you know several gay men, why don't you ask them why they CHOSE to be gay and not straight?

Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality.

You don't choose to be stright, you just are.
They don't choose to be gay, they just are.

When they ask to be 'married' the only reason they are usuing the term 'married' is that's what the governments use to determone who is eligible for spousal benefits. Had they chosen a diferent word, say coexistence, life partners, mutual whatevers...it would be the same issue but MARRIAGE wouldn't be the term. The government has chosen to use a religious term and theory to separate benefit recipients. Now it has turned into a religoius war because of it. Gay's are not looking to have religious acceptance this issue has NOTHING to do with religion, the government wrongly made it that way.

They want equal rights as two people who share existence together, share living exoenses, share income, pay taxes etc. just like evry other man and woman who walks the earth.

It has nothing to do with choice, that's the whole problem, there IS no choice. They must marry opposite gender if they want the government to recognize them as two individuals who share life togather. I can understand that the bible offers a definition of christian marriage, the government should not have adopted the term to define a couple as it is descriminitive against gays.

About 25 years ago I would guess, I maintained the garden of a retired lady doctor, whose husband had drowned while trying to save his son, who as it turned out was not in any difficulty.

Well this of course left the son carrying a massive guilt trip for inadvertently being the cause of his father's death, and the wife felt that she had been deprived of her spouse in unnatural circumstances.

I guess it was this which led Dr Benjamin to empathize with women who, after marrying and bearing children, learnt that their husbands were gay. Dr Benjamin counselled many of these women, and in fact either counselled or knew of almost 100 women who had found themselves in this situation.

So why did these men marry in the first place? I can suggest several possible reasons:

1. They knew that they were gay, but wanted to father children whom they could call their own;

2. They knew or suspected that they were gay, and thought that a heterosexual union would invert their sexual preference;

3. They didn't realize that they were gay until well after they were married;

4. Men in public positions especially, desired a heterosexual marriage to disguise their preference. A former Australian Prime Minister, William McMahon, because of his rather effeminate appearance and manner of speech, was widely considered to be gay. He married, and produced a son named Julian (I hope this isn't a bad omen for myself).

I agree with Oz, I don't think religious beliefs should be a guiding force in government. Ok everyone know brace yourselves for the shocker...I AM A CHRISTIAN (though *NOT* a catholic, and yes I want that fact to be VERY clear...I disagree with much that is Catholic).

I do not think gays should be given full martial rights as hetrosexual couples. Purely because I think its against the laws of nature, not even considering what religion has to say about it.

Men were made to be with women, and vice versa..I think its obvious the way our anatomies are set up -- if nothing else.

I will be honest, as a straight male I don't think a more beautiful creation exists than a woman (although some of the gender could be left out of that statement -- and no I'm not merely basing that on looks btw either).

But this all said I do not desire harm to gays, I do not think they should be treated bad. I just think they should be granted full martial rights AND they shouldn't be able to interfer with my life anymore than I should of theirs.

I love these activists groups that hold up from work by protesting in the middle of the street you need to cross. Or how you can't get your daily errands done because someone is blocking your way into the post office.

Down here, we pay our own way on the medical instead of paying taxes out of our nose for it.

So that scenario wouldn't apply, as each person in the group needs to provide their own medical.

Although, now that I'm thinking of it, I couldn't add my wife to my medical plan (even though I had to pay for her myself) until we got married, so maybe that's it...

But then again, I could get her medical outside of my work for a cheaper rate than in my work, so maybe not...

I dunno. But from my understanding in Canada, you guys pay for your medical with your tax dollars and EVERYONE is covered. Whereas here you have to sign up for individual plans...and then pay from your own pocket... Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Mrafrohead

GoD - I think that I am starting to see what you guys are saying. Your second to last and final paragraphs of your post are the ones that finally are getting me to calm down a bit and not feel so tense with this thread.

Thank you for the way you put that, I think that I am possibly seeing the light.

mrafrohead