# Should gays be allowed to marry?



## voodoocat (Mar 3, 2004)

Obviously a hot topic these days.  More and more cities are starting to give marriage licenses to gay couples to counter George Bush's proposal to ammend our constitution to ban gay marriage.  

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/regionalpolitics/2001870152_webgaymarriage03m.html



			
				Seattle Times said:
			
		

> Dozens of gay couples began tying the knot in Portland after the county issued same-sex marriage licenses today, but Oregon's governor questioned whether the new policy is allowed under the state marriage statute.


----------



## urameatball (Mar 3, 2004)

oops, I read the title as "should GUYS be allowed to marry"

and I was thinking to myself -- logically no...


----------



## voodoocat (Mar 3, 2004)

Well as I said in another thread I'm surprised it is even an issue.  Of course, we do live in a 70-80% christian country and most christians believe homosexuality is a choice and a sin.  But I thought queer eye for the straight guy made gay mainstream... :scratch:


----------



## oriecat (Mar 3, 2004)

Wow, apparently I need to start watching the news a tad more, because I had no idea they started them here!  

There is absolutely no reason that gays shouldn't be given the same opportunities as straights.  It's discrimination and it's wrong.  There are no arguments for disallowing it that carry any weight.  They are either based on religion, which has no place (or SHOULD have no place) in determining civil law, as we don't all share the same religion or religious views.  Or then you get those arguments about how straight marriages generally end up in children, which gives back to society, so you get the benefits of marriage because you are going to have children, and that kind of bullshit.  Well my boyfriend and I have no intention of having children but that wouldn't prevent us from getting married, or force us into some half-assed "civil union" which is just the modern day equivalent of a Jim Crow law.  And there are plenty of gay couples who are adopting children and raising them or using surrogates...  that's all I'm gonna say right now...


----------



## Dew (Mar 3, 2004)

i think its sad that this country, "the land of the free" doesnt put its money where its mouth is .... i also think its discrimination and cant help but be remined when an interracial marriage was illegal (in some states its still on the books as illegal)

i've had gay friends all my life (i used to be a "fag hag") ... i have an uncle that's gay and a few cousins who are lesbian and the family doesnt treat them any different than anyone else ... i am so proud to be raised in a family (and extended family) where this kind of discrimination was not going on.

im also happy to have a husband who is not homophobic (some men get skiddish around gay men) ..

we had 2 gay males move right next door to us about 2 months ago ... we chat sometimes ... i saw one in the grocery store the other day (we talked in the milk section for about 20 mins    ) .. this topic came up .. he and his lover have been together for over 6 yrs ... he says, "u know .. if my guy gets sick or has an accident and has to go to the hospital, im not considered family and they wont let me see him nor sign anything for him ... i cant even get him on my health insurance." 

when he said that, that broke my heart and i felt ashamed to be in a country that has hang-ups about people loving each other .. i felt like it wasnt fair :?  ... i know i'd die if my hubby got into an accident and i couldnt see him ... i'd freak out

its simply not fair and i predict with a little more effort ... things will change


----------



## vonnagy (Mar 3, 2004)

everyone so far is very like minded, is there anyone here that is brave enough to make stand if they don't agree - i would have alot of respect for such a person to post there beliefs here as long as the person isn't radically offensive.

I think its just as bad for 'liberal' folks to chastise christians as hatemongers when clearly not all them are- I know of some christians who do a great deal to help gays with aids, where most liberal just stand on the sidelines on the arses and complain about the problem.  Yeah, they might be a bit preachy and not share the same beliefs, but at the end of the day they are are showing the most love in what they believe.  Just trying to be a bit of a devil's advocate here   

I am not a christian in any sense of the word, but I have friends that are very devout and i also friends who are total flamers... I can get along with both them because at the end the day - we are all human


----------



## Dew (Mar 3, 2004)

i dont think its fair to say that everyone should accept "gay"- ness in general ... but to prevent them from having the same equalities as everyone ... to go as far as forbidding it? ... i think thats a little pompus   

i just cant figure out why the government cant stay out of people's personal lives ... who are they protecting? .. and from what? .. my "gay" neighbors havent harmed me .. their not crazy (ok, the guy sings in the shower, but thats another story  ) 

but why do people care about someone eleses lifestyle? ... who does it hurt? ... the last i understood, church and state were seperate  :? 

i just dont get why people go out of their way for things that dont affect them on a personal level .. im not saying agree with a gay marriage, but why stop them? ... u better than them? .. u feel superior? ... u can run off and get married to your prince charming/sweetheart and they cant? ... because you're far more superior? .. their not entitled to a family? ... but u are because ur more special?

if my gay neighbors got married tomorrow .. how is it going to change or affect my life? ... right, it doesnt 

if your gay neighbors got married tomorrow, will your children play differently in the yard tomorrow?


