Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The big irony here is the strong evidence that King James, who authorized the version of the bible that many use to condemn homosexuality, himself had several homosexual relationships.
King James was not at all a nice guy. One of his reasons for having the Bible translated was that he thought it might buy him forgiveness (it couldn't; you can't buy forgiveness) His bad character takes nothing away from the good English translation of God's Word that resulted.
The stated goal of the gay marriage movement is to "undo" marriage and render it meaningless. This has been stated by leaders in the LGBT movement. That tells me it is about power, not rights.
That prohibited marriage between races, it did not redefine marriage which was still considered between a man and a woman.
Who are these LGBT "Leaders" that want to ruin everyone's marriages? I know many a gay person, and unless they're keeping their "Super Secret Gay Agenda (TM)" a closely-guarded secret, I think it's safe to say that most of the LGBT community in these parts aren't listening to whomever these purported "Leaders" are supposed to represent.
How can you render anyone's marriage "meaningless?"
I cannot think of anything anyone else could do to render my commitment to my husband meaningless... a marriage is only meaningful to the parties involved in the marriage, when it comes right down to it. We can respect other people's marriages (or not) all day long and it doesn't change what that marriage means to that couple. Does it?
I mean, maybe that's how your marriage works, but it's not how mine does.
When the prohibition was lifted and people were allowed to legally marry interracially, it did change the legal definition of marriage in NC. That's just a fact.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
King James was not at all a nice guy. One of his reasons for having the Bible translated was that he thought it might buy him forgiveness (it couldn't; you can't buy forgiveness) His bad character takes nothing away from the good English translation of God's Word that resulted.
Do we even have a "good" English translation of the Bible?
I know some ancient languages scholars who don't think so.
I believe that a person's spirituality (or lack thereof) is between that person and his her diety/dieties (or lack thereof) and should not directly influence laws.
Does this mean that your ethics should not influence law? Of course not. We cannot separate our ethics (which may be based on religion) from our selves, and we use those, along with the Constitution, to determine what laws are fair and unbiased.
I think that the marriage issue is a tough one because states really shouldn't be making laws for something that affects federal benefits status. The feds need to take control of what constitutes marriage (from a civil perspective) and leave the states to other matters.
Religious institutions aren't bound to marry (or not marry) couples of any sexual orientation now, and I cannot see that changing in the future because churches are not corporations (even if they make more money that some of them), so people who oppose gay marriage can simply attend religious institutions that oppose gay marriage.
How is that not fair and equitable? Seems like it to me.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Who are these LGBT "Leaders" that want to ruin everyone's marriages? I know many a gay person, and unless they're keeping their "Super Secret Gay Agenda (TM)" a closely-guarded secret, I think it's safe to say that most of the LGBT community in these parts aren't listening to whomever these purported "Leaders" are supposed to represent.
"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
-- OUT magazine, December/January 1994
"And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit."
-- Ryan Conrad
"But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
-- Sally Kohn, Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!
"Marriage is the proverbial burning building. Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
-- National Conference on Organized Resistance
"We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto, London, 1971, revised 1978
“Being ***** means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality."
-- Paula Ettelbrick, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
"... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
-- Masha Gessen, Lesbian activist
You render marriage meaningless by changing its definition. Pretty simple. Tell me, where do you draw the line?
I do not get that. I don't get it because you can start calling a bottle a can but it'll always be a bottle to me. Maybe I'll call it a "can" eventually, but all my warm associations with the term "bottle" will remain.
Unless this change in the law comes with a memory eraser, I just don't get the fear of it.
Allowing blacks and whites to marry sure did change the definition of it in NC. It was always one man, one woman OF THE SAME RACE.
Sure, people of mixed race had been having sexual relations for many years (consensual or not) and had been falling in love for many years... but, so have gay people.
The only thing that not allowing them to marry does is deny them benefits that are afforded to heterosexual couples.
Can you see how unfair that is?
Doesn't it at all seem very similar to the "separate but equal" laws that we all know were terribly unfair?
It's okay for them to love one another, to live together as if they're married, but do not ever allow them the same protections, tax benefits, survivorship benefits, as heterosexuals... because "marriage won't mean anything if those homos in NC are allowed to do it, too."
Which is pretty much what is being said here.
I don't think anyone thinks people have to agree or disagree with any aspect of homosexuality. I do find it rather sad that people get so caught up in what another person's sexual orientation is or is not. Isn't that rather personal?
No... this is about adults entering contracts with one another. If you strip away all the wringing of hands, this is what it is really about.
We already have to obtain a license at the courthouse to get married elsewhere (unless we choose to get married at the courthouse)... so... marriage is already not just a religious thing or we'd all mosey over to the nearest church to ask the pastor to marry us.
Wonder how many couples ministers turned down back when THAT was the only option? I bet there were quite a few.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
My stance on gay marriage matches that of the President.
Oh my goodness. It's UTAH.
Are we surprised at all that this is happening in UTAH?
I think that, from a civil perspective, allowing people to marry multiple people is complex, from a tax perspective. And that is why I doubt it'll be allowed unless we ditch all the tax benefits associated with marriage. I think of this from a practical perspective.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
"A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. [Legalizing "same-sex marriage"] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.”
-- OUT magazine, December/January 1994
"And after all, we are advocating the destruction of the centrality of marriage and the nuclear family unit."
-- Ryan Conrad
"But perhaps the next step isn’t to, once again, expand the otherwise narrow definition of marriage but to altogether abolish the false distinction between married families and other equally valid but unrecognized partnerships."
-- Sally Kohn, Prop 8: Let’s Get Rid of Marriage Instead!
"Marriage is the proverbial burning building. Instead of pounding on the door to be let in... queers should be stoking the flames!"
-- National Conference on Organized Resistance
"We must aim at the abolition of the family, so that the sexist, male supremacist system can no longer be nurtured there."
-- Gay Liberation Front: Manifesto, London, 1971, revised 1978
“Being ***** means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. ... We must keep our eyes on the goal ... of radically reordering society’s views of reality."
-- Paula Ettelbrick, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
"... fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist."
-- Masha Gessen, Lesbian activist
I don't know any gay people who buy into this stuff.
Have you never read some of the radical crap that leaders of various other parties throw out to the press?
David Duke is Southern. Does he speak for all Southerners? No. Not even most Southerners.
You are letting fearmongering interfere with logic.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
