# I hope it's not too controversial.......



## Old John (May 27, 2004)

But, did you hear the Statements VP Biden and the President made, yesterday,concerning Same-sex marriage? Both gave their opinions that it is acceptable, for two men or two women to marry each other. Actually, I'd read that the President was about to make a Statement against it. But Biden's Statement kinda forced the issue, to the other side. It's funny how things like that work out, isn't it?
And, I think, a day or two ago, Romney spoke out against it.

Now, I am not a real political person, myself. But this discussion may determine the direction, our Country is heading. It may....
I am Liberal on some issues and pretty Conservative, on others. And, I don't waver much, friom year to year. I think I have to say, I'm in favor of Traditional Marriege. But, Hey! I'm an Old Guy. And I have some pretty Traditional Values, in spite of my open-mindedness.

I was just wondering if y'all had heard about the way the President is thinking.
What do ya think?
ETA.......I hope this isn't too Political.......


----------



## Tom in TN (Jun 12, 2007)

Old John,

I heard a caller on talk radio this morning talking about homosexual marriage. She was speaking facetiously of course, but it still made me laugh. She was saying that she thought this was a good way to avoid the inheritance tax. Her proposed plan was to marry her son so that when she died, her spouse could inherit her wealth without having to pay the inheritance tax.

Once we go down the slope, there's no end to it.

Tom in TN

Another old guy who likes traditional things.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

I'm an old guy too, but maybe less traditional. I'm not worried about allowing same-sex marriages. Why not let people be happy? If marriage is good for straight people, it's probably good in the same ways for gay people. My next door neighbor is an old gay guy and if he wanted to get married I'd be glad for him.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

50 years from now people will look back and see our views on gay marriage like we look back 50+ years at prejudices against blacks. (ie stupid and ignorant)


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> 50 years from now people will look back and see our views on gay marriage like we look back 50+ years at prejudices against blacks. (ie stupid and ignorant)


Or we will look back on it like LBJ's War on Poverty and ask, "What were they thinking?"


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

I gotta say, with all the pressing issues we're facing these days it seems like a real waste to bicker over who sleeps with who right now.

Let's get our financial house in order, fix that ----ed Japanese reactor and spent fuel pool, and then after we're not in extreme danger deal with the little things.


----------



## Hollowdweller (Jul 13, 2011)

I would rather see a gay partner be able to be covered on their partners insurance when they get sick rather than have no insurance and then the taxpayers would have to pay for it thru medicaid or the other insurance holders would be charged for it w/ higher premiums.

Morally I think nearly all major religions condemn homosexuality and I don't think any minister should be forced to marry gay people if they don't want to but as far as recognition by the state I don't have a problem with it.:rock:


----------



## Manny (Dec 26, 2003)

Think about where we would be now if Adam had married Steve instead of Eve.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

I personally don't believe the government has any business in anyones marriage.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

coolrunnin said:


> I personally don't believe the government has any business in anyones marriage.


or health care,or pocket,or lunch bag,,,,,,,,,


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

Hollowdweller said:


> I would rather see a gay partner be able to be covered on their partners insurance when they get sick rather than have no insurance and then the taxpayers would have to pay for it thru medicaid or the other insurance holders would be charged for it w/ higher premiums.
> 
> Morally I think nearly all major religions condemn homosexuality and I don't think any minister should be forced to marry gay people if they don't want to but as far as recognition by the state I don't have a problem with it.:rock:


They are trying to force religions to do abortions, why not gay marriage.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Manny said:


> Think about where we would be now if Adam had married Steve instead of Eve.


There was a guy named Steve in the Garden??????? now we know the Bible is full of it, heck, they left Steve out...... if the writers of the Bible can't even get the Garden of Eden story right, all that other hokey has to be chock full of mistakes and outlandish stuff....

Next, you'll be telling me that the Bible instructs folks to stone adulterers and such.....oh, it does????


----------



## Beowulf (Aug 27, 2010)

Manny said:


> Think about where we would be now if Adam had married Steve instead of Eve.


Sorry, I don't buy into your religion's creation myth...

Regarding the OP, marriage should be between two consenting non-related adults, and it really shouldn't be anyone else's business. No one should be forced to officiate a religious ceremony of any kind, but I don't care of you are the deacon of the largest baptist church in the state, if you are also a justice of the peace, judge, etc, you would have fulfill the duties of your office, or find another job.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

I really dont see why anyone cares. If two same sex people want to get married, let em.


----------



## Tom in TN (Jun 12, 2007)

But, Beowulf,

Why would you require that the two people be "unrelated"? What greater love exists between a mother and her son? Or between a father and his daughter?

I've known of couple of cases where sisters have lived a life-time together, a couple of cases of brothers who done the same, and a couple of cases of brothers and sisters who have lived together.

Why not extend marriage to any two, three, four, or more people who just want to be married?

I agree that one day society will look back on today and be amazed. Amazed that we couldn't see the consequence of these actions.

Tom in TN


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Tom in TN said:


> But, Beowulf,
> 
> Why would you require that the two people be "unrelated"? What greater love exists between a mother and her son? Or between a father and his daughter?
> 
> ...


And while you are doing all that loving include the critters on inheriting. Just because Adam and Steve kick off don't mean their horse should lose his hay or barn :hammer:


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I am always amazed at these kinds of discussions. Those who yell the loudest when THEIR freedoms are being infringed upon seem to be the same ones insisting that they have some divine right to infringe on the next fellers freedom. If you think same sex marriage is wrong... dont marry someone of your sex. Seems pretty simple to me. :shrug:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am always amazed at these kinds of discussions. Those who yell the loudest when THEIR freedoms are being infringed upon seem to be the same ones insisting that they have some divine right to infringe on the next fellers freedom. If you think same sex marriage is wrong... dont marry someone of your sex. Seems pretty simple to me. :shrug:


Where the rub comes in is the word marry .The English language let them change, alter or defile the word gay . Some remember the days when if you said those bunch of guys are gay meant HAPPY .

Now just for fun find you a bar in WV or East Ky walk in and announce that that bunch of big burly guys at the far table is gay .:sing: See if they remember the days when it meant happy .

So you let folks change the common meaning of one word soon they want to change the whole language or meaning of so many words that you are in fear of speaking without getting shot ound:

See you in the Er :hysterical:ound:


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

I personally don't think that God is going to continue to bless this nation as he has all this time if we continue on this trend of abortions and okaying homosexuality.

And I'm also tired of atheists trying to cram their religion down my throat. 

Was that sort of immorality the norm when this country was created? No? Then why should we all go along with it now? Because atheists want to cram their agenda down our throats.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am always amazed at these kinds of discussions. Those who yell the loudest when THEIR freedoms are being infringed upon seem to be the same ones insisting that they have some divine right to infringe on the next fellers freedom. If you think same sex marriage is wrong... dont marry someone of your sex. Seems pretty simple to me. :shrug:


I understand and agree......But to give you and example, this AM while watching one of the so called MSM morning shows they were reporting that Obama approves of same sex marriage and showed several clips of two guys and two gals lip locking on public TV. I was watching the news and I really don't care what kind of perversions they or anyone else does in the privacy of their home but don't push on me, my kids or grandkids. They are doing their best to cram it down our throats so to speak. The MSM reported that the country was 50/50 on same sex marriage but I really doubt that. Look at North Carolina. They voted it down and that state went to Obama 3 yrs ago.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

dollmaker said:


> I personally don't think that God is going to continue to bless this nation as he has all this time if we continue on this trend of abortions and okaying homosexuality.
> 
> And I'm also tired of atheists trying to cram their religion down my throat.
> 
> Was that sort of immorality the norm when this country was created? No? Then why should we all go along with it now? Because atheists want to cram their agenda down our throats.


 I bet the atheists are sick of you trying to cram your religion down their throats too. Why don't the two groups leave each other alone, hmmm? Maybe part of it is your fault. Because you want to tell others what is moral and what's not maybe? 

And if you think allowing gays to be gay ticks off the big man, can you imagine how he feels about us bombing and killing for oil? How about the fact that we've pretty much allowed thieves to take over the nation? Or that we allow tainted food and medicines to be the norm. Think he's a little upset about that too? How about our raping of the Earth, which we are suppose to be stewards of? And I'm not talking global warming hippie crap here. I mean the Gulf spill, coal tailings clogging up rivers, Fukushima threatening to wipe us all out.

You want to deal with the _immoral_ atheists first, or should we deal with the real issues while we let the ****'s play house? /sarc


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Possum Belly said:


> I understand and agree......But to give you and example, this AM while watching one of the so called MSM morning shows they were reporting that Obama approves of same sex marriage and *showed several clips of two guys and two gals lip locking on public TV. I was watching the news and I really don't care what kind of perversions they or anyone else does in the privacy of their home but don't push on me,* my kids or grandkids. They are doing their best to cram it down our throats so to speak. The MSM reported that the country was 50/50 on same sex marriage but I really doubt that. Look at North Carolina. They voted it down and that state went to Obama 3 yrs ago.