----------



## oriecat (Mar 3, 2004)

Dew, you said everything I wanted to, but couldn't.  I love your way with words.  :heart: :love:   Come to Portland, and I just might marry you...


----------



## Dew (Mar 3, 2004)

i just may take u up on that offer   

this just ticks my funny bone ... i have not heard one valid lawful reason as to why they shouldnt marry ... i'd love to hear one .. imo this is right up there with racism, its sexism 

women fought through the sufferage, blacks fought through slavery and civil rights ... now the "gays" cant have theirs ... u must know that this will happen .. the gay community should gang up and boycott a lot of things .. hit them in their pockets ...

but in the end, the gay community will be victorious .. we've been through this before (SSDD) ... it will happen, its a matter of time


----------



## TwistMyArm (Mar 3, 2004)

"The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation." 
(Pierre Elliot Trudeau)


----------



## havoc (Mar 3, 2004)

I just learned about this as well, being a Portlander, i can't say how happy i am that Portland decided to grow some balls and jump into the "spotlight" on this issue. I used to have a very strong opinion against it, but now i can't think one good reason why they can't marry, AND get equal benefits as straight people under the law. 
What changed my mind? I don't know, it might be my recent liberal shift in nature, or my complete loss in faith and "organized religion". I don't know but i am really exicted that my hometown has decided to take a stand and take a chance on such a hot button issue these days. 
I am confident that gay people will win this fight because it is a just and right fight. 
With Massasscuses, San Francisco, Portland and now a city in New York allowing it, its only a matter of time before many more cities are allowing this. the train is rolling, and it will be damn hard to stop. I don't think even a republican attempt at a constitutional admendment can stop this train.


----------



## Tammy (Mar 3, 2004)

OK.... I'm guess I'll go out on a limb here... 

I took the middle road in the poll because there wasn't a 'I haven't got a clue' option.  Please don't get me wrong. I really don't care about what two people do in the privacy of their own home.  If two people have a loving relationship I am happy for them - what I don't like is the special interest politics that seem to control so much of the discussion. 

I could be wrong about this, but seems to me that up until now, it has been understood that a marriage was between two people of different gender - a universal truth, if you will.  Does anyone know of any society, anywhere  until recent times - where this was not the case - someplace where if I said I went to a wedding - it wouldn't be assumed that meant between a man and a woman? (I truly don't know the answer to this question and am curious. )  

Historically speaking (going way back) , marriage was not usually performed for love, but for socio/economic reasons... Certainly all those kings and queens of england didn't love each other!... and what about arranged marriages.... Are there any cases of arranged marriages between members of the same sex?  Even now a days, the marital arrangements between some of our political leaders lead me to believe that not all such arrangements are made for purely romantic reasons.  So, if marriage has not always implied a loving relationship - but it has (until recent times) implied a relationship between a man and woman.... why not define a new relationship, a 'civil union', as a loving relationship between two members of the same sex, *especially* if that relationship is granted the same legal rights as a marriage.  _But it seems to me, that that won't be good enough._

******************************************
Then again... there was a time when historically speaking I wouldn't be allowed to go to college and get an education because I have 'girly parts' - so just because things have always been a certain way - doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't change as society changes.  But I am curious as to why this hasn't been worked out on a socio-economic level before now, I'm thinking there must be a reason.
******************************************
and then, I read this, perhaps it sheds some light.



> The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).



http://marriage.about.com/cs/generalhistory/a/marriagehistory.htm


.... so yep.... I haven't got a clue....it is beyond my abilities to determine what the best course is for our country.... for humanity.... etc.


----------



## Dew (Mar 3, 2004)

does anyone know where the president stands on this? ... this is not the kind of thing u want coming up on an election    .. i bet he's sweating bullets ...


there was a time that if i married my hubby who is a white male that i would be hung (which is still illegal and on the books in some states) .. to me it has the same overtones to it ... the hubby and i talked about it and compared the scenario to Hitler's views and his hatred for jews and anyone thats different .. makes me wanna go mrsid99 and sleep with machines under my pillow  

"those that are different will be punished" ..doxx

for the immoral reasons of the church? .. sex outside of marriage is also against god ... so is birth control ... i dont buy it


----------



## zio (Mar 3, 2004)

i'll be that guy that takes a stand...granted i'll take a lot of heat for this one.  i'm against it.  i think marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman.  i know a few homosexuals and i'd go to their marriage if i were invited.  i'm not a bigot, i'm just against their marriage.  i wouldn't go to their wedding and gay bash or anything, i'd go and support them as friends.


----------



## zio (Mar 3, 2004)

> does anyone know where the president stands on this? ... this is not the kind of thing u want coming up on an election  .. i bet he's sweating bullets ...



bush is against them.


