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.
Ok my question is this. I "believe" the issue is with the word "marriage". I think many see it as a religious meaning. Do the people that object to gay "marriage" have an issue with them being united or just to word marriage?
Ok my question is this. I "believe" the issue is with the word "marriage". I think many see it as a religious meaning. Do the people that object to gay "marriage" have an issue with them being united or just to word marriage?
Bingo!
I would be fine with a "civil union" license that will protect the assets of folks in long term relationships and give their significant others medical access - but marriage is a religious concept created by God and intended for relationships between a man and a woman. If the gay community would just try to have some respect for the fact that to religious people marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and CHOSE ANOTHER WAY to accomplish their goal, they would have more support among all Americans than they realize. No one is trying to deprive anyone of any rights, but you can't call a rose an apple and make it be true just because you want it to be.
I would be fine with a "civil union" license that will protect the assets of folks in long term relationships and give their significant others medical access - but marriage is a religious concept created by God and intended for relationships between a man and a woman. If the gay community would just try to have some respect for the fact that to religious people marriage is a sacrament instituted by God, and CHOSE ANOTHER WAY to accomplish their goal, they would have more support among all Americans than they realize. No one is trying to deprive anyone of any rights, but you can't call a rose an apple and make it be true just because you want it to be.
Then since I am not a Christian and was not married in a church, I trust that you believe my heterosexual marriage is invalid and should not be allowed, as well.
I also assume you believe divorce should be illegal, since it quite clearly defies a religious sacrament.
Then since I am not a Christian and was not married in a church, I trust that you believe my heterosexual marriage is invalid and should not be allowed, as well.
I also assume you believe divorce should be illegal, since it quite clearly defies a religious sacrament.
Well, don't assume anything, assumptions and generalizations are rarely accurate Divorce is sometimes the necessary or expected outcome when people make selfish choices about how to live their lives. Since it is a civil concept I have no problem with it being legal.
You are indeed involved in a valid marriage, but as a religious person I consider myself in a coventantal marriage. Your form of marriage is an offshoot of the concept of marriage created by God for his people. But since you are married to someone of the opposite sex you do fall within the parameters of what is required to be married. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't make him any less real, just less real to you.
Last edited by lovesMountains; 11-13-2008 at 06:13 PM..
Well, don't assume anything, assumptions and generalizations are rarely accurate Divorce is sometimes the necessary or expected outcome when people make selfish choices about how to live their lives.
I am making the only assumption I can based on the logic of your argument. I am now forced to wonder why it is okay to defy God's sacrament in the case of relieving people of their own selfish behavior, but not okay in the case of letting other people share in a symbolic measure meant to communicate the importance of commitment, loyalty, and family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovesMountains
You are indeed involved in a valid marriage, but as a religious person I consider myself in a coventantal marriage. Your form of marriage is an offshoot of the concept of marriage created by God for his people. But since you are married to someone of the opposite sex you do fall within the parameters of what is required to be married. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't make him any less real, just less real to you.
Well, thank you very much for your approval. However, that is exactly my point, and why I am fighting against this proposal: I am a married heterosexual, and I see no reason to treat a homosexual marriage as any different than my own. You, however, do, and your reasoning devalues not only their commitment, but by extension, mine. Since the ceremony of love and fidelity between my wife and I is apparently an "offshoot."
When they came for the homosexuals, I didn't speak up because I wasn't homosexual... etc.
Exactly. Marriage, in it's traditional meaning, is a religious rite, however isn't it funny how the people who degrade Christians and call Christianity "bigotry" and "old fashioned" want to enter into a Christian marriage, before God? Just as Ani said, the people who want government out of their bedroom and life, want the same government to dictate to the rest of the country how it's gonna be, on behalf of the extreme minority. Even a minority of the minority. I personally have no problem with civil unions, allowing "partners" to form a legal union, but marriage, not so much. This is tradition, and the act of calling someone "hillbilly" or "backwards thinking" because of their deep rooted, spiritual beliefs is disrespectful and as far from intelligent as they come. Nothing more than talking points meant to diminish views of others.
That's just it. I could see the "keeping government out of their bedrooms" and two consenting adults not needing the government to tell them what kind of sex they could have. Now they want that same government back into their bedrooms? It's suddenly essential that the government approve those unions?
That's just it. I could see the "keeping government out of their bedrooms" and two consenting adults not needing the government to tell them what kind of sex they could have. Now they want that same government back into their bedrooms? It's suddenly essential that the government approve those unions?
Why is it that so many people on the Yes on 8 side can't seem to get their mind off of gay sex?
Did you/do you plan to get married for the sole purpose of having everyone imagine you naked?
I am making the only assumption I can based on the logic of your argument. I am now forced to wonder why it is okay to defy God's sacrament in the case of relieving people of their own selfish behavior, but not okay in the case of letting other people share in a symbolic measure meant to communicate the importance of commitment, loyalty, and family.
Well, thank you very much for your approval. However, that is exactly my point, and why I am fighting against this proposal: I am a married heterosexual, and I see no reason to treat a homosexual marriage as any different than my own. You, however, do, and your reasoning devalues not only their commitment, but by extension, mine. Since the ceremony of love and fidelity between my wife and I is apparently an "offshoot."
When they came for the homosexuals, I didn't speak up because I wasn't homosexual... etc.
Now there is a stretch! Ive seen very few in this thread argue against depriving homosexuals of anything other than the right to be "married". For you to insinuate that someone is going to "come" for the homosexuals much like the Nazis came for the Jews is ridiculous!
I agree with an earlier posters sentiment that this is nothing more than the gays' way rubbing their lifestyle choices in the face of the religious conservatives.
I also believe that for the CASU to overturn this mandate by it's citizens would in itself be a travesty of the greatest order.
To deny homosexual "marriages", but to allow "unions" is in fact denying them nothing. They could potentially have all of the "rights" of marriage, without having the title. Seems to me that that should be good enough!
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.
Divorce is sometimes the necessary or expected outcome when people make selfish choices about how to live their lives. Since it is a civil concept I have no problem with it being legal.