 Now this I agree with. Frankly, I don't really like any PDA, but I'm a hard --- like that.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

InvalidID said:


> I bet the atheists are sick of you trying to cram your religion down their throats too. Why don't the two groups leave each other alone, hmmm? Maybe part of it is your fault. Because you want to tell others what is moral and what's not maybe?
> 
> And if you think allowing gays to be gay ticks off the big man, can you imagine how he feels about us bombing and killing for oil? How about the fact that we've pretty allowed thieves to take over the nation? Or that we allow tainted food and medicines to be the norm. Think he's a little upset about that too? How about our raping of the Earth, which we are suppose to be stewards of? And I'm not talking global warming hippie crap here. I mean the Gulf spill, coal tailings clogging up rivers, Fukushima threatening to wipe us all out.
> 
> You want to deal with the _immoral_ atheists first, or should we deal with the real issues while we let the ****'s play house? /sarc


I do agree that God is upset about all of the above.


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

InvalidID said:


> You want to deal with the _immoral_ atheists first, or should we deal with the real issues while we let the ****'s play house? /sarc


I'm dealing with this isssue FIRST because that's what the thread is about.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

There has to be more important things to worry and argue over than who sleeps with who and what they call it when they want to spend their life together.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

dollmaker said:


> I'm dealing with this isssue FIRST because that's what the thread is about.


 I understand what you're saying here, but there are tons of other threads about all the issues above. None of them draw in the crowds like gay marriage and sex though. People get drawn into this crap like old maids to Soap Operas, or white trash to Jerry Springer. They get all excited and upset and want to fight about something because it's an emotional issue, and at the end of the day it's not that dissimilar to Jerry Springer.

If Bob and John want to do some nasty crap *behind closed doors*, let God deal with that. It doesn't hurt you or me. But people don't think like that, they want to tell others how to live. Here's the only thing that counts when we talk about rights. Is someone else exercising a right going to take away from mine? I have yet to see anyone make the case that gays will be diminishing straights rights. That you find the behavior immoral or disgusting is irrelevant. 

I personally find a lot of things immoral and disgusting that we see all the time. When a 300 lb woman wears spandex pants and a tank top to the store, I vomit a little in my mouth. I'm not trying to pass a law though. When I see a parent spoiling a child to avoid being a parent, I find it immoral. I don't want to keep them from being parents though.

I want to stress the behind closed doors part, that's why it's bolded above. That goes for all of you out there! Man and woman or man and man or woman and woman...well maybe not the 2 chicks. :hysterical:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

pancho said:


> There has to be more important things to worry and argue over than who sleeps with who and what they call it when they want to spend their life together.


When the Law/Gobberment gets involved-there will always be an argument.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

7thswan said:


> When the Law/Gobberment gets involved-there will always be an argument.


 Which is why we should let the states deal with these issues I think. Better to let like minded people congregate where they are happiest, and stop forcing an entire nation to homogenize.


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

InvalidID said:


> I understand what you're saying here, but there are tons of other threads about all the issues above. None of them draw in the crowds like gay marriage and sex though. People get drawn into this crap like old maids to Soap Operas, or white trash to Jerry Springer. They get all excited and upset and want to fight about something because it's an emotional issue, and at the end of the day it's not that dissimilar to Jerry Springer.
> 
> If Bob and John want to do some nasty crap *behind closed doors*, let God deal with that. It doesn't hurt you or me. But people don't think like that, they want to tell others how to live. Here's the only thing that counts when we talk about rights. Is someone else exercising a right going to take away from mine? I have yet to see anyone make the case that gays will be diminishing straights rights. That you find the behavior immoral or disgusting is irrelevant.
> 
> ...


My problem with this is that they are NOT KEEPING IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. They are trying to change laws and force it onto our kids in public schools, etc.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

dollmaker said:


> My problem with this is that they are NOT KEEPING IT BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. They are trying to change laws and force it onto our kids in public schools, etc.


 Changing the laws to get married I can understand. Forcing it on kids I'm not so sure I follow. I've never heard of any one forcing kids to be gay, or am I missing something?


----------



## 36376 (Jan 24, 2009)

What we are seeing today is in the name of "tolerance" and the social gospel.


----------



## Home Harvest (Oct 10, 2006)

Aren't there really two different arguments here going on simultaneously?

On the one hand you have the religious moral argument. Homosexuality=sin. This side of the argument isn't really about "marriage" as much as it is about using the legislature to impose morality. 

As with any law, I need to ask...who is the victim? These laws against gay marriage remind me of the laws against prostitution, and the "war on drugs". We can even go way back to prohibition. Has any of these campaigns ever succeeded? We still have drugs. We still have prostitution. We still have gays. Heck, the most successful campaign of this type has been against cigarettes, and they are legal!

The other side of this issue (mentioned above) has to do with spousal rights. Insurance, inheritance, etc. This one is a non-starter for me, personally. I fail to understand why the government has any say in this. Why should my estate be taxed at all? Why should an insurance company be forced to cover anyone they don't want to? Why is marriage regulated to begin with. I can understand protection of minors. Beyond that, I don't know why my wife and I needed a license to get married? What, we needed permission from the government. What were they going to say, no she's to good for you. Back to the trailer park and find one less refined. HA!

The whole thing just seems silly to me. I hope y'all can work this out.


----------



## HeelSpur (May 7, 2011)

Its just a piece of paper,

and if you don't want to be together anymore,

what a hassle.

People are crazy fer gettin' hitched.


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

Home Harvest....I will "work it out" with my vote.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Carmen Renee said:


> What we are seeing today is in the name of "tolerance" and the social gospel.


 There are many levels of tolerance. I'd suggest that we all HAVE to accept others up to the point that we don't infringe on their rights. We don't have to like them though.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

I've solved the problem for you all. I have two options I think can fix this issue easily.

Option 1. We take the government out of marriage altogether. I mean seriously, why do you have to get a license to get married anyway? Isn't that the government standing between you and your God? Isn't marriage a religious thing anyway? This is my preferred option.

Option 2. We let the government continue to be involved but all marriages sanctioned by the state are Civil Unions. Straight or Gay, civil unions for all. If you want to get married you go to a church, if you want to be legally joined you get a civil union.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Biden a silly, old "loose cannon"?

LOL

I'm way to busy for Meet the press, but did view the Biden gay marriage clip.

Anyone who thinks this was a _freudian slip_, with a disgruntled Obama having, to mop _clean up_, begrudgingly confessing his own take on Gay marrigage, has rocks in their heads (not necessarily the OP  ).

This was a 100% calculated political move, IMO.

Obama wanted this and he wanted Biden to get the ball rolling.

It's going to be interesting. :bandwagon:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Biden a silly, old "loose cannon"?
> 
> LOL
> 
> ...


 That's what I've been saying. Biden was the crash test dummy. Obama needed to see which way the political winds were blowing and this was the way to do it. Now there is a strife and people are fighting, Obama gets to score some votes, and we have to pay extra close attention to what's happening behind the scenes because you know they'll try and sneak something through while we're all fighting.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

InvalidID said:


> Changing the laws to get married I can understand. Forcing it on kids I'm not so sure I follow. I've never heard of any one forcing kids to be gay, or am I missing something?


There are lots of instances of this taking place, this is just the first I saw.

California Bill That Mandates Public Schools Teach Gay History Goes to Governor | TheBlaze.com


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> That's what I've been saying. Biden was the crash test dummy. Obama needed to see which way the political winds were blowing and this was the way to do it. Now there is a strife and people are fighting, Obama gets to score some votes, and we have to pay extra close attention to what's happening behind the scenes because you know they'll try and sneak something through while we're all fighting.


IMO, it's bigger than just a smoke-screen.

It's a major tactic to get votes, I just have not yet figured how it's supposed to work.

This is just too big.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

Possum Belly said:


> There are lots of instances of this taking place, this is just the first I saw.
> 
> California Bill That Mandates Public Schools Teach Gay History Goes to Governor | TheBlaze.com


 Now that's another pet peeve of mine. Gay history, black history, it's all history. Why should we single out any group? Why don't we just teach history and include everyone and everything.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> IMO, it's bigger than just a smoke-screen.
> 
> It's a major tactic to get votes, I just have not yet figured how it's supposed to work.
> 
> This is just too big.


 He was losing the liberal base, this solidifies them. He will also likely try and pick up a few swing votes with his civil rights record... ound:


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

> well maybe not the 2 chicks


Do guys even really consider girl on girl gay, or just a wrestlin match without the mud :hysterical:


----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

Home Harvest said:


> Aren't there really two different arguments here going on simultaneously?
> 
> On the one hand you have the religious moral argument. Homosexuality=sin. This side of the argument isn't really about "marriage" as much as it is about using the legislature to impose morality.
> 
> ...


For example...if you died and someone else you didn't want claimed a stake in your estate, life insurance, etc, over your wife because she couldn't prove the two of you were really married? You'd be a darned sight surer to be of the opinion that govt should have some sort of system to acknowledge/prove who and who isn't married.