----------



## Dew (Mar 3, 2004)

well, Bush is one of the "good ole boys" ... im not surprised  :?


----------



## vonnagy (Mar 3, 2004)

since most of you are American, i am just curious how many of you vote...  I find it pretty apalling demographic when a country of 300 million and only around 40 - 45% of population votes. Who votes? Well its mostly folks with a reasonable income and above the age of 45. At least in the States you have the choice to vote or not where as in some nutty countries (Australia  ) you get fined if you don't!

As passionate as folks are about your gay rights issue, you'll have hard time convincing the oldies who vote your views. It doesn't make them evil, my parents voted for Bush and anyone who would call them ignorant bigots are just as ignorant.

Times and laws will change, but peoples attitudes are slow to change.

my question is then do you vote? do you vote locally as well? I think its great to see some folks there get off there arse and finally do something instead of ***** and moan


----------



## voodoocat (Mar 3, 2004)

Well I know plenty of people inspired to vote due to their dissatisfaction with Bush.  I'm one of them.  I did not vote in 2000 but bet your ass I will this year.


----------



## Dew (Mar 3, 2004)

i've voted since i was 18 yrs old ... and i will continue to vote, but i agree .. most of the younger  people dont vote ... however, the people do not directly vote for the president .. its electoral votes that get the president into office 

i dont think bush is a bad guy ... he's got a lot of pressure from his party and he has to produce ... his dad didnt get voted a second term .. we'll see if its like father, like son ... 

i dont think there will be any surprises on election day .. Mr. Bush knows where he'll be when that day comes .. i think u all know ...  lets not pretend here   .. lets cut right through the smoke in mirrors routine

and u all know that one day gays will be allowed to marry (i dont think u've notice the poll ratio at the top of this page) .. lets not live in the land of make-believe ... we've been down this road before .. it will happen ... its fighting a losing battle ... its a runaway train ..


----------



## tr0gd0o0r (Mar 3, 2004)

I'll go out on a limb on this one also.   Personally I do not agree with homosexuality,  I think that is a sin.  But it is not a greater sin than anything else.  I do not believe that just because someone is gay they are going to hell or anything like that.  I do not think that there is any reason to hate people because they're gay or not be their friends.

Strictly from a religious point of view, I would say that gays should not be allowed to get married, but this country has no right to play that card.  We are founded on the principles of equality and religious freedom (which means religious doctrines should not be a part of the law or be forced upon anyone.)  Also, if someone is dead set against homosexuality that person telling gay people they can not get married will not "fix" the problem.  ( I use fix as the person who hates gays would use it,  Not implying anything is wrong.)  

So in short,   I disagree with homosexuality, but accept it and think gays should be allowed to get married


----------



## Dew (Mar 4, 2004)

i dont think that gay people are saying ... "accept me because im gay" .. i think their saying, "be tolerant of my decisions and my right to have the same equalties as everyone else." ... 

i think a lot of people have the same views as most of u ... not over-joyed about gays being married, but are tolerant of it ... and i must commend u for that

i wasnt over-joyed when the KKK chose to rally in a neighboring town that i used to live in ... but i also feel that they have the constitutional right to be there and i will defend their position   

i think their asking for tolerance and im confident that in the end ... people will do the "right" thing ... i dont think that people hate gays as much as they'd like to think .. cause for real ... almost everyone has met or know someone that is gay ... 

i think its mainly about fear and control ... "should gay people be allowed to marry" is the diversion ... and i bet, there are some gay people here as well    .. will they come up and rise to the ceremony? .. probably not ...


----------



## MDowdey (Mar 4, 2004)

zio said:
			
		

> i'll be that guy that takes a stand...granted i'll take a lot of heat for this one.  i'm against it.  i think marriage is a sacred thing between a man and a woman.  i know a few homosexuals and i'd go to their marriage if i were invited.  i'm not a bigot, i'm just against their marriage.  i wouldn't go to their wedding and gay bash or anything, i'd go and support them as friends.



im with you on this one. something just occured to me though...the morea nd more gay marraiges..the less over population of an already crowded america. but i will always support people in what they want to do...no petty discrimination.


md


----------



## Mitica100 (Mar 4, 2004)

vonnagy said:
			
		

> since most of you are American, i am just curious how many of you vote...  I find it pretty apalling demographic when a country of 300 million and only around 40 - 45% of population votes. Who votes? Well its mostly folks with a reasonable income and above the age of 45. At least in the States you have the choice to vote or not where as in some nutty countries (Australia  ) you get fined if you don't!
> 
> As passionate as folks are about your gay rights issue, you'll have hard time convincing the oldies who vote your views. It doesn't make them evil, my parents voted for Bush and anyone who would call them ignorant bigots are just as ignorant.
> 
> ...



