Gay Marriage

Never said there wasn't anything wrong with them.

My option is to leave marriage alone and give gays the same rights under a different title.

Everyone's happy.

 

We already have two marraige documents gay or straight. There is a chuch certificate in which the church confirms the rite has been preformed. It has the same weight as ordination, last rights, communion or baptism. The legal state document is the one that make marraige a legally binding contract. That is what all civil actions are based.
I don't care what you call it marraige or civil union there is no reason why gays shouldn't have the same rights in law. I do strongly feel that if a church doesn't recognize homosexuality then it should not be forced to perform or recognize gay marraige as a religous ceremony or as clericaly sanctioned.

 

The only thing I would add to that is the legal contract ought to be able to be drawn up by any attorney. You shouldn't have to go before a judge and have the government sanction the contract.

 

true. also whatever tax benefits there are for marriage should be repealed because it is not fair to single losers like me.

 

Not just tax benefits, but medical decision making and insurance eligibility too.

 

It's a great idea, but I think this is another argument that has reached the point where one side can't feel happy unless the other side feels beaten. In contemporary American political fights winning no longer defined as getting what you want; you have to be sure the other side feels the sting of having it rubbed in their face. And of course, there is the obligatory periodic reminder that you won and they lost. Usually in a speech that complains about those uncooperative losers who aren't receptive to working with you on the next problem. Gee I wonder why?

 

Not all Christians. Just ignorant ones. I used to believe that, but then I learned about the creation of the King James Bible, the variances in Hebrew, Greek, etc. translations to English, context, etc. from studying the Bible. It created a deeper understanding of the book's value.

Which is a ministerial way of saying that it means different things to different people. Regardless, of how the translation speaks to someone David still wrote Psalm 23. No matter how you personally interpret God's feelings to you, Peter still said "Cast all your care upon him, for he cares for you."

God, Jehovah, Yahweh, etc. did not say "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman". That was most likely some unnamed scholar from over 3,000 years ago.

That's the direction most people take when it's pointed out the error of following Old Testament law. The only problem is that Homosexuality is not condemned in the New Testament. It's not even mentioned in the four gospels where Jesus' words are contained. The text that many will attempt to argue that do condemn homosexuality in the NT does not take into account the original Greek translation which refers to pederasty. Even then, it's the words of the Apostle Paul and not God or Jesus.

Procreation is not the purpose of sex. The Bible clearly indicates that intimacy, companionship, pleasure from the act are just as important. If procreation were a reason as you suggest, then barren women who are physically not able to bear children would be genetically pre-disposed to sin since God commanded everyone to "be fruitful and multiply".

You very clearly asked what was wrong with civil unions. I told you.

Question: Answer.

You're welcome.

 

I agree with this post. I would add that citizens of states should be able to set their own rules for granting civil unions, marriages, and whatever; BUT states should recognize each others civil union/marriage contracts just as they do now. For Example - if Barry and Joe get marriage in Washington DC, it should be recognized in Illinois when they move to Chicago.

 

Unfortunately you can't have it that way as long as DOMA stands...