That's why govt is involved in marriage...simplified version.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

FeralFemale said:


> For example...if you died and someone else you didn't want claimed a stake in your estate, life insurance, etc, over your wife because she couldn't prove the two of you were really married? You'd be a darned sight surer to be of the opinion that govt should have some sort of system to acknowledge/prove who and who isn't married.
> 
> That's why govt is involved in marriage...simplified version.


No way Gov. don't care less . Insurance polices have a space for beneficery you can put lots of names on property deeds ,auto titles and if anymore worry's a trust even a LLC . Married has nothing to do with passing anything to anyone never has never will. :hammer:

Example wife and i just deeded a piece of property to one of the children it is his at both our deaths free and clear but at any time we can quit claim our present interest to him if he wanted it now he had to sign the deed . We could gave it to anyone willing to take it kin or not a will wouldn't work for our purpose .


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

What exactly is traditional marriage?


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Why is it that people are so concerned about how others live their lives? I mean, Christians have their marriage and their own freedom to reproduce. Why do they want to tell others they cannot get married or cannot have birth control or abortion options? Yet these same Christians turn around about how they are being pursecuted.

No one is sniping the faithful or their pastors during Sunday services. No one is throwing acid upon the Christian children while they are out playing. No one is putting Christians to death in the United States because of their beliefs. The rest of us just want to live our lives without Christians forcing us to live and believe as they do.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> That's what I've been saying. Biden was the crash test dummy. Obama needed to see which way the political winds were blowing and this was the way to do it. Now there is a strife and people are fighting, Obama gets to score some votes, and we have to pay extra close attention to what's happening behind the scenes because you know they'll try and sneak something through while we're all fighting.


Yes, and I've read all over this morning,it might be because Obama's Gay past might be coming out and he is trying to head off the damage his lying would have created with his Gay $$$ donors.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

7thswan said:


> Yes, and I've read all over this morning,it might be because Obama's Gay past might be coming out and he is trying to head off the damage his lying would have created with his Gay $$$ donors.


 Uh oh, Romney is gonna beat him up and bleach his hair! LOL


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

reluctantpatriot said:


> Why is it that people are so concerned about how others live their lives? I mean, Christians have their marriage and their own freedom to reproduce. Why do they want to tell others they cannot get married or cannot have birth control or abortion options? Yet these same Christians turn around about how they are being pursecuted.


Abortions and gay marriages weren't exactly part of life when this nation was founded.....so why change things for the worse now? It's not Christians trying to push a new agenda...it's the immoral folks who are trying to change this country.

Why don't these people just find an island on which to live and not reproduce?


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

dollmaker said:


> Abortions and gay marriages weren't exactly part of life when this nation was founded.....so why change things for the worse now? It's not Christians trying to push a new agenda...it's the immoral folks who are trying to change this country.
> 
> Why don't these people just find an island on which to live and not reproduce?


 I don't know about gays (not very well studied up on their history) but abortion was much more common back in the Victorian days than you would think. They even had concoctions that were much like modern day morning after pills.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> I don't know about gays (not very well studied up on their history) but abortion was much more common back in the Victorian days than you would think. They even had concoctions that were much like modern day morning after pills.


Yes indeed, pennyroyale oil anyone?

Helps with Blocked menstruation(sp?). You know the know what causes that blockage . . .it's called being preggers!


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

InvalidID said:


> I don't know about gays (not very well studied up on their history) but abortion was much more common back in the Victorian days than you would think. They even had concoctions that were much like modern day morning after pills.


Were they sanctioned by the government?


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

dollmaker said:


> Abortions and gay marriages weren't exactly part of life when this nation was founded.....so why change things for the worse now? It's not Christians trying to push a new agenda...it's the immoral folks who are trying to change this country.
> 
> Why don't these people just find an island on which to live and not reproduce?


:rotfl:

that you think gays and those who have abortions are immoral speaks volumes for you.

Oh right the bible says judge first lest ye be judged.

What . . .that's not what it says . . .but that's how you folks act.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

dollmaker said:


> Were they sanctioned by the government?


Oh so because it wasn;t talked about in polite society it was ok?

:hysterical:

ound:

OMG! Stop! My ribs are killing me!


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

gideonprime said:


> :rotfl:
> 
> that you think gays and those who have abortions are immoral speaks volumes for you.
> 
> ...


What are the volumes saying about me?


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

gideonprime said:


> Oh so because it wasn;t talked about in polite society it was ok?
> 
> :hysterical:
> 
> ...


Huh? lol OK? I don't think so.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

dollmaker said:


> Were they sanctioned by the government?


 No, you wanna know why? Because the government knew better than to get involved in peoples personal lives back then.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

dollmaker said:


> What are the volumes saying about me?


That you would preferr that people you don;t agree with go away for one thing.


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

gideonprime said:


> That you would preferr that people you don;t agree with go away for one thing.


what a dream come true that would be....lol

Small volume, by the way.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

dollmaker said:


> what a dream come true that would be....lol
> 
> Small volume, by the way.


To you perhaps but for those who get subtext it was a doozie!:hysterical:


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

"Wir mÃ¼ssen die Homosexuells ausrotten"


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

Ausrotten nicht....nur auf eine einsame Insel schicken....lol.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

dollmaker said:


> Ausrotten nicht....nur auf eine einsame Insel schicken....lol.


Send eradicate not only on a deserted island?

Nicht auszurotten. Nur auf eine einsame Insel schicken. = Not eradicate it. Only send to a desert island.


You gotta put the period in our it changes the order of the words to mean something much more sinister... and confusing.

ETA: Either way, still wrong. Plenty of room for everyone if we'd all learn to leave each other alone. This is why I like states rights so much. Let each state decide and people can move to areas that they find agreeable.


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

InvalidID said:


> Send eradicate not only on a deserted island?
> 
> Nicht auszurotten. Nur auf eine einsame Insel schicken. = Not eradicate it. Only send to a desert island.
> 
> ...


thanks for the german lesson....I should point out that it's Homosexuelle....not Homosexuells.....since we're all such sticklers for details


----------



## francismilker (Jan 12, 2006)

Not sure how this isn't a "political" conversation but I'd don't agree with homosexuality. Just like I don't agree with murder, adultery, stealing, lying, or other what I consider "bad" things. 

To each his/her own. It's not up to me. Who made me judge? I can disagree with something but it's not my decision. I can only teach my kids what I think is right and get on with it. It will be their biblical interpretation of what they think is right or wrong when they grow up.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> This is why I like states rights so much. Let each state decide and people can move to areas that they find agreeable.


Some states should be able to have slavery, then, if a majority of residents approve of it?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

IMHO it is just a legal document. I haven't really gotten into these discussions because it seems to be all about religion and not being Christian I didn't feel the need to get involved. But was talking to a friend of mine who is Muslim and he was saying that the Imam in his Mosque was talking about how bad this was.. so looks like the two religions are not far apart in their reactions to this..


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Some people have the idea that all laws should be made by and for the christians.
There are quite a few other people living in the U.S.
It is time people realize there might be people who don't believe as they do.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

willow_girl said:


> Some states should be able to have slavery, then, if a majority of residents approve of it?


 I think there's a difference between institutional slavery and domestic slavery. One is actually abolished in the Constitution. The other, well I suppose it depends on who you marry...


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

haypoint said:


> Or we will look back on it like LBJ's War on Poverty and ask, "What were they thinking?"


Some of us are already asking that.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

dollmaker said:


> Abortions and gay marriages weren't exactly part of life when this nation was founded.....so why change things for the worse now? It's not Christians trying to push a new agenda...it's the immoral folks who are trying to change this country.
> 
> Why don't these people just find an island on which to live and not reproduce?


If you want a theocracy, you are the one who might want to find an island to live on.:hobbyhors


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

InvalidID said:


> Which is why we should let the states deal with these issues I think. Better to let like minded people congregate where they are happiest, and stop forcing an entire nation to homogenize.


As long as we have that pesky Constitution, ALL people in the US are supposed to have certain rights, no matter where they live in the country. The Constitution requires that all states "homogenize" their treatment of American citizens.


----------



## dollmaker (Jun 24, 2010)

FourDeuce said:


> If you want a theocracy, you are the one who might want to find an island to live on.:hobbyhors


I will stay and fight (by voting) for this one.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> I gotta say, with all the pressing issues we're facing these days it seems like a real waste to bicker over who sleeps with who right now.
> 
> Let's get our financial house in order, fix that ----ed Japanese reactor and spent fuel pool, and then after we're not in extreme danger deal with the little things.