Vonnagy, I vote every time I have a chance! Voting is a privilege and a right, particularly in that order. Before coming to the US in 1980 I lived in a dictatorship where voting was nothing but a big farce. My voice was not heard and I've always voted against the regime, together with the majority of the poeple in that country. And guess what? They never counted the votes against the regime! 

Yes, I take voting very seriously and yes, you are absolutely correct in regards to how few fellow Americans exercise their privileges and rights to vote.

D.


----------



## Dew (Mar 4, 2004)

i thought the senior citizens had the majority? ... isnt there more seniors in this country than any other group of people? and they vote ...


----------



## Mitica100 (Mar 4, 2004)

Dew said:
			
		

> i wasnt over-joyed when the KKK chose to rally in a neighboring town that i used to live in ... but i also feel that they have the constitutional right to be there and i will defend their position



You go, girl!!  Nothing but admiration for your strong character.

A sad and funny at the same time story to tell from down here in Phoenix.  A few years ago I was on lunch break downtown Phoenix, when I saw a "White Power/Aryan Nation" rally on a street.  They were all dressed up in leathers, chains, some had KKK attire, some signs about the white power and all that BS. The very funny thing was, at the very end, about thirty feet behind the rally, there was a black cop in civilian clothes.  I saw his badge and gun because he was near me. I couldn't help but ask "Why are you doing them a favor?"  To which he simply replied "They have every right to be defended against possible violence, just like you and I have!"  

I admire people of strong character! They make this world a better one.

OK, enough said...


----------



## Dew (Mar 4, 2004)

i dont only support rights that benefit me like most people do "fair weather" fans i call'em

people are quick to throw moral issues down that benefit them .. "gays are against god" .... but yet, they forget about "thou shall not kill" ... but they support war and capital punishment ... people like this have holes in their argument ... it doesnt hold water because they are hypocrites .. they do things that are against "god" everyday ... fornication, booze, drugs, fight and kill people in wars and all un-godly things ... but these hypocrites want to pass judgement on someone else and the sinner is in the mirror? ... how dare these people i say ...


----------



## captain-spanky (Mar 4, 2004)

"the land of the free? Whoever told you that is your enemy."
 

FFS what harm does it do for two blokes/women to get married? WTF has it got to do with anyone else? If thats what makes them happy, let them!
I think it's absolutley sickening to outcast gays in that way... why doesn't Bush just try and ban interracial couples from tying the knot too? Because it's ****ing stupid. Two consenting adults have a right to be with each other no matter who they are or where they've come from. Fair enough a 'christian' marriage says it has to be a man and a woman... but a spiritual marriage is about the soul and not the box they come in.
I am beginning to abhor religion and the closed-mindedness it promotes but i accept that some people can't cope without it. My best mate's brother is a priest and i am fully respectful of his path in life. He chose to be who he is and has put up with the taunts of others to get there. It makes him happy and so who am i to tell him it's 'wrong'... just because most people are religious in some way, it doesn't make it right.
I'm trying my hardest to not get really involved in this as it will make me too angry. :x 
I hate religion, i hate politics and i hate discrimination.


----------



## terri (Mar 5, 2004)

I'm so proud of everyone here.....  this is in fact a hot topic but everyone has been polite and tolerant of one another's views....I think a lot of us have experience in other forums where this kind of thing could turn ugly, really quickly.   So for all of us -  :cheer: 

And a big Thank You to Dew, who has basically argued every point that I would have if I'd been here earlier.   You're such a classy lady, if you don't marry Oriecat you can come on down to Atlanta and I'll take you in.   

Sorry Doxx, but she's just too cool!!


----------



## steve817 (Mar 5, 2004)

vonnagy said:
			
		

> everyone so far is very like minded, is there anyone here that is brave enough to make stand if they don't agree - i would have alot of respect for such a person to post there beliefs here as long as the person isn't radically offensive.



I will but I'll have to do it later.  I'm at work right now and this could be a long one.

Steve


----------



## Dew (Mar 5, 2004)

i think people have to be careful about these kind of laws/bans ... if we allow this to happen .. what's next? .. when this genetic engineering/cloning takes off the ground and the person with inferior genes will be punished, ridiculed, and perhaps even sectioned off from the rest of the world and not allowed to breed ...

men who are prone to hair loss will not be worthy of breeding? .. obesity? .. i think u all have to look at the bigger picture and not selfish perspectives ... if you allow petty laws like this to be made, everyone suffers ... the government gains more control over your person

dont u get it? ... its not about gay rights ... its about retaining personal rights for everyone .. this is a dangerous game


----------



## graigdavis (Mar 5, 2004)

Dew said:
			
		

> i dont only support rights that benefit me like most people do "fair weather" fans i call'em
> 
> people are quick to throw moral issues down that benefit them .. "gays are against god" .... but yet, they forget about "thou shall not kill" ... but they support war and capital punishment ... people like this have holes in their argument ... it doesnt hold water because they are hypocrites .. they do things that are against "god" everyday ... fornication, booze, drugs, fight and kill people in wars and all un-godly things ... but these hypocrites want to pass judgement on someone else and the sinner is in the mirror? ... how dare these people i say ...



I agree that there are hypocrites.  But whats sad is that there is one hypocrite for every 50 true people.  That one person is just so much louder.  One so called "christian" bombs an abortion clinc and now all christians are labled because of that one idiot.  (he was not a christian, christians wouldnt do that)

Im personaly against gays being married.  But I dont believe being gay is rite in the first place.  It has nothing to do with the person.  It has everything to do with the act.  Gays are no more of a sinner than I am.  Dont hate the sinner, hate the sin.  

As far as war and capital punishment and thou shalt not kill.  The bible talks that there will be wars.  There will be people slain in wars.  It will be part of a sinfull world.  But its not exactly smiled upon.  There are christians fighting in the war, and they do kill people.  But its seen as protection.  Both for them self (they are getting shot at) and they are fighting for us.  They are not killing out of pure hate such as murder.  I hope that makes some sense.


----------



## Dew (Mar 5, 2004)

i think people should follow their own advice ... a dead body is a dead body ... war, murder, or defending ... the body is dead...

the president for example .. he calls abortion murder .. so is war, so is capital punishment .. dead is dead .. my brother is figting in this war in iraq ... but he believes in murder   

frankly, i could care less how people choose their sword ... whether it be through a doctor or an assault rifle .. but people in glass houses shouldnt throw stones ... if your backyard isnt too tidy .. dont yell at your neighbor to clean theirs up   

thats like telling your kids to not do drugs and you're smoking pot   ... that doesnt make since


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Mar 5, 2004)

you know what i think is sad is that people forget about the spiritual bond between two gay people.  these people LOVE each other, and whether we think it's right or wrong is totally irrelevant.  _trying to regulate a the human capacity for love_ is the unnatural act.  when people argue this subject (gay marriage rights), they argue it on the basis of the sexual act alone.  anyone who argues for the right to be married has to be either a) in love b) certifiably insane or c) just plain stupid.  there are just too many gay people, statistically, to blame their desire to be recognized as spousal mates on choices b and c.  therefore, the vast majority of gay people who want to be married must be in love.  who the hell is anyone to deny the right of any human to sanctify that love in holy matirimony? and i mean holy in whatever is their definition of holy.  the underpinnings of our very way of life are based on certain unalienable rights-  the right to freedom of religion, the right to love, the right to pursue happiness(even if that path _does_ lead to marriage),

the right to be human. 

 to deny anyone these rights is to enslave them spiritually.  shame and damnation on anyone who would attempt to be such a master.

for the record, i am straight.


----------



## vonnagy (Mar 5, 2004)

> I agree that there are hypocrites. But whats sad is that there is one hypocrite for every 50 true people



This made me smile, sorry i don't mean to pick on you. One of my wise friends said that its impossible to live life without being a hypocrite - if anyone really examine your life you'll find this quite true.  If someone is being loud and obnoxious and blatantly hypocritical (even if they are 'christian')  chances are you have been at one point too, and probably in the future as well. Its just part of being human! So I do agree with that there are hypocrites - all of us!

*
NOW AN DIFFERENT SPIN ON THE GAY MARRIAGE THINGY* (sorry for the all caps   )

New Zealand actually has a problem with birthrate, a declining one that is! The birthrate of New Zealand stands at 1.7,  for a population to sustain itself its needs a birthrate of 2.1... with a population of 4 million and a landmass approximate about the size of the state Colorado, this presents a serious problem..... 

*and here is what could really happen:*

So if everyone was gay in NZ, the country would the population would drop, then 'W' would invade it and take over all our sheep.  Then they would genetically modify the sheep, so that people who consume the sheep would be secretly aroused by them and go off buggering them.

They would sell this tainted lamb to their enemies, and the population wouldn't reproduce because they are off shagging sheep, then 'W' and the illuminati would take over the country with its dwindling population.

Its a conspiracy I tell you!

Or it could be the population is dropping here because everyone here is already shagging sheep? :scratch:  Sorry... just taking the mickey out all of ya and including myself   Think we take ourselves too seriously sometimes, no matter what side of the fence you may stand or straddle


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Mar 5, 2004)

There are sheep in New Zealand?

your plan is sound.  i, myself, intend to move to england and take a stand with the Knights Templar.  we'll re-invade NZ and force-feed W one of those sheep.  Course, that would make him a cannibal since he's really nothing more than a sheep in wolf's clothing.  Once we liberate NZ and restore it to its rightful citizens, i will grab me a sheep and hop on the next plane back to the U.S. 8) 

you're right about the conspiracy.
:::twitch.... twitch:::


----------



## oriecat (Mar 5, 2004)

Tammy said:
			
		

> I could be wrong about this, but seems to me that up until now, it has been understood that a marriage was between two people of different gender - a universal truth, if you will.