BINGO, this is just another ploy to take people's minds off of the real issues facing our country.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Hollowdweller said:


> I would rather see a gay partner be able to be covered on their partners insurance when they get sick rather than have no insurance and then the taxpayers would have to pay for it thru medicaid or the other insurance holders would be charged for it w/ higher premiums.
> 
> Morally I think nearly all major religions condemn homosexuality and I don't think any minister should be forced to marry gay people if they don't want to but as far as recognition by the state I don't have a problem with it.:rock:


I agree, I believe that a gay partner should be covered under insurance and afforded the same benefits of married couples, but I don't agree with gay marriages. Like others have said, I'm a pretty traditional person and my Christian values cringe at the idea of gay marriages because IMO marriage is something that is ordained by God. I have some very good friends who are gay. They mean the world to me and I want them to be afforded the same rights as married couples do. I don't see why they can't be allowed the same rights as a married couple without the actual marriage.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> I understand what you're saying here, but there are tons of other threads about all the issues above. None of them draw in the crowds like gay marriage and sex though. People get drawn into this crap like old maids to Soap Operas, or white trash to Jerry Springer. They get all excited and upset and want to fight about something because it's an emotional issue, and at the end of the day it's not that dissimilar to Jerry Springer.
> 
> If Bob and John want to do some nasty crap *behind closed doors*, let God deal with that. It doesn't hurt you or me. But people don't think like that, they want to tell others how to live. Here's the only thing that counts when we talk about rights. Is someone else exercising a right going to take away from mine? I have yet to see anyone make the case that gays will be diminishing straights rights. That you find the behavior immoral or disgusting is irrelevant.
> 
> ...


I personally don't care what anyone does behind closed doors. What I have an issue with is calling it marriage.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> Changing the laws to get married I can understand. Forcing it on kids I'm not so sure I follow. I've never heard of any one forcing kids to be gay, or am I missing something?


They are teaching kids that it's normal when many would disagree with that and really, is it the place of the schools to teach kids this?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

InvalidID said:


> I've solved the problem for you all. I have two options I think can fix this issue easily.
> 
> Option 1. We take the government out of marriage altogether. I mean seriously, why do you have to get a license to get married anyway? Isn't that the government standing between you and your God? Isn't marriage a religious thing anyway? This is my preferred option.
> 
> Option 2. We let the government continue to be involved but all marriages sanctioned by the state are Civil Unions. Straight or Gay, civil unions for all. If you want to get married you go to a church, if you want to be legally joined you get a civil union.


Now see, I can support this. Since my whole issue with it is my belief that marriage is ordained by God. I think the civil union idea is a good one if it allows gay couple to have the rights as far as insurance ect as a heterosexual couple has.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I personally don't care what anyone does behind closed doors. What I have an issue with is calling it marriage.


Sonshine, it is just a word.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

dollmaker said:


> Were they sanctioned by the government?


The legalization of abortion is a double edged sword IMO. Many women died from back alley abortions before it was legalized, so in that case legalizing it made it safer for women. However, I firmly believe that abortion is murder, so I don't like it being legalized and made readily available. I guess it's really not that I don't want legalized abortion, I don't like the state of a country that are so quick to kill an unborn baby.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> :rotfl:
> 
> that you think gays and those who have abortions are immoral speaks volumes for you.
> 
> ...


So because we're Christians we don't have a right to voice our opinions about what we see as the moral decline of our country? I don't judge the people, but I do judge the sin. There's a huge difference in the two. I have known many women who have had abortions. I love these women, but I do not love what they did. I have some dear friends who are gay. I love these people, but disagree with their lifestyle. It's funny, those who don't know me would judge me because of my stand on issues like this, but those who know me and have and do live the lives that we are talking about respect me and would do anything in the world to help me. Guess they don't feel too bad about my opinions on these issues.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> That you would preferr that people you don;t agree with go away for one thing.


Quite the contrary in my case. I embrace them.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Some people have the idea that all laws should be made by and for the christians.
> There are quite a few other people living in the U.S.
> It is time people realize there might be people who don't believe as they do.


So as a Christian I'm no longer allowed to voice my concern and vote my conscience because it doesn't agree with non-believers? We vote for those who we believe will support our values, same as others vote for theirs. I don't care if the laws are made by and for the Christians, I just want to try to see that Christian values are respresented because I AM a Christian.


----------



## hornless (Jan 23, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> They are teaching kids that it's normal when many would disagree with that and really, is it the place of the schools to teach kids this?



I honestly cannot believe the views of some people on here. Gay people DO NOT choose to be gay (and why would they, with such widespread homophobia and hatred directed towards them) and for young gay teenagers, being told by schools that gay is not okay is EXTREMELY damaging. When schools tell kids that gay is okay, it's not going to "turn" any straight kids, it will just help the gay kids feel better about themselves and create more tolerant straight kids. Seriously, I can understand if you are anti-gay marriage even though I disagree with you, but many here are loudly homophobic and it is just shocking to me.

What justifications do you have for calling gays "immoral"? 
Please enlighten me. I think many of you are hiding behind the Old Testament to justify your thinly veiled hatred.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> Sonshine, it is just a word.


Not to me it's not. To me it's something ordained by God and by allowing people to marry outside of the way God designed it IMO is wrong. I don't care if they have a civil union that allows them the same rights as a married couple, outside of the actual marriage I have no issues with it. To each his own, as I believe it's between them and God. But marriage isn't just a word. Every word has meaning and to me, marriage is linked directly to God's plan for mankind.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

hornless said:


> I honestly cannot believe the views of some people on here. Gay people DO NOT choose to be gay (and why would they, with such widespread homophobia and hatred directed towards them) and for young gay teenagers, being told by schools that gay is not okay is EXTREMELY damaging. When schools tell kids that gay is okay, it's not going to "turn" any straight kids, it will just help the gay kids feel better about themselves and create more tolerant straight kids. Seriously, I can understand if you are anti-gay marriage even though I disagree with you, but many here are loudly homophobic and it is just shocking to me.
> 
> What justifications do you have for calling gays "immoral"?
> Please enlighten me. I think many of you are hiding behind the Old Testament to justify your thinly veiled hatred.


I have no hatred of gays, but do believe it's immoral. As for telling kids it's ok to be gay, I don't believe it's the schools place to teach that when many parents disagree with it.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> I have no hatred of gays, but do believe it's immoral. As for telling kids it's ok to be gay, I don't believe it's the schools place to teach that when many parents disagree with it.


Yep better they feel outcast, ashamed, hated and eventually suicidal.

I agree these may not be topics that we would think of as the schools baileywick.

That said, a gay kid who feels like the above needs to talk to someone. If they cannot talk at home I'd rather they talk to someone else rather than swallow a bullet or whatever the sucidal kids are doing these days.

It sounds like you'd rather they feel alone outcast and as if they have no alternatives other than praying to "get better".


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> Not to me it's not. To me it's something ordained by God and by allowing people to marry outside of the way God designed it IMO is wrong. I don't care if they have a civil union that allows them the same rights as a married couple, outside of the actual marriage I have no issues with it. To each his own, as I believe it's between them and God. But marriage isn't just a word. Every word has meaning and to me, marriage is linked directly to God's plan for mankind.


The marriage rate has been dropping steadily in the U.S.
In 2000 it was 8.2 per 1000.
In 2010 it had dropped to 6.8 per 1000
The state I live in has dropped to 4.9 per 1000


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> Yep better they feel outcast, ashamed, hated and eventually suicidal.
> 
> I agree these may not be topics that we would think of as the schools baileywick.
> 
> ...


There are school counselors they can talk to, but I don't believe the schools should be teaching about sex, period. Heterosexual or homosexual, I don't believe it's their place. Besides, it's not just homosexual kids that feel like outcasts or become suicidal, especially in the teen years.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> The marriage rate has been dropping steadily in the U.S.
> In 2000 it was 8.2 per 1000.
> In 2010 it had dropped to 6.8 per 1000
> The state I live in has dropped to 4.9 per 1000


I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

Sonshine said:


> There are school counselors they can talk to, but I don't believe the schools should be teaching about sex, period. Heterosexual or homosexual, I don't believe it's their place. Besides, it's not just homosexual kids that feel like outcasts or become suicidal, especially in the teen years.


Ok. I see what your saying here.

GCcounselours are fine with me. Though they are a screwed up lot by and large. Lousy bleeding hearts. (I am actually being serious here. I have to deal with them quite a bit and even to my liberal brain they are a bit much).


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Sonshine said:


> I'm not sure what that has to do with this discussion.


It shows marriage isn't as important as it once was.
Even the straight people are not getting married as much.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

Sonshine said:


> They are teaching kids that it's normal when many would disagree with that and really, is it the place of the schools to teach kids this?


Where are they teaching kids that it's normal? I find it funny that many of the people who question whether it's the school's place to teach them it's not wrong would go along with the school teaching them it is wrong.:bored:


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

gideonprime said:


> Ok. I see what your saying here.
> 
> GCcounselours are fine with me. Though they are a screwed up lot by and large. Lousy bleeding hearts. (I am actually being serious here. I have to deal with them quite a bit and even to my liberal brain they are a bit much).


So are many of the teachers that teach the kid. How many cases in the past year have we read about where the teachers were having affairs with their students? Now we want them to teach our kids sex ed???? Seems to me they are giving too many actual demonstrations these days.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

pancho said:


> It shows marriage isn't as important as it once was.
> Even the straight people are not getting married as much.