Here's a link for ya on this...
http://www.simonsays.com/titles/0684824043/sameexce.html


----------



## Tammy (Mar 5, 2004)

Thanks for the link.... very informative.


----------



## Dew (Mar 5, 2004)

i guess population has to occur, you're right vonnagy .. i'm switching my position   

 .... we are married and have no children ... i want them, the hubby says were not ready yet ... and to tell u the truth, i think he wants me all to himself  ... its a conspiracy i tell u  :bounce:  (im making fun of the situation, but im dead serious *smug*)


----------



## steve817 (Mar 6, 2004)

Dew said:
			
		

> i dont only support rights that benefit me like most people do "fair weather" fans i call'em
> 
> people are quick to throw moral issues down that benefit them .. "gays are against god" .... but yet, they forget about "thou shall not kill" ... but they support war and capital punishment ... people like this have holes in their argument ... it doesnt hold water because they are hypocrites .. they do things that are against "god" everyday ... fornication, booze, drugs, fight and kill people in wars and all un-godly things ... but these hypocrites want to pass judgement on someone else and the sinner is in the mirror? ... how dare these people i say ...



I'll try to plug a couple of those holes. The "thou shalt not kill" you were referring to in the book of Exodus Chapter 20 verse 13 does in fact say " thou shat not kill" in the king james version in the NIV it says "thou shalt not murder". 

The word that was used in the actual hebrew text was "rasah" which could mean murder or kill with more emphasis on murder. I believe in this case it means murder and yes there is a difference. The reason for this is because when you look at Ecclesiastes  Chapter 3 says

"1
There is a time for everything, 
and a season for every activity under heaven: 

2 a time to be born and a time to die, 
a time to plant and a time to uproot, 
3 a time to *kill* and a time to heal, 
a time to tear down and a time to build, 
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh, 
a time to mourn and a time to dance, 
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, 
a time to embrace and a time to refrain, 
6 a time to search and a time to give up, 
a time to keep and a time to throw away, 
7 a time to tear and a time to mend, 
a time to be silent and a time to speak, 
8 a time to love and a time to hate, 
a time for war and a time for peace. "

And all this time you guys probably thought it was just a song from the 60's  

Anyway the hebrew text used in this case was "harag" which could mean kill or murder but in this case the emphasis is on the word kill. As far as the rest of your statement goes you are absolutely right, but it's not about my passing judgement. 

My problem is with the way they are going about it. Right now they are breaking the law. The mayor of San Francisco and other officials who are allowing this are guilty of civil disobedience. It is illegal according to their state laws and these officials need to be removed from office.

If you think I'm wrong I'll point out another case of civil disobedience where Alabama chief justice Roy Moore was thrown off the bench for installing the Ten Commandments monument in the state couthouse.....So who did he hurt? Did Roy Moore doing that change your life? 

Somebody had asked where the president stood on this and the reply was he was against it. What they failed to mention is that he also said the states needed to make some kind of arrangement allowing some type of civil union affording them the same basic rights as married couples.

For what it's worth I picked the second option in the poll. I to have friends that are gay and yes they know where I stand on the issue.  Dew, I hope you don't think that I was attaking you buy quoting you. I think much to highly of you to ever do that, and I think you missed your calling in life (You would be a great lawyer).


----------



## oriecat (Mar 6, 2004)

I really don't understand the "civil unions with all the same rights yada yada"...  maybe someone who supports that can explain it to me...  if you support offering civil unions with all of the same right and benefits as accorded to married people, then what is the difference other than in name?!  And if there is no difference, why should we have two names for it?!

Here's an analogy I cooked up...

I've got two roses.  Both roses smell the same, are equally pretty, same thorns (marriage ain't all great, right? )  One rose is pink and one rose is yellow.  To me, they're both roses.  But someone else comes along... this person doesn't like the color yellow so decides to call my rose a dandelion.  But it's still a rose.

Make sense?  Am I missing something?  Write me an analogy that I can understand...


----------



## Dew (Mar 7, 2004)

... my friends use to tell me that ... i should have been a lawyer .. but for what its worth, i was on the debate team in college   

nah, i just dont think its fair to pick on gay people .. i think its prejudice .. if that's where the president stands, then he's not such a bad guy after all    ... he's got the republican party up his arse and i dont think he can be too liberal being a conservative ... this is a democracy .. and gay rights will prevail ... i promise u


----------



## tr0gd0o0r (Mar 7, 2004)

Do yall think that supporting civil unions that "give the same rights" as marriage are an acceptable solution to this situation?  Because i'm personally against that,  despite believing homosexuality is a sin, the civil union thing goes against what our country stands for.  It tells gays that they are not good enoug hto get married.  Turns them into a second class citizen.  sort of seperate but equal.


----------



## steve817 (Mar 7, 2004)

Orie I get where your coming from. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's so much marriage that they are after. They want the legal protection that marriage offers. I don't think they would care if it was called marriage or a tuna sandwich as long as it offers the protection that they seek and deserve.

It's simply a compromise but one that could and I believe would work. I also think it's a solution that could be reached alot quicker than waiting for the marriage thing to pass.

Although the sentiment on this board appears to support it. The country as a whole is against it. A recent article said that it was opposed by a margin of more than 2-1. The good news is that when asked if they consider a constitutional amendment a top priority, they placed it 21st in a list of 22 possible choices. 

Another ABC poll shows the margin alot narrower 55% against to 41% for.
Still only 38% support a constitutional amendment. 

That article can be found here 
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html


----------



## havoc (Mar 7, 2004)

Well i am sure that all gay people are looking for the same legal benefits and protections that marrage entitles straight couples. But i guarantee you that they also don't want to be separated and singled out as a group by calling it a "civil union" They want equallity, benefits and protections should be a given not an arguement. But to be truely equal, they will require us as straight people to acknowledge and accept their way of life, and one of the most fundamental rights of relationships is the ability to marry. There is no other term that straight people use, unless it is by "their" choice. So to some gay people the union of "Tuna sandwich" may be acceptable, but to the majority it will not be.
Also the books Exodus and Ecclesiastes are both old testament. In all fairness to my argument you forgot the book of Lividicus (don't know how to spell it) which also includes the rules that man should live by. i.e. don't lie with another man or woman, don't have sex with animals, don't eat split hooved aminals, only have sex in the union of marrage, and only to procreate etc. In my life i have been exposed to Christianity a great deal, and everyone i have ever talked to or listened to regard the old testament as the way it was, not the way it is. They explained to me that the New Testament is the way to live a good Christian life, to accept and follow the teachings of Jesus. I have found no place in the new testament that says anything about being gay as a sin, or that you are doomed to hell if you are.  Show me specific verses written in the books John, Luke, Matthew, etc where it says this. I will accept it from one of the books of Jesus's disciples, but not from Corinthians or any other book not directly related and written about the life of Jesus, from someone (like his Disciples) that followed him and learned directly from him. To my knowledge i could be wrong, but i don't remember any verses directly calling gay people condemed or even sinners for that matter. If i am wrong i would like to know the verses that prove me wrong, so i no longer go spouting out my ass like i am now  
Also, if the old testament says that being gay is a sin, it also says, (Levicitus) that sex for any means other then procreation is a sin as well. So why is it ok to have sex when your married even though you have no intention or wish to get pregnent? Most Christians believe in birth control, or use a form of it. By doing this are you not braking God's rules? Commiting a sin. Lets look at it another way, when women stop menstrating do Christian couples stop having sex? No. Their wives can no longer get pregnant, so they aren't doing it to procreate. That then, we must be sinning according to the old testament.  So then is it ok to sin one way but not another?
To sin is to sin, or is it? the Vatican came up with the 7 deadly sins to make living as a Christian easier. They made these up so that Christians can identify what is a sin, confess it if they are commiting it, and gain absolution from it. These are considerd the most dangerous of all sins, these sins are listed below.
1. Pride 
2. Envy 
3. Anger 
4. Avarice 
5. Sadness or Sloth
6. Gluttony 
7. Lust 

I don't see homosexuality listed here. Its a bit of a stretch to consider homosexuality in the category of lust as we all seem to agree that gay people can love each other, and i think we all agree that straight people can want or lust as well as gay people.  So it doesn't seem to apply to the most "vile" or recognized sins. This seems to make any other sin, whatever it may be forgivable, perhaps even acceptable, as long as its recognized as a sin. 
I don't see an arguement against gay people here in religion is valid, as long as all sins are created equal. Because if that were the case, then we would all be condemed when we have sex with our wife or husband. If sins aren't created equal, i don't know of any place in the "New Testament" that says you will die or be condemed if you are gay. My understanding is that you are only condemned if you have word the teachings of Jesus, God i.e the same thing, and choose not to accept him as the son of God. 