To me it shows a decline in moral values, but that's my Christian beliefs.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

FourDeuce said:


> Where are they teaching kids that it's normal? I find it funny that many of the people who question whether it's the school's place to teach them it's not wrong would go along with the school teaching them it is wrong.:bored:


I don't think the school should be teaching sex at all.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

dollmaker said:


> Abortions and gay marriages weren't exactly part of life when this nation was founded.....so why change things for the worse now? It's not Christians trying to push a new agenda...it's the immoral folks who are trying to change this country.
> 
> Why don't these people just find an island on which to live and not reproduce?


Abortion has existed since before written history. The same with various means of contraception. If you do not want an abortion or contraception, then do not use either. No one is forcing you to use either. However, if you and your kind cannot stay out of the bedroom of my wife and I and cannot stay out of my wife's uterus, perhaps using more direct means would be necessary to get the point across?

As for wanting your marriage and no one else who is not heterosexual to have one, you are being a judgemental bigot, plain and simple.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

dollmaker said:


> Were they sanctioned by the government?


Fact: Marriage was originally a matter of ownership transfer of chattle property, that is, girls who are of breeding age. It was also used to create trade and peace treaties. Marriage for love is a very recent concept and not one that is practiced universially around the world. Government only began to get involved when there was a reason for defense of property rights in situations of death or divorce.

I do, however, find great irony in the fact that Christians like you on the one hand want government out of your religious lives yet turn around and want the govermentment to enforce your narrow worldviews. Hypocrisy much?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> Some states should be able to have slavery, then, if a majority of residents approve of it?


I am pretty sure states would need to protect the individuals basic rights as outlined in the US Constitution.... but as long as their laws conform to those standards... then of course each state should have the authority as a sovereign country, and be able to make and enforce their own laws. Sadly the federal government has opted to ignore those provisions provided in our Constitution and has become "The Authority" over nearly every aspect of our lives.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> The legalization of abortion is a double edged sword IMO. Many women died from back alley abortions before it was legalized, so in that case legalizing it made it safer for women. However, I firmly believe that abortion is murder, so I don't like it being legalized and made readily available. I guess it's really not that I don't want legalized abortion, I don't like the state of a country that are so quick to kill an unborn baby.


To be quite blunt, it is NOT YOUR CHOICE in the matter unless it has to do with your wife or your underage daughter. You and your beliefs have NO dominion over my marriage, my wife and her uterus. Until Christians like yourself clearly understand this, people like me will be more than happy to demonstrate in no uncertain terms what we think about your belief that you have control over others.

Perhaps those who are so against abortion would be better spending their time adopting all the children who are currently needing parents than putting their noses in the uteri of women.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

hornless said:


> I honestly cannot believe the views of some people on here. Gay people DO NOT choose to be gay (and why would they, with such widespread homophobia and hatred directed towards them) and for young gay teenagers, being told by schools that gay is not okay is EXTREMELY damaging. When schools tell kids that gay is okay, it's not going to "turn" any straight kids, it will just help the gay kids feel better about themselves and create more tolerant straight kids. Seriously, I can understand if you are anti-gay marriage even though I disagree with you, but many here are loudly homophobic and it is just shocking to me.
> 
> What justifications do you have for calling gays "immoral"?
> Please enlighten me. I think many of you are hiding behind the Old Testament to justify your thinly veiled hatred.


It is not so thinly veiled hatred. One Kansas legislators have called Obama a "****" and another suggested the best way to deal with illegal immigrants is to shoot them from helicopters like one hunts feral hogs. An Oklahoma legislator wants being gay or lesbian to be a sufficient reason to fire someone.

Because of blatant hatred like this, when I teach students in karate, I may teach the younger ones to just get free from their attacker, but I instruct the older ones to use whatever force is necessary to stop the attack. I make it clear that if they have to shove the nasal bone into the attacker's skull, break their neck or break and dislocate the person's arm, it is whatever they have to do, particularly if they are going to be punished for defending themself anyways. One of the black belts is gay and learned karate in part to protect himeslf from homophobes. He has no qualms about destroying someone if he has to do so.

I would rather not have to use physical force against someone, but if they want to claim they are doing God's work or some such muck, they are a fanatic who cannot be reasoned with. Avoid, but take them out by whatever means required if avoidance cannot be carried out.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> I have no hatred of gays, but do believe it's immoral. As for telling kids it's ok to be gay, I don't believe it's the schools place to teach that when many parents disagree with it.


People of my mother's generation thought that mixed race couples, let alone marriages, were immoral. My great-grandfather's generation thought that keeping slaves was no big deal and thus very moral. 

Some people of my generation think that gays make good punching bags. If needed, I show such people that they make good teachable moments in what bigots look like.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

reluctantpatriot said:


> To be quite blunt, it is NOT YOUR CHOICE in the matter unless it has to do with your wife or your underage daughter. You and your beliefs have NO dominion over my marriage, my wife and her uterus. Until Christians like yourself clearly understand this, people like me will be more than happy to demonstrate in no uncertain terms what we think about your belief that you have control over others.
> 
> Perhaps those who are so against abortion would be better spending their time adopting all the children who are currently needing parents than putting their noses in the uteri of women.


Number one, I'm a woman, so don't have a wife. Number two I have adopted a child and have raised others that I was not able to adopt, but not for lack of trying. Number three, when my tax money goes to cover the costs of abortion or the money that my insurance company takes from me covers the costs of someone else's abortion then I have every right to speak out against it. So until those of you who condone these acts want to pick up the entire cost of them then stop making rash judgements on those who disagree with them.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

reluctantpatriot said:


> People of my mother's generation thought that mixed race couples, let alone marriages, were immoral. My great-grandfather's generation thought that keeping slaves was no big deal and thus very moral.
> 
> Some people of my generation think that gays make good punching bags. If needed, I show such people that they make good teachable moments in what bigots look like.


Seems to me that you have a touch of bigotry yourself since you are so apt to make snap judgements on people because they are Christians and appear to be very eager to use physical force if they dare to disagree with you.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> So are many of the teachers that teach the kid. How many cases in the past year have we read about where the teachers were having affairs with their students? Now we want them to teach our kids sex ed???? Seems to me they are giving too many actual demonstrations these days.


One could say the same about clergy and priests. Too many religious leaders preying on their flocks. I say castrate and de-penis them all on their first offense.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

reluctantpatriot said:


> One could say the same about clergy and priests. Too many religious leaders preying on their flocks. I say castrate and de-penis them all on their first offense.


I agree that clergy and priests should be held accountable for what they do. No matter who they are, if they prey on young children they should be held accountable.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

reluctantpatriot said:


> It is not so thinly veiled hatred. One Kansas legislators have called Obama a "****" and another suggested the best way to deal with illegal immigrants is to shoot them from helicopters like one hunts feral hogs. An Oklahoma legislator wants being gay or lesbian to be a sufficient reason to fire someone.


Hatred is such a harsh word.... all too often used in place of better terms. I am pretty sure your Kansas legislator will hear loud and clear from the PC police about his use of the word "****" when referring to Obama.... he is after all half white and half black... the ***** that frequent my neck of the woods only have small bands of white on them. Even that isnt white... its more of a light tan color. 

Now lets talk about those "illegal immigrants" for a moment. How did they get into a discussion about hatred? I think most folks dislike criminal activity by anyone. Have you noticed that police will "hunt down and shoot" most any criminal when they are blatantly attempting to elude the police? Being a criminal has nothing to do with race. Last I heard Bonnie and Clyde were both white! 

Hiring and firing.... I think anyone who hires anyone should have the right to fire them.... just because they dont like how they walk... or speak... or how tall they are or for ANY other reason or for no reason at all. It has nothing to do with hatred..... Its about who is paying whom.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I am pretty sure states would need to protect the individuals basic rights as outlined in the US Constitution.... but as long as their laws conform to those standards... then of course each state should have the authority as a sovereign country, and be able to make and enforce their own laws. Sadly the federal government has opted to ignore those provisions provided in our Constitution and has become "The Authority" over nearly every aspect of our lives.


States' Rights worked well when commerce, industry and similar was out of technological limitations very restricted to within a small radius of an entity, generally within the physical borders of a state. However, given the ability of people, ideas, products and services to quickly, easily and regularly flow from one state to another and then to another, it is much harder to support each state having its own rights that trump all others. Take California, Illinois and New York gun laws for example. One would have to not stop at all when driving through those states in order to not be held to the state legalities for not complying with their laws. Or what about a coal fired power plant or oil refinery that is in one state which is upwind from another. If the state where they are physically located has one set of pollution laws and the downwind state has more restrictive laws, how does the latter state enforce them against the former?

Regarding gay marriage, if we want to fall back on States' Rights, then perhaps marriage should only be recognised in the state where one was married and moving to another state renders the marriage null and void until the couple is married in the new state. That is the only way I can see where States' Rights would be fair and equitable for all. Otherwise, as we have now, some marriages are recognized and others are not. Either marriage is marriage is marriage when one goes from one state to another, or it can only exist when the ceremony or process is carried out in the state where one lives and nowhere else until another ceremony in the new state is performed.