Sorry i didn't mean to get this deep into it, i appologize for ranting on.
If anyone can enlighten me about this, i would appreciate it, sounds like a bunch of hooee to me though. 
Oh the scriptures i was talking about in Levicitus are 18:18.22 & 20:17.13


----------



## steve817 (Mar 9, 2004)

Havoc, 

I haven't been ignoring you. I had to have an emergency appendectomy  yesterday so I ask for your patience in waiting for a full blown answer. The short answer is in Matthew chapter 5 I believe. "Do not think I have come to abolish the law" sorry to be so short. I'm going back to bed. I'll see ya'll in a few days.

Take Care,

Steve


----------



## vonnagy (Mar 9, 2004)

> had to have an emergency appendectomy yesterday



whooaa, I hope you are ok!  :shock: Get well soon, our thoughts are with ya mate.


----------



## oriecat (Mar 9, 2004)

Get well Steve!!

Back to the subject, I just saw this linked on a blog...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1163267,00.html



> As George Bush tries to make gay marriage a key election issue, a friend has emailed me one American response. I've checked all the references. It begins: "The US presidential Prayer Team is urging us to 'pray for the President' as he seeks wisdom on how to legally codify the definition of marriage.
> 
> "Any religious person believes prayer should be balanced by action. So here, in support of the Prayer Team's admirable goals, is a proposed constitutional amendment to codify marriage on biblical principles:
> 
> ...


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Mar 9, 2004)

hey, i'm likin' 1 and 2!!  i think a concubine or two would be very helpful. 

 next time next time my wife and i  get into an argument, i'm gonna spring # 3 on her.  like to see her argue her way outta that one!


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 9, 2004)

oriecat said:
			
		

> Get well Steve!!
> 
> Back to the subject, I just saw this linked on a blog...
> 
> ...



Not to go off on a tanget but there is a distinct line between the old and new test.  So a lot of the items should not brought into todays discussions on various matters.


----------



## Dew (Mar 9, 2004)

im guilty, i was not a virgin when i married  :roll:  .. but the hubby already knew that .. he preferred a more experienced broad  :blulsh2: 

old and new test .. the truth doesnt change .. does it? .. floatin truths?  :scratch:  ... that's another story


----------



## Osmer_Toby (Mar 9, 2004)

> old and new test .. the truth doesnt change .. does it? .. floatin truths?


----------



## voodoocat (Mar 9, 2004)

Geronimo said:
			
		

> oriecat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that was Orie's point when posting it.  Steve mentioned Matt 5 which says Christ didn't  come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law.


----------



## Geronimo (Mar 9, 2004)

Dew said:
			
		

> im guilty, i was not a virgin when i married  :roll:  .. but the hubby already knew that .. he preferred a more experienced broad  :blulsh2:
> 
> old and new test .. the truth doesnt change .. does it? .. floatin truths?  :scratch:  ... that's another story



The truth does not change but other things did.  If you studied the bible there are a lot of things that do change between the two  Test.  IE the type of sacrifices to god.  Where as one was physical (goats and various animals) and mental/emotional.


----------



## Dew (Mar 9, 2004)

i have studied the bible ... and there are floatin truths .. so the truth does change


----------



## GimpyPoop (Mar 9, 2004)

Yo,
Okay, I totally only read the first two pages of this thread so sorry if I am repeating some of the things already mentioned!  (dont beat me for it!) 
I think gay marriages should be allowed partially because all of the reasons provided against them don't really seem all that logical to me (personally).  
I am atheist, so the whole shebang about homosexual relationships of any kind being fundamentally wrong isnt really of consequence - from where I stand at least.  Also, I dont really believe that marriage is this holy, sacred union that can never ever be compromised for alternatives outside of the way it was originally meant to be practiced.  I mean, here in the U.S.  we are taught that marriage other than for reasons of love is to degrading whereas a great deal of Eastern cultures marry principally for status and financial reasons (and their divorce rates are significantly lower  though that the reason for that could be confounded by various factors so . . . yeah).  
So yesss, marriage is just this term that happens to be accompanied by certain tax breaks and rights to the other persons assets and such should they die.  Why shouldnt this be extended to people who happen to love people who are not their opposite of sex?  It IS flat-out discrimination in my opinion.  
As for some arguments against gay marriages . . . okay well this weekend I attended my friends sons birthday party.  Her husband is uh, how do say nicely . . . a bigot.  But thats not what Im getting at.  He was ranting and raving about the moral outrage he felt when he saw a newscast with a child holding a sign fashioned by his lesbian parents that read  Let my mommies marry so we can be a family!  The irony of it all, he was exclaiming how it was morally wrong to impart such horrible values upon a child, to let them believe that homosexuality is okay, even URGE their children to be homosexual . . . all while smoking a bong with his mother (the birthdays boys grandmother) and finishing a 6 pack of beer for breakfast earlier in the day.  Ha ha okay yeah I just had to share that story.
Me, the Flea


----------



## havoc (Mar 10, 2004)

Hey Steve, get well soon man. I look forward to your responce.


----------