While we are at it, let us also do the same for drivers licenses, vehicle registrations and money. Each state will have their own items and they are not usable in another state, thus they need to be obtained in each state one would go through or visit.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> Number one, I'm a woman, so don't have a wife. Number two I have adopted a child and have raised others that I was not able to adopt, but not for lack of trying. Number three, when my tax money goes to cover the costs of abortion or the money that my insurance company takes from me covers the costs of someone else's abortion then I have every right to speak out against it. So until those of you who condone these acts want to pick up the entire cost of them then stop making rash judgements on those who disagree with them.


And my wife and I pay for wars that conservative Christians want to sate their bloodlust. Our tax money also goes to pay for supporting religious based schools through voucher programs. Thus we both have something to rail against. 

As for your complaint about insurance, then drop it. You are a woman of faith and your diety will provide for you. Why have lack of faith in the power of your god to keep you and yours in good health? Then you will not have to feel like you are supporting what you believe to be immoral health care coverage items.

I find it distasteful that one has to pay for Rush Limbaugh's Viagra when we have people arguing that women should not have birth control items and medications covered.


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

SquashNut said:


> They are trying to force religions to do abortions, why not gay marriage.


You are confusing the issues. The government is trying to force employers, religious or otherwise to cover abortions on their plans. If the religious organizations funds their own plans, they do not have to follow the government mandates. 

But to me, if you want to stop paying for abortions, you also have to stop paying for birth control pills and woody pills as well.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Tom in TN said:


> Old John,
> 
> I heard a caller on talk radio this morning talking about homosexual marriage. She was speaking facetiously of course, but it still made me laugh. She was saying that she thought this was a good way to avoid the inheritance tax. Her proposed plan was to marry her son so that when she died, her spouse could inherit her wealth without having to pay the inheritance tax.
> 
> ...


Sorry we went down that slope a long time ago. 

When we made marriage a governmental thing, complete with joint filing of taxes, tax breaks and other rights such as inheritance and spousal rights and we codified that into law, we went way too far down the slope to turn back.

We took it from a religious thing, to a state/government thing and riddled our laws with special rights for married couples and spouses so denying inheritance rights, spousal rights when one spouse is injured, parental rights if one dies, tax filing status etc. becomes a civil rights issue and all are guaranteed the same rights in our country.

I fail to see the big deal in "live and let live" and not denying important rights to people, we have all lost enough rights already..

We used to not let whites marry blacks or hispanics, it's just silly really.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> Seems to me that you have a touch of bigotry yourself since you are so apt to make snap judgements on people because they are Christians and appear to be very eager to use physical force if they dare to disagree with you.


No, I make very clear, thought out observations about conservative Christians by their acts and beliefs. As for my willingness to use physical force, it stems from conservative Christians threatening my life regularly since middle school because I did not believe as they did. Spare me the tripe about how they must not be "real" Christians because of that. Conservative, bible-thumpling Christians they were and are and they also believe themselves to be Christian as they stated to me. They apparently are Christians to their minds.

The only people I personally consider to be real Christians in the sense of what Jesus taught are my wife, an ordained chaplain who serves hospice patients; her three friends from seminary who are also ordained clergy and all who are very socially progressive; and my mother and my aunt. They all care about those less fortunate than themselves and are willing to help others. The conservative Christians focus on hate for non-whites, gays, lesbians, the poor and anyone who is not a hardcore conservative. As conservative Christians do not consider believers such as my wife and her friends to be "real" Christians because of their beliefs, there we are. I stick with my views because of my experiences and my knowledge.


----------



## sirquack (Feb 18, 2009)

dollmaker said:


> I personally don't think that God is going to continue to bless this nation as he has all this time if we continue on this trend of abortions and okaying homosexuality.
> 
> And I'm also tired of atheists trying to cram their religion down my throat.
> 
> Was that sort of immorality the norm when this country was created? No? Then why should we all go along with it now? Because atheists want to cram their agenda down our throats.


Dollmaker, please tell me how you feel that Atheists are trying cram their beliefs down your throat? I am no Atheist, but I have yet to have a single one come to my door and try to convert me. I have however had Mormons, Jahovah's Witnesses and a few other churches come to my door to preach to me about their religion. 
I have heard other complain about bill boards or buses with messages from Atheists that say things like "You are not alone!" Those sure are some fighting words. 
I chose to believe in a creator that loves everyone and judges people on their actions, not how many times they showed up in church. Judged me by the content of my heart, not how I prejudged others when it is not my place to judge. 
But some people would rather decide what is and is not acceptable. That is a shame, and I feel for those people on their judgement day.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Hatred is such a harsh word.... all too often used in place of better terms. I am pretty sure your Kansas legislator will hear loud and clear from the PC police about his use of the word "****" when referring to Obama.... he is after all half white and half black... the ***** that frequent my neck of the woods only have small bands of white on them. Even that isnt white... its more of a light tan color.
> 
> Now lets talk about those "illegal immigrants" for a moment. How did they get into a discussion about hatred? I think most folks dislike criminal activity by anyone. Have you noticed that police will "hunt down and shoot" most any criminal when they are blatantly attempting to elude the police? Being a criminal has nothing to do with race. Last I heard Bonnie and Clyde were both white!
> 
> Hiring and firing.... I think anyone who hires anyone should have the right to fire them.... just because they dont like how they walk... or speak... or how tall they are or for ANY other reason or for no reason at all. It has nothing to do with hatred..... Its about who is paying whom.


Then you would have no problem with me firing you or anyone else because I do not like their religous faith, their age, political affiliation or similar? If we want to go down that path, you may not like the results. There is a reason why we have certain laws in place regarding hiring and firing. However, I realize that any business can find any legally allowed excuse to fire someone when the real reason is for things that are not legally allowed.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

reluctantpatriot said:


> And my wife and I pay for wars that conservative Christians want to sate their bloodlust. Our tax money also goes to pay for supporting religious based schools through voucher programs. Thus we both have something to rail against.
> 
> As for your complaint about insurance, then drop it. You are a woman of faith and your diety will provide for you. Why have lack of faith in the power of your god to keep you and yours in good health? Then you will not have to feel like you are supporting what you believe to be immoral health care coverage items.
> 
> I find it distasteful that one has to pay for Rush Limbaugh's Viagra when we have people arguing that women should not have birth control items and medications covered.


I have no problem with insurance covering birth control and have a huge problem with it covering viagra. As for dropping my insurance and faith, I believe God gives doctor's wisdom to treat us. My faith isn't in conflict with medical insurance or any other type of insurance. As for the wars, it's not just conservative Christians that have gotten us into wars. Some wars are neccessary, or don't you believe that? As for the voucher system, I homeschool and recieve no financial assistance to do so, yet my taxes cover the public school systems as well as vouchers. I don't agree with the voucher system personally. If a person doesn't want the government involved in the education of their children they shouldn't take money from the government for it. I just believe there are some areas that our government should not be involved in. Women's healthcare is one of those areas, as well as who can and cannot marry. I understand the need to have something nationwide for couples who have chosen to become life partners, but believe marriage is something that should be only through the church. I personally believe that instead of marriage the government should govern civil unions for the legalities that may arise. That way homosexuals or heterosexuals will have the same rights and benefits but the sanctity of marriage could remain with those who believe in it.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

reluctantpatriot said:


> Then you would have no problem with me firing you or anyone else because I do not like their religous faith, their age, political affiliation or similar? If we want to go down that path, you may not like the results. There is a reason why we have certain laws in place regarding hiring and firing. However, I realize that any business can find any legally allowed excuse to fire someone when the real reason is for things that are not legally allowed.


Thats correct... I would have NO problem with anyone firing anyone for any reason... or no reason at all. But then thats just me. I always sorta figured I wouldnt want to work for anyone who didnt want me there. That simply has to create problems. :shrug: 

Bear in mind that I never much wanted to work for someone else anyway. Taking a job was a case of last resort... I have done it a few times many years ago, but it sure stank. Seems like there was always some guy coming around wanting me to "do something"!


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

deleted by me with an apology for allowing my emotions to go overboard.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

Sonshine said:


> *I have no problem with insurance covering birth control and have a huge problem with it covering viagra.* *But you would not want any woman to have abortion coverage because you don't want to pay for it, yet you don't like Viagra but have not stated that you don't want it covered. I see, only cover what you think should be covered and no one should have coverage for anything you don't like that greatly offends your beliefs.* As for dropping my insurance and faith, *I believe God gives doctor's wisdom to treat us. My faith isn't in conflict with medical insurance or any other type of insurance. * *However, you do not want women to have abortions. I would guess that you would not want doctors to know how to perform them even if it were needed to save a life or in the case of rape?* As for the wars, it's not just conservative Christians that have gotten us into wars. *Some wars are neccessary, or don't you believe that?* *Wars are not necessary, they are unfortunately the popular resort of those who want to make their point about something.* As for the voucher system, I homeschool and recieve no financial assistance to do so, yet my taxes cover the public school systems as well as vouchers. I don't agree with the voucher system personally. If a person doesn't want the government involved in the education of their children they shouldn't take money from the government for it. *I just believe there are some areas that our government should not be involved in. Women's healthcare is one of those areas, as well as who can and cannot marry. * *I would agree with you completely. Let us ban any and all healthcare for women. No OBGYN doctors. No pregancy care. No mammograms. No women's cancer care for breast, ovarian or uterine cancers. No birth control or abortions. That gets government out of health care for women. As for marriage, lets remove any governmental recognistion of marriage so there are no tax advantages to marriage, no inheritance laws, nor anything else that gives heterosexual or homosexual couples any advantages. The only marriages that will exist are religion based, but no government entity will respect or honor them. * I understand the need to have something nationwide for couples who have chosen to become life partners, but believe marriage is something that should be only through the church. I personally believe that instead of marriage the government should govern civil unions for the legalities that may arise. *That way homosexuals or heterosexuals will have the same rights and benefits but the sanctity of marriage could remain with those who believe in it.* *Considering how many heterosexual people, particularly conservative minded Christians people and politicians marry, divorce and remarry over and over, forget regaining sanctity for the institution. One might have it for their particular marriage, but not as an overall institution. Now if we brought back the chattle property aspect of it like it used to be, we might at least have proper property contracts again.*


One is free to live as they wish as long as they are not wanting everyone to live as they do. I have never talked to a gay or lesbian couple who wanted to force a heterosexual couple to each marry someone of their same gender. We do have more than a few conservative Christians who want only heterosexual marriage rather than just have marriage.

As for healthcare, if we want to start picking and choosing what is covered, be careful what you wish for. You might have Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists and Scientologists demanding that certain things not be covered as well. Imagine not having blood transfusions, psychiactric/psychological care or even surgery for basic things being covered.


----------



## reluctantpatriot (Mar 9, 2003)

dollmaker said:


> Ausrotten nicht....nur auf eine einsame Insel schicken....lol.


Wir mÃ¼ssen die Homosexuells ausrotten = We must eradicate the homosexuals. -- InvalidID

Ausrotten nicht....nur auf eine einsame Insel schicken = Do not eradicate them...just send them to a remote island. -- Dollmaker


My German: "Gott ist Tot."


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

reluctantpatriot said:


> One is free to live as they wish as long as they are not wanting everyone to live as they do. I have never talked to a gay or lesbian couple who wanted to force a heterosexual couple to each marry someone of their same gender. We do have more than a few conservative Christians who want only heterosexual marriage rather than just have marriage.
> 
> As for healthcare, if we want to start picking and choosing what is covered, be careful what you wish for. You might have Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists and Scientologists demanding that certain things not be covered as well. Imagine not having blood transfusions, psychiactric/psychological care or even surgery for basic things being covered.


I don't think viagra should be covered either. Seems like you aren't willing to compromise at all. When I suggest that it would be better that marriages were just through the Church and civil unions go through the government so that homosexuals and heterosexuals recieve the same benefits, you find fault with that reasoning. When I say that the government should stay out of women's health, I'm sure you understood that I meant birth control, but in case you didn't, that is what I meant. This would take away the government's role in supporting abortions using tax payer dollars, which the new health care bill would do. Seems that no matter what compromise I am willing to suggest you have an excuse. So who is the one who doesn't want to make things work? As for another post where you talked about your wife ect being the only Christians you trust, I feel sorry for you because any time you judge an entire group of people based on others in the group you rob yourself of the chance to get to know the individuals. I've met many people who are not Christians and live lifestyles I do not agree with but have come to love and respect them and my life has become richer because of it.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> I agree, I believe that a gay partner should be covered under insurance and afforded the same benefits of married couples, but I don't agree with gay marriages. Like others have said, I'm a pretty traditional person and my Christian values cringe at the idea of gay marriages because IMO marriage is something that is ordained by God. I have some very good friends who are gay. They mean the world to me and I want them to be afforded the same rights as married couples do. I don't see why they can't be allowed the same rights as a married couple without the actual marriage.


So as I said before, take marriage out of all laws.. No joint tax filing, no spousal rights, no spousal inheritance laws, nothing. As long as marriage is codified into our laws and grants special privileges then denying it to someone is going to violate the constitution.

A civil union could do that by another name, but really if it's the exact same thing by just another name what is the point?

The issue is that marriage is not just a religious thing, it is a legal thing.. If the state of marriage had not been written into the laws both state and federal it would be a completely different question.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

plowjockey said:


> IMO, it's bigger than just a smoke-screen.
> 
> It's a major tactic to get votes, I just have not yet figured how it's supposed to work.
> 
> This is just too big.


What I have been hearing over the last couple of years in news stories here and there is that the gay vote that turned out to vote strong for Obama last time was likely to boycott Obama because they thought they thought he was going back on his word or something, they expected him to jump behind gay marriage publicly when he got elected and he went the other direction so far.

I think he is just playing to get that vote back, feeling he'll need all the votes he can get because the young folks that mobilized in big numbers last time seem to have lost their motivation and are set not to turn out as well, and his position with independent voters isn't all that strong either, and he knows he'll need every vote he can get.


----------



## ajaxlucy (Jul 18, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> Not to me it's not. To me it's something ordained by God and by allowing people to marry outside of the way God designed it IMO is wrong. I don't care if they have a civil union that allows them the same rights as a married couple, outside of the actual marriage I have no issues with it. To each his own, as I believe it's between them and God. But marriage isn't just a word. Every word has meaning and to me, marriage is linked directly to God's plan for mankind.


I have heard this before, but don't really understand the argument. 

Does it follow that the only legitimate marriages are the ones performed in churches? Are heterosexual couples who are married before a justice of the peace truly married in your eyes? That is to say, is it truly marriage if there's no religious ceremony and neither husband nor wife is religious?


----------



## Ohio Rusty (Jan 18, 2008)

AjaxLucy asked:
_is it truly marriage if there's no religious ceremony and neither husband nor wife is religious? _

The answer is Yes .... Native american marriages in this country where there is no religious ceremony are oficially recognized as a lawful and binding marraige. Ceremonies, religous acts aren't necessary for marraige.
Ohio Rusty ><>


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Txrider said:


> So as I said before, take marriage out of all laws.. No joint tax filing, no spousal rights, no spousal inheritance laws, nothing. As long as marriage is codified into our laws and grants special privileges then denying it to someone is going to violate the constitution.
> 
> A civil union could do that by another name, but really if it's the exact same thing by just another name what is the point?
> 
> The issue is that marriage is not just a religious thing, it is a legal thing.. If the state of marriage had not been written into the laws both state and federal it would be a completely different question.


I disagree with you regarding marriage being a legal thing, at least to those who believe it is ordained by God. It's the government that turned it into a legal document. This is why I feel if they want to recieve benefits or whatever fromt he government, then make laws regarding civil unions and leave marriage to the church.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

ajaxlucy said:


> I have heard this before, but don't really understand the argument.
> 
> Does it follow that the only legitimate marriages are the ones performed in churches? Are heterosexual couples who are married before a justice of the peace truly married in your eyes? That is to say, is it truly marriage if there's no religious ceremony and neither husband nor wife is religious?


The only legitimate marriages in God's eyes are performed as a Holy union. I don't believe the government should have anything to do with it.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Ohio Rusty said:


> AjaxLucy asked:
> _is it truly marriage if there's no religious ceremony and neither husband nor wife is religious? _
> 
> The answer is Yes .... Native american marriages in this country where there is no religious ceremony are oficially recognized as a lawful and binding marraige. Ceremonies, religous acts aren't necessary for marraige.
> Ohio Rusty ><>


Is it considered a marriage or a union? Doesn't really matter, because being lawful by government's rules and by God's laws are what makes the difference to me.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sonshine said:


> The only legitimate marriages in God's eyes are performed as a Holy union. I don't believe the government should have anything to do with it.


Well there ya have it... take the government out of it, then anyone that wants to can get married to whomever they want... and to as many as they want.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well there ya have it... take the government out of it, then anyone that wants to can get married to whomever they want... and to as many as they want.


I like that idea.
In the eyes of the govt. married people should be treated the same as two single people.
No need for a license. No married income tax filing. No divorce courts.
No dependents on income tax forms.


----------



## Pearl B (Sep 27, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> I disagree with you regarding marriage being a legal thing, at least to those who believe it is ordained by God. It's the government that turned it into a legal document. This is why I feel if they want to recieve benefits or whatever fromt he government, then make laws regarding civil unions and leave marriage to the church.


I can see and respect that.

The gov does get itself busy in affairs that really in essence is none of its business


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well there ya have it... take the government out of it, then anyone that wants to can get married to whomever they want... and to as many as they want.


That's what I've been saying. If they want a legal union, then make all of them civil unions and for those that believe in the sanctity of marriage can have our ceremonies in the Church.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> That's what I've been saying. If they want a legal union, then make all of them civil unions and for those that believe in the sanctity of marriage can have our ceremonies in the Church.


You do realize that marriage was not started by religions or churches. Marriage may have been adopted by churches but they do not have a monopoly on it. You have stated what you believe many, many times but it has no bearing on what legally a marriage is only what you wish it to be.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> You do realize that marriage was not started by religions or churches. Marriage may have been adopted by churches but they do not have a monopoly on it. You have stated what you believe many, many times but it has no bearing on what legally a marriage is only what you wish it to be.


Please show me evidence that marriage is not ordained by God and that it was not started in the Churches. Regardless, I will trust what the Bible says over what man says, so disregard the request. Yes, I have stated my opinion many times, as have you, what's your point? Your point has no bearing on the legality of marriage either, since the legal definition of marriage says it's between a man and a woman. I have shown the laws regarding that, where's your proof?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> Please show me evidence that marriage is not ordained by God and that it was not started in the Churches. Regardless, I will trust what the Bible says over what man says, so disregard the request. Yes, I have stated my opinion many times, as have you, what's your point? Your point has no bearing on the legality of marriage either, since the legal definition of marriage says it's between a man and a woman. I have shown the laws regarding that, where's your proof?


I don't have to show you evidence. History is more than enough. Churches were not part of some marriage ceremonies until the 9th century. Check out for yourself, do some home work.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I don't have to show you evidence. History is more than enough. Churches were not part of some marriage ceremonies until the 9th century. Check out for yourself, do some home work.


Yup marriage is older than recorded history, far far older than Christianity.

As for the word marriage, it's only been used since 1300AD from French language origins... Pretty recent word in the big picture.

One of the reasons I don't understand why so many are hung up on the word itself.. Besides the fact that the government uses that word in our laws to establish rights and privileges as well as certain obligations.

Marriage in Christianity didn't used to have anything to do with the church and required no ceremony until the church demanded that people be married under the church's authority in about 325AD and women didn't take their husbands last name until the 1100's.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> Please show me evidence that marriage is not ordained by God and that it was not started in the Churches. Regardless, I will trust what the Bible says over what man says, so disregard the request. Yes, I have stated my opinion many times, as have you, what's your point? Your point has no bearing on the legality of marriage either, since the legal definition of marriage says it's between a man and a woman. I have shown the laws regarding that, where's your proof?


I would like to know if you agree with this.

Other religions and non religious people have been getting married from the time of Sumerians before the Bible was ever written.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> I would like to know if you agree with this.
> 
> Other religions and non religious people have been getting married from the time of Sumerians before the Bible was ever written.


As I said, I would go by what the Bible says on the issue. I will also go with the legal definition of marriage. If you choose not to, that is your perogative. I'm not trying to force the law changing the legal definition, you are.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> As I said, I would go by what the Bible says on the issue. I will also go with the legal definition of marriage. If you choose not to, that is your perogative. I'm not trying to force the law changing the legal definition, you are.


So you do you agree that marriage is a legal term and not just a religious term?


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

painterswife said:


> So you do you agree that marriage is a legal term and not just a religious term?


I believe I've already covered that. The government made it a legal term when they started making laws governing it. You have never explained what your issue is with the word marriage. Why should it matter to you if it's called a marriage or a civil union if it was the same? If instead of marriage, both heterosexuals and homosexuals would only have their union recogized as a civil union, then what does it matter to you what it's called? I've explained why it matters to me, for religious beliefs, so why does it matter to you? You seem to want others to make compromises, yet are unwilling to yeild an inch to what you want. I'm done discussing this issue with you because it's obvious you don't really want equality, you just want to argue.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> I believe I've already covered that. The government made it a legal term when they started making laws governing it. You have never explained what your issue is with the word marriage. Why should it matter to you if it's called a marriage or a civil union if it was the same? If instead of marriage, both heterosexuals and homosexuals would only have their union recogized as a civil union, then what does it matter to you what it's called? I've explained why it matters to me, for religious beliefs, so why does it matter to you? You seem to want others to make compromises, yet are unwilling to yeild an inch to what you want. I'm done discussing this issue with you because it's obvious you don't really want equality, you just want to argue.


I want equality. I want every couple regardless of sex to be able to marry.

It does matter to me whether I call it a marriage or a civil union. A marriage to me ( and many others) is a intimate union of mind and body creating a family connection. I spoke vows to my spouse that have nothing to do with what a legal union conveys. My vows were no religious either as there is no law that requires a marriage to be religious. 

Why does it matter to you what my marriage is? Why should your religious beliefs deny me the right to marry? You don't want equality you want to restrict couples of the same sex from marrying. Did you know that there was no legal federal definition of marriage before the "defence of marriage act"?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> I believe I've already covered that. The government made it a legal term when they started making laws governing it. You have never explained what your issue is with the word marriage. Why should it matter to you if it's called a marriage or a civil union if it was the same? If instead of marriage, both heterosexuals and homosexuals would only have their union recogized as a civil union, then what does it matter to you what it's called? I've explained why it matters to me, for religious beliefs, so why does it matter to you? You seem to want others to make compromises, yet are unwilling to yeild an inch to what you want. I'm done discussing this issue with you because it's obvious you don't really want equality, you just want to argue.


By the way if you agree that marriage is a legal term why would there ever be a need for the term civil union?


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

A civil union has rights "similar" to marriage but not as comprehensive as marriage. They are different which is what the struggle is about - equality.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> A civil union has rights "similar" to marriage but not as comprehensive as marriage. They are different which is what the struggle is about - equality.


Which is why I think the best way to resolve the issue would be to have all legal unions be civil unions with the same benefits that marriage gives now and leave marriage to the Church's, but it's obvious that there are some who are not interested in equality.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> Which is why I think the best way to resolve the issue would be to have all legal unions be civil unions with the same benefits that marriage gives now and leave marriage to the Church's, but it's obvious that there are some who are not interested in equality.


Religion does not own the term marriage. Marriage did not start in the church. How can you talk about equality when you are trying to take away the word marriage from people that are not part of the church.

Please explain to me why you think the word marriage belongs to the church? I do not understand.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> Which is why I think the best way to resolve the issue would be to have all legal unions be civil unions with the same benefits that marriage gives now and leave marriage to the Church's, but it's obvious that there are some who are not interested in equality.


But marriage is not just a Church function. It is also a civil function. And if all civil unions have the same benefits as marriage and marriage has the same benefits as a civil union then there would be equality of benefits and responsibilities which would be great for those who do not care about marriage BUT a civil union is a legal designation and this does not allow for equality for same sex couples who wish to be married in their religion.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

emdeengee said:


> But marriage is not just a Church function. It is also a civil function. And if all civil unions have the same benefits as marriage and marriage has the same benefits as a civil union then there would be equality of benefits and responsibilities which would be great for those who do not care about marriage BUT a civil union is a legal designation and this does not allow for equality for same sex couples who wish to be married in their religion.


Which is why I think the best thing to do would be change the definition and the legal designation for civil unions so that both heterosexual and homosexual couples have the same benefits, equal benefits. Instead of changing the legal meaning of marriage, just take government out of marriage all together and only offer civil unions, then everyone would be equal. Then if homosexuals wish to marry and have a church that will marry them, fine, but IMO the government has no business having anything to do with marriage.


----------



## ajaxlucy (Jul 18, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> Which is why I think the best thing to do would be change the definition and the legal designation for civil unions so that both heterosexual and homosexual couples have the same benefits, equal benefits. Instead of changing the legal meaning of marriage, just take government out of marriage all together and only offer civil unions, then everyone would be equal. Then if homosexuals wish to marry and have a church that will marry them, fine, but IMO the government has no business having anything to do with marriage.


I don't agree that only some church marriages are valid marriages, but I do agree with you about separating the religious ceremonies, meanings, and traditions from the civil ceremonies and meanings. 

For myself, I don't mind if the word marriage is used to describe both the civil unions as well as the church ones. That is already the tradition in this country. I agree with other posters here who have pointed out that the word marriage does not belong to any one culture or religion. For you, the word describes a religious - maybe Christian (though I don't know your faith) - contract. You have every right to define it that way - for yourself. And your church has every right to refuse to let any couple be married there that does not abide by its religious doctrines. But to allow any church or religious group to own the word marriage?

I can't see how it's right to insist on a religious meaning for the general population. People of all different faiths and of no religious faith at all live in this country. When they take out their marriage licenses and get married, we - their fellow citizens - don't decide whether or not to think of their marriages as legitimate depending on their religious views, do we? Have we ever done this before in this country? I think it's a terrible idea to demand some specific kind of religious commitment before allowing couples to consider themselves legally married.

Let civil marriages remain legal civil marriages, and let each church continue to decide who can be married within that church. The former is a legal contract, the latter a religious one. To me, that seems like a satisfactory separation of church and state.


----------

